AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D CPU Review & Benchmarks: $700 Gaming Flagship

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,874
Review

"The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is launching alongside the R9 7900X3D, with the R7 7800X3D launching in April. The 7950X3D curiously was the only CPU sent, and given the unique core parking behavior in Windows, we wonder whether the 7900X3D might make more sense (or the 7800X3D, although its frequency is much lower). In this review of the R9 7950X3D, we'll benchmark gaming performance, production performance in Adobe software and code compiling (and more), power efficiency, and power consumption. Testing looks specifically at the Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs. the i9-13900K, i5-13600K, R9 7950X, and plenty of other CPUs. This is our first high-end CPU benchmark for 2023, helping you get back up to speed on the best CPUs out right now. The release date for the 7900X3D and 7950X3D is February 28, 2023, so they will not be available until the day after the reviews go up (which is a good thing - it gives time for people to make a decision)."

 

TPU​

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review - Best of Both Worlds​

REVIEW PROCESSORS
The Ryzen 9 7950X3D is the spearhead of the AMD Zen 4 X3D lineup. In our performance review we test AMD's new 16-core flagship with dozens of applications and 14 games at up to 4K, to see whether AMD can take the performance crown from Intel, how power consumption is affected, and what can be expected from overclocking.

Ryzen 7950X3D with One CCD Disabled - The 7800X3D Preview​

ARTICLE PROCESSORS
Ryzen 7 7800X3D will be the most affordable Zen 4 X3D processor, but it doesn't release until April. We reconfigured the Ryzen 9 7950X3D to match the specs of the 7800X3D and ran it through our test suite, which includes 14 games at 720p, 1080p, 1440p and 4K. Results are impressive.

AnandTech

The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Review: AMD's Fastest Gaming Processor​



Tom's Hardware
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 5 7600X Review: A Return to ...

PCMag​

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X Review - PCMag​


TechSpot

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X Review: The New Performance King​


PCGamer

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X CPU review - PC Gamer​


IGN
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X Review – A Gaming and Performance ...
 
Last edited:
So from TPU, a simulated 7800x3d is faster than a 13900k, yet uses only 44w in gaming.

"Where AMD X3D is taking the wrecking ball to Intel is power consumption. Our simulated Ryzen 7 7800X3D is one of the most energy-efficient CPUs we ever tested. In gaming it consumes 44 W on average, while the competition is wasting a ton of energy to achieve the same FPS: 13900K (143 W), 13700K (107 W), 13600K (89 W)—all more than twice the power usage than AMD's new gaming gem."

CANNOT wait for that chip to come out.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/ryzen-7800x3d-performance-preview/
 
Brackle said:
So from TPU, a simulated 7800x3d is faster than a 13900k, yet uses only 44w in gaming.

"Where AMD X3D is taking the wrecking ball to Intel is power consumption. Our simulated Ryzen 7 7800X3D is one of the most energy-efficient CPUs we ever tested. In gaming it consumes 44 W on average, while the competition is wasting a ton of energy to achieve the same FPS: 13900K (143 W), 13700K (107 W), 13600K (89 W)—all more than twice the power usage than AMD's new gaming gem."

CANNOT wait for that chip to come out.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/ryzen-7800x3d-performance-preview/
Click to expand...
Crazy. That's why I say it was purposely delayed. I think the whole "build process" delay is PR. 7800X3D is probably best, then the 7900X3D (only the 7950X3D was sent for reviews which is interesting), then the 7950X3D is the "jack of all trades" with tradeoffs.
 
Brackle said:
So from TPU, a simulated 7800x3d is faster than a 13900k, yet uses only 44w in gaming.

"Where AMD X3D is taking the wrecking ball to Intel is power consumption. Our simulated Ryzen 7 7800X3D is one of the most energy-efficient CPUs we ever tested. In gaming it consumes 44 W on average, while the competition is wasting a ton of energy to achieve the same FPS: 13900K (143 W), 13700K (107 W), 13600K (89 W)—all more than twice the power usage than AMD's new gaming gem."

CANNOT wait for that chip to come out.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/ryzen-7800x3d-performance-preview/
Click to expand...
Gonna be lower clock speeds though, how much is TBD I guess.
 
Jesus christ... :LOL:

power-games-compare.png
 
lines up with what many likely anticipated based off of the previous gen x3d. i was only interested in 4k gaming performance so to see a ~5fps avg gain over a 7950X, meh.
 
delita said:
lines up with what many likely anticipated based off of the previous gen x3d. i was only interested in 4k gaming performance so to see a ~5fps avg gain over a 7950X, meh.
Click to expand...

AT 4k its going to be more of GPU thing. So even if you get 5FPS its impressive for CPU alone lol.
 
sk3tch said:
Crazy. That's why I say it was purposely delayed. I think the whole "build process" delay is PR. 7800X3D is probably best, then the 7900X3D (only the 7950X3D was sent for reviews which is interesting), then the 7950X3D is the "jack of all trades" with tradeoffs.
Click to expand...

yea initially its more like leading with top end, I think lot of companies are doing that now. It just helps build up the market and then everyone jumps on to the lower parts. They are probably building up more stock of 7800x3d too, that plays are part as they probably expect it to sell way more. Not gonna argue that 7950x3d might sell just fine as well for those that want best of both worlds.
 
I think if AMD can get the task scheduling worked out, this thing is going to be a monster.
 
I wonder what's up with Elden Ring. And if this is an instance of the game running on the faster non X3D CCX----but also being allowed to reach over to the Vcache. And then if you try to manually manipulate the scheduling, the performance drops a lot.
Whatever it is, the default behavior is a huge boost for Elden Ring. I would love to see a minimum frames comparison. Seems like Hardware Unboxed is about the only place doing that. But they don't use Elden Ring for tests.

*Also, TPU didn't even put the 5800X3D in their graphs. Which is really weird.

elden-ring-1920-1080.png
 
madpistol said:
I think if AMD can get the task scheduling worked out, this thing is going to be a monster
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure the new optimized driver for x3d does just that so its very important moving forward to update the chipset drivers. They are on the right track. They did say it will work hand in hand with windows schedular as they were working with microsoft to optimize things.
 
From what I gathered, when gaming the scheduler parked the 8 non-x3d cached CCD (cores). That doesn't bode well for multitasking when you game or say streaming and gaming from the same box.
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
From what I gathered, when gaming the scheduler parked the 8 non-x3d cached CCD. That doesn't bode well for multitasking when you game or say streaming and gaming from the same box.
Click to expand...
Yeah I want to see a test where they have the game going but on a second screen I want to see Discord running and Chrome with at least a half dozen tabs open.

Pure benchmarks are great but I need some real use case scenarios.
 
Mega6 said:
From what I gathered, when gaming the scheduler parked the 8 non-x3d cached CCD (cores). That doesn't bode well for multitasking when you game or say streaming and gaming from the same box.
Click to expand...
Steve should have clarified this. He said the fast cores need to be "parked" while gaming to get the benefits of the 3D cache cores, which could be interpreted as they can't be used. But I do think the fast cores can do encoding or other things because if you look at the Core Utilization chart you can see 9 cores are loaded, not just 8, which means the second CCD is indeed doing background tasks.
 
Phazer Tech said:
TLDR
If both gaming and productivity is important to you, then get the 7950X3D. If only productivity is important then get the regular 7950X. If only gaming is important then wait for the 7800X3D.
Click to expand...

Well, yes and no. x3d does nothing for certain game engine architectures such as Counterstrike. Generally, yes - but it needs to be evaluated on a game by game basis to see if the 7950x3d is actually worth the cost over say the 7950x. Gaming only, yeah the single CCD 7800x3d will be the price to performance king.


Not sure if this made it to the review list, but Brent does a nice job here.

https://www.thefpsreview.com/2023/02/27/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-gaming-performance-cpu-review/
 
Last edited:
Mega6 said:
Well, yes and no. x3d does nothing for certain game engine architectures such as Counterstrike. Generally, yes - but it needs to be evaluated on a game by game basis to see if it's actually worth the cost over say the 7950x.
Click to expand...
You quoted someone talking about the 7800x3D so not sure why you mentioned the 7950x (maybe a typo). MSRP for an AMD 7700x is $399 (can be found a bit cheaper). MSRP for a 7800x3D is $449. Based on the reviews we've seen today I feel that increase is totally justified.
 
StryderxX said:
You quoted someone talking about the 7800x3D so not sure why you mentioned the 7950x (maybe a typo). MSRP for an AMD 7700x is $399 (can be found a bit cheaper). MSRP for a 7800x3D is $449. Based on the reviews we've seen today I feel that increase is totally justified.
Click to expand...
My bad - good catch, wrong quote. Will clarify.
 
Am I missing something here?

The cpu looks great, and I'm not a fan boy in either direction. I have systems from all major competitors.

But why do people care about 60w differences? That's what a single mid range incandescent light bulb uses in an HOUR.

Are we not picking our choices over something so small? Or is the AC/DC conversion something I'm missing?
 
auntjemima said:
Am I missing something here?

The cpu looks great, and I'm not a fan boy in either direction. I have systems from all major competitors.

But why do people care about 60w differences? That's what a single mid range incandescent light bulb uses in an HOUR.

Are we not picking our choices over something so small? Or is the AC/DC conversion something I'm missing?
Click to expand...
The minor power and performance differences are always used as moving goal posts by the rabid fanbois to justify their choice of company X vs Y.
 
auntjemima said:
Am I missing something here?

The cpu looks great, and I'm not a fan boy in either direction. I have systems from all major competitors.

But why do people care about 60w differences? That's what a single mid range incandescent light bulb uses in an HOUR.

Are we not picking our choices over something so small? Or is the AC/DC conversion something I'm missing?
Click to expand...

Some people place different priorities on different metrics. Personally - I play a lot of TF2 so x3d means nothing. However 550fps vs 450fps in amd vs intel also mean nothing, So wattage is a factor.
 
StryderxX said:
You quoted someone talking about the 7800x3D so not sure why you mentioned the 7950x (maybe a typo). MSRP for an AMD 7700x is $399 (can be found a bit cheaper). MSRP for a 7800x3D is $449. Based on the reviews we've seen today I feel that increase is totally justified.
Click to expand...

Eh, NE has the 7700X on sale for $298, ($50 off $348) and I'm not sure there is really a $50 worth of difference between a 7700 and the X model. Just like the in past with a 3600 vs 3600X. It might be wiser to buy the non 3D parts now and upgrade to the next gen 3D parts in 1-2 years given the scheduler issues with the 3D cache/core parking.

The low power usage though on this 7950X3D is awesome.
 
auntjemima said:
Am I missing something here?

The cpu looks great, and I'm not a fan boy in either direction. I have systems from all major competitors.

But why do people care about 60w differences? That's what a single mid range incandescent light bulb uses in an HOUR.

Are we not picking our choices over something so small? Or is the AC/DC conversion something I'm missing?
Click to expand...

I've cared ever since people started making a big deal about it say back in the Sandy/Ivy Bridge era vs Bulldozer/FX chips. 84w vs 125w was a big thing. Let alone the dramas over GPU power usage. These days with electricity prices being that much worse it probably matters more than it ever did back then.
 
Ranulfo said:
I've cared ever since people started making a big deal about it say back in the Sandy/Ivy Bridge era vs Bulldozer/FX chips. 84w vs 125w was a big thing. Let alone the dramas over GPU power usage. These days with electricity prices being that much worse it probably matters more than it ever did back then.
Click to expand...
Yup. Efficiency says a lot about a product, and who has a more refined design. I'm not a fan of the Intel "throw 500w at the problem" method of solving issues and really wish they'd reel that shit in at some point.

Intel used to brag A LOT about efficiency back in the Bulldozer days...
 
Using a small room - I just don't want the AC to have to run 24/7/365 either. GPUs are bad enough. Thank god TF2 barely understands what a GPU is. It's all CPU.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top