Unless they unify the L3 across them, there would be zero gaming benefit, at the detriment of being a lot more expensive.Why not? They would "waste" less X3D chiplets per CPU, but they'd literally leave performance on the table. Keep the scheduling issues (that are a dealebreaker for some). And keep the 7900X3D as a zombie unsellable CPU ...
There would be nothing special in having two X3D CCDs. They've done it in servers and it would behave as any other 12/16 core AM5 part.
Unifying could make (a little) sense if the 3D part were L4, but as it is all one big shared L3, the latency from CCD1 -> X3D -> CCD2 and back would be horrible for a L3.
Not to mention unifying 2 CCDs would only help desktop chips. Going through all that trouble only minimally helping the (surely upcoming) server parts, makes even less sense.
Being he was the only one I saw mention that I tend to agree he's speculating.I really think hes just speculating / pulling that out of his arse. Personally I think there is .001% chance that they do that...UNLESS theyve figured out a way to UNIFY both CCDs across a single huge L3 and choose to do it this gen. I think the chances are even less of that though.
The only reason I can think NOT to add vcache to both CCDs is that it could hurt sales of non-X3D parts (not speaking to possible technical reasons). The 9800X3D kind of makes the 9700X pointless except the 9700X costs less. But if the 9800X3D out performs the 9700X in nearly all areas I think most would just go for the X3D version. But yields are less for X3D versions right? It takes more time to make the chips? This would reduce the amount of chips they could produce if they only sold X3D versions. If AMD could make the X3D chips compete with their non-X3D versions in non-gaming scenarios and dominate in gaming scenarios there's really no need for non-X3D versions, unless there's a big enough price gap.Why not? They would "waste" less X3D chiplets per CPU, but they'd literally leave performance on the table. Keep the scheduling issues (that are a dealebreaker for some). And keep the 7900X3D as a zombie unsellable CPU ...
There would be nothing special in having two X3D CCDs. They've done it in servers and it would behave as any other 12/16 core AM5 part.
Unifying could make (a little) sense if the 3D part were L4, but as it is all one big shared L3, the latency from CCD1 -> X3D -> CCD2 and back would be horrible for a L3.
Not to mention unifying 2 CCDs would only help desktop chips. Going through all that trouble only minimally helping the (surely upcoming) server parts, makes even less sense.
I believe this is what they will do and furthermore, since they tend to cheap out in consumer product scenarios, they will share a SINGLE 64MB V-cache die between the two CCDs, with half the V-cache on one CCD's L3 and the other half on the other.Unless they unify the L3 across them, there would be zero gaming benefit, at the detriment of being a lot more expensive.
Single 64MB would be plenty when everything unified would give 128MB of L3. As you said, they are notorious for "cheaping out" on consumer stuff. I think they very much like to trickle or tip-toe tech down to consumer, which is why I believe they will still just aim low and make 9950X just like the 7950X with the only difference being the new L3 placement and clocks. I'd love to be wrong though.I believe this is what they will do and furthermore, since they tend to cheap out in consumer product scenarios, they will share a SINGLE 64MB V-cache die between the two CCDs, with half the V-cache on one CCD's L3 and the other half on the other.
Other "cheap" possibility is that they figure out how to unify the two L3 caches of the two CCDs and then stack a 64MB V-cache die at the bottom.
Third possibility of each CCD receiving its own V-cache die would just mean AMD splurging on consumer product for some very good reason like pricing 9950X3D at $999.
@Gideon I don't know how I nerfed attribution here, but gratitude for turning me on to PurePC.I have to say I really like the methodology of this Polish reviewer (use google translate if needed) on testing tuned settings and CPU bottlenecked scenarios:
Why are some games ray tracing enabled, when it is widely known that it additionally burdens the graphics card? This is partly true, but the above statement is imprecise, because ray tracing also affects the CPU utilization. The relationship between CPU/GPU depends on the implementation of ray tracing in specific titles, because in some cases the GPU utilization can even drop, while the CPU load increases. For example - Spider Man Remastered, Hogwarts Legacy or Dying Light 2 practically do not change the relationship between components, although enabling ray tracing reduces the overall performance, which allows you to check the configurations in the most demanding scenario.
We will see how things change in Strix Halo, that will not have this bottleneck.No?
The main limitation for 1CCD parts (and 1t/8t perf in general) is GMI3-N link.
GPU bound test area, that's all. They seem to get more right than wrong. They could have been lazy and ran the canned bench as some other reviewers did.They must be the only reviewer showing the 9800X3D losing in Cyberpunk 2077.
The pros for dual vcache CCD:Unless they unify the L3 across them, there would be zero gaming benefit, at the detriment of being a lot more expensive.
I checked UserBenchmark, and they said you'll be heavily bottlenecked and should switch to an Ultra 5 245K.Guy's will 9800x3d + b650E-E strix + T-force 2x24GB 8200mt/s cl38 bottleneck my 6800xt at 480p ?
Lets just look how much better X3D Zen 5 is compared to standard Zen5 in productivity apps at the same clock.The pros for dual vcache CCD:
-Less scheduling issues
-Extra performance in memory bound work loads, which it seems like Zen5 could be
-Sell at a higher price for higher margins
-homogeneous EPYC for AM5
So is this the processor for anyone just looking to game? Obviously not.
Sure gamers who buy 5090 at release will also buy the 9950X3D at release.
But it is the processor for companies running game servers, who don't want no scheduling issues. It is for everyone who can take advantage of 16 cores for their software and also game.
I don't think it is the socket.Only possible IF Zen 6 has more memory bandwidth available.
Latency is not the limiting factor, but bandwidth starts to be.
And that will possible ONLY with new socket.
They added a 9800X3D bundle yesterday. The CPU price is $80 more than the 7800X3D bundle price but still pretty cool they did this already. That didn't take long. Bundle is life!Just a quick 9800x3d availability update:
Yesterday, all 5 Micro Center stores in NYC area started with 25+ stock counts, and all 5 sold out by mid afternoon.
Today, 4 of the 5 stores were re-stocked (around mid day) and are all 4 are showing with 25+ quantities in stock.
(25+ could be 26, could be 40, could be 50 or 100. We don't know)
I checked UserBenchmark, and they said you'll be heavily bottlenecked and should switch to an Ultra 5 245K.
I wasn't talking about software performance, but hardware bottlenecks. Latency on hardware level is not the problem with current tech. Bandwidth starts to be.I don't think it is the socket.
It isn't correct to say "Latency is not the limiting factor" since without context, it isn't true. Many (most) applications are much more latency bound than they are bandwidth bound.
MT applications of a certain type become memory bandwidth bound (like rendering video) as there is really no way to do anything cute other than move information into memory, process it, and move it out to memory/disk. It's really mostly a big memory pump with processing in the middle. Get enough processing going, and it is limited by bandwidth.
With AGESA updates, many people have gotten AM5 up to 8000MT/sec I understand. From what I can tell, the infinity fabric becomes the bottleneck, and this is on the processor, not the MB or socket so I see no reason that a future Zen 6 on AM5 couldn't do some serious bandwidth updates over the current Zen 5.
Finally, having a metric crap ton (it's an engineering term) of L3 cache can greatly reduce the amount of transfers needed from main memory in many applications ..... just not those that are essentially memory pumps .
If I am off base here, please someone calibrate me.
or PCMag
hello are you gpu limited by any chance ? you can use capframex to see gpu usage thx
This is whatever the bios defaults are on an Asus x670e creator with ddr6000 c28Zen 5 has been dethroned in Jetstream 2 by M4 Max, so anybody with a well tuned 9950X/9700X want to beat this score?
This was quite a big jump, M3 Max scored 311 in this test, slower than a 7950X
View attachment 111317
great score, hopefully someone tests the M4 Max using Chrome/firefox so we get a more fairer test.This is whatever the bios defaults are on an Asus x670e creator with ddr6000 c28