Ryzen 7950X3D May Run Slower Than 7800X3D, Reviews Rumored for Feb 27th
Performance numbers of AMD's ultimate gaming CPUs set to be revealed next week.
AMD will reportedly let journalists publish their reviews of its Ryzen 9 7950X3D and Ryzen 9 7900X3D processors on February 27, a day before those chips will become available, according to hardware leaker @momomo_us. Meanwhile, some additional peculiarities about the range-topping Ryzen 9 7950X3D were revealed by @9550pro and those will not please at least some enthusiasts.
AMD will start sales of its 12-core Ryzen 9 7900X3D with 140MB of L2+L3 cache as well as 16-core Ryzen 9 7950X3D with 144MB of L2+L3 cache on February 28, so reviews with performance numbers published on February 27 would allow potential buyers to make well informed purchase decisions. Meanwhile, the eight-core Ryzen 7 7800X3D with 104MB of L2+L3 cache will hit the market in early April.
AMD's Zen 4-based Ryzen 7000 X3D-series processors with extra 64MB of 3D V-Cache are poised to become some of the best CPUs for gaming as additional L3 positively affects performance of workloads that depend on single-thread performance and memory bandwidth.
But there is a catch about the top-of-the-line Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor: the clocks of its core complex die (CCD) equipped with 3D V-Cache could be lower than those of the less-expensive Ryzen 7 7800X3D, according to @9950pro.
Such lower frequencies will affect performance in workloads that need high clocks. Last week we learned that transpired that the Ryzen 9 7950X3D is actually slower than the Ryzen 9 7950X in Blender and Geekbench 5 and apparently this might be a result of lower clocks on the CCD equipped with additional cache.
Header Cell - Column 0 | Price (MSRP / Retail) | Cores / Threads | Base / Boost Clock (GHz) | Cache (L2/L3) | TDP / Max |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ryzen 9 7950X3D | $699 / ? | 16 / 32 | 4.2 / 5.7 | 144MB (16+128) | 120W / 162W |
Ryzen 9 7950X | $599 / $589 | 16 / 32 | 4.5 / 5.7 | 80MB (16+64) | 170W / 230W |
Ryzen 9 7900X3D | $599 / ? | 12 / 24 | 4.4 / 5.6 | 140MB (12+128) | 120W / 162W |
Ryzen 9 7900X | $449 / $420 | 12 / 24 | 4.7 / 5.6 | 76MB (12+64) | 170W / 230W |
Ryzen 9 7900 | $429 / $429 | 12 / 24 | 3.7 / 5.4 | 76MB (12+64) | 65W / 88W |
Ryzen 7 7800X3D | $549 / ? | 8 /16 | 4.2 / 5.0 | 104MB (8+96) | 120W / 162W |
Ryzen 7 5800X3D | $349 / $319 | 8 /16 | 3.4 / 4.5 | 104MB (8+96) | 105W / 142W |
Ryzen 7 7700X | $349 / $341 | 8 / 16 | 4.5 / 5.4 | 40MB (8+32) | 105W / 142W |
Ryzen 7 7700 | $329 / $329 | 8 / 16 | 3.8 / 5.3 | 40MB (8+32) | 65W / 88W |
Ryzen 5 7600X | $249 / $243 | 6 / 12 | 4.7 / 5.3 | 38MB (6+32) | 105W / 142W |
Ryzen 5 7600 | $229 / $229 | 6 / 12 | 3.8 / 5.1 | 38MB (6+32) | 65W / 88W |
Previously AMD said that its Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor will offer the best of both worlds: high clocks on the CCD without 3D V-Cache and large cache on the CCD with 3D V-Cache chiplet. It remains to be seen how this CPU will perform in real world applications, which is why it is important for potential owners to read reviews before purchasing.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
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.
-
hotaru251 ....is this actually news?Reply
It was same on the 5800x vs 5800x3d
more cache, but clocks slower. -
usertests hotaru251 said:....is this actually news?
It was same on the 5800x vs 5800x3d
more cache, but clocks slower.
The "news"/leak is that the 7950X3D's 3D CCD is slower than the 7800X3D. It was expected to be the same (5.0 GHz boost). -
logainofhades hotaru251 said:....is this actually news?
It was same on the 5800x vs 5800x3d
more cache, but clocks slower.
But this 7950x3d vs 7800x3d. -
pointa2b Even if its 1-200 MHz slower, I'm assuming the ~50% larger cache will more than make up for it in applications where the cache benefits. And as for the applications that don't benefit from the cache, you have 8 more cores at 5.7 GHz. I think the 7950X3D will be a pretty impressive chip as long as tasks are properly scheduled to the cache heavy/clock speed heavy CCD. We shall find out soon.Reply -
btmedic04 I knew this was an Anton article just based off of the title :LOL: he an Aaron never pass an opportunity to throw shade towards amdReply -
hotaru251 amd stated x3d has strict stability requirements (hence lack of OC) so more cores more heat/pwr likely need lowered to fit the restriction thus larger impact than lower model (but still benefit of more cores)Reply -
Alvar "Miles" Udell Higher core counts usually mean lower all-core clocks due to power and thermal limits, so to me this in no way would be surprising, nor would it surprise me to have lower performance than non 3D Cache versions in many games and most all applications.Reply -
froggx
Is speculation derived objectively from currently available factual data actually throwing shade?btmedic04 said:I knew this was an Anton article just based off of the title :LOL: he an Aaron never pass an opportunity to throw shade towards amd -
Papusan
Pay more, get less, LOOLusertests said:The "news"/leak is that the 7950X3D's 3D CCD is slower than the 7800X3D. It was expected to be the same (5.0 GHz boost).
Or should we change it and instead say Pay less get more with the 7000 series X3D chips?😀 -
zx128k 7800X3D looks like the good target for gamers. Really as a gamer, its game performance that matters. In games like world of warcraft the 5800x3d is the number 1 cpu, just because of the cache. Basically the 5800x3d is not that good overall. Not every game is going to be faster. 5800X and 5800X3D performed nearly identically in Crysis 3 Remastered, making the X3D's premium hardly worthwhile. Counter-Strike: Global Offensive at 1080p the 5800X3D was outperformed by the standard 5800X. There are six games I know of were the cache makes no difference. Like GTA V for example. Most games should get a boost but will it be worth the extra cost?Reply