AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D & 9900X3D Prices Confirmed: $699 & $599​ - March 12 Launch is Official

[The Shield]

You mean like how the 8700K was $360 for 6 cores and the 9900K was $490 for 8 cores?
It's almost like it's easy to keep prices to $300 w/VAT when you rehash quad-cores for an entire decade.

I mean the i5/i7 4670K/4770K going for 250/290 euro in 2013.
And what's the point in complaining about the number of cores? In 2013, 4+4 cores was far enough for every GPU, even in the years to come. In those days, there were no necks-bottle with the graphic cards, so - relatively speaking - che CPUs were even better than nowadays.
What's the meaning of technological advancement if, doubling the number of cores, the price doubles itself? Is it a joke?

The 9900k was the fastest existent CPU for gaming, and it used to go for 450-500 euro.
Now, Amd for a 9950x3d - the fastest one - is going to charge the equivalent of 800 euro, IF you find one and manage to avoid the "demand-larger-than-supply" marketing BS.

This pricing is reasonable /cut/ There’s no scenario where their best-in-class CPUs shouldn’t command a premium price.

Commanding a premium price is the exact opposite of a price being reasonable.
That's why is called "premium".

 

[john_]

This pricing is reasonable considering inflation and input costs going up over the past five years. Some seem to think AMD should undercut Intel pricing… why would they do that? You can like it or not, but the reality is that AMD is currently the premium option. AMD wins on performance for gaming, most productivity, and most efficiency benchmarks. There’s no scenario where their best-in-class CPUs shouldn’t command a premium price.

The price is the "typical AMD pricing" for this kind of models. And it doesn't really take in consideration inflation. AMD isn't moving the pricing needle higher than what it was five and a half years ago for a 16 core mainstream CPU combined with a good motherboard. One of the reasons is that Intel is also offering high core count CPU models today. The other is that AMD's AM5 platform is much more expensive today, so pricing the CPUs higher would be a problem. In fact the price of a 3950X or a 5950X with a good AM4 mobo 5 years ago, is about the same as the price of a 9950X and a good AM5 mobo today, because good AM4 mobos, with the top X470 chipset, could be bought at much lower prices than good mobos with X670E or X870E. The AMD motherboards started going up when the X570 chipset came out. I think AMD is cutting from it's profits on CPUs and either makes some extra profit from chipsets, or they just allow motherboard makers to enjoy higher profit margins, because supporting a motherboard that will be getting updates for 5 years or more, is probably expensive.

2019, 3950X: $749
2020, 5950X: $799
2022, 7950X: $699
2023, 7950X3D: $699
2024, 9950X: $649

 

[Lew Zealand]

I mean the i5/i7 4670K/4770K going for 250/290 euro in 2013.
And what's the point in complaining about the number of cores? In 2013, 4+4 cores was far enough for every GPU, even in the years to come. In those days, there were no necks-bottle with the graphic cards, so - relatively speaking - che CPUs were even better than nowadays.
What's the meaning of technological advancement if, doubling the number of cores, the price doubles itself? Is it a joke?

The 9900k was the fastest existent CPU for gaming, and it used to go for 450-500 euro.
Now, Amd for a 9950x3d - the fastest one - is going to charge the equivalent of 800 euro, IF you find one and manage to avoid the "demand-larger-than-supply" marketing BS.

4770K was $340 in June 2013 on release, not sure about MSRP in euros. That's $460 in October 2024, so the 9800X3D is all of $20 more in real cost. Seems fair for the increase in performance.

The 9800X3D is the fastest CPU for gaming and is $480, $10 cheaper than the 9900K 6 years later, so that's quite a bit cheaper considering inflation.

The 9950X3D will be marginally faster in games and is geared towards gamers who also do content creation as you don't need 16 cores for gaming (yet). Just like you paid more in 2018 for 8 cores instead of 4, now you pay more for 16 cores instead of 8.

Pay more get more, it's just economics. You can still buy a 4-core CPU for gaming if you want to relive the early 2010s.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Me too. Instead went with a 9800 x3d. I don't expect the 9950 x3d to be faster in games, and I don't want to deal with scheduler headaches in Windows.

I also don't understand why the 9900 x3d exists.

You get a few more cores for productivity while still spanking non-X3D cpu's in gaming?

 

[Dr. Dro]

The X33D chips would make a (small but wealthy, therefore not ignorable) group of enthusiasts very happy, yes. But the existence of the same chips would create another, larger group of angry para-enthusiasts, bitching and moaning about some other bottleneck imposed by AMD, probably PCIe lanes or memory channels. And indeed there would be a bit of an imbalance between computing power and peripheral speed and flexibility, with a price premium on top of that.

Although, that already happens anyway. We're getting HEDT-like CPUs on mainstream platforms for the past 6 years or so... started with the 3950X. And between you and me... these criticisms are rather valid

 

[ShrimpBrime]

AMD now releases the money makers. Pure MT horsepower. 9950X3D ONLY 699$. !!!

699$ is cheap. That's the #1 Cpu to ever be released. Rejoice!! Buy one!!

Once upon a time, desktop processors of this caliber would easily be over 800$ and it was just 1 core...

9950X3D, yep. Gonna get me one of those. I mean if there's enough stock lol XD.

 

[The Shield]

4770K was $340 in June 2013 on release, not sure about MSRP in euros. That's $460 in October 2024, so the 9800X3D is all of $20 more in real cost. Seems fair for the increase in performance.

The 9800X3D is the fastest CPU for gaming and is $480, $10 cheaper than the 9900K 6 years later, so that's quite a bit cheaper considering inflation.

The 9950X3D will be marginally faster in games and is geared towards gamers who also do content creation as you don't need 16 cores for gaming (yet). Just like you paid more in 2018 for 8 cores instead of 4, now you pay more for 16 cores instead of 8.

Pay more get more, it's just economics. You can still buy a 4-core CPU for gaming if you want to relive the early 2010s.

The 4770k was the top notch, something the 9800X3D is not, for good as it is.
You can compare the 9800X3D to the 4670K - that, those times, could handle GPUs of the years to come without any bottle-neck, something the 9800X3D realistically can't do.
So, it's 250 euro vs 600.
And it's "600" NOW, because when it was put in the market, it was far more costly, something Intel CPUs never were, being largely availlable from day 1.
The truth is, for years people said - and I was one of them - Intel was playing with the marketing BS; but that was nothing compared to what has come.

 

[efikkan]

That's no longer the case with Ryzen 9000 series though, is it? They put the 3D V-cache underneath the compute die, so that heat could be dissipated more efficiently, thereby unlocking the same clock speeds as the non-X3D models. So if the MSRP is observed, you can just pay $50 more than the 9950X and rest assured that you get the best-ever gaming performance in all situations without sacrificing on other workloads. And if some of your other workloads benefit from the additional cache too, all the better.

It still draws power, and as with all mainstream "high-performance" CPUs the power budget is a limiting factor which will lead to effectively lower clock speeds under various loads, unless you overclock of course.

This pricing is reasonable considering inflation and input costs going up over the past five years.

I think the CPU prices are quite reasonable, especially considering the actual inflation we've experienced over the past 5 years, these could easily have costed up to $1000 now.
My issue is with the crappy motherboard selection. It wasn't that long ago you could get a pretty well featured motherboard for $150, and you wouldn't be likely to run into unexpected limitations a few years later.
Nowadays, most "decent" motherboards are very expensive, and most of the ones using the top chipsets aren't even close to feature the full chipset!
So you better read all the fine print, like which M.2 slots share bandwidth with the graphics slot and other similar limitations, and hope that you can live within those constraints until the system has served you well. On top of that, since you can't run 2DPC memory at full speed, you have to take that into consideration too (not just the boards' fault). It's very frustrating getting to a point where perfectly good parts needs to be replaced because of a limitation with no upgrade path.

 

[Lew Zealand]

The 4770k was the top notch, something the 9800X3D is not, for good as it is.

This is delusion. What is better for gaming than the 9800X3D?

You can compare the 9800X3D to the 4670K - that, those times, could handle GPUs of the years to come without any bottle-neck, something the 9800X3D realistically can't do.

More delusion. What are you gaming with that's better than the 9800X3D to relegate it to 4C4T-like status?

So, it's 250 euro vs 600.
And it's "600" NOW, because when it was put in the market, it was far more costly, something Intel CPUs never were, being largely availlable from day 1.
The truth is, for years people said - and I was one of them - Intel was playing with the marketing BS; but that was nothing compared to what has come.

What is 600? The 9800X3D is $480 right now, sorry I don't control prices where you live. This becomes more unclear and nonsensical with each statement.

 

[The Shield]

This is delusion. What is better for gaming than the 9800X3D?

The one delusional is you: this article is about 9900 X3D and 9950 X3D, but probably I ask too much for you to understand it.

More delusion. What are you gaming with that's better than the 9800X3D to relegate it to 4C4T-like status?

Are you really comparing one-on-one a 2013 CPU with a 2025 processor, saying that the second one is better?
Hell, you must be some kind of genius.

What is 600? The 9800X3D is $480 right now, sorry I don't control prices where you live. This becomes more unclear and nonsensical with each statement.

I Wrote "EURO" Vat included may be 10 times, but this was not enough for you to understand.

 

[mechtech]

A lot better than the P4 EE lol

Wasn't that $900 ish?

 

[Lew Zealand]

The one delusional is you: this article is about 9900 X3D and 9950 X3D, but probably I ask too much for you to understand it.

You brought up the 9950X3D as the fastest gaming CPU, complaining about price. I noted the 9800X3D is the fastest gaming CPU (as the 9950X3D isn't tested yet) and is a reasonable price. Try sticking to the topic instead of attempting snark.

Are you really comparing one-on-one a 2013 CPU with a 2025 processor, saying that the second one is better?
Hell, you must be some kind of genius.

You brought up the 4770K as a great CPU of it's time. I compared it to the 9800X3D, the great CPU of this time and noted equal value for each. Try sticking to the topic instead of attempting snark.

I Wrote "EURO" Vat included may be 10 times, but this was not enough for you to understand.

I used MSRP in USD because that's an easy metric and easily findable, the relative prices are similar. Try sticking to the topic instead of attempting snark.

 

[Vya Domus]

The 4770k was the top notch, something the 9800X3D is not, for good as it is.

Pointless comparison from a time when Intel refused to make anything that had more than 4 cores.

People bought a 4770K whether they used it for gaming or anything else because there was nothing else from Intel, AMD gives you an option that simply didn't exist back then.

 

[The Shield]

You brought up the 9950X3D as the fastest gaming CPU, complaining about price. I noted the 9800X3D is the fastest gaming CPU (as the 9950X3D isn't tested yet) and is a reasonable price. Try sticking to the topic instead of attempting snark.

This "9950X3D isn't tested yet gne gne gne" is childish at best.

You brought up the 4770K as a great CPU of it's time. I compared it to the 9800X3D, the great CPU of this time and noted equal value for each. Try sticking to the topic instead of attempting snark.

The 4770K (or the 3770K before) was the top tier of its time, so it must be compared with the 9950X3D.
You cherry picked the wrong CPU only to fuel your narrative. How convenient.

I used MSRP in USD because that's an easy metric and easily findable, the relative prices are similar. Try sticking to the topic instead of attempting snark.

I was the first to comment, and I was speaking about the euro-area (again, Vat included), so is not clear what do you want from me and why you insist in talking about US dollars.
If you are not interested in euro-area-talks, no one forces you to comment.

 

[Lew Zealand]

This "9950X3D isn't tested yet gne gne gne" is childish at best.

The 4770K (or the 3770K before) was the top tier of its time, so it must be compared with the 9950X3D.
You cherry picked the wrong CPU only to fuel your narrative. How convenient.

The 9800X3D is the premier gaming CPU. The 9950X3D will be as good a gaming CPU but for people who also want to do productivity work. Anyone buying the 9950X3D only for gaming yet complains about price is simply a fool. In the Ivy Bridge/Haswell times you would need to buy two PCs to do this with a 4770K and a 4960x/5960x. That's another $999 for that productivity CPU.

Perhaps you now see the value and intent for the 9950X? Or maybe you don't with your 'gne' thing, whatever that is. Keep complaining about a $700 processor replacing the glory days of a $340 CPU plus a $999 CPU. Don't forget to add the cost of all the other duplicate parts needed.

I was the first to comment, and I was speaking about the euro-area (again, Vat included), so is not clear what do you want from me and why you insist in talking about US dollars.
If you are not interested in euro-area-talks, no one forces you to comment.

MSRPs in euros fluctuates with the exchange rate which is why USD is useful, but far from perfect of course. And this website uses USD in it's reviews, so I use USD. If 542 euros for the 9800X3D is too far off the European inflation-adjusted value of the top CPU from 12 years ago for you to accept, then I encourage you to buy something else like a 9600 or 245K.

 

[efikkan]

I don't think a direct comparison with the CPU lineup 10-12 years ago is fair without acknowledging that the ultimate gaming CPUs of the time were the HEDT lineup, which was squeezed between the mainstream and the high-end workstations at the time.
The higher models of the current mainstream platforms from both vendors kind of fills this role today in certain aspects, but not in others. So there is no direct successor or modern equivalent of HEDT, so price comparisons require some context.

 

[LabRat 891]

Mad respect for the 9800X3D, and respect towards those that need 12 and 16 cores and some Vcache

Beyond that, 0 interest until Zen6 and a new 'chipset'.
Even if AMD (yet again*) decides we don't need dual X3D, at least w/ Zen6 the non-X3D CCDs can 'directly talk to' each other.
Which, should largely mitigate the (legitimate) complaints about lacking Vcache...

Give us a 9955X3D and 9905X3D w/ Vcache on both CCDs, and then I'll start salivating over AM5.


*https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-shows-off-unreleased-ryzen-9-5950x3d-cpu-with-192mb-of-3d-v-cache

 

[JustBenching]

Those prices make me scratch my head ... who would pay $600 for a cut-down CPU with lower boost clocks when for $100 more ($100 is nothing for the target audience of those CPUs) you can have the best CPU for desktop computing with top productivity AND gaming power?
The 9900X3D will be marginally faster in some benchmarks compared to the 9800X3D (inter-CCD latency), with lower gaming performance, while generating more heat and costing more.

It will drop pretty quickly in price just like it happened with previous 6+6 3d chips.

4770K was $340 in June 2013 on release, not sure about MSRP in euros. That's $460 in October 2024, so the 9800X3D is all of $20 more in real cost. Seems fair for the increase in performance.

The 9800X3D is the fastest CPU for gaming and is $480, $10 cheaper than the 9900K 6 years later, so that's quite a bit cheaper considering inflation..

But the 9900k was winning in a lot more categories than just gaming, a thing neither the 7800x 3d nor the 9800x 3d comes even close to doing. Same applies to the 7700 and the 8700 before them.

 

[A&P211]

I'm still happy with my 9800X3D that I bought last week for $479

I'm still happy with this 8845hs that I got the entire laptop for $401 from bestbuy.