But even in such lazy benchmarking, people with brains can see that the min FPS is the best with the X3Ds which equals buttery smooth gaming.
Selling at MSRP too. Excellent.See Zen 5 builders thread get your 9800x3d NOW !
Based on what we’ve seen, the lower clocks were intentional, NOT a regression. AMD doesn’t want these things stepping on the 12-16 core parts. That is why they are clocked lower.Now fix the single core boost regression from non 3d part and there's your 3rd gen v-cache.
When I saw MSRP, I could not believe it. That why I put it (sort of) in 2 threads. Did not want to double post.Selling at MSRP too. Excellent.
The V-cache may use something like 10W, at 65W TDP/88W PPT it wouldnt be an accurate comparison with a stock 9700X, you ll have to set the X3D chip at 75W TDP/98W PPT to have the same cores power.Given how Zen5 compares to Zen4 in the standard parts, I would imagine if you limited the 9800X3D to a similar power envelope as the 7800X3D you'd get much closer performance. Probably still better in gaming since it could clock one or two cores higher if needed within that envelope, but probably not the runaway it is now.
I may have ordered one without the intention of using it right now (space constrained in Apt and will move soon so doesn't make sense to build a desktop).Sold out already boys. Unless you want to pay $999 for it on Amazon.
$691 when I last looked. But the 479 was not going to last. I should have snapped it when I saw it, but I hate to ask more than $479 when I shipped it.Sold out already boys. Unless you want to pay $999 for it on Amazon.
Scalpers suck.Sold out already boys. Unless you want to pay $999 for it on Amazon.
I wasn't talking about comparing it to a 9700X, I was talking about the 7800X3D. The 7800X3D is also a 120W chip, but practically never gets there because of the thermal limits of its vcache structure.The V-cache may use something like 10W, at 65W TDP/88W PPT it wouldnt be an accurate comparison with a stock 9700X, you ll have to set the X3D chip at 75W TDP/98W PPT to have the same cores power.
And they are not even running 6000@CL30Computerbase also has such games. >60% difference in FPS. This is a true Bulldozer, not that fake from some years ago.
View attachment 111162View attachment 111163
@Timorous Yeah, I saw those results, quite an anomaly, but ARL consumes a lot of power there.
Yeah, no problems found, still very efficient compared to more or less every other chip except the 7800X3D.Given how Zen5 compares to Zen4 in the standard parts, I would imagine if you limited the 9800X3D to a similar power envelope as the 7800X3D you'd get much closer performance. Probably still better in gaming since it could clock one or two cores higher if needed within that envelope, but probably not the runaway it is now.
That being said the 7800X3D is an awesome and efficient chip, but 100ish W for the 9800X3D really isn't out of line for a top end gaming CPU and is still well within the envelope for a normal PSU and decent low cost air cooler. I'd imagine the vast majority of buyers are fine with the tradeoff.
I wasn't talking about comparing it to a 9700X, I was talking about the 7800X3D. The 7800X3D is also a 120W chip, but practically never gets there because of the thermal limits of its vcache structure.
Set both to 65W to normalize power, and then compare.
Imagine launching 9600 > 9950 with vanilla cores and lower TDP and then coming with 9700X > 9950X with vcache and higher TDP. Nah, lineup too simple, consumers need more bigger longer ultra AI names.If anything they should simply have launched the regular zen5 as non-X parts if they wanted to launch them at a 65W envelope.
On the contrary, they appear to be using quite normal, or even R5 quality CCDs-- which could very well explain why they chose a 5.2 max listed boost when it apparently could have easily been 5.5. Had CCDs to move, lol.Are they using golden silicon with the 9800x3D? Eg. high clocks requiring low voltage?
$999 9800XTX3D when?On the contrary, they appear to be using quite normal, or even R5 quality CCDs-- which could very well explain why they chose a 5.2 max listed boost when it apparently could have easily been 5.5. Had CCDs to move, lol.
Sold out already boys. Unless you want to pay $999 for it on Amazon.