9900X3D - Will AMD solve the split CCD issue

[Kapone33]

Because the performance difference from downclocking 2 cores from 5.6 to 5ghz is near 0. Okay, maybe it's 3%. That's nothing. And im talking about fully MT workloads obviously.


Of course it does. There are even games that the 7950x 3d is 30+ fps ahead. And that's just averages, in lows the difference will be bigger

You can use whatever you want it does matter. There is nothing about a 7900X3D that the user does not like. Even for the price. Yes it has more cores so why do you ask HUB to confirm your claim by running the 7950X3D with 4 cores disabled on the non Vcache CCD and see if your claim holds true still.

6+6 is only claimed to be an issue fr people that do not own the chip. I know from use that this chip is plenty fast in feel and performance and that at the end of the day is the most important feature in a CPU.

There is also the fact that the 7950X3D is faster for $400 more when I bought my 7900X3D. I watched that video and have a 144Hz monitor so those Refresh rates are fine for me at 4K. Like his comment that the performance is excellent but his feelings are not satisfied because they did not build it how he would have liked. You even get the same double talk in his summary.

 

[JustBenching]

6+6 is only claimed to be an issue fr people that do not own the chip.

Yes, obviously, that's exactly why they don't own the chip. Nobody who thinks it's an issue is going to buy it, lol.

 

[Kapone33]

Yes, obviously, that's exactly why they don't own the chip. Nobody who thinks it's an issue is going to buy it, lol.

Indeed you confirmed my first post anyway.

 

[SL2]

Indeed you confirmed my first post anyway.

Well then there's reviewers as well, and they have, well, reviewed it. I don't think you need any confirmations at this point.

People here tend to look at benchmarks, sometimes a bit too much, and it won't be any different this time. Of course it will run great, it's just that people will never accept less (gaming) performace for more $.

If the whole "let's just enjoy it" thing would fly here, TPU forums will implode.

Now if someone other than kapone32 wants to explain how wrong I am with more than 4 lines I won't read it, sorry. My post isn't exactly about what I think, it's about what to expect at TPU.

There is also the fact that the 7950X3D is faster for $400 more when I bought my 7900X3D.

Wow. It's $150 now, and $200 at launch. I guess yours started dropping before the 16 core.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Well then there's reviewers as well. I don't think you need any confirmations at this point.

People here tend to look at benchmarks, sometimes a bit too much, and it won't be any different this time. Of course it will run great, it's just that people will never accept less performace for more $.

If the whole "let's just enjoy it" thing would fly here, TPU forums will implode.

Now if someone other than kapone32 wants to explain how wrong I am with more than 4 lines I won't read it, sorry. My post isn't exactly about what I think, it's about what to expect at TPU.


Wow. It's $150 now, and $200 at launch. I guess yours started dropping before the 16 core.

I mean me personally as a consumer would either buy the 7800X3D for gaming which I did or the 7950X3D if I needed more cores the 7900X3D being cheaper than the 7800X3D wouldn't even make it appealing to me.

Others have to make that decision for themselves. I don't think it's a bad cpu though and for anyone it fits their needs more power to them.

I did have a lot of headaches with the only 7950X3D I worked with though it definitely felt like a beta product when it was released due to it's split core setup it would have been enough to make me switch to a 13900k if I needed the extra MT but thankfully it wasn't for a personal system disabling the second CCD or using another program to make windows behave in some games isn't my idea of a good time.

 

[Kapone33]

Well then there's reviewers as well. I don't think you need any confirmations at this point.

People here tend to look at benchmarks, sometimes a bit too much, and it won't be any different this time. Of course it will run great, it's just that people will never accept less performace for more $.

If the whole "let's just enjoy it" thing would fly here, TPU forums will implode.

Now if someone other than kapone32 wants to explain how wrong I am with more than 4 lines I won't read it, sorry. My post isn't exactly about what I think, it's about what to expect at TPU.


Wow. It's $150 now, and $200 at launch. I guess yours started dropping before the 16 core.

The thing for me is I don't buy CPUs based on reviews but experience. I come on TPU to socialize and talk about tech.

I knew I wanted X3D on AM5 and AMD answered the Community request for Vcache on Dual CCD like we asked. 5GHz on Vcache is good

You are using US dollars. The 7950X3D was a cool $999 at launch where I live and the 7900X3D was $599 when I got mine. The 7800X3D did not even exist at that point but I had no interest in that chip as I knew that extra FPS past my monitor's refresh rate meant nothing in Games if I could feel the loss of cores in everyday use. I am sure anyone who went from a 5900X or up to 5800X3D would say the same after using it for a while.

 

[SL2]

The thing for me is I don't buy CPUs based on reviews but experience. I come on TPU to socialize and talk about tech.

I actually didn't mean your purchase, it was more about some responses in this thread, which I find unusually reasonable for this forum.

 

[tabascosauz]

I thought that was because they were separated each by a 32bit memory controller that's linked to the/or couple of shader units or what they're calling "work groups" now?
I'm going to have to look a w1zzards review again.

:edit:
I see six shader engines & six 4x16 controllers.

Zen 6, I said. Zen 6 is the one with the recent rumor about a new "2.5D" interconnect solution that I inferred to be referring to some sort of Infinity Link-esque tech. To replace IFOP Fabric in the CPUs, since the current slow-ass tech will only go so far once DDR5 speeds really start getting up there.

Zen 5 is [most likely] the exact same shit as Zen 4, as far as everything outside the CCD is concerned - in the name of cost savings of course.

Not sure what this has to do with iGPU at all. All RDNA3 has the 1 WGP = 2CU thing.

 

[rv8000]

I just saw another discussion start about how many threads one needs for gaming on the 9000 series. An issue which has been much discussed in respect of previous and current CPU generations. But undoubtedly the 7900X3D suffered against its 3D brethren for having only 6 3D cores. Will this generation be any different?

This is largely not true. The majority of the performance discrepancy is due to bad thread assignment (which gets patched via game updates in some cases).

It was pretty obvious when I spent some time benching CP2077 before they patched the game; disabling a CCD provided large performance swings and when exclusively using the 3Dvcache CCD (only 6 cores total enabled), it was faster than 12c (combined) or 6c (non 3d CCD).

Unless a game thoroughly makes use of 8c, which is still far and few in between, a theoretical 9900X3D that has a higher boost clock than a 9800X3D will more often than not be faster with proper thread assignment.

Spoiler

 

[Sunny and 75]

Will this generation be any different?

We'll know that when they launch 9900X3D.

 

[johnspack]

I want to see an non-pro threadripper with x3d. That would get my attention.

 

[Dr. Dro]

No, since CCX size did not increase in Zen 5. If AMD is smart, they won't release a 9900X3D - just a 9800X3D and a 9950X3D with both CCDs being 3D enabled. No topology issues, no need for crap drivers, and healthier margins, someone willing to buy a dual-CCD X3D processor certainly can pay for it, and at $800-900, it wouldn't be that bad a deal either.

It only remains to be seen if it's going to be enough to stop the barrage from Core Ultra and its Lion Cove + Skymont architecture, now that Skymont is shown to have Raptor Cove-level performance and Lion certainly being at least 15-20% ahead of that. I personally find Intel's processor to be much more exciting, while AMD follows a tried and true traditional route - this generation is going to be GREAT if you ask me.

6+6 is only claimed to be an issue fr people that do not own the chip. I know from use that this chip is plenty fast in feel and performance and that at the end of the day is the most important feature in a CPU.

It doesn't matter if someone owns a chip or not, 6+6 has been proven time and time again to be a suboptimal topology for applications that support the use of 6 cores due to internal bottlenecks in the processor. You spend more time on this forum justifying your purchase through bad faith arguments, conjuring up any logical fallacy and repeating yourself like a broken record than actually enjoying it, have you stopped to think about it?

@fevgatos
That’s true, but it’s economics that are in play for AMD, I think. 6+6 allows the use of two “scuffed” CCDs. 8+4 would require one to be “perfect”. And, seeing how there are no 4 core Raphael CPUs, I don’t think that AMD HAS anything to direct into making a 4-core CCD. So that would have to be a 6-core with two more artificially disabled. So the costs just go up.

Just recently released, remember? Half the CCX disabled. Probably won't be released in Ryzen segment though.

https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/server/epyc/4004-series/amd-epyc-4124p.html

 

[oxrufiioxo]

No, since CCX size did not increase in Zen 5. If AMD is smart, they won't release a 9900X3D - just a 9800X3D and a 9950X3D with both CCDs being 3D enabled. No topology issues, no need for crap drivers, and healthier margins, someone willing to buy a dual-CCD X3D processor certainly can pay for it, and at $800-900, it wouldn't be that bad a deal either.

They should at least offer both as an option with the dual CCD vcache 16 core chip costing double the 9800X3D

 

[Kapone33]

It doesn't matter if someone owns a chip or not, 6+6 has been proven time and time again to be a suboptimal topology for applications that support the use of 6 cores due to internal bottlenecks in the processor. You spend more time on this forum justifying your purchase through bad faith arguments, conjuring up any logical fallacy and repeating yourself like a broken record than actually enjoying it, have you stopped to think about it?

We all know how you feel about the chip and how the reviewers were salty because AMD did not sample the chip. As far as sub optimal I wonder if you would feel that if you took my upgrade path but I guess in your World the 7900X3D is not faster than the 5800X3d. It does not matter at the end of the day because they are selling quite well regardless of your disdain for them It is you who do not OWN the chip and try to justify it with HUB Excellent but they did not make it the way I want video.

Your other obtuse argument about "AMD should not release a 9900X3D and waxing the narrative to nerf the performance of one CCD by applying Vcache to both like every single Game uses Vcache is par for the course for the argument that was created to replace no reviews.

I guess the 5900Xis a slow CPU because it only has a 6 core CCD and won't feel faster than a 5800X.

 

[JohH]

They realize it was a mistaken SKU based on the high discounts they have to offer for the 7900X3D.
So I'd be surprised if they do a 9900X3D.

 

[AleXXX666]

When steve tested a theoretical 7600X3D it performed similar to the 7900X3D so being dual CCD probably mattered less than it just having 2 less cores. There still was a net gain over a single CCD 6 core vcache Ryzen part though.


View attachment 350185

Most of this is just going to come down to the games tested some behave really well others do not and if you test older games the results may swing one way or the other....

You see a similar thing with 14th generation in some games if you limit it to 6 cores....

View attachment 350186View attachment 350187

lets be real though all these CPU perform really well and most end users would likely be unable to tell them apart with actual settings normal people use.

unless some idiot will play @1080P on RTX**90 card, putting cpu-bound load

@fevgatos
That’s true, but it’s economics that are in play for AMD, I think. 6+6 allows the use of two “scuffed” CCDs. 8+4 would require one to be “perfect”. And, seeing how there are no 4 core Raphael CPUs, I don’t think that AMD HAS anything to direct into making a 4-core CCD. So that would have to be a 6-core with two more artificially disabled. So the costs just go up.

it's just such a BS when you have F SKU cpu with GPU disabled, so.. paying "less" for "disabled" possibility, but, then, not "missing part"? It's just so dumb, back days there was AMD "3-core" cpus but one could enable actually "preserved extra core", so in reality "3 core cpu" was "4 core cpu", lmfao.

 

[Dr. Dro]

It's just so dumb, back days there was AMD "3-core" cpus but one could enable actually "preserved extra core", so in reality "3 core cpu" was "4 core cpu", lmfao.

I must remind you core unlocking was never supported by AMD and it was never marketed by the company as a possibility. Motherboard makers figured out AMD wasn't laser cutting nor fusing the disabled core off so they found a way to override, it didn't always work and often had stability issues or required the CPU clock speed to be significantly dropped.

It was cool if you had a X2 that could unlock to X4, bit those were the exception rather than the norm.

 

[Vayra86]

Because every single user runs a 4090 and all they do is play games all day, compare CPUs and meticulously note when they see the vast, stark difference between 160 and 170 FPS in their PlayStation-studio made slow walking cinematic title du jour. It’s simply unacceptable and AMD can’t keep getting away with this. /s

See my sig, it explains this admirably.

 

[Cowboystrekk]

My bet: 9800X3D will be the overall best gaming-cpu from AMD with a lad of anywhere from 5-20% vs 7800X3D

 

[oxrufiioxo]

unless some idiot will play @1080P on RTX**90 card, putting cpu-bound load

Depending on the game even with a 7600X you can be cpu limited at 4k with a 4090 and all of Ryzen 5000.... There are plenty of games I played that were nowhere near gpu bound at 4k at the same time framerates were more than good enough so it's always a subjective thing.

 

[Kapone33]

I must remind you core unlocking was never supported by AMD and it was never marketed by the company as a possibility. Motherboard makers figured out AMD wasn't laser cutting nor fusing the disabled core off so they found a way to override, it didn't always work and often had stability issues or required the CPU clock speed to be significantly dropped.

It was cool if you had a X2 that could unlock to X4, bit those were the exception rather than the norm.

Every 3 Core chip I bought could be opened to 4. That inspired all board vendors to enable Core Unlock even up to AM3+. AMD pulled them from the shelves once they found out core unlocking had become quite popular. I know it was not a given but it was cool for what it was.

 

[JWNoctis]

FWIW here's some very interesting tidbits, on this very issue, from the developer of y-cruncher.

 

[JustBenching]

We all know how you feel about the chip and how the reviewers were salty because AMD did not sample the chip

The real question here is, why did AMD not sample the chip?

 

[AVATARAT]

I just saw another discussion start about how many threads one needs for gaming on the 9000 series. An issue which has been much discussed in respect of previous and current CPU generations. But undoubtedly the 7900X3D suffered against its 3D brethren for having only 6 3D cores. Will this generation be any different?

Yes for the current current gen, this is true.

There is a problem with dual chiplets at all, not only with x3D dual chiplets. Because of that in Windows, there is a button when gaming to sleep non-cache chiplet.
Charts from Hardware Unboxed just spread misinformation because they didn't show that there can be stutters and too low 1,0% and 0,1% FPS.

So, with the 9000 series, they double this communications and we need to see do this fixes or lowers this problem.

 

[JustBenching]

Yes for the current current gen, this is true.

There is a problem with dual chiplets at all, not only with x3D dual chiplets. Because of that in Windows, there is a button when gaming to sleep non-cache chiplet.
Charts from Hardware Unboxed just spread misinformation because they didn't show that there can be stutters and too low 1,0% and 0,1% FPS.

So, with the 9000 series, they double this communications and we need to see do this fixes or lowers this problem.

The problem isn't the dual ccd, it's that they don't have a hardware thread scheduler like intel. If they did then the dual ccd is a non issue.