These absurd lopsided ratings/reviews are a slap in the face to viewers and to hardworking engineers/engineering. Like Tweak Town giving it a "Must Have" with a score of 93. These Tweakers are better shoveling dog poop for a living.
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review: Gamers, Don't Buy This One!
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
By your logic, AMD should never have released the R7-5700X because it would kill the sales of the R7-5800X, but they did it anyway because it doesn't really matter which CPUs they sell, as long as they sell CPUs. This is because their enemy isn't themselves, it's Intel. Every CPU they sell represents a consumer who didn't buy an Intel CPU instead.
The R5-7600X3D would've cornered the gaming processor market and guaranteed the future viability of AM5. THAT is the kind of position that you want to be in if you're AMD, not the position they're in now where lots of people think that they're either insane fools at best or greedy crooks at worst. The only thing that kept AMD afloat during the dark days of the FX-era (2010-2017) was the goodwill of people who appreciated that AMD didn't pull the same crap as Intel or nVidia. If AMD keeps up with shady tactics like this, I'll start to hate them too and then you might see me with an Intel/nVidia system for the first time since before 2010. If I hate all of them, I won't boycott all of them, I'll just not boycott any of them, plain and simple.
So what if they make fewer R7-7700X APUs? It's not a big deal because they could sell a crap-tonne of R5-7600X3D APUs at the same price as the R7-7700X and make about the same money per unit. Instead, what they've done is hand over who-knows how many potential customers to Intel by producing two APUs that will be destroyed by their own standard-X versions. That's the worst way for AMD to do business because of their platform philosophy. With the way that the AM4 and AM5 platforms are, the more people you get to buy into them early, the more processors you'll sell in the long run. That's exactly what happened with AM4 and it's why it's the greatest platform in PC history.
There is literally no reason to put 3D cache on a productivity APU but plenty of reasons not to. This was nothing more than a cash-grab and the proof of it is everywhere.
Q#1 - Why did the R9-7950X3D come out first?
A#1 - Because AMD knew that there would be enough people unable to control themselves because they'd want to be the first to have a 7000-series X3D.
Q#2 - Why didn't any reviewers receive the R9-7900X3D?
A#2 - Because AMD knows that it's going to suck and didn't want reviewers to reveal that fact.
Q#3 - Why is the R7-5800X3D not coming out until April?
A#3 - Because AMD knows that it will expose the R9-7900X3D and R9-7950X3D as the rip-offs that they are. Steve's simulated R7-5800X3D has already shown this to be true.
If they had made an R5-7600X3D, there's no chance that it would've failed and it would have been a cash cow for AMD because it's a gaming CPU and X3D is a gaming technology. This is the stupidest and most short-sighted thing that I've ever seen AMD do. Hell, it makes the Phenom I look like a little hiccup because at least with that CPU, they had nothing else. In this case, AMD chose to release APUs that have no hope of success instead of the APU that would have no hope of failure.
I knew that this would be a disaster based on the test results of the R7-5800X3D. It's great in gaming but sucks in productivity compared to the R7-5700X and R7-5800X. This was exactly the same kind of results that the R7-5800X3D had. Why would anyone expect it to be different in just one generation?
Now, if AMD had only released an R7-7800X3D, that would've been fair. It wouldn't have been a good move because they'd lose customers to Intel who would otherwise have jumped at the R5-7600X3D but at least they wouldn't have wasted so much money and resources on two APUs that are guaranteed to be DOA.
antiproduct
Posts: 311 +439
I'm hope the X3D will run well in Eco mode at 65W, because while the average cost per kWh in the US is 17.5 cents, in San Diego it's 46 cents. So please save my electric bill!
Last edited:
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
No it doesn't. The simulated R7-7800X3D has slightly better numbers and a processor cut in half never performs as well as a standalone processor. You're being short-sighted here. Think further down the road when the R7-7800X3D comes out. Neither of these APUs will survive that.
Comparing the R9-7950X3D to the most power-hungry and hottest-running processor ever made is setting the bar REALLY low.
The price of the R9-7950X3D is irrelevant because the real competitor to the i9-13900K and KS is the R9-7950X because it doesn't suck in productivity which is what most people who get the i9-13900K get it for. You don't really think that gamers are the ones who go nuts for the i9-13900K do you? I mean, some might (there are always the rich and/or stupids) but most gamers with good heads on their shoulders who want Intel would get an i5 or i7 from the 12th or 13th generations. Gamers didn't go nuts for the i9-12900K or the i9-13900K. You might think that they did because they were the fastest gaming processors in the world when launched but the reality of halo pricing makes people get the best that they can afford. Most people can't afford an R9 or i9 processor and have no need for it.
The ones who can afford it and do need an R9 or i9 processor are prosumers and want them for productivity tasks. The ones who want to game on them still won't look at the R9 X3D models because in gaming, the R9-7950X matches the i9-12900K which makes it an incredible gaming processor in its own right. They would gain nothing from gaming on an R9 X3D that an R9 X doesn't already provide for far less money.
It's not to different than when AMD tried to market the Radeon VII to gamers. Sure, it could game but it was a terrible product because of the other options that consumers had. I think that the Radeon VII was in production for only 6 months. I think that the R9 X3D APUs won't be in production past June 2023 because once the stupids have bought them (assuming they haven't returned them), they'll gather dust until AMD decides to let them go for a loss.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
The best way to save your electric bill is to simply not buy a 16-core part if you don't need it. As for Eco-Mode, the X3D is always in eco-mode which is why it will never be able to match the R9-7950X in productivity tasks, the thing that these 16-core APUs are really made for.
Last edited:
So I got one question: what is this 7800 simulated stuff? You used the 7950X3D and sometimes apparently the software decided wrong and the wrong cores were used so the performance wasnt perfect. Then you disabled the non-cache cores and re-ran the tests? So all in all the software just needs to be improved?
Right now this looks like as if the 7800 will be amazing and perfect and a lot better than the 7950X3D. But thats bullshit. Its just a matter of software handling and other reviews already stated that its usually working pretty damn good already.
In theory if the software works correctly (or gets improved in the upcoming weeks and months) the 7950X3D shouldnt be slower than the 7800. Unless maybe the 7800 clocks a little bit higher. But the official AMD statement already is that the 7800 goes up to 5ghz and not higher so thats MAYBE 100-200MHZ higher or it could be pretty much the same we will see.
Right now this looks like as if the 7800 will be amazing and perfect and a lot better than the 7950X3D. But thats bullshit. Its just a matter of software handling and other reviews already stated that its usually working pretty damn good already.
In theory if the software works correctly (or gets improved in the upcoming weeks and months) the 7950X3D shouldnt be slower than the 7800. Unless maybe the 7800 clocks a little bit higher. But the official AMD statement already is that the 7800 goes up to 5ghz and not higher so thats MAYBE 100-200MHZ higher or it could be pretty much the same we will see.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
You're assuming that clock speed on an X3D processor will suddenly matter. The R7-5800X3D could easily be out-clocked by ANY X-model in its generation and it still obliterated ALL of them. If you had learnt anything from the R7-5800X3D, it should've been that the cache makes RAM and clock speeds irrelevant.
This isn't a new thing, it's behaving EXACTLY the same way as the R7-5800X3D did in its review. The R7-5800X3D exposed the latency of moving data from CPU to RAM as the main limiting factor in gaming and having the 3D cache to circumvent that was FAR more valuable in gaming than higher clock or RAM speeds. This has already been proven so what are you talking about?
AMD might have shortage of V-cache chips. Remember that single Epyc CPU could consume 8 V-cache chips. No wonder AMD wants to ensure there are enough for Epyc CPUs.
Alternatively AMD could just release R7-5800X3D right now with limited quantity but then you would complain about paper launch.
Epyc take priority here and that's very understandable.
OK, AMD releases R5-7600X3D for quite low price. That would mean following:
- Basically Ryzen CPUs without V-cache would become obsolete for gaming, that includes like 7700X etc.
- Every future Ryzen CPU must also have V-cache, otherwise they would "suck" for gaming.
Basically AMD must either make V-cache new standard feature for every gaming Ryzen or keep it "premium" feature.
If all you do is productivity, and it doesn't strongly favor some Intel features then you get the 7950X. If you also do a lot of gaming, until now there's a good chance you would have chosen the 13900K, with the 7950X3D AMD has levelled the playing field. The 7950X3D is also a test bench for future AMD heterogeneous CPUs, and until the 7800X3D is released the 7950X3D will probably prevent a lot of people going the Intel route, because they simply want the 7800X3D. And AMD will use the upcoming weeks to build up large stock 7800X3D chips. The 7900X3D I think is mostly for the OEM market.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
For gamers, there's no point in having a second CCX in the first place.
For prosumers, there's no point in having 3D cache on one CCX slowing the whole APU down.
Either way, the R9-7950X3D APU is a pointless product.
I agree with Steve. There is no point to this APU's existence. Gamers don't need a second CCX and prosumers don't need 3D cache. If you want productivity, get the R9-7950X (run it on eco mode if you want, it's still way cheaper) and if you want gaming performance, get the R7-7800X3D. If you want both gaming and productivity performance, go back to the R9-7950X because it matches the gaming performance of the i9-12900K which makes it a fantastic gaming APU in its own right and it still costs way less.
Sure, it's efficient but not more so than the R9-7950X in Eco mode so it's still a pointless product. There's nothing wrong with the design itself as I agree, the design is spectacular. Where AMD falls flat (and boy, do they ever fall flat) is in the implementation. There's no point in adding something to a productivity APU that increases its gaming performance if it already has amazing gaming performance, especially not at the cost of productivity performance which is its primary purpose.
There are only two APUs to which AMD should ever have considered adding the 3D cache, the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7. Nobody uses those for productivity but plenty of people use them for gaming. A smart business person sells a certain technology to the market that wants it and will benefit from it, not the market that doesn't want it and will suffer from it, especially when trying to charge more for it.
It does, but it's still pointless because the R9-7950X already does that in Eco mode for a good deal less money.
I understand your sentiment but you're misunderstanding Steve's point. It's a point that I myself have tried (in vain) several times to get across. This isn't about choosing Intel over AMD, it's about choosing AMD over AMD.
The problem with the R9-7950X3D is not that it's a bad product but a pointless product. It offers no advantage to the R9-7950X in productivity (which is the core purpose of a 16-core APU) or in power consumption (if you just put the R9-7950X in Eco-Mode). The only advantage it offers over the R9-7950X is gaming performance but the 7950X is already a fantastic gaming APU on the level of the i9-12900K so you wouldn't be able to notice one from the other in ANY game. So, it costs $110 more than the R9-7950X and any advantage it offers is hilariously outweighed by its drawbacks.
In gaming, it's more expensive than the R7-7800X3D will be but has inferior gaming performance. Since few prosumers will buy an 8-core APU when 12 and 16 are available, the extra 8 cores offers nothing to the gamer looking at a 6 or 8-core AM5 APU. What AMD should have done instead of producing the R9-7900X3D and R9-7950X3D is focus all that energy on two different models, the R5-7600X3D and R7-7800X3D. This is because X3D cache improves gaming performance at the cost of productivity performance. This was proven in the benchmarks of the R7-5800X3D to be true without a doubt. Since gamers don't care about slightly lower performance in productivity tasks but LOVE higher gaming performance, the R5 and R7 APUs would literally fly off of the shelves and adoption of AM5 would skyrocket.
So why would AMD take something that they know improves gaming performance but reduces productivity performance and put it on their top productivity APUs, the R9s? People looking to buy an R9 don't care about gaming performance (especially since the R9s are already great at gaming as it is) but they're not going to like the reduced productivity performance and they're especially not going to like paying $100 more for an APU that is inferior for their uses than what's already out there.
On the flip-side, a gamer isn't going to want a 16-core, asymmetrically-doubled CCX APU for gaming and we couldn't care less about how much faster it is at unzipping a .zip, .rar or .7z archive. We also certainly don't want to pay a crap-tonne more gold for a bunch of extra cores that will sit idle and eat electricity for no reason while we're gaming. Then of course, there's the hoops we have to jump through to make sure that Windows doesn't get confused as to which CCX to use. We'd be better off doing what Steve did and disabling the second CCX altogether. Therefore, for gamers, the R7-7800X3D is the only X3D APU that we'd be interested in.
AMD's insistence on having X3D-imbued R9 APUs is so stupid that I don't even have a word for it that I can say in polite company. As stupid as that is, their refusal to produce an R5-7600X3D, an APU that would have ZERO chance at failure and would be the most logical processor to combine X3D cache with only makes me wonder if there are some bad drugs in the water in Sunnyvale.
The R9 X3D APUs are too expensive and are inferior to other AMD products that are either already out or soon will be. The R9 X APUs defeat them both in productivity at a lower price and the upcoming R7-7800X3D beats them both in gaming at a lower price.
So, if they're both beaten in productivity by APUs that are less expensive and are beaten in gaming by an APU that is coming in April that also uses less wattage, what exactly is the point of these APUs? In what way are they the best? In what way are they worth the asking price?
The truth is that there isn't a way in which they're the best or worth the asking price. Not because of anything from Intel, but because of other products from AMD. Therefore, both the R9-7900X3D and R9-7950X3D are both DOA products. AMD's stupidity defies description both for these pointless products and for their refusal to make what would've been the most effective at keeping consumers away from Intel, the R5-7600X3D.
Last edited:
There are people who both have work that can utilize 16 cores and want excellent gaming performance. Before they would choose the 13900K, now they can also go for the 7950X3D.
The conclusion only talked about the value of the 13900K which is still $580 at Newegg. The conclusion also compared combo prices and noted Intel was still $100 cheaper than AMD with 7200 memory. Maybe give it another read.
The 5700X part is very much needed and it came late, much like the popular 3700X that included a box cooler. There was no cheaper 8 core part available and AMD forced the users to buy the more expensive 5800X and 5800X3D for pretty much the life of Zen 3.
Now, if the 7600X3D is available on the market, it will garner a premium price tag. No doubt it won't cost less than $300. Think about it, $300+ for a 6-core part? No thanks. We should be fed up forking over $200 for 6 core chips since 2017.
Just lower the current product stacks instead adding more expensive products.
Eldrach
Posts: 27 +31
I think the 1080p tests needs to be joined by 1440p and 4k tests. I know you test in 1080p because that is "where the cpu is the bottleneck", but no one with a 4090 and this CPU would play in 1080p in a realistic scenario. For a user to make an educated choice - the user needs to see how the cpu would perform in higher resolutions.
From what I've seen earlier, the difference between cpu's becomes alot smaller the higher the resolution as the bottleneck is moved to the gpu. So in a realistic gaming scenario, buying this cpu would probably not gain you many % improvement over the last generation of cpu's in gaming.
From what I've seen earlier, the difference between cpu's becomes alot smaller the higher the resolution as the bottleneck is moved to the gpu. So in a realistic gaming scenario, buying this cpu would probably not gain you many % improvement over the last generation of cpu's in gaming.
brucek
Posts: 1,730 +2,702
This is a key point that I think sometimes get lost even though Techspot occasionally runs articles focused on it. While it's interesting to hear how much difference between CPUs you can create with artificial scenarios, in the end the most valuable paragraph in an article like this is probably the one reminding most shoppers how little difference they're likely to notice (depending on what they're upgrading from.)
WhoCaresAnymore
Posts: 775 +1,224
Half the power usage of Intel. HALF. That’s a huge accomplishment and a design win. But still not upgrading. my 5950x will last for years and years
amghwk
Posts: 1,555 +1,545
Same here. I see no reason to upgrade from my 5900X.
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
Techpowerup showed a 13900K is better in most of the applications, gaming aside. And you don’t need a 7950 (or a 13900K) for gaming. The marketing machine is working very well on AMD supporters: their are convinced this is a good solution. A good solution would have been a 7600X3D.
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
Are you doing rendering 5 hours per day ? Funny how AMD supporters forget to consider how much a CPU really consume while gaming…
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
People is completely misunderstanding numbers here. We are speaking about CPU (wrongly) advertised as gaming solution, but they are taking into account power consumption for all core workloads. They are completely ignoring that a 7950X or a 13900K in gaming are using less than 100W (on the average my 13900K stays around 85W while gaming).
Funny how someone is speaking about electricity bill and then they are using an RTX 4090, lol.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
I agree with you on principle - I shared the view that a > 1 CCD 3d cache Ryzen would be pointless on a technical and value merit from the start.
That said, there are reasons for offering the dual CCD models.
- Halo effect - this always needs to be the top of the line CPU. The 5800X3D never quite played that role.
- money - there are always those who get the ‚biggest‘ model
- get proper heterogeneous core support for future Ryzen that might mix cores. For AMD this always takes longer, both because of their software dev resources but also because OS support is a lot slower for AMD vs Intel. Just look at the effort Microsoft made to support Intel‘s big+little, something they‘re not doing for AMD in that scale.
So while the 7950X is a pointless product for most customers if you look at it reasonably, it‘s not for AMD. And the 7950X is already sold out.
I wish these kinds of comments stopped at some point. The 13900k pulls a lot more power cause it has a way higher power limit. If you lower the power limit, it doesn't. Yet the zen 4 will still be faster in MT performance at similar power limits, but the difference is actually surprisingly small, 10 to 15%.
Where the 13900k is a power hog and nothing can be done about it (unless you underclock it I guess) is games. But for productivity, it's perfectly fine.
Not true, I used a 13900k with a single tower air cooler
Ok, how was the temperatures and clockspeed under continuous full load?
For gaming and shorter loads I would think it would be OK, but for longer rendering jobs I would think it might would start to throttle?
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
US TikTok ban could begin next year as Biden signs law, but legal battle looms- GodisanAtheist replied
-
Who is Prabhakar Raghavan and why is he accused of killing Google Search?- captaincranky replied
-
USB 28 error on windows 10- Iddo12 replied
-
AMD Radeon RX 8000 RDNA 4 GPUs rumored to use slower 18 Gbps GDDR6 memory- m3tavision replied
