AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D CPU Accounts for Almost 90% of "Zen 5" Sales, Rest of 9000 Series in Trouble

[Neo_Morpheus]

As I said before? AMD really shouldn't be releasing anything but X3D CPU's at this point, they are great CPU's, the rest is just a waste of sand. People want an all-round solution that kicks ass, why is this so hard to understand?

Thats is simply wrong.

x3d brings little to no advantage over non x3d on many commercial/pro programs, so these people would be paying more for zero gains.

This is what a fumbled launch does.

The 9950X is better than the 7950X, and the 9700X is better than the 7700X - both at very similar prices. The problem is that the 7000-series got good launch reviews, whilst the 9000-series got bad launch reviews.

It doesn't matter that the 9000-series has newer, excellent reviews after the BIOS updates and windows patches, Search engines favour the more popular launch-day reviews which were fumbled by AMD.

As usual, lets blame only AMD, instead of the influencers that refused to double check why Zen 5 under Linux was running properly but not in windows.

Gamers really think they are the center of the universe and these companies should only cater to them.

They are so detached from reality that they think they should be upgrading the same parts every year just to run benchmarks and gloat about to their friends, instead of really needing those new parts for more realistic reasons.

 

[mb194dc]

It's total stupidity, 9700x will give the same performance in 99% of use cases and much cheaper.

People on the latest platforms aren't using 1080p or less, it's down right unusable when you've used 1440p, 4k or higher for any period of time...

So going to be GPU bottlenecked and 3d cpu then useless!

 

[kondamin]

Intel says they don't want a repeat of Pentium 4

They moved quite a bit beyond net burst, current pipelines are gigantic compared to netburst's 20 ish stages and the athlon's 10.
Current cores are behemoths that very little software is capable of utilizing fully.

They need to make a simple core that can go fast and keep going fast.

 

[friocasa]

It's total stupidity, 9700x will give the same performance in 99% of use cases and much cheaper.

People on the latest platforms aren't using 1080p or less, it's down right unusable when you've used 1440p, 4k or higher for any period of time...

So going to be GPU bottlenecked and 3d cpu then useless!

Well, if you want the best, the 9800X3D it's exactly that

I would argue that the 9700X doesn't make any sense right now because you can get a 7900 for the same price, at least on my country

The 7900 might be one of the best choices right now on AM5

 

[Prima.Vera]

No surprise here.
90% of people that are buying new CPUs are doing so for gaming purposes.
As proven, gamers are 90% of the PC ecosystem, the rest 10% are professional media creators, designers, engineers, and the rest that are not brainwashed to use an Apple Mac thinking that somehow those are better for those kind of things than a PC.

 

[Baba]

The 9700X at $300 and 9900X at $400 are a much better value than 9800X3D at $480. Yea the X3D is 10-15% ahead in gaming, but not in anything else.

Maybe for Zen 6 AMD will build more L3$ into their base CPUs so X3D is less of a jump in gaming. Also the 7800X3D blows away the 9800X3D in perf/watt so there is room for improvement there too.

At 4k it's 1-2% better. Even a regular 6 core is only 2% behind. It doesn't look like L3 cache does much at 4k. And this is with a 4090, which 99% don't have. It's probably dead even for an average person.

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review - The Best Gaming Processor

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D establishes AMD as the leader in gaming performance. This Zen 5-based X3D chip is not only fast, it also comes with full support for overclocking. Besides gaming, application performance is considerably improved over the 7800X3D, but that comes at a price.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[mechtech]

At 1080p gaming the x3d shines.

At 4k gaming, well according to TPU it's about 7% faster than my 5700x.

 

[andrehide]

Because of headlines. Every reviewer said:
9800X3D: Best Processor for Gaming.
Rest of 9000 line: Only slightly better than the previous generation.

Though, in their defense, I admit that the 9800X3D was the most improved one compared to the previous generation (mostly because the 7800X3D had significantly lower clocks due to the 3D cache positioning).

 

[Wasteland]

At 4k it's 1-2% better. Even a regular 6 core is only 2% behind. It doesn't look like L3 cache does much at 4k. And this is with a 4090, which 99% don't have. It's probably dead even for an average person.

At 1080p gaming the x3d shines.

At 4k gaming, well according to TPU it's about 7% faster than my 5700x.

Until you enable an upscaler, or decide to play competitive shooters, or strategy games, or maybe you just dial down quality settings because you want to take advantage of a high refresh rate monitor.

I don't disagree that the 9800x3d is wild overkill for most gamers (mostly because of the price), but let's not pretend that CPU bottlenecks only occur in obscure niche case scenarios. They're actually pretty easy to find. Even some of the singleplayer games that show as GPU bound in review benchmarks can occasionally hit the CPU hard.

 

[Firedrops]

As I said before? AMD really shouldn't be releasing anything but X3D CPU's at this point, they are great CPU's, the rest is just a waste of sand. People want an all-round solution that kicks ass, why is this so hard to understand?

This has been clear as day since about 7000 series to anyone with IQ above 80.

AMD execs, however...

 

[maximumterror]

Aside from price, you can do that yourself by setting up manual TDP in the BIOS on any X variant

So you're saying that all these "different" processors are basically the same processor, only the BIOS settings are different?
Also, I don't want to play with BIOS, I'm plug and play guy. I can update the BIOS and that's enough for me

 

[Chrispy_]

At 1080p gaming the x3d shines.

At 4k gaming, well according to TPU it's about 7% faster than my 5700x.

View attachment 383392

Indeed - if you're GPU-bound then you just need a fast enough processor.

X3D is really most valuable for native high-refresh (not MFG) performance. If you're not playing competitive eSports titles at high-refresh then you are most likely going to crank up the graphics settings until you're GPU bottlenecked because that's what you bought your GPU for. I'll always aim for the prettiest looking game I can get whilst running at about 120fps. If frame-gen is viable, I'll aim to hit 120fps with frame-gen and crank up the resolution and graphics quality even further.

 

[igormp]

v cache also goes into EPYC processors which has a way high profit margin for AMD and more of a priority than gamers. I don't see them taking away from that to sell all X3D chips to consumers.

There are no EPYC Zen 5 with v-cache parts, nor there will be one.

 

[Makaveli]

There are no EPYC Zen 5 with v-cache parts, nor there will be one.

There is no Zen 5 mention in my original post for a reason

 

[windwhirl]

There are no EPYC Zen 5 with v-cache parts, nor there will be one.

Did AMD say they'd not make one? Seems like a bold claim to make otherwise

 

[freeagent]

I have 98X3D in my cart right now, its only 50 bucks more than 78X3D. Having a hard time pulling the trigger lol..

I am having a hard time justifying it.. I do play at 3840x2160..

 

[Chrispy_]

Did AMD say they'd not make one? Seems like a bold claim to make otherwise

AFAIK he's right, EPYC isn't for gaming, 3D V-Cache is literally only of use for gaming and actually hinders the cores with voltage limitations and additional cooling burden.

Whilst still unconfirmed, there's a slim possibility that future Threadrippers might have an SKU with one of the four chiplets being an X3D chiplet, so that you can have a badass compute/workstation system that also games like the $8000 you paid for it. Asus either leaked it, or made a typo/copypasta by claiming "added 3D V-Cache support" in the notes for a TR5 BIOS update.

I have 98X3D in my cart right now, its only 50 bucks more than 78X3D. Having a hard time pulling the trigger lol..

I am having a hard time justifying it.. I do play at 3840x2160..

Hold fire, man. That 4070Ti is going to be your bottleneck at 4K. By the time you've justified funds for a hypothetical 6070Ti or 5080 Super, the 9800X3D will be as old as your 5800X3D feels right now.

It's not the fastest CPU on the block any more, but you're not leaving much on the table with a 4070Ti unless you drop down to a 240Hz 1440p monitor and start playing a bunch of high-fps games.

 

[windwhirl]

AFAIK he's right, EPYC isn't for gaming, 3D V-Cache is literally only of use for gaming and actually hinders the cores with voltage limitations and additional cooling burden.

There are seven EPYC SKUs with V-cache and AMD even lists "workload affinities" for them. "Gaming-only" is mostly said with regards to the mainstream desktop market. Elsewhere V-cache has uses as well.

 

[Chrispy_]

There are seven EPYC SKUs with V-cache and AMD even lists "workload affinities" for them. "Gaming-only" is mostly said with regards to the mainstream desktop market. Elsewhere V-cache has uses as well.

Huh... neat! I'm pleased to be wrong in this instance - I kinda missed Genoa-X's launch, it was very quiet after the absolute wafflestomp that AMD were giving Intel with regular Genoa's Zen4 launch.

There don't seem to be any Turin/Turin dense options with X3D yet, but maybe that's because Zen5 is still too new and it looks like the X3D Genoa-X variants lagged Genoa's launch by 9 months.

 

[BillyRazOr]

How about no? That nearly three-decades-old mentality of chasing higher clocks is long obsolete. All it nets today are diminishing performance increases at best, at the cost of exponentially worse thermals and efficiency. It’s downright counterproductive today, especially since modern CPUs don’t even turbo up to their maximum clocks for more than a fleeting moment, just to back down due to thermals.

Not all Intel did very worse thermals and efficiency, it did very great efficiency for notebooks (U, H and HX), but was indeed not very great for desktops because of the 13/14 Gen instability issues (only K, KF and KS affected). But since Intel already fixed their issues by update microcode on BIOS, almost all of processors are now running fine, just barely lose performance than previous microcode. I don't care if anyone are gamers or not, this wasn't part of Intel's fault, it's their motherboard vendors fault as they put too much voltage and watts for overclocking purposes.

Since Intel suggested all PC users should update microcode with BIOS, most PC users didn't know how to update BIOS as they haven't any experiences or just understand basic uses about computer hardware. My current PC running Intel Core i5-13400 with latest microcode BIOS and still perfectly fine without any issues.

 

[igormp]

There is no Zen 5 mention in my original post for a reason

But ain't the v-cache setup for zen5 different from the one in zen4? Like, the actual chip has a different construction in order to be able to sit underneath the CCD.
If that's the case, then the V-caches currently used for the 9800x3D are not useable for the ones in Genoa.

Did AMD say they'd not make one? Seems like a bold claim to make otherwise

kinda:

x.com

x.com

Given how those Epyc-X CPU mostly go to HPC scenarios, and those have a slower upgrade cadence, I guess they'll only release extra cache version every other generation.

AFAIK he's right, EPYC isn't for gaming, 3D V-Cache is literally only of use for gaming and actually hinders the cores with voltage limitations and additional cooling burden.

The extra cache is pretty amazing for HPC stuff, which is usually really memory bound.

 

[Dragam1337]

Gamers want a cpu made for gaming - hardly surprising. And as they account for the by far largest group of desktop part buyers, the gaming cpu is obviously what is going to sell the most.

Intel take note^^

 

[Makaveli]

If that's the case, then the V-caches currently used for the 9800x3D are not useable for the ones in Genoa.

AMD is the only one that can confirm this.

How do you know they won't change it for the EYPC parts this is more profitable SKU than the desktop parts. To the point where they may make custom silicon for a big enough order they don't do that for a desktop part. I don't think you can compare what is done with desktop parts to enterprise products then say it will never be. Enterprise is what drives this whole ship not consumer products.

 

[igormp]

AMD is the only one that can confirm this.

Indeed.

How do you know they won't change it for the EYPC parts this is more profitable SKU than the desktop parts.

EPYC parts are way more profitable than the desktop parts, for sure. They're also way higher volume than desktop parts.
The V-cache EPYC parts, however, don't sell in such a high volume as the non-X3D ones, since their application are really niche.

To the point where they may make custom silicon for a big enough order they don't do that for a desktop part. I don't think you can compare what is done with desktop parts to enterprise products then say it will never be. Enterprise is what drives this whole ship not consumer products

I agree that enterprise is what drives the ship, however I don't think AMD is that constrained on fab allocation when it comes to the X3D stacks, specially because they're on a different node altogether, and Genoa-X is not sold in such a high volume as the other SKUs.
That's just me guessing tho, I couldn't find proper numbers to back those off (nor to prove it's wrong either, fwiw).