Review AMD Ryzen 9 7900X3D Review: 3D V-Cache's Forgotten Middle Child

[Sleepy_Hollowed]

It's actually not bad at all especially if you still have to run legacy applications that will not receive updates for Intel's efficiency cores, like older games.

Say what you will, but there's not enough Windows kernel padding that. Anyone buying a new computer just for gaming should totally consider it in light of that.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

What's your actual point? That AM5 boards are expensive, DDR5 memory is expensive? It is what it is

Yes, AM5 is too costly. The expensive CPU, the expensive motherboards and DDR5 requirement are too costly.

That's likely why sales are bad and AMD has to try to entice ppl with bundles and free games, which isn't working.

AMD will be forced to lower prices.

 

[MASOUTH]

I'm going to have to side with the "What is this doing in the negatives list?" crowd

Does it bear mentioning in the article? ABSOLUTELY. People should always be made aware of platform requirements, changes from what they may be used to, and costs involved with assembling such a platform.

Does it deserve to be singled out in a shortcut list of negatives? Hardly.

This isn't an impending Intel RAMBUS fiasco or even something as trash-tastic as if AMD had originally announced that the 5800X3D was only going to support DDR5 but in all new AM4 motherboards.

What is this then? The same boring transition that has happened every 4-7 years since DDR came out. DDR4 has already lasted as the top generation longer than any of the previous four generations. The largest difference this time is that AMD is committing to it before the usual guy that "forces" it on us.

Most people don't like to change interfaces any more than they have to and I don't recall anyone being cost happy about previous RAM moves (EDO SIMMS to SDRAM DIMMs, SDRAM to DDR, DDR to DDR2, etc) but how many people STILL look back at those transitions and think about that as a negative for the CPU?

In 5 years when we look back at this article, I bet most people (some are always contrary) would see the rest of the bullets as dated but relevant but also wonder why DDR4 support was singled out as a negative on a CPU during an entire platform update.

I mean, we may as well complain about every Intel Core series chip since Broadwell and all Ryzen generations for not supporting DDR3 because them stupid DDR4 fanbois want it when we still have perfectly good DDR3 chips that we already invested in. Sound pointless? It is, just like listing DDR4 support as a negative and not just a fact to be dealt with.

 

[Ogotai]

Yes, AM5 is too costly. The expensive CPU, the expensive motherboards and DDR5 requirement are too costly.

you might want to check that. as i have posted in 2 other thread to you,

the SAME can be said about going from and intel ddr 4 based comp to a intel ddr5 based comp as far as ram is concerned.

just did a quick price check with a 7950X, Asus Strix X670E0E gaming, 13900k, asus Strix Z790-e gaming and the same Corsair 5600 mhz CL36 ram ( could use faster ram,but still.

ram, same price, face it, very few would by a new system and use ddr4 on the intel system, boards, for this board the AM5 board was the SAME price as the intel version, so that argument is FALSE. the cpus, the 7950x is $150 more, so that is true, so based on regular prices, you are HALF right.
BUT currently everything i have listed is on sale, and taking that into account the amd system is less expensive by 10 bucks this isnt factoring anything else in the system, like cooling for example.

That's likely why sales are bad and AMD has to try to entice ppl with bundles and free games, which isn't working.

maybe where you are, but where i am, sales for am5 are quite good according to a friend i have that works at a comp store here. right now, both amd AND intel are on sale.

i have been looking at picking up and AM5 based comp with either 7900x or 7950x ( maybe the x3d versions, havent decided yet )

seems like all you are doing is trying to complain about something, for the sake of complaining.

 

[TerryLaze]

I'm going to have to side with the "What is this doing in the negatives list?" crowd

Sorry to single you out, you are just the last to comment on this issue.

But this is in the same vein as mentioning "Core frequency not overclockable" as a con for a locked CPU, like of course you can't it says so on the box.
Which is also done by Paul so there is no secret amd bashing going on here.
A lack of choice is a lack of choice and that's always a con if the competition does give you that choice.

 

[Ogotai]

A lack of choice is a lack of choice and that's always a con if the competition does give you that choice.

so when intel drops support for ddr4 and goes full on ddr5, the SAME thing will apply ? i will guess it wont be that big of a deal then, and it will be ok, even though it will still be a lack of a choice.

am5 is not the lack of choice any more, ddr4 and ddr5 is the same price now.

 

[TerryLaze]

so when intel drops support for ddr4 and goes full on ddr5, the SAME thing will apply ? i will guess it wont be that big of a deal then, and it will be ok, even though it will still be a lack of a choice.

Who will be the competition then that will still give people the choice of ddr4 on x86 desktop?!
"A lack of choice is a lack of choice and that's always a con if the competition does give you that choice. "

 

[MASOUTH]

IMO there is no better place to shop for CPU/Motherboard combo than MicroCenter and am blessed to have two of them on the North side of Atlanta. Traffic here makes them a 3-ish hour round trip at the best of times. Including that and gas, it is still a deal.

Nah, I don't feel singled out. Everyone has an opinion on this. Like I said, it's worth covering in the article so that people know their old memory won't work in it, I just don't think it's worth bulleting out as a negative and it won't age well. The list of people this is a negative for is basically:

1. want to upgrade CPU
2. already has DDR4
3. do not want to upgrade it

That's about it. Anyone buying a new PC, planning to upgrade their RAM to a faster speed anyway, or members of that somehow amazingly still not-insignificant number of people that never upgraded to a DDR4 platform in the first place...this CPU changes almost nothing at all.

You can buy "low end" DDR5 4800 CAS 40 2x16 kits for $100-$170 that smoke high end DDR4 kits in bandwidth yet that DDR4 kits cost $50 to 2x as much as that DDR5 kit. Obviously, latency is still going to be a concern depending on the use case but the ultimate message is that DDR5 is already and shoving DDR4 out the door if we would let it.

So my real "issue" is that telling people that are already looking to shell out $1000 for a high-end desktop CPU and the accompanying motherboard that can feasibly support it that one of the negatives of the CPU is that you must buy new RAM seems a bit disingenuous. By all means, call out the CPU cost or overall platform cost but singling out DDR4 support? pfft.

I don't feel like he's AMD bashing at all so much as innovation bashing which feels weird coming from a tech site. DDR5 is here, it's not even new anymore at this point. The only reason this is a discussion TODAY is because the chip makers have been dragging their feet and if they take any longer then DDR6 is going to be out the door. There are already DDR5 8000 CAS 38 kits for crying out loud.

EDIT: and don't get me wrong, DDR4 is still 100% relevant and probably will be for a while, but not very future proof for your next upgrade in which case people will still be complaining about having to upgrade their DDR4.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

I guess my post from the 7950X3D review fits here too; one thing you can depend on is Tom's finding ways to take jabs at AMD whenever they give Intel a bloody nose.

Especially considering that Intel's 13th gen would take a massive performance plunge if paired with DDR4.

It is intellectually disingenuous to put lack of DDR4 support as a con here, if only for the reason that it has already been established that AM5 doesn't support it. Is Tom's Hardware going to put "Lack of DDR4 support" as a con for every CPU that comes out from now on?

 

[OneMoreUser]

My review of the review.
Pros.

• There is pictures
• Spelling is okay
• Facts are facts

Cons.

• Complaining a gaming CPU isn't the best for productivity
• Whining it doesn't support old RAM
• Calling the price steep when it is a great gaming CPU for the price

 

[Lucky_SLS]

You should include a comprehensive ocerclocking results page.

The stated max clock for 5.7ghz for 7950X3D and 5.0gh for 7800X3D is huge.

Maybe include a cinebench validated oc clock speed table for pbo+uv? Or tell us the results of the Auto tune feature in ryzen master with the stated test setup?

You have given the gaming performance results for pbo+uv oc. Plz also clearly state how much of an oc was this and with what uv settings and tweaks compared to the stock settings.

It would be underwhelming if there is so much disparity in chip binning or if 5.7ghz cannot be attained with a manual oc....

 

[bit_user]

People don't like to throw $200 worth of DDR4 RAM in the trash, just to buy DDR5 for a 0.1% gain in performance.

It's not 0.1% performance gain. You're only looking at gaming benchmarks. If you actually run multithreaded compute jobs, DDR5 provides significant benefits.

Source: https://www.anandtech.com/show/1704...hybrid-performance-brings-hybrid-complexity/8
​

The difference is simply massive. Granted, they weren't using the highest-spec DDR4, but then they were also using just DDR5-4800.

 

[bit_user]

The $599 Ryzen 9 7900X3D leverages AMD's 3D V-Cache technology to deliver incredible gaming performance, but its unreasonably high pricing

@PaulAlcorn , how is its pricing "unreasonably high", when it beats a i9-13900KS on your Geomean 1080p gaming score for $100 less? This is easily a 4-star product, not 3 stars.

However, these chips offer superior performance in productivity applications

And that deficit is worth 2 stars? What if someone buying it doesn't care about productivity applications?

3-star rating is too harsh, especially when the 7950X3D got 4.5 stars. And complaining about DDR4 also doesn't make sense, for a premium CPU like this.

 

[bit_user]

the latest series of mishaps with the 7000 series is making me heavily consider choosing Intel for my next build.

What mishaps?

 

[imsurgical]

so when intel drops support for ddr4 and goes full on ddr5, the SAME thing will apply ? i will guess it wont be that big of a deal then, and it will be ok, even though it will still be a lack of a choice.

am5 is not the lack of choice any more, ddr4 and ddr5 is the same price now.

Prefacing this by saying solid DDR4 kits are still good, yes, without a doubt, but...exactly this, and most people who are swimming against it don't understand the simple fact that DDR4 is on its way out as a standard. This is, in big part, why people are voicing how ludicrous it is for Tom's to judge the CPU itself, or rate it based off something that's going to be inevitable anyways.

When Intel drops DDR4 for DDR5 on their next platform, you can bet it's going to be an entirely new socket, that means:

A) New motherboard
B) DDR5 RAM

...Yeah, definitely going to be funny people not saying the same thing then when they'll have to let go of their DDR4 then.

 

[imsurgical]

I guess my post from the 7950X3D review fits here too; one thing you can depend on is Tom's finding ways to take jabs at AMD whenever they give Intel a bloody nose.

No freaking joke. It's not like Intel isn't putting out solid products either, but they just can't let AMD have it no matter how good a product they put out to compete, it's always a backhanded compliment when you read their AMD related reviews. It's stupid honestly.

 

[bit_user]

...Yeah, definitely going to be funny people not saying the same thing then when they'll have to let go of their DDR4 then.

Yes, I'll bet no Toms review will cite the lack of DDR4 as a con of future Intel CPUs. Mark my words.

 

[PEnns]

In a few months Intel will dump a new load of CPUs into some reviewers' laps. Which (as Intel's history has shown us) most likely require a new expensive mobo.

Will we see here the same sustained hysterical and negative reaction about the requirement for new hardware to use the shiny new CPUs?

I HIGHLY doubt it.

 

[logainofhades]

-No support for DDR4 memory

LOL...that's like saying a horse cannot use an elephant's saddle. Seriously, why even say that as a negative? Oh...it's Paul.

Yea lack of DDR4 support is no longer a con. 32gb DDR5 6000 CL30 kits are going for less than my 32gb DDR4 3600 CL16, that I bought, with my 5800x, near its launch.

 

[TerryLaze]

Yea lack of DDR4 support is no longer a con. 32gb DDR5 6000 CL30 kits are going for less than my 32gb DDR4 3600 CL16, that I bought, with my 5800x, near its launch.

Yeah but if you are never going to do anything that is sensitive to ddr5 then that's still a roughly 200 monies that you could save on your new system by using your old mem.
I mean just imagine if you couldn't bring your storage over or your GPU, would your response still be 'meh, storage is now cheaper than what I paid for it' ?

 

[jeremyj_83]

Anyone buying a new PC, planning to upgrade their RAM to a faster speed anyway, or members of that somehow amazingly still not-insignificant number of people that never upgraded to a DDR4 platform in the first place...this CPU changes almost nothing at all.

I'm in the never upgraded to DDR4 field. My desktop is a 10 year old 4770k with 32GB DDR3. Haswell was the last Intel CPU on DDR3. About 3 years ago I was looking at upgrading because I needed more RAM to run a virtual home lab. Due to unexpected car repair I didn't have the spare cash to upgrade at that time. Fast forward another year and Ryzen 5000 came out. With my experience of being on an EOL platform/RAM from the previous upgrade, I decided to not upgrade my system on DDR4 and instead wait for DDR5 (really hoping my desktop makes it to Zen 5 release). Sure I could have gone Alder Lake but at that time DDR5 was MUCH more expensive. Anyone buying new now probably won't go DDR4 because you are on an EOL product.

The difference is simply massive. Granted, they weren't using the highest-spec DDR4, but then they were also using just DDR5-4800.

In their testing Anandtech runs their RAM at official JEDC timings only, so no XMP profiles, and only at max official CPU supported speeds. That means for Zen 3 they ran at 3200MHz CL22 and not 3600MHz CL16 like a lot of review sites. That makes the difference on the Alder Lake platform even more interesting as that is stock vs stock RAM configuration.

 

[phxrider]

What's going to sell this chip is the fact that the 7950x3d is real-world priced somewhere between unobtanium and $250 over MSRP, and this one is available and priced at MSRP.

 

[jeremyj_83]

Yeah but if you are never going to do anything that is sensitive to ddr5 then that's still a roughly 200 monies that you could save on your new system by using your old mem.

As the system ages and newer programs come out it is more likely that you will run programs that are bandwidth sensitive. If you stick with DDR4 on Raptor Lake you are pigeonholed into an EOL memory technology. Sure in terms of absolute RAM capacity things are better now, 128GB, vs end of DDR3, 32GB, or early/mid DDR4, 64GB, on non HEDT systems. However, with at most a BIOS update it looks like we can already go 192GB on DDR5. Being able to go with 96GB RAM in 2 DIMM slots makes me more likely to use ITX in my next build as I need at least 64GB RAM for a virtual home lab.

 

[Ogotai]

Who will be the competition then that will still give people the choice of ddr4 on x86 desktop?!
"A lack of choice is a lack of choice and that's always a con if the competition does give you that choice. "

Yeah but if you are never going to do anything that is sensitive to ddr5 then that's still a roughly 200 monies that you could save on your new system by using your old mem.
I mean just imagine if you couldn't bring your storage over or your GPU, would your response still be 'meh, storage is now cheaper than what I paid for it' ?

yea ok sure, i and bet even you wouldn't be whining and complaining about intel if they had dropped ddr4 THIS round to go ddr5 only, why ? cause its Intel.
there isnt a lack of choice out there now, amd and intel both have viable systems based on a persons needs and such. to keep claiming amd and ddr 5 is the wrong choice, or too expensive is just BS now.

the FACT is this, i doubt any one would go and buy a brand new intel based board and cpu, and STILL get a ddr4 board, unless they are on a strict budget, or cant go ddr5. i have 96 gigs of ddr4 in my 5900x system, and i am STILL looking at ddr5 for my next upgrade,. and with the sales that are going on here, a 7950x ( with the 7900x being less, and making that combo LESS then intels )and 13900k are BOTH priced with in about $20 bucks of each other with the same model board ( x670 and z790 ? ), same ram and cpu.

im sorry, but i LOVE how you can spin things so intel always looks like the better way to go no matter what

 

[bit_user]

Yeah but if you are never going to do anything that is sensitive to ddr5 then that's still a roughly 200 monies that you could save on your new system by using your old mem.

Realistically, how many people are upgrading who have at least 32 GB of DDR4-3200? I'd guess a vocal minority of serial-upgraders, most of whom will opt for DDR5 anyhow because they clearly always gotta have the latest & greatest.

Pretty much anyone else will have DDR4 that's too little or too slow to make sense bringing over. Because that's what was on the market 3-5 years earlier.

I think the controversy over DDR4/DDR5 blew up at a time when DDR5 was significantly more expensive, if you could even find any. Now, it's just being used as a stick to try and beat down AMD.