AMD Introduces Next-Generation AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Processor, $479, Nov 7

[Am*]

Really good price considering even the 7800X3D is unobtainable at or anywhere near its original price of £320 or so from a few months ago. Thought for sure they would up the price of the 9800X3D to £600 because AMD technically can and have no competition in this price range (there won't be a faster CPU for gaming than this anytime soon -- at least not from Intel until at least 2026). That's a relief.

Really hope the 9900X3D finally gets changed to a 8 core CCD + 4 core CCD instead of 2x 6 core CCDs, so that there's no trade off in gaming for those who need more cores than what the 9800X3D has.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Well, if you can sell for a profit, go for it! I did the same with my 5700 XT that I bought for £480, then sold for £600 during COVID.

Like you said, YMMV, so I don't base my assumptions on everyone being able to sell at, or close to retail price, as it is not typical in the IT world. If you sell your 7800X3D at a loss, any loss, then swapping it for a 9800X3D is financially not worth it.

On this point we are not like minded. We don't all follow the rules of acquisition. If I said to some of my friends "Dude you are losing $100 in the swap out" A few would say somethingto the effect of - "Meh, I blow more on dinner and drinks with the S.O./date sometimes." Having more disposable income can affect opportunity cost analysis.

Speaking for myself; It's an extremely cheap hobby when compared to people I know that are into boats, cars, motorcycles, or high end audio video.

 

[wheresmycar]

No. This is why we need idiots to stop paying unquestioningly. Control is always in the consumer's hands when it comes to non-essential products. The reason why AMD increases CPU prices and Nvidia GPU prices is not because they don't have competition. It's because people keep paying up.

Please no one tell me that when you first bought a CPU for $450, then a year later, buying another one for $470 makes sense just because it's 5-8% faster? It sounds utterly moronic, right? But that's what people do.

Of course I'd like Intel to make great GPUs, too, but that's an entirely different topic.

There's no denying that, but.. D&S market 'relativity' exists, shaped by factors like product availability, desirability and affordability. Blaming people who buy into these products is only part of the 'non-essential' problem and doesn’t necessarily tackle the broader dynamics at play, eg. pricing strategies, market dominance, limited alternatives, etc. We can’t expect consumers to take "full" responsibility for market outcomes in industries where choice is hampered by a handful of dominant players and other market trends which drive higher prices.

Lets be frank, not everyone is price sensitive, some don't give a rats arse about getting the best value for the money. Thats not going to change. Their willingness to shell out top dollar is like handing these companies a golden ticket, practically begging them to crank up prices and laugh all the way to the bank. The dominant tech giants share responsibility here. Its a business with profits for goal, not a governing body designed to make everything fair and balanced. But, theres a line between making a profit and squeezing ever last penny from loyal customers. Its not unreasonable to expect companies to balance-up on profitability and affordability . When companies prioritize fairness (ethical pricing), they don’t just sell products, they build lasting relationships and brand reputations that don’t rely on bleeding returning/loyalist/new customers.

The responsibility lies on both sides. Its a cycle that feeds itself and neither side seems likely to stop anytime soon. To the rest of us, its a PISS-TAKE but we can’t just sit back and let these companies pull their cash grabbing stunts while blaming the value-senseless consumer alone.

 

[RaceT3ch]

So, this is the only meaningful Zen 5 CPU?
Yea I imagine this is gonna sell out and go up to like 550

 

[AusWolf]

On this point we are not like minded. We don't all follow the rules of acquisition. If I said to some of my friends "Dude you are losing $100 in the swap out" A few would say somethingto the effect of - "Meh, I blow more on dinner and drinks with the S.O./date sometimes." Having more disposable income can affect opportunity cost analysis.

Speaking for myself; It's an extremely cheap hobby when compared to people I know that are into boats, cars, motorcycles, or high end audio video.

If upgrading is your hobby, and you do it regardless of value, then you don't care about price, and there's no point crying about it, is there?

I've been in the same shoes myself, but I'm not gonna do it this time around, as price is becoming a bit of a sensitive point.

There's no denying that, but.. D&S market 'relativity' exists, shaped by factors like product availability, desirability and affordability. Blaming people who buy into these products is only part of the 'non-essential' problem and doesn’t necessarily tackle the broader dynamics at play, eg. pricing strategies, market dominance, limited alternatives, etc. We can’t expect consumers to take "full" responsibility for market outcomes in industries where choice is hampered by a handful of dominant players and other market trends which drive higher prices.

Lets be frank, not everyone is price sensitive, some don't give a rats arse about getting the best value for the money. Thats not going to change. Their willingness to shell out top dollar is like handing these companies a golden ticket, practically begging them to crank up prices and laugh all the way to the bank. The dominant tech giants share responsibility here. Its a business with profits for goal, not a governing body designed to make everything fair and balanced. But, theres a line between making a profit and squeezing ever last penny from loyal customers. Its not unreasonable to expect companies to balance-up on profitability and affordability . When companies prioritize fairness (ethical pricing), they don’t just sell products, they build lasting relationships and brand reputations that don’t rely on bleeding returning/loyalist/new customers.

The responsibility lies on both sides. Its a cycle that feeds itself and neither side seems likely to stop anytime soon. To the rest of us, its a PISS-TAKE but we can’t just sit back and let these companies pull their cash grabbing stunts while blaming the value-senseless consumer alone.

Sure, but you can't blame companies for adjusting price to customers who are willing to pay whatever, can you? Like you said, they're in for the profit, they're not charity organisations. It's not in their interest to be nice to the few of us who care about pricing.

 

[529th]

Can we get Hogwarts Legacy in on the Bench marking?

Thanks!

 

[Lew Zealand]

Can we get Hogwarts Legacy in on the Bench marking?

Thanks!

Hogwarts Legacy is currently included in the most recent CPU and GPU benchmarks so unless there's been a testbench update, it should continue to be included.

 

[RaceT3ch]

Just thought of something, what if they remove the integrated graphics, that will make this CPU even cheaper and better value.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

So, this is the only meaningful Zen 5 CPU?
Yea I imagine this is gonna sell out and go up to like 550

Good call. I too expect retailers to price gouge. Hell, if you could get the 285K here in the U.S. it's $40 over MSRP.

 

[AusWolf]

Just thought of something, what if they remove the integrated graphics, that will make this CPU even cheaper and better value.

No, it won't. The iGPU is part of the IO die. They'd have to design a completely new one to get rid of it.

 

[RaceT3ch]

No, it won't. The iGPU is part of the IO die. They'd have to design a completely new one to get rid of it.

How does the 7500f work then

 

[AusWolf]

How does the 7500f work then

By using an IO die that has a defective iGPU in it. It's more cost effective to sell it at a reduced price than to bin it completely.

 

[RaceT3ch]

By using an IO die that has a defective iGPU in it. It's more cost effective to sell it at a reduced price than to bin it completely.

Okay, so how do they disable it then?

 

[AusWolf]

Okay, so how do they disable it then?

You can fuse off parts of a chip as long as the rest of the parts remain functional as a unit. That's how you have the 7700 XT, 7900 GRE/XT, or the RTX 4080. Those cards use the same chip as the 7800 XT, 7900 XTX or the 4080 Super, respectively, just with some (defective) parts fused off.

 

[RaceT3ch]

You can fuse off parts of a chip as long as the rest of the parts remain functional as a unit. That's how you have the 7700 XT, 7900 GRE/XT, or the RTX 4080. Those cards use the same chip as the 7800 XT, 7900 XTX or the 4080 Super, respectively, just with some (defective) parts fused off.

Ah okay, that makes sense.

So what do you guys think this CPU will OC to anyway?
5.5?

 

[Draconis]

Really hope the 9900X3D finally gets changed to a 8 core CCD + 4 core CCD instead of 2x 6 core CCDs

Binning, so unfortunately that's unlikely to ever happen.

 

[wheresmycar]

Sure, but you can't blame companies for adjusting price to customers who are willing to pay whatever, can you? Like you said, they're in for the profit, they're not charity organisations. It's not in their interest to be nice to the few of us who care about pricing.

Its not that simple. There is a broader context. The economy is plagued by high levels of consumer spending/credit and income inequality is as wide as KKs backside (impossible to ignore). In cash rich cap economics you're always going to find GAP-FAT disparity between the price sensitive and the price insensitive. It's these economic and/or social factors which create the lopsided perception of value (or care). For the fat-wealthy cult a 4090 is literally pocket change, for the rich its a couple of notes in addition to the pocket change, for the high income bracket its sweat-free affordability... and so on until we hit the larger bottom barrel bunch. Its fair to suggest, depending on the pocket size, perception of value will vary across the board.

Likewise, its open game for companies to exploit, manipulate, even pull down their trousers in broad day light on the back of making oodles of profit. The broader economic framework naturally encourages companies to prey on big pockets for profit and as a result big pocket conformity is inevitable. Its not just the companies and the buyers at fault, but the economic structures that are in place which makes corporate exploitation and lack of buyer remorse possible. It just isn't as straightforward as suggesting “greedy companies” or “careless consumers". Although, both are part of the problem.

Blaming consumers entirely lets companies off the hook too easily. As suggested previously, its a self-feeding cycle. We cannot remove the share of responsibility when dominant tech businesses use their unregulated merciless powers to set high prices to prioritize wealthy customers. They are equally to blame for market inequality and exclusivity, but again at the behest of the broader context.

Another way of looking at it: if oodles of "profit" justifies lack of responsibility on the part of companies, then by the same logic oodles of "satisfaction" should justify lack of responsibility on the price insensitive consumer. Both insensibly neglect ethical principles to achieve a desirable goal. Its unethical responsibilities (supply) vs unethical associations (demand) which leaves the rest of us to bear the consequences.

 

[AusWolf]

Its not that simple. There is a broader context. The economy is plagued by high levels of consumer spending/credit and income inequality is as wide as KKs backside (impossible to ignore). In cash rich cap economics you're always going to find GAP-FAT disparity between the price sensitive and the price insensitive. It's these economic and/or social factors which create the lopsided perception of value (or care). For the fat-wealthy cult a 4090 is literally pocket change, for the rich its a couple of notes in addition to the pocket change, for the high income bracket its sweat-free affordability... and so on until we hit the larger bottom barrel bunch. Its fair to suggest, depending on the pocket size, perception of value will vary across the board.

Likewise, its open game for companies to exploit, manipulate, even pull down their trousers in broad day light on the back of making oodles of profit. The broader economic framework naturally encourages companies to prey on big pockets for profit and as a result big pocket conformity is inevitable. Its not just the companies and the buyers at fault, but the economic structures that are in place which makes corporate exploitation and lack of buyer remorse possible. It just isn't as straightforward as suggesting “greedy companies” or “careless consumers". Although, both are part of the problem.

Blaming consumers entirely lets companies off the hook too easily. As suggested previously, its a self-feeding cycle. We cannot remove the share of responsibility when dominant tech businesses use their unregulated merciless powers to set high prices to prioritize wealthy customers. They are equally to blame for market inequality and exclusivity, but again at the behest of the broader context.

Another way of looking at it: if oodles of "profit" justifies lack of responsibility on the part of companies, then by the same logic oodles of "satisfaction" should justify lack of responsibility on the price insensitive consumer. Both insensibly neglect ethical principles to achieve a desirable goal. Its unethical responsibilities (supply) vs unethical associations (demand) which leaves the rest of us to bear the consequences.

I think it is that simple. The guys at Nvidia don't give two hoots whether you're a rich fat banker, or just a factory worker with an irresponsibly high credit limit. As long as you buy a 4090, it's all nice and dandy.

Sure, the lower segments are more sensitive to the things you wrote, as you'll find more responsible people buying there, but even that sector is regulated by supply and demand. You can buy worse and worse value cards at higher and higher prices. Or not. It's your choice. Everyone's got to draw their own limit and once that limit is crossed with too many people, companies won't have a choice but to lower prices. Gaming GPUs aren't food that you have to buy whether you like its price or not.

 

[wheresmycar]

I think it is that simple. The guys at Nvidia don't give two hoots whether you're a rich fat banker, or just a factory worker with an irresponsibly high credit limit. As long as you buy a 4090, it's all nice and dandy.

exactly, and the same applies to the well-off consumers, they don't give two hoots whether companies are over charging for increased profit, or irresponsibly hiking prices to lure people with high credit limits into joining the club. As long as they get their 4090 and fuel their satisfaction, its all nice and dandy.

It works both ways!

BTW, i'm a strong critic of price insensitive consumerism and definitely not in support of this death trap CAP ECO unethical divide. I proudly belong to the "vote with your wallet" gang of agitators and refuse to spend anything north of 800 quid for a GPU (which is already an extortionate sum of money to indulge in the nice-to-haves and sadly makes me complicit). But I agree consumers have a big play here and we can easily affect pricing strategies with our purchasing power or lack of. But at the same time, we cannot deny the exploitative nature of BIG TECH and the unchecked power it wields in setting market standards, influencing consumer behaviour and driving up prices across the board... and pushing boundaries on what consumers are willing to pay with little regard for loyal mainstream customers or ethical pricing or long-term sustainability. On top, with the rise of data-first priorities, AI and other expanding non-consumer demands, these companies have less to fear in terms of short term (or perhaps long-term) backlash. Current trends have certainly affected my buying decisions, i'm more than happy to dial back to moderate performance goals on the cheap (well expensively cheap vs extortionate top-tier perf) and upgrading less often unless the performance threshold is flashing red.

 

[AusWolf]

exactly, and the same applies to the well-off consumers, they don't give two hoots whether companies are over charging for increased profit, or irresponsibly hiking prices to lure people with high credit limits into joining the club. As long as they get their 4090 and fuel their satisfaction, its all nice and dandy.

So ultimately, prices are in the consumers' hands like I said. Whatever they're willing to pay, companies are gonna ask for. If I was a CEO in our present age, I'd do the same.

BTW, i'm a strong critic of price insensitive consumerism and definitely not in support of this death trap CAP ECO unethical divide. I proudly belong to the "vote with your wallet" gang of agitators and refuse to spend anything north of 800 quid for a GPU (which is already an extortionate sum of money to indulge in the nice-to-haves and sadly makes me complicit). But I agree consumers have a big play here and we can easily affect pricing strategies with our purchasing power or lack of. But at the same time, we cannot deny the exploitative nature of BIG TECH and the unchecked power it wields in setting market standards, influencing consumer behaviour and driving up prices across the board... and pushing boundaries on what consumers are willing to pay with little regard for loyal mainstream customers or ethical pricing or long-term sustainability. On top, with the rise of data-first priorities, AI and other expanding non-consumer demands, these companies have less to fear in terms of short term (or perhaps long-term) backlash. Current trends have certainly affected my buying decisions, i'm more than happy to dial back to moderate performance goals on the cheap (well expensively cheap vs extortionate top-tier perf) and upgrading less often unless the performance threshold is flashing red.

I couldn't agree more!

People have to learn that for-profit companies aren't your friends, and if a GPU costs $1,000, it's not because it's really worth that much, but because someone in an office decided that R&D, manufacturing, logistics, and an arbitrary random number that may or may not be justified by some bullshit reason should come up to that much. It's all made up, and you're made to pay because you're willing to pay.

People have to learn to say no thanks, and draw a line between what they are and aren't willing to pay for entertainment. Maybe you don't need a shiny new 4K monitor. Maybe you don't need a shiny new 4090 to drive that 4K monitor. Maybe 1080p or 1440p paired with a 6700 XT gives you exactly the same gaming experience for a fraction of the price. I know it's heresy to talk like this on a tech forum, but just maybe...

 

[Draconis]

BTW, i'm a strong critic of price insensitive consumerism and definitely not in support of this death trap CAP ECO unethical divide

I also couldn't agree more.

People have to learn that for-profit companies aren't your friends, and if a GPU costs $1,000, it's not because it's really worth that much, but because someone in an office decided that R&D, manufacturing, logistics, and an arbitrary random number that may or may not be justified by some bullshit reason should come up to that much. It's all made up, and you're made to pay because you're willing to pay.

I could easily afford a 4090 if I wanted it but I'm older and I got into the financial position I'm in because of exactly what you posted.

 

[AusWolf]

I could easily afford a 4090 if I wanted it but I'm older and I got into the financial position I'm in because of exactly what you posted.

I could as well, but what good would gaming at a bazillion instead of "just" a million FPS do when I bring myself to sit down to play something for a couple of hours on a weekend? Nothing.
I'd much rather spend my disposable income on things I actually notice, like more diverse kinds of gadgets, or holidays.

 

[Draconis]

I could as well, but what good would gaming at a bazillion instead of "just" a million FPS do when I bring myself to sit down to play something for a couple of hours on a weekend? Nothing.
I'd much rather spend my disposable income on things I actually notice, like more diverse kinds of gadgets, or holidays.

Agreed. I also have power considerations. Power supply where I live can be iffy so we have an inverter, batteries and solar setup. To help defray the cost we run off batteries/solar as much as possible to reduce electricity bill.

 

[AusWolf]

Agreed. I also have power considerations. Power supply where I live can be iffy so we have an inverter, batteries and solar setup. To help defray the cost we run off batteries/solar as much as possible to reduce electricity bill.

Yes, power. Just as much as £500-550 is my theoretical limit of what I'm willing to spend on a GPU, 250 W is my power limit. Not because I can't afford more, but because I don't want more heat inside my chassis.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

I could as well, but what good would gaming at a bazillion instead of "just" a million FPS do when I bring myself to sit down to play something for a couple of hours on a weekend? Nothing.
I'd much rather spend my disposable income on things I actually notice, like more diverse kinds of gadgets, or holidays.

Any disposable income I have is spent on my first love, motorcycles. I get much more enjoyment been out on a bike than stewing in front of a screen