Ryzen 9 7900X vs Ryzen 9 7900X3D

[Darkholm]

Been reading this HUB review about 7000X3D CPUs and it is all clear to me that 7800X3D is the best for gaming and 7950X3D is the best for gaming+workload. But... (I like buts ) found 7900X/3D very very interesting for my use case which is "a little bit of everything" and are priced right. A little less expensive than 7700X and alot cheaper than 7950X.

Before I proceed, want to clear out that I am not doing or aiming at any major performance upgrade over current AM4 combo (5900X + B550 + 32GB DDR4), just moving it to my son's 1st build which has all the parts except MBO+CPU+RAM, so either way I have to buy something This operation was put on hold until Zen5 launch, but we know how it went, so Zen4 is more attractive.

Back to my rig's use-case. One day I could render/encode something, the other day would play singleplayer games at 1440P/165Hz (RTX 4080). Generally it doesn't making me money so it is just a entertaining asset. Since I am not eager to go less than 12c/24t as I have now (to go to gaming-star 7800X3D 8c/16t or cheaper 7700 parts or less) or have an excuse to spend shitload of money for 16c/32t and than spend more for cooling, 7900X-team is the most logical to me (7900-non X is not an option).

As we saw in Steve's review, 7900X and 7900X3D are trading blows in "workload performance scenario" where 7900X is 3-5% faster, but 7900X3D is more energy efficient (for what I couldn't care less) and running cooler since is 120W (for what I care more). In gaming, 7900X3D is 17% better than non-3D model. And not forget to mention, I would for sure use custom ECO mode on 7900X and lower it to 120W TDP so I guess that would have that 3-5% performance drop and be equal to 3D model.

Steve:

This makes the 7950X3D and 7900X3D niche products, as they really only make sense for people who are serious about gaming on their productivity workstations. However, with the 7900X3D priced at just $390 right now – the same price as the 7900X – you obviously wouldn't buy the non-3D model. Moreover, the 7950X costs $550 right now, and that's a 40% price hike for a 33% increase in core count. Then, if you want the 7950X3D, it's almost 50% more than the 7900X3D.

The 7900X3D makes the most sense for productivity applications where you're unlikely to benefit from the 3D V-Cache. But with the standard model also priced at $390, you're getting the big L3 cache for free, so why not? It really is AMD's best value Zen 4 based productivity CPU right now.

In my case of pricing and from where I purchasing my hardware, 7900X and 7900X3D are not priced the same as Steve told us. It is 60 EUR difference. I can show you how other models are faring up with 7900X which I took as base price:

7900X - base price
7900X3D +60 EUR
7800X3D +72 EUR
7950X +190 EUR
7950X3D +215 EUR

Is 60 EUR more for 7900X3D worth for:
- no fussing with ECO mode in BIOS
- same performance but with buttload more cache on it
- better gaming performance by 17% (in my case will be, let's say 10% max since 1440P and 4080)

Please, raise your voice, help me reasoning it

 

[Lewzke]

For productivity and little bit of gaming the 7900X is fine, that 10% is not general. There are games where there is no significant improvement with larger cache, it depends on the title and on the memory speed. If you can get a sale on a faster DDR5 memory kit the difference will be less. For 4090 the 7800X3D is a very good option for gaming but I think the 4080 is a good pairing with 7900X. You can use 7900X now and upgrade later when AMD will significantly goes ahead with the CPU performance (in the AM5 platform), maybe wait for 9900X price drops and you will get that extra performance in productivity and gaming too, but still not a significant jump.

 

[Vayra86]

Keep in mind that with these CPU showdowns everything is relative. You can game fine on a 7900X.

X3D's game more efficiently, basically, but even a midrange CPU will not bottleneck you anywhere with a 4080. I'd put the focus on your productivity needs.

 

[efikkan]

Is 60 EUR more for 7900X3D worth for:
- no fussing with ECO mode in BIOS
- same performance but with buttload more cache on it
- better gaming performance by 17% (in my case will be, let's say 10% max since 1440P and 4080)

Please, raise your voice, help me reasoning it

I would seriously consider Zen 5 in the mix, although i don't know how much it cost in your region.
9900X is about ~5% behind 1440p gaming*, and much faster in productivity. But there should always be a * behind performance claims due to loads of extra L3, as that number is highly dependent on the game selection, and may not reflect your real world experience at all.
In general, sensitivity to L3 cache is a sign of poorly written code, so if a future game will be more "bloated", it would benefit from more L3, otherwise not.

So the better way to look at it is; do you want to focus on more raw performance over less raw performance but some "optimization" for bad code? (higher clocks vs. L3)
Regardless of Zen 4 or Zen 5, I would pick the non-X3D version as long as it's faster in raw performance, that is probably going to pay off more throughout the lifetime of the product.

 

[Darkholm]

For productivity and little bit of gaming the 7900X is fine, that 10% is not general. There are games where there is no significant improvement with larger cache, it depends on the title and on the memory speed. If you can get a sale on a faster DDR5 memory kit the difference will be less. For 4090 the 7800X3D is a very good option for gaming but I think the 4080 is a good pairing with 7900X. You can use 7900X now and upgrade later when AMD will significantly goes ahead with the CPU performance (in the AM5 platform), maybe wait for 9900X price drops and you will get that extra performance in productivity and gaming too, but still not a significant jump.

Already have/bought RAM kit ; Kingston Fury Beast CL30 6000MHz EXPO. As far as I read, it will be good.

Keep in mind that with these CPU showdowns everything is relative. You can game fine on a 7900X.

X3D's game more efficiently, basically, but even a midrange CPU will not bottleneck you anywhere with a 4080. I'd put the focus on your productivity needs.

So another + for 7900X? And will not need to reinstall Windows from 10 to 11 which is good. Thanks.

I would seriously consider Zen 5 in the mix, although i don't know how much it cost in your region.
9900X is about ~5% behind 1440p gaming*, and much faster in productivity. But there should always be a * behind performance claims due to loads of extra L3, as that number is highly dependent on the game selection, and may not reflect your real world experience at all.
In general, sensitivity to L3 cache is a sign of poorly written code, so if a future game will be more "bloated", it would benefit from more L3, otherwise not.

So the better way to look at it is; do you want to focus on more raw performance over less raw performance but some "optimization" for bad code? (higher clocks vs. L3)
Regardless of Zen 4 or Zen 5, I would pick the non-X3D version as long as it's faster in raw performance, that is probably going to pay off more throughout the lifetime of the product.

9900X is +131 EUR from 7900X, it is a good 64GB RAM kit away so no Zen5 for now.

 

[AleXXX666]

Already have/bought RAM kit ; Kingston Fury Beast CL30 6000MHz EXPO. As far as I read, it will be good.



So another + for 7900X? And will not need to reinstall Windows from 10 to 11 which is good. Thanks.



9900X is +131 EUR from 7900X, it is a good 64GB RAM kit away so no Zen5 for now.

7900X all the way!!!

 

[Darkholm]

So, no one find 7900X3D way to go? Ok, we go with 7900X then.

For the information, MBO and RAM are already bought second-hand for a quite good price. X670E + 2x16GB 6000MHz CL30 EXPO.
I opted for X670E due to usage of 4 NVMe SSDs very soon (all are PCI 4.0) and will not wait for X870(E) boards because USB4 is not needed.

Thanks to all for your time and information. And of course if anyone has more advices about 7900X and how to run it, please write some more. In the next couple of days when I find time to reshuffle all that, will post back some photos and thoughts.

 

[Deleted member 223428]

I know you've made up your mind, but if you're going to lower the TDP of the 7900X so that performance drops (3-5% woo-hoo) to match the X3D, what you're really deciding on is if the greater gaming performance matters to you. Remember it's not just average FPS, but better 1% framerates.

If gaming isn't the priority, and you're not spending the extra on the X3D, consider spending the extra on the 7950X. That gives you the best multi-core and better gaming as you'll have full 8 core CCDs, It will also hold its value better for resale. Nobody wants the 7900X now, later even less.

 

[AVATARAT]

The 9900x is better for little more, close in gaming to the 7900x3D and fast in performance.
But it all depends on whether you prefer a little more for a little more, or a little less for a little less

 

[Zach_01]

Been reading this HUB review about 7000X3D CPUs and it is all clear to me that 7800X3D is the best for gaming and 7950X3D is the best for gaming+workload. But... (I like buts ) found 7900X/3D very very interesting for my use case which is "a little bit of everything" and are priced right. A little less expensive than 7700X and alot cheaper than 7950X.

Before I proceed, want to clear out that I am not doing or aiming at any major performance upgrade over current AM4 combo (5900X + B550 + 32GB DDR4), just moving it to my son's 1st build which has all the parts except MBO+CPU+RAM, so either way I have to buy something This operation was put on hold until Zen5 launch, but we know how it went, so Zen4 is more attractive.

Back to my rig's use-case. One day I could render/encode something, the other day would play singleplayer games at 1440P/165Hz (RTX 4080). Generally it doesn't making me money so it is just a entertaining asset. Since I am not eager to go less than 12c/24t as I have now (to go to gaming-star 7800X3D 8c/16t or cheaper 7700 parts or less) or have an excuse to spend shitload of money for 16c/32t and than spend more for cooling, 7900X-team is the most logical to me (7900-non X is not an option).

As we saw in Steve's review, 7900X and 7900X3D are trading blows in "workload performance scenario" where 7900X is 3-5% faster, but 7900X3D is more energy efficient (for what I couldn't care less) and running cooler since is 120W (for what I care more). In gaming, 7900X3D is 17% better than non-3D model. And not forget to mention, I would for sure use custom ECO mode on 7900X and lower it to 120W TDP so I guess that would have that 3-5% performance drop and be equal to 3D model.

Steve:


In my case of pricing and from where I purchasing my hardware, 7900X and 7900X3D are not priced the same as Steve told us. It is 60 EUR difference. I can show you how other models are faring up with 7900X which I took as base price:

7900X - base price
7900X3D +60 EUR
7800X3D +72 EUR
7950X +190 EUR
7950X3D +215 EUR

Is 60 EUR more for 7900X3D worth for:
- no fussing with ECO mode in BIOS
- same performance but with buttload more cache on it
- better gaming performance by 17% (in my case will be, let's say 10% max since 1440P and 4080)

Please, raise your voice, help me reasoning it

Having a 5900X my self with similar use-case, my options if I wanted to upgrade now would be 7900X3D and 7950X3D.
Where productivity is not so important but nice to have with close to top gaming performance.

 

[Darkholm]

If gaming isn't the priority, and you're not spending the extra on the X3D, consider spending the extra on the 7950X. That gives you the best multi-core and better gaming as you'll have full 8 core CCDs, It will also hold its value better for resale. Nobody wants the 7900X now, later even less.

Why do you think 7900X is not wanted by everybody? It is priced right, 15-20% more then 7700X with 50% more cores and ~60% cheaper of 7950X with 33% more cores.
IMHO 7700X and 7950X are those with pretty steep pricing.
Please see my 1st post, I mentioned how much is price difference.

The 9900x is better for little more, close in gaming to the 7900x3D and fast in performance.
But it all depends on whether you prefer a little more for a little more, or a little less for a little less

As said, 9900X is +131 EUR more expensive than 7900X and +71 EUR more than 7900X3D, thats about 40% hike from 7900X. IMHO not worth the money since efficiency is not on my priority list. Perfomance-wise it is within 7900X in statistic error margin.

Having a 5900X my self with similar use-case, my options if I wanted to upgrade now would be 7900X3D and 7950X3D.
Where productivity is not so important but nice to have with close to top gaming performance.


View attachment 362550

If I look this diagram, I could save more money and leave my 5900X combo and buy 5700X, cheap B550 board with 32GB 3200 C16 RAM and call it a day as said, gaming is not a top priority, if it was, 7800X3D without thinking.

So you vote for 3D model thanks

 

[AVATARAT]

Why do you think 7900X is not wanted by everybody? It is priced right, 15-20% more then 7700X with 50% more cores and ~60% cheaper of 7950X with 33% more cores.
IMHO 7700X and 7950X are those with pretty steep pricing.
Please see my 1st post, I mentioned how much is price difference.

As said, 9900X is +131 EUR more expensive than 7900X and +71 EUR more than 7900X3D, thats about 40% hike from 7900X. IMHO not worth the money since efficiency is not on my priority list. Perfomance-wise it is within 7900X in statistic error margin.

All *900x Ryzen processors have 6 cores for gaming, so faster is better. AMD lowered the 7900x3D prices because it's unwanted, 7800x3D is better in gaming, 7950x3D is better in performance.
The 9900x with some PBO/RAM settings will be very close to the x3D variant and will be far faster in performance even close to the 7950x.
If you want the cheapest option, go pure 7900.

 

[Darkholm]

HUB and GN said that high PBO settings are not gamechanger for Zen5. 9900X and 9950X are already on a high, only 9600X and 9700X can have small benefits, so there will be no significant performance gains over Zen4.

 

[AVATARAT]

HUB and GN said that high PBO settings are not gamechanger for Zen5. 9900X and 9950X are already on a high, only 9600X and 9700X can have small benefits, so there will be no significant performance gains over Zen4.

HUB changes their opinion several times from "bad" to "ok not so bad", they quietly replace the first video bad Cinebench results with good ones.
GN shows that faster RAM has no benefit, which is almost "funny" but nothing more.

I'm jumping from 7900x to 9700x and can only smile at all this

 

[Zach_01]

HUB and GN said that high PBO settings are not gamechanger for Zen5. 9900X and 9950X are already on a high, only 9600X and 9700X can have small benefits, so there will be no significant performance gains over Zen4.

I believe the real game changer for 9000 will be the X3Ds but that’s for early 2025. AMD did not meant at all the nonX3D for gaming really IMO.
They need better and cleaner marketing and stop the crap and misleading comparisons.

 

[JrRacinFan]

Coming from someone who has a 7900x3d and previously had a 7700x, save your money and go with a 7700x.

 

[thesmokingman]

Have any benches of the 7900x or x3d been retested with the recent patches? I'm curious if it will change the 7900's outlook?

 

[Kapone33]

So, no one find 7900X3D way to go? Ok, we go with 7900X then.

For the information, MBO and RAM are already bought second-hand for a quite good price. X670E + 2x16GB 6000MHz CL30 EXPO.
I opted for X670E due to usage of 4 NVMe SSDs very soon (all are PCI 4.0) and will not wait for X870(E) boards because USB4 is not needed.

Thanks to all for your time and information. And of course if anyone has more advices about 7900X and how to run it, please write some more. In the next couple of days when I find time to reshuffle all that, will post back some photos and thoughts.

People bash me all the time but I am going to give you a reason to get the 7900X3D. I bought the chip on launch. I had replaced a 5900X with a 5800X3D and lamented Windows feeling slower. When I got the 7900X3D I can easily play any Game at 4K. Combined with the 7900XT my CPU never goes above 30% usage when Gaming and Games like City Skylines 2 are between 80-100 FPS at 4K. There is also the fact that because it was never sampled to reviewers there is some negative noise about it but that has created a scenario where the 7900X3D can be cheaper than a 7900X.

 

[Darkholm]

HUB changes their opinion several times from "bad" to "ok not so bad", they quietly replace the first video bad Cinebench results with good ones.
GN shows that faster RAM has no benefit, which is almost "funny" but nothing more.

I'm jumping from 7900x to 9700x and can only smile at all this

I would believe you if you provide some real life tests 7900X vs 9700X. And still, if all of this is true, I find 9700X 2 EUR more expensive than 7900X at my retailer. So, yes, you can smile at all of this.

I believe the real game changer for 9000 will be the X3Ds but that’s for early 2025. AMD did not meant at all the nonX3D for gaming really IMO.
They need better and cleaner marketing and stop the crap and misleading comparisons.

Of course it will be the game changer, but that is quite far away from now. And price will be high, no doubt. Intel has no answer so AMD will try to gain price momentum and people will pay premium for best gaming CPUs.

Coming from someone who has a 7900x3d and previously had a 7700x, save your money and go with a 7700x.

Hardly any savings as we speak of 25-30 EUR difference between 7700X and 7900X and 90 EUR to 7900X3D.
Can you give me some more info, how you find 7700X more attractive than 7900X3D? As said, 8c/16t does not work for me since I have 5900X and I will surely miss 4c/8t even when Zen4 has superior IPC and clock over Zen3.

Have any benches of the 7900x or x3d been retested with the recent patches? I'm curious if it will change the 7900's outlook?

I think it is in their pipeline as we speak (re-test of all actual CPUs on new Win11).

People bash me all the time but I am going to give you a reason to get the 7900X3D. I bought the chip on launch. I had replaced a 5900X with a 5800X3D and lamented Windows feeling slower. When I got the 7900X3D I can easily play any Game at 4K. Combined with the 7900XT my CPU never goes above 30% usage when Gaming and Games like City Skylines 2 are between 80-100 FPS at 4K. There is also the fact that because it was never sampled to reviewers there is some negative noise about it but that has created a scenario where the 7900X3D can be cheaper than a 7900X.

Duly noted

 

[AVATARAT]

I would believe you if you provide some real life tests 7900X vs 9700X. And still, if all of this is true, I find 9700X 2 EUR more expensive than 7900X at my retailer. So, yes, you can smile at all of this.

The 9700x has less multi-threading, but is faster for gaming with not much, but enough after setup to be close to the 7900x3D as the TPU review shows. Everything else is up to you, the 9900x is newer, faster and its performance is better, for gaming all CPU's are close within some %.
It all comes down to your decision whether you want higher for a little more money or lower performance for a little less money.

In Benchmarking I have results since the 5000 series
Frame rate + frame times are more stable with 9000 than 7000 processors, (x3D is the best but not by that much).

 

[dgianstefani]

Why do you think 7900X is not wanted by everybody? It is priced right, 15-20% more then 7700X with 50% more cores and ~60% cheaper of 7950X with 33% more cores.
IMHO 7700X and 7950X are those with pretty steep pricing.
Please see my 1st post, I mentioned how much is price difference.

It's not as simple as "50% more cores".

It's two 7600X glued together. So, what you are getting are two six core CCDs that weren't good enough to be eight core CCDs. You've also got both CCDs sharing one IO die, competing for memory and IF bandwidth, and having extreme latency if you have a task that runs on both CCDs, since the data has to move from CCD0 to the IO die then to CCD1, there's no direct connection.

The 7700, 7800X3D, 7950X, 7950X3D, 9700X, 9950X are all made of eight core CCDs.

The reason why the 7900/7900X3D are cheap, is because they are compromise chips and people in the know do not like them, for good reasons. If you work and earn with your PC it makes zero sense to not go with the 8+8 setups, if you game, the x900 chips perform worse even than the x600 chips, because of scheduling issues and cross CCD latency. If you game and stream, get the 7950X3D or wait for the 9950X3D.

Here's how it goes from slowest to fastest for gaming - 7900X, 7600X, 7700X, 7950X, 9900X, 9600X, 9700X, 9950X, 7900X3D, 7600X3D, 7950X3D, 7800X3D.

If you spend a lot of time with Process Lasso you can get the two CCD chips to be close to or as fast as the single CCD 8 core chips, but it's mostly a waste of time.

Of course it will be the game changer, but that is quite far away from now. And price will be high, no doubt. Intel has no answer so AMD will try to gain price momentum and people will pay premium for best gaming CPUs.

Intel Raptor Lake is perfectly competent at both gaming and MT, unlike Zen 4/5 where you have to pick one, and compromise on the other with all options, even the 7950X3D, since it's not monolithic. As far as the "degradation", which I correctly called as voltage related months ago, not a single one of the TPU test chips has any instability when run at the settings we use for reviewing (Intel defaults), neither has any of our staff who run that platform had issues, even our memory reviewer who pushes these chips hard, at 8000 MT+, running advanced stability tests. Once again, mobo "AI" tune etc., or user error in not updating BIOS or running "stock" (not stock) settings seems to cause that problem. Arrow Lake looks very compelling and will have more performance than the 9950X without the latency issue, since it's much more advanced packaging, so, again, great for both gaming and MT.

What you pay is what you get, it's cheap for a reason, remember that.

I haven't had any issues any of mine, everyone even got an extra two years of warranty now.

 

[Darkholm]

It's not as simple as "50% more cores".

It's two 7600X glued together. So, what you are getting are two six core CCDs that weren't good enough to be eight core CCDs. You've also got both CCDs sharing one IO die, competing for memory and IF bandwidth, and having extreme latency if you have a task that runs on both CCDs, since the data has to move from CCD0 to the IO die then to CCD1, there's no direct connection.

I understand that and I studied that when I did my upgrade from 5600X to 5900X, but as said, my gaming at 1440P with 2080Ti and then 4080 did not suffer, at least what I saw.
Performance-wise, I had so much more horsepower for encoding/rendering. I will repeat - my PC is not making money, it is entertainment tool for singleplayer gaming (no MP whatsoever) and occasional workload. 5900X was perfect for me almost 3 years and before purchasing it, story was the same: "go for 5800X or 5950X, it is better for gaming due to 8 core CCDs"

The 7700, 7800X3D, 7950X, 7950X3D, 9700X, 9950X are all made of eight core CCDs.

The reason why the 7900/7900X3D are cheap, is because they are compromise chips and people in the know do not like them, for good reasons. If you work and earn with your PC it makes zero sense to not go with the 8+8 setups, if you game, the x900 chips perform worse even than the x600 chips, because of scheduling issues and cross CCD latency. If you game and stream, get the 7950X3D or wait for the 9950X3D.

Fair enough.

Here's how it goes from slowest to fastest for gaming - 7900X, 7600X, 7700X, 7950X, 9900X, 9600X, 9700X, 9950X, 7900X3D, 7600X3D, 7950X3D, 7800X3D.

As said, same was for Zen3 lineup AFAIK.

If you spend a lot of time with Process Lasso you can get the two CCD chips to be close to or as fast as the single CCD 8 core chips, but it's mostly a waste of time.

Agreed. Studied Process Lasso a while ago and it is waste of time.

Intel Raptor Lake is perfectly competent at both gaming and MT, unlike Zen 4/5 where you have to pick one, and compromise on the other with all options, even the 7950X3D, since it's not monolithic. Arrow Lake looks very compelling and will have more performance than the 9950X without the latency issue, since it's much more advanced packaging, so, again, great for both gaming and MT.

Intel is not an option, never was

 

[dgianstefani]

Intel is not an option, never was

There's your issue, exclusivity for AMD.

Buy what makes sense, regardless of brand.

There's exactly eight current platform desktop CPUs that make sense today for non-professional workloads.

7600(non X) or it's cheaper derivatives 7500 etc., 9700X, 7800X3D, 9950X, 12400F, 13/14900K, 13600K, 14700K.

I understand that and I studied that when I did my upgrade from 5600X to 5900X, but as said, my gaming at 1440P with 2080Ti and then 4080 did not suffer, at least what I saw.

It doesn't really matter, it's an objectively, measurably, worse CPU, there is no good reason to buy it. I would literally take a 7700X over a 7900X if both were free.

Your statement "not making money, it is entertainment tool for singleplayer gaming and occasional workload" does not scream "I need 12 cores at the expense of worse at everything else" to me.

Get the 7800X3D/9700X or wait, you're falling for the "x number is higher" trap that AMD is happy to continue to entertain, because it gets rid of twice as many defect dies as the 7600X.

If you encode/render there's little reason to not do that on the GPU anyway, CPU rendering is from last century.

The second major issue besides latency is that the two CCDs, even in 9950X, run at different frequencies, often significantly. AMD gives you one good CCD and one mediocre one. This leads to problems if you're using software that expects all the cores to be the same speed.

Since there's no hardware scheduler like Intel has, this disparity cannot be properly resolved.

7900X is less than 14% faster (with 50% more cores) in TPU MT applications testing, and 5-10% slower in gaming than the 9700X, which would give you none of these drawbacks I've just mentioned.

We found the Missing Performance: Zen 5 Tested with SMT Disabled

Reviews of AMD’s Zen 5 processors this week surprised many, with lower-than-expected results. After some investigation, we discovered that turning off Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) can yield notable performance gains, particularly in gaming. This article presents our findings, including...

www.techpowerup.com

Additionally, the 7900X uses significantly more power.

 

[JrRacinFan]

Can you give me some more info, how you find 7700X more attractive than 7900X3D?

Was in the same scenario as yourself coming from a 5900x. I'm primarily a gamer, I just couldn't tell a difference between the 2 cpu's at all in real world use. If you're doing more than gaming, sure, go for those extra threads.

 

[Kapone33]

It's not as simple as "50% more cores".

It's two 7600X glued together. So, what you are getting are two six core CCDs that weren't good enough to be eight core CCDs. You've also got both CCDs sharing one IO die, competing for memory and IF bandwidth, and having extreme latency if you have a task that runs on both CCDs, since the data has to move from CCD0 to the IO die then to CCD1, there's no direct connection.

The 7700, 7800X3D, 7950X, 7950X3D, 9700X, 9950X are all made of eight core CCDs.

The reason why the 7900/7900X3D are cheap, is because they are compromise chips and people in the know do not like them, for good reasons. If you work and earn with your PC it makes zero sense to not go with the 8+8 setups, if you game, the x900 chips perform worse even than the x600 chips, because of scheduling issues and cross CCD latency. If you game and stream, get the 7950X3D or wait for the 9950X3D.

Here's how it goes from slowest to fastest for gaming - 7900X, 7600X, 7700X, 7950X, 9900X, 9600X, 9700X, 9950X, 7900X3D, 7600X3D, 7950X3D, 7800X3D.

If you spend a lot of time with Process Lasso you can get the two CCD chips to be close to or as fast as the single CCD 8 core chips, but it's mostly a waste of time.

.

This post acts like there is no difference in cost for the CPUs. I bought my 7900X3D for $599 when the 7950X3D was $1099. Further more when the 7800X3D launched it was $549. All of these prices are in Canadian. I will also go back to my first post in this thread as you have never used the chip to have such an "informed" opinion on it.