Review: AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor

Yeah never saw any benefit from disabling the E-Cores.

 

Great review as always @Hilbert Hagedoorn , thank you.

Mehhh ... cpu :/ , i expected more performance really. Like the echoes of the x3d cpu's reviews has said just wait for the 7800x3d that's the cpu to get.

 

Still some respectable numbers.

 

this has been my position since the announcement of Zen 4X3D
i was never worried (and still aren't) about the thread direction/ scheduling because Intel got that in the bag pretty quickly with their first hybrid design.
the 7800X3D is the right price/performance for every gamer who doesn't earn money w/ productivity or content.

the real question is what is the performance delta between the 7800X3D basic system and an i-5 or i-7 on a B 760 board.

 

pretty interesting stuff, looks like the high end asus boards have special vcache workload detection/prioritization, that is different from amd's whitelist.

 

I have a 2014 Corvette with a supercharger ,headers, catless xpipe and a 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee summit with a 5.7 Hemi.. Carbon foot print? What's that?

 

If your playing games at 1440p let alone 4k, why do these processors even matter. Its all about the GPU. People are still playing games in 1080p? Why?

 

You guys aren't looking at this the right way.

4K only tells you how well a CPU pushes the current best GPU out. What about 2-3 years from now when you want to upgrade to a 5090 or whatever? The 1080p/720p benchmarks tell you what the CPU itself is capable of by removing the GPU as the bottleneck. It helps people make better long term decisions, IE maybe you go ahead and get that 13900K instead of the 7800X, because even though the 7800X is "fine" at 4K, 2 years from now when you upgrade GPU's, suddenly there's a 15-20% gap in performance in games because your new GPU isn't a bottleneck anymore.

It's the sameway suddenly everyone's like "you need a 5800X3D or Alderlake/Raptor Lake to push a 4090" when 2 years ago you same people were telling everyone that a 5600X was all anyone needed for 4K gaming.

 

I'm thinking the same. While I expected a tad more, it still offers pretty much the same while keeping the electricity bill lower.

 

Interesting. It seems like the 7950X3D performs pretty much as expected. It's a good CPU to get if you're upgrading your whole system and need the extra cores for non-gaming workloads. The 7800X3D seems to be the more interesting proposal for pure gamers, though, although who knows how much the lower clockspeeds will cripple that one.

Personally, I'd be interested to see how all these CPUs compare with the RTX 4090 in minimum framerate/lows in worst-case "CPU bound" Raytracing Scenarios at 3840x2160 with everything maxed out in games like Hogwart's Legacy, The Witcher 3 Complete DX12, Spider-Man Miles Morales, etc..

 

The 5600X is still fine for 4K gaming.

 

It's fine, but you're leaving performance on the table that wasn't obvious at 4K when the 3090 was the fastest GPU out. That's my point, and that's the point of 720p/1080p benchmarks with a GPU like the 4090.

 

Very nice CPU but it`s not a game changer like the 5800x3d.


And the thought of needing a driver and Windows optimizations to get the best of it makes me very uneasy...


I hope the 7800x3d is much better but it seems it`s better to buy a "plain" 7700x and save the difference for a better GPU, at least for my case.


Hilbert, just two quick questions, if you please:

- Why so few CPUs being tested?

- Why only the Blender results had the honour of being presented on 3D? Because i really like the effect.


Great review!

 

Nice CPU but not worth the price. Just like Nvidia's and AMD's latest GPUs

 

Cheapest model of 4090 is actual worth, nothing else

7800x3d is going to be sold out for months LOL

 

For AMD's next trick 16 cores on a single CCX. I worry that 7800X3D has too low clocks and won't be as big a jump as 5800X3D was. We'll see soon enough if a single CCX X3D chip will benefit even with the boost clock nerf.

 

as usual I thank guru3d for it's reviews always the 1st one I check but...
in trying to follow trends and using recent games you fall into a trap this review failed to inform me about the gains the x3d brought
and judging by the comments here it failed many readers too altough they might not know that there is a difference to be found

- testing in 4K is useless to compare cpus we know 4090 is king and the only impact a cpu has for it is how much it can feed the beast, even if the cpu does impact a 4090 in 4k it's like 1/10 or 1/100 of what you would see in 1080p so you're willingly deciding to make your results as small and irrelevant...weird
- using "easy" games that "everyone uses" or "hype" is wrong if almost all your numbers are the same you failed to differenciate the cpus
- check borderlands 3 1080p it was my go to limited by gpu game but the 4090 flipped it 180° my 7950x (stock) 230fps 13900k 270fps 7950x3d...300fps which a 13900k can achieve pretty much only using by 7200mhz ddr5 or elite level oc and tweaking
- shadow of the tomb raider 1080p is now 0% gpu limited with a 4090..this means 100% cpu limited which just made it one of the most relevant benchmarks to test a gaming cpu I don't remember the numbers but I remember level1techs 7200Mhz ddr5 review also beating quite obviously my 7950x and 13900k results so this is something I want to know bad timing to drop this game now

 

^ 4090 is what makes 4k CPU testing relevant. Since many of them using 4k and believe they have more headroom to spare with a CPU upgrade. Some titles negligible perf difference, while other titles the differences are huge!