guru3d AMD 7800X3D reviews/benchmarks out now

[UltraMega]

Quote

• Ryzen 9 7950X3D for $699
• Ryzen 9 7900X3D for $599
• Ryzen 7 7800X3D for $449 
   

No Software Dependency for 7800X3D Processor with one Active CPU Die

The AMD Ryzen CPU, equipped with 8 cores, 16 threads, and a whopping 104MB cache (32 MB CCD, 64 MB V-Cache + 8 MB L2), is the perfect choice for gamers. It has a base clock of 4 GHz, which may be at least 500 MHz slower than the Ryzen 7 7700X, but has a boost clock of 5.0 GHz, ~400 MHz slower than the Ryzen 7 7700X. Unlike other processors in the 3D V-Cache series, AMD used just one chiplet to add an additional 3D V-Cache layer. The dual chiplet design of the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and 7900X3D causes an imbalance as they switch between non-V-Cache and V-Cache CCD, depending on the load. However, AMD's algorithm addresses this issue for the bigger part.
 

As a result, the operating system must make decisions on thread prioritization. However, since the 7800X3D processor only has one die activated, there is no need for software dependency. This eliminates the inconvenience mentioned in our 7950X3D review and results in reduced latency and CPU overhead. For games that benefit from X3D cache, that means this processor can even be a notch faster (in gaming). The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D CPU is not only a member of the latest 3D V-Cache Zen 4 series, but also comparatively more economical than its counterparts. The Ryzen 9 7950X3D and 7900X3D are available on the official website of the company for $699 and $549, respectively. The price for the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, on the other hand, is $449, making it a more cost-effective option.

 

Ryzen 7 7800X3D processor review - Introduction (guru3d.com)

 

 

 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by UltraMega

[pio]

I'm still torn on which one would be best for me now between the 7800x3d or the 7900x.  *Shrugs, my 5800x isn't exactly hurting me yet to the point I care enough.  But still, they're getting more affordable........ -_-

[Sir Beregond]

You know, given how they architected these, it really makes me wonder what the point of the 7900X3D is. If you are parking the non-v cache CCX during gaming, it's effectively a 3D cached 6-core, while this one is the full 8-core CCX.

 

Just feels very strange to me how they decided to do this. So far this is the only one that actually makes sense to me. The 7950X3D does as well, but it's definitely more of a niche use case.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Sir Beregond

[Snakecharmed]

I'm not a fan of the core parking concept for the dual-CCD X3D chips. The way it's been described, it seems that it may prevent actually using the CPU as a 12 or 16-core if you wanted to run background production processes while gaming. After all, why would you want those other cores to do nothing if you actually have something for them to do?

 

As for the 7800X3D or the 7900X, if you never do any production work on your PC, then you could go for the X3D. Otherwise, I find that more and higher-clocked cores are far more valuable and noticeable for a mixed workload. I'll notice faster file decompression on a large archive or a video encoding completed a few minutes sooner. I probably won't notice a 30 FPS difference in a game when the lower result is still well past 144 or even 100.

 

Also, all these CPU gaming benchmarks purposely create CPU-bound scenarios that aren't reflective of an enjoyable, or in my case, a remotely feasible gaming experience. I have never gamed at 1080p on desktop because I went from CRT to 1200p and now only have 3840x1600 or 4K to work with depending on whether the game is optimized for keyboard/mouse or controller.

 

As for the 7900X3D, it does appear to occupy no man's land. I can't make a case for it versus the 7800X3D nor the 7900(X) when taking price into consideration.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Snakecharmed

[Sir Beregond]

18 minutes ago, Snakecharmed said:

I'm not a fan of the core parking concept for the dual-CCD X3D chips. The way it's been described, it seems that it may prevent actually using the CPU as a 12 or 16-core if you wanted to run background production processes while gaming. After all, why would you want those other cores to do nothing if you actually have something for them to do?

 

As for the 7800X3D or the 7900X, if you never do any production work on your PC, then you could go for the X3D. Otherwise, I find that more and higher-clocked cores are far more valuable and noticeable for a mixed workload. I'll notice faster file decompression on a large archive or a video encoding completed done a few minutes sooner. I probably won't notice a 30 FPS difference in a game when the lower result is still well past 144 or even 100.

 

Also, all these CPU gaming benchmarks purposely create CPU-bound scenarios that aren't reflective of an enjoyable, or in my case, a remotely feasible gaming experience. I have never gamed at 1080p on desktop because I went from CRT to 1200p and now only have 3840x1600 or 4K to work with depending on whether the game is optimized for keyboard/mouse or controller.

 

As for the 7900X3D, it does appear to occupy no man's land. I can't make a case for it versus the 7800X3D nor the 7900(X) when taking price into consideration.

Yeah great points. Being I am at 4k now, I saw no reason to switch from a 5900X to a 5800X3D. Even for my use case, the 5900X is probably overkill, but I wanted it, so that was that lol.

 

At this point, I am finding myself less interested in dual CCX parts, especially if they keep doing asymmetrical stuff like this. My hope now is that they increase core counts per CCX in Zen 5 and beyond so that perhaps you can start getting 12 or even 16 cores on a single CCX/CCD.

Edited April 6, 2023 by Sir Beregond

[UltraMega]

4 hours ago, Sir Beregond said:

Yeah great points. Being I am at 4k now, I saw no reason to switch from a 5900X to a 5800X3D. Even for my use case, the 5900X is probably overkill, but I wanted it, so that was that lol.

I haven't felt the impact of a CPU upgrade ever since I moved to 4K. I upgrade when it's cheap or convenient and that's been more than enough for 4K. 

[Fluxmaven]

Yea I really don't see any point in buying a 7900X3D at all. Regular 7900X is cheaper and doesn't turn into a 6 core when gaming. Even if most games don't use more than 6-8 threads, it's still nice having plenty to handle background tasks. All these CPU reviews doing tests with just a game running at 1080p... Would be nice to see what happens when you have a system with a more than just a game running. When I'm "just" gaming I still typically have Aquasuite, Discord, game launchers, and a web browser with several tabs open on a second screen. In addition to all the other software that runs in the back ground like Adobe CC, audio interface, F@H etc. 

 

7800X3D is obviously a solid choice for a gaming focused build, but with the deals on non 3D parts, it almost feels hard to justify as well. 

 

The 7950X3D has potential once they adjust the pricing. At $699 it makes more sense to go 13900K for a good gaming + productivity platform.