AMD's Ryzen 9 9950X3D and 9900X3D arrive March 12, starting at $599

S

Skye Jacobs

Posts: 730   +15
Staff
Something to look forward to: AMD has confirmed the pricing and launch date for its latest high-performance processors, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Ryzen 9 9900X3D, with MSRPs of $699 and $599, respectively. Both models are set to launch in a few days on March 12. Expect the full TechSpot review very soon.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a powerhouse, featuring 16 cores and 32 threads, with a base clock speed of 4.3 GHz and a boost clock of up to 5.7 GHz. It boasts 144MB of total cache, including AMD's second-generation 3D V-Cache technology, which enhances performance by expanding the L3 cache. The processor operates at a TDP of 170W, reflecting its high-performance capabilities.

In contrast, the Ryzen 9 9900X3D offers 12 cores and 24 threads, with a slightly higher base clock speed of 4.4 GHz and a boost clock of up to 5.5 GHz. It features 140MB of total cache, including 3D V-Cache, and operates at a lower TDP of 120W.

This model is designed to balance performance and power efficiency, making it appealing to users who need robust processing power without excessive energy consumption.

AMD claims that the Ryzen 9 9950X3D offers up to 20% better gaming performance than Intel's Core Ultra 9 285K in certain scenarios. However, when directly compared to the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, gaming performance is generally comparable, with slight variations depending on the game engine and core utilization.

Furthermore, according to AMD's product and business development manager, Martijn Boonstra, the Ryzen 9 9900X3D and 9950X3D will not surpass the impressive gaming performance of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, which has been praised as a top-tier gaming CPU since its release.

Instead, they are expected to deliver "comparable overall gaming performance" to the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. In an interview with VideoGamer, Boonstra explained that while the new chips may be slightly faster in some games that leverage additional cores, they may lag behind in others.

Beyond gaming, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D is meant to excel in multi-threaded applications such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and complex simulations. Its high core count and clock speeds also make it well-suited for single-threaded tasks, including CAD applications and content creation tools.

Permalink to story:

AMD's Ryzen 9 9950X3D and 9900X3D arrive March 12, starting at $599

 
A waste of time… “comparable gaming performance” for more money than the 9800X3D… no thanks.

The “vanilla” 9950 and 9900 are already good enough for gaming while giving better productivity performance…

Unless they provided the same (or better) productivity performance, it is silly to purchase the X3D versions… May as well buy a threadripper to game on…
 
Squid Surprise said:
A waste of time… “comparable gaming performance” for more money than the 9800X3D… no thanks.

The “vanilla” 9950 and 9900 are already good enough for gaming while giving better productivity performance…

Unless they provided the same (or better) productivity performance, it is silly to purchase the X3D versions… May as well buy a threadripper to game on…
Click to expand...

There are a lot of things wrong/strange with this take:
* The fact you're making any assertions about whether the CPUs are worth it before the reviews are out to see the price/performance comparisons, raw performance numbers, issues, etc.
* The fact that they could offer the same gaming perf as an 9800X3D but have better productivity performance, therefore costing more, seems to surprise you (and make it seems like you're taking a gaming-focussed stance)
* Asserting that "9950 and 9900 are already good enough for gaming", as though that somehow means having CPUs which are better for gaming, is bad (and makes it seems like you're taking a productivity-focussed stance)
* Comparing any of these CPUs to a Threadripper CPU, which has a totally different use case, when all of them would likely have better gaming performance and would be good enough for all but the most intensive power users.

I'm looking forward to the reviews and benchmarks. Will be interesting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fb020997, yannus, themastergoose and 13 others
jonny888 said:
There are a lot of things wrong/strange with this take:
* The fact you're making any assertions about whether the CPUs are worth it before the reviews are out to see the price/performance comparisons, raw performance numbers, issues, etc.
* The fact that they could offer the same gaming perf as an 9800X3D but have better productivity performance, therefore costing more, seems to surprise you (and make it seems like you're taking a gaming-focussed stance)
* Asserting that "9950 and 9900 are already good enough for gaming", as though that somehow means having CPUs which are better for gaming, is bad (and makes it seems like you're taking a productivity-focussed stance)
* Comparing any of these CPUs to a Threadripper CPU, which has a totally different use case, when all of them would likely have better gaming performance and would be good enough for all but the most intensive power users.

I'm looking forward to the reviews and benchmarks. Will be interesting.
Click to expand...
Except we already have a lot of info... had you been keeping tabs on this for the past few months, you'd know it too...

We KNOW that the gaming performance won't be quite as good as the 9800X3D - AMD has admitted this and numerous sources have also confirmed this. Read the article, it says "comparable gaming" --> that's legal speak for "not quite as good".

The 9800X3d's MSRP is $479... that's $220 CHEAPER than the 9950X3D and will be a better gaming CPU...

On the other hand, the "vanilla" 9950 has the same MSRP as the X3D variant at $699 but can be had a bit cheaper now depending on the vendor - I see it on Amazon for $545 right now

AMD CPUs have all sacrificed a bit of productivity performance for gamin when adding X3D... so it stands to reason (and AMD has done nothing to contradict this) that the 9950X3D and the 9900X3D will not be as strong, productivity-wise, as their "vanilla" counterparts.

As to value - if you are in the market for the "best" gaming CPU, that hasn't changed... if anything, these CPUs will probably lower the price of the 9800X3D over the next little while...

If you want an "all-rounder", the vanilla 9900 and 9950 still offer "comparable gaming" as well... do you really want to spend an extra $200 or more just for a bit less gaming performance - and slightly less productivity performance?

I only brought up Threadripper as the "dumb" choice... I know people who think that expensive=good and bought them for gaming... do they game? Yes... they even offer "comparable gaming" --> let's face it, most games are GPU dependant, not CPU dependant.... but unless you just have more money than you need, buying one for gaming is silly... much like buying a 9950X3D for ANYTHING would be...

You want to spend $150 extra, knock yourself out...
 
The 9950 X3D is the only interesting cpu of the ones coming out. It will have two 8 core chiplets, which means that the one used for gaming should be comparable to the 9800x3d as it also clocks a bit higher. It will be hampered a bit by the design unless you use core limiter - but using that it should be comparable.
The 9900 x3d on the other hand is a totally unecessary cpu. The 2x6 design make it a poor choice for gaming and you should stick with the regular 9900X for productivity - which is pretty cheap now
 
Squid Surprise said:
Except we already have a lot of info... had you been keeping tabs on this for the past few months, you'd know it too...

We KNOW that the gaming performance won't be quite as good as the 9800X3D - AMD has admitted this and numerous sources have also confirmed this. Read the article, it says "comparable gaming" --> that's legal speak for "not quite as good".

The 9800X3d's MSRP is $479... that's $220 CHEAPER than the 9950X3D and will be a better gaming CPU...

On the other hand, the "vanilla" 9950 has the same MSRP as the X3D variant at $699 but can be had a bit cheaper now depending on the vendor - I see it on Amazon for $545 right now

AMD CPUs have all sacrificed a bit of productivity performance for gamin when adding X3D... so it stands to reason (and AMD has done nothing to contradict this) that the 9950X3D and the 9900X3D will not be as strong, productivity-wise, as their "vanilla" counterparts.

As to value - if you are in the market for the "best" gaming CPU, that hasn't changed... if anything, these CPUs will probably lower the price of the 9800X3D over the next little while...

If you want an "all-rounder", the vanilla 9900 and 9950 still offer "comparable gaming" as well... do you really want to spend an extra $200 or more just for a bit less gaming performance - and slightly less productivity performance?

I only brought up Threadripper as the "dumb" choice... I know people who think that expensive=good and bought them for gaming... do they game? Yes... they even offer "comparable gaming" --> let's face it, most games are GPU dependant, not CPU dependant.... but unless you just have more money than you need, buying one for gaming is silly... much like buying a 9950X3D for ANYTHING would be...

You want to spend $150 extra, knock yourself out...
Click to expand...
What were seeing is likely the precursor to an X3D Epyc or Threadripper chip. There are specialized workloads where extra cache helps and you have no place to tell people this chip isn't for them until the benchmarks actually come out. AI researcher that likes to game on the side? Perfect.

The point I think most people are ignoring is that unless you're gaming on a 90 class card, your CPU makes almost no difference so buying any X3D chip with a nonflagship GPU is pointless. Even then that's questionable because the bottlenecks only appear at 300FPS. The CPU is almost never the bottleneck I'm gaming outside of maybe like 5 games
 
  • Like
Reactions: human7
Loved the 7950x3d. Compiles stuff extremely fast (and these days a lot faster than Intel after they nerfed their parts).
At the same time you get the beastly x3d performance in games.
Don't like dependency on game bar. Not at all, absolute nightmare. Whether it works depends on multiple Microsoft services running and not bugging out and it won't give you any error messages or troubleshooting steps if it doesn't, which can mess up gaming performance.
If both CCDs had X3d I'd probably upgrade. Now I'm expecting the same issues as with previous gen. I have a feeling I'll keep my current cpu for a very very long time, since prices are skyrocketing and performance is stagnating.
 
Squid Surprise said:
A waste of time… “comparable gaming performance” for more money than the 9800X3D… no thanks.

The “vanilla” 9950 and 9900 are already good enough for gaming while giving better productivity performance…

Unless they provided the same (or better) productivity performance, it is silly to purchase the X3D versions… May as well buy a threadripper to game on…
Click to expand...
I skipped 9800X3D, since quite soon after its release, I read about the 9950X3D coming out. I even thought of getting the 9950X, but thought wait out for a while. Hence, I have been holding out buying the 9800X3D. I will finally make the decision once the 9950X3D reviews are out. I have a good feeling that I'll get the 9950X3D anyway, since it's a step forward. Maybe a small step, but it's still a step forward.

9950X3D seems to be the best combo of 9800XD and 9950X.
 
My 9800X3D has been legendary so far, an absolute beauty of a processor. I'm sure these others will be fantastic as well.
 
Squid Surprise said:
Except we already have a lot of info... had you been keeping tabs on this for the past few months, you'd know it too...

We KNOW that the gaming performance won't be quite as good as the 9800X3D - AMD has admitted this and numerous sources have also confirmed this. Read the article, it says "comparable gaming" --> that's legal speak for "not quite as good".

The 9800X3d's MSRP is $479... that's $220 CHEAPER than the 9950X3D and will be a better gaming CPU...

On the other hand, the "vanilla" 9950 has the same MSRP as the X3D variant at $699 but can be had a bit cheaper now depending on the vendor - I see it on Amazon for $545 right now

AMD CPUs have all sacrificed a bit of productivity performance for gamin when adding X3D... so it stands to reason (and AMD has done nothing to contradict this) that the 9950X3D and the 9900X3D will not be as strong, productivity-wise, as their "vanilla" counterparts.

As to value - if you are in the market for the "best" gaming CPU, that hasn't changed... if anything, these CPUs will probably lower the price of the 9800X3D over the next little while...

If you want an "all-rounder", the vanilla 9900 and 9950 still offer "comparable gaming" as well... do you really want to spend an extra $200 or more just for a bit less gaming performance - and slightly less productivity performance?

I only brought up Threadripper as the "dumb" choice... I know people who think that expensive=good and bought them for gaming... do they game? Yes... they even offer "comparable gaming" --> let's face it, most games are GPU dependant, not CPU dependant.... but unless you just have more money than you need, buying one for gaming is silly... much like buying a 9950X3D for ANYTHING would be...

You want to spend $150 extra, knock yourself out...
Click to expand...

Don't care, I'm still buying it.
 
yRaz said:
The point I think most people are ignoring is that unless you're gaming on a 90 class card, your CPU makes almost no difference so buying any X3D chip with a nonflagship GPU is pointless. Even then that's questionable because the bottlenecks only appear at 300FPS. The CPU is almost never the bottleneck I'm gaming outside of maybe like 5 games
Click to expand...
You were the first comment on TechSpot's dedicated article on this subject:
www.techspot.com

"CPUs Don't Matter For 4K Gaming"... Wrong!

Something we hear a lot is that CPU performance doesn't matter for 4K gaming. Without proper context, CPU benchmark data can be misinterpreted. Let us explain to...
www.techspot.com www.techspot.com

That just isn't true, even using a 7700XT, a better CPU makes a huge difference, Lets look at a game that's fairly easy to run like Counter Strike 2:
7700XT_CS2_2160p-p.webp


That's at 4K as well. This whole "The CPU doesn't make any difference" just isn't true anymore, A better CPU does usually give you a better experience, not least, it helps smooth games out if they're doing shader complilation on the fly, a better CPU generally helps smooth out those situations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: meric
Burty117 said:
You were the first comment on TechSpot's dedicated article on this subject:
www.techspot.com

"CPUs Don't Matter For 4K Gaming"... Wrong!

Something we hear a lot is that CPU performance doesn't matter for 4K gaming. Without proper context, CPU benchmark data can be misinterpreted. Let us explain to...
www.techspot.com www.techspot.com

That just isn't true, even using a 7700XT, a better CPU makes a huge difference, Lets look at a game that's fairly easy to run like Counter Strike 2:
7700XT_CS2_2160p-p.webp


That's at 4K as well. This whole "The CPU doesn't make any difference" just isn't true anymore, A better CPU does usually give you a better experience, not least, it helps smooth games out if they're doing shader complilation on the fly, a better CPU generally helps smooth out those situations.
Click to expand...
The "high" and "very" results look almost identical to me so unless you want to play games at "low" on a 4090, CPU doesn't really matter
 
I would have happily picked up a 5900X3D had they actually put it through production, but I'm content with my 5900X. I personally have been given zero reasons from AMD/Intel/Nvidia to upgrade anything over these past few generations.
 
Burty117 said:
You were the first comment on TechSpot's dedicated article on this subject:
www.techspot.com

"CPUs Don't Matter For 4K Gaming"... Wrong!

Something we hear a lot is that CPU performance doesn't matter for 4K gaming. Without proper context, CPU benchmark data can be misinterpreted. Let us explain to...
www.techspot.com www.techspot.com

That just isn't true, even using a 7700XT, a better CPU makes a huge difference, Lets look at a game that's fairly easy to run like Counter Strike 2:
7700XT_CS2_2160p-p.webp


That's at 4K as well. This whole "The CPU doesn't make any difference" just isn't true anymore, A better CPU does usually give you a better experience, not least, it helps smooth games out if they're doing shader complilation on the fly, a better CPU generally helps smooth out those situations.
Click to expand...
Those benchmarks are with a 4090… when you use a regular GPU, the CPU rarely matters much provided it’s within a couple of generations…
 
yRaz said:
The "high" and "very" results look almost identical to me so unless you want to play games at "low" on a 4090, CPU doesn't really matter
Click to expand...
That's a 7700XT, a much cheaper GPU, one could even call it a "mainstream" GPU...
Squid Surprise said:
Those benchmarks are with a 4090… when you use a regular GPU, the CPU rarely matters much provided it’s within a couple of generations…
Click to expand...
It's a 7700XT, That's 4K with a 7700XT and the CPU on medium graphics settings makes an absolutely massive difference.
 
Burty117 said:
That's a 7700XT, a much cheaper GPU, one could even call it a "mainstream" GPU...

It's a 7700XT, That's 4K with a 7700XT and the CPU on medium graphics settings makes an absolutely massive difference.
Click to expand...
In that case, it makes it even more rediculous. If you play at high or very high @4k, the CPU makes even less difference. And you're making it sound like the difference between 120 or 240 is a huge difference at low settings. I wouldn't be playing at low settings in that situation, I'd be playing at 100FPS high.
 
Burty117 said:
That's a 7700XT, a much cheaper GPU, one could even call it a "mainstream" GPU...

It's a 7700XT, That's 4K with a 7700XT and the CPU on medium graphics settings makes an absolutely massive difference.
Click to expand...
You looked at your own graph, right?
The very high was virtually the same for the 3600 and the 7800… kind of proving my point…
 
yRaz said:
In that case, it makes it even more rediculous. If you play at high or very high @4k, the CPU makes even less difference. And you're making it sound like the difference between 120 or 240 is a huge difference at low settings. I wouldn't be playing at low settings in that situation, I'd be playing at 100FPS high.
Click to expand...
Squid Surprise said:
You looked at your own graph, right?
The very high was virtually the same for the 3600 and the 7800… kind of proving my point…
Click to expand...
Sorry, do you guys even play games like Counter Strike? Evidently not, that FPS difference is massive, especially if you have a monitor that goes above 165Hz (which is pretty normal these days).

Who cares about high or very high on a game like CS, Medium looks good enough, you'll find the best players tend to play on low as there's less distracting effects getting in the way.

If all you care about is graphics in single player games, sure I guess the CPU is less meaningful, unless its a UE5 game with stutter struggle, then a more powerdful CPU tends to stutter far less or for a much shorter duration, or games that do shader compliation everytime you start it up, the difference between a 3600 vs a 7800X3D in both of these scenarios is massive.

I've built a lot of machines, I've seen the differences first hand, just looking at average frames isn't the whole story, you just have a better machine with a better CPU, you can have more tabs open, you have more applications doing stuff in the background, these tests TechSpot did, are in perfect environments.
 
Burty117 said:
Sorry, do you guys even play games like Counter Strike? Evidently not, that FPS difference is massive, especially if you have a monitor that goes above 165Hz (which is pretty normal these days).

Who cares about high or very high on a game like CS, Medium looks good enough, you'll find the best players tend to play on low as there's less distracting effects getting in the way.

If all you care about is graphics in single player games, sure I guess the CPU is less meaningful, unless its a UE5 game with stutter struggle, then a more powerdful CPU tends to stutter far less or for a much shorter duration, or games that do shader compliation everytime you start it up, the difference between a 3600 vs a 7800X3D in both of these scenarios is massive.

I've built a lot of machines, I've seen the differences first hand, just looking at average frames isn't the whole story, you just have a better machine with a better CPU, you can have more tabs open, you have more applications doing stuff in the background, these tests TechSpot did, are in perfect environments.
Click to expand...
Your argument comes from a competitive gamer’s perspective… which is fine… anyone in any type of competition needs the best as even a few FPS makes a difference…

But for the other 99% of computer owners, who just want to ENJOY their games and don’t need / want to dial down graphics for those extra FPS, the CPU is largely irrelevant…
 
  • Like
Reactions: yRaz
I usually wait 3-4 years to see if the patforms matures to a better more efficant processor plus have a windows for any microcode "bugs" that may be there considering its easy to engineers these CPUs wrong and build a security flaw in by mistake. Another reason is I got tired of heater computers.

So if they really want to impress me, they would have to make their 170W processor do the same thing but only at 50W.
 
Squid Surprise said:
Your argument comes from a competitive gamer’s perspective… which is fine… anyone in any type of competition needs the best as even a few FPS makes a difference…

But for the other 99% of computer owners, who just want to ENJOY their games and don’t need / want to dial down graphics for those extra FPS, the CPU is largely irrelevant…
Click to expand...
99%? Lets look at Steams top 10 most played games in the last 24 hours...

Counter Strike 2
Dota 2
Monster Hunter Wilds
Marvel Rivels
PUBG
Rust
Banana
Rainbow Six Siege
R.E.P.O
Frag Punk

The only game there that even pushes Graphics in any meaningful way is Monster Hunter, the rest are competitive.

I don't understand why you're trying so hard to convince anyone to buy crappy CPU's unless they exclusively play single player games at 60fps with the graphics turned up to 11, based on the games actually being played, a CPU would be a far better investment, they're basically cheap compared to modern day GPU's.
 
Burty117 said:
99%? Lets look at Steams top 10 most played games in the last 24 hours...

Counter Strike 2
Dota 2
Monster Hunter Wilds
Marvel Rivels
PUBG
Rust
Banana
Rainbow Six Siege
R.E.P.O
Frag Punk

The only game there that even pushes Graphics in any meaningful way is Monster Hunter, the rest are competitive.

I don't understand why you're trying so hard to convince anyone to buy crappy CPU's unless they exclusively play single player games at 60fps with the graphics turned up to 11, based on the games actually being played, a CPU would be a far better investment, they're basically cheap compared to modern day GPU's.
Click to expand...
And most of those aren’t being played by people who care if they get 150 or 250 FPS…

And I’m not pushing anyone to buy anything… I’m saying you don’t need to upgrade your CPU for no reason…. They may be cheaper than a GPU, but they need motherboards and RAM…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
AMD admits the Ryzen 9 9950X3D may not be faster than the 9800X3D in gaming
Replies
14
Views
567
LimyG
LimyG
D
AMD Ryzen 7 9700F could launch under $300 as budget Zen 5 chip without integrated graphics
Replies
4
Views
108
toooooot
T
midian182
AMD blames Intel's "horrible" CPUs for Ryzen 7 9800X3D shortages
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
Axeia
Axeia

Latest posts

Back