My guess is that AMD will try to have a CPU that lowers the CPU bottleneck as low as possible since there are some cases for RTX5090 having huge driver overhead. Also, some simulators and MP with many players onlline at once need more CPU power. FPS drops at high refresh rate will be minimal also. Eitherway, those upcoming dual-X3D CCD CPUs will max out everything at anything. Not for all but great for some gamers and devs. And it iwll help lower pricing for the rest of the CPU lineup.

Vayra86Fair, I can see where you're coming from now. With respect to the 9800X3D versus 9850X3D discussion... sure, but they're both already high end parts. Are you wasting money buying the slightly faster halo part, for sure! But that's really just a tiny percentage of the market, not exactly a % you'd want to change your CPU review for. A drop in the ocean and we agree that's not the target audience to be comparing the nitty gritty. And even then... are those people wasting money? You don't know, but what I do know for sure is they won't be tossing their 9800X3D on the landfill: it will get another purpose, form the core of another high end system, whatever. But it gets used, or its value gets recovered somehow, perhaps by someone else.

As for insults, nothing personal intended here, sorry if it came across as such. Its a general remark about stupidity and catering content towards stupidity and you are not stupid :). We do a lot of that in the world, and catering CPU reviews towards the mood of the day in hardware parts is not a good path. By catering for it, we enable it and normalize it.

As for the perceived worth of less expensive offerings, of course. OEM exists for a reason, it seems to be 'fine' for most and that is also exactly what its meant to be. I'm generalizing too, world's too big to point out every exception to rule. But in general you do see that higher end products simply last longer - and OEM parts aspire to include as much of that quality at the lowest price, but corners are cut to get there. Its the same thing as buying quality shoes, and out comes the good old shoe analogy: you can buy ten dollar sneakers every year, or buy a proper pair that lasts many years, and the buyer of the latter not only spends his money once (before the inflation of all subsequent years, where the one buying 10 dollar sneakers is actually buying 11, 12, 13 dollar sneakers as the years go on, while quality has remained shit), and spends less on shoes, but also has better shoes to walk on and might save himself $400,- for special soles required later down the line :)

I'll settle on that. :)

The only thing I'd add is that value is a lot of times only perceived, but not real. The more expensive pair of sneakers may very well be the same cheaply made crap just with a fancy brand name on it. The $900 phone has a slightly better screen, camera and processor than a $300 one, but do you actually use it? Most people I know who have a new iPhone or a Samsung S-series only use them to browse Facebook, or play word puzzle games. I can do that on my Samy A22 as well as my Chinese rugged phone just fine. It's like buying a Porsche just to commute. Do you get more for your money? Absolutely. But it's wasteful and pointless because it doesn't fit the purpose.

Vayra86The real art of buying today is identifying what segment is 'safe' as in: not overpriced, still as much quality as high end offerings, and not having all sorts of hidden defects. That's where the real value is at, because I agree, the flagship phone or GPU isn't always a cost-effective endeavour, it only becomes that if you extract its value over many many years, and it depends on the market situation too. We call that 'the sweet spot' and it is NEVER a low end part. The current sweet spot for gaming is clearly the 7800X3D or 9800X3D. Anything under or above is somehow missing the mark. It'll be just as functional today, but it won't retain (as much) value later down the line.

I would say the sweet spot is the 9700X. Sure, the 9800X3D is faster because of that beautiful cache, but does it matter when the 9700X comes at only 60% of its price and much lower power consumption out of the box? Sure, the 9800X3D will command a higher price on the used market, but the 9700X will lose less value because it has a lower retail price to begin with. So if you sell your £250 9700X for £100, you'll still lose less money than if you sell your £400 9800X3D for £150.

Vayra86This though... seems like plank is thick :) A 720p test helps because it isolates the CPU and an enthusiast will want the fastest CPU part for their rig today. Its that simple. It doesn't matter how long you use it, you want to know where the CPU ranks in the list, and that is all you need, alongside the knowledge virtually every CPU will run the content anyway. Also, the relative performance between each CPU alongside its purchase price allows you to make a very informed choice about value for money. If you just want the minimum CPU to run what you need, you buy the cheapest option in the list. Either way, an isolated CPU test helps you buy what you need, while more focused non CPU isolated testing just creates noise.

Enthusiasts (I'd rather call them performance junkies) want the fastest, not the one that makes the most sense. Gotcha. I feel like our points converge here. :)

It is absolutely useful to have 720p tests to indicate pure CPU performance. But I still like 1440p tests because they're realistic. Sure, they don't show much, if any difference among most modern CPUs, but that begs the question: is there any meaningful difference, then? Or do certain people just like flushing money and power down the toilet as a hobby? Of course gaming is a wasteful hobby, we've established that already, but where do we draw the line? Where do we say "this cheaper part actually fits my needs just fine, so why should I waste even more money and power"?

So this looks like confirmation that there's going to be no ZEN 6 in 2026. Because it looks like AMD is going to re-fresh its ZEN 5 lineup & target a late 2026- early 2027 ZEN 6 launch? Hmmm

Harun89800X3D is already the worst fps/dollar gaming CPU right now, 9850X3D pricing concerns me, but this is good news to those who don't care about value and just want the best product

I wish we could get a 9600X3D already. X3D is great and all but its gate-kept to the high end. Even a last gen 7800X3D is more expensive than a 265K/9700x

Praying for Nova Lake bllc to challenge the X3D monopoly so there can be better prices on astronomically large L3 CPUs

You do realize the 9800X3D and this upcoming 9820X3D has a target audience, you are obviously not that target audience. These chips are expensive to make. Stick with the 9700X or 9900X or a possible upcoming 9800X for gaming & anything else you want to do with your gaming PC.

Doctor WhoSo this looks like confirmation that there's going to be no ZEN 6 in 2026. Because it looks like AMD is going to re-fresh its ZEN 5 lineup & target a late 2026- early 2027 ZEN 6 launch? Hmmm

Possibly.

Doctor WhoYou do realize the 9800X3D and this upcoming 9820X3D has a target audience, you are obviously not that target audience. These chips are expensive to make. Stick with the 9700X or 9900X or a possible upcoming 9800X for gaming & anything else you want to do with your gaming PC.

What do you think makes a 9850X3D more expensive to make than a 9800X3D? It's the exact same chip.

AusWolfPossibly.


What do you think makes a 9850X3D more expensive to make than a 9800X3D? It's the exact same chip.

You make a valid point. Higher clock speed and paying extra for the "50" naming scheme Lol

If its 400MHz out of the box, plus your +200 on top if that.. should be pretty decent. Betcha it'll run cool too :)

Doctor WhoYou make a valid point. Higher clock speed and paying extra for the "50" naming scheme Lol

Exactly.

So basically, when you have 100 chips, and 80 of them can do 5.2 GHz, but the other 20 can do 5.6, you have a choice:
- To bin all of them at 5.2 GHz and sell them as 9800X3D with varying overclockability, or
- Raise the max turbo bin on the 20 units that can do it, and sell them for more money.

No change happened to manufacturing, or any related cost. It's pure profit.

freeagentIf its 400MHz out of the box, plus your +200 on top if that.. should be pretty decent. Betcha it'll run cool too :)

I'm not so sure.

AusWolfI'm not so sure.

That weak ass D15 has no chance against my setup :)

freeagentThat weak ass D15 has no chance against my setup :)

Ah you mean on your setup? C'mon, man, a freakin' blast furnace would run cool in your system. :p

The D15 is representative of some pretty average cooling, imo. Not underpowered like mine, but not overpowered like yours. :D

I got the Ryzen 9 9950X3D & Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 confused with the Ryzen 7's

AusWolfC'mon, man, a freakin' blast furnace would run cool in your system.

Actually.. my cooling isn't that strong, it cannot cool my 9900X at full chuff. It can come close though.. but to be fair it takes a synthetic load to push it over the edge..

Normal everyday life stuff is absolutely no problem.. just the extreme edge case scenario stuff is where it trips up.. specifically Linpack.

freeagentActually.. my cooling isn't that strong, it cannot cool my 9900X at full chuff. It can come close though.. but to be fair it takes a synthetic load to push it over the edge..

Huh? You showed screenshots of it going over 200 W not long ago. Or am I confusing you with someone else? :ohwell:

freeagentNormal everyday life stuff is absolutely no problem.. just the extreme edge case scenario stuff is where it trips up.. specifically Linpack.

I like preparing my system for extreme scenarios, too. If it can't handle them, I dial it down. I know it's overkill, but that's my way to tinker. Some people overclock, I do this. :oops:

AusWolfHuh? You showed screenshots of it going over 200 W not long ago. Or am I confusing you with someone else? :ohwell:

No that was me, was around 295w or so.. it'll handle ~285w continuous.. been to 310 once.. not sure how I did it though :D

AusWolfI like preparing my system for extreme scenarios, too. If it can't handle them, I dial it down. I know it's overkill, but that's my way to tinker. Some people overclock, I do this. :oops:

That is how I build my systems, they are made to run Linpack :D

freeagentNo that was me, was around 295w or so.. it'll handle ~285w continuous.. been to 310 once.. not sure how I did it though :D

I knew it. :D

freeagentThat is how I build my systems, they are made to run Linpack :D

I've noticed with my system that it handles single-core and all-core loads pretty well, but when I've got 10-12 cores loaded, and all the power headroom goes for those cores, that's when it gets the hottest.

That's why I'm running with a disabled boost. That way, I know that my temperature scales linearly with CPU load. :) I told you I'm weird. :D

AusWolfI told you I'm weird

You aren't weird :)

But we as a community might be 🤫

I think AMD needs more time for Zen 6 launch and expects Intel to release Nova lake prior to Zen 6, so this is just a refresh to close up gap. I don't see the point though, since AM5 has been confirmed 100% Zen 6 compatible, current AM5 users will surely wait for Zen 6 and would not switch to Intel. I mean, I don't think AMD users would switch to Intel unless it offered ridiculously better product (which won't happen).

CornyOCI think AMD needs more time for Zen 6 launch and expects Intel to release Nova lake prior to Zen 6, so this is just a refresh to close up gap. I don't see the point though, since AM5 has been confirmed 100% Zen 6 compatible, current AM5 users will surely wait for Zen 6 and would not switch to Intel. I mean, I don't think AMD users would switch to Intel unless it offered ridiculously better product (which won't happen).

Agreed, the refresh is for people that want to upgrade to AM5 that could see better deals after the release of this refresh.

CornyOCI think AMD needs more time for Zen 6 launch and expects Intel to release Nova lake prior to Zen 6, so this is just a refresh to close up gap. I don't see the point though, since AM5 has been confirmed 100% Zen 6 compatible, current AM5 users will surely wait for Zen 6 and would not switch to Intel. I mean, I don't think AMD users would switch to Intel unless it offered ridiculously better product (which won't happen).

Nova Lake isn't Intel's first rodeo with big cache. They did rather well with the i7-5775C for Apple. The best chips were only clocking to 4.3GHz but it was competing with 5.0GHz 4790K CPUs in those days. Considering how successful the 3D cpus have been for AMD, Intel has no choice but to go big, which means ridiculous offering is possible. Competition is good and welcomed.

Has there been any elaboration or remarks on what other articles mention 2nd Gen 3D cache is?

Thanks

529thHas there been any elaboration or remarks on what other articles mention 2nd Gen 3D cache is?

Thanks

It's basically that in Zen 5, the 3D cache slice is underneath the core logic of the processor instead of on top as it was on Zen 3 and 4. The cache slice being stacked on top insulated the cores somewhat resulting in worse thermals.

mouacykNova Lake isn't Intel's first rodeo with big cache. They did rather well with the i7-5775C for Apple. The best chips were only clocking to 4.3GHz but it was competing with 5.0GHz 4790K CPUs in those days. Considering how successful the 3D cpus have been for AMD, Intel has no choice but to go big, which means ridiculous offering is possible. Competition is good and welcomed.

I don't believe any Apple product actually used a 5775C. It was meant for the Z97 chipset, but it released at almost the same time as the 6700K, Z170 and DDR4, plus most games at the time did not respond to high cache, which resulted in the 4790K (which had faster clock speeds and worked on Z87) outselling it by a lot for people who opted to stick to an earlier generation DDR3 platform at the time.

Dr. DroIt's basically that in Zen 5, the 3D cache slice is underneath the core logic of the processor instead of on top as it was on Zen 3 and 4. The cache slice being stacked on top insulated the cores somewhat resulting in worse thermals.

If not worse thermals, then lower voltage and clock speed at least. The 7800X3D is really easy to cool while the 9800X3D is a furnace in comparison because of the extra power pumped into it.

Dr. DroIt's basically that in Zen 5, the 3D cache slice is underneath the core logic of the processor instead of on top as it was on Zen 3 and 4. The cache slice being stacked on top insulated the cores somewhat resulting in worse thermals.

Are you totally sure that is what it was referring to?

Article was from
wccftech.com/roundup/amd-ryzen-9-9950x3d-ryzen7-9850x3d/

"It is rumored that the newer X3D CPUs will feature AMD's 2nd-generation 3D V-Cache"

written by, Muhammad Zuhair

I knew of the repositioning of the 3D cache a while ago

AusWolfIf not worse thermals, then lower voltage and clock speed at least. The 7800X3D is really easy to cool while the 9800X3D is a furnace in comparison because of the extra power pumped into it.

I mean at iso power, of course. The 9800X3D is just juiced to get higher clocks at the expense of efficiency, this 9850X3D should be more or less the same deal unless a lot of improvements were done to the manufacturing process.

Looks like homage to the Phenom 9850 to me though