With extra L3 cache and lowered clocks for less heat, AMD is trying to make the Ryzen 9 7950X3D the best CPU for all scenarios. But how well does that work in reality?
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review: Gamers, Don't Buy This One!
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
Thanks for the excellent review.
One thing that‘s worth pointing out is the far lower gaming power consumption vs the regular 7950x (also lower than the 5800X3D) but more strongly vs the 13900K(S) that other reviews showed.
If you see that the 7950X3D get slightly better avg gaming performance at half the power vs the competition that‘s pretty impressive.
Am curious how the 7800X3D will do in this regard, but I definitely expect it to be the better choice for serious gamers.
The 7950X3D is imho just a ‚hey, if customers want to spend more, why not‘ model but I suspect AMD also uses it as a means of improving heterogeneous core support for a Zen 4+4C core CPU before those are released.
One thing that‘s worth pointing out is the far lower gaming power consumption vs the regular 7950x (also lower than the 5800X3D) but more strongly vs the 13900K(S) that other reviews showed.
If you see that the 7950X3D get slightly better avg gaming performance at half the power vs the competition that‘s pretty impressive.
Am curious how the 7800X3D will do in this regard, but I definitely expect it to be the better choice for serious gamers.
The 7950X3D is imho just a ‚hey, if customers want to spend more, why not‘ model but I suspect AMD also uses it as a means of improving heterogeneous core support for a Zen 4+4C core CPU before those are released.
They really need to sort out the thread allocation kinks. Otherwise, it looks like a good buy once it gets 100$ cheaper.
I do however expect the 7800X3D to be the next 5800X3D with the higher core models being much more niche products.
I really hope that the 8000X3D chips will have all CCDs with the extra cache.
I do however expect the 7800X3D to be the next 5800X3D with the higher core models being much more niche products.
I really hope that the 8000X3D chips will have all CCDs with the extra cache.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
Who knows, might even be a Zen 5 with 3d cache CCD plus one or several Zen 5c CCD without to get great gaming performance, counter Intel‘s e-core spam and get this at a still reasonably good price level.
You can prioritize the 3D-V-Cache-equipped Chiplet in the new bios variants for AMD 3D.
Makes more sense than leaving it on auto.
Makes more sense than leaving it on auto.
DSirius
Posts: 788 +1,613
Counter Intel‘s e-core spam - this is a better title for AMD 7950X article or for the future Zen5 processor article.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 5,219 +3,074
Great job! So happy to see that you simulated the 7800X3D.
I saw a reviewer I won't name that showed the AMD X3D Review material. Maybe you could show them in the future if possible? It was really cool to get a look at what these chipmakers request from reviewers.
I saw a reviewer I won't name that showed the AMD X3D Review material. Maybe you could show them in the future if possible? It was really cool to get a look at what these chipmakers request from reviewers.
You're making a big assumption that the 7800x3d will match the frequencies of the single CCD 7950x3d... and that amd won't segment the product stack by lowering that.
I mean, they list the max boost frequency on the 7800x3d as 5 ghz. So, it's going to be slower. The question is how much.
I mean, they list the max boost frequency on the 7800x3d as 5 ghz. So, it's going to be slower. The question is how much.
"Don't buy this one" - come again?
The single most important aspect of processor design is efficiency. without efficiency all is lost, it's what's kept moors law alive for 50 years.
Here we see intel pulling nearly 500watts and AMD in the 270watt range.
This is an industry where 10% is a huge deal, and much like in server, AMD is showing a mind bogging, staggering, almost 100% better efficiency over intel.
This is what matters, THIS IS cpu design!!!.
The single most important aspect of processor design is efficiency. without efficiency all is lost, it's what's kept moors law alive for 50 years.
Here we see intel pulling nearly 500watts and AMD in the 270watt range.
This is an industry where 10% is a huge deal, and much like in server, AMD is showing a mind bogging, staggering, almost 100% better efficiency over intel.
This is what matters, THIS IS cpu design!!!.
That's not just impressive, it's mindboggling!
this isnt so much how good AMD is (though they are) it's more telling of how much intel has fallen behind. this is a world where we are doing exciting things, like Apple making 15 watt chips, and phones nearing pc levels of processing power. meanwhile intel is still running hundreds of watts though there ancient cpus.
grvalderrama
Posts: 314 +182
Great review as usual, and an excellent comeback of amd regaining the performance crown at a cpu level.
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
If not for gamers, who should buy this CPU ? The answer is easy: no one. This is AMD trolling its user base. This CPU is advertised as a gaming solution, but it’s not (who need 16 core for gaming ???). It is even slower than a regular 7950X in generic applications, because L3 cache is useless most of the times. But… AMD is trying to convince its hard core user base conveniently delaying the only meaningful product: the 7800X3D. AMD is becoming worse than the company they always had depicted as evil: Intel.
MaxSmarties
Posts: 559 +326
Performance crown ? This CPU is struggling to compete with a 13700K in traditional applications.
Last edited:
So while it is more expensive than the 13900K, it uses far less power, has a future proof platform and you can save a lot on cooling if you choose a midrange air cooler vs a 360mm CLC which you would need for a 13900k, when running on full load.
And obviously if you buy either a 13900k or a 7950X3D, you have work that can use all the cores, otherwise you buy a 13600k, 13700k, 7600X, 7700X or a 7800X3D if gaming is your main concern.
And obviously if you buy either a 13900k or a 7950X3D, you have work that can use all the cores, otherwise you buy a 13600k, 13700k, 7600X, 7700X or a 7800X3D if gaming is your main concern.
Bamda
Posts: 516 +282
One thing that Steve failed to test for is power consumption. GN shows that the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is about twice as power efficient as the i9-13900K, it's quite remarkable. Total power consumption is about half as much as the i9-13900K. Now that is a CPU I could get interested in. I will be waiting for the 7800X3D to see how that CPU performs.
fps4ever
Posts: 1,149 +1,899
So you can get better performance at lower power! Major win...such close competition between blue and red.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
This review vindicates everything that I've been saying about AMD's decision to produce 3D versions of R9 APUs instead of R5 APUs. It is literally the stupidest decision that I've ever seen AMD make and it's going to hurt them. I get no joy from this because their choice to make these 3D R9 APUs instead of a 3D R5 APU doesn't only hurt them, it hurts gamers and I am a gamer.
Prosumers won't pay more for an APU that is beaten by the R9-7950X in productivity, even if they want to also game with it because the R9-7950X already matches the i9-12900K in gaming which makes it an already great gaming APU for far less money than the R9-7950X3D.
OTOH, gamers won't buy it because there's no point in paying more for an APU that games worse than one costing significantly less (as the simulated R7-7800X3D showed us). This is especially true when you're paying more money for a bunch of extra cores that will just sit idle and eat power for no reason which is EXACTLY what the R9-7950X3D will do.
The R9-7900X3D is in an even worse position because it has no hope of out-performing both the R9-7950X3D or the R7-7800X3D because it has fewer cores with 3D cache. It will perform no better in games than the APU that should have been, the R5-7600X3D, but, again, its high price will make it one of the worst processors ever launched by AMD.
I said from the beginning that AMD was utterly insane to create X3D versions of the R9 APUs instead of the R5. When Steve tests the R9-7900X3D, he'll be able to simulate what the R5-7600X3D would have been, the APU that AMD should have made. I said that 3D versions of the R9 APUs would be DOA, and sure enough, here we are.
The R5-7600X3D would've been an APU with no chance of failure. Instead, AMD decided to produce TWO APUs that have no chance of success. Even worse, these two APUs cost them a lot more of their money and resources (like TSMC allocation) than the R5-7600X3D would have, making the consequences of this assured failure all that much worse. I said that 3D versions of the R9 APUs would be DOA, and sure enough, here we are. Steve will be able to simulate an R5-7600X3D when he gets his hands on an R9-3900X3D and we'll see what could have been, the APU that would have made AMD the undisputed kings of gaming.
Instead, here we are, EXACTLY where I knew that we'd be. To everyone who gave me flak for saying this, enjoy your plate of crow.
Prosumers won't pay more for an APU that is beaten by the R9-7950X in productivity, even if they want to also game with it because the R9-7950X already matches the i9-12900K in gaming which makes it an already great gaming APU for far less money than the R9-7950X3D.
OTOH, gamers won't buy it because there's no point in paying more for an APU that games worse than one costing significantly less (as the simulated R7-7800X3D showed us). This is especially true when you're paying more money for a bunch of extra cores that will just sit idle and eat power for no reason which is EXACTLY what the R9-7950X3D will do.
The R9-7900X3D is in an even worse position because it has no hope of out-performing both the R9-7950X3D or the R7-7800X3D because it has fewer cores with 3D cache. It will perform no better in games than the APU that should have been, the R5-7600X3D, but, again, its high price will make it one of the worst processors ever launched by AMD.
I said from the beginning that AMD was utterly insane to create X3D versions of the R9 APUs instead of the R5. When Steve tests the R9-7900X3D, he'll be able to simulate what the R5-7600X3D would have been, the APU that AMD should have made. I said that 3D versions of the R9 APUs would be DOA, and sure enough, here we are.
The R5-7600X3D would've been an APU with no chance of failure. Instead, AMD decided to produce TWO APUs that have no chance of success. Even worse, these two APUs cost them a lot more of their money and resources (like TSMC allocation) than the R5-7600X3D would have, making the consequences of this assured failure all that much worse. I said that 3D versions of the R9 APUs would be DOA, and sure enough, here we are. Steve will be able to simulate an R5-7600X3D when he gets his hands on an R9-3900X3D and we'll see what could have been, the APU that would have made AMD the undisputed kings of gaming.
Instead, here we are, EXACTLY where I knew that we'd be. To everyone who gave me flak for saying this, enjoy your plate of crow.
I feel like you deliberately skipped over the comparison for power consumption there in your conclusion.
While it's true they are neck and neck in performance, AMD comes in at almost half the power consumption.
While it's true they are neck and neck in performance, AMD comes in at almost half the power consumption.
brucek
Posts: 1,725 +2,691
Not particular to this review, but for a long time I've been wondering how I could best estimate if a CPU, platform, storage, or other upgrade would be noticeable in terms of snappiness of daily use. Things like how fast a web page loads, how quickly my IDE auto-suggests a method name in a large project, and how long to start or zone in a game (I'll notice this more than a change from 160 to 165 fps).
I realize that basically any system can do these things "adequately". That doesn't change the fact that as someone who is working on then playing on a computer for large chunks of a day and night, I'm happy to pay up a tier or two for even fractional-second increases in perceived responsiveness. Not because it necessarily makes me deliver more work, but just because it feels nicer.
The answer is partly correlated to the kinds of bigger processing tasks that are included in benchmarks, but I suspect in many cases also uniquely weights certain characteristics much more than others.
I realize that basically any system can do these things "adequately". That doesn't change the fact that as someone who is working on then playing on a computer for large chunks of a day and night, I'm happy to pay up a tier or two for even fractional-second increases in perceived responsiveness. Not because it necessarily makes me deliver more work, but just because it feels nicer.
The answer is partly correlated to the kinds of bigger processing tasks that are included in benchmarks, but I suspect in many cases also uniquely weights certain characteristics much more than others.
This review vindicates everything that I've been saying about AMD's decision to produce 3D versions of R9 APUs instead of R5 APUs. It is literally the stupidest decision that I've ever seen AMD make and it's going to hurt them. I get no joy from this because their choice to make these 3D R9 APUs instead of a 3D R5 APU doesn't only hurt them, it hurts gamers and I am a gamer.
Prosumers won't pay more for an APU that is beaten by the R9-7950X in productivity, even if they want to also game with it because the R9-7950X already matches the i9-12900K in gaming which makes it an already great gaming APU for far less money than the R9-7950X3D.
OTOH, gamers won't buy it because there's no point in paying more for an APU that games worse than one costing significantly less (as the simulated R7-7800X3D showed us). This is especially true when you're paying more money for a bunch of extra cores that will just sit idle and eat power for no reason which is EXACTLY what the R9-7950X3D will do.
The R9-7900X3D is in an even worse position because it has no hope of out-performing both the R9-7950X3D or the R7-7800X3D because it has fewer cores with 3D cache. It will perform no better in games than the APU that should have been, the R5-7600X3D, but, again, its high price will make it one of the worst processors ever launched by AMD.
I said from the beginning that AMD was utterly insane to create X3D versions of the R9 APUs instead of the R5. When Steve tests the R9-7900X3D, he'll be able to simulate what the R5-7600X3D would have been, the APU that AMD should have made. I said that 3D versions of the R9 APUs would be DOA, and sure enough, here we are.
The R5-7600X3D would've been an APU with no chance of failure. Instead, AMD decided to produce TWO APUs that have no chance of success. Even worse, these two APUs cost them a lot more of their money and resources (like TSMC allocation) than the R5-7600X3D would have, making the consequences of this assured failure all that much worse. I said that 3D versions of the R9 APUs would be DOA, and sure enough, here we are. Steve will be able to simulate an R5-7600X3D when he gets his hands on an R9-3900X3D and we'll see what could have been, the APU that would have made AMD the undisputed kings of gaming.
Instead, here we are, EXACTLY where I knew that we'd be. To everyone who gave me flak for saying this, enjoy your plate of crow.
The 7600X3D would kill the sales of the 7700X and to an extent 7800X3D. And then you would have to price the 7600X3D at $350, which is the same price as the 7700X. That's bad for business. The regular 7600 series is already a capable gaming CPU that beats out the more expensive 13600.
There are people who do productivity work and who also like to play games. The 7900X3D and the 7950X3D were created for those people. I have no idea where the bifurcated thinking comes from that says you cannot do both. Additionally, AMD released the 7900X/7950X3D as a result of customer demand after the release of the 5800X3D. The didn't just pull it from you know where. These are consumer CPUs. They don't compete with EPYCs with 3DV-Cache, which cost gobs more and sell like hotcakes, btw. AMD has a very nice CPU lineup for AM5, actually.
Of course, the 7800X3D is the better choice for gamers who don't do anything except play games. The 7950/7900X3D weren't made for them. The 7800X3D is made for them, and AMD anticipates stellar demand, which is why they are being a launched a month later--AMD wants to have a robust stockpile on hand. If you remember, the demand for the 5800X3D was much greater than AMD anticipated, and they kept running out of stock every few days. They don't plan for that to happen with the 7800X3D.
Of course, the 7800X3D is the better choice for gamers who don't do anything except play games. The 7950/7900X3D weren't made for them. The 7800X3D is made for them, and AMD anticipates stellar demand, which is why they are being a launched a month later--AMD wants to have a robust stockpile on hand. If you remember, the demand for the 5800X3D was much greater than AMD anticipated, and they kept running out of stock every few days. They don't plan for that to happen with the 7800X3D.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
Whoever determines the Techspot score doesn‘t seem to agree.
13900K - 75
13900KS - 70
7950X3D - 75
It‘s not Steve giving the score btw.
TechSavy101
Posts: 27 +45
TBH 7950X3D isn't as bad as this review says. It easily beats 13900K. It beats 13900KS and ties in some cases. What this review got wrong is that 13900KS is not cheaper than 7950X3d.13900KS is $730 at newegg.com. Also DDR5 7200 is more expensive than DDR5 6000. If you compare prices of both I dont think AMD is in a very bad spot price/performance wise. Maybe 7950X3d is $50_75 overpriced. What is overlooked is power consumption. AMD's 5nm is very efficient compared to intel. Techpowerup.com has done deep dive into this.
Funny how Steve talks about price difference totally forgetting that Intel solution consumes 200 watts more needing much better cooling. Also electricity seems to be free today?
Buying more for AMD system pays off very quickly if using productivity software. Electricity price on US seems to be around 0.175 dollars / kWh. Let's just say 5 hours per day, that makes 1 kWh per day that equals 0.175 dollars. 100 dollars is spent on 1.5 years. And we even didn't count any cooling solution and neither cooling costs to lower room temperature.
Buying AMD pays off very quickly.
Buying more for AMD system pays off very quickly if using productivity software. Electricity price on US seems to be around 0.175 dollars / kWh. Let's just say 5 hours per day, that makes 1 kWh per day that equals 0.175 dollars. 100 dollars is spent on 1.5 years. And we even didn't count any cooling solution and neither cooling costs to lower room temperature.
Buying AMD pays off very quickly.
amghwk
Posts: 1,549 +1,539
I don't understand the
In most of the gaming charts, the 7950X3D stays at the top.
It draws much,much,much less power than the i9 13900KS.
And the price of the 7950X is about 200-250 USD cheaper than the 13900KS here (Singapore & Malaysia). Couldn't see the 3D version in the local online selling platform here yet, but looking at the i9's price, it would be still cheaper.
In most of the gaming charts, the 7950X3D stays at the top.
It draws much,much,much less power than the i9 13900KS.
And the price of the 7950X is about 200-250 USD cheaper than the 13900KS here (Singapore & Malaysia). Couldn't see the 3D version in the local online selling platform here yet, but looking at the i9's price, it would be still cheaper.
Similar threads
- Locked
