AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Tested in Blender, Geekbench 5

AMD
(Image credit: AMD)

As the official launch of AMD's Ryzen 7000X3D family of CPUs looms, the new Ryzen 9 7950X3D flagship processor's performance has been revealed in various popular benchmarks. On Friday, the new chip appeared in the Blender (via HXL) and Geekbench 5 (via @Benchleaks) benchmark suites. However, we cannot say that we are impressed with the performance of the new 3D V-Cache-enabled CPU compared to its counterpart without the extra L3 in these tests.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Header Cell - Column 0 Price (MSRP / Retail)Cores / ThreadsBase / Boost Clock (GHz)Cache (L2/L3)TDP / Max
Ryzen 9 7950X3D$699 / ?16 / 324.2 / 5.7144MB (16+128)120W / 162W
Ryzen 9 7950X$599 / $58916 / 324.5 / 5.780MB (16+64)170W / 230W

Blender

Blender is a tool for creating animations and visual effects. Like other rendering and video editing programs, it takes advantage of multi-thread performance and single-thread performance as well as application-specific optimizations.  

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Header Cell - Column 0 Ryzen 9 7950X3DRyzen 9 7950XCore i9-13900KApple M2 Max
General specifications16C/32T, 4.20 GHz - 5.70 GHz, 144MB L2+L316C/32T, 4.20 GHz - 5.70 GHz, 80MB L2+L38P+16E/32T, 3.0 GHz - 5.80 GHz, 68MB L2+L3 cache 8P + 4E, up to 3.67 GHz
Blender558.59590.28557.17254.06

The 16-core Ryzen 9 7950X3D with 144MB of L2+L3 cache appears to be 5.4% slower than the 16-core Ryzen 9 7950X with 80MB of L2+L3 cache in the Blender benchmark.  Meanwhile, the model 7950X3D is a tad faster than Intel's Core i9-13900K (8P+16E, 32-threads) and substantially faster than Apple's 12-core M2 Max. 

The upcoming Ryzen 9 7950X3D features 16 high-performance cores supporting simultaneous multi-threading (i.e., processing 32 threads simultaneously) operating at up to 5.70 GHz. So, it is not surprising that it beats Apple's 12-core M2 Max (3.67 GHz) and is a bit faster than Intel's flagship CPU, which can process up to 32 threads simultaneously. It should be noted that the Core i9-13900K cannot clock its energy-efficient cores higher than 4.30 GHz. 

Meanwhile, the Ryzen 7950X3D's core chiplet die (CCD) with the additional 64MB of 3D V-Cache apparently features lower clocks than Ryzen 9 7950X, which diminishes the advantages of a larger cache for single-threaded performance.

Geekbench 5

Geekbench 5 is a synthetic benchmark that measures single-thread and multi-thread performance in different workloads. This program is not considered the most optimal benchmark for CPUs and GPUs for many reasons, but it still gives an idea about the performance of different hardware in similar workloads.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Header Cell - Column 0 Ryzen 9 7950X3DRyzen 9 7950XCore i9-13900KApple M2 Max
General specifications16C/32T, 4.20 GHz - 5.70 GHz, 144MB L2+L316C/32T, 4.20 GHz - 5.70 GHz, 80MB L2+L38P+16E/32T, 3.0 GHz - 5.80 GHz, 68MB L2+L3 cache 8P + 4E, up to 3.67 GHz
Single-Core | Integer1783183820161882
Single-Core | Float2265230224642216
Single-Core | Crypto6375721958603283
Single-Core | Score2157224623432052
Row 5 - Cell 0 Row 5 - Cell 1 Row 5 - Cell 2 Row 5 - Cell 3 Row 5 - Cell 4
Multi-Core | Integer21473250872837913353
Multi-Core | Float24372277903132016819
Multi-Core | Crypto11445126322228025911
Multi-Core | Score21841252752895615021
Linkhttps://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/20655028https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/20574320https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/20655426https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/20650321

AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X3D with 3D V-Cache appears to be a tad slower than the Ryzen 9 7950X without extra cache in single-thread and multi-thread workloads. 

Regarding frequencies, the tested AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D sample on the Asus ROG Crosshair X670E Hero worked at around 5480 MHz most of the time with a balanced power plan. Meanwhile, an AMD Ryzen 9 7950X on the same motherboard worked at a bit higher frequencies with the same balanced power plan, which is perhaps why the CPU without 3D V-Cache is faster in Geekbench 5.

Some Thoughts

Of course, we cannot draw accurate conclusions based on test results from one or two pre-production systems. But we can still share some thoughts about the results at hand. 

The main advantage of AMD's Ryzen 9 7950X3D CPU over its Ryzen 9 7950X counterpart is a massively larger L3 cache. Meanwhile, the former processor boasts higher base frequency and higher boost clocks across all cores; at least, it looks so based on results obtained in Blender and Geekbench 5. In many programs, clocks matter more than cache sizes, which is why the model 7950X3D is behind the model 7950X in the said benchmarks. 

It is reasonable to assume that in applications that depend primarily on single-thread performance and memory bandwidth, the Zen 4-based processors with 3D V-Cache will demonstrate significant advantages over their counterparts without the extra L3 cache. 

Keeping in mind that AMD's Ryzen 7000X3D CPUs are a couple of weeks away, it makes sense to wait for comprehensive reviews and find out all the details about the advantages and disadvantages of the new processors compared to regular Ryzen 7000-series units. 

 

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • "Of course, we cannot draw accurate conclusions based on test results from one or two pre-production systems "

    Yes, while the X3D CPU lags behind the Ryzen 9 7950X on both counts, it doesn't matter because neither test can take full advantage of its 3D V-cache. Also, the average 7950X score is based on many results/scores, whereas the 7950X3D's scores are from only one run.

    Even the memory/RAM speed specs are unknown for the X3D part, unless I'm mistaken.

    Geekbench and Blender don't tell the complete story as they can't take advantage of the massive 144 MB of L2 + L3 cache on the processor. Then again, one can rest easy knowing the processors are out and about, and it shouldn't be long before someone tests them with AAA games.

    In GAMING workloads the X3D SKU
    should be definitely faster, though this remains to be seen.

    BTW, the new X3D processor has also been spotted in "Sisoftware" sandra benchmark.


    EDIT:
    Also, the deficit in multi-core performance is to be expected considering the Ryzen 9 7950X3D doesn't has a lot of voltage or the thermal headroom to work with as the standard non-3D CPUs.

    Not to mention that 7950X3D chips have a different CCD configuration, with one CCD running at higher clocks and the other with conservative limits set in place due to the 3D V-Cache stacking structure.

    The benchmark log shows that the chip maxed out around a peak 5.5 GHz boost clock which is slightly slower than the 5.7 GHz boosts that the 7950X non-3D can hit and explains the lower multi-core numbers.
    Reply
  • richardvday
    This News is not really news at all.
    It's already been established that the benchmark's talked about here do not benefit from the increased cache.

    This is not the intended primary workflow for these CPUs anyway. This is meant for primarily gaming but I still need to do some multi threaded work reasonably well. It's a compromise.
    Personally I would build a separate system for that but maybe some people don't want to or can not justify two systems.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    You guys should start adding the 5800X and 5800X3D to extrapolate a bit more.

    While I think these are interesting, they don't have enough information to draw any conclusions, really.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • pointa2b
    I don't think it was ever argued the 7950X3D would be superior to the 7950X in all applications. At worst against the X, its basically just a slightly underclocked version of it. What would be really interesting to see is how it compares with games/applications that benefit heavily from a larger cache. Thats what it all boils down to. 😎
    Reply
  • Quirkz
    So now the glaring weakness of thee 5800X3D is resolved: You no longer have to give up have your productivity performance, you only sacrifice a little. These results are amazing, and it's weird they making it sound like it's bad with words like 'unimpressed'.

    Now the question is did they solve part 2: Is the 7950X3D as big an improvement in gaming as the 5800X3D was.
    Reply
  • moongrim
    Its all about the games games games, just few select applications take advantage of extra cache, synthetic benchmarks are useless in measuring performance in these cases
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    whats that? a non cache heavy benchmark makes a cpu with lower clocks perform worse?

    Reply
  • Ravestein NL
    Quirkz said:
    So now the glaring weakness of thee 5800X3D is resolved: You no longer have to give up have your productivity performance, you only sacrifice a little. These results are amazing, and it's weird they making it sound like it's bad with words like 'unimpressed'.

    Now the question is did they solve part 2: Is the 7950X3D as big an improvement in gaming as the 5800X3D was.

    Indeed, this is excellent, about the same speed in productivity and 30% less power needed (did anyone notice that). If this CPU will perform the same in games like it's predecessor than we couldn't be happier!
    Reply
  • BeedooX
    Metal Messiah. said:
    Also, the deficit in multi-core performance is to be expected considering the Ryzen 9 7950X3D doesn't has a lot of voltage or the thermal headroom to work with as the standard non-3D CPUs.
    I suspect that's just as much to do with the fact that AMD realised they didn't need to put oodles of voltage through their CPUs after all. You run your 7950X in ECO mode and will probably be equally happy.
    Reply
  • btmedic04
    Quirkz said:
    So now the glaring weakness of thee 5800X3D is resolved: You no longer have to give up have your productivity performance, you only sacrifice a little. These results are amazing, and it's weird they making it sound like it's bad with words like 'unimpressed'.

    Now the question is did they solve part 2: Is the 7950X3D as big an improvement in gaming as the 5800X3D was.

    seeing that your new here, allow me to give you a heads up. you can expect any written by Anton or Aaron regarding an amd part to have a negative connotation. Their own personal bias is always apparent
    Reply