Review Zen4 3D review thread

[Hitman928]

Thread to focus on Zen4 3D cache CPUs.

New gaming king (as most expected), though the 2 CCD 7950x3d does seem to have issues with some games, more than I would expect of it getting stuck on the "wrong" CCD. I imagine it will get cleared up with subsequent updates but we'll see. Simulated 7800X3D showed no such issues and overall has the gaming lead (real product might be slightly slower though depending on in game clocks).

Computerbase also has the 7950x3d as the gaming champ. They (and TPU) also show that efficiency while gaming is extremely good.

Ryzen 9 7950X3D im Test gegen 5800X3D und 13900K(S)

Zen 4 3D ist da. Im Test erweist sich AMDs Ryzen 9 7950X3D gegen 7950X, 5800X3D und Core i9-13900K(S) als schnell und effizient.

www.computerbase.de

Just to toot my own horn a little, it landed spot on with my prediction of fastest gaming CPU but not significantly so over a 13900k on average, but with much higher efficiency.

Additional reviews, will add more later.

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor review

We review the new Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor from AMD. The much-anticipated processor series comes with an added cache that will help predominantly with gaming. This processor series was designed for ...

www.guru3d.com

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review - Best of Both Worlds

The Ryzen 9 7950X3D is the spearhead of the AMD Zen 4 X3D lineup. In our performance review we test AMD's new 16-core flagship with dozens of applications and 14 games at up to 4K, to see whether AMD can take the performance crown from Intel, how power consumption is affected, and what can be...

www.techpowerup.com

The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review: AMD's Fastest Gaming Processor

www.anandtech.com

Gamers Nexus

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Linux Performance Review - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review: AMD Retakes Gaming Crown with 3D V-Cache

AMD takes a bite out of Raptor Lake.

www.tomshardware.com

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D review: Team Red retakes the lead with its best CPU ever

The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is the best gaming CPU there is, and it's not close

www.techradar.com

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Well, yes...wish away because that is what many have done for years when inflation was no where near what it is now but everyone in the PC realm blamed it for every increase to justify purchases. The value of a 5800x3d dropped 33% in less than a year.

It's the nature of tech. That it depreciates over time. In other news, water is wet.

 

[biostud]

Purely from a gaming perspective there are four processors (and maybe the bastard 7900X3D) that is in the top tier 13900K, 13700K, 7950X3D and 7800X3D, and unless you do work that take good use of MT then you really only should consider the 13700K and the 7800X3D, as the gaming performance of all these processors are really close. Obviously if you play games that specifically favors any of the two designs, you should take that into consideration. But outside benchmarks you would probably never notice.

 

[Joe NYC]

Well, yes...wish away because that is what many have done for years when inflation was no where near what it is now but everyone in the PC realm blamed it for every increase to justify purchases. The value of a 5800x3d dropped 33% in less than a year.

It is the price that dropped. But the value dropped as well. It was near the top as a gaming CPU at its introduction, but it was surpassed by Raptor Lake and now by 7800x3d.

 

[Ranulf]

It's the nature of tech. That it depreciates over time. In other news, water is wet.

Obviously. The debate is over price/performance. Forgive me if I think a $150 drop in value in less than a year is extreme.

 

[gdansk]

Obviously. The debate is over price/performance. Forgive me if I think a $150 drop in value in less than a year is extreme.

Is it though? Every time a new architecture launches this happens.
As the 5800X3D was a late update to Zen 3 and thus *close* to the launch of Zen 4 it would face depreciation sooner.
Just like how the 12900KS is a late launched Alder Lake part. That's worth about how much now? About $200-300 of depreciation in a year?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Obviously. The debate is over price/performance. Forgive me if I think a $150 drop in value in less than a year is extreme

Your opinions are your own, and you are entitled to them. As @Joe NYC pointed out, zen 4 and raptor landed. That was the primary factor in the price drop.

 

[AtenRa]

The same 8-cores again and again at the same price? When we only had single core CPUs, did this reasoning still apply?

Are you suggesting to return to single core ??

 

[Joe NYC]

Are you suggesting to return to single core ??

AMD currently has perhaps 8 desktop 8 core models, all differ from each other, each with a different price point. Let me try to list them:

7800x3d
7700x
7700
5800x3d
5800x
5800
5800G
5700X
5700G

Using your logic, they should all be same price from the day of introduction to the day they are discontinued

 

[Aapje]

Six cores already seem to be plenty for gaming, which is heavily limited by the speed of the cores, not the amount, as long as you are above a certain minimum of cores. More cores is mostly meaningful for productivity apps, but there it seems that you get so power limited that it works better to have a bunch of e-cores, rather than a ton of p-cores.

Apparently AMD recognized this as well and is going for e-cores too, so in the future we may see 6+4 chiplets or such.

 

[A///]

8 is a safe number these days. AMD may have realized there's no logical way of adding more cores without the overall cpu size growing larger when real estate on a mobo is sacred to begin with nowadays or that do so may involve making their processors into heat traps and having to reduce to pull it off. AMD also talked about active dimming of functions on a processor when it wasn't in use or needed saving power and reducing heat production. It was the video where one of their employees had a fireside chat about the future of Ryzen.

 

[In2Photos]

I paid $289 in February of 2009 for a 4/8 CPU. When I started considering a new build a few years ago I was honestly surprised that we hadn't progressed much past that. Then the 3900X came out and it seemed to start kicking things in gear. Should be fun to see where we go from here.

 

[Markfw]

Six cores already seem to be plenty for gaming, which is heavily limited by the speed of the cores, not the amount, as long as you are above a certain minimum of cores. More cores is mostly meaningful for productivity apps, but there it seems that you get so power limited that it works better to have a bunch of e-cores, rather than a ton of p-cores.

Apparently AMD recognized this as well and is going for e-cores too, so in the future we may see 6+4 chiplets or such.

This is a 3d review thread. What does your reply have to do with ? Its off-topic.

 

[AtenRa]

AMD currently has perhaps 8 desktop 8 core models, all differ from each other, each with a different price point. Let me try to list them:

7800x3d
7700x
7700
5800x3d
5800x
5800
5800G
5700X
5700G

Using your logic, they should all be same price from the day of introduction to the day they are discontinued

All 5000 cpus are almost 3 years old tech, they should been EOL today and replaced by the 7000 at all price range from 100 to 500 USD. That would constitute progression.
Instead we only get a ~15-20% Single Thread performance increase at the same price as 2.5 years ago. Every ~6 years we need to get a core increase supplemented by the IPC increases otherwise we stagnate.

 

[biostud]

All 5000 cpus are almost 3 years old tech, they should been EOL today and replaced by the 7000 at all price range from 100 to 500 USD. That would constitute progression.
Instead we only get a ~15-20% Single Thread performance increase at the same price as 2.5 years ago. Every ~6 years we need to get a core increase supplemented by the IPC increases otherwise we stagnate.

Well, doesn't it kinda depend on whether software can make good use of the extra cores? Since we have not seen any signs of 12 or 16 cores benefits gaming, why would we need more cores as the standard?

 

[ryanjagtap]

Just my take on this issue....

This is akin to a needs vs want situation. We want more cores, but do we really need them on the mainstream/gaming platform? Also the generational improvement on those cores are not miniscule either, so we are not lacking in computational power as well.

I think AMD should make the HEDT platform economical for the consumers who need more PCIE lanes. 16C/32T is more than enough for most consumers who game as well as dabble in content creation. But if the generational uplift in the performance of these cores become small, then we can say that there is stagnation.

 

[biostud]

Just my take on this issue....

This is akin to a needs vs want situation. We want more cores, but do we really need them on the mainstream/gaming platform? Also the generational improvement on those cores are not miniscule either, so we are not lacking in computational power as well.

I think AMD should make the HEDT platform economical for the consumers who need more PCIE lanes. 16C/32T is more than enough for most consumers who game as well as dabble in content creation. But if the generational uplift in the performance of these cores become small, then we can say that there is stagnation.

From my perspective, CPU progression atm is actually quite healthy and dynamic. I really don't see any major bottlenecks for mainstream users, and the cost is not insanely high ($249-$569) from a 7600X to a 13900K, when the cost of video cards are in the price range $599-$1499 for a 4070 to a 4090.

 

[Aapje]

This is a 3d review thread. What does your reply have to do with ? Its off-topic.

I'm part of the discussion that maddie, AtenRa, biostud and ryanjagtap are having. Why are you calling me out specifically?

This is really weird, especially since I was actually much more on topic than many other replies, since I pointed out that for gaming, which seems to be the primarily use case for 3D, you typically don't really need many cores. So why are you telling me off when I'm actually more on topic than comments that you ignore?

 

[Aapje]

From my perspective, CPU progression atm is actually quite healthy and dynamic. I really don't see any major bottlenecks for mainstream users, and the cost is not insanely high ($249-$569) from a 7600X to a 13900K, when the cost of video cards are in the price range $599-$1499 for a 4070 to a 4090.

I think that it really depends on whether Intel can get back on track. Right now Intel is sacrificing margins to remain competitive, while AMD seems to have excessive margins on many products. This is not necessarily something that Intel can keep doing long term.

The main difference with the GPU market seems that AMD is not willing to sacrifice margins to have a higher market share than the quality of their products warrant.

The ideal situation for consumers is when competitiveness is due the companies being at the peak of their game, so they can sell extremely good products for good prices while having healthy, but not excessive margins.

 

[coercitiv]

All 5000 cpus are almost 3 years old tech, they should been EOL today and replaced by the 7000 at all price range from 100 to 500 USD. That would constitute progression.

6 years ago AMD launched the R5 1600 for ~$220. Adjusted for inflation that would be around $270.

Today we can buy the R5 7600 for ~$230. According to Techpowerup's Applications benchmark, a mix of ST and MT workloads, the 7600 offers 140% more performance over the R5 1600. The lack of progress is astounding. /s

 

[DAPUNISHER]

We are in a thread discussing 2nd gen stacked V-cache technology on desktop CPUs. A tech that has been available for a year now. Only on Bizzaro world would that be called stagnation. But sure, let's constrain innovation to core count vs price because reasons.

 

[biostud]

I think that it really depends on whether Intel can get back on track. Right now Intel is sacrificing margins to remain competitive, while AMD seems to have excessive margins on many products. This is not necessarily something that Intel can keep doing long term.

The main difference with the GPU market seems that AMD is not willing to sacrifice margins to have a higher market share than the quality of their products warrant.

The ideal situation for consumers is when competitiveness is due the companies being at the peak of their game, so they can sell extremely good products for good prices while having healthy, but not excessive margins.

Haven't you seen all the nice power point slides from Intel, they will be competitive soon enough

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Haven't you seen all the nice power point slides from Intel, they will be competitive soon enough

Plenty of innovation happening there too. CPU market is the most exciting it's been in ages.

 

[biostud]

Plenty of innovation happening there too. CPU market is the most exciting it's been in ages.

Yeah I don't understand the worries, hopefully Intel can help disrupt the GPU market, but I doubt it :/

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Yeah I don't understand the worries, hopefully Intel can help disrupt the GPU market, but I doubt it :/

While it is offtopic, I'll make one quick reply on it. Intel is already disrupting the GPU market. Every card they sell would have went to another vendor. I doubt either of the other companies are thumbing their noses about it. AMD especially has to be sweating it. They compete on value and ARC is some software stability and price drop away from it getting spicy in the lower tiers.

On the 7800X3D: This kid is a spaz, but he has some gameplay at least.

 

[AtenRa]

6 years ago AMD launched the R5 1600 for ~$220. Adjusted for inflation that would be around $270.

Today we can buy the R5 7600 for ~$230. According to Techpowerup's Applications benchmark, a mix of ST and MT workloads, the 7600 offers 140% more performance over the R5 1600. The lack of progress is astounding. /s

6 years ago Intel had Core i5 7600K at $242, AMD brought Ryzen 1600X at $249 and completely destroyed the i5

AMD Ryzen 5 1600X 3.6 GHz Review

The Ryzen 5 1600X is AMD's flagship Ryzen 5 processor model. It comes at an affordable $250, with a base clock of 3.6 GHz. Thanks to AMD XFR, it will boost up to 4.1 GHz, which helps gain single-threaded performance over Intel's offerings. It looks like Core i5-7600K is in trouble.

www.techpowerup.com

Lets see what AMD brought this year with Ryzen 7600X at MSRP of $300 vs the Intel Core i5 12600K @ MSRP of $320

AMD Ryzen 5 7600X Review - Affordable Zen 4 for Gaming

Ryzen 5 7600X is the company's most affordable offering for the Zen 4 family. Our review of the 7600X confirms that this new $300 CPU offers huge performance gains over Zen 3, and can even beat the Ryzen 5800X3D in gaming. In applications, the 7600X is faster than the Intel Core i9-11900K.

www.techpowerup.com

8-cores at $450 in 2023 is not progression people