Sunday, November 30th 2025
AMD Lists Ryzen 7 9850X3D CPU with 5.6 GHz Boost Frequency
AMD has launched an official website placeholder for the Ryzen 7 9850X3D processor, which was leaked in October. As a part of the "Granite Ridge" Ryzen 9000 X3D series, AMD is reportedly developing two additional updates to the lineup. One is a flagship model, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2, and the other is a refined eight-core, 16-thread X3D design. Today, AMD's website confirms the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, featuring 8 cores and 16 threads, 96 MB of L3 cache, and a boost clock up to 5.6 GHz, with a 120 W power envelope. This represents a 400 MHz increase over the Ryzen 7 9800X3D model, which has the same cache and core configuration. AMD is likely using higher-binned dies it has saved over the past few months to offer a better alternative to Intel's upcoming "Arrow Lake Refresh," scheduled for early 2026, and "Nova Lake," scheduled for late 2026.
However, details about the new flagship model, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2, featuring 16 cores and 32 threads, remain uncertain. This chip reportedly includes 3D V-Cache on both chiplets, totaling approximately 192 MB of L3 cache. It is said to operate at a base frequency of 4.30 GHz, with a boost up to around 5.6 GHz, and has a TDP of about 200 W. The 9950X3D2, with its new naming convention, suggests a tradeoff of slightly lower peak boost speeds (-100 MHz) compared to the single-stack X3D Ryzen 9 9950X3D model, but offers significantly increased cache capacity. Today only the higher-clocked Ryzen 7 9850X3D is confirmed by AMD, so we might have to wait on the dual-chiplet X3D2 SKU a bit more.
Sources:
AMD, via VIdeoCardz
However, details about the new flagship model, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2, featuring 16 cores and 32 threads, remain uncertain. This chip reportedly includes 3D V-Cache on both chiplets, totaling approximately 192 MB of L3 cache. It is said to operate at a base frequency of 4.30 GHz, with a boost up to around 5.6 GHz, and has a TDP of about 200 W. The 9950X3D2, with its new naming convention, suggests a tradeoff of slightly lower peak boost speeds (-100 MHz) compared to the single-stack X3D Ryzen 9 9950X3D model, but offers significantly increased cache capacity. Today only the higher-clocked Ryzen 7 9850X3D is confirmed by AMD, so we might have to wait on the dual-chiplet X3D2 SKU a bit more.
148 Comments on AMD Lists Ryzen 7 9850X3D CPU with 5.6 GHz Boost Frequency
Just the existence of it is the most interesting as the 7800X3D and 9800X3D may get pushed down the stack.
A more conservative 9700X3D would have been happier news, imo.
As for the 9800X3D, the price has stayed stubbornly at or above $450 for as long as I can remember. What's the motivation for AMD to price a newer higher-binned CPU at below $500 to put pressure on a product that they are already selling by the boatload?
Shareholders happy, customers fooled, company profitable. But nah, AMD wouldn't, right? Right?
You can always underclock and undervolt for a conservative experience.Nah, AMD is out friend! They love the consumer! They would NEVER use consumer loyalty to screw you out of cash!
Regardless of how good the 9850x3d is, the price of RAM makes it a total non starter right now. I'd be curious to see if sales flop or if people are willing to eat the insane costs.
Still, not the smartest use of money. I'm curious if this really is a significantly better bin, or if it's just more power.It's more like 9% between 7800X3D and 9800X3D at stock, if you utilize the unlocked multiplier of the 9800X3D, it's more, in my case about 12-15% with 5.55 all core. Interestingly—because PBO isn't sucking volts—a manual static OC can actually be more efficient than stock.
It's 9% at stock, not tuned.
Even if you, as you say, only look at 1440p Ultra tests for a CPU, it's still not "3%", more like twice that.
Regardless, the difference between the stock 7800X3D and the stock 9800X3D at 1440p Ultra isn't 3% as you claimed, it's 6-7%. This 9850X3D will likely push it further even at 1440p Ultra, and more at lower resolutions or with faster GPUs.
I mean, if a $200 CPU gives me 120 FPS on my 1440p screen, and a $400 one gives me 125 FPS, then is it really worth spending twice as much just because it's much faster at 720p?
Or to stay on topic, if a 75 W CPU gives me 120 FPS, and a 150 W one gives me 125 W, then is the second option not wasteful?
I know that such questions are frowned upon in the "enthusiast" community these days, but I've got to ask them anyway. We can leave it rhetorical, as I see the point in both sides (even if I may not agree with both).I agree with such tests for this reason, but I have to add that I rarely see people keeping their CPUs much longer than their GPUs (even though they probably should).At 720p? Gaming power consumption is still 1.5x higher according to the TPU test.
But the CPU review isn't testing your exact scenario, it's testing how fast the CPU is, as it should do.Are you missing something here?
At 720p Ultra the difference is ~9-10%At 1440p Ultra the difference is ~6-7%
As you can hopefully see, neither of these results are "3%".
Perhaps you looked at 4K results by mistake.
I've got nothing against the criticism that the out of the box 9800X3D using ~1.5x the power for ~9% more gaming performance isn't good for efficiency, I'm just concerned with ensuring the issue is honestly represented.
Maybe some of that is within the preview of the enthusiast.
Most esports players will also tell you that a stable FPS is conducive to better aiming performance. I.e. if your 1% lows are close to your framerate/monitor refresh cap, you can test that and see better performance than with fluctuating FPS, even if the average is higher. A few of the engineers behind these products have also talked about the science of how more consistent frame times are more important/perceivable than higher average FPS. But I don't have those links on hand for those interviews.Just realised you probably looked at the 4090 review data (that also used different games for testing), where the 9800X3D is indeed 3% faster than the 7800X3D at 1440p Ultra.
Still, just goes to show that with faster GPUs, performance data even at higher resolutions become closer to what the 720p data showed with the slower GPU.
Anyhow... I'm sure lots of people will buy the 9850X3D, like they do the 9800X3D already. But I still think the 7800X3D is a much, MUCH better CPU all-around (not faster, but better).