AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and 7900X3D: Where to Buy

Avro Arrow said:

If they're running out of stock, then they didn't have a lot to begin with. Once the people with more money than brains have bought this APU, it will just gather dust. It performs worse in productivity than the R9-7950X, worse in gaming than the R7-7800X3D will and costs way more than both of them.

What's not to love? :LOL:

Last time I checked, PC users are still allowed to do more than one thing on it, like gaming, content creation, or programming on the same machine. C'mon - who doesn't want to game on the fancy new workstation. What chip would you recommend then for those machines? ;)

<Moderator edit for content>

lxtbell2 said:

Last time I checked, PC users are still allowed to do more than one thing on it, like gaming, content creation, or programming on the same machine. C'mon - who doesn't want to game on the fancy new workstation. What chip would you recommend then for those machines? ;)

<Moderator edit for content>

A regular 7950X or a 13900K are more than enough for a mixed gaming + productivity system, lmao. I would even argue that a step below that is plenty for most people, too. With this stupid thing, you trade a quite significant amount of productivity for some more gaming performance you don't need as much as you need food on the table. Read Igor's German review yesterday, in some cases where the 7950X is leading the 13900K in productivity, the 7950X3D places behind the 13900K. It sometimes even placed behind the freaking 7700X!!! How much is slightly better gaming performance worth to you?

sygreenblum said:

Not sure where your getting your info on the 7800x3d but at a 700mhz lower peak clockspeed and 8 less cores and less overall cache I sincerely doubt it will top the 7950x3d. I'm not a big gamer so I got no skin in this race, I'll not be buying either.

That's not how it actually works as the higher clockspeed is on the chiplet that doesn't have the extra cache. The one with the cache tops at 5-5.2 ghz it seems. Probably 5ish under full load.

There are already some "simulated" 7800X3D reviews where they disabled the second chiplet (the one without the cache) and in some cases, it runs faster than the 7950x3d!

Since the system doesn't need to "figure out" where to run the game process (on the extra cache chiplet, or the higher frequency one?), that seems to give it a slight edge (on strictly gaming)

I fully expect that down the road that won't be the case, when all these scheduling issues have been resolved.

Right now at my local Microcenter you can get an AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, ASUS B650E-F ROG Strix Gaming WiFi, G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB DDR5-6000 for the same price of a 7900x3d

drivinfast247 said:

Right now at my local Microcenter you can get an AMD Ryzen 9 7900X, ASUS B650E-F ROG Strix Gaming WiFi, G.Skill Flare X5 Series 32GB DDR5-6000 for the same price of a 7900x3d

Prices are simply insane. You pay 16%+ for 9% more FPS when comparing to a 13900K, according to Igor. And that's just the CPU, not even the whole system... buying an Intel system right now is simply lots cheaper than AMD, no matter how you look at it, for similar performance.

For gaming, what you linked above will be more than enough for the next couple of years, and that system won't be a slouch in productivity, either. The 7950X3D is as superfluous as I said it was from the start.

Here in Germany, I could order the 7900X3D straight away from one of three who say they have it in stock (for 679 Euro, including VAT). But no one offers the 7950X3D so far.

KyaraM said:

A regular 7950X or a 13900K are more than enough for a mixed gaming + productivity system, lmao. I would even argue that a step below that is plenty for most people, too. With this stupid thing, you trade a quite significant amount of productivity for some more gaming performance you don't need as much as you need food on the table. Read Igor's German review yesterday, in some cases where the 7950X is leading the 13900K in productivity, the 7950X3D places behind the 13900K. It sometimes even placed behind the freaking 7700X!!! How much is slightly better gaming performance worth to you?

Yeah, 7950X3D trails behind a bit with AutoCAD. It also consumes less power though, and in that regard it is quite remarkable that it takes a solid 3rd spot e.g. with Cinebench R23, only "slightly" behind the top 2 in performance and way before the 4th.

In any case, I didn't see anyone arguing that the 7950X3D would be the top choice for productivity tasks, with the argument being rather that it offers top gaming performance while still letting one do other stuff on the same rig as well (without a huge setback, and still ahead of last gen CPUs).

And how much some are willing to pay (extra) for their hobby, that is individual, isn't it? E.g. some are spending thousands on a car, which may end up costing hundreds a month - and that not so much out of need as just for the sake of it. Others may be boozing away hundreds a month, or ending up spending a thousand per year on loot boxes, and so on. And e.g. I don't do any of that and I don't use AutoCAD. Instead I may eventually get me one of the new CPUs, where it wouldn't be so much about expecting a huge boost in gaming performance from the CPU as such, but rather about having a CPU which will still be a good performer in 4 years while not bottlenecking eventually also next-gen GPU as much as other CPUs would. If one can't see themselves spending more than e.g. $300 on a GPU, then even whichever current gen CPU may not be "needed" though, of course.

Again, an individual matter. E.g. if someone is playing just one game two hours a week, then depending on the game one may even argue that a console may be the top value option.