Is it true that 7950X3D suffers from stutter on games?

chameleoneel said:
7950X3D is only about 2,000 points behind 7950X in Cinibench R23. And that shrinks to about 1,000, with PBO.

In Blender, Corona, Keyshoy, the difference is pretty negligeble.

Encoding is even more negligeble.

And that's because all of the cores are full Zen4 cores. Half of them are simply clocked down.
Click to expand...

I thought I remembered the 7950X3D having much worse performance than the 7950X for productivity benchmarks. I'm not sure what tests I saw that had 7950X3D as much lower than 7950X. Now that I'm looking up benchmarks, doesn't look too much lower in most things. Do you have some links to various roundups?

One thing, though, I think that's kind of an issue if you have to do constant tweaking and process lassoing to make it work, though. Just seems like a lot of pain when you could just buy an Intel CPU if you needed both productivity and gaming without any fuss. Well, unless you don't want to spend a lot of money on the CPU cooler (and PSU, and motherboard) for that thing. So yeah definitely downsides to going Intel. I guess if you don't mind doing the occasional weirdness, the 7950X3D is indeed a productivity and gaming mix breed that provides a lot of performance for each watt. It's also incredibly efficient. I personally just definitely do not want to deal with any lassoing crap or tweaking though, so I like the 7800X3D's simplicity.

chameleoneel said:
AMD's stack is great, because a gamer doesnt have to buy the most expensive CPU, to have the best gaming performance.

And a work only computer, can save a bit as well.
Click to expand...

That I definitely agree with. The 7800X3D is an insanely well valued chip because you can just shove it in the system with a Thermaltake Peerless Assassin for 35$ and then call it a day, and boom you have the best gaming chip currently out and will have zero issues driving or cooling it; any motherboard works, any cooler works. The 7950X also scales back very well even with inadequate cooling (and/or power delivery, though that's more rare), and just doesn't have any real jank to it. Just 16 high powered cores. The 7950X3D is doing better than I remembered as a hybrid option, too.

Intel is still kind of there as a "no compromise screw everything" option, I guess, though the value in it is sort of dubious since most people have a specific goal in mind when building a computer. But it has less fuss than the 7950X3D.
 
III_Slyflyer_III said:
That sucks if true and makes me want to see what Intel spits out when its time to move on from the 5950X for me. Removing micro-stuttering was easy on this specific platform (AM4) by disabling HT (SMT), disabling the CPPC functions, and using an all-core OC vs. boosting algorithms. Honestly my 5950X seems as smooth gaming as an Intel system. Has anyone here on AM5 tried any of that to mitigate the issues on the platform?
Click to expand...
I've read Intel originally plan to go chiplet design for HEDT Meteor Lake around this time and next year, but that plan was all scrapped in favour of 14900K, 14900KS, and RL Refresh CPUs. If their plan hasn't changed, Intel wouldn't have had this CCX-CCD issues AMD is having due to noticing 7950X3D's design and every cons that came with it almost 10 months earlier.
 
I couldn't find "Great" benchmarks on this CPU for productivity, and we needed to replace the old i5-6600k video rendering machine in our office.

I bought and tested all of these CPUs myself off Amazon/ebay:

i5-14600k
i9-14900k
7800X
7950X
7950X3D

With our workload in premiere (rending 90 minute videos 1080p h264), which is something we do almost every week, the 7950X3d was the clear winner.

It pulls 20-30W less power than the 7950X with very comparable render times, and I am not sure why that is. Anandtech tested and found the same thing - they aren't entirely sure why either.

The i9-14900k was just terrible like running a space heater in the office.

Anyway...where I am going with this is that we have tried running a couple games in the office and I would've never known there was a stutter if I didn't see this thread. It looks like the stutter above would likely come in to play in situations where you are cpu limited - which would have to be running at frame rates way in excess of monitor refresh.

If the machine wasn't doing renders every week, and I was buying for personal use, I would just go to the i5 or 7800x. In the games we tried 80% of the 7950x and i9 cores/threads were more or less idle.
 
Tsumi said:
There is certainly enough room on the CPU package to have 16-core CCDs, the reason they don't is because there's basically no reason to. Almost no game can effectively use more than 8 cores, so 16-core CCDs is just redundant. If someone only needs gaming performance, they should get the 7800X3D. The 7950X3D and the 7900X3D are for those that want to have productivity and gaming performance- productivity applications benefit more from higher clock speeds than the CCD cache.
Click to expand...
It always pays off to have extra cores over the current perceived "enough". For example you can today still do okay with a 7700K, but if you chose 7600K because "almost no game can effectively use more than 4 threads", you are totally screwed.

From what I read it's still possible Zen 5 would bring 16-core CCD. Hope so.
 
Lepardi said:
From what I read it's still possible Zen 5 would bring 16-core CCD. Hope so.
Click to expand...
This might get me to jump from my 5950X if it turns out to be true, although I would hope they fix the memory timing issues too. My 5950X PC boots up in less than 6 seconds, Bios to Windows 11. People I know with the 7000 series take waaayyyyyyy longer.
 
III_Slyflyer_III said:
This might get me to jump from my 5950X if it turns out to be true, although I would hope they fix the memory timing issues too. My 5950X PC boots up in less than 6 seconds, Bios to Windows 11. People I know with the 7000 series take waaayyyyyyy longer.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's still true. Granted, I don't boot/reboot more than once a day, but it's still around 30-45 seconds each time. If I were in a situation where every second mattered and reboots were frequent, I would have gone with Intel.
 
Lepardi said:
It always pays off to have extra cores over the current perceived "enough". For example you can today still do okay with a 7700K, but if you chose 7600K because "almost no game can effectively use more than 4 threads", you are totally screwed.

From what I read it's still possible Zen 5 would bring 16-core CCD. Hope so.
Click to expand...
"Totally screwed" is a huge over exaggeration. In no game will you lose 50% performance by going from 8 to 4 cores. In a few select extremely demanding games you might lose 20% performance. Big whoopdy doo, how old is the 7600k and 7700k? They're over 6 years old, a 6-core Ryzen 7600X will likely cream both the 7600k and 7700k in gaming performance. It took at least half a decade for game engines to go from 2 to 4 cores, and another half decade to using 8 cores in very limited scenarios. When will we get to utilizing over 8 cores consistently, 10-15 years from now? By then much better processors will be out.
 
Tsumi said:
"Totally screwed" is a huge over exaggeration. In no game will you lose 50% performance by going from 8 to 4 cores. In a few select extremely demanding games you might lose 20% performance. Big whoopdy doo, how old is the 7600k and 7700k? They're over 6 years old, a 6-core Ryzen 7600X will likely cream both the 7600k and 7700k in gaming performance. It took at least half a decade for game engines to go from 2 to 4 cores, and another half decade to using 8 cores in very limited scenarios. When will we get to utilizing over 8 cores consistently, 10-15 years from now? By then much better processors will be out.
Click to expand...

Think this is an older video at this point but:

1700235832246.png


I think people underestimate how good even the 7600 is for gaming. According to this chart, it's pretty much as good as the 5800X3D, which afaik beats the shit out of my old 5950X lol. The 7800X3D and 7950X3D are on the other hand above everything on this chart. (This video was before they were released)

There aren't really any bad chips in AMD's stack this gen, just some quirky ones. I wonder how the 8800X3D will stack up to the 7800X3D.
 
Lepardi said:
It always pays off to have extra cores over the current perceived "enough". For example you can today still do okay with a 7700K, but if you chose 7600K because "almost no game can effectively use more than 4 threads", you are totally screwed.

From what I read it's still possible Zen 5 would bring 16-core CCD. Hope so.
Click to expand...

Not if someone ends up upgrading the CPU before they ever benefited from the additional cores. There's a lot more nuance to picking out PC parts than you seem to understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tsumi
like this
StoleMyOwnCar said:
Think this is an older video at this point but:

View attachment 614132

I think people underestimate how good even the 7600 is for gaming. According to this chart, it's pretty much as good as the 5800X3D, which afaik beats the shit out of my old 5950X lol. The 7800X3D and 7950X3D are on the other hand above everything on this chart. (This video was before they were released)

There aren't really any bad chips in AMD's stack this gen, just some quirky ones. I wonder how the 8800X3D will stack up to the 7800X3D.
Click to expand...
Averages over many games are often missleading. There are some games where the X3D chips stomp the regular AMD chips and quite a few where the extra clockspeed benefits the regular 7000 series chips. The games where the X3D chips run far ahead is typically in games where AMD struggles quite a bit. E.g. Baldurs Gate 3 massively favors Intel and AMD X3D CPUs and the CPU bottleneck is quite big in that game.

I wouldn't go below 8 cores, 16 threads on a gaming CPU, but at the same time I would stay away from dual CCD CPUs. The micro stuttering I got in several games was the main reason for why I swapped my 5900x for my 5800X3D. Doesn't hurt that the 5800X3D should hold me over until the next gen AMD and Intel CPUs are out.
 
evhvis said:
Averages over many games are often missleading. There are some games where the X3D chips stomp the regular AMD chips and quite a few where the extra clockspeed benefits the regular 7000 series chips. The games where the X3D chips run far ahead is typically in games where AMD struggles quite a bit. E.g. Baldurs Gate 3 massively favors Intel and AMD X3D CPUs and the CPU bottleneck is quite big in that game.

I wouldn't go below 8 cores, 16 threads on a gaming CPU, but at the same time I would stay away from dual CCD CPUs. The micro stuttering I got in several games was the main reason for why I swapped my 5900x for my 5800X3D. Doesn't hurt that the 5800X3D should hold me over until the next gen AMD and Intel CPUs are out.
Click to expand...

The one article I read says the 12900k performs best with HT and E-cores disabled. 8 P-core performance is a measly 4% faster than 6 P-core performance while a fully enabled 12900k is 2% slower than the 8 P-cores.

Main point being is that for gaming, scaling past 4 cores really isn't all that common, let alone 6 and 8 cores. AMD knows the market and the 7950X3D is a perfect mix of X3D and standard cores for the enthusiast that wants it all. It just has some quirks the user needs to work through to get the most out of it.
 
evhvis said:
Averages over many games are often missleading. There are some games where the X3D chips stomp the regular AMD chips and quite a few where the extra clockspeed benefits the regular 7000 series chips. The games where the X3D chips run far ahead is typically in games where AMD struggles quite a bit. E.g. Baldurs Gate 3 massively favors Intel and AMD X3D CPUs and the CPU bottleneck is quite big in that game.

I wouldn't go below 8 cores, 16 threads on a gaming CPU, but at the same time I would stay away from dual CCD CPUs. The micro stuttering I got in several games was the main reason for why I swapped my 5900x for my 5800X3D. Doesn't hurt that the 5800X3D should hold me over until the next gen AMD and Intel CPUs are out.
Click to expand...


I mean sure, but if you're wanting to get onto AM5 and your main goal is gaming, the 7800X3D costs $400 at current prices.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 4.2 GHz 8-Core Processor ($399.00 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: *Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE 66.17 CFM CPU Cooler ($33.90 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: *ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 Micro ATX AM5 Motherboard ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: *Silicon Power XPOWER Zenith Gaming 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory ($89.97 @ Amazon)
Storage: *Mushkin Helix-L 1 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 3.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($42.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Phanteks Eclipse G300A (3 Fan) ATX Mid Tower Case ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Thermaltake Toughpower GF1 PE 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($99.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $820.83
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-11-17 15:18 EST-0500

This is about the most barebones minimalist performance build you can make out of a 7800X3D. That means your minimum budget for it is about $1500, because that would at least allow you to get a 7800XT or 4070 with it... but even then let's look at the 7600X:

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 7600X 4.7 GHz 6-Core Processor ($244.98 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: *Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE 66.17 CFM CPU Cooler ($33.90 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: *ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 Micro ATX AM5 Motherboard ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: *Silicon Power XPOWER Zenith Gaming 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory ($89.97 @ Amazon)
Storage: *Mushkin Helix-L 1 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 3.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($42.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Phanteks Eclipse G300A (3 Fan) ATX Mid Tower Case ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Thermaltake Toughpower GF1 PE 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($99.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $666.81
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-11-17 15:20 EST-0500

This would allow you to comfortably fit a 7900XT or 4070 Ti, or maybe even a 7900XTX when it's on a heavy discount. Is a 7800X3D paired with a 7800XT/4070 going to beat a 7600X paired with a 4070 Ti/7900 XT(X)? I'm not sure, but my guess is probably not? I haven't looked up any benchmarks, though. That is sort of one big issue with the 7800X3D imo, and heck actually AM5 in general. It has a high barrier of entry. Even with the Asrock B650M boards literally being freaking heroes for the platform by lowering barrier of entry by A LOT. Meanwhile even if you're aiming for DDR5, you can pick up an Intel i3 for like <$100 with a DDR5 board also for <$100, and then pair it with a budget GPU that it probably won't bottleneck anyway.

It's kind of about looking at the build holistically, and oddly enough the X3D line on AM5 in general just has a really high barrier of entry, budget wise, to begin with. AM5 really needs a 7600X3D and maybe a 7500 chip. It's great for us enthusiasts, but is any budget minded person actually buying a 7800X3D? Probably not. And a 5800X3D is sort of unattractive since it's on a dead platform (if you're building new anyway). It's sort of getting off topic, but just something I've been observing as I've been trying to piece together builds for others.
 
Tsumi said:
The one article I read says the 12900k performs best with HT and E-cores disabled. 8 P-core performance is a measly 4% faster than 6 P-core performance while a fully enabled 12900k is 2% slower than the 8 P-cores.

Main point being is that for gaming, scaling past 4 cores really isn't all that common, let alone 6 and 8 cores. AMD knows the market and the 7950X3D is a perfect mix of X3D and standard cores for the enthusiast that wants it all. It just has some quirks the user needs to work through to get the most out of it.
Click to expand...
Mixed cores or multiple CCDs are suboptimal for gaming in general. The OS scheduler often doesn't work ideally, which is why you often see improvements by disabling e-cores or the non-cache CCD on 7950X3D. I focus just as much on the 1% and 0.1% lows as I do on max FPS as the lows is what you will notice the most. Having 0.1% lows at 60 and average at 120 is a much better experience than 0.1% lows at 40 and average at 140 fps.

Some games use a lot of threads while others only use a few, it depends a lot on the engine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xar
like this
StoleMyOwnCar said:
I mean sure, but if you're wanting to get onto AM5 and your main goal is gaming, the 7800X3D costs $400 at current prices.

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D 4.2 GHz 8-Core Processor ($399.00 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: *Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE 66.17 CFM CPU Cooler ($33.90 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: *ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 Micro ATX AM5 Motherboard ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: *Silicon Power XPOWER Zenith Gaming 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory ($89.97 @ Amazon)
Storage: *Mushkin Helix-L 1 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 3.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($42.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Phanteks Eclipse G300A (3 Fan) ATX Mid Tower Case ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Thermaltake Toughpower GF1 PE 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($99.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $820.83
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-11-17 15:18 EST-0500

This is about the most barebones minimalist performance build you can make out of a 7800X3D. That means your minimum budget for it is about $1500, because that would at least allow you to get a 7800XT or 4070 with it... but even then let's look at the 7600X:

PCPartPicker Part List

CPU: AMD Ryzen 5 7600X 4.7 GHz 6-Core Processor ($244.98 @ Amazon)
CPU Cooler: *Thermalright Peerless Assassin 120 SE 66.17 CFM CPU Cooler ($33.90 @ Amazon)
Motherboard: *ASRock B650M-HDV/M.2 Micro ATX AM5 Motherboard ($109.99 @ Amazon)
Memory: *Silicon Power XPOWER Zenith Gaming 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR5-6000 CL30 Memory ($89.97 @ Amazon)
Storage: *Mushkin Helix-L 1 TB M.2-2280 PCIe 3.0 X4 NVME Solid State Drive ($42.99 @ Amazon)
Case: Phanteks Eclipse G300A (3 Fan) ATX Mid Tower Case ($44.99 @ Newegg)
Power Supply: Thermaltake Toughpower GF1 PE 850 W 80+ Gold Certified Fully Modular ATX Power Supply ($99.99 @ Amazon)
Total: $666.81
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
*Lowest price parts chosen from parametric criteria
Generated by PCPartPicker 2023-11-17 15:20 EST-0500

This would allow you to comfortably fit a 7900XT or 4070 Ti, or maybe even a 7900XTX when it's on a heavy discount. Is a 7800X3D paired with a 7800XT/4070 going to beat a 7600X paired with a 4070 Ti/7900 XT(X)? I'm not sure, but my guess is probably not? I haven't looked up any benchmarks, though. That is sort of one big issue with the 7800X3D imo, and heck actually AM5 in general. It has a high barrier of entry. Even with the Asrock B650M boards literally being freaking heroes for the platform by lowering barrier of entry by A LOT. Meanwhile even if you're aiming for DDR5, you can pick up an Intel i3 for like <$100 with a DDR5 board also for <$100, and then pair it with a budget GPU that it probably won't bottleneck anyway.

It's kind of about looking at the build holistically, and oddly enough the X3D line on AM5 in general just has a really high barrier of entry, budget wise, to begin with. AM5 really needs a 7600X3D and maybe a 7500 chip. It's great for us enthusiasts, but is any budget minded person actually buying a 7800X3D? Probably not. And a 5800X3D is sort of unattractive since it's on a dead platform (if you're building new anyway). It's sort of getting off topic, but just something I've been observing as I've been trying to piece together builds for others.
Click to expand...
We have different angles on how to build a PC. I'm not that budget minded for my own builds so it will likely be 400-700 for the mobo when I upgrade and I will get the consumer CPU that will give be the best performance for what I want to use it for. If I were to get a 7800X3D then I would most likely pair it with a 4090, maybe a 4080. The 4080 super might be interesting though, but currently I consider the 4090 is the best value GPU in todays lineup despite the high price. Most will probably see it differently which is fine as perceived value is individual.

I struggle when building brand new PCs for others as I usually use overspecced and expensive parts so I struggle to choose a mediocre PSU (basically start looking at platinum and titanium units with great regulation and very clean power) and similar for case, ram etc. then try to go worse parts until I get it into their budget. Might be why I mostly refuse to build new stuff for others unless it is favor for a favor or they are close family/friends. Most of the stuff I build for others are leftovers from my own systems that friends use for their kids etc.

The 5800X3D was attractive as it was a slot in for my old CPU and I didn't have to remove my GPU along with the 7 kg or so of attached cooling of the GPU loop to swap it and I use soft tubing so I can remove the CPU block without draining the CPU loop. The 5800X3D only makes sense if you already have an AM4 system.
 
evhvis said:
Mixed cores or multiple CCDs are suboptimal for gaming in general. The OS scheduler often doesn't work ideally, which is why you often see improvements by disabling e-cores or the non-cache CCD on 7950X3D. I focus just as much on the 1% and 0.1% lows as I do on max FPS as the lows is what you will notice the most. Having 0.1% lows at 60 and average at 120 is a much better experience than 0.1% lows at 40 and average at 140 fps.

Some games use a lot of threads while others only use a few, it depends a lot on the engine.
Click to expand...

Yes, many games can spawn a lot of threads. However, the workload of each thread is highly variable. With the vast majority of games, there are 1-3 primary threads that are the bottleneck and everything else is just extra to utilize as many cores as possible. Just because a game spawns 10 threads doesn't mean it's going to saturate 10 cores. You might have 2 cores that are fully saturated by 2 threads and the remaining 8 threads are easily handled by 1 or 2 cores. It's the job of the task scheduler to make sure the heavy threads get the cores all to themselves, which it doesn't always do well.
 
evhvis said:
We have different angles on how to build a PC. I'm not that budget minded for my own builds so it will likely be 400-700 for the mobo when I upgrade and I will get the consumer CPU that will give be the best performance for what I want to use it for. If I were to get a 7800X3D then I would most likely pair it with a 4090, maybe a 4080. The 4080 super might be interesting though, but currently I consider the 4090 is the best value GPU in todays lineup despite the high price. Most will probably see it differently which is fine as perceived value is individual.

I struggle when building brand new PCs for others as I usually use overspecced and expensive parts so I struggle to choose a mediocre PSU (basically start looking at platinum and titanium units with great regulation and very clean power) and similar for case, ram etc. then try to go worse parts until I get it into their budget. Might be why I mostly refuse to build new stuff for others unless it is favor for a favor or they are close family/friends. Most of the stuff I build for others are leftovers from my own systems that friends use for their kids etc.

The 5800X3D was attractive as it was a slot in for my old CPU and I didn't have to remove my GPU along with the 7 kg or so of attached cooling of the GPU loop to swap it and I use soft tubing so I can remove the CPU block without draining the CPU loop. The 5800X3D only makes sense if you already have an AM4 system.
Click to expand...

Well the 4090 right now is especially a bad deal, unfortunately. A month or two ago I would have agreed with you, but... the 4090 is well north of $2000, the 4080 dropped in price, the 4080 Super is on the horizon, and the 5090 is ~1-1.5 years away from the looks of things. Definitely not a good time to go 4090.

As far as the rest of it, I'm strictly a price for performance person. I only spend more on a part within any budget if it'll offer the person more performance. If they're on a tight budget especially, I will literally pick out the shittiest case that will fit all of their parts, and then the motherboard that has the minimum I/O options that they need, with VRMs that can support the CPU. Ideally for AM5 (and the 7950X3D especially), you'd probably like the cheapest Hynix M-die you can get your hands on. But that's hard to filter down to. There's not really a master list. What's funny is I see a lot of ASUS loyalists buying out expensive AM5 motherboards still, but I don't think ASUS is known for being a good AM5 manufacturer at all lol. The $110 Asrock boards are honestly probably preferable to an expensive ASUS. Isn't that what LigTasm just went through?

Anyway thankfully AM5 at least makes motherboards easy... because basically any of them will work. Even the 7950X or 7950X3D will reportedly work just fine in a cheap $110 Asrock B650M, because they're not ever power limited. They're just thermally limited. Also as far as PSUs, I just go to the Cultist network list and pick out the best one that I can get that would fit into their budget. I never cheap out on meaningful parts, so the PSU is always a high tier choice (or mid tier for a very budget system); I know the list isn't perfect but it's about the best we got. M2 slots are a bit funky. Normally I would only look for drives with DRAM, but that's hard to filter down on, and lately M2 drives that are DRAMless have higher performance than one would expect anyway.

If the person starts getting to around a $2500+ budget, then I guess I could start looking at upgrading some of the options, but anywhere under that and you can generally always upgrade, say, the GPU or CPU if you choose to skimp out on some other part a little bit.
 
StoleMyOwnCar said:
Well the 4090 right now is especially a bad deal, unfortunately. A month or two ago I would have agreed with you, but... the 4090 is well north of $2000, the 4080 dropped in price, the 4080 Super is on the horizon, and the 5090 is ~1-1.5 years away from the looks of things. Definitely not a good time to go 4090.

As far as the rest of it, I'm strictly a price for performance person. I only spend more on a part within any budget if it'll offer the person more performance. If they're on a tight budget especially, I will literally pick out the shittiest case that will fit all of their parts, and then the motherboard that has the minimum I/O options that they need, with VRMs that can support the CPU. Ideally for AM5 (and the 7950X3D especially), you'd probably like the cheapest Hynix M-die you can get your hands on. But that's hard to filter down to. There's not really a master list. What's funny is I see a lot of ASUS loyalists buying out expensive AM5 motherboards still, but I don't think ASUS is known for being a good AM5 manufacturer at all lol. The $110 Asrock boards are honestly probably preferable to an expensive ASUS. Isn't that what LigTasm just went through?

Anyway thankfully AM5 at least makes motherboards easy... because basically any of them will work. Even the 7950X or 7950X3D will reportedly work just fine in a cheap $110 Asrock B650M, because they're not ever power limited. They're just thermally limited. Also as far as PSUs, I just go to the Cultist network list and pick out the best one that I can get that would fit into their budget. I never cheap out on meaningful parts, so the PSU is always a high tier choice (or mid tier for a very budget system); I know the list isn't perfect but it's about the best we got. M2 slots are a bit funky. Normally I would only look for drives with DRAM, but that's hard to filter down on, and lately M2 drives that are DRAMless have higher performance than one would expect anyway.

If the person starts getting to around a $2500+ budget, then I guess I could start looking at upgrading some of the options, but anywhere under that and you can generally always upgrade, say, the GPU or CPU if you choose to skimp out on some other part a little bit.
Click to expand...
The 4090 pricing probably depends on where you are. The pricing here is about the same as at launch, but might change once they run out of old stock. The thing that makes the 4090 good value to me is that it is pretty much the only GPU capable of running 1440p RT with DLAA while the price difference to the 4080 is pretty small here. The 4080 is pretty much borderline at 1440p when it comes to running at native. The 4080 super might be the new value champ if the rumors come through and it is 6-9% faster than a 4080 while having a 17% price reduction.

For motherboards I want at least 10 USB ports on the back, USB3 and USB-C for the front panel, 2xUSB 2.0 internal headers if possible (multiple flow/temp sensors etc. that needs to be connected), multiple 3A fan headers, on-board wifi and BT etc. Not a lot of budget boards that have that level of I/O unfortunately. Will probably add having a good 10G ethernet card to the list once I am ready to upgrade. Won't be upgrading until next gen though and will most likely be a 1 CCD X3D if AMD.
 
After months I answer my own question.

I upgraded from a 13900K to a 7950X3D and it's a fuck!Ng rocket

This CPU is amazing, it's cold, it consumes nothing and it's fast.

I'm so glad to have abandoned that stupidly hot CPU that needs undervolt to be used normally for AMD that does an amazing jobs even with default settings.

I build computers since 25 years and reading the reviews there is no justice.
It seems that Intel can compete with AMD but it is not.

Intel is a CPU borned to compete on small benchmarks that last some seconds.
On real heavy workload that lasts many minutes intel is a crap, it consumes so much energy that even a 360mm aio can't keep up and the performance starts to drop due to throttling.
Undervolting IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

A heavy undervolted CPU is an unstable CPU, a slightly undervolted CPU is unmanageable via a simple AIO.

Intel is so worse than AMD that I cannot understand why reviewers doesn't make it clear.

I had the 12900k and the 13900k, and the 7950X3D is my piece of mind.

No instabilities, no hours spent trying to undervolt the CPU, no AIO with boiling waters, no fans that spins up to 100%, no performance loss if I put an heavy load on the CPU for more than 1 minute, no efficiency cores that creates performance problems on apps in background.

As I said I build high end computers since 25 years and the switch from the 13900K to 7950X3D is surely one of the best I have made.
7950X3D isn't much much faster but it is so much better...

... And even faster.
 
Last edited:
Lots of good/interesting info here. I'm running a 5900x and I've been pleased with it's gaming performance on my 175hz 3440x1440 display paired with a 4090. With one notable exception. When playing WZ I would get a occasional hitch/stutter. Sometimes t was packet burst but not always. Based on some information here and additional googling I did, I disabled CPPC preferred cores in the bios and changed my windows power plan to "balanced" instead of "Ryzen Balanced" I did not disable CPPC entirely nor did I disable SMT. The hitching appears to have cleared up but I can't get a true apples to apples comparison until I squad up and have skype running on a 2nd screen. This hitching is one reason I've been keeping close tabs on Zen 5 and hoping AMD can cram 16 cores on a single CCD. I know I can go with a 7800x3d and it'll probably clear right up, but I do make use of the extra cores often enough that I don't really want to drop down to 8
 
WilyKit said:
Lots of good/interesting info here. I'm running a 5900x and I've been pleased with it's gaming performance on my 175hz 3440x1440 display paired with a 4090. With one notable exception. When playing WZ I would get a occasional hitch/stutter. Sometimes t was packet burst but not always. Based on some information here and additional googling I did, I disabled CPPC preferred cores in the bios and changed my windows power plan to "balanced" instead of "Ryzen Balanced" I did not disable CPPC entirely nor did I disable SMT. The hitching appears to have cleared up but I can't get a true apples to apples comparison until I squad up and have skype running on a 2nd screen. This hitching is one reason I've been keeping close tabs on Zen 5 and hoping AMD can cram 16 cores on a single CCD. I know I can go with a 7800x3d and it'll probably clear right up, but I do make use of the extra cores often enough that I don't really want to drop down to 8
Click to expand...
You should try it without SMT. Some games like it. Particularly when you have a lot of GPU to work with.
 
WilyKit said:
Lots of good/interesting info here. I'm running a 5900x and I've been pleased with it's gaming performance on my 175hz 3440x1440 display paired with a 4090. With one notable exception. When playing WZ I would get an occasional hitch/stutter. Sometimes t was packet burst but not always. Based on some information here and additional googling I did, I disabled CPPC preferred cores in the bios and changed my windows power plan to "balanced" instead of "Ryzen Balanced" I did not disable CPPC entirely nor did I disable SMT. The hitching appears to have cleared up but I can't get a true apples to apples comparison until I squad up and have skype running on a 2nd screen. This hitching is one reason I've been keeping close tabs on Zen 5 and hoping AMD can cram 16 cores on a single CCD. I know I can go with a 7800x3d and it'll probably clear right up, but I do make use of the extra cores often enough that I don't really want to drop down to 8
Click to expand...
Same setup with a 7950X3D and there’s still an occasional stutter for me in Fortnite
 
chameleoneel said:
You should try it without SMT. Some games like it. Particularly when you have a lot of GPU to work with.
Click to expand...
I know several games can benefit with SMT disabled but as long as I can get rid of the hitching I don't mind slightly less average FPS as SMT is a net benefit for my use case

sk3tch said:
Same setup with a 7950X3D and there’s still an occasional stutter for me in Fortnite
Click to expand...
One of the reasons I'm looking forward to Zen5 is I want the 16 cores of the 7950x/x3d but on a single CCD
 
Last edited:
WilyKit said:
I know several games can benefit with SMT disabled but as long as I can get rid of the hitching I don't mind slightly less average FPS as SMT is a net benefit for my use case


One of the reasons I'm looking forward to Zen5 is I want the 16 cores of the 7950x/x3d but on a single CCD
Click to expand...
You can get the smoothness you want from a 7800X3D today, at least. At least when I sold by AM4 stuff it was a wash price-wise. DDR4 still commands a pretty penny.
 
WilyKit said:
I know several games can benefit with SMT disabled but as long as I can get rid of the hitching I don't mind slightly less average FPS as SMT is a net benefit for my use case


One of the reasons I'm looking forward to Zen5 is I want the 16 cores of the 7950x/x3d but on a single CCD
Click to expand...
did they say it would all be on one ccd?
 
sk3tch said:
I keep my AMD drivers up-to-date and monitor my 7950X3D with Park Control (highly recommend it for any X3D owner - as well as Process Lasso) in another screen. X3D cores are used appropriately in Fortnite - no issues. Definitely true that a processor like the 7950X3D is not "plug and play" - for that you want the 7800X3D (which I have in two other rigs). You really can't go wrong.

EDIT:
Pretty hard to impossible to get a live screenshot while in game - but you get the idea on how visually easy it is to see. Top half is X3D.

EDIT2:
I see the Snipping Tool has a timer so I got it. :)

View attachment 602005
Click to expand...
3d cache or not its an issue with how the CCDs are laid out and how Windows and it scheduler handles thread assignments. There is an interconnect between the 2 CCDs. This is why sometimes the 7800/58003d chips are better for gamers due to the better consistent performance. This is due to the single CCD die vs the dual CCD dies in the 7900/7950 chips
 
I have no idea. My 7800x3d is unusable because I have no GPU for it right now. But I hear it depends on the title. You can buy process Lasso and lock your games to the ccd with the vcache.
 
Vengance_01 said:
3d cache or not its an issue with how the CCDs are laid out and how Windows and it scheduler handles thread assignments. There is an interconnect between the 2 CCDs. This is why sometimes the 7800/58003d chips are better for gamers due to the better consistent performance. This is due to the single CCD die vs the dual CCD dies in the 7900/7950 chips
Click to expand...
We are saying the same thing. One CCD has 3D VCache - one does not. So you need to validate that everything is working fine:

1) Xbox Game Bar
2) AMD Drivers

This is why I monitor it to make sure it is always working. You never know when an update borks something.

I highly recommend the 7800X3D to anyone in the market today. The 7950X3D is not worth the money. I now have 3 rigs running 7800X3D - we're gamers and password crackers (purely GPU) so no need for the extra cores.


horrorshow said:
GREAT program. (heads up everyone)
Click to expand...

:) https://hardforum.com/threads/is-it...rom-stutter-on-games.2030731/#post-1045742138d


TLDR yes the 7950X3D suffers from stutter - or rather, more stutter than a 7800X3D. Buy that instead if you are worried about stutter.
 
sk3tch said:
We are saying the same thing. One CCD has 3D VCache - one does not. So you need to validate that everything is working fine:

1) Xbox Game Bar
2) AMD Drivers

This is why I monitor it to make sure it is always working. You never know when an update borks something.

I highly recommend the 7800X3D to anyone in the market today. The 7950X3D is not worth the money. I now have 3 rigs running 7800X3D - we're gamers and password crackers (purely GPU) so no need for the extra cores.




:) https://hardforum.com/threads/is-it...rom-stutter-on-games.2030731/#post-1045742138d


TLDR yes the 7950X3D suffers from stutter - or rather, more stutter than a 7800X3D. Buy that instead if you are worried about stutter.
Click to expand...
I apologize was not aware 1 CCD only had the v-cache and the other was a normal CCD like any other Ryzen chip.
 
sk3tch said:
We are saying the same thing. One CCD has 3D VCache - one does not. So you need to validate that everything is working fine:

1) Xbox Game Bar
2) AMD Drivers

This is why I monitor it to make sure it is always working. You never know when an update borks something.

I highly recommend the 7800X3D to anyone in the market today. The 7950X3D is not worth the money. I now have 3 rigs running 7800X3D - we're gamers and password crackers (purely GPU) so no need for the extra cores.




:) https://hardforum.com/threads/is-it...rom-stutter-on-games.2030731/#post-1045742138d


TLDR yes the 7950X3D suffers from stutter - or rather, more stutter than a 7800X3D. Buy that instead if you are worried about stutter.
Click to expand...
I am a lifetime license holder for Process and Corepark - this my laptop, which is my main PC right now until I get a new GPU after my 6900xt stopped working.
1708828547810.png
 
I went from a 5800x3d to 7950x3d. I installed latest chipset drivers when doing so, no stutter and improved performance. I mostly game in VR so stutter is usually immediately evident. The 7950x3d cleared up a few frame drops I was getting in iracing while also improving 3d photogrammetry performance. If not for doing the latter I wouldn't have bothered upgrading.
 
I'm hoping AMD can fix the issues with their next gen AM5 CPU's. I'm still rocking 5800X3D and pretty satisfied with the gaming performance.
 
WilyKit said:
One of the reasons I'm looking forward to Zen5 is I want the 16 cores of the 7950x/x3d but on a single CCD
Click to expand...
I have heard that it will still be 8+8 but that it will include new tech and optimizations designed to minimize the deficiencies of the interconnect as AMD moves forward solidifying their chipllet archs.
 
Been rocking the 7950X3d for several months now and I haven't had any stuttering that i can report. Been playing Cyberpunk 2077, BF 2042, Div 2, Helldivers 2. They have all played well. I had a 6750XT and recently got a 7900xtx both had no problems.
 
Vengance_01 said:
3d cache or not its an issue with how the CCDs are laid out and how Windows and it scheduler handles thread assignments. There is an interconnect between the 2 CCDs. This is why sometimes the 7800/58003d chips are better for gamers due to the better consistent performance. This is due to the single CCD die vs the dual CCD dies in the 7900/7950 chips
Click to expand...
Non-X3D dual CCD's CPUs are essentially a non-issue for gaming. While in theory there is a situation where its not ideal, it is incredibly difficult to prove in benchmarks. Many times, the extra clock speed the 7900X and 7950x have over the 7700x, wins out. And for games where it doesn't, they are only a handful of frames behind. Its slim margins, really. The truly poor scenarios only really seem to occasionally come out in obscure scenarios and even still, probably aren't active problems unless you are purposefully exploiting them. I've only seen one reproduceable scenario which could be a real problem for the highest end players of that game. I have no problem recommending AMD CPUs for gaming.

With the X3D chips, CCD traversal is relatively worse for gaming: because the CCD with V-cache is notably more performant in most games, than the regular CCD with no V-Cache. So, you have contrastingly larger CPU frametimes when crossing over to the regular CCD. And in games where you have the framerate unlocked, you'll see/feel those much more uneven frametimes.
The fix for this, is to keep the game on the Vcache CCD. Which there are ways to do. Again, I don't have trouble recommending AMD's Vcache CPUs. They are good solutions for mixed use scenarios and you get relatively more bang for your buck, IMO.
They are not fool proof. But, its at least slightly more likely that someone who actually needs all of those cores is probably somewhat more informed on how to tinker and get the most from hardware. Process Lasso and other programs like it, have simplified it a lot. You can set everything in your Steam folder to automatically be forced to stay on the VCached CCD.
 
chameleoneel said:
Non-X3D dual CCD's CPUs are essentially a non-issue for gaming. While in theory there is a situation where its not ideal, it is incredibly difficult to prove in benchmarks. Many times, the extra clock speed the 7900X and 7950x have over the 7700x, wins out. And for games where it doesn't, they are only a handful of frames behind. Its slim margins, really. The truly poor scenarios only really seem to occasionally come out in obscure scenarios and even still, probably aren't active problems unless you are purposefully exploiting them. I've only seen one reproduceable scenario which could be a real problem for the highest end players of that game. I have no problem recommending AMD CPUs for gaming.

With the X3D chips, CCD traversal is relatively worse for gaming: because the CCD with V-cache is notably more performant in most games, than the regular CCD with no V-Cache. So, you have contrastingly larger CPU frametimes when crossing over to the regular CCD. And in games where you have the framerate unlocked, you'll see/feel those much more uneven frametimes.
The fix for this, is to keep the game on the Vcache CCD. Which there are ways to do. Again, I don't have trouble recommending AMD's Vcache CPUs. They are good solutions for mixed use scenarios and you get relatively more bang for your buck, IMO.
They are not fool proof. But, its at least slightly more likely that someone who actually needs all of those cores is probably somewhat more informed on how to tinker and get the most from hardware. Process Lasso and other programs like it, have simplified it a lot. You can set everything in your Steam folder to automatically be forced to stay on the VCached CCD.
Click to expand...
Wait, so the 7950X3D only has 8 cores with the V-cache?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top