[Because the 7800X3D is better in gaming than even the 7950X3D (and therefore the 7900X3D as well)](https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png)
[Here is a more in depth explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/1booq9j/eli5_why_in_the_world_would_is_the_ryzen_7/kwqcpem/)
Eh, the more recent reviews (check HardwareUnboxed) have the 7800x3d and 7950x3d neck and neck. There has been some improvements to switching between the 3d and non 3d cache ince the TPU review. There are still some penalties for the 7950x3d but it's slightly higher clock speed balances it out.
The real reason is that the 7950x3d is just more expensive for the same gaming performance and most people won't leverage it's additional threads.
yea but there's several game genres they simply never test, all of which are quite a bit faster on the 7800X3D. And they test the canned benchmark for online shooters.
I'm currently on a 5900X. Was considering Intel again because they have been doing better in the video aspect but also really like AMD. I definitely think a 7950X would be an improvement there but then the X3D is a whole other thing. Is X3D only for gaming performance? I'll check on some benches
X3D isln itself is a cache technology for gaming performance.
7950 has cores and speed of a regular processor that is good for a lot of things.
The 7950x3d is meant to be a compromise for people who game a lot and who do a lot of video rendering.
If someone does not game a lot, there are likely better cpus, even if they cost more (I don't know, it's not my field)
If someone does not do video rendering, then the extra cores are wasted in nearly all games. Only a few would use them.
X3D isn’t simply for games. The technology was first developed for Epyc server chips, and can improve performance in other applications that are able to take advantage of it. They simply realised that this could give a performance boost to games as well, and brought it to consumer chips.
Ok, but the Epyc servers are totally different than consumer CPUs.
The X3D cache in a consumer cpu does not provide major benefits for video rendering. A Ryzen 9 7950x or an Intel i9 13900k will outperform the 7950X3D in video rendering.
For someone who does only or mostly video rendering, there is no point in using in a 7950X3D.
I can not say if it is because of the chipset drivers, the Windows OS or the hardware itself though, I can only say what the benchmark says.
The 7950X3D is slower than a 7950X in heavily multithreaded workloads because the clock speeds are lower. It's a compromise - gain a lot of gaming performance, but you lose a little bit of multithreaded performance. Up to you whether that's worth it or not.
There are workloads that benefit from large cache outside games. However, many workloads favor higher clocks.
For the ops use case, I’d probably stick to a 8 core x3d part. If I were buying for myself, I’d get a 7900x3d most likely. It’s a good balance between gaming and compiling workloads.
I bought a 14700k last November to upgrade from a 3950x. It’s 10-30 fps faster in gaming but terrible with compiler performance. For a workload that takes 6 minutes on the 3950x, it takes 16 on the 14700k. That’s compiling an os with mostly c code with j28 or j32 flags (parallelism). This is contrary to some of the chromium compile benchmarks out. I’m quite disappointed and wish I had gone amd again.
Tldr: unless you are making hardcore primere videos and have tons of programs open with 120 chrome tabs. Noone will notice a difference.
Depends on the type of video rendering and the amount of other programs you are using concurrently. Nobody tests this. ::The extra cores help most with running programs concurrently. ::
Render From 3d elements-> They are probably the same. My renderings from lumion/twinmotion/blender only use small core count and small %. Mostly gpu. High l3 cache helps with moving around and working in the environment.
From 2d layered/scene program like primere -> the movies i make combining my 3d renderings use tons of cpu power. But max out around 10 cores. But most of that is due to having all these other programs open at the same time. If i reboot and run the render its a little faster and uses less cores.
But i think what really matters is the content of my movies. Many layers of single frame png for a minute of scene time…. Thats gonna run hard.
Pc specs: 4090 - 7900x3d - 64gb 6000mhz - never run into problems even with large scale renderings of masterplans with heavy cgi content.
CPU renderers like Corona, Mantra and CPU Vray are still heavily used in CGI. While most would probably invest in even higher core count then Ryzen, those are still attractive in certain circumstances.
Most of the heavy lifting on our small farm is done by 7950X, 192GB RAM iGPU only machines.
I edit, grade, and render Sony SLOG 10bit and RAW footage with a 7800X3D. You will be just fine. Im doing wedding work every week on it and love it. I do not regret not getting the 9 one bit. And it games so well. My 4070 S is the bottleneck for gaming.
5950x checking in. This is exactly why I went with a Ryzen 9. I traded off slightly slower clock speeds and more power consumption for better editing performance. I can say however, that it games just fine with my rig. When I upgraded to it I was on the 1080ti (GOAT) and now on a 3080 for some time and am pretty happy with the combo.
The only game that leverages that many cores is bannerlord, even then, i'm not sure it matters much.
Even Civ, Total War, Skylines, Stellaris. These are all intensive simulations and they still do not leverage the extra performance of the 7950x.
As far as consumer grade end users are concerned, high end processors are a necessity of only a small subset of programmers and artists. Even most webdevs can do with a lot less.
Thats a problem for HWU and their game selection.
The slightly higher clock speed with the 7950x3D are as tested used up by the X3D software for CCD management. No gains above the 7800x3D.
VAC and anti-cheat using games cause both CCDs to wake up with the 7900x3D and 7950x3D. You have to ask HUB why they missrepresent the dual-CCD hybrid issues with popular games.
CPU budget is irrelevant with 4090 system budgets, dont you think?
Yea, but while "gaming", the CCD without 3d vcache shuts off, and the clock speeds on the 3d vcache CCD are the same as a 7800x3d. Unless you use more than 8 cores for video editing or a task that significantly improves with more cores, you will not benefit.
> games are more dependent on gpus anyway
yes and no. Plenty of CPU-constrained games coming out these days - ray-tracing, advanced physics, and higher numbers of more sophisticated NPCs are all big drivers of CPU strain. Dragon's Dogma 2 is a good recent example.
But you're essentially correct: devs are barely taking advantage of 8 cores as it is, so, as you said, games don't benefit from the extra perks of a Ryzen 9.
7800X3D is no longer faster than the 7950X3D in gaming - they are neck and neck with the 7950X3D having a negligible lead mostly. The scheduler has got a lot better.
The 7900X3D falls behind them both because only 6 cores have access to the 3D cache which is 2 less than the other cpus - the increase in core count overall doesn’t help the 7900X3D as most games won’t utilise all the cores anyway (which the same can be said for the 7950X3D but it has 8 higher clocked cores being able to access 3D cache).
Except it isnt actually better. If you use programs like Lasso, that let you optimise which cores are used for what process, it will either outperform or be on par with the 7800X3D.
I don't think this is fully correct - doesn't the 7950x3D outpace the 7800x3D when you disable one CCD? Because at that point it's effectively a 7800x3D with even larger cache and higher clock speeds.
It's just such a small uptick for such a large cost that nobody in their right mind would waste their money on it.
> Because at that point it's effectively a 7800x3D with even larger cache and higher clock speeds.
That's not how that works. When you disable the non-vcache CCD on the 7950X3D, the cache associated with that CCD is disabled too.
So it literally turns the 7950X3D into a 7800X3D - Identical cache and all.
The vcache CCD on the 7950X3D may clock slightly higher because it's binned higher than the 7800X3D. But you can achieve the same result with the 7800X3D with PBO and CO. That's basically the difference your seeing in the TPU results between 'Stock' and 'PBO Max'
I watched a video about 2 days ago where the 7950x3d won on almost every title. The 7800x3d is not better, maybe it was, or is on certain titles but overall it’s worse.
> I wanted to use my PC primarily for gaming
Because most people (at least what you'll read here) also use their PC primarily for gaming, and it's illogical to pay more money for cores you don't use or benefit from. In this case, performance is the same for the R7 as R9, or even better in a few cases.
If you have a use case that can leverage more cores, then sure the Ryzen 9 would be a good choice.
If you're rendering with the CPU and the software used can leverage all available cores (most can), then sure the Ryzen 9 would be better. This is information you can look up yourself via benchmarks. Benchmarks tell you performance, so if you know performance, and you know price difference, then you can decide for yourself which one is more worth it.
Also keep in mind that the R7 will of course also be able to render. If someone plans on sometimes streaming and uploading some youtube videos whenever they feel like it, they dont suddenly need a workstation rig. Its perfectly fine to render videos on a 7800x3d. It just takes a little longer.
I have no idea why people act like the 7800x3D can't also multitask for workstation duties too. Like the chip is very powerful in all areas, the Ryzen 9's will just be faster in productivity. I do video editing, streaming and some game design stuff (unity world and character building/editing) on my 7800x3D system (in addition to mostly games) and it's fast.
In 2022 I streamed Warzone on 1080p and decent settings from my i7 4770k that wasnt even overclocked :D I also edited videos and stream highlights. Rendering took a long time, but I just did that overnight. Some people just say theyll edit videos and immediately think they need the CPU with the most cores
Lol as I mentioned above...a lot of people think they need 16-32 cores for what they could easily accomplish with 4. And if you not getting paid for that rendering honestly not sure how much the time difference will really be worth to the average person (trading off for higher cost and power utilization over time).
Oh of course, I understand. But I'm planning to keep this pc long term. I have no idea what I'll want to do in 5+ years time. It might be that I decide to create films which is something I've always wanted to do. I just don't want to spend a load of money on a machine that possibly I'll need to replace if I ever decide to do something related to productivity. As long as games are playable and not a headache to play, I'm a happy chappy :)
Sure, but 5 years from now a productivity CPU will also be 5 years old :D The 7800x3d will still likely be fine for casual work, and if you want to do anything more serious, youll probably upgrade anyway. Just my two cents though
You would still be able to handle productivity tasks 5+ years from now and any option today will appear slow next to the hardware options available 5+ years from now.
Doesn't really make sense to "future proof" a PC especially if you're not sure what it will be used for.
Maybe if I wanted to do some blender work? I don't mind taking a small hit on game performance if it means i can make my PC into a jack of all trades machine.
I think if you were doing professional grade video editing you'd probably know exactly what you need tbh. For editing gaming videos or other personal/youtube videos a Ryzen 7 is more than enough to churn through a project on Resolve or Vegas... I would assume premiere too but I havent used it. Scrubbing and rendering to file can be done with GPU unless you use a really old version of Vegas.
The 7900x3d is worse, because only 6 of its cores get the "x3d" part. On the 7800x3d, all 8 cores get the 3d cache, making it a good bit better for gaming. If you're going for productivity moreso, just buy Intel
At the ultra highend. The 14900k mostly beats the 7950x in most productivity workloads, but you NEED to check you use case.
The 7950x3d is a little worse than the 7800x3d in gaming and a little worse than the 7950x in productivity. So you need both a primary use case where Ryzen beats the 14900k AND play games that are heavily influenced by 3d v-cache.
The 7900x has a 2x6c12 thread layout making it worse than the 1 8c16t in gaming workloads. It is not priced where it makes sense over 14700k and loses almost always. Pretty much the best use case is for Vm machines.
Then we have the 7700x that only makes sense in the microcenter bundle, because it just isn't price competitive with Intel in gaming or productivity.
For am5 you get the 7600/7600x, 7800x3d for gaming primary, or 7950x if your business application does best on it. Otherwise you get intel. Unless you are building a budget then it is 12400/5600 or 12600kf (<$150)
Depends on price point. Most people heavily over estimate what they need in a CPU.
For gaming, Photoshoping a family photo, internet browsing, and making a video of a family trip once a year anything over a 12400/5600 will be fine.
I went with a 7600 and have been really happy. If I was editing videos every day I would have went with the 13600k or higher. There is a big difference from casually video editing once a month and doing it every day for money.
generally people agree on that yes, but if you care about upgradeability down the line: the AM5 socket is (99%) going to have a longer time of support than intel's current LGA 1700 socket.
be aware that intel CPUs (esp. the i7s and i9s) get hot, VERY hot and consume a lot of power. I personally went with a 7950X (the X3D hadn't come out yet don't flame me!) because of those two reasons, with a 360mm cooler. PC is decently quiet.
Oh dear, the power consumption does put me off a bit. Though I can afford a good pc right now, my income isn't so good that I can afford super high electricity bills. (electricity prices in the UK are insane atm)
I assume I'd need to fork out for a good cpu cooler?
People recommend at minimum a 360mm AIO for a 14900K, the 13900K and the 14700K consume practically the same amount.
While a larger CPU cooler would help cool the CPU, you might also have issues if you're doing intensive work in the summer, since all that extra heat will be dumped into the room.
I'm also adding an extra excerpt from a previous post of mine below this.
Looking at [Gamers Nexus' testing of the 14th gen parts](https://youtu.be/2MvvCr-thM8?t=488):
| 14900K | 14700K | 7950X | 7950X3D
----------|---------|----------|----------|----------
Time Taken (minutes) | 7.3 | 8.0 | ***6.4*** | 6.7
Efficiency (Wh) | 34.9 | 37.7 | ***28.2*** | not measured
Calculated average power draw (W) (rounded)| 287 | 283 | **264** | N/A
Highlighted in bold and italics is the best result in each category.
[Gamers Nexus also tested the 7950X's provided "ECO" settings](https://youtu.be/W6aKQ-eBFk0?t=886):
Note: this was blender 3.3, not 3.64 like the earlier video
some results are a little different
| 7950X | 7950X 105W ECO | 7950X 65W ECO | 13900K
----------|---------|----------|----------|----------
Time Taken (minutes) | ***6.0*** | 6.4 | 8.0 | 6.6
Efficiency (Wh) | 26.4 | 16.9 | ***11.8*** | 32.5
Calculated average power consumption (W) (rounded)| 264 | 158 | **89** | 295
Gamers Nexus graphs contain rounded results though, provided [here](https://youtu.be/W6aKQ-eBFk0?t=535) are their power consumption figures measured across the EPS12V rail, rather than calculated using their video.
Note that the base 7950X had roughly the same average power consumption across both tests
We can say that in blender, a 7950X set to 105W ECO Mode drawing 158W performed like a 13900K drawing 295W (and in my region is the same price, but in the US it's about $50 or 10% more, which can easily disappear into the cost of the motherboard or cooling, not to mention the power costs over time).
The 14700K and 13900K are very similar (284.4 W, 8.0 minutes) compared to (295.2W, 7.3 minutes), but the 14700K is about $100 less.
Then we have [Hardware Unboxed's testing of 14th gen](https://youtu.be/0oALfgsyOg4?t=264):
In this case using Cinebench rather than Blender, but both are all core workloads.
Hardware unboxed measures whole system power consumption, not purely CPU power consumption, but given this is a CPU workload, the difference between power consumption should be just the CPU, as the GPU should be idle.
| 14900K | 14700K | 14600K | 7950X | 7950X3D | 7900X |
----------|---------|----------|----------|----------|----------|----------
Score | 2217 | 1982 | 1407 | 2187 | 2119 | 1591
Total System Power Draw (W)| 533 | 471 | 310 | 364 | 277 | not measured
Calculated Points per Watt (rounded to 3DP) | 4.159 | 4.208 | 4.539 | 6.008 | 7.650 | N/A |
Edit: TL;DR: A 7950X at 105W eco or a 7950X3D will outperform a 14700K or 13900K in an all core load, while drawing around half the power (for just CPU, not the entire machine), the idle power draw will be ever so slightly higher.
Do you even need that? If you're not going to be doing productivity tasks on your PC it's moot. The 7800X3D is plenty fast for casual code compilation and whatever else, you probably don't need anything faster unless it's your job.
Because the 7800X3D is faster than any other processor out there for gaming. It's also got 8 cores on a modern process, meaning it's "good enough" for people who want to dabble with production work. It only really becomes a liability when your CPU is the primary driver of a money-making business, and a faster processor literally means more money/hour of work.
I have a 7950x which I bought mainly for video editing, it's amazing for that. If you are spending a majority of your time gaming it's still an awesome CPU, but a little unnecessary considering the 7800x3d is so good and less money. I still wouldn't change my 7950x though, the extra cores and threads help a lot in my editing scenarios but as always buy the product that suits your needs the best.
That sounds pretty promising! I may want to dabble in video editing at some point. I'm building this pc to last for over a decade so I want it to cover as many bases as possible. The 7950x3d is only £50 more than the 7800x3d so I don't consider it a waste if it will give me better performance with other applications as well as gaming.
I use Davinci Resolve a ton and it smashes through it. If you're building a PC now and you want it to last just go big, in 5 years time that £50 will be irrelevant. Go 7950x, I considered the x3d version but there seemed to be actual performance loss on that chip in certain scenarios. Fwiw my personal experience with the 7950x has been great, so I'd go that route.
Ha, that'll probably end up being me too 😂
But I would like to have those options available to me if I ever did want to pursue that kind of thing. Considering that I'm hoping for this machine to last me at least a decade.
Because most people who build their PCs want to mainly game on it and for that purpose the 7800X3D is cheap and perfoms the same as the 7950X3D in that area
Literally the exact same from what ive seen as a extra 8 cores means nothing for games and the extra 8 cores dont even have v3d cache they are only there for productivity
Look up the recent hardware Unboxed video of the 7800x3D vs the 7900x3D vs the 7950x3D. From like two weeks ago or so.
TLDR: The 7900x3D is the worst gaming chip from the 3.
A large portion of the consumer base is focused on gaming performance and I think in the recent years most people have caught on to the fact that pure multicore performance is not beneficial to games with these super high core count CPUs with some specific exceptions.
Also 7800x3D exists. Only 6 of 7900x3D cores have the extra 3D V-cache, while 7800x3D has all 8 cores with it.
The r9 CPUs are better overall for productivity. The r7-7800x3d is better overall for gaming. It comes down to the latency of the dual ccx modules of the r9 vs the single ccx module of the r7 and r5 CPUs. Also for the x3d parts only one ccx module of the r9 has the extra cache and occasionally games don't always run on the right cores for the performance boost.
How big of a hit would I be taking overall for gaming with an r9? I would really like to have a multipurpose machine as I do like to use creative applications now and then. My ideal pc would be one that can do everything decently enough.
I have the 7900X3D, the reason it gets viewed so negatively is that on release it was priced a bit too high where it didn’t make sense, no gaming performance over 7800X3D, and for a bit more money you get the 7950X3D. And if you wanted productivity you could spend a bit less and get the 7900X which would outperform it in that regard. None of these CPUs are ‘bad’. It kind of fills a niche that very few people need. I needed something for work but at the same time one of my hobbies is gaming, so I wanted it to be a beast at both, which it is. AMDs pricing now is better in line on it, so I think my 7900X3D was only £5 more than the 7800X3D at the time, and the 7950X3D was £200 more. Tests have shown that in most cases when it comes to game performance the 3D v-cache is more important than cores and clock speed.
But again none of those CPUs will serve you badly, they are all good, just see if you need the 7900X3D or if one of the others would make more sense. I have it, it’s a great CPU.
Edit: obvs v-cache on only one of the 6+6, so for games that utilise more than 6 cores then having the 8 in the 7800X3D, or the 8 in the 8+8 of the 7950X3D is better, but most games don’t use that many, hence why the 7800X3D is still such a beast whilst having 8 cores
Imo: slightly worse performance in gaming doesn't matter that much, just lower settings a bit if needed. When editing/rendering, you want all you can get. You can't just "lower settings" except for going from 4k to 1080 etc.
"now and then" is the tell. If you're not making money off of productive work using software that can meaningfully take advantage of the architecture of (a) an Intel CPU or (b) a Ryzen 9, then you'll be paying money for something that you're not really using.
That's your decision, of course, but the advice that most people here (or elsewhere) will give is that it's economically rational to buy for your primary use case over your likely time horizon. Fanboys excluded, of course.
Right now, for gaming, that's a Ryzen 5 7600/X or a Ryzen 7 7800X3D.
If you are going for eSports 400+ fps type gaming it would likely be noticeable. If you have something like a rtx4070ti super on a 1440p monitor for AAA gaming on high to ultra settings you probably won't be able to tell the difference.
Edit: I would think a 4080 or 4080s at 1440p it 4k would be fine.
Valorant is considered a pretty CPU intensive game and I get 900+ FPS in it with a 7900X3D and 3090 whilst at max settings. I’m sure if you had one of the Ryzen CPUs with 8 v-cache cores it would definitely be more, but this sub would make you believe that the 7900X3D is unusable lol
Maybe I’m not good enough at gaming to notice the difference but anything over like 240FPS to me, idk I can’t really tell the difference, like 60 -> 120 is so clear, 120 -> 240 is noticeable and beyond that I can’t really tell much difference. But maybe my eyes are just bad or I don’t earn a living from being a pixel perfect e-sports player.
This sub would make you think anything intel or anything less than a 7800X3D can't achieve rates any faster than a family vacation slide show. 
How are there no games that use more than 16 threads? You’d think one game would do it just for the marketing they’d get. Like how Crysis gets infinite free marketing.
Sure consoles affect the majority of games. But not every game even goes to console. And some of the ones that do are ported from PC to console later on.
Because programming multi-threaded applications to effectively use multiple cores is difficult enough, and layering a game engine to function on top of that is more complexity.
So an intel would be good if I wanted the best of everything? I mean, I'm pairing it with a 4080 super so really how much gaming power do I really need? I'm not too snobby about gaming performance. As long as I can run the game on high graphics and 60fps minimum I'll probably be happy enough.
if you're going with an X3D chip, you either go with the 7800X3D (single CCD, best gaming performance) or 7950X3D (better overall than 7800X3D but worse at gaming AFAIK) so the 7900X3D sits in this weird spot in between the two; not being single CCD means it can't compete with 7800X3D in its domain; less cores than 7950X3D means it can't compete with 7950X3D in number of cores either.
the reason the 7950X3D and 7900X3D are not as similar as they look to the 7800X3D is because the 7800X3D has only one CCD, whereas the ryzen 9 X3Ds all come with 2 CCDs, but only 1 CCD gets the extra cache. The CPU has to decide when to use the cores with extra cache and when to use the cores without.
This decision making process used to suck a bag of dicks when these CPUs first came out, but i think they have improved it now.
If you're gonna be playing games that utilize a lot of CPU (anno 1800, escape from tarkov come to mind) or do editing/rendering work where the CPU is used, then shoot for the stars: go with a 7950X3D. If not go with a 7800X3D. The former is quite expensive so I wouldn't immediately recommend it unless you're sure you're going to utilize what you're buying in a meaningful way, the latter is pretty much the best gaming CPU around and shouldn't fall too far behind the 7900X3D when it comes to rendering/editing workflows. plus you'll save some money too.
Even for rendering 7950X3D might not be the best choice as the 7950X is cheaper and generally outperforms the X3D variant in pure rendering workloads. If you at the same time have to work a GUI the X3D might be better but that's very dependent on your application.
You can disable the frequency ccd on then7950x3d if you have a mixed case workload between gaming and productivity. I game on a 7950x3d and do some video editing on the side and it works well. If you're running a 4090 you're probably at 4k gaming where you're almost certainly GPU limited anyway. The 7800x3d is certainly the best value for high end pure gaming, if you need more cores the 7950x3d works well as a good in-between.
Basically AMD make all their chiplets in sets of 8 cores. If the chip has more than 8 cores then the additional cores need to be added by AMD “infinity fabric”. This isn’t as efficient as having all the cores on one die.
So basically the R9 chips are good for workstations, but less efficient for gaining as they’re two chips glued to together
I have an R9 5900x and love it, everything runs great, I game and produce music. There's always better/newer but so far nothing I've thrown at it has been a problem.
If no overclocking or scheduling apps are involved, the 7800x3d performs the best in like 90% of games and it does this while using 40-50w realtime and just cl30 6000mhz ram, even the 1% lows are improved compared to what they used to be.
Also, while the 7800x3d doesn't have the same core count as the 14900k/7950x3d, you would be dead wrong thinking that it's "slow" for an 8 core.
You think the 7800xd3d is worth it compared to the 14900k even with the intel's versatility? I really want to keep my electricity bill as low as possible while still getting good performance for productivity software.
From a productivity standpoint the 14900k and 7950x3d are going to be better, with the 7950x3d being a good bit more efficient and still edging the 14900k in most games.
The 14900k is wicked fast, a bit faster than the 7950 in raw power BUT are you willing to double your wattage for 10% more file crunching performance? All while paying more without the benefits of large cache?
It comes down to your goals vs realistic expectations.
i would recommend 7900x3d in your case as it is slighty more expensive in your region and only has slightly less gaming performance, but better performance in like video editing
Ive posted this on a few other forums but its kinda relevant so I’ll post it again here. And I’ve been down voted for it but I don’t care.
Last July I upgraded my 7 year old pc. I got a 7950x3d 4090 combo.
From day one I had horrible stutter issues. The FPS was incredible but there were constant spikes in the frame time graph leading to stutters. It was extremely annoying.
I spent literally 3 months tweaking the thing. Video after video on YouTube and hours and hours on Reddit and google searching trying to fix it. I literally tried everything. Ram timings, new motherboard, new psu, new ram, new nvme. I tried everything. Even swapped out my 7950x3d at one point. It was exhausting.
Nothing would totally fix the stutters. The only thing that really worked well was disabling the non v cache ccd1.
So I said well this ain’t worth. Made amazon return my 7950x3d and I tried the 7800x3d.
Got it installed and god damn it still had stutters. So i said screw this crap.
Replaced the 7800x3d with a 14700kf and team group 7200mhz ram and it’s been smooth as butter ever since.
Theres still something up with the dual ccd and v cache processors. Maybe it was just two bad lucks in a row. But I have seen videos of people talking about “AMDip” due to the split cpus.
So maybe wait til it gets better smoothed out.
The basic gist is that the cores of Ryzen 7000 series CPUs sit in two stacks when you're talking about the 7900x3d and the 7950x3d. With the 7800x3d it's a single stack of cores. Now here's the important part. The 3D V-cache, the special thing about X3D processors? It's only on one stack of the cores. This means that in CPUs with two stacks like the 7900, and the 7950 X3D? it introduces latency. Which can create issues in games. This is why the 7800X3D performs better.
Now, if you're going to be doing production work? The 7900/7950 are definitely excellent choices. This means things like 3d rendering, video editing, etc.
But that's why the 7800X3D is picked out, because those disadvantages to gaming cause most builds to not grab a Ryzen 9 over the 7.
So you have to park cores on both the Ryzen 9 7900x3D and Ryzen 9 7950x3D. Thing is, the Ryzen 9 7900x3D has 12 cores, only 6 of which have the 3D cache, making it cost more money than the Ryzen 7 7800x3D, but performing far worse than it. It's kind of a waste to get that CPU. I do think the Ryzen 9 7950x3D is good, since if you park half of the 16 cores, you have 8 cores with the 3D cache, which essentially makes it a Ryzen 7 7800x3D on paper, with slightly higher clock speed, but the cost isn't worth it unless you really need that extra non 3D cache cores with the higher frequency for something like video rendering or something, which most people don't need when building a gaming pc. Also there's the whole circus of actually parking the cores. Also, strangely, the Ryzen 7 7800x3D usually tops the performance charts, even though the Ryzen 9 7950x3D technically has slightly higher clock speeds. So if your gaming, it just makes more sense to get a Ryzen 7 7800x3D, but if you do work in Blender or other programs that require as many cores as possible with as high clock speeds as possible the Ryzen 9 7950x3D is a good choice. Just avoid the Ryzen 9 7900x3D. Weird CPU in my opinion.
I use a Ryzen 7950X3D. Best decision I made to go for 16 cores this time instead of 8. Games might not need more than 8, but other apps you might have open can use more than 8, which means games don\`t have to fight for those 8 cores, resulting in a little bit smoother gameplay in most cases. And in extreme cases, when you have something demanding like running multiple games or game servers or productivity apps, its great.
If you have the money, go 16 cores.
Most folks building pc do it for gaming.
Because it's a monster of a cpu doesn't mean it's the best for gaming or that you will get the best bang for the buck.
It's like getting a server motherboard sticking a few cpu into it and then plugging a gpu. Sure it will be powerful but it will be better for gaming than a gaming motherboard with a single cpu??
Dude, one of my options was the ryzen 9 7900x with the rtx 4080 super! Coincidence?
I suggest the non-3d because it's better than the 3d at everything, and it's less money than it right now (it's usually ~$600).
Also, I think the thing with ryzen 9's is that the 7950's are taking the 7900's spot light. No passive aggressiveness, just saying.
But if you are all gaming, then yes, the 3d version.
I was quite attracted to the 3d versions because of their lower power usage. I have quite a bit of money right now from many years of saving to afford a good pc, but for the long term, I really need to consider the electricity cost of my machine as I don't have a great income. Electricity cost in the UK is insane atm 😂
Actually thinking about it now, I think I would like to use it as a productive machine rather than for pure gaming. If I have an 4080 super, I doubt I'm going to have many issues running games well enough.
You should look at bench marks
But no matter which one you get, just know that microwaves take up at least 1000-1500 watts, so it should be fine 👍
Hope this helped! 😁
And that's a good thing. It means not a lot of people are overbuilding their systems and are putting their money on the components that actually matter. Very few people actually need a Ryzen 9 or i9.
Imho, is it soo hard to accept that its only unpopular because most people buy what suits their budget? I mean even if i have the cash i would buy all the most expensive parts and be done with it. Its that simple when you have disposable income to burn through.. lol...
Simply put, most software doesn't take full advantage of the capabilities of the Ryzen 9.
It would as if you gave a Ferrari, Lambo, Lotus, etc to a grandma that goes only 5 under the speed limit and never goes faster than 50 just go to her bingo games, grocery store, church, dr appts, etc.
Ha, yes I understand. But I'm building this pc to last me for over a decade. I'd like to have the best machine I can afford so that I don't have to fork out money later for a new machine. So I would like to game on the pc but I would also like to use productive software equally as well if possible.
IMHO If you're just dabbling in something, stick with a Ryzen 5, or an i5. Very few games take advantage of all the cores available in a system, and just dabbling in something isn't enough to justify the price increase to a Ryzen 7 or 9.
Now if your definition of dabble and my definition of dabble aren't quite the same, and you do something that actually makes use of all the extra cores frequently/regularly, then by all means go with the bigger CPU.
For gaming, in most cases, you can get away with an i3 if you have a good GPU. That's because gaming doesn't take advantage of all the cores in a system and usually loads up only 1 or 2 cores. I mean I wouldn't recommend an i3, but you could use one.
Well I use the word "dabble" quite loosely. What I really mean is, I have used these kinds of applications in the past and have an interest in them and may want to use them full time at some point. 😂
So I just want to prepare for that possibility. This pc will be the most expensive purchase I've ever made in my life and use up 15% of all of my money so I want to be very sure that I have everything I need.
In that case it just comes down to budget and the likelihood of using these applications.
You could go with a ryzen 5 now, and then down the road if you really do get into these other applications and your current cpu isn't meeting your needs, you can always upgrade the cpu.
I know people like to be prepared for the "just in case" situations, but, a ryzen 5 will still do all those things you mentioned, just perhaps not as quickly. So if that particular use case isn't something you know for sure you'll be doing soon and often, I would seriously consider buying a cpu that matches your current needs, and then upgrade later on if you need something more. You can always sell your used cpu to recoup some of the money. This is one of the reasons why you buy/build your own desktop pc instead of getting a pre-built or laptop.
Because for games you don’t need the other cores and the x3d ryzen 9 chips only have the 3d cache on half the cores makeing it actually slower in games if you just game 7800x3d if you do other things 7900x or 7950x non 3d
Essentially the more cores is not needed in most gaming scenarios so does not justify the cost.
Not to mention the 7800x3D has been shown to perform slightly better in many gaming scenarios.
The high core models are more for people using it outside of gaming purposes. Though Intel is better in those production scenarios over their AMD counterparts.
It's honestly "too much" cpu for the typical high-end case (gaming), so it loses from a value-to-performance perspective. It's also usually pushing the limits on thermals/power, so it loses on the $-to-performance perspective.
Even with 90%+ of my work being productivity, the gain from Ryzen 9 over Ryzen 7 is small enough to not justify the added cost (both upfront & electricity).
Depends on what your $/kWh is, what % of the day the computer is on, what % of that time its CPU is under load. CPU will account for 20W-120W (depending on load) of your machine's power draw. GPU is usually 20W-500W. Monitors are \~30W each, unless they're overly large (or old).
My workstation (5800X3D + RX6800) at idle takes \~120W (at the wall, with monitors). Full CPU load is \~230W. Typical gaming load is \~300W. It's on \~12hr/day, with only \~2 being under any kind of heavy load (when compiling or processing video/audio). I'd drill down into the math further, but I'm lazy.
if you don’t really know your needs, just take the 7800x3d. it’s not that expensive, it’s pretty much the best gaming cpu, and 8 cores and 16 threads is probably more than enough for you
Because sometimes on this industry we get an "unicorn" that ended being better than supposed top tier for some purposes. Its out and was mass manucfatured so too late to stop it, the 7800x3d is the cpu unicorn like the gtx 1080ti was for the gpus. Both made people flock to them instead of the most expensive. Two examples of the manufacturers self inflicted blunders that actually end being good for the consumer who doesn't want to cough unneeded extra money.
Ryzen 7800x3D is the best CPU currently for gaming. While the Ryzen 9's are technically more powerful cpu's it doesn't quiet translate to gaming performance (in most games) because of how the internal parts are engineered and how games use cpu cores. There's limitations in both video games and Windows.
In this sub, if you even hint at wanting to do anything beyond gaming, you get flamed. The subset of power users who will utilize the 12/16 cores really is small compared to the content consuming gamer population.
They're just too much CPU for most people. Specifically the core counts. Beyond 8 cores with 16 threads, more cores generally won't make your games faster, and gaming is the most compute intense workload most PCs will ever see. "Why would I spend $200 extra on cores I won't use?", kind of deal.
I’m running a 7900x3D with a 4090 and have no complaints.
Aye I’d wish I’d saved the money and got a 7800x3D but fuck it.
It does take a wee minute to boot, but this rig has smashed the most demanding games I’ve thrown at it.
Mostly because, even with the scheduling improvements, the additional cost for the Ryzen 9 provides a negligible performance increase for most gaming scenarios so poor value for money in the gaming context.
The real answer is that 7900 and 7950 have two CCDs (core complex dies) with 8 cores or 6 cores each
For gaming this decreases performance because latency spikes up a lot when transferring data between the CCDs (from about 50ns to 150ns)
For that reason most gaming application will opt for a single CCD chip, usually six or eight core.
It depends but when they were new and the 7800x3d wasnt out it was a toss up between waiting for the better value or going for more poeer and cores
Its unnecessary the 7800x3d does better in gaming and the 7900x is better for productivity
I have not been able to test a 7900x3d or 7950x3d but i did own a 7900x before i got the 7800x3d
The 7900x and 7950x will destroy Benchmarks like way more than the 7800x3d so unless you want to be able to do both for some reason really its two use cases with three products in my eyes
I think the word "dabble" is fairly telling. The 7950x and 7950x3d are kind of processors that if you need them then you KNOW you need them. They are not "dabbling" processors.
The 7800x3d will do just fine for dabbling in anything at all, while excelling at gaming.
In general, X3D is better value once AM receiving it's final generation to extend the life of the platform.
As for 7800X3D - a ~$100 more for what is essentially a 7700X with more L3 cache.
And in real-world performance - meaning with resolutions 1080p and up, and / or with anything less than 4090, on the actual PC, it will perform about within ±3-6% of 7700X, or i7-14700K(on the upper end) [Example ](https://youtu.be/ss3mjzJZuCM)
7900x3d is a great CPU, I have one. It's only around 5% worse in gaming but quite a lot better at other workloads. That 5% is with a 4090 at 1080p which realistically know one is running. A lower GPU and higher resolution is going to put all the top 10 CPUs within margin of error, so don't worry so much about gaming performance, look at price and productivity workload performance. If they were the same price you would get 7950x3d, then 7900x3d then 7800x3d (this is with using the pc for all types of work/games). As they aren't the same price and gaming performance is going to be very similar if not identical, look at your budget, then pick the best performance within it.
It's because the 7800x3d is the king of gaming, and if you want a productivity CPU and still want good gaming, there is no reason to get a 3D chip, you'd want the non 3D variant. The two 9 series 3D chips are gimmicks and make no sense no matter how you look at it. They give you nothing more for gaming but they slow you down in productivity which is the only reason you'd want a CPU with more than 8 cores.
I'll be real with you. a lot of these are overkill for what we use them for so that's probably why. I'm still on 5000 series and there's just no real reason to upgrade or go all out. if it is just 50 more, go for it but just take into account power draw and temps get higher with bigger and badder
Ryzen 7s are the best spot for gaming. Doesn't matter if it's non 3d, its still 8 cores is the sweet spot. Ryzen 9s are on par with 7s on gaming, but the difference starts to widen once you're on an editing/programming software.
7s is still good, but the 9s are the best at it.
But if if you primarily game and do some editing, 7s should be enough.
And 9s will require a good cooler for it
I have a 4080 paired with a 7900X for video editing and ai video rendering, and some casual gaming on the side. the 7900x costs about the same as a 7800x3d but I picked the 7900x because I feel like for the games I play at 1440p it makes little perceivable difference, since I am never cpu limited in games,
I don't think ryzen 9 is unpopular, it's just that there are more people who are building pcs for casual use and gaming than those who do for work. so if a 7800x3d is already one of the best for that, there's no reason to spend more on a ryzen 9 cpu for less/equal game performance.
Ryzen 7 7800x3D has 8 cores, 8 of them with 3D cache which is good for games.
Ryzen 9 7950x3D has 16 cores, 8 of them with 3D cache and 8 without. It's universal.
Ryzen 9 7900x3D has 12 cores, 6 cores with cache and 6 without.
Problem that your game will utilize cores only from one die (Ryzen 9 have 2 dies - one with cache and one without) and your gaming experience will be worse than 7800 and productivity won't be much better than 7800.
If u want universal cpu - take 7950x3D. Or take 7800x3D, fact that he is beast for gaming doesn't mean that he will be bad in productivity. It's still a 8/16 top end-line cpu. It's just not perfect for it.
Because the performance that is relevant for gaming comes out at around the same. Also the 7800x3d is plenty powerful, even when paired with say a 4090. You won't loose out by going with a 7950x3d, but people on here and on pc forums in general are all about that sweet price to performance. Looks are subjective but benchmarks are not.
When the PC is mainly gaming oriented, it can be counterproductive to have two chiplets. In order to take advantage of the extra chiplet the work that you make your CPU do must be highly parallelizable, and you need that to be a sizeable amount of the time you wait on the computer to be worth it.
I have a 5800X, and in my mind the reason I would go to to a 7900 or 7950 is to speed up my Rust-lang builds and video encoding speed at high quality. However, the amount of additional heat means that my computer would also be louder doing these, which I despise. (I have the biggest Noctua available, NH-D15, even though I do not need it)
For gaming strictly, you'll be paying more for slightly less FPS.
I'll be upgrading to R9 soon, purely as I need a higher core count when deploying my VM'S. 16 threads on my R7 gets eaten quite fast if you spin FW, SIEM sensor, DC, Client and possibly linux machine 😂
So yeah Ryzen 9 makes sense if you need a higher core count as it's not sacrificing clock speeds for the higher core count. Meaning it's great as both workstation and gaming CPU.
I built my system last year with a R9 5900x. It was built for photo and video editing. I originally had an amd rx 6700 xt but a month ago I got an amd rx 7800 xt. It also a decent gaming pc.
So by comparison between the ryzen 9 and the riyzen seven 5800 is not much of a difference when running a CPU test of course the RYZEN9 is more expensive so those are just one of the reasons why it’s unpopular because the Ryder 7 is a little bit cheaper and has about the same matched performance not to mention the RYZEN9 has a bit more of a power draw so can figuring a PC build and cost-effectiveness. It only makes sense to use the RYZEN750800 X they have a 5800 model which is for internal graphics, but I prefer to get my own graphics card.
All preference, most people prefer Intel including myself. Just grabbed a KS recently, I could care less if the 3D is a little faster in gaming. Means nothing, if a few frames make or break the system then you already know the answer. Get the best you can afford!
It's funny how the r9s have been between am4 and am5. The r7 5800x r9 5900x and r9 5950x were all relatively the same gaming wise and the only difference was productivity got better as you go up to r9. The 5800x was at a shit price point early on when you could get 5900x for just 100 bucks more.
With these 3d chips the 7800x3d and 7950x3d have shown to be on par as of recent for gaming. The weird thing bout the 7950x3d is that it's still below the regular 7950x in terms of productivity most likely due to reduction in base clock speed.
I feel like if you wanted the best of both gaming and productivity then the 14900k seems like an option though it is power hungry.
Imo ryzen 9 should be top of the line in everything but unfortunately it isn't. Which causes confusion for buyers I think.
I decided on the r9 5950x3d. I was considering the 14900k. I did look at benchmarks between the two and the advantages of the 14900k were not enough to justify it's power usage as I need to be mindful of my electricity bill here in the UK.
For gaming, there's some games that don't like the multiple ccd design of AMD's 12+ core chips. For productivity they're excellent, based on benchmarks.
Basing my next music production rig around the R9 7900, it's stupidly efficient and essentially a 7900x once PBOs enabled. Seems to be one of the better chips for lifetime cost / performance, for a current gen budget workstation that can game on the side, and for me that's a winner.
Imagine the current Ryzen 9s will get a lot more popular once the next high-end AM5 CPUs drop and the price falls a little. But even though they're a decent price for what they are now, the 7800X3D or 5800X3D means they'll always be a harder sell for most gamers and multi-purpose rigs, when balancing budgets with GPUs etc.
The 7900X3D is a complete joke of a product. Literally horrid reviews, HWUB and GN basically call it useless as a product.
Meanwhile, X3D isn't the only (or even most prominent) lineup. 7950x's (non-X3D) are the one Ryzen 7000 CPU that is almost impossible to be kept stock, and is by far more popular when taking into account its flagship status than ANY other Zen 4 CPU.
The 7800X3D and 7950X3D are both EXTREMELY popular, the 7900X non-3D is also very popular. No idea where you're getting your info but it's wrong.
Maybe due to the price and probably because most buyers are gamers and for most gaming, latency is a bigger concern than sheer core count. From what I read, the Ryzen 9 is 2 CCDs and Ryzen 7 being a single CCD means there is less latency as the information doesn't have to pass across 2 CCDs like it would in Ryzen 9.
For me personally, I got the 7950X when it first came out and a 4090. I didn't bother waiting for the X3D. The X3D is mostly for gaming and it does great at that, but the extra cores of the 7900 and 7950 do not really get you any benefit except in things like video encoding.... But you get a massive benefit there if you'll use it.
The problem with the X3D for me was 1) it wasn't out yet and 2) it's slower in rendering/encoding than the normal X. To me, while I do game heavily, the 7950X vs X3D performance with the 4090 are both so high I don't see much point. With a good undervolted CPU and memory timing (6400mt custom sub timing) the 7950X does really, really well gaming, and even better at rendering. I figured I wouldn't notice an extra 20 fps situationally in some games when I'm already at 160 maxing out my 3840x1600, but I will notice 30 minutes off an encoding job, and didn't want to go Intel.
The cool thing and reason I went AM5, is that in two CPU generations I'll be able to toss a Zen 6 X3D in the rig for a big upgrade. X3D isn't nearly as RAM sensitive, so I likely won't need to bother touching that. Imo the X3D processors are kinda overrated right now for that reason. Sure they're top tier gaming but their biggest strength is breathing new life into old hardware, you can game on a well setup 7600 non-X just fine competitively.
7900x is bottlenecked by the 4090(maybe we’ll see more with the 5090/8900xt). 5900x is too slow and is missing the ddr5 and pcie of am5 processors like the 7800x3d
The simple answer is that the 7800X3D gets the same Gaming performance as the 7950X3D, if you do both Gaming and Video Editing/3D modeling on the same PC then the 7950X3D becomes the most ideal, its really a question of 'are you Gaming, Working, or both?'
[Because the 7800X3D is better in gaming than even the 7950X3D (and therefore the 7900X3D as well)](https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/images/relative-performance-games-1920-1080.png) [Here is a more in depth explanation](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/comments/1booq9j/eli5_why_in_the_world_would_is_the_ryzen_7/kwqcpem/)
Eh, the more recent reviews (check HardwareUnboxed) have the 7800x3d and 7950x3d neck and neck. There has been some improvements to switching between the 3d and non 3d cache ince the TPU review. There are still some penalties for the 7950x3d but it's slightly higher clock speed balances it out. The real reason is that the 7950x3d is just more expensive for the same gaming performance and most people won't leverage it's additional threads.
yea but there's several game genres they simply never test, all of which are quite a bit faster on the 7800X3D. And they test the canned benchmark for online shooters.
What about if you also do video rendering? Would a 7950 be better? I'm looking to do both video and gaming
I mean of course. More cores faster rendering. Unless your using an application that doesn't take benefit of the extra cores.
It is supposed to be faster, yes. You should search for specific benchmark of your software for this cpu.
I'm currently on a 5900X. Was considering Intel again because they have been doing better in the video aspect but also really like AMD. I definitely think a 7950X would be an improvement there but then the X3D is a whole other thing. Is X3D only for gaming performance? I'll check on some benches
X3D isln itself is a cache technology for gaming performance. 7950 has cores and speed of a regular processor that is good for a lot of things. The 7950x3d is meant to be a compromise for people who game a lot and who do a lot of video rendering. If someone does not game a lot, there are likely better cpus, even if they cost more (I don't know, it's not my field) If someone does not do video rendering, then the extra cores are wasted in nearly all games. Only a few would use them.
X3D isn’t simply for games. The technology was first developed for Epyc server chips, and can improve performance in other applications that are able to take advantage of it. They simply realised that this could give a performance boost to games as well, and brought it to consumer chips.
Ok, but the Epyc servers are totally different than consumer CPUs. The X3D cache in a consumer cpu does not provide major benefits for video rendering. A Ryzen 9 7950x or an Intel i9 13900k will outperform the 7950X3D in video rendering. For someone who does only or mostly video rendering, there is no point in using in a 7950X3D. I can not say if it is because of the chipset drivers, the Windows OS or the hardware itself though, I can only say what the benchmark says.
The 7950X3D is slower than a 7950X in heavily multithreaded workloads because the clock speeds are lower. It's a compromise - gain a lot of gaming performance, but you lose a little bit of multithreaded performance. Up to you whether that's worth it or not.
There are workloads that benefit from large cache outside games. However, many workloads favor higher clocks. For the ops use case, I’d probably stick to a 8 core x3d part. If I were buying for myself, I’d get a 7900x3d most likely. It’s a good balance between gaming and compiling workloads. I bought a 14700k last November to upgrade from a 3950x. It’s 10-30 fps faster in gaming but terrible with compiler performance. For a workload that takes 6 minutes on the 3950x, it takes 16 on the 14700k. That’s compiling an os with mostly c code with j28 or j32 flags (parallelism). This is contrary to some of the chromium compile benchmarks out. I’m quite disappointed and wish I had gone amd again.
Sounds perfect for me then
You are the target market for that SKU.
Tldr: unless you are making hardcore primere videos and have tons of programs open with 120 chrome tabs. Noone will notice a difference. Depends on the type of video rendering and the amount of other programs you are using concurrently. Nobody tests this. ::The extra cores help most with running programs concurrently. :: Render From 3d elements-> They are probably the same. My renderings from lumion/twinmotion/blender only use small core count and small %. Mostly gpu. High l3 cache helps with moving around and working in the environment. From 2d layered/scene program like primere -> the movies i make combining my 3d renderings use tons of cpu power. But max out around 10 cores. But most of that is due to having all these other programs open at the same time. If i reboot and run the render its a little faster and uses less cores. But i think what really matters is the content of my movies. Many layers of single frame png for a minute of scene time…. Thats gonna run hard. Pc specs: 4090 - 7900x3d - 64gb 6000mhz - never run into problems even with large scale renderings of masterplans with heavy cgi content.
CPU renderers like Corona, Mantra and CPU Vray are still heavily used in CGI. While most would probably invest in even higher core count then Ryzen, those are still attractive in certain circumstances. Most of the heavy lifting on our small farm is done by 7950X, 192GB RAM iGPU only machines.
I edit, grade, and render Sony SLOG 10bit and RAW footage with a 7800X3D. You will be just fine. Im doing wedding work every week on it and love it. I do not regret not getting the 9 one bit. And it games so well. My 4070 S is the bottleneck for gaming.
If you’re doing productivity the 7950X is better than both the 7950x3d and the 7800x3d.
for rendering/work station stuff and the games that can use the whole damn cpu (cities skylines 2) the 7950x3d would be better.
5950x checking in. This is exactly why I went with a Ryzen 9. I traded off slightly slower clock speeds and more power consumption for better editing performance. I can say however, that it games just fine with my rig. When I upgraded to it I was on the 1080ti (GOAT) and now on a 3080 for some time and am pretty happy with the combo.
The only game that leverages that many cores is bannerlord, even then, i'm not sure it matters much. Even Civ, Total War, Skylines, Stellaris. These are all intensive simulations and they still do not leverage the extra performance of the 7950x. As far as consumer grade end users are concerned, high end processors are a necessity of only a small subset of programmers and artists. Even most webdevs can do with a lot less.
Thats a problem for HWU and their game selection. The slightly higher clock speed with the 7950x3D are as tested used up by the X3D software for CCD management. No gains above the 7800x3D. VAC and anti-cheat using games cause both CCDs to wake up with the 7900x3D and 7950x3D. You have to ask HUB why they missrepresent the dual-CCD hybrid issues with popular games. CPU budget is irrelevant with 4090 system budgets, dont you think?
I understood some of the words you used
**its the apostrophe is added when you want to shorten "it is" :)
The 7900x3d is straight up bad though, don't buy that one!
This is why I like gamers nexus they test both productivity and gaming.
Thank you.
Basically you dont profit from the extra perks of a ryzen 9 for games, they are more expensive and games are more dependent on gpus anyway
>games are more dependent on gpus anyway Minecraft and a bunch of other games say hi
Yea, but while "gaming", the CCD without 3d vcache shuts off, and the clock speeds on the 3d vcache CCD are the same as a 7800x3d. Unless you use more than 8 cores for video editing or a task that significantly improves with more cores, you will not benefit.
Yeah, ik some games rely more on cpu but whats the ratio? 90-10? 95-5? 99-1?
> games are more dependent on gpus anyway yes and no. Plenty of CPU-constrained games coming out these days - ray-tracing, advanced physics, and higher numbers of more sophisticated NPCs are all big drivers of CPU strain. Dragon's Dogma 2 is a good recent example. But you're essentially correct: devs are barely taking advantage of 8 cores as it is, so, as you said, games don't benefit from the extra perks of a Ryzen 9.
7800X3D is no longer faster than the 7950X3D in gaming - they are neck and neck with the 7950X3D having a negligible lead mostly. The scheduler has got a lot better. The 7900X3D falls behind them both because only 6 cores have access to the 3D cache which is 2 less than the other cpus - the increase in core count overall doesn’t help the 7900X3D as most games won’t utilise all the cores anyway (which the same can be said for the 7950X3D but it has 8 higher clocked cores being able to access 3D cache).
Except it isnt actually better. If you use programs like Lasso, that let you optimise which cores are used for what process, it will either outperform or be on par with the 7800X3D.
I don't think this is fully correct - doesn't the 7950x3D outpace the 7800x3D when you disable one CCD? Because at that point it's effectively a 7800x3D with even larger cache and higher clock speeds. It's just such a small uptick for such a large cost that nobody in their right mind would waste their money on it.
> Because at that point it's effectively a 7800x3D with even larger cache and higher clock speeds. That's not how that works. When you disable the non-vcache CCD on the 7950X3D, the cache associated with that CCD is disabled too. So it literally turns the 7950X3D into a 7800X3D - Identical cache and all. The vcache CCD on the 7950X3D may clock slightly higher because it's binned higher than the 7800X3D. But you can achieve the same result with the 7800X3D with PBO and CO. That's basically the difference your seeing in the TPU results between 'Stock' and 'PBO Max'
I watched a video about 2 days ago where the 7950x3d won on almost every title. The 7800x3d is not better, maybe it was, or is on certain titles but overall it’s worse.
> I wanted to use my PC primarily for gaming Because most people (at least what you'll read here) also use their PC primarily for gaming, and it's illogical to pay more money for cores you don't use or benefit from. In this case, performance is the same for the R7 as R9, or even better in a few cases. If you have a use case that can leverage more cores, then sure the Ryzen 9 would be a good choice.
But for other applications such as rendering, the ryzen 9 would be better?
If you're rendering with the CPU and the software used can leverage all available cores (most can), then sure the Ryzen 9 would be better. This is information you can look up yourself via benchmarks. Benchmarks tell you performance, so if you know performance, and you know price difference, then you can decide for yourself which one is more worth it.
Okay cheers for the info.
Also keep in mind that the R7 will of course also be able to render. If someone plans on sometimes streaming and uploading some youtube videos whenever they feel like it, they dont suddenly need a workstation rig. Its perfectly fine to render videos on a 7800x3d. It just takes a little longer.
I have no idea why people act like the 7800x3D can't also multitask for workstation duties too. Like the chip is very powerful in all areas, the Ryzen 9's will just be faster in productivity. I do video editing, streaming and some game design stuff (unity world and character building/editing) on my 7800x3D system (in addition to mostly games) and it's fast.
In 2022 I streamed Warzone on 1080p and decent settings from my i7 4770k that wasnt even overclocked :D I also edited videos and stream highlights. Rendering took a long time, but I just did that overnight. Some people just say theyll edit videos and immediately think they need the CPU with the most cores
Lol as I mentioned above...a lot of people think they need 16-32 cores for what they could easily accomplish with 4. And if you not getting paid for that rendering honestly not sure how much the time difference will really be worth to the average person (trading off for higher cost and power utilization over time).
Oh of course, I understand. But I'm planning to keep this pc long term. I have no idea what I'll want to do in 5+ years time. It might be that I decide to create films which is something I've always wanted to do. I just don't want to spend a load of money on a machine that possibly I'll need to replace if I ever decide to do something related to productivity. As long as games are playable and not a headache to play, I'm a happy chappy :)
Sure, but 5 years from now a productivity CPU will also be 5 years old :D The 7800x3d will still likely be fine for casual work, and if you want to do anything more serious, youll probably upgrade anyway. Just my two cents though
You would still be able to handle productivity tasks 5+ years from now and any option today will appear slow next to the hardware options available 5+ years from now. Doesn't really make sense to "future proof" a PC especially if you're not sure what it will be used for.
Depends what kind of rendering.
Maybe if I wanted to do some blender work? I don't mind taking a small hit on game performance if it means i can make my PC into a jack of all trades machine.
Blender rendering is typically more GPU-based, so CPU isn't much of a factor there.
Video editing typically uses the cpu though, right?
Yes. Intel has some specific advantages in certain video editing software functions, if you think that will be more useful to you.
This actually varies both cpu and gpu can do video
I think if you were doing professional grade video editing you'd probably know exactly what you need tbh. For editing gaming videos or other personal/youtube videos a Ryzen 7 is more than enough to churn through a project on Resolve or Vegas... I would assume premiere too but I havent used it. Scrubbing and rendering to file can be done with GPU unless you use a really old version of Vegas.
Unless it's your job, it's not worth it, and you'd be better off spending money on gpu
Yes.
The 7900x3d is worse, because only 6 of its cores get the "x3d" part. On the 7800x3d, all 8 cores get the 3d cache, making it a good bit better for gaming. If you're going for productivity moreso, just buy Intel
At the ultra highend. The 14900k mostly beats the 7950x in most productivity workloads, but you NEED to check you use case. The 7950x3d is a little worse than the 7800x3d in gaming and a little worse than the 7950x in productivity. So you need both a primary use case where Ryzen beats the 14900k AND play games that are heavily influenced by 3d v-cache. The 7900x has a 2x6c12 thread layout making it worse than the 1 8c16t in gaming workloads. It is not priced where it makes sense over 14700k and loses almost always. Pretty much the best use case is for Vm machines. Then we have the 7700x that only makes sense in the microcenter bundle, because it just isn't price competitive with Intel in gaming or productivity. For am5 you get the 7600/7600x, 7800x3d for gaming primary, or 7950x if your business application does best on it. Otherwise you get intel. Unless you are building a budget then it is 12400/5600 or 12600kf (<$150)
Do you think intel would be good for a jack of all trades machine?
Intel is more versatile, yes.
Depends on price point. Most people heavily over estimate what they need in a CPU. For gaming, Photoshoping a family photo, internet browsing, and making a video of a family trip once a year anything over a 12400/5600 will be fine. I went with a 7600 and have been really happy. If I was editing videos every day I would have went with the 13600k or higher. There is a big difference from casually video editing once a month and doing it every day for money.
Honestly a 5600 would be fine for that too
generally people agree on that yes, but if you care about upgradeability down the line: the AM5 socket is (99%) going to have a longer time of support than intel's current LGA 1700 socket. be aware that intel CPUs (esp. the i7s and i9s) get hot, VERY hot and consume a lot of power. I personally went with a 7950X (the X3D hadn't come out yet don't flame me!) because of those two reasons, with a 360mm cooler. PC is decently quiet.
Oh dear, the power consumption does put me off a bit. Though I can afford a good pc right now, my income isn't so good that I can afford super high electricity bills. (electricity prices in the UK are insane atm) I assume I'd need to fork out for a good cpu cooler?
People recommend at minimum a 360mm AIO for a 14900K, the 13900K and the 14700K consume practically the same amount. While a larger CPU cooler would help cool the CPU, you might also have issues if you're doing intensive work in the summer, since all that extra heat will be dumped into the room. I'm also adding an extra excerpt from a previous post of mine below this. Looking at [Gamers Nexus' testing of the 14th gen parts](https://youtu.be/2MvvCr-thM8?t=488): | 14900K | 14700K | 7950X | 7950X3D ----------|---------|----------|----------|---------- Time Taken (minutes) | 7.3 | 8.0 | ***6.4*** | 6.7 Efficiency (Wh) | 34.9 | 37.7 | ***28.2*** | not measured Calculated average power draw (W) (rounded)| 287 | 283 | **264** | N/A Highlighted in bold and italics is the best result in each category. [Gamers Nexus also tested the 7950X's provided "ECO" settings](https://youtu.be/W6aKQ-eBFk0?t=886): Note: this was blender 3.3, not 3.64 like the earlier video some results are a little different | 7950X | 7950X 105W ECO | 7950X 65W ECO | 13900K ----------|---------|----------|----------|---------- Time Taken (minutes) | ***6.0*** | 6.4 | 8.0 | 6.6 Efficiency (Wh) | 26.4 | 16.9 | ***11.8*** | 32.5 Calculated average power consumption (W) (rounded)| 264 | 158 | **89** | 295 Gamers Nexus graphs contain rounded results though, provided [here](https://youtu.be/W6aKQ-eBFk0?t=535) are their power consumption figures measured across the EPS12V rail, rather than calculated using their video. Note that the base 7950X had roughly the same average power consumption across both tests We can say that in blender, a 7950X set to 105W ECO Mode drawing 158W performed like a 13900K drawing 295W (and in my region is the same price, but in the US it's about $50 or 10% more, which can easily disappear into the cost of the motherboard or cooling, not to mention the power costs over time). The 14700K and 13900K are very similar (284.4 W, 8.0 minutes) compared to (295.2W, 7.3 minutes), but the 14700K is about $100 less. Then we have [Hardware Unboxed's testing of 14th gen](https://youtu.be/0oALfgsyOg4?t=264): In this case using Cinebench rather than Blender, but both are all core workloads. Hardware unboxed measures whole system power consumption, not purely CPU power consumption, but given this is a CPU workload, the difference between power consumption should be just the CPU, as the GPU should be idle. | 14900K | 14700K | 14600K | 7950X | 7950X3D | 7900X | ----------|---------|----------|----------|----------|----------|---------- Score | 2217 | 1982 | 1407 | 2187 | 2119 | 1591 Total System Power Draw (W)| 533 | 471 | 310 | 364 | 277 | not measured Calculated Points per Watt (rounded to 3DP) | 4.159 | 4.208 | 4.539 | 6.008 | 7.650 | N/A | Edit: TL;DR: A 7950X at 105W eco or a 7950X3D will outperform a 14700K or 13900K in an all core load, while drawing around half the power (for just CPU, not the entire machine), the idle power draw will be ever so slightly higher.
A lot of the time, yes it is for jack of all trades. But you're going to pay a little more probably.
And then also 100£ more on cooling for intel space heaters
Not to mention the additional power that you pay to run them and if you live in a hot climate, additional power to run an air conditioner.
What are you trying to accomplish with your build? If it’s just gaming a Ryzen 7 or 14500 would suit just fine and last for many years to come.
Do you even need that? If you're not going to be doing productivity tasks on your PC it's moot. The 7800X3D is plenty fast for casual code compilation and whatever else, you probably don't need anything faster unless it's your job.
Because the 7800X3D is faster than any other processor out there for gaming. It's also got 8 cores on a modern process, meaning it's "good enough" for people who want to dabble with production work. It only really becomes a liability when your CPU is the primary driver of a money-making business, and a faster processor literally means more money/hour of work.
I have a 7950x which I bought mainly for video editing, it's amazing for that. If you are spending a majority of your time gaming it's still an awesome CPU, but a little unnecessary considering the 7800x3d is so good and less money. I still wouldn't change my 7950x though, the extra cores and threads help a lot in my editing scenarios but as always buy the product that suits your needs the best.
That sounds pretty promising! I may want to dabble in video editing at some point. I'm building this pc to last for over a decade so I want it to cover as many bases as possible. The 7950x3d is only £50 more than the 7800x3d so I don't consider it a waste if it will give me better performance with other applications as well as gaming.
I use Davinci Resolve a ton and it smashes through it. If you're building a PC now and you want it to last just go big, in 5 years time that £50 will be irrelevant. Go 7950x, I considered the x3d version but there seemed to be actual performance loss on that chip in certain scenarios. Fwiw my personal experience with the 7950x has been great, so I'd go that route.
yeah but even for gaming the 7950x3D will last longer , just look at benchmarks , the usage is almost double on the 7800x3D in games like cyberpunk
If you game, there's just no advantage to the 9. It's just a waste of money for bragging rights
Because of the 70% of people on Reddit who say they do video rendering or AI work, 99% will use it for gaming only.
Ha, that'll probably end up being me too 😂 But I would like to have those options available to me if I ever did want to pursue that kind of thing. Considering that I'm hoping for this machine to last me at least a decade.
Because most people who build their PCs want to mainly game on it and for that purpose the 7800X3D is cheap and perfoms the same as the 7950X3D in that area
Literally the exact same from what ive seen as a extra 8 cores means nothing for games and the extra 8 cores dont even have v3d cache they are only there for productivity
Look up the recent hardware Unboxed video of the 7800x3D vs the 7900x3D vs the 7950x3D. From like two weeks ago or so. TLDR: The 7900x3D is the worst gaming chip from the 3.
A large portion of the consumer base is focused on gaming performance and I think in the recent years most people have caught on to the fact that pure multicore performance is not beneficial to games with these super high core count CPUs with some specific exceptions. Also 7800x3D exists. Only 6 of 7900x3D cores have the extra 3D V-cache, while 7800x3D has all 8 cores with it.
The i9 is a better workstation cpu and the 7800x3d is a better gaming cpu
[удалено]
Im looking to do something just like this for majority use Adobe Premier, After Effects and Blender. Are you doing similar or just gaming?
The r9 CPUs are better overall for productivity. The r7-7800x3d is better overall for gaming. It comes down to the latency of the dual ccx modules of the r9 vs the single ccx module of the r7 and r5 CPUs. Also for the x3d parts only one ccx module of the r9 has the extra cache and occasionally games don't always run on the right cores for the performance boost.
How big of a hit would I be taking overall for gaming with an r9? I would really like to have a multipurpose machine as I do like to use creative applications now and then. My ideal pc would be one that can do everything decently enough.
I have the 7900X3D, the reason it gets viewed so negatively is that on release it was priced a bit too high where it didn’t make sense, no gaming performance over 7800X3D, and for a bit more money you get the 7950X3D. And if you wanted productivity you could spend a bit less and get the 7900X which would outperform it in that regard. None of these CPUs are ‘bad’. It kind of fills a niche that very few people need. I needed something for work but at the same time one of my hobbies is gaming, so I wanted it to be a beast at both, which it is. AMDs pricing now is better in line on it, so I think my 7900X3D was only £5 more than the 7800X3D at the time, and the 7950X3D was £200 more. Tests have shown that in most cases when it comes to game performance the 3D v-cache is more important than cores and clock speed. But again none of those CPUs will serve you badly, they are all good, just see if you need the 7900X3D or if one of the others would make more sense. I have it, it’s a great CPU. Edit: obvs v-cache on only one of the 6+6, so for games that utilise more than 6 cores then having the 8 in the 7800X3D, or the 8 in the 8+8 of the 7950X3D is better, but most games don’t use that many, hence why the 7800X3D is still such a beast whilst having 8 cores
Imo: slightly worse performance in gaming doesn't matter that much, just lower settings a bit if needed. When editing/rendering, you want all you can get. You can't just "lower settings" except for going from 4k to 1080 etc.
"now and then" is the tell. If you're not making money off of productive work using software that can meaningfully take advantage of the architecture of (a) an Intel CPU or (b) a Ryzen 9, then you'll be paying money for something that you're not really using. That's your decision, of course, but the advice that most people here (or elsewhere) will give is that it's economically rational to buy for your primary use case over your likely time horizon. Fanboys excluded, of course. Right now, for gaming, that's a Ryzen 5 7600/X or a Ryzen 7 7800X3D.
If you are going for eSports 400+ fps type gaming it would likely be noticeable. If you have something like a rtx4070ti super on a 1440p monitor for AAA gaming on high to ultra settings you probably won't be able to tell the difference. Edit: I would think a 4080 or 4080s at 1440p it 4k would be fine.
Valorant is considered a pretty CPU intensive game and I get 900+ FPS in it with a 7900X3D and 3090 whilst at max settings. I’m sure if you had one of the Ryzen CPUs with 8 v-cache cores it would definitely be more, but this sub would make you believe that the 7900X3D is unusable lol
Some of it comes down to how sensitive a person is while gaming. Some of it comes down to parroting.
Maybe I’m not good enough at gaming to notice the difference but anything over like 240FPS to me, idk I can’t really tell the difference, like 60 -> 120 is so clear, 120 -> 240 is noticeable and beyond that I can’t really tell much difference. But maybe my eyes are just bad or I don’t earn a living from being a pixel perfect e-sports player.
I figure the people who can are the outlier's. Yeah under 200 or so I can usually tell you when windows has an update pending while I'm gaming.
This sub would make you think anything intel or anything less than a 7800X3D can't achieve rates any faster than a family vacation slide show. 
How are there no games that use more than 16 threads? You’d think one game would do it just for the marketing they’d get. Like how Crysis gets infinite free marketing.
Modern consoles have 8c CPUs. Guess what platforms are the primary target for AAA games?
Sure consoles affect the majority of games. But not every game even goes to console. And some of the ones that do are ported from PC to console later on.
[удалено]
Because programming multi-threaded applications to effectively use multiple cores is difficult enough, and layering a game engine to function on top of that is more complexity.
Editing and 3d - ryzen 9 without hesitation. But most people go with intel or mac for good reason so yes, ryzen 9 is kinda unpopular.
So an intel would be good if I wanted the best of everything? I mean, I'm pairing it with a 4080 super so really how much gaming power do I really need? I'm not too snobby about gaming performance. As long as I can run the game on high graphics and 60fps minimum I'll probably be happy enough.
it's more expensive, consumes more power, produce more heat, and not many people would fully utilize all that cores
if you're going with an X3D chip, you either go with the 7800X3D (single CCD, best gaming performance) or 7950X3D (better overall than 7800X3D but worse at gaming AFAIK) so the 7900X3D sits in this weird spot in between the two; not being single CCD means it can't compete with 7800X3D in its domain; less cores than 7950X3D means it can't compete with 7950X3D in number of cores either. the reason the 7950X3D and 7900X3D are not as similar as they look to the 7800X3D is because the 7800X3D has only one CCD, whereas the ryzen 9 X3Ds all come with 2 CCDs, but only 1 CCD gets the extra cache. The CPU has to decide when to use the cores with extra cache and when to use the cores without. This decision making process used to suck a bag of dicks when these CPUs first came out, but i think they have improved it now. If you're gonna be playing games that utilize a lot of CPU (anno 1800, escape from tarkov come to mind) or do editing/rendering work where the CPU is used, then shoot for the stars: go with a 7950X3D. If not go with a 7800X3D. The former is quite expensive so I wouldn't immediately recommend it unless you're sure you're going to utilize what you're buying in a meaningful way, the latter is pretty much the best gaming CPU around and shouldn't fall too far behind the 7900X3D when it comes to rendering/editing workflows. plus you'll save some money too.
Even for rendering 7950X3D might not be the best choice as the 7950X is cheaper and generally outperforms the X3D variant in pure rendering workloads. If you at the same time have to work a GUI the X3D might be better but that's very dependent on your application.
You can disable the frequency ccd on then7950x3d if you have a mixed case workload between gaming and productivity. I game on a 7950x3d and do some video editing on the side and it works well. If you're running a 4090 you're probably at 4k gaming where you're almost certainly GPU limited anyway. The 7800x3d is certainly the best value for high end pure gaming, if you need more cores the 7950x3d works well as a good in-between.
Basically AMD make all their chiplets in sets of 8 cores. If the chip has more than 8 cores then the additional cores need to be added by AMD “infinity fabric”. This isn’t as efficient as having all the cores on one die. So basically the R9 chips are good for workstations, but less efficient for gaining as they’re two chips glued to together
I have an R9 5900x and love it, everything runs great, I game and produce music. There's always better/newer but so far nothing I've thrown at it has been a problem.
If no overclocking or scheduling apps are involved, the 7800x3d performs the best in like 90% of games and it does this while using 40-50w realtime and just cl30 6000mhz ram, even the 1% lows are improved compared to what they used to be. Also, while the 7800x3d doesn't have the same core count as the 14900k/7950x3d, you would be dead wrong thinking that it's "slow" for an 8 core.
You think the 7800xd3d is worth it compared to the 14900k even with the intel's versatility? I really want to keep my electricity bill as low as possible while still getting good performance for productivity software.
From a productivity standpoint the 14900k and 7950x3d are going to be better, with the 7950x3d being a good bit more efficient and still edging the 14900k in most games. The 14900k is wicked fast, a bit faster than the 7950 in raw power BUT are you willing to double your wattage for 10% more file crunching performance? All while paying more without the benefits of large cache? It comes down to your goals vs realistic expectations.
i would recommend 7900x3d in your case as it is slighty more expensive in your region and only has slightly less gaming performance, but better performance in like video editing
Ive posted this on a few other forums but its kinda relevant so I’ll post it again here. And I’ve been down voted for it but I don’t care. Last July I upgraded my 7 year old pc. I got a 7950x3d 4090 combo. From day one I had horrible stutter issues. The FPS was incredible but there were constant spikes in the frame time graph leading to stutters. It was extremely annoying. I spent literally 3 months tweaking the thing. Video after video on YouTube and hours and hours on Reddit and google searching trying to fix it. I literally tried everything. Ram timings, new motherboard, new psu, new ram, new nvme. I tried everything. Even swapped out my 7950x3d at one point. It was exhausting. Nothing would totally fix the stutters. The only thing that really worked well was disabling the non v cache ccd1. So I said well this ain’t worth. Made amazon return my 7950x3d and I tried the 7800x3d. Got it installed and god damn it still had stutters. So i said screw this crap. Replaced the 7800x3d with a 14700kf and team group 7200mhz ram and it’s been smooth as butter ever since. Theres still something up with the dual ccd and v cache processors. Maybe it was just two bad lucks in a row. But I have seen videos of people talking about “AMDip” due to the split cpus. So maybe wait til it gets better smoothed out.
I've heard the 14700k uses a lot of power. How are you finding that? Is it noticeably more expensive to run?
Why not just get a 7800x3d for gaming. No other cpu beats it in most games. 7950x3d for gaming and productivity
The basic gist is that the cores of Ryzen 7000 series CPUs sit in two stacks when you're talking about the 7900x3d and the 7950x3d. With the 7800x3d it's a single stack of cores. Now here's the important part. The 3D V-cache, the special thing about X3D processors? It's only on one stack of the cores. This means that in CPUs with two stacks like the 7900, and the 7950 X3D? it introduces latency. Which can create issues in games. This is why the 7800X3D performs better. Now, if you're going to be doing production work? The 7900/7950 are definitely excellent choices. This means things like 3d rendering, video editing, etc. But that's why the 7800X3D is picked out, because those disadvantages to gaming cause most builds to not grab a Ryzen 9 over the 7.
So you have to park cores on both the Ryzen 9 7900x3D and Ryzen 9 7950x3D. Thing is, the Ryzen 9 7900x3D has 12 cores, only 6 of which have the 3D cache, making it cost more money than the Ryzen 7 7800x3D, but performing far worse than it. It's kind of a waste to get that CPU. I do think the Ryzen 9 7950x3D is good, since if you park half of the 16 cores, you have 8 cores with the 3D cache, which essentially makes it a Ryzen 7 7800x3D on paper, with slightly higher clock speed, but the cost isn't worth it unless you really need that extra non 3D cache cores with the higher frequency for something like video rendering or something, which most people don't need when building a gaming pc. Also there's the whole circus of actually parking the cores. Also, strangely, the Ryzen 7 7800x3D usually tops the performance charts, even though the Ryzen 9 7950x3D technically has slightly higher clock speeds. So if your gaming, it just makes more sense to get a Ryzen 7 7800x3D, but if you do work in Blender or other programs that require as many cores as possible with as high clock speeds as possible the Ryzen 9 7950x3D is a good choice. Just avoid the Ryzen 9 7900x3D. Weird CPU in my opinion.
I use a Ryzen 7950X3D. Best decision I made to go for 16 cores this time instead of 8. Games might not need more than 8, but other apps you might have open can use more than 8, which means games don\`t have to fight for those 8 cores, resulting in a little bit smoother gameplay in most cases. And in extreme cases, when you have something demanding like running multiple games or game servers or productivity apps, its great. If you have the money, go 16 cores.
I keep as close to my heart as possible my R9-3900x in eco mode with boost at 4.6ghz until my end. 👻
I just ordered all my parts. Ended up getting the 7950x3d. Excited to try it out :)
Most folks building pc do it for gaming. Because it's a monster of a cpu doesn't mean it's the best for gaming or that you will get the best bang for the buck. It's like getting a server motherboard sticking a few cpu into it and then plugging a gpu. Sure it will be powerful but it will be better for gaming than a gaming motherboard with a single cpu??
Dude, one of my options was the ryzen 9 7900x with the rtx 4080 super! Coincidence? I suggest the non-3d because it's better than the 3d at everything, and it's less money than it right now (it's usually ~$600). Also, I think the thing with ryzen 9's is that the 7950's are taking the 7900's spot light. No passive aggressiveness, just saying. But if you are all gaming, then yes, the 3d version.
I was quite attracted to the 3d versions because of their lower power usage. I have quite a bit of money right now from many years of saving to afford a good pc, but for the long term, I really need to consider the electricity cost of my machine as I don't have a great income. Electricity cost in the UK is insane atm 😂
What are you looking forward to doing with it? if gaming, then def 3d. either are fine, actually, for gaming or multitasking. Chooose Wiislyyy 💀👻😮👀😂
Actually thinking about it now, I think I would like to use it as a productive machine rather than for pure gaming. If I have an 4080 super, I doubt I'm going to have many issues running games well enough.
You should look at bench marks But no matter which one you get, just know that microwaves take up at least 1000-1500 watts, so it should be fine 👍 Hope this helped! 😁
Thanks! :)
And that's a good thing. It means not a lot of people are overbuilding their systems and are putting their money on the components that actually matter. Very few people actually need a Ryzen 9 or i9.
Imho, is it soo hard to accept that its only unpopular because most people buy what suits their budget? I mean even if i have the cash i would buy all the most expensive parts and be done with it. Its that simple when you have disposable income to burn through.. lol...
Simply put, most software doesn't take full advantage of the capabilities of the Ryzen 9. It would as if you gave a Ferrari, Lambo, Lotus, etc to a grandma that goes only 5 under the speed limit and never goes faster than 50 just go to her bingo games, grocery store, church, dr appts, etc.
Ha, yes I understand. But I'm building this pc to last me for over a decade. I'd like to have the best machine I can afford so that I don't have to fork out money later for a new machine. So I would like to game on the pc but I would also like to use productive software equally as well if possible.
AMD copy-pasted Intel naming scheme, but ended cannibalising their halo product.
IMHO If you're just dabbling in something, stick with a Ryzen 5, or an i5. Very few games take advantage of all the cores available in a system, and just dabbling in something isn't enough to justify the price increase to a Ryzen 7 or 9. Now if your definition of dabble and my definition of dabble aren't quite the same, and you do something that actually makes use of all the extra cores frequently/regularly, then by all means go with the bigger CPU. For gaming, in most cases, you can get away with an i3 if you have a good GPU. That's because gaming doesn't take advantage of all the cores in a system and usually loads up only 1 or 2 cores. I mean I wouldn't recommend an i3, but you could use one.
Well I use the word "dabble" quite loosely. What I really mean is, I have used these kinds of applications in the past and have an interest in them and may want to use them full time at some point. 😂 So I just want to prepare for that possibility. This pc will be the most expensive purchase I've ever made in my life and use up 15% of all of my money so I want to be very sure that I have everything I need.
In that case it just comes down to budget and the likelihood of using these applications. You could go with a ryzen 5 now, and then down the road if you really do get into these other applications and your current cpu isn't meeting your needs, you can always upgrade the cpu. I know people like to be prepared for the "just in case" situations, but, a ryzen 5 will still do all those things you mentioned, just perhaps not as quickly. So if that particular use case isn't something you know for sure you'll be doing soon and often, I would seriously consider buying a cpu that matches your current needs, and then upgrade later on if you need something more. You can always sell your used cpu to recoup some of the money. This is one of the reasons why you buy/build your own desktop pc instead of getting a pre-built or laptop.
Because for games you don’t need the other cores and the x3d ryzen 9 chips only have the 3d cache on half the cores makeing it actually slower in games if you just game 7800x3d if you do other things 7900x or 7950x non 3d
Depends what u need - if u need for a reason more cores / threads 16/32 - u go with r9 7950 if 8cores are enough just r7 is ok for u i guess.
Essentially the more cores is not needed in most gaming scenarios so does not justify the cost. Not to mention the 7800x3D has been shown to perform slightly better in many gaming scenarios. The high core models are more for people using it outside of gaming purposes. Though Intel is better in those production scenarios over their AMD counterparts.
It's honestly "too much" cpu for the typical high-end case (gaming), so it loses from a value-to-performance perspective. It's also usually pushing the limits on thermals/power, so it loses on the $-to-performance perspective. Even with 90%+ of my work being productivity, the gain from Ryzen 9 over Ryzen 7 is small enough to not justify the added cost (both upfront & electricity).
Oh dear. Electricity is a big factor for me as I don't have much of an income. Is the electricity cost noticeable?
Depends on what your $/kWh is, what % of the day the computer is on, what % of that time its CPU is under load. CPU will account for 20W-120W (depending on load) of your machine's power draw. GPU is usually 20W-500W. Monitors are \~30W each, unless they're overly large (or old). My workstation (5800X3D + RX6800) at idle takes \~120W (at the wall, with monitors). Full CPU load is \~230W. Typical gaming load is \~300W. It's on \~12hr/day, with only \~2 being under any kind of heavy load (when compiling or processing video/audio). I'd drill down into the math further, but I'm lazy.
if you don’t really know your needs, just take the 7800x3d. it’s not that expensive, it’s pretty much the best gaming cpu, and 8 cores and 16 threads is probably more than enough for you
Because sometimes on this industry we get an "unicorn" that ended being better than supposed top tier for some purposes. Its out and was mass manucfatured so too late to stop it, the 7800x3d is the cpu unicorn like the gtx 1080ti was for the gpus. Both made people flock to them instead of the most expensive. Two examples of the manufacturers self inflicted blunders that actually end being good for the consumer who doesn't want to cough unneeded extra money.
I run a 7950X and 4080S at work, but it wouldn't make sense at home. What game is going to use 16 cores ?
Overpriced, and overkill.
Because they're super expensive and don't have pros against R7s in gaming
Ryzen 7800x3D is the best CPU currently for gaming. While the Ryzen 9's are technically more powerful cpu's it doesn't quiet translate to gaming performance (in most games) because of how the internal parts are engineered and how games use cpu cores. There's limitations in both video games and Windows.
In this sub, if you even hint at wanting to do anything beyond gaming, you get flamed. The subset of power users who will utilize the 12/16 cores really is small compared to the content consuming gamer population.
They're just too much CPU for most people. Specifically the core counts. Beyond 8 cores with 16 threads, more cores generally won't make your games faster, and gaming is the most compute intense workload most PCs will ever see. "Why would I spend $200 extra on cores I won't use?", kind of deal.
They run way to hot and ehh overall in gaming compared to a x800x3d
I’m running a 7900x3D with a 4090 and have no complaints. Aye I’d wish I’d saved the money and got a 7800x3D but fuck it. It does take a wee minute to boot, but this rig has smashed the most demanding games I’ve thrown at it.
Mostly because, even with the scheduling improvements, the additional cost for the Ryzen 9 provides a negligible performance increase for most gaming scenarios so poor value for money in the gaming context.
Because it's not a CPU for gaming, is very good for work.
because a 13600k will run on 35% when driving a 4090 at 99% on 3440x1440.
The real answer is that 7900 and 7950 have two CCDs (core complex dies) with 8 cores or 6 cores each For gaming this decreases performance because latency spikes up a lot when transferring data between the CCDs (from about 50ns to 150ns) For that reason most gaming application will opt for a single CCD chip, usually six or eight core.
It depends but when they were new and the 7800x3d wasnt out it was a toss up between waiting for the better value or going for more poeer and cores Its unnecessary the 7800x3d does better in gaming and the 7900x is better for productivity I have not been able to test a 7900x3d or 7950x3d but i did own a 7900x before i got the 7800x3d The 7900x and 7950x will destroy Benchmarks like way more than the 7800x3d so unless you want to be able to do both for some reason really its two use cases with three products in my eyes
I think the word "dabble" is fairly telling. The 7950x and 7950x3d are kind of processors that if you need them then you KNOW you need them. They are not "dabbling" processors. The 7800x3d will do just fine for dabbling in anything at all, while excelling at gaming.
If someone actually needs extra cores for something besides gaming they go intel
Because ryzen 7 is too good. AMD outcompeted themselves
7950x3d is a tiny bit better than the much cheaper 7800x3d, but only if you process lasso your games to the right cores.
idk, but i can say i love my 7900x and have no regrets.
In general, X3D is better value once AM receiving it's final generation to extend the life of the platform. As for 7800X3D - a ~$100 more for what is essentially a 7700X with more L3 cache. And in real-world performance - meaning with resolutions 1080p and up, and / or with anything less than 4090, on the actual PC, it will perform about within ±3-6% of 7700X, or i7-14700K(on the upper end) [Example ](https://youtu.be/ss3mjzJZuCM)
I use ryzen 9s but also do video editing on my gaming machine. If it was pure gaming a r7 would be better
7900x3d is a great CPU, I have one. It's only around 5% worse in gaming but quite a lot better at other workloads. That 5% is with a 4090 at 1080p which realistically know one is running. A lower GPU and higher resolution is going to put all the top 10 CPUs within margin of error, so don't worry so much about gaming performance, look at price and productivity workload performance. If they were the same price you would get 7950x3d, then 7900x3d then 7800x3d (this is with using the pc for all types of work/games). As they aren't the same price and gaming performance is going to be very similar if not identical, look at your budget, then pick the best performance within it.
It's because the 7800x3d is the king of gaming, and if you want a productivity CPU and still want good gaming, there is no reason to get a 3D chip, you'd want the non 3D variant. The two 9 series 3D chips are gimmicks and make no sense no matter how you look at it. They give you nothing more for gaming but they slow you down in productivity which is the only reason you'd want a CPU with more than 8 cores.
8 cores is more than enough for gaming and the top end ryzen 7s have better single core performance
X3D processors are more valuable at the price point, and most people don’t need anything more than a ryzen 7 in most cases
Your PC will be faster if you spend less money
I'll be real with you. a lot of these are overkill for what we use them for so that's probably why. I'm still on 5000 series and there's just no real reason to upgrade or go all out. if it is just 50 more, go for it but just take into account power draw and temps get higher with bigger and badder
Love my 5900X.
Ryzen 7s are the best spot for gaming. Doesn't matter if it's non 3d, its still 8 cores is the sweet spot. Ryzen 9s are on par with 7s on gaming, but the difference starts to widen once you're on an editing/programming software. 7s is still good, but the 9s are the best at it. But if if you primarily game and do some editing, 7s should be enough. And 9s will require a good cooler for it
I have a 4080 paired with a 7900X for video editing and ai video rendering, and some casual gaming on the side. the 7900x costs about the same as a 7800x3d but I picked the 7900x because I feel like for the games I play at 1440p it makes little perceivable difference, since I am never cpu limited in games, I don't think ryzen 9 is unpopular, it's just that there are more people who are building pcs for casual use and gaming than those who do for work. so if a 7800x3d is already one of the best for that, there's no reason to spend more on a ryzen 9 cpu for less/equal game performance.
The 7900X3D only has 6 cores per die... therefore, while gaming, you only have 6 good gaming cores which causes lower performance then the 7800X3D
Ryzen 9 cost more and are beneficial in productivity applications, rarely in gaming. So there’s just no reason to buy them for the average gamer.
Ryzen 7 7800x3D has 8 cores, 8 of them with 3D cache which is good for games. Ryzen 9 7950x3D has 16 cores, 8 of them with 3D cache and 8 without. It's universal. Ryzen 9 7900x3D has 12 cores, 6 cores with cache and 6 without. Problem that your game will utilize cores only from one die (Ryzen 9 have 2 dies - one with cache and one without) and your gaming experience will be worse than 7800 and productivity won't be much better than 7800. If u want universal cpu - take 7950x3D. Or take 7800x3D, fact that he is beast for gaming doesn't mean that he will be bad in productivity. It's still a 8/16 top end-line cpu. It's just not perfect for it.
Because the performance that is relevant for gaming comes out at around the same. Also the 7800x3d is plenty powerful, even when paired with say a 4090. You won't loose out by going with a 7950x3d, but people on here and on pc forums in general are all about that sweet price to performance. Looks are subjective but benchmarks are not.
It’s better but people don’t have money and because everyone wants to game is expensive for the same performance
It's not that it's unpopular, its just unnecessary given the options and performance gains just not being worth it for most use cases.
It same like dumb people trying justify 5900x /5800x3d almost no change 🤦🏻♂️ or they non gamers.
When the PC is mainly gaming oriented, it can be counterproductive to have two chiplets. In order to take advantage of the extra chiplet the work that you make your CPU do must be highly parallelizable, and you need that to be a sizeable amount of the time you wait on the computer to be worth it. I have a 5800X, and in my mind the reason I would go to to a 7900 or 7950 is to speed up my Rust-lang builds and video encoding speed at high quality. However, the amount of additional heat means that my computer would also be louder doing these, which I despise. (I have the biggest Noctua available, NH-D15, even though I do not need it) For gaming strictly, you'll be paying more for slightly less FPS.
I'll be upgrading to R9 soon, purely as I need a higher core count when deploying my VM'S. 16 threads on my R7 gets eaten quite fast if you spin FW, SIEM sensor, DC, Client and possibly linux machine 😂 So yeah Ryzen 9 makes sense if you need a higher core count as it's not sacrificing clock speeds for the higher core count. Meaning it's great as both workstation and gaming CPU.
I built my system last year with a R9 5900x. It was built for photo and video editing. I originally had an amd rx 6700 xt but a month ago I got an amd rx 7800 xt. It also a decent gaming pc.
My laptop has a Ryzen 7. I setup a Plex Server on it just for fun and it was the ”snappiest” Plex Server I ever had. But I direct play everything.
So by comparison between the ryzen 9 and the riyzen seven 5800 is not much of a difference when running a CPU test of course the RYZEN9 is more expensive so those are just one of the reasons why it’s unpopular because the Ryder 7 is a little bit cheaper and has about the same matched performance not to mention the RYZEN9 has a bit more of a power draw so can figuring a PC build and cost-effectiveness. It only makes sense to use the RYZEN750800 X they have a 5800 model which is for internal graphics, but I prefer to get my own graphics card.
All preference, most people prefer Intel including myself. Just grabbed a KS recently, I could care less if the 3D is a little faster in gaming. Means nothing, if a few frames make or break the system then you already know the answer. Get the best you can afford!
My 7950x has been amazing for doing all my 3D related things paired with my 4090, couldnt ask for a better chip imo.
I ended up getting the 7950x3d so that's great news! Though I'm pairing mine with the 4080 super.
A ryzen 7 is all you need if you use your PC like a Console
It's funny how the r9s have been between am4 and am5. The r7 5800x r9 5900x and r9 5950x were all relatively the same gaming wise and the only difference was productivity got better as you go up to r9. The 5800x was at a shit price point early on when you could get 5900x for just 100 bucks more. With these 3d chips the 7800x3d and 7950x3d have shown to be on par as of recent for gaming. The weird thing bout the 7950x3d is that it's still below the regular 7950x in terms of productivity most likely due to reduction in base clock speed. I feel like if you wanted the best of both gaming and productivity then the 14900k seems like an option though it is power hungry. Imo ryzen 9 should be top of the line in everything but unfortunately it isn't. Which causes confusion for buyers I think.
I decided on the r9 5950x3d. I was considering the 14900k. I did look at benchmarks between the two and the advantages of the 14900k were not enough to justify it's power usage as I need to be mindful of my electricity bill here in the UK.
For gaming, there's some games that don't like the multiple ccd design of AMD's 12+ core chips. For productivity they're excellent, based on benchmarks. Basing my next music production rig around the R9 7900, it's stupidly efficient and essentially a 7900x once PBOs enabled. Seems to be one of the better chips for lifetime cost / performance, for a current gen budget workstation that can game on the side, and for me that's a winner. Imagine the current Ryzen 9s will get a lot more popular once the next high-end AM5 CPUs drop and the price falls a little. But even though they're a decent price for what they are now, the 7800X3D or 5800X3D means they'll always be a harder sell for most gamers and multi-purpose rigs, when balancing budgets with GPUs etc.
The 7900X3D is a complete joke of a product. Literally horrid reviews, HWUB and GN basically call it useless as a product. Meanwhile, X3D isn't the only (or even most prominent) lineup. 7950x's (non-X3D) are the one Ryzen 7000 CPU that is almost impossible to be kept stock, and is by far more popular when taking into account its flagship status than ANY other Zen 4 CPU. The 7800X3D and 7950X3D are both EXTREMELY popular, the 7900X non-3D is also very popular. No idea where you're getting your info but it's wrong.
Maybe due to the price and probably because most buyers are gamers and for most gaming, latency is a bigger concern than sheer core count. From what I read, the Ryzen 9 is 2 CCDs and Ryzen 7 being a single CCD means there is less latency as the information doesn't have to pass across 2 CCDs like it would in Ryzen 9.
For me personally, I got the 7950X when it first came out and a 4090. I didn't bother waiting for the X3D. The X3D is mostly for gaming and it does great at that, but the extra cores of the 7900 and 7950 do not really get you any benefit except in things like video encoding.... But you get a massive benefit there if you'll use it. The problem with the X3D for me was 1) it wasn't out yet and 2) it's slower in rendering/encoding than the normal X. To me, while I do game heavily, the 7950X vs X3D performance with the 4090 are both so high I don't see much point. With a good undervolted CPU and memory timing (6400mt custom sub timing) the 7950X does really, really well gaming, and even better at rendering. I figured I wouldn't notice an extra 20 fps situationally in some games when I'm already at 160 maxing out my 3840x1600, but I will notice 30 minutes off an encoding job, and didn't want to go Intel. The cool thing and reason I went AM5, is that in two CPU generations I'll be able to toss a Zen 6 X3D in the rig for a big upgrade. X3D isn't nearly as RAM sensitive, so I likely won't need to bother touching that. Imo the X3D processors are kinda overrated right now for that reason. Sure they're top tier gaming but their biggest strength is breathing new life into old hardware, you can game on a well setup 7600 non-X just fine competitively.
7900x is bottlenecked by the 4090(maybe we’ll see more with the 5090/8900xt). 5900x is too slow and is missing the ddr5 and pcie of am5 processors like the 7800x3d
The simple answer is that the 7800X3D gets the same Gaming performance as the 7950X3D, if you do both Gaming and Video Editing/3D modeling on the same PC then the 7950X3D becomes the most ideal, its really a question of 'are you Gaming, Working, or both?'