News AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and 7900X3D: Where to Buy

[Admin]

The Ryzen 9 7950X3D is the world's fastest gaming CPU, but online retailers are quickly running out of stock.

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and 7900X3D: Where to Buy : Read more

 

[Friesiansam]

Why is this US only article on the "UK edition" of the site?

Moreover, why is it even called "UK edition"? Future Publishing need to remember where they are based.

 

[helper800]

Why is this US only article on the "UK edition" of the site?

Moreover, why is it even called "UK edition"? Future Publishing need to remember where they are based.

To be fair all the prices are shown in USD.

 

[Avro Arrow]

If they're running out of stock, then they didn't have a lot to begin with. Once the people with more money than brains have bought this APU, it will just gather dust. It performs worse in productivity than the R9-7950X, worse in gaming than the R7-7800X3D will and costs way more than both of them.

What's not to love?

It's bad enough that AMD screwed themselves by producing the R9s with 3D cache but they made it even worse by NOT producing an R5-7600X3D. After all, what would a gaming APU need with 3D cache, eh?

Oh wait....

 

[sygreenblum]

If they're running out of stock, then they didn't have a lot to begin with. Once the people with more money than brains have bought this APU, it will just gather dust. It performs worse in productivity than the R9-7950X, worse in gaming than the R7-7800X3D will and costs way more than both of them.

What's not to love?

It's bad enough that AMD screwed themselves by producing the R9s with 3D cache but they made it even worse by NOT producing an R5-7600X3D. After all, what would a gaming APU need with 3D cache, eh?

Oh wait....

Not sure where your getting your info on the 7800x3d but at a 700mhz lower peak clockspeed and 8 less cores and less overall cache I sincerely doubt it will top the 7950x3d. I'm not a big gamer so I got no skin in this race, I'll not be buying either.

 

[lxtbell2]

If they're running out of stock, then they didn't have a lot to begin with. Once the people with more money than brains have bought this APU, it will just gather dust. It performs worse in productivity than the R9-7950X, worse in gaming than the R7-7800X3D will and costs way more than both of them.

What's not to love?

Last time I checked, PC users are still allowed to do more than one thing on it, like gaming, content creation, or programming on the same machine. C'mon - who doesn't want to game on the fancy new workstation. What chip would you recommend then for those machines?

<Moderator edit for content>

 

[KyaraM]

Last time I checked, PC users are still allowed to do more than one thing on it, like gaming, content creation, or programming on the same machine. C'mon - who doesn't want to game on the fancy new workstation. What chip would you recommend then for those machines?

<Moderator edit for content>

A regular 7950X or a 13900K are more than enough for a mixed gaming + productivity system, lmao. I would even argue that a step below that is plenty for most people, too. With this stupid thing, you trade a quite significant amount of productivity for some more gaming performance you don't need as much as you need food on the table. Read Igor's German review yesterday, in some cases where the 7950X is leading the 13900K in productivity, the 7950X3D places behind the 13900K. It sometimes even placed behind the freaking 7700X!!! How much is slightly better gaming performance worth to you?

 

[Maebius]

Not sure where your getting your info on the 7800x3d but at a 700mhz lower peak clockspeed and 8 less cores and less overall cache I sincerely doubt it will top the 7950x3d. I'm not a big gamer so I got no skin in this race, I'll not be buying either.

That's not how it actually works as the higher clockspeed is on the chiplet that doesn't have the extra cache. The one with the cache tops at 5-5.2 ghz it seems. Probably 5ish under full load.

There are already some "simulated" 7800X3D reviews where they disabled the second chiplet (the one without the cache) and in some cases, it runs faster than the 7950x3d!

Since the system doesn't need to "figure out" where to run the game process (on the extra cache chiplet, or the higher frequency one?), that seems to give it a slight edge (on strictly gaming)

I fully expect that down the road that won't be the case, when all these scheduling issues have been resolved.

 

[drivinfast247]

Right now at my local Microcenter you can get an AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, ASUS B650E-F ROG Strix Gaming WiFi, G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB DDR5-6000 for the same price of a 7900x3d

 

[KyaraM]

Right now at my local Microcenter you can get an AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, ASUS B650E-F ROG Strix Gaming WiFi, G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB DDR5-6000 for the same price of a 7900x3d

Prices are simply insane. You pay 16%+ for 9% more FPS when comparing to a 13900K, according to Igor. And that's just the CPU, not even the whole system... buying an Intel system right now is simply lots cheaper than AMD, no matter how you look at it, for similar performance.

For gaming, what you linked above will be more than enough for the next couple of years, and that system won't be a slouch in productivity, either. The 7950X3D is as superfluous as I said it was from the start.

 

[DavidLejdar]

Here in Germany, I could order the 7900X3D straight away from one of three who say they have it in stock (for 679 Euro, including VAT). But no one offers the 7950X3D so far.

A regular 7950X or a 13900K are more than enough for a mixed gaming + productivity system, lmao. I would even argue that a step below that is plenty for most people, too. With this stupid thing, you trade a quite significant amount of productivity for some more gaming performance you don't need as much as you need food on the table. Read Igor's German review yesterday, in some cases where the 7950X is leading the 13900K in productivity, the 7950X3D places behind the 13900K. It sometimes even placed behind the freaking 7700X!!! How much is slightly better gaming performance worth to you?

Yeah, 7950X3D trails behind a bit with AutoCAD. It also consumes less power though, and in that regard it is quite remarkable that it takes a solid 3rd spot e.g. with Cinebench R23, only "slightly" behind the top 2 in performance and way before the 4th.

In any case, I didn't see anyone arguing that the 7950X3D would be the top choice for productivity tasks, with the argument being rather that it offers top gaming performance while still letting one do other stuff on the same rig as well (without a huge setback, and still ahead of last gen CPUs).

And how much some are willing to pay (extra) for their hobby, that is individual, isn't it? E.g. some are spending thousands on a car, which may end up costing hundreds a month - and that not so much out of need as just for the sake of it. Others may be boozing away hundreds a month, or ending up spending a thousand per year on loot boxes, and so on. And e.g. I don't do any of that and I don't use AutoCAD. Instead I may eventually get me one of the new CPUs, where it wouldn't be so much about expecting a huge boost in gaming performance from the CPU as such, but rather about having a CPU which will still be a good performer in 4 years while not bottlenecking eventually also next-gen GPU as much as other CPUs would. If one can't see themselves spending more than e.g. $300 on a GPU, then even whichever current gen CPU may not be "needed" though, of course.

Again, an individual matter. E.g. if someone is playing just one game two hours a week, then depending on the game one may even argue that a console may be the top value option.

 

[KyaraM]

Here in Germany, I could order the 7900X3D straight away from one of three who say they have it in stock (for 679 Euro, including VAT). But no one offers the 7950X3D so far.


Yeah, 7950X3D trails behind a bit with AutoCAD. It also consumes less power though, and in that regard it is quite remarkable that it takes a solid 3rd spot e.g. with Cinebench R23, only "slightly" behind the top 2 in performance and way before the 4th.

In any case, I didn't see anyone arguing that the 7950X3D would be the top choice for productivity tasks, with the argument being rather that it offers top gaming performance while still letting one do other stuff on the same rig as well (without a huge setback, and still ahead of last gen CPUs).

And how much some are willing to pay (extra) for their hobby, that is individual, isn't it? E.g. some are spending thousands on a car, which may end up costing hundreds a month - and that not so much out of need as just for the sake of it. Others may be boozing away hundreds a month, or ending up spending a thousand per year on loot boxes, and so on. And e.g. I don't do any of that and I don't use AutoCAD. Instead I may eventually get me one of the new CPUs, where it wouldn't be so much about expecting a huge boost in gaming performance from the CPU as such, but rather about having a CPU which will still be a good performer in 4 years while not bottlenecking eventually also next-gen GPU as much as other CPUs would. If one can't see themselves spending more than e.g. $300 on a GPU, then even whichever current gen CPU may not be "needed" though, of course.

Again, an individual matter. E.g. if someone is playing just one game two hours a week, then depending on the game one may even argue that a console may be the top value option.

In what parallel dimension can you not game and do productivity stuff on a 7950X or 13900K, or, hell, a lower CPU, even? This CPU exists for a single reason only, namely, because companies want to write "best gaming CPU" on their flag, nothing more. Does it make sense? Not at all, but that is something some people are unable to understand, so they will gobble it up and consume, consume, consume, because if a company says so, so it must be, and we all always need the best of the best. And you know what? I'm 100% sure that my 12700K will still be an excellent CPU capable of playing what I throw at it 5-6 years down the road, and play them well, without having paid 700+ bucks for it but rather 400, almost half that. That entire longevity talk is nonsense. And let's be honest here. The "I want the best of the best"-crowd won't last for 6, 5, or even just 4 years on any one CPU. They will hop onto the next gen one when it comes out and repeat the cycle. Peak consumerism, in other words. The smart ones get something like a 12400/7700X or equivalent and upgrade in 3 years onstead of 4 for gaming, a 13700K/7900X or similar when productivity is a factor, and will still have saved a lot of money for indistinguishably similar performance in games. That performance class has always been, and always will be, for professional use, not gaming. But I don't really expect people to get it. They are too deep in the consumerist and FOMO mindset for that. It doesn't even have to do with it being a hobby. It's my hobby, too, yet I still kept my sense and got what I needed, not wanted. Simple as that, really.

 

[helper800]

In what parallel dimension can you not game and do productivity stuff on a 7950X or 13900K, or, hell, a lower CPU, even? This CPU exists for a single reason only, namely, because companies want to write "best gaming CPU" on their flag, nothing more. Does it make sense? Not at all, but that is something some people are unable to understand, so they will gobble it up and consume, consume, consume, because if a company says so, so it must be, and we all always need the best of the best. And you know what? I'm 100% sure that my 12700K will still be an excellent CPU capable of playing what I throw at it 5-6 years down the road, and play them well, without having paid 700+ bucks for it but rather 400, almost half that. That entire longevity talk is nonsense. And let's be honest here. The "I want the best of the best"-crowd won't last for 6, 5, or even just 4 years on any one CPU. They will hop onto the next gen one when it comes out and repeat the cycle. Peak consumerism, in other words. The smart ones get something like a 12400/7700X or equivalent and upgrade in 3 years onstead of 4 for gaming, a 13700K/7900X or similar when productivity is a factor, and will still have saved a lot of money for indistinguishably similar performance in games. That performance class has always been, and always will be, for professional use, not gaming. But I don't really expect people to get it. They are too deep in the consumerist and FOMO mindset for that. It doesn't even have to do with it being a hobby. It's my hobby, too, yet I still kept my sense and got what I needed, not wanted. Simple as that, really.

Just because you believe a product doesn't make sense for you does not mean it does not make sense for others. It gets about 97% of the performance of a 7950x in productivity and about 15-20% more gaming performance on average. Just because the price is not right for you does not mean the product is something that only idiots buy.

 

[Elusive Ruse]

Mindfactory (German retailer) has already sold over 300 7900X3Ds.

 

[Gam3r01]

Some content has been modified or removed.
Let's keep things civil here.

 

[Avro Arrow]

The R9-7950X3D is pointless because I would recommend the R9-7950X for $110 less in a fancy new workstation for both productivity and gaming. It's already overkill for gaming (matching the i9-12900K) and adding the 3D cache to one CCX will only make it look better on paper. I can guarantee you that AMD's decision to NOT put the 3D cache on a 6-core R5, where it would objectively do the most good will cause a lot of Intel-based gamers who were thinking of hopping onto the AM5 train despite the motherboard cost to change their minds and remain with Intel. That's a terrible business decision.

That's not how it actually works as the higher clockspeed is on the chiplet that doesn't have the extra cache. The one with the cache tops at 5-5.2 ghz it seems. Probably 5ish under full load.

There are already some "simulated" 7800X3D reviews where they disabled the second chiplet (the one without the cache) and in some cases, it runs faster than the 7950x3d!

Exactly. Add to that the fact that the R7-7800X3D will be $250 less expensive than the R9-7950X3D and the R9 is rendered completely pointless. As a matter of fact, the "simulated" R7-7800X3D is actually faster in gaming overall than the "full" R9-7950X according to Techspot:

THANK YOU! I'm glad that somebody else gets it! Having half of a productivity APU's CPU cores hamstrung by 3D cache isn't worth a ~9% increase in gaming performance, especially if you have to pay an extra $110 for it. This APU won't sell well at all. AMD basically chose two relatively expensive to produce APUs that are almost guaranteed to fail (R9-7900X3D, R9-7950X3D) instead of one relatively cheap to produce APU that would have been guaranteed to have overwhelming success (R5-7600X3D).

I'd like to say that it was because of greed and it very well might have been, but even if greed was their driving force, getting as many people onto the AM5 platform should have been their first priority. This is because AM5 is supposedly going to be similar to AM4 in its longevity and once you have someone on that platform, they're guaranteed to keep buying AMD because not having to replace your motherboard or RAM makes drop-in upgrades a no-brainer.

Consider how many people (like me) expected that AMD would for sure have an R5 X3D in the next generation because it would make so much sense and attract so many people to the new AM5 platform. Once someone is on the AM5 platform, Intel is completely denied their patronage for the life of said platform, just as it was with AM4.

The AM4 platform was essentially an unspoken agreement between AMD the consumer. AMD's part was to take care of the consumer with fantastic upgrades for cheap over a long period of time and the customer's part was to just not buy Intel products. Not buying Intel products was a no-brainer because having to buy an Intel motherboard just wasn't worth it when you could get fantastic upgrades without needing new motherboards or RAM (because those things can get pretty expensive).

How well did it work? Just look at how popular the R7-5800X3D still is long after the AM4 platform stopped being produced. That popularity was primarily created by AM4 gamers because, for us, it was like getting a mid-range gaming APU from the next generation (minus the IGP) at a $300+ discount because no money needed to be spent on a new motherboard or RAM. It was like being rewarded for purchasing AM4 in the first place and it denies Intel our patronage for even longer than the already long-life of the AM4 platform. The R7-5800X3D was the culmination of that spirit and it guaranteed that AM4 gamers won't be getting any Intel parts for at least three more years.

The AM4 platform's unspoken agreement between AMD and the consumer was a massive boon for the consumer and brought AMD back from the brink of bankruptcy all the way to where they are now, recognised as objectively superior to Intel. Ten short years ago, the situation today would've been considered unthinkable.

That is why AM4 was the greatest PC platform in history. It was extremely consumer-friendly and an extremely shrewd business move on the part of AMD because it was extremely effective at luring people away from Chipzilla.

You know, it's not actually that big of a deal that they make a few R9 X3D APUs for the two or three people who actually want one, just so long as they don't make a lot because they sure won't sell a lot.

However, the decision to omit the R5-7600X3D is going to haunt AMD for years. Releasing something like the R9-7600X3D would've been an extremely effective way to put their foot on Intel's throat and AMD chose not to.

If you're a corporation as large as AMD and your opponent is a corporation as large, rich, powerful and devoid of ethics as Intel, you can't afford to ignore any opportunity to give them an uppercut to the chin. At any given time, Intel has the resources to turn around and give AMD a royal pounding just like they had been doing until 2017.

What AMD has done here makes me fear for the future because they're still not at parity with Intel when it comes to the number of customers that they have. They can't afford to act like an arrogant market leader and they should've learnt from Intel's current situation that behaving that way doesn't bring success, it takes it from you.

 

[lxtbell2]

A regular 7950X or a 13900K are more than enough for a mixed gaming + productivity system, lmao. I would even argue that a step below that is plenty for most people, too. With this stupid thing, you trade a quite significant amount of productivity for some more gaming performance you don't need as much as you need food on the table. Read Igor's German review yesterday, in some cases where the 7950X is leading the 13900K in productivity, the 7950X3D places behind the 13900K. It sometimes even placed behind the freaking 7700X!!! How much is slightly better gaming performance worth to you?

I would trust Tom's review much more here: 95-97% productivity of 7950X, 125-126% gaming. That's perfect and nowhere "slightly better".

I just took a look an Igor's review it doesn't make much sense: the cached chiplet just runs 400-500mhz lower, so there is literally no way 7950X3D is more than 10% slower than 7950X, even if cache doesn't work at all and all scheduling is messed up. And if it's slower than 7700x it's also not a fully multi-threaded workload so doesn't matter.

13900K has its own problem for productivity (1) bad scheduling on E-core has penalty like 50%, much higher than the 10% of 7950X3D. Scheduling doesn't always work as we wish especially in under-optimized programs (2) lower PCI-E lanes. Zen 4 supports 8x+8x+4x PCI-E (X670E ACE) + 4x NVMe all from CPU.

 

[Maebius]

Releasing something like the R9-7600X3D would've been an extremely effective way to put their foot on Intel's throat and AMD chose not to.

If I were a betting man I would say it was purely a (shortsighted) business decision from the get go.
They must have felt that they would cannibalize their other non-3D products, but in retrospect, they should have focused even more on the single CCD X3Ds.

Not having an 7600X3D is a hugely missed opportunity, if it could be available immediately with the 7xxx generation . It could have been the new 386-DX40! (for us oldtimers )
If they make one down the line, it might be too little too late, as Intel will have time to react with their new tier and even better pricing.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Just because you believe a product doesn't make sense for you does not mean it does not make sense for others. It gets about 97% of the performance of a 7950x in productivity and about 15-20% more gaming performance on average. Just because the price is not right for you does not mean the product is something that only idiots buy.

Would you pay $110USD more for 3D cache one on CCOX of a 16-core APU that gets a paltry 9% increase in games over an APU that is already one of the fastest gaming CPUs in the world while also being objectively worse in productivity?

If so, the big, greedy corporations LOVE you.

 

[helper800]

Would you pay $110USD more for 3D cache one on CCOX of a 16-core APU that gets a paltry 9% increase in games over an APU that is already one of the fastest gaming CPUs in the world while also being objectively worse in productivity?

If so, the big, greedy corporations LOVE you.

Like I said in my response you are quoting, just because you or I may not see the value does not mean that there is no use case for it. It gets more like 15+% more gaming performance as well. I bought the 5800X3D the day it came out for 449 dollars so judge me all you like, I got what I paid for. If we are going to argue what is the best value for the money then anyone that spends more than 120 dollars on a 13100f or a 5600 is loving the 'big greedy corporations.'

Here is the ultimate "value" gaming PC, and if you have anything more, you are likely not a value shopper:

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 5500 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor ($98.00 @ B&H)
CPU Cooler: Vetroo V5 52 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI B450-A PRO MAX ATX AM4 Motherboard ($89.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: Silicon Power GAMING 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($37.97 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Blue SN570 1 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 3.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($52.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: ASRock Challenger D OC Radeon RX 6700 XT 12 GB Video Card ($349.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Fractal Design Focus 2 ATX Mid Tower Case ($66.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Antec EARTHWATTS GOLD PRO 650 650 W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-modular ATX Power Supply ($89.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $820.90
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-03-01 14:32 EST-0500

 

[lxtbell2]

Would you pay $110USD more for 3D cache one on CCOX of a 16-core APU that gets a paltry 9% increase in games over an APU that is already one of the fastest gaming CPUs in the world while also being objectively worse in productivity?

Oh that's why - your conclusion is based on TechSpot's 9% over 7950x figure while mine is based on Tom's 26% figure (226fps vs 179fps). 26% is a no-brainer.

It's not clear where the difference comes from. Tom's is the only one I found with MSFS (where X3D leads by 53%!), but even on the same game, different outlets (also from TPU, Guru3D, etc) post different numbers. If we average outlets together it seems to be around 15% over 7950x (5% over 13900k). Well... that's more like the grey zone of whether the extra bucks are worth it.

That being said, I can clearly see why someone with productivity use and a game library towards the 53% end goes for 7950x3d. As helper800 points out,

just because you or I may not see the value does not mean that there is no use case for it

 

[KyaraM]

Oh that's why - your conclusion is based on TechSpot's 9% over 7950x figure while mine is based on Tom's 26% figure (226fps vs 179fps). 26% is a no-brainer.

It's not clear where the difference comes from. Tom's is the only one I found with MSFS (where X3D leads by 53%!), but even on the same game, different outlets (also from TPU, Guru3D, etc) post different numbers. If we average outlets together it seems to be around 15% over 7950x (5% over 13900k). Well... that's more like the grey zone of whether the extra bucks are worth it.

That being said, I can clearly see why someone with productivity use and a game library towards the 53% end goes for 7950x3d. As helper800 points out,

So you trust the obvious outlier over the other testers, then? lol
And with MSFL, that game is such an outlier it should be looked at, but not really considered in statistics, as should extreme outliers downwards. That is good practice because outliers massively distort reality. Be very wary of them.

 

[Ogotai]

Prices are simply insane. You pay 16%+ for 9% more FPS when comparing to a 13900K, according to Igor. And that's just the CPU, not even the whole system... buying an Intel system right now is simply lots cheaper than AMD, no matter how you look at it, for similar performance.

actually, this is some what false, where i am at least, mobo SAME prices as intel, nope, considering both can use ddr5, same cost there as well. its very doubtful any more buying a 13900k, is going to also pick up a ddr4 based board. currently the 7950x, is the same price as the 13900k, as both are on sale, when at regular prices, intel is a less expensive here, but not by much, and most of those i know would still pick up the AM5 system, mostly cause the intel platform is almost dead, to be replace by yet another socket in the next 1-2 years, where AM5, at least their is the option of getting a new cpu, in that same time frame.

 

[lxtbell2]

So you trust the obvious outlier over the other testers, then? lol
And with MSFL, that game is such an outlier it should be looked at, but not really considered in statistics, as should extreme outliers downwards. That is good practice because outliers massively distort reality. Be very wary of them.

No. Both TechSpot's 9% (gaming over 7950x3d) and Tom's 26% are outliers, but I didn't notice that. I would now use the 15% number for decisions, which is a median between different outlets, unless I decide to pick up flight simulation.

And mind you - Igor's productivity benchmark is a clear outlier: same arch, same IPC, presumably 90% frequency on half cores, bigger cache - and somehow 80% performance?! I don't see this in any other reviews, which report much closer to the theoretical 95%. Maybe Igor has a dud on frequency silicon lottery, but their gaming benchmarks don't look bad. In any case, as you said, better ignore that downward outlier.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Like I said in my response you are quoting, just because you or I may not see the value does not mean that there is no use case for it. It gets more like 15+% more gaming performance as well. I bought the 5800X3D the day it came out for 449 dollars so judge me all you like, I got what I paid for. If we are going to argue what is the best value for the money then anyone that spends more than 120 dollars on a 13100f or a 5600 is loving the 'big greedy corporations.'

Here is the ultimate "value" gaming PC, and if you have anything more, you are likely not a value shopper:

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 5500 3.6 GHz 6-Core Processor ($98.00 @ B&H)
CPU Cooler: Vetroo V5 52 CFM CPU Cooler ($34.99 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: MSI B450-A PRO MAX ATX AM4 Motherboard ($89.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: Silicon Power GAMING 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-3200 CL16 Memory ($37.97 @ Amazon)
Storage: Western Digital Blue SN570 1 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 3.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($52.99 @ Amazon)
Video Card: ASRock Challenger D OC Radeon RX 6700 XT 12 GB Video Card ($349.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Fractal Design Focus 2 ATX Mid Tower Case ($66.98 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Antec EARTHWATTS GOLD PRO 650 650 W 80+ Gold Certified Semi-modular ATX Power Supply ($89.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $820.90
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-03-01 14:32 EST-0500

I don't think that you understand. I'm judging AMD for it's decision, not anyone who buys it. I also own an R7-5800X3D and I agree with you, I got what I paid for. Your PC build is also top-notch for value, I'm not disagreeing with you there. The R7-5800X3D gets a double-digit uplift over the R7-5800X and that's really good.

What I'm referring to is the R9 X3D parts. The R7-7800X3D is going to be a fantastic product, of that there is no doubt. However, the R9-7950X3D only gives a ~9% gaming performance uplift over the R9-7950X which itself out-paces the R7-5800X3D by quite a margin. Because of this, the R9-7950X doesn't really benefit from the 3D cache like the R7-7700X will and R5-7600X would.

People can buy what they want, I have no issue with that. In this case, my issue is with AMD offering tech that won't make much difference at the high-end (which it doesn't) instead of offering it at the low-end where it would make a much larger difference.

I'm not even saying that AMD should sell it for cheap, quite the contrary. Their pricing structure follows this pattern:

The R7-7800X3D's price matches that of the R9-7900X.
The R9-7900X3D's price matches that of the R9-7950X.

So, the pattern is that an X3D part will be the same price as the X part in the tier above it.

So AMD could easily sell the R5-3600X3D for $350 which is the same price as the R7-7700X. I never said that they should lose money and I don't want them to. I want them to rake in as much as possible because with a company as large, rich, powerful and devoid of ethics as Intel, they have to.

What I'm saying is that an R5-7600X3D would be a major cash cow for AMD and they're insane for not creating and selling it. They'd dramatically increase the adoption rate of AM5 which guarantees processor sales for them and denies processor sales for Intel. I actually own four AM4 CPUs because of the drop-in nature of AM4 upgrades. This is not something I would've done if they didn't all work with the same motherboards.

While AM4 was being produced, it brought AMD back from the brink and severely hurt Intel because nobody who had an AM4 board was going to buy an Intel CPU as an upgrade because they'd have to buy another motherboard. That extra $100 or so meant that they could instead get an AMD CPU that was $100 more expensive than any Intel CPU within their budget.

I see the R7-5800X3D as a bit of a reward from AMD for having adopted AM4 but also an assurance to them that whoever buys that CPU won't be buying anything from Intel for a good long while. The AM5 socket seems to be following that same philosophy and the more people that AMD can get on board the AM5 train, the better for them and the worse for Intel.

That's the primary reason I think that they're insane. When you add the fact that the R9-7950X3D is an overly-niche product is just icing on the proverbial insanity cake. I expect that the R9-7950X3D will initially sell very well for the same reason that the RTX 4090 did but I don't foresee it having very broad appeal (would you buy a 16-core processor for gaming?) and I think that its sales will peter out very quickly.

On the other hand, sales of an R5-7600X3D could possibly be record-breaking as its appeal would be extremely broad. Gamers who could afford a $350 processor ATM will choose between the R7-7700X and the i9-12900K.

That doesn't paint a pretty picture for AMD because the i9-12900K matches the gaming performance of the R7-7700X (and R9-7950X for that matter) but has a much lower motherboard cost. An R5-7600X3D would easily defeat both of those processors in gaming at the same price, making a gamer's decision to go for AM5 or LGA 1700 a no-brainer. Meanwhile, people who have that budget and just want an all-around home CPU could still look at the R7-7700X and i9-12900K. That could be good or bad for AMD but at least the gamers will have been successfully lured. They'll also be very happy getting superior gaming performance for $350, I know that I would.

Combined with the superlative gaming performance of the R7-7800X3D, AMD would literally OWN the gaming processor market and the adoption of the AM5 platform would ensure that they would continue to own it for about five years. This is because even if Intel comes out with something better at the same price in the next generation, the cost of buying a new motherboard means that, just like with AM4, Intel won't be able to take any customers away from AMD.

I want AMD to continue winning against Intel because I want AMD to gain market parity with Intel (they're still not there yet by any means) so that we'll have perpetually strong competition. That's why I'm so blown away by what they've done here.