News AMD exec reveals Ryzen 9 9950X3D, Ryzen 9 9900X3D gaming performance — similar to Ryzen 7 9800X3D

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Generally because top of the line computers are expensive as hell. If the one and only thing you use your computer for is gaming, you would not pay extra and just use the cheaper part.

But, if you are doing multiple things with your computer. Such as work related tasks that benefit from more cores, as well as want to have top of the line gaming experience and can do that off hours without interfering with the purpose of the computer for work related money making activities, then the route to go is to buy the premium part that makes 1 machine fit both roles.

Top of the line graphics card, $2000, best of the best memory who knows, mine usually costs $200, top of the line motherboard, $400 to $700, A few high performance NVMe drives, $200 to $800 a pop. Spending the $280 extra for the 16 core part can save you thousands of dollars and valuable office/game room space and the bother of pushing extra buttons to switch between computers.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jp7189
That will make the 9800x3d harder to buy !!

Sadly i was hoping for a better showing that just a 9800x3d with more cores ..

If the 9950 and 9900 x3d had beaten the 9800x3d by 10% 15% in games i would have bought the more expensive cpu !!
 
  • Like
Reactions: atomicWAR
I'm curious to see full benchmarks and reviews on the 9950x3D. Especially with overclocking with high-end cooling solutions (not liquid nitrogen). As my main system operates as an all-in-one for gaming and creative workloads, the extra cores would certainly be used.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jp7189
ilukey77 said:
That will make the 9800x3d harder to buy !!

Sadly i was hoping for a better showing that just a 9800x3d with more cores ..

If the 9950 and 9900 x3d had beaten the 9800x3d by 10% 15% in games i would have bought the more expensive cpu !!
Click to expand...
It should have been easy to predict what was going to happen after seeing the 7800X3D vs. 7950X3D.

There just isn't going to be any gaming advantage outside of manually switching games that don't benefit from 3D cache to the faster chiplet, or hoping the system chooses the best one automatically.

If AMD ever wants to differentiate X3D parts, they need to start by using more than one layer. I doubt this would happen even with Zen 6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Roland Of Gilead, atomicWAR and Makaveli
"Why would you spend extra for the same gaming performance?"

Simple you need 16 cores and while you do game you also do work that require more cores than 8 on the same machine.

ilukey77 said:
That will make the 9800x3d harder to buy !!

Sadly i was hoping for a better showing that just a 9800x3d with more cores ..

If the 9950 and 9900 x3d had beaten the 9800x3d by 10% 15% in games i would have bought the more expensive cpu !!
Click to expand...

Where was this additional performance going to come from? most games don't use more than 8 cores and its has a slightly higher boost clock.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LabRat 891, Roland Of Gilead and Thunder64
Now if only there was some affordable new GPU, to make full use of the CPU with... :)

Ah well, also other stuff to do. I.e., ever checked how much damage worth natural disasters in the U.S. caused in 2024, and compared it to the total revenue of gas and oil in the U.S. ? Some interesting numbers there as well.
 
"Why would you spend extra for the same gaming performance?"

Ironic coming from the people with endless articles touting 'gaming performance' in relation to CPU's when it is shown in comprehensive benchmarks that above 1080p there's only single digit FPS differences between the newest high end CPU's and 5 year old i5's, it's not even an 'added perk' it's nothing. If someone cares about gaming performance they're putting any extra money into the GPU and a fast drive, not the CPU, period.

Any sort of modern CPU as long you have a strong GPU you're set, buying higher end CPU's is only for other things like productivity there's no point even mentioning gaming it's just a tactic to trick clueless gamers into dropping more cash because they're already the ones building expensive systems. Even intel's marketing for the latest gen I personally saw ads specifically pushing gaming even though we know there's no difference to the last gen and technically (because in the real world there's no real difference) is behind AMD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: passivecool, SomeoneElse23 and Gururu
halfcharlie said:
Ironic coming from the people with endless articles touting 'gaming performance' in relation to CPU's when it is shown in comprehensive benchmarks that above 1080p there's only single digit FPS differences between the newest high end CPU's and 5 year old i5's, it's not even an 'added perk' it's nothing. If someone cares about gaming performance they're putting any extra money into the GPU and a fast drive, not the CPU, period.
Click to expand...
Because a huge number of consumers/gamers are too lazy to bother to read the actual reviews. They read the headline and pick the top cpu listed without any understanding of why the fine print always says 1080p.
 
Makaveli said:
"Why would you spend extra for the same gaming performance?"

Simple you need 16 cores and while you do game you also do work that require more cores than 8 on the same machine.



Where was this additional performance going to come from? most games don't use more than 8 cores and its has a slightly higher boost clock.
Click to expand...
More cache I’m no cpu designer nor do I know where diminishing returns would start on more cache but an argument could be made that 128 mb or whatever it is on the 9950x3d if dual stacked and the ability to actually use all of it would be better then the 96 on the 9800x3d..
.
Core count in games has some benefit of course but more cache is still better..

Reason why Intel are in poo because brute force with more cores still loses to cache in a lot of games..

Exactly why the 13900k got eaten in some games by the 5800x3d
 
Sounds like they have made a case for the Z900 series again. 9800X3D gaming performance and 9900X productivity performance, win win IMO. 7900X3D was a waste of silicon.
 
ilukey77 said:
That will make the 9800x3d harder to buy !!

Sadly i was hoping for a better showing that just a 9800x3d with more cores ..

If the 9950 and 9900 x3d had beaten the 9800x3d by 10% 15% in games i would have bought the more expensive cpu !!
Click to expand...

Traditionally, the x950 part is slightly slower in games than the x800 part, due to multiple CCDs.

No one ever recommended the x950 part for gaming - That's the part for those who have productivity workloads that benefit from a whole lot more cores.

This time it looks like there's no significant penalty to gaming for those who need more CPU cores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Makaveli
A Stoner said:
Generally because top of the line computers are expensive as hell. If the one and only thing you use your computer for is gaming, you would not pay extra and just use the cheaper part.

But, if you are doing multiple things with your computer. Such as work related tasks that benefit from more cores, as well as want to have top of the line gaming experience and can do that off hours without interfering with the purpose of the computer for work related money making activities, then the route to go is to buy the premium part that makes 1 machine fit both roles.

Top of the line graphics card, $2000, best of the best memory who knows, mine usually costs $200, top of the line motherboard, $400 to $700, A few high performance NVMe drives, $200 to $800 a pop. Spending the $280 extra for the 16 core part can save you thousands of dollars and valuable office/game room space and the bother of pushing extra buttons to switch between computers.
Click to expand...
9950x3d/RTX 5090/ASRock Taichi 870e MB/(2) Sabrent Rocket 5 SSDs in Raid 0*/64 GB DDR5-6600 RAM/NZXT C1500 ATX 3.1 Pwr Supply/Fractal Meshify 2 Case*/>40" OLED 4K Monitor
*Already purchased
The Taichi MBs have just disappeared, but will restock soon, I hope. This replaces a 10 yr old system & should last as long w/AMD future proofing. Been waiting more than a year for all these mature "5 series" components to show up. The initial offerings weren't that impressive. Also have been looking at a Rocket 7608A PCIe Gen 5 x16 to (8) M.2 x 4 NVMe Switch AIC. When fast 4T SSDs get cheap, a Raid 10 would be nice.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A Stoner
ilukey77 said:
More cache I’m no cpu designer nor do I know where diminishing returns would start on more cache but an argument could be made that 128 mb or whatever it is on the 9950x3d if dual stacked and the ability to actually use all of it would be better then the 96 on the 9800x3d..
.
Core count in games has some benefit of course but more cache is still better..

Reason why Intel are in poo because brute force with more cores still loses to cache in a lot of games..

Exactly why the 13900k got eaten in some games by the 5800x3d
Click to expand...
What you are describing doesn't actually exist as a product.

And with the current design cross CCD latency doesn't go away if you add more cache to each CCD.

You will most likely get a bigger benefit from 16 cores on a single CCD with VCache on top. And we are not going to see a core count increase per ccd until zen 6.
 
I don't get it. Is there really a market for these chips? Literally every AAA game can be perfectly played with a regular Ryzen 9 9950, so why would a professional content creator sacrifice quite some rendering performance in order to get a few more meaningless fps? AMD should rather push more 9800X3D chips for the gaming crowd and more 9950 CPUs for serious workstation tasks instead of wasting time and precious resources for a "Frankenstein" 9950X3D that presumably nobody needs.
 
Outside of 1080p gaming benchmarks and productivity benchmarks no one will notice a difference between 9950x and 9950x3d, just like in a realistic gaming scenario you’d be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 9700x and a 9800x3d.

Any of these is fine for gaming and both 16 core parts are excellent for productivity if you can use more than 8 cores.

If I had to choose I’d rather get a non-X3D part and save some money or have more cores for future proofing and stuff that can use more cores already (in Europe 9800X3D and 9950X are priced the same and 9700X is about half the price of either cpu).
 
I run a Plex server off the same PC that I game on. I wonder if more cores would do me any good, plus run discord all the time too, leave my browser open..it all adds up.
 
Makaveli said:
What you are describing doesn't actually exist as a product.

And with the current design cross CCD latency doesn't go away if you add more cache to each CCD.

You will most likely get a bigger benefit from 16 cores on a single CCD with VCache on top. And we are not going to see a core count increase per ccd until zen 6.
Click to expand...
Technically it kinda does as it has all the parts.. They just cant sort the latency !

AMD need to sort the latency issue between the 2 ccds which is what i was hoping for..

which was why there was a element of disappointment with the 7950x3d over the 7800x3d !!

My reason for for the post was to say ( IF and I was hoping ) that if the 9950x3d used all of its 128 mb of L3 cache shared over the 2 ccds that may result in better game performance ..

And also would there be diminishing returns on said 128mb cache over 96mb

Because of now the single stacked 96mb of L3 on a single ccd on the 9950x3d is just a more expensive 9800x3d in gaming applications !!

If AMD could give me way better gaming performance with 128mb L3 and with more cores then to me thats a product i would pay the $1100aud ( which will probably be the AUD price of it at release ) price tag for !!
 
The whole 3DVcache is already maxed out through the use of 9800X3D. You can't get any faster then what's out there. You won't be getting even faster results through a dual CCD Vcache 32 core 64 thread monster chip.

3DVcache was back then originated from Epyc's on which some consumers had more with extra cache rather then bruteforce cores or clocks. They figured that the additional cache was useful in games and so the X3D was born.

Years ago they already field tested a dual based CCD with 3D Vcache but it would not benefit anything other then extra costs or latency. You buy above high end chip if production and games are within your favor.
 
Dude.. really?!

“Why would you spend extra for the same gaming performance?”

How many times has it been stated that these chips aren’t meant for gamers? They’re for professional users, that like to game on their free time.

How much did Intel pay you for that little jingle? Hmm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom