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.
I'm all for more choices and yeah it's a shame there is no 7600X3D. Meanwhile - will it actually sell more than 7800X3D?
There is no doubt 7800X3D is the superior product of the two, and those who aren't willing to pay that $100 difference, might opt for a 5800X3D or DDR4 Intel build. DDR5 and MB price is still a main pain point for AM5 budget builds. 7800X3D, on the other hand, is the ultimate gaming chip that can easily cater to those with much higher tolerance of platform price.
Again - having the choice is great. I just don't know if it will sell in good numbers.
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.
As I said, that TechSpot 9% figure you quote again and again is an outlier, the worst across all reviews I read. It even has a broken Factorio that should be easily fixed in the next chipset driver or by hand through Game Bar. Most reviews report around 15% on average. Nothing exciting, but at least shows some value in it. And it does perform very well in a few games like MSFS (53%).