AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D

[Guwapo77]

Only 200 9950X3D @ Denver’s Microcenter.

5070Ti - Zotac Amp xtreme - $999.99
5080 - Zotac Amp Extreme - $1,499.99
Stateside prices without Tax

 

[igormp]

Well no, not really. Instead of 1 8core CCX, there is 2 8core CCXs spaced about 1cm apart. Heat density increases in such a situation. So the temps being only about 10C apart is rather remarkable.


Even accounting for that, it's still remarkable that the 9800X3D and the 9950X3D are only a few degrees apart.

That 1cm apart is enough to improve thermal density a lot in such constrained space.
Even so, it's also 2x more area for a ~42% TDP increase (120 to 170W), heat density still goes down.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Test Setup doesn't elaborate on the settings used for PBO Max that I could find.

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D Review - Great for Gaming and Productivity

The new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D brings Zen 5 with 3D V-Cache to the high-end. This new $700 flagship offers the best application performance, beating even the 9950X, and at the same time you get a fantastic gaming experience that's better than any other non-X3D processor on the market.

www.techpowerup.com

I would like to understand this more because "what if" CO was applied without increasing power limits?
Would not applying more power still help in getting better boost clocks (or general performance) in that scenario without increasing heat?

( probably off topic question - daily lunch time musings )
Also what if PBO & CO were only applied in a way to match core clocks with each other instead of trying to maximize each core's frequency potential.
Does that help smooth out potential game play issues.

(edit -- back to the topic) I found the PBO settings here although (just my personal opinion) I think the overclock settings should be under Test Setup.

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D Review - Great for Gaming and Productivity

The new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D brings Zen 5 with 3D V-Cache to the high-end. This new $700 flagship offers the best application performance, beating even the 9950X, and at the same time you get a fantastic gaming experience that's better than any other non-X3D processor on the market.

www.techpowerup.com

There are two PBO overclocking settings that I am curious about how it was decided.

1. "Then, I removed all the power and current limits"

To my knowledge removing all power limits has never really be the smart way to use PBO because it ends up creating more heat defeating the ability to maximize performance. Typically what I have seen here in the past on these forums is a careful balancing act between the power limits is used to reach the best performance with PBO.

• "I also set +200 MHz with a scalar of x10"

I've never known increasing scalar to help much. How is was this value determined when deciding to use it in the testing?

 

[lexluthermiester]

That 1cm apart is enough to improve thermal density a lot in such constrained space.

That depends on the cooler. I'm not disputing that the heat density won't be spread out, only that there will be a significant increase of it in the limit space under an IHS of the same size.

 

[izy]

The CPU looks great but its way too expensive.

 

[lexluthermiester]

The CPU looks great but its way too expensive.

$700 for a 16core top tier CPU? Seriously? IF that's too expensive to you, stay with an older platform. This is effectively AMD's "Extreme Edition" CPU at $300 lower than Intel had been charging for nearly 20 years, and at higher over-all performance.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Well no, not really. Instead of 1 8core CCX, there is 2 8core CCXs spaced about 1cm apart. Heat density increases in such a situation. So the temps being only about 10C apart is rather remarkable.


Even accounting for that, it's still remarkable that the 9800X3D and the 9950X3D are only a few degrees apart.

I suspect it's an indicator that you can increase the 9800X3D efficiency even more (with minimal performance losses) by decreasing the power limit closer to 130W. But like you said before binning may also come into play. I wonder if disabling the 2nd CCD and readjusting the power limit to match 9800X3D would prove 9950X3D has better binned cores?

 

[lexluthermiester]

I suspect it's an indicator that you can increase the 9800X3D efficiency even more (with minimal performance losses) by decreasing the power limit closer to 130W.

That might be true.

 

[mkppo]

...because it won't push the frame rates gamers want

Yes it will and it does. In the rare games it doesn't, it doesn't matter because of all the reasons I outlined above.

Edit: I posted in the wrong thread lol, the post sits in the 9950x thread my bad.

 

[izy]

$700 for a 16core top tier CPU? Seriously? IF that's too expensive to you, stay with an older platform. This is effectively AMD's "Extreme Edition" CPU at $300 lower than Intel had been charging for nearly 20 years, and at higher over-all performance.

Yeah, I don’t think a CPU on a mainstream platform should be priced as high as a mid-to-high-end GPU. I think the Ryzen 9 7950X3D has a fair price for the 'Extreme Edition,' as you call it, but I understand why AMD is pricing it so high, there's no real competition, and even the competition keeps prices high despite offering lower performance.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Yeah, I don’t think a CPU on a mainstream platform should be priced as high as a mid-to-high-end GPU. I think the Ryzen 9 7950X3D has a fair price for the 'Extreme Edition,' as you call it, but I understand why AMD is pricing it so high, there's no real competition, and even the competition keeps prices high despite offering lower performance.

Compared to Threadripper pricing it's a deal but disappointment when it comes to motherboard expansion slots on AM5. (sorry I had to gripe about this again )

 

[Guwapo77]

Yeah, I don’t think a CPU on a mainstream platform should be priced as high as a mid-to-high-end GPU. I think the Ryzen 9 7950X3D has a fair price for the 'Extreme Edition,' as you call it, but I understand why AMD is pricing it so high, there's no real competition, and even the competition keeps prices high despite offering lower performance.

Dude, $700 for this cpu is a deal.

 

[SL2]

It was proven the moment AMD released the 5950X... 8+8 works, 8 3D + 8 3D would work the exact same.

That's an oversimplification, not proof. No benchmarks, no proof, I'm sure you know that by now. You can't compare CPU load during AAA gameplay with just any other workload. I do believe the AMD engineer who said that it's not worth it.

If a hypothetical CPU would have unified V-cache for both CCD's it would be an improvement, but then again, few games are made for that many cores, for now. Not that it would be an argument against such product.

The problem is that resources are reported to Windows as available, but it is not aware of where they are physically present in the processor. Each CCD is effectively a different node, and there are penalties for accessing data on the adjacent node, which is what causes the loss of performance and efficiency seen with these chips under Windows, and arguably why Linux is so much faster.

That's what I meant with two CCD's. How does Linux solve this, how does it circumvent this problem when the needed data is in the L3 of the other CCD?
I'm certain Linux gives better results overall, but how often are demanding, recent, native Linux game titles being used when benchmarking? I've never seen it at Phoronix, although I haven't really looked around that much. I haven't seen any Linux game testing at L1tech with a 7950X3D or 9950X3D that shows a substantial lead over Windows.