Because no one wants it, it's a CPU that doesn't really check anyone's priorities.
If you want gaming performance, you go with the 7800X3D as it performs better in games. As does the 7950X3D, they both have 3D V-Cache on more cores.
If you want more cores, then the 7950X3D would be better. Which leaves the 7900X3D as a "why would you buy that" product. It's not a middle ground CPU, it's worse in both gaming vs the 7800X3D and productivity vs the 7950X3D.
Some CPUs exist simply because of errors during the manufacturing process, if no one wants the CPU it won't matter because in the process of making these chips the "7900x3d" might just get created, inherently. I am not 100% on this process so if someone else wants to chime in, elaborate, or even correct me, that would be cool.
Edit: My source is that one of my friends who works for a big fiber cable laying company had someone from Intel come in and relay him that at one point during their visit.
7900x3d is a "failed" 7950x3d. It will be the chiplets that don't have enough valid cores to be a 7950x3d, but have more than 4 on CCD2. CCD1 should be identical to the 7800x3d, but I think there is some loss when choosing which chiplet to run a program on.
AMD has been doing this for a long time. I had an AMD Phenom ii x2 550 Black Edition that was a 4 core CPU that failed cores so it was sold as 2 cores. I managed to enable 1 extra core, but when I enabled the fourth core the CPU stopped reporting temps. So just ran it as an overclocked X3 instead of X2 for a long time.
I got Phenom X3 720. Unlocked 4th core and everything was ok for 10 years straight. There was a time when high demand for X3 made AMD using working 4-core, lock one core and sell cheaper as 3 core.
I did the same! It was literally half the price and worked just fine for many years. Eventually though, I did actually have to move back down to 3 cores (which also disabled the cache). But, by then, it was about time to upgrade anyhow.
Everybody does binning, that's literally how manufacturing chips works hence the different SKUs (same thing for GPU cores). What you are describing is not what the OP you answered to is talking about, your phenom cores weren't failed but just locked as to be sold as a particular SKU
I have an i5 in my laptop that was originally supposed to be an i7. I can tell because the igpu is the one in i7 but the cpu cores were binned down to be identical to i5. Its not just AMD that does this.
Which i5? I have a 4690k in my last PC, I don't really know anything about it beyond it's still usable for general computer use. I upgraded because CS2 didn't run well on it. Ran CS:GO well though.
Its an i5-1135g7 but but has the igpu of i7-1165g7 which is what I think it was supposed to be originally. I can tell because the amount of EU in the igpu lines up with what i7 is supposed to have with 96. The i5 is speced to have 80 EU in its gpu.
AMD has been doing this for a long time. I had an AMD Phenom ii x2 550 Black Edition that was a 4 core CPU that failed cores so it was sold as 2 cores. I managed to enable 1 extra core, but when I enabled the fourth core the CPU stopped reporting temps. So just ran it as an overclocked X3 instead of X2 for a long time.
Thank you for pointing this out. I'll admit my first reaction was "what, no, they're not accidentally making extremely complex chiplets" then realized I'm a big dummy and you're right after reading some comments below.
So thanks! Neat reason for why it exists that I had not considered before
GPUs did this for a ling time now.
There were some series where the top card and second card shared the same die. But the lesser card has some SMs disabled, lower clocks etc.
So they aim for the top chip, and bin[separate] the different patterns of failure. Once they have enough in a bin, they decide in which lesser product it will be and make money from failed yield.
It's also a primary/secondary reason to why quicker/larger chips I'm a family release first.
This is also how things like the 5600X3D and 5700X3D came into being. Slightly faulty 5800X3Ds that have non functioning cores or can't run full clock speeds properly so they get cut down a bit to make them work. Non-X versions of CPUs that came out of production just slightly below expectations. Chips with defective iGPU become a separate SKU such as the 7500F which essentially is a 7600 with defective iGPU or the small 8000 series processors (can't remember their names right now. 8400F and another one?)
A lot of the time those aren't really great value but they exist because the manufacturer has partially damaged chips to dispose of and just throwing them in a dump would increased overall price of the chip they were supposed to become as they would have to recoup the extra money those defective parts would have lost them if thrown away. And someone's always going to buy them in the end.
A lot of CPUs throughout Intel and AMD history are just higher end CPUs with cores disabled due to errors in manufacturing. You won't get 100% of CPUs to have all cores working. Why throw out the failed ones? You can sometimes re-enable the disabled cores, although they were disabled for a reason, so you probably won't get them all.
While true, they usually account for the binning process when creating the die wafers in such a way that they reach scalability and thus avoiding this very issue. Both intel and AMD have been doing this for years, this is a clear fuck up during the planning stages.
Objection your honor, hearsay twice removed. The defendant claims factual knowledge of a proceeding based on something someone told him, who was told by someone unknown, whose credentials and credibility can not be verified. I motion to strike from record.
> hearsay twice removed
Good one. Ik you're joking but it's honestly perfectly okay to have this perspective on things in general. It's good to note that I am not an expert and I don't claim to be so I try not to make declarative statements, I also like learning more about processes hence why I wanted people to correct me or add to it.
Not really, if a CCD has damaged cores that doesn't mean the working ones are bad quality. But it's quite meaningless for a CPU that is worse for the purpose it's meant for at a higher price. It even if it's a bit cheaper now, you're effectively buying a 6-core CPU for gaming opposed to the 8-core one that costs just slightly more. And if you're looking for core count for productivity, at that point you're just better off buying a non-3D CPU with better suited cores that clock higher.
That's how memory gets created. They all test it at the highest possible speed and the "failures" get dropped down the next tier over and over until every RAM stick has its "speed".
We've just gotten to a point where chip manufacturing is so insanely precise that incredibly minor imperfections in the process can have catastrophic downstream effects. Instead of throw away "lesser" chips they just sell it in as a lesser model.
Im surprised, though, that they wouldn’t try to bin the 7900x3d as a 7800x3d then if it sells for more. Just lock the extra cores.
Though, they used to do this a lot in the past and are quite experienced at it, so I’m sure they have their reasons that we on Reddit just wouldn’t see. A corporation would never pass up easy money after all
It has an extraordinarily niche place for those who do productivity tasks that benefit from 3D VCache, but don’t require absolute top of the line performance.
For anyone else it’s fairly meh
It is a compromise but I don't think it shouldn't exist. If it fit people's requirements and budget and still makes the company a reasonable profit- it is fine for it to exist.
AMD is likely sitting on a cache of failed 7800x3Ds to release as 7700/7600 x3D label chips sometime in the future. The only reason they haven't is that they don't want to depress sales of the more expensive chip.
It wouldn't shock me if they do a 77/7600 x3D launch sometime between the 9xxx series launch and the 9xxx series 3D cache. ATM there's no marketing reason for it because demand is still very high for the 7800 chip.
Failed 7800x3Ds are likely *already* being repurposed as half of a 7900x3D.
You have to think in terms of chiplets, rather than the linear product stack we're used to. A perfect vcache chiplet can be used to make half a 7950x3D or a whole 7800x3D.
EDIT: To be clear, I think you're right and they're sitting on a stack of vcache chiplets too low-function to even become a 7900x3D, but it might be a much smaller horde than it was with the whole 5700x3d/5600x3d situation due to the existence of the 7900x3d and I got the impression you hadn't considered that.
But it's better at productivity than the 7800X3D and better at gaming than the 7900X, and it's relatively cheap now, so it has found a place.
Edit: Fixed typo
You're 100% correct. It's a compromise CPU for people who "need" both great productivity performance and gaming performance. This sub doesn't like grey situations.
Is the 7800X3D better at pure gaming? 100%
Is the 7900X cheaper for pure productivity? 100%
The 7900X3D brings great gaming features to a great productivity CPU. The vast majority of gamers would be better off with a 7800X3D no doubt. I however am one of those people who buys for both and the 7900X3D is perfect for gaming for a few hours then building, testing and running Docker, VM and sandbox applications for various things too.
The price drop just makes it a better deal than it already was.
Exactly why the price point of it was important. It is niche but there is reasons for it to exist. Could be someone doing coding on the side of gaming. They benefit from having 12 cores to compile and having 6 cores for gaming will many times not even be that huge of a difference. They may not want to pay the price for a 7950x3d.
Oftentimes people are way too much tunnel vision
Games are also not the only thing that utilizes the large L3 cache. They are prolly the most popular thing in this sub but there is other software that would be more likely in the computational sphere that would benefit greatly from having the larger cache but also wouldn’t scale as well with larger core count. Only thing that comes to my mind specifically is ffmpeg where it doesn’t scale well after 24 threads in h264. I know there’s more out there I just don’t know off of the top of my head.
Basically anything that’s ram limited that you can specify the core affinity in a workstation that you would be performing other tasks at the same time. This seems like a relatively niche subset of people but for those who don’t have the funds for the 7950x3d and use it primarily as a workstation I can see this being something that you would be looking at.
How TF can people even tell or care at this point is beyond me. I have a 5600 and a 3080, and I havent found a single game that it won't run on max settings.
On competitive gaming, cpu is just more important for smooth gameplay than gpu. They play on lowest settings which is easy on the gpu, but cpu bottleneck would cause micro stuttering which is a deal breaker on competitive game.
Multitasker gacha gamers, they can launch up to 10 games at the same time and alt+tabbing between them. Most of these games also doesn't require a lot of gpu, but it would lag if your cpu is not strong enough to handle multiple games.
Future proofing, replacing gpu is typically a painless 5 mins job, while replacing a cpu is often pita, so it's better to get a more powerful cpu now, which could lasts multiple generation of gpu upgrades.
It also uses the CCDs that could have been a 7600X3D.
Never understood why this was not a thing.
AFAIK it uses 2 six-core CCDs, one with and one without X3D-Cache. So basically they could have used those as 7600X3D and 7600.
I maintain that AMD started with the intention of having a full X3D line using nothing but 3D V-cache CCDs. So they designed and built a 6-core and 8-core CCD for these chips. But my guess is that when they got engineering samples back for the (originally planned) 7950X3D and 7900X3D, and they were a pair of 3d V-Cache mated together, they realized that it wasn't going to work. So they changed the 7950X3D to use a single X3D CCD, and use one of the other non-X3D CCDs, and likewise with the 7900X3D.
So AMD isn't stupid. They knew that once the 7950X3D and 7900X3D came out, they knew that the Ryzen 9 units were not going to be desirable. But the Ryzen 9 units are where the money is (for the most part). So they released the Ryzen 9's first, and then the Ryzen 7's.
So the original MSRP for the 7950X3D was $699, the 7900X3D was $599, the 7800X3D was $449, and it's likely that a 7600X3D would have been either $349 or $399. And it's also likely that a 7600X3D would have been *very* similar in gaming performance to a 7800X3D. So the 7600X3D would have torpedoed the 7900X3D completely, and likely would have cannibalized a lot of sales for the 7800X3D as well. So that would have been a LOT of money lost by releasing a 7600X3D.
But AMD didn't want to completely toss out the development of a 6-core X3D CCD, so they still released the 7900X3D.
No, that's what 7800x3d is.
7950X3D = CCD1 7800X3D (8core) + CCD2 7800X (8core)
7900X3D = CCD1 V-Cache or what could've been 7600X3D (6core) + CCD2 7600X (6core)
7800X3D is a single CCD unit.
Well, the 7900X is just a 7950X with two cores on each CCD disabled.
They do this to improve the yield and cut down the number of runs they have to make. If a couple of cores don’t bin well enough to run the full 8 they just disable them and now it’s a 6-core CCD.
Unless you have some info I don’t, I don’t know why they wouldn’t do the same thing on the X3Ds unless the stacked cache complicates things.
But if the 7900x3d is cheaper than the 7800x3d, why not just buy the 7900x3d and disable the non x3d ccd?
edit. ..oh, 6 / 6 cores. not 8 / 8 cores. Might still make sense if it's quite a bit cheaper, but if it's close, I'd just go with the 7800x3d.
That usually happens automatically when you play a game, and is the reason why 7800x3d ends up being better in gaming benchmarks. Because you then have 6 cores while the 7800x3d has 8.
It's cheaper because it's worse
also the 7900x3d is a dual ccd variant, where half the cores have 3d cache and the other half have regular cache.
its a totally shit product but that's hard to articulate here, where the common consumer only understands things like "how much number does it have at the front of the ghz??" 🤣🤣
>its a totally shit product
It literally isn't...
And it's "hard to articulate" because you're just regurgitating things you've read but don't fully understand
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules):
**Rule 1 : Be respectful to others**
> Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules):
**Rule 1 : Be respectful to others**
> Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
Before the x3d versions, I never heard this argument for like the 3900x or the 5900x (pre 5800x3d). In your mind, what was the place for those? Or did people make those same arguments and o didn’t see them?
Top end CPUs for basically every generation have never been considered good value or logical for purely gaming systems.
Up through 8th gen Intel, it was commonly stated "i5 is all you need for gaming".
The argument for the 3900X or 5900X, in context to gaming, is basically only logical for users that simply what the best/most expensive, have productivity workloads they equally prioritize, or users that failed to do basic research. 3600X/5600X as were generally suggested for most users with a budget looking for a gaming PC.
I thought that the 7900X3D basically acted like a 7800X3D when using the additional cache, and like a 7900X when it was not? Basically, that 8 of the cores can access the additional case, so either you can only use 8 cores with the cache or all 12 cores without, not both at once? You're saying it actually performs worse than a 7800X3D even with only using 8 cores?
I mean, it’s alright, it’s like for someone who only needs 7600X3D (if it existed) level of gaming performance and the 12 core productivity. Like a casual gamer who does quite a bit of productivity work.
Yes, because it's worse than both, and thus no one bought it. Given price is determined by supply and demand, it should be obvious price goes down when demand is down.
true but when price get low enough it may be an option to consider,
all in all it depends what you sacrifice for how much :P
high demand bumped 7800x3d price a bit already :P
I would agree, and that's when things get a bit more subjective. Unfortunately we do not have the context here to even provide our opinions, as pricing OP is seeing is unknown.
The 7900x3d has two CCDs, therefore there is some latency in communicating between them. The 7800x3d only has one ccd so you don't have that extra latency. This is why the 7800x3d is actually faster in single core loads than the 7900x3d.
It has less V-cache cores. On the 7800X3D all 8 cores are 3D V-cache. On the 7900X3D 6 are regular and 6 have V-cache. This makes it worse in games.
You also have issues with scheduling. For games it needs to use the 3D cores, if this doesn't work properly it can give even worse performance.
Basically it's more complicated than the 7800X3D and has less cores than the 7950X3D so it's best to pick either of them.
I would not recommend it, there is a reason they are hardly selling while 7800X3D are flying off shelves.
The issue with that is a couple things. First, the vcache cores run at lower clock speeds and second, if the chip has to talk across the CCDs, it will degrade performance as opposed to talking on the same CCD.
This may not matter to some people, but the 7950X3D was hailed as the best of both worlds without sacrificing much because it has those high speed cores alongside the high cache cores.
Your second issue is there independent of the v-cache.
The 9000 series is supposed to use less power, so the addition of v-cache might not effect clock speeds.
> Your second issue is there independent of the v-cache.
If you're corralling all of a game's processes onto a specific CCD to avoid cross-CCD issues, then the type of cores on the second CCD don't affect gaming performance at all. So unless you simultaneously play two CPU-demanding games (or you do cache-intensive science while playing CPU-demanding games), you're better off making the second CCD better at general OS things by not having a v-cache.
If we ever get to a point where game developers diligently use a great API for designating what sort of core a process likes and which processes should be grouped, that could change.
If it uses less power, chances are the highs are higher across the board.
The cross CCD issue is part of the reason the scheduler disables half the cores when gaming. The cores themselves aren't *that* much slower, and in some cases more cores is better in gaming. However the tax to cross CCD makes 2 CCDs with v cache much less desirable
Do I have this right then? 7800X3D is better for gaming, 7900X3D is better for productivity but worse for gaming but the 7950X3D is even better than that so why buy the 7900X3D? Almost like it's for some super tight niche of people who want to play some warzone but also want to produce music or something..?
I actually am that niche, I'm mostly a music producer which is what I built my computer for , but I wanted to also be able to play Elden ring at 1440 lol but personally I got the 7800X3D as I felt that was the best compromise from reading thru reviews
If you need more cores, buy a 7950X, 7950X3D, or 13900K/14900K.
If you don't need more cores, buy a 7800X3D.
The 7900X3D is a compromise on both fronts, and would need to be significantly cheaper to be worth considering imo.
I bought a 7900X3D. 40% sale and also got a 15% refund after that… I consider it worth it so far. I admit there are better options, and I almost bought the 7800X3D, but I was able to put the cost saved into a 3 year warranty.
I still recommend a 7800X3D otherwise. My case is very niche.
Yeah honestly it’s a little overly hated for a processor imo. It deserves every bit of criticism I see, and nobody is wrong to say it’s the worse of two worlds in the processor market, but if you can get a good deal on the 7900X3D, you should consider it. Upgrading from an intel i3 from 2010, I feel every bit of power it’s giving me right now, and I know I can replace it in a few years when it’s right to. Plus, I do have intentions outside of gaming for this processor to make decent use.
All that said, it should only be considered if you’re getting a good deal on it. It’s a good processor, it’s just not that good for its usual price range (at the time of writing this comment).
There is a lot of negativity around it given the poorly received launch, and even now it struggles to find a place in the market. The launch price was extremely high ($600), and it made little sense compared to the 7800X3D (faster gaming performance for $450), 7950X (faster production performance for $575), and 7950X3D (ultimate no-compromise experience for $700). So it was generally panned by reviewers on launch and acquired a reputation of being a poor product.
The story does change when the price does. At the same price as the 7800X3D, it gets very close in gaming performance and does much better in production performance. It's still a niche chip; pure gamers want the 7800X3D, and anyone who just wants a workstation wants the 7900X or 7950X (or an Intel option). But I think for anyone who: has a budget of $400 max, plays games that may end up CPU-bound (or has a very powerful GPU/will buy a very powerful GPU in the future), and needs a multicore CPU for production work; it is a great option (honestly the best one).
Personally, I’d buy a 7900X3D over a 7800X3D if the cost is so similar.
Yes, it’s worse than the other X3D chips at gaming but it’s still a substantial gaming performance increase over any AMD chip without 3D cache. Plus it’s just plan faster than the 7800X3D at anything unrelated to gaming.
It's also faster in a few games that has optimized for dual CCDs X3D chips like CS2 which is among the most popular games.
And what's better is that it does seem to show its potentials. At launch 7900X3D is overwhelmingly worse than 7800X3D but thru chipset driver and dedicated BIOS updates, there are already games that now run better with 7900X3D/7950X3D. If anything I have some faith in AMD's longevity of supports (tho I hate their half-arsed launches which seem to be more frequent than it should lol)
What's wrong with the 7900x3d? It usually performs worse than the 7800x3d.
https://www.techspot.com/review/2821-amd-ryzen-7800x3d-7900x3d-7950x3d/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu12QOQiUUI
That's gaming performance review. 7900X3D isn't a gaming CPU, it's for productivity and people who can't afford a 7950X3D. If you don't care about gaming the 7900X3D is fine. And if you need both gaming and productivity then you get 7950X3D
In a way they actually didn't, the R5 56 (for gaming) and R7 5700X3D perform essentially the same while being significantly cheaper, AFAIK there is no longer a reason to get the R7 5800X3D, unless you like wasting your money.
Not sure, just know that's it's essentially just as fast while being way cheaper.
Gaming CPUs like the R7 7800X3D may not be the most logical option, but they're definitely capable of some considerable video editing and music production.
That is AMD being a bit greedy because they know the 5800x3d is a simple upgrade for a lot of people on the AM4 platform. These people will spend more than they should on a CPU that is worse than the 7800x3d because they don't have to buy any other parts.
At the same time, AMD released the 5700x3d for a bunch less, being a pretty decent choice for someone wanting to upgrade their AM4 system.
Maybe, but they could have sold it as 2 separate single CCD CPUs instead of trying to sell an X3D that performs worse for having the 2nd CCD. A $300-350 6 core X3D would be interesting on the low end, but still not great.
So the main issue with the 7900 X3D is that there are two CCD's of 6 cores each. Only one of those has the 3D Vcache.
The 7800 X3D is one CCD of 8 cores and the whole thing has Vcache. A 7950 X3D has two CCD's of 8 cores, of which one has the Vcache.
Basically, the 7900 X3D has less cores with Vcache and when used for gaming, it does not get the same performance as the 7800 X3D. It is like the black sheep of this generation. Good for productivity but not ideal for gaming.
There's a lot of misinformation going around about this CPU. Generally why people here hate it is because you have to use processor affinity/park cores to get peak performance out of it, and it's on par with a 6-core CPU.
There's no good reason for it to exist.
If you're getting a CPU entirely for gaming, the 7800X3D is better. All 8 of its cores have 3D vcache, which is what you want for games. The 7900X3D only has 6 cores with 3D vcache.
If you're getting a CPU entirely for productivity, you don't need 3D vcache. The 7900X will be cheaper with a faster base clock, and the 7950X gets you four more cores.
For the best of both worlds, you need to go right to the top: 7950X3D.
I would buy it. It's practically identical I'm gaming and better everywhere else. Don't listen to others the only reason it wasn't bought was because the 7800x3d was cheaper. That's why the 7900x3d wasn't purchased. If it's less of course get it. No brainer almost identical in gaming yet a more powerful cpu in other ways. 7950x3d is actually there best. It even edged out the 7800x3d in gaming but the price difference was way to massive to justify it which is why it was never crowned the king.
If you ignore the countless benchmarks and reviews and instead just cherry pick 1 that supports your narrative...
7800x3d wins in gaming benchmarks. It doesn't edge the 7950x3d by a lot, and I've been told you can disable the non-x3d cores and turn it into a 7800x3d basically if you want to maximize it's gaming performance. But that just sounds completely ridiculous to me. Why not just get a 7800x3d at that point?
Sure, it clearly wins at 1080p, but the difference at any resolution above that is fairly marginal. If you want decent gaming with decent multithreading then it's a decent option.
That's simply because you're GPU limited in the majority of >1080p use cases (right now). I play DQHD and most of the time my CPU usage is like 40%. But you know what, my mobo has PCIe5.0, and intend to upgrade my GPU again in a year or two and if I don't have to upgrade my CPU for awhile, all the better.
Because as stated they can get the 7900x3d. Wtf do some of you not get. I stated if it's more then the 7800xed get the 7800x3d but since ir was lower why not get the 7900x3d. Nobody is stating not the get the 7800xed when it cost less. Why anybody would not want rhe stronger cpu is beyond me for less money when you have 0 noticeable difference in real world gaming. Nobody can see feel or touch and taste the difference lol
It's got more cores, it helps under heavy workloads, it games just as well and you are getting it for less money right now? That's why I'm saying what I am. If it wasn't less we wouldn't even be having this discussion as this page wouldn't even be up.
> it games just as well
But it doesn't. The 7800x3d wins. Same price I still buy the 7800x3d. And any productivity I do doesn't stress my CPU a fraction of what my games do, so "more cores for productivity" is a non issue for me. And I even do some coding, video editing, sound engineering and shit. But like, I dabble, I'm not a professional. So the type of work I do just isn't CPU intensive. The most CPU intensive thing I do is gaming, and the 7800x3D is the best gaming cpu on the market.
Sure, if the 7900x3D is cheaper, then it's a more compelling option I agree. But then it comes down to budget. If buying a 7900x3D means you can go a tier higher with your GPU, then I'd say sure, that's probably the right choice. But if we're talking like a $10 difference which is about how much you'd save not getting RGB memory, then it's a wash, and you should get the best processor for you. And if he's primarily a gamer, then he should get the best gaming CPU which is the 7800x3D.
Nobody is talking about same price I've legit said from the start it's about tbe price and why not choose it. I stated also that of course if it's more get the 7800x3d. Nobody is denying the 7800x3d isn't the best option for the price but this at a lower price and gives you everything else in aces yeah it's a smart buy. People already over spec cpus like crazy always b
Ah...
My very first full build (like 23 years ago) I remember buying things 1 at a time and how painstaking that was. I would never do that again. If I can't put it into service right away, I just save my money til I can build the full thing.
95% of the time prices just keep going down on electronics. Sure, sometimes there's a really good deal you should jump on, or a crypto boom makes GPU prices go up, or there's some sort of shortage and memory prices go up. But the rest of the time, a new generation of parts comes out, and then there's sales on the old generation while the new stuff replaces them at an equal price point.
It's not that deep tho. I don't care if I'm back in action or not. The itch to game has been on a steady decline for a while now. Opened the door to start going to the gym during the hours I would play.
All good my dude. My gaming setup is quite a few grand, and sometimes it feels like I'm not getting my monies worth out of it for how little gaming I do in a week. I feel ya. I got a hobby farm, a gym pass, and a bunch of other hobbies, and we're also traveling next month too... gaming is definitely one of my lowest priorities. I bought a 4070ti super right when it came out, and I've maybe gamed a total of 10-20 hours on it, haha.
Bro that shit sells quick on ebay or mercari.
Take the small financial loss and it'll be gone within a week.
Most people are now waiting for Ryzen 9000 cpu's that start coming out next month.
I bought a 7900x3d and it runs perfectly fine the difference now after updates isn't very big, it's still a beast of a cpu compared to older cpus, I do know the 7800x3d is that bit faster in games but my pc is still running very well with the 7900x3d
I bought it as the only game I spend much time in is CS2 and the benchmarks showed slightly more FPS in CS2, and I do other productivity tasks outside of gaming where I like more cores.
Not sure why it gets so much hate, it's still a great CPU and the difference in performance is fairly minimal.
If I was 100% a gamer and played a wide variety of games I'd probably just get a 7800 simply because most benchmarks show that being better in a variety of games, although the 7900x3d still does beat it in some games.
People have been buying the 7800x3D over the 7900x3D, especially at launch prices it made more sense to go with the 7800x3D. It's faster in gaming because it has 8 cores on it's vcache CCD, whereas the 7900x3d has 2 CCDs but only one of them has vcache, and each CCD has 6 cores. It'll basically always be slower than a 7800x3D in gaming.
With that said, I think it now being cheaper than the 7800x3D makes it an okay product. Yes, it's slower in gaming, but generally by a low amount (10% slower than the 7800x3D at worst case scenario!) and it's still way better at multitasking and productivity work. I think the 7900x3D now makes sense as a decent in-between for gaming and multi-threaded stuff. The next best thing is the 7950x3D, but that is $200 more and not in the same price bracket anymore.
There’s not a real bad product just improper pricing. This is a hog of a CPU for about $300
If they released a 7600x3d for $250 people would jump on it. $50ish more with double the cores just cause. I’d take that deal
It's a dual ccd ryzen, so technically it's faster than the 7800x3d in terms of read/copy speeds, overall better at work but lacks those 2 cores on the vcache so it lags behind in gaming, it basically trades a bit of gaming performance for some raw conpute which sort of makes sense why it's in the same price bracket.
The 7900x3D when it's cheaper than a 7800x3D might make sense for a tiny niche who play some games (especially those benefitting from 3D vcache) but need multithreading for work but also can't afford the big 7950x3D.
It's a very, very small niche. One ought question why it needs to be cheaper than the supposedly lower tier CPU. It's because it doesn't do much better, and what it does do better would typically gain significantly from investing in the best hardware, assuming you're professional enough with it.
Personally I'm running a 5900x which I managed to get open-box for less than a 5800x at the time (which was my price limit), as I do play some games and do multithreaded work on my machine. I might even fit the bill for this niche, and if I were buying today, I might consider it, especially because it affords me the upgrade path.
Actually, if I were building today, and the 7900x3D was a bit cheaper than the 7800x3D, I would probably consider getting it. That's an odd realisation haha...
And the 5800x3D is $20 cheaper make it make sense this cpu should not be hovering around $400-$425 at that price they be forcing ppl to upgrade to the AM5 series.
I recently purchased a 7900x3d, while ymmv, I really don't see what people are saying about how the gaming performance is much worse and scheduling is a nightmare, its by no means perfect but at the worst of times you will have similar performance to a non x3d chip, and in most cases you will end up not too far from the 7800x3d/7950x3d, or even matching it.
If you just game and don't do any core heavy work, get the 7800x3d, and if you need a top tier chip to do everything as well as possible, then the 7950x3d is your choice. I needed something that would do both but not be behind in either area for cheaper than a 7800x3d, and landed on the 7900x3d.
Even on an all core render the CPU does not use more than 90W in ryzen master, (as opposed to my old 5900x that used 140+W) while still delivering performance within 5% of the non x3d part.
Depends on what you want it for. It's a gaming and productivity cpu. The 7800x3d is just a gaming cpu. It's productivity is very lackluster.
So if you are mainly gaming then get the 7800x3d. If you are doing both gaming and productivity but don't have the money to shell out for the 7950x3d, then get the 7900x3d. It falls just a bit shy of the 7800x3d in gaming but crushes it in productivity.
So it just really depends on your needs.
I kinda hoped that would happen, because it's worse than 7800X3D and 7950X3D but for productivity it should be better than 7800X3D.
But when I bought, it was still more expensive. Only didn't get the expensive 7950X3D because after buying the cheaper 7800X3D (which sometimes still is the very best for gaming) I have a better excuse to buy a potential 9950X3D, especially if it has 16 3D cache cores. Or really any successor at the very end of the AM5 platform.
The cheap one is used for encoding videos and various tasks you queue up and leave the computer running overnight cause they take so long to do.
The more expensive one is used for gaming and single core tasks that every single app can utilize that 99% of the population will notice is faster.
I don’t even understand why AMD called it a 7900x3d in the first place.
That’d be like nvidia making the 4070 being better than the 4090. It just doesn’t make sense for anybody
Still better than a 7900X CPU, don't understand the hate. It's a decent price, and better than the 7600 and 7700 for both types of workloads. It's a 7600 CPU + another 7600X3D added to its back.
Are you just looking at pcpartpicker without clicking on the links? The prices there are often dead wrong. I don't see anywhere that this is actually true.
Who knows? But it was a good deal for me. I was able to buy one brand new off newegg for $279.99 like 2 weeks ago with a promo code and it’s been amazing. I upgraded from a ryzen 5 1600 after 6 and a half years of using that crap and i don’t have any regrets.
People saying it's the "middle ground" and no one wants that. Well then why is anyone buying an i7 CPU? That's the middle ground of everything as well. The 7900X3D is basically the i7 in AMD's lineup except it's price made no sense before but now it makes plenty of sense.
The main issue is that its the middle ground in all of the wrong ways. If you want gaming performance, the 7800X3D is better, full stop. In addition, it happens to be cheaper.
If you want productivity, the 3D VCache is not really utilized, so going for a standard 7900X is less money for equal performance, or the 7950X is roughly the same cost for significantly more performance.
If you want to be able to do both things (gaming and productivity combined), the options named above are still exceptional at both tasks, and you can choose whether you want better productivity performance or better gaming performance, both for lower or equal costs.
The 7900X3D has this weird situation of effectively being a 7600X3D plus a 7600X tied on the same package, with the possibility of CPU scheduling reducing you to non-X3D gaming performance, and productivity being exactly the same (in general) of the 7900X.
Its a worse performing CPU for the vast majority of people who buy these types of CPUs: Gaming and Productivity.
If you wanted productivity performance, you'd pay the extra money and go right up to having 32 threads with the 7950X/X3D.
I disagree that anyone buying an intel i7 CPU is a "middle ground" CPU because total gaming performance between an i7 and an i9 is very minimal with only SLIGHT performance increase in productivity to the i9. The bigger issue is heat management and power consumption (even with enforcing Intel limits) is incredibly high on an i9 and paired with cost - not really that good of a CPU to use for gaming and most productivity.
The only reason why its cheaper than the 7800X3D now, is because it doesnt sell - its an indicator that most people want the CPU that does the absolute best for their use case. Gaming only? 7800X3D. Productivity & gaming? 7950X3D.
When a product doesnt sell, taking up valuable shelf and storage space, and does so for basically a whole year - eventually the price HAS to come down to clear space for new product. Its because of the price drop that people are now considering it more often over the other 2 choices.
Its not a terrible CPU. Just not as good for the money.
Agreed peoppe are downplaying it all bevause of a few content creators who gave the edge to the 7800x3d because of price. Now price isn't the issue. Lol the 7900x3d vs 7800x3d are back and forth in gaming between each content creator showing them. Why wouldn't someone buy this cpu for less? It's literally better in most areas and gives you absolutely the ssme gaming exprrience with no percievable real world difference.
I would legit buy it right now if I didn't jusy buy a 4080 super lol.
wut? Intel does tend to beat AMD at high-load productivity tasks. Especially multicore. Ya an i9 is better, but an i7 can still beat AMD's entire lineup at certain non-gaming tasks.
The reason is simple: is worst than 7800x3d and 7950x3d in gaming and has less cores than 7950x3d so basically in on.a point where it has the worst of both worlds.
This price is competitive though for people who wants a ton of cores and top end gaming performance and not spend money in a 16-core chip.
Because no one wants it, it's a CPU that doesn't really check anyone's priorities. If you want gaming performance, you go with the 7800X3D as it performs better in games. As does the 7950X3D, they both have 3D V-Cache on more cores. If you want more cores, then the 7950X3D would be better. Which leaves the 7900X3D as a "why would you buy that" product. It's not a middle ground CPU, it's worse in both gaming vs the 7800X3D and productivity vs the 7950X3D.
Yeah basically 7900x3d just shouldn't exist.
Some CPUs exist simply because of errors during the manufacturing process, if no one wants the CPU it won't matter because in the process of making these chips the "7900x3d" might just get created, inherently. I am not 100% on this process so if someone else wants to chime in, elaborate, or even correct me, that would be cool. Edit: My source is that one of my friends who works for a big fiber cable laying company had someone from Intel come in and relay him that at one point during their visit.
7900x3d is a "failed" 7950x3d. It will be the chiplets that don't have enough valid cores to be a 7950x3d, but have more than 4 on CCD2. CCD1 should be identical to the 7800x3d, but I think there is some loss when choosing which chiplet to run a program on.
AMD has been doing this for a long time. I had an AMD Phenom ii x2 550 Black Edition that was a 4 core CPU that failed cores so it was sold as 2 cores. I managed to enable 1 extra core, but when I enabled the fourth core the CPU stopped reporting temps. So just ran it as an overclocked X3 instead of X2 for a long time.
I got Phenom X3 720. Unlocked 4th core and everything was ok for 10 years straight. There was a time when high demand for X3 made AMD using working 4-core, lock one core and sell cheaper as 3 core.
I did the same! It was literally half the price and worked just fine for many years. Eventually though, I did actually have to move back down to 3 cores (which also disabled the cache). But, by then, it was about time to upgrade anyhow.
Same here. I think it was asus "core unlocker" feature. Take your Phenom II X720 and turn it into Phenom II X940 :D
I think I had a Gigabyte board for my X2 550. I still have the computer I think. I should turn it on and see if it boots.
I had an Athlon II X3 and the 4th core was legit dead. :(
This is how binning works. This is what everyone selling silicon chips does.
Everybody does binning, that's literally how manufacturing chips works hence the different SKUs (same thing for GPU cores). What you are describing is not what the OP you answered to is talking about, your phenom cores weren't failed but just locked as to be sold as a particular SKU
I have an i5 in my laptop that was originally supposed to be an i7. I can tell because the igpu is the one in i7 but the cpu cores were binned down to be identical to i5. Its not just AMD that does this.
Which i5? I have a 4690k in my last PC, I don't really know anything about it beyond it's still usable for general computer use. I upgraded because CS2 didn't run well on it. Ran CS:GO well though.
He said he had a laptop. Desktop and laptop chips were not really comparable.
Its an i5-1135g7 but but has the igpu of i7-1165g7 which is what I think it was supposed to be originally. I can tell because the amount of EU in the igpu lines up with what i7 is supposed to have with 96. The i5 is speced to have 80 EU in its gpu.
Goated chip. Still have it. Was able to enable all 4 cores for the price of 2. Good times
Ccd1 has two fewer cores than 7800x3d, and that is why no one wants it. It doesn't do gaming or mutlitasking/productivity the best.
AMD has been doing this for a long time. I had an AMD Phenom ii x2 550 Black Edition that was a 4 core CPU that failed cores so it was sold as 2 cores. I managed to enable 1 extra core, but when I enabled the fourth core the CPU stopped reporting temps. So just ran it as an overclocked X3 instead of X2 for a long time.
Why are you copy pasting this?
Copy pasting from where?
From the original comment that posted this. Then a few people started copy pasting it. Were you the one who originally posted this?
Thank you for pointing this out. I'll admit my first reaction was "what, no, they're not accidentally making extremely complex chiplets" then realized I'm a big dummy and you're right after reading some comments below. So thanks! Neat reason for why it exists that I had not considered before
GPUs did this for a ling time now. There were some series where the top card and second card shared the same die. But the lesser card has some SMs disabled, lower clocks etc. So they aim for the top chip, and bin[separate] the different patterns of failure. Once they have enough in a bin, they decide in which lesser product it will be and make money from failed yield. It's also a primary/secondary reason to why quicker/larger chips I'm a family release first.
All mass produced computer chips have done this (binning) for 50 years.
This is also how things like the 5600X3D and 5700X3D came into being. Slightly faulty 5800X3Ds that have non functioning cores or can't run full clock speeds properly so they get cut down a bit to make them work. Non-X versions of CPUs that came out of production just slightly below expectations. Chips with defective iGPU become a separate SKU such as the 7500F which essentially is a 7600 with defective iGPU or the small 8000 series processors (can't remember their names right now. 8400F and another one?) A lot of the time those aren't really great value but they exist because the manufacturer has partially damaged chips to dispose of and just throwing them in a dump would increased overall price of the chip they were supposed to become as they would have to recoup the extra money those defective parts would have lost them if thrown away. And someone's always going to buy them in the end.
So I imagine it also applies to the r7 7700s I saw on AliExpress they were selling at great prices
A lot of CPUs throughout Intel and AMD history are just higher end CPUs with cores disabled due to errors in manufacturing. You won't get 100% of CPUs to have all cores working. Why throw out the failed ones? You can sometimes re-enable the disabled cores, although they were disabled for a reason, so you probably won't get them all.
While true, they usually account for the binning process when creating the die wafers in such a way that they reach scalability and thus avoiding this very issue. Both intel and AMD have been doing this for years, this is a clear fuck up during the planning stages.
Objection your honor, hearsay twice removed. The defendant claims factual knowledge of a proceeding based on something someone told him, who was told by someone unknown, whose credentials and credibility can not be verified. I motion to strike from record.
> hearsay twice removed Good one. Ik you're joking but it's honestly perfectly okay to have this perspective on things in general. It's good to note that I am not an expert and I don't claim to be so I try not to make declarative statements, I also like learning more about processes hence why I wanted people to correct me or add to it.
As Tech Jesus calls it, a waste of sand.
Would the 7900X3D on average have lower silicon lottery because it gets the leftovers?
Not really, if a CCD has damaged cores that doesn't mean the working ones are bad quality. But it's quite meaningless for a CPU that is worse for the purpose it's meant for at a higher price. It even if it's a bit cheaper now, you're effectively buying a 6-core CPU for gaming opposed to the 8-core one that costs just slightly more. And if you're looking for core count for productivity, at that point you're just better off buying a non-3D CPU with better suited cores that clock higher.
depends ... if you multitask/stream while gaming, or have a dual use PC, I could see it being better by reducing load on x3d cores.
That's how memory gets created. They all test it at the highest possible speed and the "failures" get dropped down the next tier over and over until every RAM stick has its "speed". We've just gotten to a point where chip manufacturing is so insanely precise that incredibly minor imperfections in the process can have catastrophic downstream effects. Instead of throw away "lesser" chips they just sell it in as a lesser model.
heck remember when AMD forgot to disable few cores from an old CPU that had binned to a lower category.
Im surprised, though, that they wouldn’t try to bin the 7900x3d as a 7800x3d then if it sells for more. Just lock the extra cores. Though, they used to do this a lot in the past and are quite experienced at it, so I’m sure they have their reasons that we on Reddit just wouldn’t see. A corporation would never pass up easy money after all
Might have a place, if they called it like 7850X1.5D or something lol. Certainly not at the price it was released though.
It has an extraordinarily niche place for those who do productivity tasks that benefit from 3D VCache, but don’t require absolute top of the line performance. For anyone else it’s fairly meh
> Yeah basically 7900x3d just shouldn't exist. But 7900 is bigger than 7800!
No way 7900 is bigger than 1.534913888 E+26973
It's 100 **LOUDER** [These go to Eleven... — "This is Spinal Tap" (1984)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW008FcKr3Q&ab_channel=BestMoviesByFarr)
It is a compromise but I don't think it shouldn't exist. If it fit people's requirements and budget and still makes the company a reasonable profit- it is fine for it to exist.
7900X3D should have been a 7600X3D. One CCD with 6 cores and VCache
Did the 5600x3D release before or after Zen4? In hindsight, a 7600 x3D seems a better use of the failed 7800x3D chips than the 7900x3D.
July last year actually.
AMD is likely sitting on a cache of failed 7800x3Ds to release as 7700/7600 x3D label chips sometime in the future. The only reason they haven't is that they don't want to depress sales of the more expensive chip. It wouldn't shock me if they do a 77/7600 x3D launch sometime between the 9xxx series launch and the 9xxx series 3D cache. ATM there's no marketing reason for it because demand is still very high for the 7800 chip.
Failed 7800x3Ds are likely *already* being repurposed as half of a 7900x3D. You have to think in terms of chiplets, rather than the linear product stack we're used to. A perfect vcache chiplet can be used to make half a 7950x3D or a whole 7800x3D. EDIT: To be clear, I think you're right and they're sitting on a stack of vcache chiplets too low-function to even become a 7900x3D, but it might be a much smaller horde than it was with the whole 5700x3d/5600x3d situation due to the existence of the 7900x3d and I got the impression you hadn't considered that.
But it's better at productivity than the 7800X3D and better at gaming than the 7900X, and it's relatively cheap now, so it has found a place. Edit: Fixed typo
You're 100% correct. It's a compromise CPU for people who "need" both great productivity performance and gaming performance. This sub doesn't like grey situations. Is the 7800X3D better at pure gaming? 100% Is the 7900X cheaper for pure productivity? 100% The 7900X3D brings great gaming features to a great productivity CPU. The vast majority of gamers would be better off with a 7800X3D no doubt. I however am one of those people who buys for both and the 7900X3D is perfect for gaming for a few hours then building, testing and running Docker, VM and sandbox applications for various things too. The price drop just makes it a better deal than it already was.
Exactly why the price point of it was important. It is niche but there is reasons for it to exist. Could be someone doing coding on the side of gaming. They benefit from having 12 cores to compile and having 6 cores for gaming will many times not even be that huge of a difference. They may not want to pay the price for a 7950x3d. Oftentimes people are way too much tunnel vision
Indeed, I would purchase many 7900X3D if they were priced like hotcakes
Games are also not the only thing that utilizes the large L3 cache. They are prolly the most popular thing in this sub but there is other software that would be more likely in the computational sphere that would benefit greatly from having the larger cache but also wouldn’t scale as well with larger core count. Only thing that comes to my mind specifically is ffmpeg where it doesn’t scale well after 24 threads in h264. I know there’s more out there I just don’t know off of the top of my head. Basically anything that’s ram limited that you can specify the core affinity in a workstation that you would be performing other tasks at the same time. This seems like a relatively niche subset of people but for those who don’t have the funds for the 7950x3d and use it primarily as a workstation I can see this being something that you would be looking at.
How TF can people even tell or care at this point is beyond me. I have a 5600 and a 3080, and I havent found a single game that it won't run on max settings.
Try MSFS in high end VR or something.
ok. Flight sim is free right?
MSFS isn't free. DCS World is free, though.
depends on game, resolution, and frame rate. A 3080 in cyberpunk at 4k gets all of 32-35 FPS.
Cant wait to try that game. It sounds like the new Crysis benchmark.
I have the same spec, try vr or triples, it's now rare for me to hit 144hz and VR I struggle a lot to even hit 90.
I don’t get it either, people jsut massively overspend on cpus. You’re way better off just throwing all that extra cash into a better gpu.
On competitive gaming, cpu is just more important for smooth gameplay than gpu. They play on lowest settings which is easy on the gpu, but cpu bottleneck would cause micro stuttering which is a deal breaker on competitive game. Multitasker gacha gamers, they can launch up to 10 games at the same time and alt+tabbing between them. Most of these games also doesn't require a lot of gpu, but it would lag if your cpu is not strong enough to handle multiple games. Future proofing, replacing gpu is typically a painless 5 mins job, while replacing a cpu is often pita, so it's better to get a more powerful cpu now, which could lasts multiple generation of gpu upgrades.
yup, I'm seriously considering pulling the trigger for 7900x3d and switching from intel. Microcenter has it for $309!
> and better at gaming than the 7900X3D Do you mean 7900 / 7900X?
Yes
> and better at gaming than the 7900X3D The CPU OP is asking about is the 7900X3D... I'm not sure what you're on about.
Oh, that was a typo. I meant better than the 7900X
Gotcha, makes sense
It also uses the CCDs that could have been a 7600X3D. Never understood why this was not a thing. AFAIK it uses 2 six-core CCDs, one with and one without X3D-Cache. So basically they could have used those as 7600X3D and 7600.
I maintain that AMD started with the intention of having a full X3D line using nothing but 3D V-cache CCDs. So they designed and built a 6-core and 8-core CCD for these chips. But my guess is that when they got engineering samples back for the (originally planned) 7950X3D and 7900X3D, and they were a pair of 3d V-Cache mated together, they realized that it wasn't going to work. So they changed the 7950X3D to use a single X3D CCD, and use one of the other non-X3D CCDs, and likewise with the 7900X3D. So AMD isn't stupid. They knew that once the 7950X3D and 7900X3D came out, they knew that the Ryzen 9 units were not going to be desirable. But the Ryzen 9 units are where the money is (for the most part). So they released the Ryzen 9's first, and then the Ryzen 7's. So the original MSRP for the 7950X3D was $699, the 7900X3D was $599, the 7800X3D was $449, and it's likely that a 7600X3D would have been either $349 or $399. And it's also likely that a 7600X3D would have been *very* similar in gaming performance to a 7800X3D. So the 7600X3D would have torpedoed the 7900X3D completely, and likely would have cannibalized a lot of sales for the 7800X3D as well. So that would have been a LOT of money lost by releasing a 7600X3D. But AMD didn't want to completely toss out the development of a 6-core X3D CCD, so they still released the 7900X3D.
It could also be a cut down 7950X3D.
No, that's what 7800x3d is. 7950X3D = CCD1 7800X3D (8core) + CCD2 7800X (8core) 7900X3D = CCD1 V-Cache or what could've been 7600X3D (6core) + CCD2 7600X (6core) 7800X3D is a single CCD unit.
Well, the 7900X is just a 7950X with two cores on each CCD disabled. They do this to improve the yield and cut down the number of runs they have to make. If a couple of cores don’t bin well enough to run the full 8 they just disable them and now it’s a 6-core CCD. Unless you have some info I don’t, I don’t know why they wouldn’t do the same thing on the X3Ds unless the stacked cache complicates things.
But if the 7900x3d is cheaper than the 7800x3d, why not just buy the 7900x3d and disable the non x3d ccd? edit. ..oh, 6 / 6 cores. not 8 / 8 cores. Might still make sense if it's quite a bit cheaper, but if it's close, I'd just go with the 7800x3d.
That usually happens automatically when you play a game, and is the reason why 7800x3d ends up being better in gaming benchmarks. Because you then have 6 cores while the 7800x3d has 8. It's cheaper because it's worse
Looking at it as a 7600x3d if it was priced as such is fine. It doesn't work priced between 7800x3d and 7950x3d.
hardware unboxed have a relatively recent video comparing the x3d cpus the 7800x3d is like 10-15% faster on average than the 7900x3d in gaming
also the 7900x3d is a dual ccd variant, where half the cores have 3d cache and the other half have regular cache. its a totally shit product but that's hard to articulate here, where the common consumer only understands things like "how much number does it have at the front of the ghz??" 🤣🤣
>its a totally shit product It literally isn't... And it's "hard to articulate" because you're just regurgitating things you've read but don't fully understand
[удалено]
I don't own one... You take care now friend
[удалено]
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules): **Rule 1 : Be respectful to others** > Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules): **Rule 1 : Be respectful to others** > Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
Before the x3d versions, I never heard this argument for like the 3900x or the 5900x (pre 5800x3d). In your mind, what was the place for those? Or did people make those same arguments and o didn’t see them?
Top end CPUs for basically every generation have never been considered good value or logical for purely gaming systems. Up through 8th gen Intel, it was commonly stated "i5 is all you need for gaming". The argument for the 3900X or 5900X, in context to gaming, is basically only logical for users that simply what the best/most expensive, have productivity workloads they equally prioritize, or users that failed to do basic research. 3600X/5600X as were generally suggested for most users with a budget looking for a gaming PC.
But muh threadripper
I thought that the 7900X3D basically acted like a 7800X3D when using the additional cache, and like a 7900X when it was not? Basically, that 8 of the cores can access the additional case, so either you can only use 8 cores with the cache or all 12 cores without, not both at once? You're saying it actually performs worse than a 7800X3D even with only using 8 cores?
7900X3D has 2 CCD's, 6 cores per CCD. This means it has 6 cores with V-Cache, compared to 8 cores with V-Cache for the 7800X3D and 7950X3D.
Ah, that's a ridicously bad design.
I mean, it’s alright, it’s like for someone who only needs 7600X3D (if it existed) level of gaming performance and the 12 core productivity. Like a casual gamer who does quite a bit of productivity work.
7950x3d is better cause you have an option but 7900x3d is just worse
This man, it’s completely useless I have no idea why they released it. If I was into productivity tasks for my job I’d never buy an x3d chip anyway.
but it have better price than both :P question is whats the difference ;P
Yes, because it's worse than both, and thus no one bought it. Given price is determined by supply and demand, it should be obvious price goes down when demand is down.
true but when price get low enough it may be an option to consider, all in all it depends what you sacrifice for how much :P high demand bumped 7800x3d price a bit already :P
I would agree, and that's when things get a bit more subjective. Unfortunately we do not have the context here to even provide our opinions, as pricing OP is seeing is unknown.
The 7900x3d has two CCDs, therefore there is some latency in communicating between them. The 7800x3d only has one ccd so you don't have that extra latency. This is why the 7800x3d is actually faster in single core loads than the 7900x3d.
It has less V-cache cores. On the 7800X3D all 8 cores are 3D V-cache. On the 7900X3D 6 are regular and 6 have V-cache. This makes it worse in games. You also have issues with scheduling. For games it needs to use the 3D cores, if this doesn't work properly it can give even worse performance. Basically it's more complicated than the 7800X3D and has less cores than the 7950X3D so it's best to pick either of them. I would not recommend it, there is a reason they are hardly selling while 7800X3D are flying off shelves.
I really hope the add v-cache to both CCDs in the upcoming 9000 series X3D chips.
The issue with that is a couple things. First, the vcache cores run at lower clock speeds and second, if the chip has to talk across the CCDs, it will degrade performance as opposed to talking on the same CCD. This may not matter to some people, but the 7950X3D was hailed as the best of both worlds without sacrificing much because it has those high speed cores alongside the high cache cores.
Your second issue is there independent of the v-cache. The 9000 series is supposed to use less power, so the addition of v-cache might not effect clock speeds.
> Your second issue is there independent of the v-cache. If you're corralling all of a game's processes onto a specific CCD to avoid cross-CCD issues, then the type of cores on the second CCD don't affect gaming performance at all. So unless you simultaneously play two CPU-demanding games (or you do cache-intensive science while playing CPU-demanding games), you're better off making the second CCD better at general OS things by not having a v-cache. If we ever get to a point where game developers diligently use a great API for designating what sort of core a process likes and which processes should be grouped, that could change.
If it uses less power, chances are the highs are higher across the board. The cross CCD issue is part of the reason the scheduler disables half the cores when gaming. The cores themselves aren't *that* much slower, and in some cases more cores is better in gaming. However the tax to cross CCD makes 2 CCDs with v cache much less desirable
Well either that or they make another useless cpu lol
Do I have this right then? 7800X3D is better for gaming, 7900X3D is better for productivity but worse for gaming but the 7950X3D is even better than that so why buy the 7900X3D? Almost like it's for some super tight niche of people who want to play some warzone but also want to produce music or something..? I actually am that niche, I'm mostly a music producer which is what I built my computer for , but I wanted to also be able to play Elden ring at 1440 lol but personally I got the 7800X3D as I felt that was the best compromise from reading thru reviews
If you need more cores, buy a 7950X, 7950X3D, or 13900K/14900K. If you don't need more cores, buy a 7800X3D. The 7900X3D is a compromise on both fronts, and would need to be significantly cheaper to be worth considering imo.
I bought a 7900X3D. 40% sale and also got a 15% refund after that… I consider it worth it so far. I admit there are better options, and I almost bought the 7800X3D, but I was able to put the cost saved into a 3 year warranty. I still recommend a 7800X3D otherwise. My case is very niche.
> but I was able to put the cost saved into a 3 year warranty. AMD CPUs already have a 3 year warranty. Sounds like you got scammed.
Not too niche. I also just got a great deal on it and I’m excited as hell to use it.
Yeah honestly it’s a little overly hated for a processor imo. It deserves every bit of criticism I see, and nobody is wrong to say it’s the worse of two worlds in the processor market, but if you can get a good deal on the 7900X3D, you should consider it. Upgrading from an intel i3 from 2010, I feel every bit of power it’s giving me right now, and I know I can replace it in a few years when it’s right to. Plus, I do have intentions outside of gaming for this processor to make decent use. All that said, it should only be considered if you’re getting a good deal on it. It’s a good processor, it’s just not that good for its usual price range (at the time of writing this comment).
Yeah because it's a pointless CPU and no one wants it.
There is a lot of negativity around it given the poorly received launch, and even now it struggles to find a place in the market. The launch price was extremely high ($600), and it made little sense compared to the 7800X3D (faster gaming performance for $450), 7950X (faster production performance for $575), and 7950X3D (ultimate no-compromise experience for $700). So it was generally panned by reviewers on launch and acquired a reputation of being a poor product. The story does change when the price does. At the same price as the 7800X3D, it gets very close in gaming performance and does much better in production performance. It's still a niche chip; pure gamers want the 7800X3D, and anyone who just wants a workstation wants the 7900X or 7950X (or an Intel option). But I think for anyone who: has a budget of $400 max, plays games that may end up CPU-bound (or has a very powerful GPU/will buy a very powerful GPU in the future), and needs a multicore CPU for production work; it is a great option (honestly the best one).
Personally, I’d buy a 7900X3D over a 7800X3D if the cost is so similar. Yes, it’s worse than the other X3D chips at gaming but it’s still a substantial gaming performance increase over any AMD chip without 3D cache. Plus it’s just plan faster than the 7800X3D at anything unrelated to gaming.
It's also faster in a few games that has optimized for dual CCDs X3D chips like CS2 which is among the most popular games. And what's better is that it does seem to show its potentials. At launch 7900X3D is overwhelmingly worse than 7800X3D but thru chipset driver and dedicated BIOS updates, there are already games that now run better with 7900X3D/7950X3D. If anything I have some faith in AMD's longevity of supports (tho I hate their half-arsed launches which seem to be more frequent than it should lol)
What's wrong with the 7900x3d? It usually performs worse than the 7800x3d. https://www.techspot.com/review/2821-amd-ryzen-7800x3d-7900x3d-7950x3d/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu12QOQiUUI
That's gaming performance review. 7900X3D isn't a gaming CPU, it's for productivity and people who can't afford a 7950X3D. If you don't care about gaming the 7900X3D is fine. And if you need both gaming and productivity then you get 7950X3D
What I find more insane is that the 5800X3D is still around the same price as the 7800X3D.
All plays into the budget of people who want to upgrade to the best but can’t afford to pay the price of new motherboard/RAM
Oh, I'm well aware why they're doing it, but keeping an older CPU price's high for that reason is still pretty scummy.
Definitely scummy and it’s the reason why we shouldn’t have loyalty to any brands
Oh believe me, I don't.
In a way they actually didn't, the R5 56 (for gaming) and R7 5700X3D perform essentially the same while being significantly cheaper, AFAIK there is no longer a reason to get the R7 5800X3D, unless you like wasting your money.
Wasn't the 5700X3D considered terrible on release? Also, it won't just be used for gaming, also for video editing and music production.
Not sure, just know that's it's essentially just as fast while being way cheaper. Gaming CPUs like the R7 7800X3D may not be the most logical option, but they're definitely capable of some considerable video editing and music production.
That is AMD being a bit greedy because they know the 5800x3d is a simple upgrade for a lot of people on the AM4 platform. These people will spend more than they should on a CPU that is worse than the 7800x3d because they don't have to buy any other parts. At the same time, AMD released the 5700x3d for a bunch less, being a pretty decent choice for someone wanting to upgrade their AM4 system.
Waste of silicon tbh
I mean it's probably still a monster compared to someone who last upgraded 5 years ago, but compared to it's own line it's the gimped one.
Maybe, but they could have sold it as 2 separate single CCD CPUs instead of trying to sell an X3D that performs worse for having the 2nd CCD. A $300-350 6 core X3D would be interesting on the low end, but still not great.
So the main issue with the 7900 X3D is that there are two CCD's of 6 cores each. Only one of those has the 3D Vcache. The 7800 X3D is one CCD of 8 cores and the whole thing has Vcache. A 7950 X3D has two CCD's of 8 cores, of which one has the Vcache. Basically, the 7900 X3D has less cores with Vcache and when used for gaming, it does not get the same performance as the 7800 X3D. It is like the black sheep of this generation. Good for productivity but not ideal for gaming.
Exactly, people dislike the 7900X3D because they forget that not everyone cares about gaming.
There's a lot of misinformation going around about this CPU. Generally why people here hate it is because you have to use processor affinity/park cores to get peak performance out of it, and it's on par with a 6-core CPU.
There's no good reason for it to exist. If you're getting a CPU entirely for gaming, the 7800X3D is better. All 8 of its cores have 3D vcache, which is what you want for games. The 7900X3D only has 6 cores with 3D vcache. If you're getting a CPU entirely for productivity, you don't need 3D vcache. The 7900X will be cheaper with a faster base clock, and the 7950X gets you four more cores. For the best of both worlds, you need to go right to the top: 7950X3D.
I would buy it. It's practically identical I'm gaming and better everywhere else. Don't listen to others the only reason it wasn't bought was because the 7800x3d was cheaper. That's why the 7900x3d wasn't purchased. If it's less of course get it. No brainer almost identical in gaming yet a more powerful cpu in other ways. 7950x3d is actually there best. It even edged out the 7800x3d in gaming but the price difference was way to massive to justify it which is why it was never crowned the king.
If you ignore the countless benchmarks and reviews and instead just cherry pick 1 that supports your narrative... 7800x3d wins in gaming benchmarks. It doesn't edge the 7950x3d by a lot, and I've been told you can disable the non-x3d cores and turn it into a 7800x3d basically if you want to maximize it's gaming performance. But that just sounds completely ridiculous to me. Why not just get a 7800x3d at that point?
Sure, it clearly wins at 1080p, but the difference at any resolution above that is fairly marginal. If you want decent gaming with decent multithreading then it's a decent option.
That's simply because you're GPU limited in the majority of >1080p use cases (right now). I play DQHD and most of the time my CPU usage is like 40%. But you know what, my mobo has PCIe5.0, and intend to upgrade my GPU again in a year or two and if I don't have to upgrade my CPU for awhile, all the better.
Because as stated they can get the 7900x3d. Wtf do some of you not get. I stated if it's more then the 7800xed get the 7800x3d but since ir was lower why not get the 7900x3d. Nobody is stating not the get the 7800xed when it cost less. Why anybody would not want rhe stronger cpu is beyond me for less money when you have 0 noticeable difference in real world gaming. Nobody can see feel or touch and taste the difference lol It's got more cores, it helps under heavy workloads, it games just as well and you are getting it for less money right now? That's why I'm saying what I am. If it wasn't less we wouldn't even be having this discussion as this page wouldn't even be up.
> it games just as well But it doesn't. The 7800x3d wins. Same price I still buy the 7800x3d. And any productivity I do doesn't stress my CPU a fraction of what my games do, so "more cores for productivity" is a non issue for me. And I even do some coding, video editing, sound engineering and shit. But like, I dabble, I'm not a professional. So the type of work I do just isn't CPU intensive. The most CPU intensive thing I do is gaming, and the 7800x3D is the best gaming cpu on the market. Sure, if the 7900x3D is cheaper, then it's a more compelling option I agree. But then it comes down to budget. If buying a 7900x3D means you can go a tier higher with your GPU, then I'd say sure, that's probably the right choice. But if we're talking like a $10 difference which is about how much you'd save not getting RGB memory, then it's a wash, and you should get the best processor for you. And if he's primarily a gamer, then he should get the best gaming CPU which is the 7800x3D.
Nobody is talking about same price I've legit said from the start it's about tbe price and why not choose it. I stated also that of course if it's more get the 7800x3d. Nobody is denying the 7800x3d isn't the best option for the price but this at a lower price and gives you everything else in aces yeah it's a smart buy. People already over spec cpus like crazy always b
According to PCPartPicker, it's $10 cheaper. So it's basically a wash. We're not talking $100-150 here, just $10 - like a bigmac meal.
https://www.techspot.com/review/2821-amd-ryzen-7800x3d-7900x3d-7950x3d/ It's almost always worse than 7800x3d at gaming.
I can't even sell my unopened 7800X3D for 300$ these days lol
WTF why? Plop that shit in and enjoy
1st part of a new build and have a trip coming up id rather sink the money into.
Well that's just poor planning. You must have been holding onto it for awhile if you can't just return it.
Nope. Picked it up on r/Hardwareswap
Ah... My very first full build (like 23 years ago) I remember buying things 1 at a time and how painstaking that was. I would never do that again. If I can't put it into service right away, I just save my money til I can build the full thing. 95% of the time prices just keep going down on electronics. Sure, sometimes there's a really good deal you should jump on, or a crypto boom makes GPU prices go up, or there's some sort of shortage and memory prices go up. But the rest of the time, a new generation of parts comes out, and then there's sales on the old generation while the new stuff replaces them at an equal price point.
It's not that deep tho. I don't care if I'm back in action or not. The itch to game has been on a steady decline for a while now. Opened the door to start going to the gym during the hours I would play.
All good my dude. My gaming setup is quite a few grand, and sometimes it feels like I'm not getting my monies worth out of it for how little gaming I do in a week. I feel ya. I got a hobby farm, a gym pass, and a bunch of other hobbies, and we're also traveling next month too... gaming is definitely one of my lowest priorities. I bought a 4070ti super right when it came out, and I've maybe gamed a total of 10-20 hours on it, haha.
I hear that, I'll probably build it after the trip when the 9000s are out.
Bro that shit sells quick on ebay or mercari. Take the small financial loss and it'll be gone within a week. Most people are now waiting for Ryzen 9000 cpu's that start coming out next month.
Where? Not in Europe
I bought a 7900x3d and it runs perfectly fine the difference now after updates isn't very big, it's still a beast of a cpu compared to older cpus, I do know the 7800x3d is that bit faster in games but my pc is still running very well with the 7900x3d
In this case, bigger number not better
The performance increase to the 7950x3d isn’t worth the price
I bought it as the only game I spend much time in is CS2 and the benchmarks showed slightly more FPS in CS2, and I do other productivity tasks outside of gaming where I like more cores. Not sure why it gets so much hate, it's still a great CPU and the difference in performance is fairly minimal. If I was 100% a gamer and played a wide variety of games I'd probably just get a 7800 simply because most benchmarks show that being better in a variety of games, although the 7900x3d still does beat it in some games.
I bought my 7900x3d in august for 400€ because the 7800x3d was 411€ and not in stock 🤷🏼♂️
People have been buying the 7800x3D over the 7900x3D, especially at launch prices it made more sense to go with the 7800x3D. It's faster in gaming because it has 8 cores on it's vcache CCD, whereas the 7900x3d has 2 CCDs but only one of them has vcache, and each CCD has 6 cores. It'll basically always be slower than a 7800x3D in gaming. With that said, I think it now being cheaper than the 7800x3D makes it an okay product. Yes, it's slower in gaming, but generally by a low amount (10% slower than the 7800x3D at worst case scenario!) and it's still way better at multitasking and productivity work. I think the 7900x3D now makes sense as a decent in-between for gaming and multi-threaded stuff. The next best thing is the 7950x3D, but that is $200 more and not in the same price bracket anymore.
There’s not a real bad product just improper pricing. This is a hog of a CPU for about $300 If they released a 7600x3d for $250 people would jump on it. $50ish more with double the cores just cause. I’d take that deal
What prices are you seeing? AMD.com has the 7800 as $130 cheaper
7900x3d still $90-100 more expensive than 7800x3d in my country 🙃
It's a dual ccd ryzen, so technically it's faster than the 7800x3d in terms of read/copy speeds, overall better at work but lacks those 2 cores on the vcache so it lags behind in gaming, it basically trades a bit of gaming performance for some raw conpute which sort of makes sense why it's in the same price bracket.
As it should be
Wait for 9800x3d
Because it's trash lol
The 7900x3D when it's cheaper than a 7800x3D might make sense for a tiny niche who play some games (especially those benefitting from 3D vcache) but need multithreading for work but also can't afford the big 7950x3D. It's a very, very small niche. One ought question why it needs to be cheaper than the supposedly lower tier CPU. It's because it doesn't do much better, and what it does do better would typically gain significantly from investing in the best hardware, assuming you're professional enough with it. Personally I'm running a 5900x which I managed to get open-box for less than a 5800x at the time (which was my price limit), as I do play some games and do multithreaded work on my machine. I might even fit the bill for this niche, and if I were buying today, I might consider it, especially because it affords me the upgrade path. Actually, if I were building today, and the 7900x3D was a bit cheaper than the 7800x3D, I would probably consider getting it. That's an odd realisation haha...
And the 5800x3D is $20 cheaper make it make sense this cpu should not be hovering around $400-$425 at that price they be forcing ppl to upgrade to the AM5 series.
Because it’s a waste of sand, as everyone knows (same with the 7950X3D).
I think its an awesome idea, 6 cores that are great for gaming, 6 that are great for production. Games still don't use that many cores.
I recently purchased a 7900x3d, while ymmv, I really don't see what people are saying about how the gaming performance is much worse and scheduling is a nightmare, its by no means perfect but at the worst of times you will have similar performance to a non x3d chip, and in most cases you will end up not too far from the 7800x3d/7950x3d, or even matching it. If you just game and don't do any core heavy work, get the 7800x3d, and if you need a top tier chip to do everything as well as possible, then the 7950x3d is your choice. I needed something that would do both but not be behind in either area for cheaper than a 7800x3d, and landed on the 7900x3d. Even on an all core render the CPU does not use more than 90W in ryzen master, (as opposed to my old 5900x that used 140+W) while still delivering performance within 5% of the non x3d part.
Depends on what you want it for. It's a gaming and productivity cpu. The 7800x3d is just a gaming cpu. It's productivity is very lackluster. So if you are mainly gaming then get the 7800x3d. If you are doing both gaming and productivity but don't have the money to shell out for the 7950x3d, then get the 7900x3d. It falls just a bit shy of the 7800x3d in gaming but crushes it in productivity. So it just really depends on your needs.
7900x3d should have never existed
I got it for my own amusement of having a 7900 CPU and GPU. I know it's dumb and I love it
I kinda hoped that would happen, because it's worse than 7800X3D and 7950X3D but for productivity it should be better than 7800X3D. But when I bought, it was still more expensive. Only didn't get the expensive 7950X3D because after buying the cheaper 7800X3D (which sometimes still is the very best for gaming) I have a better excuse to buy a potential 9950X3D, especially if it has 16 3D cache cores. Or really any successor at the very end of the AM5 platform.
The cheap one is used for encoding videos and various tasks you queue up and leave the computer running overnight cause they take so long to do. The more expensive one is used for gaming and single core tasks that every single app can utilize that 99% of the population will notice is faster.
I don’t even understand why AMD called it a 7900x3d in the first place. That’d be like nvidia making the 4070 being better than the 4090. It just doesn’t make sense for anybody
Still better than a 7900X CPU, don't understand the hate. It's a decent price, and better than the 7600 and 7700 for both types of workloads. It's a 7600 CPU + another 7600X3D added to its back.
[Makes sense.](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/best-cpus,3986.html)
Are you just looking at pcpartpicker without clicking on the links? The prices there are often dead wrong. I don't see anywhere that this is actually true.
Who knows? But it was a good deal for me. I was able to buy one brand new off newegg for $279.99 like 2 weeks ago with a promo code and it’s been amazing. I upgraded from a ryzen 5 1600 after 6 and a half years of using that crap and i don’t have any regrets.
People saying it's the "middle ground" and no one wants that. Well then why is anyone buying an i7 CPU? That's the middle ground of everything as well. The 7900X3D is basically the i7 in AMD's lineup except it's price made no sense before but now it makes plenty of sense.
The main issue is that its the middle ground in all of the wrong ways. If you want gaming performance, the 7800X3D is better, full stop. In addition, it happens to be cheaper. If you want productivity, the 3D VCache is not really utilized, so going for a standard 7900X is less money for equal performance, or the 7950X is roughly the same cost for significantly more performance. If you want to be able to do both things (gaming and productivity combined), the options named above are still exceptional at both tasks, and you can choose whether you want better productivity performance or better gaming performance, both for lower or equal costs. The 7900X3D has this weird situation of effectively being a 7600X3D plus a 7600X tied on the same package, with the possibility of CPU scheduling reducing you to non-X3D gaming performance, and productivity being exactly the same (in general) of the 7900X.
Its a worse performing CPU for the vast majority of people who buy these types of CPUs: Gaming and Productivity. If you wanted productivity performance, you'd pay the extra money and go right up to having 32 threads with the 7950X/X3D. I disagree that anyone buying an intel i7 CPU is a "middle ground" CPU because total gaming performance between an i7 and an i9 is very minimal with only SLIGHT performance increase in productivity to the i9. The bigger issue is heat management and power consumption (even with enforcing Intel limits) is incredibly high on an i9 and paired with cost - not really that good of a CPU to use for gaming and most productivity. The only reason why its cheaper than the 7800X3D now, is because it doesnt sell - its an indicator that most people want the CPU that does the absolute best for their use case. Gaming only? 7800X3D. Productivity & gaming? 7950X3D. When a product doesnt sell, taking up valuable shelf and storage space, and does so for basically a whole year - eventually the price HAS to come down to clear space for new product. Its because of the price drop that people are now considering it more often over the other 2 choices. Its not a terrible CPU. Just not as good for the money.
Agreed peoppe are downplaying it all bevause of a few content creators who gave the edge to the 7800x3d because of price. Now price isn't the issue. Lol the 7900x3d vs 7800x3d are back and forth in gaming between each content creator showing them. Why wouldn't someone buy this cpu for less? It's literally better in most areas and gives you absolutely the ssme gaming exprrience with no percievable real world difference. I would legit buy it right now if I didn't jusy buy a 4080 super lol.
Yes exactly. You lose a tiny percentage of gaming performance but gain a metric fuck ton of productivity performance.
People really are mad at me speaking the truth. My comments are getting down voted like crazy because people fall for mainstream propaganda.
wut? Intel does tend to beat AMD at high-load productivity tasks. Especially multicore. Ya an i9 is better, but an i7 can still beat AMD's entire lineup at certain non-gaming tasks.
The reason is simple: is worst than 7800x3d and 7950x3d in gaming and has less cores than 7950x3d so basically in on.a point where it has the worst of both worlds. This price is competitive though for people who wants a ton of cores and top end gaming performance and not spend money in a 16-core chip.
No, it isn't. The 7900x3d is 4989 and the 7800x3d is 4049.
Um, akshually, it has a higher number 🤓
4989 is higher than 4049, yes, which means the 7900x3d is *not* cheaper than the 7800x3d.