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

[YSCCC]

A zen 1 or a 7700k will definitely not do the trick.

You cant buy a cpu based on 1 game unless that's the only game you are going to play. That's why you look at averages across multiple games. On average the 3d ain't worth it unless you plan to buy a 5090 and game at 1080p.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/21.html

cough, look at the games at 4k, cyberpunk with 3900x get 75.5FPS, why bother get anything newer if you arn't chasing for "future proof" in whatever usecase you are building the PC for?

As per your arguement, if one arn't planning to plug a 4090 into a zen 1 or 7700k, the GPU will bottleneck the game to settings where zen 1 or 7700k won't matter.

 

[TheHerald]

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-7800x3d/21.html

cough, look at the games at 4k, cyberpunk with 3900x get 75.5FPS, why bother get anything newer if you arn't chasing for "future proof" in whatever usecase you are building the PC for?

As per your arguement, if one arn't planning to plug a 4090 into a zen 1 or 7700k, the GPU will bottleneck the game to settings where zen 1 or 7700k won't matter.

1) I did not say that you should get anything newer than the 3900x. But the 3900x isn't zen 1 or a 7700k.

2) No, zen 1 or 7700k have trouble even hitting 30 fps at some games. With a slower gpu (say a 4070) you can drop the settings a bit and still enjoy higher fps, with a megaslow cpu like the ones you suggested can't.

 

[YSCCC]

1) I did not say that you should get anything newer than the 3900x. But the 3900x isn't zen 1 or a 7700k.

2) No, zen 1 or 7700k have trouble even hitting 30 fps at some games. With a slower gpu (say a 4070) you can drop the settings a bit and still enjoy higher fps, with a megaslow cpu like the ones you suggested can't.

I will stop derailing with you, but if one isn't getting a 3070 or 4060 Ti so with a 7700k, which is where most gamers actually do, and extreme example of a 2600k OC to 5Ghz can still play cyber punk at 1080P high with a 3080.

After all, the X3D, even the 8 cores ones still have it's pro against mega core count counterparts in situations like a game only rig. don't derail further dude

 

[TheHerald]

I will stop derailing with you, but if one isn't getting a 3070 or 4060 Ti so with a 7700k, which is where most gamers actually do, and extreme example of a 2600k OC to 5Ghz can still play cyber punk at 1080P high with a 3080.

After all, the X3D, even the 8 cores ones still have it's pro against mega core count counterparts in situations like a game only rig. don't derail further dude

You are just wrong.

This is 4/8 Alderlake cores, almost 40% faster than 7700k cores. Tlou for example is a stuttering mess.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LfHXhry4g8


Cyberpunk is even worse

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL-5HIKfiA4


Stop derailing, accept you are wrong and move on.

 

[YSCCC]

You are just wrong.

This is 4/8 Alderlake cores, almost 40% faster than 7700k cores. Tlou for example is a stuttering mess.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LfHXhry4g8


Cyberpunk is even worse

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hL-5HIKfiA4


Stop derailing, accept you are wrong and move on.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFYz_cAkgNU&t=460s


see this

 

[TheHerald]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFYz_cAkgNU&t=460s


see this

If you are playing the benchmark, yeah, a pentium 4 is great too. If you are actually playing the game, you are not getting 90 fps on a 2600k, lol. I can't even hold a steady 90 with a 12900k

 

[YSCCC]

If you are playing the benchmark, yeah, a pentium 4 is great too. If you are actually playing the game, you are not getting 90 fps on a 2600k, lol. I can't even hold a steady 90 with a 12900k

it's just how you set and resolution, back to topic dude, it's not only YOUR setting counts, it's how the one decided to use what build to do what counts, you keep derail to other circular arguement.

 

[TheHerald]

it's just how you set and resolution, back to topic dude, it's not only YOUR setting counts, it's how the one decided to use what build to do what counts, you keep derail to other circular arguement.

You can stop at anytime, you keep derailing. If you've been some of the games you are posting videos about youd know that you are not getting 90 fps with a 2700k on cyberpunk, lol.

 

[YSCCC]

You can stop at anytime, you keep derailing. If you've been some of the games you are posting videos about youd know that you are not getting 90 fps with a 2700k on cyberpunk, lol.

lol, I said some games are still limited by the CPU, so 8 cores X3D is still valid, that was the original question, then you go

Like what games? Can you give me one example?

And then after the one sample that you requested you go through all these non-sense.

So who's derailing? If your claim about smooth frame rate is to go by, which is around 60 FPS if you use a "normal" monitor, the overclocked 2600k paired with a good enough GPU is still playable for as you say: "an average and suite of games are important, not one",

Just FYI I will show you one more, the 1440P low setting of a 3770 ivy bridge paired with a 3060 can still get avg64 fps and 1% lows in the 30s.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di3oV4qnYvQ


So according to your logic that buying an 7800X3D over to say, a 7950X or a a12900K is pointless as it doesn't get you any meaningful performance uplift while losing extra 8 cores, getting anything beyond a Zen 1 to Zen 2 or 7700k to 10700k pairing for anything non 4090 with below 4k resolution also makes no sense, and same goes for getting 16 cores+ for doing no productivity work is also, makes no sense.

Conclusion is still the same, the 8 cores X3D still have it's advantage over the higher clocked, 16 cores X varient. The choice making sense or not simply depends on --- as I said earlier, what you are building it for, AKA use case.

 

[helper800]

1) I did not say that you should get anything newer than the 3900x. But the 3900x isn't zen 1 or a 7700k.

2) No, zen 1 or 7700k have trouble even hitting 30 fps at some games. With a slower gpu (say a 4070) you can drop the settings a bit and still enjoy higher fps, with a megaslow cpu like the ones you suggested can't.

You are making some really bad arguments again. Here's a graph showing a 6700k geting 93% of the relative performance of a 12900ks / 5800X3D at 4k on the aggregate at Ultra settings with a 3080.

X3d is useless unless you are gaming at 720p low.

Thats actually incorrect the majority of the time. Also, its Intel CPUs that typically benefit the most from 720p low benchmarking compared to similar generation AMD X3D.

On the aggregate at 1080, 1440p, an X3D CPU is faster or within margin of error (1%) than Intel's similar generation of i5, i7, i9 CPUs. They are almost always within margin of error at 4k unless the game is CPU limited, then the X3Ds usually average more fps.

1080p aggregate

1440p aggregate

Source for all of the charts.

The 7800X3D is in a similar boat compared to the 13000's and the 14000's CPUs for gaming, and that is to say its either faster or within 1% of all the Intel CPUs for gaming at 720p, 1080p, 1440p, and 4k aggregate scores.

 

[TheHerald]

You are making some really bad arguments again. Here's a graph showing a 6700k geting 93% of the relative performance of a 12900ks / 5800X3D at 4k on the aggregate at Ultra settings with a 3080.

Thats actually incorrect the majority of the time. Also, its Intel CPUs that typically benefit the most from 720p low benchmarking compared to similar generation AMD X3D.

On the aggregate at 1080, 1440p, an X3D CPU is faster or within margin of error (1%) than Intel's similar generation of i5, i7, i9 CPUs. They are almost always within margin of error at 4k unless the game is CPU limited, then the X3Ds usually average more fps.

1080p aggregate

1440p aggregate

Source for all of the charts.

The 7800X3D is in a similar boat compared to the 13000's and the 14000's CPUs for gaming, and that is to say its either faster or within 1% of all the Intel CPUs for gaming at 720p, 1080p, 1440p, and 4k aggregate scores.

Well, if you think a 6700k gets 93% of the 12900k performance at 4k then I don't know what to tell you man. I've already posted a video from my tuned rig running 4/8. Some games are literally unplayable.

 

[doughillman]

Well, if you think a 6700k gets 93% of the 12900k performance at 4k then I don't know what to tell you man. I've already posted a video from my tuned rig running 4/8. Some games are literally unplayable.

Perhaps your rig isn't as tuned as you claim it is.

 

[helper800]

Well, if you think a 6700k gets 93% of the 12900k performance at 4k then I don't know what to tell you man. I've already posted a video from my tuned rig running 4/8. Some games are literally unplayable.

Regardless of the prior arguments, that makes me curious how my 5800X3D would do with only 4c/8t active.

 

[YSCCC]

Well, if you think a 6700k gets 93% of the 12900k performance at 4k then I don't know what to tell you man. I've already posted a video from my tuned rig running 4/8. Some games are literally unplayable.

So you want an average of games or just the one game you posted in high settings as reference?

 

[TheHerald]

Regardless of the prior arguments, that makes me curious how my 5800X3D would do with only 4c/8t active.

Go try. Tlou is a stutterfest, cyberpunk has just low performance (maybe it does better without RT, but with RT oh boy)

 

[TheHerald]

Perhaps your rig isn't as tuned as you claim it is.

That is an easily tested claim.

In order to match this you need a 9800x 3d

Spoiler

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_6CTAZwu8g

 

[pug_s]

The production costs are nothing compared to the massive R&D costs, along with others as mentioned above. Sure AMD makes money on their CPU's, especially on the higher end. They are a business after all. If you think their profit margins are unreasonable (despite no one knowing them) you have a choice not to buy from them.

The problem is that there's not much choices between AMD and Intel. I agree and R&D budget can easily put the cost of the CPU at least twice the price. AMD probably already recouped its money back from its R&D in its lower end 5000 cpu's and they can easily try to take marketshare from Intel in the desktop space, especially in non-western countries but for some reason they don't put much effort in doing so. Meanwhile, Intel's older Alder Lake cpu's are still going strong.

 

[-Fran-]

The problem is that there's not much choices between AMD and Intel. I agree and R&D budget can easily put the cost of the CPU at least twice the price. AMD probably already recouped its money back from its R&D in its lower end 5000 cpu's and they can easily try to take marketshare from Intel in the desktop space, especially in non-western countries but for some reason they don't put much effort in doing so. Meanwhile, Intel's older Alder Lake cpu's are still going strong.

I think there's more silver lining in your thinking I'd like to address:

1- R&D Costs
You may know about CAPEX and OPEX types. If not, it's a simple good read about accounting and project management. In that you have types of costs and R&D is a very specific category you can't bag or link to any one specific product. From the same R&D pot can come multiple different products and generations of it. So you can't categorically say "Product X totally paid R&D for Y years!" or anything similar. Those relative costs are well hidden in the accounting sheets that sometimes not even the Companies themselves know how to organize

2- Distribution
As much as it pains me to say: some regions are not worth the extra effort or investment when your volume is not that high. This is a sad thing which I wish wasn't, but it is. AMD is a global player for sure, but the markets in which it directly participate are limited, so they don't have full control on every single country's pricing on Earth or the distributors don't need to follow their price guidances if they are 2nd or 3rd layer deep distributors. This applies to any global company.

Again, I think your point is valid and I am not disagreeing, but more context is always good to have. We all want more competition and in more regions.

Regards.

 

[TeamRed2024]

How's that 9950x been for you? Did the updates to AGESA and all that improve anything for you? I might actually go for the high-end CPU this time.

I don't have any complaints. Productivity tasks are efficient and gaming is great as well. It runs somewhat warm... 60-70c at load and 90-95c under stress testing... but that's why I got an AIO.

AGESA update gave me a slight improvement in some benchmarks but nothing huge... like 10%. Scores were solid across all tests I ran.

The price difference between the 7950X was only a handful of dollars so I went with the 9950X.

Just get a higher tier non 3d and enjoy the extra cores.

That's my thinking.

 

[NickyB]

Well I have a 7900X and a 4080 super. Def going to upgrade to the 9900X3D and 5 series. But for now, my entire pc works great. No issues at all.

 

[YSCCC]

Well I have a 7900X and a 4080 super. Def going to upgrade to the 9900X3D and 5 series. But for now, my entire pc works great. No issues at all.

TBF your rig don't seems like needing any upgrading at all, it could be faster but will likely not noticeably so except if you do FPS count.