Hot on the heels of our Intel Core i9-12900KS review, we have for you the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D review. These two new processor releases are all the rage these days as they improve on their already launched counterparts from the rest of the lineup with two completely different approaches. For the Core i9-12900KS, Intel has pulled out the crowbar and pushed clocks and power draw higher than before to eke out the last bits of performance on their new flagship processor. AMD is taking a completely different approach with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D; instead of shooting for more MHz, it introduced a technological innovation that is almost as game-changing as the introduction of processor chiplets that enabled the tremendous success of Ryzen Zen 2 and Zen 3.

3D V-Cache, as AMD calls their new innovation, is a silicon die that consists purely of cache memory, not compute cores or similar logic. A cache in computing is a fast piece of storage that sits in the data transfer path and stores pieces of data that are often used—hot data, where heat represents how frequently it is accessed. If the cache is able to fulfill the data request, no full trip to the main memory is needed, which improves performance because the cache runs at a much greater speed and far better latency than the main memory on your motherboard ever could. A typical modern computer has 16 GB or 32 GB of memory, cache sizes are between 10 MB and 64 MB, so roughly a thousandth (!). On the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, the cache size is 96 MB, as opposed to 32 MB on the Ryzen 7 5800X. This 64 MB increase might not sound like much as even your phone can download that much data in a few seconds, but it still has the potential to make a big difference.

The beauty of caching is that not everything gets cached; rather, sophisticated algorithms decide what to put into the cache, how long to keep it there, and which data to kick out next when more capacity is needed. Having more overall storage cache capacity available means that some workloads can now suddenly fit completely into the cache and will run as if they had nearly infinite memory bandwidth available. This of course is highly application-dependent—most rendering workloads already fit into the cache of most processors, just like older games. If a workload constantly needs fresh data—i.e., no data is reused—a cache has little effect. That's why it's so interesting to test AMD's new processor on a wide variety of workloads—we have 38 applications plus 10 games, more than most other publications.

Averaged over our application test suite, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D falls 3% behind the original Ryzen 7 5800X because the 5800X3D runs at lower clocks than its sibling. AMD confirmed that the 3D V-Cache die is limited to 1.35 V maximum operating voltage, a limit that applies to the whole processor due to the way power is routed into the CPU, including the compute cores. Since Zen 3 does require 1.5 V and above to reach the highest boost clocks, AMD had to reduce the core clocks a bit to ensure stability at all times. If we take a look at individual benchmark results, the highlight is certainly WinRAR. It seems this application really loves a lot of cache while working with all that compressed data—the performance uplift is 30%. While certainly more such impressive cases are to be found if you search and cherry-pick, our current CPU application test suite strongly suggests that for applications, the similarly priced Ryzen 9 5900X is simply the better choice due to its higher core count. Intel's Core i7-12700K (or KF) is considerably cheaper than the 5800X3D and offers 14% higher application performance. Old Intel CPUs really don't need to apply as the 5800X3D is faster than even the Core i9-11900K and Core i9-10900K.

Things look different when it comes to gaming. It seems games are an ideal workload for higher cache sizes, which is probably why AMD has been shipping their Ryzen processors with relatively large caches compared to Intel even though cache takes up a lot of silicon die area, which costs money. Averaged over our 10 games at the CPU-bottlenecked 720p resolution, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D can gain an impressive 10% in performance over its 5800X counterpart. This is enough to make it the fastest gaming CPU right behind the Intel Core i9-12900K and i9-12900KS. Considering Intel's Alder Lake comes with a new and improved core architecture, runs almost 1 GHz higher, and has faster DDR5 memory, this is an impressive achievement. It also means Intel has defended their "World's fastest Gaming Processor" claim, but differences are minimal when looking at the averages. Individual games will show vastly different results, though. The highlights here are Borderlands 3 and Far Cry 5. Borderlands 3, which has been extremely CPU limited in all our testing, gains an enormous 43% (!!) in FPS. Far Cry 5 is the most memory-sensitive title in our test suite; +35%, wow! The rest of our games do gain some FPS, but differences aren't as big. You're probably wondering why Counter-Strike CS:GO is only 5% faster. I suspect it's because the game's hot data already fits into the cache of most processors, so the larger L3 cache doesn't have as much of an effect.

Moving to higher resolutions gamers actually play at, differences get smaller and smaller because the graphics card becomes the bottleneck and the CPU is no longer as much of a limiting factor. At those resolutions, the number of frames per second is also lower, which usually reduces CPU load and thus limits the gains that faster cache, or anything else in the CPU, can achieve. Still, even 5% at 1440p is a monumental achievement considering that AMD "merely" added more cache and is using the same processor architecture at lower clock speeds. I think it's also important to highlight that we've measured the biggest gains at FPS rates that were already very high in the first place. For example, Borderlands 1080p goes from 97 FPS to 138 FPS. Unless you have a 120 Hz monitor or better, you won't notice the increase in framerate. Latencies might be slightly better, however, which could matter to competitive gamers.

Power consumption has always been a strong suit of AMD's Zen 3 Ryzens, not only because of the efficient 7 nanometer production process, but also AMD actively optimizing their designs for low power consumption, paired with various energy-savings techniques. Compared to the Ryzen 7 5800X, the 5800X3D adds an additional piece of silicon that obviously consumes power. I suspect the 1.35 V limit also has to do with power, heat, and energy efficiency. Due to the way the 3D V-Cache die is stacked on top of the 8-core compute die, all heat has to travel through the 3DV die and the surrounding structural silicon. When operating at lower voltage, a processor's total heat output will be lower, too. We measured a very reasonable 77°C processor temperature, which is just 2°C above the Ryzen 7 5800X, which runs at higher clocks and voltage, of course. Compared to other Zen 3 Ryzen processors, the heat is concentrated on a smaller area, however, because the 5800 uses a single CCD, whereas the 5900X and 5950X spread the heat over two CCDs. Compared to the Intel Core i9-12900KS, thermals are night and day. While I felt that cooling the Intel chip was a constant challenge, keeping the the Ryzen 5800X3D cool "just works." No special consideration is needed.

Efficiency of AMD's new processor is top-notch; the lower operating voltage helps make up for the energy cost of the larger cache, and the single CCD design reduces energy consumption further. Compared to the 5800X, overall efficiency is virtually unchanged, which makes the 5800X3D a highly efficient design, especially for lighter, low-threaded workloads. When the whole CPU is fully loaded, all cores and everything, energy efficiency, taking into account power draw and performance achieved, is similar to other Zen 3 CPUs and Alder Lake. This is actually good because it confirms that the 3D V-Cache is not a power hog.

As mentioned before, overclocking isn't available on the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, which makes it a little bit boring from a tweaking perspective. Usually, we do several runs with the power limits removed, PBO and overclocking, but none of those matter here. I also wanted to get you a run with DDR4-4000 CL16, but that was a no-go as the FCLK maxes out at 1867 MHz, which might already have some silent WHEA errors, so our default 1800 MHz FCLK, 1:1 with 3600 MHz memory is pretty much the best you can do unless you win the silicon lottery. Tightening the memory timings a bit further from DDR4-3600 CL16 1T to CL14 could be an option to eke out a bit more performance, but it won't be a night and day difference.

Overall, I really like what AMD has done with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. The technology is impressive. The problem is that the processor is quite expensive. According to AMD, it will sell for $450, which is $100 higher than the Ryzen 7 5800X that is already a highly capable gaming machine, and a better choice for gaming than the 5900X due to its single CCD design. Strong competition comes from Intel's Core i7-12700K ($385), and even the i5-12600K will offer good gaming performance for $260. On the other hand, if you're only looking for gaming performance and have been eyeing the Core i9-12900K ($600) or 12900KS ($750), the 5800X3D is definitely worth considering. Its gaming performance is "close enough," and its lower application performance won't make any difference for most gamers. A huge benefit over Intel's Alder Lake offerings is that the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is drop-in compatible with virtually any AM4 motherboard. This means you can continue using the motherboard and DDR4 memory you already have. Reinstalling Windows isn't necessary, either—it's fire and forget. AMD's next generation of Zen 4 processors releases this year, with DDR5 and PCI-Express 5.0—no doubt, it'll be an expensive platform at first, too, just like Intel's 12th generation. Considering that, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D launched fairly late in the game, but that gives it the potential to become a final option for current owners of an AM4 Ryzen setup to hold out just a bit longer with one final upgrade, and its price may drop into the sub-$400 region by then.