News AMD teases Ryzen 9000X3D chip coming November 7, cuts pricing on all other Ryzen 9000 chips

[TheHerald]

That's why I've always ran a PC. I do have a Series X for the kids and it plays Diablo 4 surprisingly well... but it isn't something I would ever get rid of my PC for.

Yes. Currently streaming switch games from my pc to.... my switch. For that 60 fps high resolution glory.

 

[TeamRed2024]

Yes. Currently streaming switch games from my pc to.... my switch. For that 60 fps high resolution glory.

Yeah I have a Switch too... got it when it first came out for all the old school NES games I played as a kid.

 

[Thunder64]

Both AMD and Intel have a problem with their respective launches: cheap-ish 7800X3Ds and 5700X3D/5800X3D.

AMD needs to think really hard on the price, otherwise it'll be another value clowns launch like Zen5 was.

3D is, first and foremost, a gaming CPU and value is king there. So I'd expect AMD will be able to read the room from all the Zen5 criticism. Unlikely given recent past history.

At least, I hope they now know how to test

Regards.

Nvidia would like a word with you.

 

[thestryker]

Games are so unoptimized and broken on PC that I would recommend just getting a PS5 Pro.

I played Jedi Survivor yesterday, and I got a bug preventing me from attacking enemies, healing or saving... my keyboard and my mouse lost half of their inputs.

And you take games like Alan Wake 2 and Wukong running barely at 1080p with Ray Tracing on a 4090...

And we are not talking about windows crippling performances like demonstrated lately.

This is the state of PC gaming, and you need to be a fool to think it is a better experience.

The only technical advantage consoles have is that most of the games that have stutter problems on PC don't on console. This is certainly a developer problem, but it's the only consistent issue which only affects one platform. Otherwise the console advantage is just price based as it's impossible to get the same level of performance with 2TB storage on PC.

If Intel cannot match the 14900k gaming performances with Arrow Lake, which is already slower than the 7800x3D and even the 9700x, then there is no chance in hell that the 285k can beat the 9800x3D in gaming even with 0% performance increase over the 7800x3D.

Pretty sure the post you quoted was a critique of AMD marketing and not the actual product performance.

 

[thestryker]

I'm mostly looking forward to this launch to see if AMD has done something to allow higher clocks so that the X3D parts might be straight upgrades over the non.

 

[TeamRed2024]

I'm mostly looking forward to this launch to see if AMD has done something to allow higher clocks so that the X3D parts might be straight upgrades over the non.

9950X is a beast. I don't see any scenario where I would regret not waiting on the x3D chips. I read all the reviews on the gaming king 7800x3D and noted how it was horrible at productivity tasks.

That was my thinking in getting the 9950X. Video editing/encoding tasks would perform best with this chip... and since I game in 4K which to my knowledge is more GPU dependent I don't see much use for the x3D. 9950X can game just as well as any other modern processor. A few more/less fps doesn't much matter to me. I'd rather get productivity stuff done faster. I'd notice that more than a few fps differences.

 

[-Fran-]

Nvidia would like a word with you.

Why? Jensen is absolutely convinced* he's giving you the best value you deserve if you buy nVidia: "the more you buy, the more you save".

See? Great value, according to them

Regards.

 

[thestryker]

9950X is a beast. I don't see any scenario where I would regret not waiting on the x3D chips. I read all the reviews on the gaming king 7800x3D and noted how it was horrible at productivity tasks.

That was my thinking in getting the 9950X. Video editing/encoding tasks would perform best with this chip... and since I game in 4K which to my knowledge is more GPU dependent I don't see much use for the x3D. 9950X can game just as well as any other modern processor. A few more/less fps doesn't much matter to me. I'd rather get productivity stuff done faster. I'd notice that more than a few fps differences.

Productivity is exactly why I wouldn't consider X3D chips as they stand now. They're kings of gaming, but otherwise are mediocre and can be equaled in efficiency and/or surpassed in performance by their non-X3D counterparts. However if the 9000 series X3D parts are able to get close to the same clocks as non I'd seriously consider it as I do care about high minimum frame rates in every action title I play.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

9950X is a beast. I don't see any scenario where I would regret not waiting on the x3D chips. I read all the reviews on the gaming king 7800x3D and noted how it was horrible at productivity tasks.

That was my thinking in getting the 9950X. Video editing/encoding tasks would perform best with this chip... and since I game in 4K which to my knowledge is more GPU dependent I don't see much use for the x3D. 9950X can game just as well as any other modern processor. A few more/less fps doesn't much matter to me. I'd rather get productivity stuff done faster. I'd notice that more than a few fps differences.

That depends if it's a game that takes advantage of AMD's V-Cache. Steve Burke from Gamers Nexus has showed that when a game is written to take advantage of the CPU's V-Cache, you can expect a nice performance boost.

Personally i'll wait for the x3d version along with the 5090 as I can limp along on my 4 yr old 10850K and RTX 3080.

 

[computertech82]

It would be nice if the 5700x3d was included in test

 

[rluker5]

If Intel cannot match the 14900k gaming performances with Arrow Lake, which is already slower than the 7800x3D and even the 9700x, then there is no chance in hell that the 285k can beat the 9800x3D in gaming even with 0% performance increase over the 7800x3D.

I might be in the minority here, but I game at highly GPU bound settings. When I want 4k, 60 fps is about all my GPU can handle and at 1440p 120 fps is all it can handle.

I only ever see my 13900kf limited in 2 scenarios: 1. In unrealistic scenarios made up to show CPU limitations, and 2. In badly optimized or very CPU heavy games that just happen to favor Raptor Lake over any X3D. The extra 30% over 300fps I will never see on my screen in a racing game matters less than the 25% less in densely populated areas and heavy action sequences in modern single player games. Daniel Owens just released a video showing that his 7800X3D couldn't hold close to 60 fps in H.L. with raytracing on and had a bad case of stutters. Sub 60 hurts.

There have been a lot of games lately that don't run well on PC lately and almost all of them run better on Intel.

For me the X3D is a downgrade. If the 285 holds higher mins in the problematic areas of these hard on the CPU games then it will be a real world upgrade because I will see more frames in my real world use.

 

[YSCCC]

That depends if it's a game that takes advantage of AMD's V-Cache. Steve Burke from Gamers Nexus has showed that when a game is written to take advantage of the CPU's V-Cache, you can expect a nice performance boost.

Personally i'll wait for the x3d version along with the 5090 as I can limp along on my 4 yr old 10850K and RTX 3080.

IME 5090 will be a waste, almost every gen getting the 70 or 80 class gives best C/P ration which will still serve max settings for most games in the coming 2-3 years, after that the 90 class don't get you much more anyway as the new 50%+ performance next gen is again coming..

For the V-cache, even if the performance relative to the non X3D varient as how the 7000s do, it will still outperform ARL in most cases if ARL really is even slower than RPL in gaming. luckily we will see how ARL performs in a few days

 

[halfcharlie]

And you take games like Alan Wake 2 and Wukong running barely at 1080p with Ray Tracing on a 4090...

Take your low effort lame trolling somewhere else. It's just embarrassing, this isn't reddit. Both games I played at 5120x1440 super-ultrawide, no DLSS, Ultra settings with Ray Tracing at over 100FPS on a 4090. Not that anyone with any clue would need to be told.

And anyone making their CPU purchase decisions based on gaming is clueless, nobody is being bottlenecked by their CPU. A half decade old i5 can run new AAA games at 4K over 100FPS. The focus should be GPU, fast M.2 HDD, and at least 32GB of RAM, then cooling, THEN you can worry about the CPU. How about instead of mentioning so-called 'gaming performance' every time these new CPU's come up, we cover something useful?

 

[criticaloftom]

If you're ready for a new gaming PC now, I wouldn't worry about RTX 5 series. If it was early 2025, sure, but just as you mentioned, it could actually end up being 6 months from today. Just grab a good holiday deal on a RX 7 series or RTX 4 series and call it a day.

Also lets not forget with no competition anywhere near the top end you are not going to gain anything from a price to performance standpoint. If it meets your needs now like a 3080 theres no need to pay for non-generational improvement it'll just be that the 5060 will be near the 3080 price; or the 5070ti will be near the 4090 price (whichever is closer to a no improvement @ per dollar invested).

I've been holding off for over 6 years now waiting for rational market forces to be re-established; and from what i've seen if you want an actual improvement second hand & doing a deep clean plus repaste is the way to go.

 

[YSCCC]

Take your low effort lame trolling somewhere else. It's just embarrassing, this isn't reddit. Both games I played at 5120x1440 super-ultrawide, no DLSS, Ultra settings with Ray Tracing at over 100FPS on a 4090. Not that anyone with any clue would need to be told.

And anyone making their CPU purchase decisions based on gaming is clueless, nobody is being bottlenecked by their CPU. A half decade old i5 can run new AAA games at 4K over 100FPS. The focus should be GPU, fast M.2 HDD, and at least 32GB of RAM, then cooling, THEN you can worry about the CPU. How about instead of mentioning so-called 'gaming performance' every time these new CPU's come up, we cover something useful?

Some games are indeed bottlenecked by CPU even at 4k, mostly for background shader rendering or say, system simulation in flight sim etc. those maybe rare but did occur.

Thing is to identify what you will want your PC to do rather than discarding one side altogether, there are prodcutive workloads like rendering or photoshop, video editing etc. But most home users will never if ever need to do those tasks, and gamers are more likely to use their PC mostly on... games, so that extra performance given all else equal are more important than once a year rendering of a project which may take 2hrs instead of 1hr 15min to do so. While for pros who process a lot of those stuffs the extra core compared to say, a 7800X3D will surely outweight whatever FPS improvement when one decided to use the rig to game.

 

[nitrium]

If you're ready for a new gaming PC now, I wouldn't worry about RTX 5 series. If it was early 2025, sure, but just as you mentioned, it could actually end up being 6 months from today. Just grab a good holiday deal on a RX 7 series or RTX 4 series and call it a day.

Wut? No. I've been skipping GPU gens since March 2019 because the 4000 series was so lacklustre. I'm looking at an RTX 5060/5070 for a mid 2025 upgrade assuming they price it similarly to the 4060/4070. I would urge anyone thinking of building a new gaming PC to wait for the new nVidia GPUs before buying the overpriced 4000 series GPUs.

 

[TheHerald]

The only technical advantage consoles have is that most of the games that have stutter problems on PC don't on console.

Yes and no. The stutter issue exists on console as well, to a much lower degree cause the framerate is a lot lower as well. Try jedi on a PC with locked 30 fps and the stutter issue will go away just like in a console. I've tested this with hogwarts for example (a stutterfest of a game).

 

[ottonis]

The announcement of the X3D variant of the 9000 series is already a win even for all those people who are not into gaming at all: If the introduction of a new gaming CPU is going to decrease prices of the other 9000- variants, then this will attract all those people who are in for a hardware upgrade or new system build and who are reluctant towards Intel after the degradation-disaster with their 13- and 14. gen CPUs.
So, speaking strictly from my personal perspective: I don't care about a gaming CPU but I am always interested in energy-efficient and powerful CPUs that come at affordable prices.

 

[Master_Shifu]

The price cuts on the other Ryzen 9000 processors are a nice bonus . I’ve been wanting the Ryzen 9 9950X for a while so this might be the perfect time to upgrade. Has anyone here already tried the 9950X? How do they compare to Intel 16 cores?

 

[YSCCC]

The price cuts on the other Ryzen 9000 processors are a nice bonus . I’ve been wanting the Ryzen 9 9950X for a while so this might be the perfect time to upgrade. Has anyone here already tried the 9950X? How do they compare to Intel 16 cores?

If anything is to be trusted in the reviews so far, the 9950X is quite a bit faster than the 14900KS, and likely faster than the Ultra 9 285k while using less power, so it looks like quite a no brainer IMO at the meantime, but if you've been waiting so far it would be interesting to see the ARL launch reviews also, and maybe the X3D launch, as it seems somehow the 9800X3D have made some break through (if it's not stupidly flawed as to self destruct) and get even higher clocks than the 9700X, as such the new X3D lineup could be an all rounder faster chip (though I will keep skeptical as it sounds too good to be true)

 

[jp7189]

The price cuts on the other Ryzen 9000 processors are a nice bonus . I’ve been wanting the Ryzen 9 9950X for a while so this might be the perfect time to upgrade. Has anyone here already tried the 9950X? How do they compare to Intel 16 cores?

Definitely give it until mid November. By then we'll know all the numbers from trusted 3rd party sources.

 

[palladin9479]

Wut? No. I've been skipping GPU gens since March 2019 because the 4000 series was so lacklustre. I'm looking at an RTX 5060/5070 for a mid 2025 upgrade assuming they price it similarly to the 4060/4070. I would urge anyone thinking of building a new gaming PC to wait for the new nVidia GPUs before buying the overpriced 4000 series GPUs.

The 40 series was maliciously segmented to upsell everyone to a 4090. Every other model was placed to make people want to buy a 4090.

 

[TheHerald]

The 40 series was maliciously segmented to upsell everyone to a 4090. Every other model was placed to make people want to buy a 4090.

Worked on me

 

[TeamRed2024]

Wut? No. I've been skipping GPU gens since March 2019 because the 4000 series was so lacklustre. I'm looking at an RTX 5060/5070 for a mid 2025 upgrade assuming they price it similarly to the 4060/4070. I would urge anyone thinking of building a new gaming PC to wait for the new nVidia GPUs before buying the overpriced 4000 series GPUs.

You think the 5000 series pricing is gonna be any different?

Pretty sure the 4090 will still be better than any 5060/5070 regardless.

The 40 series was maliciously segmented to upsell everyone to a 4090. Every other model was placed to make people want to buy a 4090.

Worked on me

Me too. Beast card.

 

[TheHerald]

You think the 5000 series pricing is gonna be any different?

Pretty sure the 4090 will still be better than any 5060/5070 regardless.






Me too. Beast card.

I have an excuse, had a 3090 before, not much else to upgrade to.