Conclusion

What an interesting article! I have to say I've rarely enjoyed playing with core counts as much as in this review. AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X3D comes with two CCDs, each of which contains eight CPU cores, to bring the total to 16 cores and 32 threads. Thanks to various BIOS options in the ASUS X670E Hero BIOS we are able to adjust the core count of the new AMD processor—we can turn off cores individually, not just limit the total number of cores. This means that we can can turn off the second CCD completely, and what we're left with is a Ryzen 7 7800X3D.

The remaining CCD contains eight CPU cores, or 16-threads and has a 64 MB silicon die of 3DV-Cache sitting on top. The second CCD is disabled, similar to the dummy dies that AMD is expected to use on the 7800X3D. AMD rates both processors at 120 W TDP, so no changes needed here. The only mismatch is with the frequency configuration. The Ryzen 9 7950X3D is rated for 4.2 GHz base and 5.7 GHz Boost, the 7800X3D's official spec is 4.2 GHz base and 5.0 GHz Boost. A 700 MHz frequency difference may sound like lot first, but as the data in our full Ryzen 9 7950X3D review shows today, the frequencies significantly above 5 GHz are only reachable on the second CCD, the one that does not have the cache, so it can run higher voltages, which lets it achieve those clock speeds. The CCD with the 3DV-Cache tops out at 5.25 GHz, so we're talking about a ~200 MHz max difference here, or 4%, which is close enough for the purpose of this article.

Application performance of the simulated 7800X3D is roughly similar to the Ryzen 7 7700, which falls in line with expectations—both are 8-core CPUs, the 7700 runs a bit higher frequency, the 7800X3D still wins a few benchmarks against the 7700, thanks to the larger cache boosting some workloads. Heavy multi-threaded apps like rendering and encoding run better on the 7700, because they don't benefit from the additional cache, but interactive programs, especially content creation, show good gains with the X3D CPU. The strongest competitor to the 7800X3D is the Intel 13700K, which is priced similarly, but with 25% higher application performance.

The main focus of 7800X3D is not applications though, it's designed to be a gaming machine. Here it can excel and flex its muscles, reaching performance that's better than the Ryzen 9 7950X3D—no wonder AMD is releasing the 7800X3D in April. What's also important is that the 7800X3D can beat Intel Core i9-13900K in all resolutions, except for 4K where the delta is a tiny 0.6% in favor of Raptor Lake. The big difference is that 7800X3D is $450, whereas Intel wants $570 for the 13900K. A noteworthy data point is the 13700K ($425) and 13600K ($290), which are both very close in performance, and look tempting, when considering their pricing.

Where AMD X3D is taking the wrecking ball to Intel is power consumption. Our simulated Ryzen 7 7800X3D is one of the most energy-efficient CPUs we ever tested. In gaming it consumes 44 W on average, while the competition is wasting a ton of energy to achieve the same FPS: 13900K (143 W), 13700K (107 W), 13600K (89 W)—all more than twice the power usage than AMD's new gaming gem. The lowered power consumption not only helps with your power bill, but it also lowers case temperatures and reduces the heat dumped into your room during extended gaming sessions. Really impressive!

Concluding, I have to say that I really can't wait to get my hands on the real 7800X3D, and you're probably just as excited for it as well. Having that extra release delay could be beneficial for gamers, too, as it will give AMD and its motherboard partners time to figure out the few issues that remain with the platform, and overclockers will learn new tricks how to squeeze the last bits of performance out of the 7800X3D once it becomes available.

-- awards are not considered for this preview-type article --