• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Runs First Benchmarks

95Viper

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
13,053 (2.21/day)
Stay on topic.
Stop your bickering...
Stop the insulting remarks.
Have a civil discussion... if you cannot do this... back out and take a breather.

And, another bit of advice from the guidelines:
Reporting and complaining
All posts and private messages have a "report post" button on the bottom of the post, click it when you feel something is inappropriate. Do not use your report as a "wild card invitation" to go back and add to the drama and therefore become part of the problem.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2021
Messages
1,705 (1.52/day)
Location
Mississauga, Canada
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Motherboard ASUS TUF Gaming X570-PRO (WiFi 6)
Cooling Noctua NH-C14S (two fans)
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3200
Video Card(s) Reference Vega 64
Storage Intel 665p 1TB, WD Black SN850X 2TB, Crucial MX300 1TB SATA, Samsung 830 256 GB SATA
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG27, and Samsung S23A700
Case Fractal Design R5
Power Supply Seasonic PRIME TITANIUM 850W
Mouse Logitech
VR HMD Oculus Rift
Software Windows 11 Pro, and Ubuntu 20.04
That you would say that the utility of 3D cache in the 6-core R5-7600X is no different than the utility in the 16-core R9-7950X means that you really don't have much understanding of PC tech, how it's used and what is good for what. I honestly can't take you seriously after these words.
I've tried to argue constructively, but you have resorted to name calling. I'll still continue to address your points in good faith: my age has nothing to do with anything, but I've been a PC user since the 1980s. You said in post # 68
The R9-7900X3D will be a real dumpster fire because it's going to have only six cores in its 3D-imbued CCX and will therefore perform in games like an R5-7600X3D would.
I only pointed out that if the 7900X3D is bad, then the 7600X3D is equally bad. For the record, I don't agree with your statement; I think a 7600X3D would be a good alternative, but I suspect AMD wanted more money for the 3D cache equipped processors and therefore, didn't opt for a 7600X3D. Besides, a 7600X3D would likely be as expensive as the regular 7700X. I share your opinion that it would have been a popular offering for gamers. It may still hurt them.

You think that the odd win of no more than 10% is "domination"? I have seen nothing in any of these tests that say "This APU is worth $100 more than the R9-7950X" and neither have you, you just don't realise it.
You're misinformed: the V-cache is good for more than just gaming. Let's look at a tool commonly used in computational fluid dynamics:

1677782640550.png


You're blinded by your dislike of this product: this large cache benefits more applications than just gaming. Another example is this step in the processing of radio telescope images.

1677783299618.png


Of course, not all of the workloads that benefit from the large cache benefit to the same degree. Here's another example from the radio telescope image processing:

1677783409464.png


To conclude, it all comes down to your workload. If your application benefits more from higher frequencies, then the 7950X or the 13900k might be the better option. On the other hand, if it has a working set larger than the caches of most consumer chips, then the 7950X3D might just be what you're looking for.

On a lighter note, my user name isn't Diefenbaker_1959. Let's drop the hatchet.
 
Last edited:
Top