Discussion Ryzen 9000X3D series review thread

[In2Photos]

Your post does not make sense. The 9700x has a max boost clock speed of 5500mhz. The 9800x3D has a boost in the video I posted of 5225mhz. The performance improvement of the 3D v-cache chips comes from the additional L3 cache stacked on the chips.

OK, let me reword what I meant.

From Zen 4 to Zen 5 we all agree that the non-X3D parts did not have much of a performance uplift except in some specific use cases, correct? And this was despite the fact that there was a node improvement, correct? The 9700X and 9600X had a slight max frequency boost. As a refresher here are the Zen4 and Zen 5 non-X3D specs:

7950X, 5.7GHz max, 170W TDP >>>>> 9950X, 5.7GHz, 170W TDP
7900X, 5.6GHz max, 170W TDP >>>>> 9900X, 5.6GHz, 120W TDP
7700X, 5.4GHz max, 105W TDP >>>>> 9700X, 5.5GHz, 65/105W TDP
7600X, 5.3GHz max, 105W TDP >>>>> 9600X, 5.4GHz max, 65W TDP

The Zen5 skus got a little more efficient as we saw in reviews, but not much in performance, again, except for some very specific workloads.

Performance: N4P offers an 11% performance boost over N5
Power efficiency: N4P is 22% more power efficient than N5
Transistor density: N4P has a 6% higher transistor density than N5
6% higher performance vs N4

I think the issue here is you keep thinking that all that happened between Zen4 and Zen5 was better silicon, but that isn't the case. There is a lot more behind the scenes that changed. That's why we can't just apply that 11% and 22% improvement. It's like saying a car should see a 10% reduction in 0-60 times from year to year because the engine got 10% more horsepower. But you have to look at the car as a whole. There are many components that have to put that power to the ground. There could be styling changes, weight increases, gear changes, etc inhibiting that extra 10% from showing up.

That's why I am trying to figure out why the 9800x3D uses 10-20% more power while gaming than the 7800x3D which uses N5 silicon. That is real world observed power use while gaming and not paper numbers. I included the 6% higher performance number of N4P vs. N4 as well. N4P is very good silicon and the power use does not make sense. The X3D chips were voltage restricted in the past vs. standard X chips. So the power usage should be equal to or less. With N4P silicon efficiency gains should put the power usage at 7800x3D numbers or less. The 9800x3D clocks are less than 5% higher than the 7800x3D. Well within the TSMC statistical performance gains (N4P) through silicon alone.

Maybe AMD will release bios updates addressing the higher power use in the 9800x3D.

If we apply the same performance/efficiency increase we saw on the non-X3D chips from Zen 4 to Zen5 to the 7800X3D, the 9800X3D would likely only have seen a 3%-5% increase in performance as well, possibly with a slight power efficiency increase. But the 9800X3D saw the biggest change in frequency, >200Mhz. And the price to pay for that is power. It isn't free. What happened to the 9700X when the TDP was increased from 65W to 105W? We saw a rise in synthetic benchmarks, not much in gaming. The chip was already operating in the optimal performance range of the v/f curve. Once you step outside of that the increase of performance per watt is so small.

Now, what would be interesting to see is if you back the 9800X3D down from 120W to say 100W or 95W or limit the max frequency to 5.1GHz how much performance does it lose?

To me, Zen 5 is still rather lackluster in it's performance over Zen4 when you compare what AMD has done in previous generations. I may get flamed for saying that, but I think before the release of the 9800X3D everyone would have agreed (except for Mark and some others whose specific use case saw a rather large leap in performance). I think your point is something along these lines. You expected more from Zen5 simply because of the better silicon.

 

[StefanR5R]

I may get flamed for saying that, but I think before the release of the 9800X3D everyone would have agreed (except for Mark and some others whose specific use case saw a rather large leap in performance).

If you mean by that that "everyone except Mark and some others" only looks at games: Some out of your everyones actually paid attention and looked at actual CPU-intensive game portions and at low percentile FPS, and AFAIR they did *not* entirely agree that Zen 5 was a lackluster improvement over Zen 4.

 

[poke01]

web performance also increased drastically with Zen5. We should stop thinking about IPC and look at real world tasks. There are many things that make Zen5 good

 

[Ranulf]

Straw man argument from anyone who does not already own 7800x3d. Which happens to be the majority of people making this argument.

Huh? So I have to own one of the chips to make the efficiency argument? What if I own a 7600 and want to upgrade? Not that I think it is a big deal, especially because people have cried about power efficiency and then swapped back to raw peformance when it suited them a lot over the last 10-15 years. It is an interesting question overall why the power has gone up. This is somewhat a thing because of AMD marketing/engineering again being silly with dropping the 9000 chips to 65w when they probably should have been 105w to start with the X models.

In the end, for most of these chips it is as always down to price/perf and what you want to do with the cpu. 9000 series doesn't impress me much given the costs compared to what the previous gen offers now. The 9800x3d wins because it is the top dog performance wise and cost wise since the 7800x3d is no longer $350 or so.

The big upside is we've learned how bad Windows scheduler etc. have been for years.

 

[Ranulf]

One of the incorrigible trolls we banned here,

Wait, that juan guy who hates all things amd is back?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

LULZ!

 

[gdansk]

LULZ!

<removed UserBenchmark insanity>

They're complaining about Intel facing a real risk of bankruptcy due to... lack of social media marketing?
I don't think that is what is decreasing the DC sales. Intel's consumer division is doing fine, better than AMD's. And yet the insane man complains as if AMD's popular gaming chips are the problem.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Igor is here with part one of his review - https://www.igorslab.de/en/amd-ryze...overclocked-undervolted-and-found-to-be-good/

 

[mikeymikec]

LULZ!

"the 13600K and 14600K deliver almost unparalleled real-world gaming performance..." -

I think we should dedicate a thread to PR hype comments of this caliber, e.g.:

"runner-up award winning"
"one of the CPUs of all time"

As a side note, I wonder what the chances are that every Intel fan who makes this kind of argument:
"Spending more on a gaming CPU is often pointless..."
... has an Intel i7/i9 in their gaming rig?

 

[coercitiv]

As a side note, I wonder what the chances are that every Intel fan who makes this kind of argument:
"Spending more on a gaming CPU is often pointless..."
... has an Intel i7/i9 in their gaming rig?

The base of the argument is sound, in the current market value shoppers should aim for lower cost builds that fit their needs. Riding the value wave and upgrading more often is a viable route. The rest of the argument is baloney, because randomly picking 13600K as the target for value shoppers makes no sense. First set the performance target, let's see the use case, then we discuss hardware. For example, if the target is 60FPS, maybe the 5700X3D is better suited over the 13600K, as the cost of the motherboard and RAM will be much lower. Even the 7600X is a good option with an upgrade path, and it won't be that much behind the 13600K once the Intel CPU is paired with a value memory kit, since we're talking about value shoppers who don't overspend on DDR5 7000+ memory.

Also, the more we talk about "value", the more important the socket upgrade option becomes. Not having to buy a new motherboard is the ultimate value.

Last but not least, both 13600K and 14600K are not good options for value seekers. Value includes known reliability. Anyone looking for value "Intel only" CPUs should consider the 12600K, 12700K, 12900KF and even 12900K. In my country the 12900KF is almost the same price as 14600K.

Oh darn it, I'll do the full rant.

I honestly don't know what's going through these people's heads, and I'm talking more about the traditional media reps rather than the exotic UB cognitive dissonance : when one reviews a premium CPU, whether for productivity or gaming, that products needs to be examined and rated for the premium category. The alternative is to take every $900+ GPU out there and give it 3/5 stars by default because they're way too expensive. Only then deduct any other points for power consumption and other faults.

Here's a quote from the PCMag 4090 review from the same reviewer that argues 9800X3D is an expensive esports CPU:

The sheer power of the Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090 is staggering. Currently, nothing else on the market can stand up against it. It’s also somewhat mind-blowing that Nvidia could churn out an even more powerful GeForce RTX 4090 Ti using this GPU die.

Wait a second Johnny, where's your value oriented mindset? Wait, maybe he covers this aspect in the next paragraph:

Extreme gaming performance at 4K (with some future-proofing for 8K!) is what this card is all about on the gaming front. If that's what you are after, and cost is secondary, we can’t think of a solid reason to recommend against buying a GeForce RTX 4090. At its $1,599 price point, it’s even more "affordable" than the Nvidia GeForce RTX 3090 Ti

The more you buy, the more you save!!! Let's future proof for 8K gaming lol. Well whad’ya know, Johnny knew about premium gaming products and future proofing. He just had a change of heart with 9800X3D

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D is a processor that doesn't make sense at its launch price for most folks

What can I say Johnny, good luck telling gamers what to buy, both for premium and value focused builds:

 

[DAPUNISHER]

What can I say Johnny, good luck telling gamers what to buy, both for premium and value focused builds:

I am certain they are delighted over at PCRag. This is the most engagement they have had in ages. A brief respite from their inexorable decline to obscurity, in a market where they were once a prominent player.

Reviewers can push whatever narrative they like, gamers know what's up. That's why the 9800X3D will have trouble staying in stock any time soon. Demand from the prebuilt market may be partly responsible too.

 

[lightmanek]

Very well done review from DigitalFoundry. They have looked at few games and pulled average performance increases from games which are CPU heavy, this will be more of a norm from upcoming titles me thinks.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Rich does a great job following up on Will's work. He got me to go full Beavis and Butthead when he said "to have your existing Halo product beat off the more recent competition." 🤣

Good point about how cheap the 5700X3D tray is from AliExpress. Hell of a budget banger with no need for costly cooling, boards, or ram.

 

[Ranulf]

The only major argument I have against the 9800x3d is the price. Which has been my biggest complaint with AMD for 4 years now, really since 2017. Depending on where you are in the curve/wave of upgrades or needing a new system it generally pays to wait out AMD 6-12+ months for the best value and stable products. For many people, the price/perf is just not worth it for their needs and historically I just do not like seeing an 8core cpu be $450.

 

[inquiss]

The only major argument I have against the 9800x3d is the price. Which has been my biggest complaint with AMD for 4 years now, really since 2017. Depending on where you are in the curve/wave of upgrades or needing a new system it generally pays to wait out AMD 6-12+ months for the best value and stable products. For many people, the price/perf is just not worth it for their needs and historically I just do not like seeing an 8core cpu be $450.

I think the sales figures suggest that, for many people, the value is there. This top end CPU, undisputed king, is considerably cheaper than intels top CPUs of yore. That's before you count general inflation.

Of course only you can say what you want to get out of it and what you want to pay, so it's no comment on that.

Considering the other costs of components on the system, then this is a relatively small part for the overall cost and I think this thing will sell really well for a long time. If anything I think they underpriced it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

historically I just do not like seeing an 8 core cpu be $450.

This is nonsense. Intel sold 6 core as HEDT before Ryzen merked that market, for significantly more $$$ even before adjusting for inflation. The i7 4930K MSRP was $594. That's approximately $814 now. It's that simple. Nevermind what $1000 single cores from decades ago are in adjusted $. Historically you are getting more CPU for your money right now. The i7 from a decade ago is $430+ in today's money for 4/8. I think I've made my point.

 

[Thunder 57]

The only major argument I have against the 9800x3d is the price. Which has been my biggest complaint with AMD for 4 years now, really since 2017. Depending on where you are in the curve/wave of upgrades or needing a new system it generally pays to wait out AMD 6-12+ months for the best value and stable products. For many people, the price/perf is just not worth it for their needs and historically I just do not like seeing an 8core cpu be $450.

The market decides the price. Considering it's having lots of stock issues and is selling well means that many are more than willing to pay for it. I don't like the price either. I don't see the value, therefore I don't buy it. Simple.

 

[Ranulf]

This is nonsense. Intel sold 6 core as HEDT before Ryzen merked that market, for significantly more $$$ even before adjusting for inflation. The i7 4930K MSRP was $594. That's approximately $814 now. It's that simple. Nevermind what $1000 single cores from decades ago are in adjusted $. Historically you are getting more CPU for your money right now. The i7 from a decade ago is $430+ in today's money for 4/8. I think I've made my point.

No, it is the same argument often used for gpu price increases giving us x60 class cards with a 128bit bus and 8gb vram at $300-400. You're not getting more for your money overall, not with such deals as the "mid range" at $200, some of the end of gen deals on 8 core chips at $220-250 or last gen stuff at $130. Bringing up inflation for something that is a luxury good and also bringing up HEDT which existed because Intel had the top end monopoly for consumer and "high end" consumer desktop doesn't convince me. Most people were buying an i5 k model and overclocking them at $225-250. Ryzen broke up HEDT and gave us performance jumps and price cuts.

As Thunder mentions, the price works because of demand at least for the next 6-12 months historically and we'll see some price drops hopefully. This is some of the same mumbo jumbo price debates we saw 4 years ago with the 5000 series. Which had a $300 5600X that was the same perf of a $350 i7 8700k three years earlier. Oh wow, such a deal at $50 cheaper.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Bringing up inflation for something that is a luxury good and also bringing up HEDT which existed because Intel had the top end monopoly for consumer and "high end" consumer desktop doesn't convince me.

Who gives a 💩? Facts do not require your acquiescence.

 

[CP5670]

Are there any 4K benchmarks comparing 9800X3D and 7800X3D? All the youtube videos I see are 1080p, it would help to see more realistic conditions.

 

[poke01]

The 9800X3D and things like the 4090 are halo products that are also top in their fields.

There is a difference between expensive products and overpriced products. There is nothing like the 9800X3D or 4090 so AMD can charge $500 even for 8 cores and Nvidia can charge $1600-$2000 for a GPU.

These sell because there is huge demand. Take the 285K, it’s priced high but there is no demand, so prices will come down. This is a halo product that’s not good in all fields in supposed to be good in.

The 9800X3D will at best stick to MSRP for the next 6 months.

For a gamer 9800X3D is bar none the best CPU, for a dev not so much. It all depends on your needs.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Are there any 4K benchmarks comparing 9800X3D and 7800X3D? All the youtube videos I see are 1080p, it would help to see more realistic conditions

Userbenchmark is that you?

 

[Hans Gruber]

Are there any 4K benchmarks comparing 9800X3D and 7800X3D? All the youtube videos I see are 1080p, it would help to see more realistic conditions.

Glad you asked. I found an i3 4C 8T vs. 9800x3D in 4k

 

[CP5670]

Userbenchmark is that you?

No 7800X3D in there. They do have a big comparison video but it's all 1080p. Trying to find another video from them with 7800X3D at 4K.

I would guess big open world RPGs and sims would benefit the most, those games are always CPU bottlenecked.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

No 7800X3D in there. They do have a big comparison video but it's all 1080p. Trying to find another video from them with 7800X3D at 4K.

You did not watch the video. Steve explains everything.

My hot take -