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

OFaceSIG said:
I have a feeling most 7800X3Ds will actually be dual CCD chips with one with fused connections. They have actually already discovered 5800X's built this way.

It's all about economies of scale these days. The fewer SKUs you have to manufacture the cheaper things get.
Click to expand...
Delidders have found 7600x with a disabled CCD
NKD said:
I tweeted to @amdryzen and boom the drivers are up now lmao, like 10 mins later. Someone didn't click the upload button.

https://www.amd.com/en/support/chipsets/amd-socket-am5/x670e
Click to expand...
Reminds me of when Intel launched the 11th gen, with the brand new XE graphics------and didn't post the drivers for about 3 days. After a tech writer tweeted them.
 
Looks like where the 13900K takes the lead, it's splitting hairs, but when the 7950X3D really takes the lead, it's a straight-up curbstomp victory - just look at those Factorio and MSFS2020 results!

That said, the main thing to hold out for is the 7800X3D, since $700 is pretty damn lofty for a non-HEDT CPU and $450 is much more palatable (albeit less so with the AM5 platform's current costs). The simulated results already show that most games aren't losing a whole lot of performance from omitting the cacheless CCD, and some actually gain quite a bit, akin to how certain games perform much better on Alder/Raptor Lake once you shut off the E-cores.

I may not build a 7800X3D system for myself for a while (already bit on a Micro Center 12700K + Z690 mobo bundle), but it'll definitely be on my radar as prices for DDR5 and AM5 mobos come down over the years, to say nothing of Zen 5 and future architectures also exploiting stacked cache to the fullest. AMD hasn't stuck it to Intel this hard since they dropped the Hammer with K8/Athlon 64 (which, as mentioned earlier, is also when AMD started slapping $1,000+ MSRPs on CPUs because they knew they had Intel beat, and also all those weird RISC architectures like SPARC and MIPS beat, too).
 
I am rolling with my 7700x for now. I don’t see myself changing CPU cuz me replacing it is not worth overcoming my laziness around it and don’t see it making difference at 4K lmao. I’ll make move with zen 5 at this point.

So I decided to just get a Mac mini m2 pro that came back in stock and had bunch of Bb reward points and used 10% off coupon 900 out the door for vs 1400 out the door retail Lmao. I am probably going to enjoy browsing on that and keep my system as is for gaming. I see more fun playing around with that then changing out my cpu. Might pass it it to wifi for here beautiful office 🤣
 
NKD said:
I am rolling with my 7700x for now. I don’t see myself changing CPU cuz me replacing it is not worth overcoming my laziness around it and don’t see it making difference at 4K lmao. I’ll make move with zen 5 at this point.

So I decided to just get a Mac mini m2 pro that came back in stock and had bunch of Bb reward points and used 10% off coupon 900 out the door for vs 1400 out the door retail Lmao. I am probably going to enjoy browsing on that and keep my system as is for gaming. I see more fun playing around with that then changing out my cpu. Might pass it it to wifi for here beautiful office 🤣
Click to expand...
Changing CPUs is the easiest upgrade there is - but your call, man! I am sure as Mac mini is more fun to play with than the fastest gaming CPU!
 
So where are the 7900X3D reviews? Its available for purchase, is it under embargo still?
 
Was considering the 7950X for the cores (VMs, multitasking, encoding, etc). While I do game, squeezing out every FPS is not that big a deal to me. However, wondering if 7950X3D is better just for the lower power consumption? (mostly concerned about running cooler, not cost of electricity)
I am assuming some of the cores are "disabled" on the 3D mostly by game profiles, otherwise its the same as the 7950X. (?)
 
aliaskary77 said:
Was considering the 7950X for the cores (VMs, multitasking, encoding, etc). While I do game, squeezing out every FPS is not that big a deal to me. However, wondering if 7950X3D is better just for the lower power consumption? (mostly concerned about running cooler, not cost of electricity)
I am assuming some of the cores are "disabled" on the 3D mostly by game profiles, otherwise its the same as the 7950X. (?)
Click to expand...

The non-v cache CCD is parked during game scheduling. This CPU is basically a scam, the 7800X3D will do the same thing but cheaper.
 
LigTasm said:
The non-v cache CCD is parked during game scheduling. This CPU is basically a scam, the 7800X3D will do the same thing but cheaper.
Click to expand...
I get that from all the reviews and comments, but if I wanted 16/32 and not 8/16 cores, and game was not a priority...question is 7950X or 7950X3D for the lower power usage/lower heat?
 
aliaskary77 said:
I get that from all the reviews and comments, but if I wanted 16/32 and not 8/16 cores, and game was not a priority...question is 7950X or 7950X3D for the lower power usage/lower heat?
Click to expand...

I'm really not sure, I have no first hand experience with AM5. I would assume you can get a regular 7950X and use eco mode for a cool running chip and only lose a few % for $100 less.
 
NKD said:
I am rolling with my 7700x for now. I don’t see myself changing CPU cuz me replacing it is not worth overcoming my laziness around it and don’t see it making difference at 4K lmao. I’ll make move with zen 5 at this point.

So I decided to just get a Mac mini m2 pro that came back in stock and had bunch of Bb reward points and used 10% off coupon 900 out the door for vs 1400 out the door retail Lmao. I am probably going to enjoy browsing on that and keep my system as is for gaming. I see more fun playing around with that then changing out my cpu. Might pass it it to wifi for here beautiful office 🤣
Click to expand...

After seeing the reviews I may also be holding off, we still have to see memory tuned benchmarks with the 3D chips. I generally play at 4K unless I’m using DLSS which is not all that often.

My main goal is to have the best 1% lows as possible with AM5 and so far I haven’t seen much of a difference given the reviews.

Tuned memory have impressive 1% lows on a lot of games so as I go through that process I’m wondering how it does with these. On the 5000 series it didn’t matter a lot so we will see.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
In the winter its kind of nice. The PC is quiet due to low ambients, and it helps keep the room warm for those late night cold new england winter gaming sessions :p In the summer - however - its quite brutal.

Last summer was an "above my ideal temperature" experience, and that was with my RX 6900xt. (Granted it was the XFX EKWB version and I was running it at ~430W)

I can only imagine that the 4090 will be similar.

That said, I own a house without central air, and my office is in the finished basement, without any way to install a window AC unit.

I've been saving up to install a multi-zone ductless mini-split system though. Hopefully I'll be able to make that happen in the spring.
Click to expand...
The split is a great option we have one here.
 
next-Jin said:
After seeing the reviews I may also be holding off, we still have to see memory tuned benchmarks with the 3D chips. I generally play at 4K unless I’m using DLSS which is not all that often.

My main goal is to have the best 1% lows as possible with AM5 and so far I haven’t seen much of a difference given the reviews.

Tuned memory have impressive 1% lows on a lot of games so as I go through that process I’m wondering how it does with these. On the 5000 series it didn’t matter a lot so we will see.
Click to expand...
Makes sense.

It is really game dependent and resolution dependent (obviously). I was seeing ridiculous dips in Fortnite at 3440x1440/175Hz with my 7950X with 6000 MT / CL30 DDR5. They are all gone now with the 7950X3D. 100% smooth. I sold my 7950X for $509.95 on eBay which nets me $433.20 (oooff). For me - it's worth the "upgrade". In general, there is no huge difference in my day to day with the X3D.

This is precisely why I invested in AM5!
 
LigTasm said:
The non-v cache CCD is parked during game scheduling. This CPU is basically a scam, the 7800X3D will do the same thing but cheaper.
Click to expand...
The CPU itself is not a scam. its meant for people who want no compromise. With one machine, they can do all of their best gaming and they can also do all of their multicore work.

The 'scam' is that AMD is making us wait over a month, for the 7800X3D.
aliaskary77 said:
I get that from all the reviews and comments, but if I wanted 16/32 and not 8/16 cores, and game was not a priority...question is 7950X or 7950X3D for the lower power usage/lower heat?
Click to expand...
You can put the same power/TDP limits on the 7950x. MSI has single click profiles to choose from, in their bios. I don't know about other brands. You may have to manually enter the limitations.
Or, you can install Ryzen Master and use "Eco Mode".
 
ZeroBarrier said:
Cool, let me know when we can play this game. In all seriousness, Cinebench has become a meme of a benchmark that spits out numbers that can't be interpreted into actual performance, just like Ashes before it. Seems the benches that favor AMD all end up in the same manner, who would have thunk.
Click to expand...
That a bit strange, it is an actual render that one can see on the screen, the correlation between cinebench with a mix of blender scene must be over .90

This is a thread about the review of a 16 core - 32 thread cpu, are talk about game only that relevant ?

Is there a single game for which that kind of cpu has any significant relevance ?

How many people that would go for a 7950x3d instead of a 7800x3d would not care about cinebench score ?
 
aliaskary77 said:
I get that from all the reviews and comments, but if I wanted 16/32 and not 8/16 cores, and game was not a priority...question is 7950X or 7950X3D for the lower power usage/lower heat?
Click to expand...
My 7950X3D is much cooler than my 7950X. Full disclosure - from what I saw my initial paste job wasn't enough so temps were higher. The 7950X would still only touch 91 degrees (not the 95 degrees cap). The 7950X3D doesn't go beyond the 70s under the same load scenarios (gaming - Fortnite).
 
sk3tch said:
My 7950X3D is much cooler than my 7950X. Full disclosure - from what I saw my initial paste job wasn't enough so temps were higher. The 7950X would still only touch 91 degrees (not the 95 degrees cap). The 7950X3D doesn't go beyond the 70s under the same load scenarios (gaming - Fortnite).
Click to expand...

Its also lower clocks than the non 3d chip.
 
Ranulfo said:
Its also lower clocks than the non 3d chip.
Click to expand...
Maybe. But in my case it is higher clocks since it is cooler. The clock speed thing is really splitting hairs. Only worth worrying about if time equals money and you're doing business stuff. Which in that case - buy the 7950X.
 
sk3tch said:
Maybe. But in my case it is higher clocks since it is cooler. The clock speed thing is really splitting hairs. Only worth worrying about if time equals money and you're doing business stuff. Which in that case - buy the 7950X.
Click to expand...
its cooler because its lower voltage and TDP.

You can manually limit power/TDP for a normal 7950x. and you can also undervolt it with curve optimizer. All in the bios.
 
chameleoneel said:
its cooler because its lower voltage and TDP.

You can manually limit power/TDP for a normal 7950x. and you can also undervolt it with curve optimizer. All in the bios.
Click to expand...
I understand all of that. I, as a user of the 7950X and now an owner of a 7950X3D, am saying that overall it is FAR cooler than the 7950X. It's night and day. Some of it is due to the re-paste. But in general, the chip performs more like a non-X chip. I'm talking stock for stock and no tweaks outside of EXPO memory.

All that and better performance!
 
Last edited:
TheSlySyl said:
Cities Skylines and any of the Frontier Development games (Planet Coaster, Zoo, Jurassic Park Evolution, etc ) and even unassuming looking games like Kingdom and Castles all hit the CPU *hard* once you get a big city/park. I want to see those as benchmarks. They were the main gaming* reason I wanted to upgrade my 3900X to a 5950X, and it was worth it.
Also Flight Simulator, but I heard more recent patches helped with that. Hell, even No Man's Sky is weirdly CPU dependent. But that games performance changes every patch so who knows.
I also absolutely murder my CPU with JAVA Minecraft mods.
I have yet to get into satisfactory.

*I also do a lot of transcoding/rendering and that was a more linear improvement.

I've said in other threads that 1080p performance, or any gaming performance over like 200fps is bullshit and worthless in my opinion. There's a limit of "good enough" and I'm *never* gonna game at 1080p on my computer ever again. I just want to load up cities skylines and have that hit anywhere near 60fps for a damn change.
Click to expand...
Thanks for pointing this out. I play both of those titles (C:S and Planet Coaster) frequently, planet coaster less so because of the FPS limitations I inevitably hit. Granted, Im on an old rig, but I would really like an idea of how much bigger I can make a park with one CPU vs. another.

I agree with you re: ultra high framerates. I really don't care about much over 65, its getting that 60 or close to it in OTHER games im more interested in.
 
Last edited:
Burticus said:
TLDR don't know if also mentioned already : https://www.thefpsreview.com/2023/02/27/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-gaming-performance-cpu-review/
Click to expand...
Reading his review (https://www.thefpsreview.com/2023/02/27/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-gaming-performance-cpu-review/6/) - he has lower clocks with his 7950X3D than with his 7950X. I had the opposite. I wonder if I have some kind of golden chip??? I am seeing 5.75 GHz and icy cold temps with just an NZXT Kraken X63 280MM AIO.

EDIT: TechPowerUp hit in the 5.5 GHz range...

golden_7950x3d.jpg
 
Last edited:
TheSlySyl said:
Cities Skylines and any of the Frontier Development games (Planet Coaster, Zoo, Jurassic Park Evolution, etc ) and even unassuming looking games like Kingdom and Castles all hit the CPU *hard* once you get a big city/park. I want to see those as benchmarks. They were the main gaming* reason I wanted to upgrade my 3900X to a 5950X, and it was worth it.
Also Flight Simulator, but I heard more recent patches helped with that. Hell, even No Man's Sky is weirdly CPU dependent. But that games performance changes every patch so who knows.
I also absolutely murder my CPU with JAVA Minecraft mods.
I have yet to get into satisfactory.
Click to expand...

That is interesting to know. Thanks for mentioning it. These titles have never been on my radar, so I know very little about them.

TheSlySyl said:
I've said in other threads that 1080p performance, or any gaming performance over like 200fps is bullshit and worthless in my opinion. There's a limit of "good enough" and I'm *never* gonna game at 1080p on my computer ever again. I just want to load up cities skylines and have that hit anywhere near 60fps for a damn change.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. I moved to 4k on a large (48" then, 43" now) screen back in 2015 and there is absolutely no going back. The experience was transformative. And at this resolution I am almost always GPU limited, not CPU limited, even on my older Zen 2 architecture Threadripper.

I'll totally buy that the good old 60fps rule of thumb is not quite enough for modern competitive FPS games, but at the same time I feel like much over 90-120fps is in placebo territory. I also don't play competitive multiplayer games anymore, so I don't really care. one way or the other. in my single player titles, even with FPS, I'll take higher framerates if I can get them, but 60fps is fine for me. I'm certainly not going to lower settings to raise framerates above 60.

All of this said, something weird happens with some game engines. For instance, I am currently playing Dishonored: Death of the Outsider from 2017. That engine feels like it has a really low framerate, even when the framerate is reasonably high (~80fps) Not quite sure what is going on there. Maybe a shitty post-processing implementation or something, but I can totally see how if someone is playing a game like that with similar symptoms why they would suggest they need higher framerate than 60fps.
 
Starting to see the negative of this software-based approach - just had a laggy Fortnite session and it looks like something is awry with the AMD V-Cach Performance Optimizer. I'll reboot and try again but it was exactly as it happened on the 7950X...I guess I could put in prefer cache in the BIOS but doesn't that effectively neuter the other 8 cores overall?

EDIT: reboot fixed it. This plus Fortnite forcing to change my name (sk3tch-dot-com is offensive??)...lame day. New name is sk3tch-OC. lol
 
Last edited:
sk3tch said:
Reading his review (https://www.thefpsreview.com/2023/02/27/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-gaming-performance-cpu-review/6/) - he has lower clocks with his 7950X3D than with his 7950X. I had the opposite. I wonder if I have some kind of golden chip??? I am seeing 5.75 GHz and icy cold temps with just an NZXT Kraken X63 280MM AIO.

EDIT: TechPowerUp hit in the 5.5 GHz range...

View attachment 553093
Click to expand...
click the dropdown to see the individual core speeds.

The non V-cache CCX is still 5.7ghz.
 
I'm considering using an Arctic Liquid Frozr II 360mm AIO for when I start with my 7950X3D - is that the way to go or are there any newer/better AIO designs? I see a lot of the standard Asetek (direct, or slightly modified) designs from many of the big AIO manufacturers but still I'm wondering if anything will be releasing to go along with the 3D cache chips and overall new/better AIOs for the AM5 platform this year.
 
RanceJustice said:
I'm considering using an Arctic Liquid Frozr II 360mm AIO for when I start with my 7950X3D - is that the way to go or are there any newer/better AIO designs? I see a lot of the standard Asetek (direct, or slightly modified) designs from many of the big AIO manufacturers but still I'm wondering if anything will be releasing to go along with the 3D cache chips and overall new/better AIOs for the AM5 platform this year.
Click to expand...
That's a great choice. I have the 280mm one and LOVE it (I use it on a 7900X build). It is the best AIO I have ever used. I have read the difference between the 280mm and 360mm in performance isn't that large FWIW.
 
RanceJustice said:
I'm considering using an Arctic Liquid Frozr II 360mm AIO for when I start with my 7950X3D - is that the way to go or are there any newer/better AIO designs? I see a lot of the standard Asetek (direct, or slightly modified) designs from many of the big AIO manufacturers but still I'm wondering if anything will be releasing to go along with the 3D cache chips and overall new/better AIOs for the AM5 platform this year.
Click to expand...
The new EK Nucleus AIO's seem to be kickin butts in reviews.
 
sk3tch said:
Reading his review (https://www.thefpsreview.com/2023/02/27/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-gaming-performance-cpu-review/6/) - he has lower clocks with his 7950X3D than with his 7950X. I had the opposite. I wonder if I have some kind of golden chip??? I am seeing 5.75 GHz and icy cold temps with just an NZXT Kraken X63 280MM AIO.

EDIT: TechPowerUp hit in the 5.5 GHz range...
Click to expand...

The game/application used to generate those results are important. AMD is pointing applications to either 3D Cache cores or standard cores based upon which ones said application will do better with (and the default, I believe, is non 3D cores). On the 7000 series X3D chips, the non X3D cores top out at the higher frequency with the X3D cores landing lower (not specified in their marketing materials that I have seen).

Thus, on the FPS Review front, Cyberpunk would be a game being directed towards 3D cache cores, whereas the TPU custom benchmark app would not necessarily be directed towards the 3D cores. That leaves whatever you ran to get your numbers - if it was a benchmark (or general desktop use) and not a game, it'd likely end up on the non-3D cores and therefore a higher frequency.
 
RanceJustice said:
I'm considering using an Arctic Liquid Frozr II 360mm AIO for when I start with my 7950X3D - is that the way to go or are there any newer/better AIO designs? I see a lot of the standard Asetek (direct, or slightly modified) designs from many of the big AIO manufacturers but still I'm wondering if anything will be releasing to go along with the 3D cache chips and overall new/better AIOs for the AM5 platform this year.
Click to expand...
I have a ACLFII 420 for my 5950x, love it.
Love it even more because I got it for like $70 with a 6 year warranty off of Arctics official ebay store. Things MASSIVE though.
 
LigTasm said:
The non-v cache CCD is parked during game scheduling. This CPU is basically a scam, the 7800X3D will do the same thing but cheaper.
Click to expand...
What do you think having parked cores means?

But the 7950X3D is mostly useless for the price as there are better alternatives for practically every use.
 
sk3tch said:
That's a great choice. I have the 280mm one and LOVE it (I use it on a 7900X build). It is the best AIO I have ever used. I have read the difference between the 280mm and 360mm in performance isn't that large FWIW.
Click to expand...
Great to hear its working well for an AM5 build for you!

chameleoneel said:
The new EK Nucleus AIO's seem to be kickin butts in reviews.
Click to expand...
sk3tch said:
Wow...reviews on Amazon have dudes saying the 360mm beats the ALF II 420mm by 6 degrees. daaamn
Click to expand...
Huh..I wonder if there are any more rigorous comparisons beyond Amazon reviews? If its really that big a step over the Arctic LF2 I'd be curious as to why. Isn't the EK Nucleus one of the Asetek variants? Looking at the design, aluminum 27mm thick rad, tube type, pump-on-cooling-block, block design, even option for a little display on the pump top or light ring etc.. all seem very similar to those from Corsair, NZXT and others (if I'm correct, part of this is because Asetek patented certain layouts/features in the past?). Now it may be that there are some significant developments in all the newer Asetek designs, or that the EK Nucleus only looks similar but has some significant difference somewhere but if this isn't the case, then I wonder how much of it comes down to something like newer more high performance fans?

At its launch, The Arctic LF2 has some meaningful differences in its design from the common AIOs of the time (still aluminum, but a 38mm thick rad vs the 27mm common in most others. A pump and block design that differs quite a bit with even its own little fan etc), but as far as I know it has not been updated since its arrival except to add RGB and A-RGB fan options. Especially if the performance differences between the Arctic and EK Nucleus seem to be somewhat universal when it comes to reviewers, i wonder if Arctic has any intent to update or make a new design (LF3?) targeting the latest high end CPUs? Even if the Arctic comes in second to the EK that's still pretty great performance, but given that the design is now close to 4+ years old I wonder if they have plans for an update.

TheSlySyl said:
I have a ACLFII 420 for my 5950x, love it.
Love it even more because I got it for like $70 with a 6 year warranty off of Arctics official ebay store. Things MASSIVE though.
Click to expand...
That's an incredible price, but even the standard price for the ACLF2 has been exceptional for its performance, warranty features and the like. I already have one of the 360mm and I'm trying to decide if its going to go on my rebuild main Zen5 PC with a 7950X3D , or if it will be on my secondary, home server/NAS rebuild with a 5950X. I'm confident that the LF2 will likely allow a 5950X to operate to its fullest potential so if I find there is a better AIO for the higher demands of the 7950X3D , then the one I already have will have a great home with the 5950X instead.
 
Meeho said:
What do you think having parked cores means?

But the 7950X3D is mostly useless for the price as there are better alternatives for practically every use.
Click to expand...
I’m sure you’re referring the the 13900K/S. It is close. My problem with Z790 is it’s a dead platform. I like to keep having the best over time and mobo swaps are more of a PITA than CPU swaps. To each their own, though!
 
sk3tch said:
I’m sure you’re referring the the 13900K/S. It is close. My problem with Z790 is it’s a dead platform. I like to keep having the best over time and mobo swaps are more of a PITA than CPU swaps. To each their own, though!
Click to expand...
Actually, I was refering to 7950X for productivity and productivity+gaming, and 7700X/13600K for gaming, or 7800X3D for top gaming performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top