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

[londiste]

The 9700x is running at 65w compared to the 7700x which runs at 105w.
When 9700x was later tested at 105w and with the Windows 11 24H2 performance fix, it easily gained 5-15% in both games and productivity.

The 9800x3D will be a 120w CPU, the same as the 7800x3D, but will run with 5-10% higher clocks (unlike the 9700x which ran at lower clocks compared to 7700x)

9700X is running at ~85w, assuming 105W is an actual power limit it is 23% power increase for 5-15% gains. If 105W is a TDP the power increase is (much) more. I really hope the results you refer to were not with the change over to 24H2. If that is the case then the improvement was really negligible.

7800X3D has a 76W power limit. what 9800X3D actually consumes remains to be seen, we will see that from reviews.

Agreed. At 2K and especially 4K resolutions most of the CPUs will have similar FPS, that's where 1% lows become more important and reviewers should focus on more.

The problem is that in most cases 1% lows scale to the same things as averages - more cores, more frequency and more cache helps.

 

[StimpsonJCat]

Now I understand why they cancelled the 5800x3D...

 

[AusWolf]

The 9700x is running at 65w compared to the 7700x which runs at 105w.

No, it's not. AMD's TDP is not power consumption. With AMD, PPT (power target) = TDP × 1.35. TDP is just an arbitrary number.

When 9700x was later tested at 105w and with the Windows 11 24H2 performance fix, it easily gained 5-15% in both games and productivity.

The 9800x3D will be a 120w CPU, the same as the 7800x3D, but will run with 5-10% higher clocks (unlike the 9700x which ran at lower clocks compared to 7700x)

Keep in mind what I said above. The TDP number AMD gives will have no effect on the actual power consumption or performance of the 9800X3D.

The TDP of the 7800X3D is 120 W, but it only consumes about 80-90 W max at its max boost of 4.8 GHz all-core. I'm expecting something similar with the 9800X3D.

 

[ThomasK]

So it’s ok for AMD to screw over gamers because reasons.



AMDs prices are not Intels fault. They are the fault of people like you that thought AMD was your freind.

All I'm saying is that, back when Intel was the dominant player in the market, it used to charge twice as much as AMD is charging TODAY for its best gaming processor. All the major players have abused its dominant position while competition was lacking, which is worse for customers. That's just how the market works.

And yes, AMDs prices are indeed Intel's fault. Were Intel to be competitive, the pricing strategy would be different.

 

[Mr_Engineer]

The TDP of the 7800X3D is 120 W, but it only consumes about 80-90 W max at its max boost of 4.8 GHz all-core. I'm expecting something similar with the 9800X3D.

I assume the 9800x3D will consume a bit more power especially if AMD is pushing the clocks higher to get the extra performance.

 

[Prima.Vera]

This is the 2nd time AMD is taking the gaming crown from Intel with a faster and cheaper product since Athlon XP. Looks like those times are back, not for the high price of the CPUs...

 

[Visible Noise]

All I'm saying is that, back when Intel was the dominant player in the market, it used to charge twice as much as AMD is charging TODAY for its best gaming processor. All the major players have abused its dominant position while competition was lacking, which is worse for customers. That's just how the market works.

And yes, AMDs prices are indeed Intel's fault. Were Intel to be competitive, the pricing strategy would be different.

In that case Nvidia's prices are AMD's fault, right? Right??

 

[wheresmycar]

We're getting closer to half a grand for 8-core top-tier gaming processors. Ouch! Thats a $30 increase in MSRP over its predecessor, the 7800X3D.

With a little market compo, eventually increased production and availability (hopefully moderate early sales hehe), I want to see the 9800X3D quickly finding some stability in price somewhere in the $350 region..... price reductions can take several months post-launch hence maybe in mid-2025. Not sure why it matters to me, i'm still looking to crack open the 5800X3D's GPU-bottleneck at 1440p.

I bet 9% gains and above are probably 90% of current cache-sensitive games which significantly benefit. The 8% avg gains seem about right but look forward to seeing w1zzard's benchmarks.

Kinda sucks the games which significantly benefit with 3D are not in my games library. I might have a crack at W-40K: Space Marines 2 some day. I defo fancy Far Cry 6 but i've been trying to avoid addictive open-world titles that are time-consuming. I know i know, its not the game, its the obsessed gamer... guilty as charged!

In that case Nvidia's prices are AMD's fault, right? Right??

Nah, its no ones fault. Big Tech wants to make money. They make money. Big pocket spenders have money to burn. They burn money. The rest of us are sandwiched in-between with lettuce, cucumbers and tomato ketchup. We also get the meat providing we're realistic with our performance goals or well-seasoned expectations.

 

[ThomasK]

In that case Nvidia's prices are AMD's fault, right? Right??

Yes, specially considering AMD won't be competing in the enthusiast market in the next generation, leaving the ultra high end entirely to NVIDIA.

You'll get eyewatering prices on the 5090, just wait.

 

[Dawora]

Yeah, but they're including things where the 285K is currently badly broken in that number, like CP2077. I don't expect that to remain the case, even if the 285K is likely to still remain behind pretty much all Zen 5 chips once it is fixed.

285 should cost max 399$

 

[Visible Noise]

Yes, specially considering AMD won't be competing in the enthusiast market in the next generation, leaving the ultra high end entirely to NVIDIA.

You'll get eyewatering prices on the 5090, just wait.

I have a 4090, 5090 is irrelevant to me.

 

[mkppo]

So it’s ok for AMD to screw over gamers because reasons.

AMDs prices are not Intels fault. They are the fault of people like you that thought AMD was your freind.

$30 increase compared to two years back isn't much of a 'screw over'. They can literally set whatever prices they want because it's unanimously going to be the fastest gaming CPU by some margin so in that context, a $30 increase is much less than I predicted because that's just how companies are, some worse than others. I was fully expecting $500, and you can bet gamers willing to pay $$ would be flogging to the CPU at that price and AMD knows it too.

There's no fault here from either camps - Intel should've priced the 285K at 550 because it's not really worth more and 9800X3D should've been $450 but they're here to make money and know people are willing to pay extra for the fastest CPU for their task or shiny new toys which are sometimes slow, have bugs and suck at gaming. It's the latter camp that I don't really get but tinkering can be fun too.

 

[ThomasK]

I have a 4090, 5090 is irrelevant to me

Did you think Nvidia was your friend when you paid over 1k for your 4090 as well?

The 5090 might be irrelevant to you, not so much to others. Also, you’re not going anywhere trying to prove your point here.

Have a good one. Bye.

 

[wheresmycar]

Did you think Nvidia was your friend when you paid over 1k for your 4090 as well?

The 5090 might be irrelevant to you, not so much to others. Also, you’re not going anywhere trying to prove your point here.

Have a good one. Bye.

NVIDIA: Apologies, but the friends department is closed to the single-GPU crowd. It’s fully open to the 'the more you buy, the more you save' club! All club members are guaranteed FREE hot drink coasters for each purchase (lucky b*strds)

 

[AusWolf]

This is the 2nd time AMD is taking the gaming crown from Intel with a faster and cheaper product since Athlon XP. Looks like those times are back, not for the high price of the CPUs...

It's not hard to take the gaming crown with the 9800X3D when nothing took it from the 7800X3D in the first place.

We're getting closer to half a grand for 8-core top-tier gaming processors. Ouch! Thats a $30 increase in MSRP over its predecessor, the 7800X3D.

With a little market compo, eventually increased production and availability (hopefully moderate early sales hehe), I want to see the 9800X3D quickly finding some stability in price somewhere in the $350 region..... price reductions can take several months post-launch hence maybe in mid-2025. Not sure why it matters to me, i'm still looking to crack open the 5800X3D's GPU-bottleneck at 1440p.

View attachment 369834

I bet 9% gains and above are probably 90% of current cache-sensitive games which significantly benefit. The 8% avg gains seem about right but look forward to seeing w1zzard's benchmarks.

Kinda sucks the games which significantly benefit with 3D are not in my games library. I might have a crack at W-40K: Space Marines 2 some day. I defo fancy Far Cry 6 but i've been trying to avoid addictive open-world titles that are time-consuming. I know i know, its not the game, its the obsessed gamer... guilty as charged!

Are those results measured with a 4090 at 1080p by any chance? I doubt we'll see any difference otherwise.

Nah, its no ones fault. Big Tech wants to make money. They make money. Big pocket spenders have money to burn. They burn money. The rest of us are sandwiched in-between with lettuce, cucumbers and tomato ketchup. We also get the meat providing we're realistic with our performance goals or well-seasoned expectations.

Yep. The prices of non-essential products are always the consumer's fault. Stop buying overpriced shit, and prices will come down. Or adopt an "it's bad, but what can I do" attitude, and prices will stay up. Simple.

Edit: By the way, SM2 is awesome, I highly recommend it.

 

[LittleBro]

AMD can charge for their next gaming king anything they want, because it has no competition.

I'ts what Nvidia does regularly. So Nvidia okay but AMD bad now?

 

[umeng2002]

AMD can charge for their next gaming king anything they want, because it has no competition.

I'ts what Nvidia does regularly. So Nvidia okay but AMD bad now?

nVidia basically doubled their prices because the x80 level nVidia cards are using x70 level chips, AND they increased the price. A $30 increase from $450 to $480 isn't much.

Sheep will be sheep. If AMD thinks they can move units at $1000, they'll do it. Some people don't care if their PC costs $4000 or $40,000. They just want the best. The thing with nVidia is that they can absolutely use their TSMC capacity in AI business sales. Frankly, I think nVidia would dump graphics all together if they could.

 

[wheresmycar]

AMD can charge for their next gaming king anything they want, because it has no competition.

I'ts what Nvidia does regularly. So Nvidia okay but AMD bad now?

Yep, this is why we need Intel to get their shit together and bring back the stiff compo. The greater the compo, the better these competitors compete with lower prices. Unfortunately for the graphics market... at the higher end Nvidia is king and theres no signs of dethroning the green monster. I’m hoping AMD can make a strong impact in the low to mid-range and even semi-high performance segments, ideally growing its market share beyond the small slice it currently holds.

 

[AusWolf]

Yep, this is why we need Intel to get their shit together and bring back the stiff compo. The greater the compo, the better these competitors compete with lower prices. Unfortunately for the graphics market... at the higher end Nvidia is king and theres no signs of dethroning the green monster. I’m hoping AMD can make a strong impact in the low to mid-range and even semi-high performance segments, ideally growing its market share beyond the small slice it currently holds.

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.

 

[FoulOnWhite]

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.

Some of the games my mate on steam has, he has over 1000 hours on, he games a LOT. Unless you are someone who games as much as him, it is a waste spending $2k+ on a GPU, unless you are a must have or just have so much disposable income you can throw it away. There are enough of these people to buy these $2k GPUs or Nvidia would not produce them. They can make far more selling a few thousand of them than the tens of thousand of GPUs for the rest of us plebs.

 

[AusWolf]

Some of the games my mate on steam has, he has over 1000 hours on, he games a LOT. Unless you are someone who games as much as him, it is a waste spending $2k+ on a GPU, unless you are a must have or just have so much disposable income you can throw it away. There are enough of these people to buy these $2k GPUs or Nvidia would not produce them. They can make far more selling a few thousand of them than the tens of thousand of GPUs for the rest of us plebs.

It's not just about how much you game, but also about your expectations. Unless you target 4K 120+ FPS, you don't need a $2k GPU. Not to mention how much of a realistic need targeting 4K 120+ FPS is (it's not).

 

[Ruru]

For 4k gaming, a CPU is not that important, saving money for a better GPU is where your priority should be.

Exactly. My 5800X is fine for a good time.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

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.

I expect it will be faster than 8% after an easy overclock that takes a couple of minutes in the UEFI. The same as with other unlocked Zen. That's also the reason it'll separate itself from Zen 4 3D more than the vanilla parts in productivity i.e. achievable 500-600 MHz clockspeed increase over its older bro. The leaked numbers running 5.6GHz all core look pretty good.

Your comment does not take into account the current market dynamics. Most of us did not pay MSRP for the 7800X3D. E.G. I could sell my 7800X3D right now for $425 no problem. That's almost $200 more than I paid for it. Many paid $350 or less; being able to make a profit and put it toward the 9800X3D is pretty enticing. For those that paid MSRP; if they get $400-$425 selling it, that also may prove enticing. I always tell people I don't buy hardware, I rent it. Since 2020 instead of renting, some of my parts have been more unintentional investments. Made profits off of GPUs during the dark times, and now my 5800X3Ds and 7800X3D are worth significantly more than I paid for them.

It used to work that way with the i7 as well. They'd hold so much value that you could resell them for little loss later, making it an affordable rental. Caveat as always is YMMV.

 

[AusWolf]

I expect it will be faster than 8% after an easy overclock that takes a couple of minutes in the UEFI. The same as with other unlocked Zen. That's also the reason it'll separate itself from Zen 4 3D more than the vanilla parts in productivity i.e. achievable 500-600 MHz clockspeed increase over its older bro. The leaked numbers running 5.6GHz all core look pretty good.

Your comment does not take into account the current market dynamics. Most of us did not pay MSRP for the 7800X3D. E.G. I could sell my 7800X3D right now for $425 no problem. That's almost $200 more than I paid for it. Many paid $350 or less; being able to make a profit and put it toward the 9800X3D is pretty enticing. For those that paid MSRP; if they get $400-$425 selling it, that also may prove enticing. I always tell people I don't buy hardware, I rent it. Since 2020 instead of renting, some of my parts have been more unintentional investments. Made profits off of GPUs during the dark times, and now my 5800X3Ds and 7800X3D are worth significantly more than I paid for them.

It used to work that way with the i7 as well. They'd hold so much value that you could resell them for little loss later, making it an affordable rental. Caveat as always is YMMV.

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.

 

[DarkStar]

9950x with dual 3D cache pls!