Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review: "Devastating Gaming Performance" (Tom's Hardware)

[r.linder]

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-review-devastating-gaming-performance/2

So the rumors mostly appear to be true, the 9800X3D really is going to dominate more than expected, Intel is at least around 30% behind now with the 14900K and even further behind with the 285K. They really need to fix this, and fast, or we might end up with diminished upgrades per generation again.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Why all the "Intel needs to fix this" stuff. What Intel really needs to do is F off and die.
Maybe go back to the drawing board; seriously; they are completely out of touch.
This shows they have no clue where to go from here. Before Ryzen they had such a lead to where each step they were able (and enabled by many of you all) to take this tiny baby steps with their CPUs and charge a high premium for them. Now with competition they have no clue how to move forward. The US Government might even have to bail out Intel to keep it going, it's hilarious.

[r.linder]

We haven't actually seen the real performance of Arrow Lake yet because they screwed up something in firmware that's causing memory latency to be as high as 180ns when it was expected to be around 70 to 80 ns. That absurdly high latency is causing huge performance loss, so once Intel actually fixes that issue, people will have to update and run benchmarks again.

So people could easily be celebrating a little early, once the latency issue is fixed then the 285K should be at least better than the 14900K.

[C1REX]

Opprinnelig skrevet av r.linder:

So people could easily be celebrating a little early, once the latency issue is fixed then the 285K should be at least better than the 14900K.

I don’t understand how a sane person can celebrate a bad product and lack of competition.
I hope Intel will be able to fix the latency problems with software. Fingers crossed it’s not hardware issue.

[A&A]

285K isn't bad for productivity tasks.
And if Intel does fix its memory issues, it won't change the fact that a 285K at this price point just sucks for gaming, but 265K will be interesting.

[C1REX]

Opprinnelig skrevet av A&A:

285K isn't bad for productivity tasks.
And if Intel does fix its memory issues, it won't change the fact that a 285K at this price point just sucks for gaming, but 265K will be interesting.

If they fix the latency then it may not suck at gaming. Latency affects gaming mostly.

[A&A]

Opprinnelig skrevet av C1REX:

If they fix the latency then it may not suck at gaming. Latency affects gaming mostly.

Yes, but the $600 price tag is a deal breaker.
That's why I rate it to be terrible for gaming. X3Ds cost less.

[r.linder]

Opprinnelig skrevet av A&A:

285K isn't bad for productivity tasks.
And if Intel does fix its memory issues, it won't change the fact that a 285K at this price point just sucks for gaming, but 265K will be interesting.

The selling point of the 285K is the same as the selling point for the 9950X more or less, it's an enthusiast grade CPU that is supposed to perform well in pretty much anything and everything

[r.linder]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHExm5CCG5g

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Opprinnelig skrevet av r.linder:

Opprinnelig skrevet av A&A:

285K isn't bad for productivity tasks.
And if Intel does fix its memory issues, it won't change the fact that a 285K at this price point just sucks for gaming, but 265K will be interesting.

The selling point of the 285K is the same as the selling point for the 9950X more or less, it's an enthusiast grade CPU that is supposed to perform well in pretty much anything and everything

but it does nothing to offer the missing gap in amd's lineup.. a proper HEDT plaform.
***buyers like me of the HEDT platform don't care about the extra cores..
***we much rather have less performance cores.. that perform equal or less than 5% behind the best regulair cpu for gaming (the 9800x3d)

-> but we DO like the 4 (or even 6 as the x599 was planned to have) ram lanes, and being able to use 8 or even 12 slots of ram without ANY issues in mhz of that ram if you fill all those slots.
-> we also DO very much like having double the amount of lanes (consumer chips only 28.. we want 48 lanes.. so we can have a full x16 gpu. AND 5 pci 5.0 m.2 slots.. (and not just the 1 or 2.. and the rest type 3 or 4..) and still have lanes to spare for a second gpu for recording...
-> we also DO love to get future tech a little earlier.. give us DDR6 before the mainstream gets it.. give us usb 4 up the wazoo.. and whatever other new gimmicks are in store..

the current offerings aint fitting this HEDT scratch..
9950x of amd.. does not have those extra lanes nor that extra ram support.. not any "the future came a little early" tech.

and the treadripper/xeon platforms.. just don't have the gaming performance the HEDT had.. nor the pricepoint..

HEDT models did cost 600-1300 euro.. while mainstream chip models topped out on about 400
thats not like treadrippers and xeon who again go up the corecount path.. and nest models cost over 10k.. while performing crappier than a 7600x in games.. thats NOT what former HEDT buyers wanted...

a modern HEDT lineup :

-custom motherboard series.. bit more pricy.. motherboards cost 800-1200 euro.
**6 lane memory support.. with upto 12x128GB ddr6 (yes 6... the first platform to offer it nearly 1.5 years before anybody else) and support out of the box for much higher mhz's for ram.. without any of the can't use that speed ram if all slots are filled.
*3 chips.
**full usb 4 support.. as well as a single usb 4.1 (the future comes a little earlier)

it launches with 3 chips.

1100 euro : 10 core (all performance cores), 4.8ghz 52 pcie5 lanes
1750 euro : 10 core (all performance cores), 5.0ghz 60 pcie5 lanes
2400 euro : 12 core (all performance cores : 5.0ghz, 60 pcie5 lanes

(performance wise in games all 3 these chips perform within a 95%-100% margin of the 9800x3d in games.. but with an overclock you can easely match or exceed it)
-> performance wise however they exceed even the 9950x easely..

all motherboards for it come standard with 7 gen 5 m.2 slots
and TWO gen 5 x 16 pci slots.. (if you have the cheaper cpu.. than the second slot will run in x8 mode if m.2 slot 5/6 are in use)
pci slot 3.. has 4 lanes shared with m.2 slot 7 so if you use it m.2 slot 7 will operate in sata mode.

-the motherboard and socket IS combatible with some the xeon or treadripper chips.. so if you WANT to use those with regulair ram and more regulair features.. that will be possible too. (or if you in the future buy that 10k chip 2d hand for some fun;))

something like that is what I want to see...

[The_Abortionator]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Outcast82:

Opprinnelig skrevet av C1REX:

Why so negative? AMD delivered a CPU that performs better than advertised and solves low clocks problems of previous 3D chips that made them laggy in apps and Windows.

I hope Intel will cach up as currently there is no reason to buy their CPUs.

I always was an intel fanboy.

ever since the 90s the k5 and k6 and thunderbird days it was :
amd best bang for buck (10-15% cheaper for same performance) but less stable (much more blue screen of death)
intel a bit more expensive but more stable..

nether had a true lead in absolute performance crown.. it was do you value stability?

as one who hated my system crash-reboot in the middle of a 4 hour long game intel was my thing..

but today intel.. well intel needs to pull a ryzen to get back on track..
amd already starts pulling the same price increasing trucks intel did when all amd had were those crappy fx things..

Well you got that fanboy thing down, its just everything else you got wrong.

First off, what made you think the k5 wasn't stable? Your "experience" doesn't exist as a trend. Period.

Second, the k5 cloc for clock beat out Intel in most things home users would be doing such as gaming. A 12 to 20% boost in gaming and home applications was an obvious plus. For productions the m=benchmarks varied and when they went Intels way they REALY went intels way.

Thats also only clock for clock, the k5 did great for what it was but couldn't scale against later Intel designs with higher clocks.

[The_Abortionator]

Opprinnelig skrevet av smokerob79:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Peter:

I'll stick with Intel but my point is applicable to the 9800X3D.

Well, if you really really think that the vast majority of people who buy i9 cpus {I own a 12900KS and a 13900K} play at 1080p, then your thinking is out of date and irrelevant and at least a full decade behind the times.

We play with 3090 and 4090 gpus {yep I own both} on 4K OLED and 4K MiniLed monitors like the Asus PG42UQ and Asus 32UQX respectively. {yep I own both}

Sorry to burst your bubble but the 9800X3D has barely a ONE FPS ADVANTAGE over my 2 year old 12900KS at 4K, which will go down as one of the greatest cpus ever released for the enthusiast.

why cant you admit intel has been garbage for 20 years???....intel has never been worth the money......got my first laptop in 1991 to know this.....were you even born then???

No idea where you got that idea from. The Pentium IIIs were pretty decent. The pentium 4 line sucked and AMD slapped Intel and dragged his wife upstairs for the talking.

After that Intel kept releasing Pentium 4s while he now had 3 kids that looked nothing like him and an ex wife + monthly alimony to pay up.

That was until the core duo line when Intel got a new job and abandoned his unrelated in the woods.

While they didn't "dominate" they were in the lead until the first core I line. They were so far in the lead by that point they took two cores away.

Oh yeah, nobody remembers. AMD and Intel were selling 6 core CPUs as their top end consumer parts for a short bit but then Intel took two cores back when sandybridge hit because why not?

From sandy bridge untill the release of Ryzen there was no reason to buy AMD CPUa at all. Period.

And until AMD released the rx 5000 GPUs and then redid their entire driver stack the same could be said about their graphics line back then.

Intel was what you bought if you cared at all about performance. Hell Intel's 64~88w chips destroyed AMD's 225w embarrassment.

Then AMD did stuff and intel didn't which is why the 8700k was a re branded skylake-E chip and why the 9900k was a rebranded overclocked xeon chip. They never planned to give us more than 4 cores but AMD made them do work.

So yeah, theres no reason to buy Intel right now but no, Intel wasn't in this spot for the past 20 years.

[The_Abortionator]

Opprinnelig skrevet av smokerob79:

its simple kids.....intel's lame idea to keep fab works in house only lead them to being behind....AMD not having the fab works in house means they can get the latest tech on production without the costs.....

intel said a quad core was all we needed for a decade and now we are saying we dont need intel at all......almost sounds like UBI-sucks saying we dont own games only to find out they wont own a company soon......

Their fabs actually helped them over the years.

What did them in was sitting on their hands thinking AMD would never catch up.

It takes 5 to six years from starting to releasing a CPU line. Intel havd nothing when Ryzen started coming up which is why they kept rebranding skylake E and xeon CPUs as gaming CPUs. THats why 14+++++ was such a meme.

[Illusion of Progress]

Opprinnelig skrevet av De Hollandse Ezel:

***buyers like me of the HEDT platform don't care about the extra cores..

This is wild for me to hear someone say.

The primary point of the HEDT platforms has specifically been about higher core counts for highly threaded workloads. The stuff like extra RAM channels was there to compliment that (because once you starts dealing with very high core counts, and feeding all of those cores data at once, you start needing more RAM bandwidth).

Opprinnelig skrevet av De Hollandse Ezel:

-> we also DO love to get future tech a little earlier.. give us DDR6 before the mainstream gets it.. give us usb 4 up the wazoo.. and whatever other new gimmicks are in store..

This just seems like entitlement.

Outside of LGA 1366, didn't all of the other HEDT platforms release later, not earlier?

For example, the HEDT Sandy Bridge CPUs (like the Core i7 3820) launched well after mainstream Sandy Bridge CPUs and immediately before mainstream Ivy Bridge CPUs. It seems like the HEDT platforms typically released late and gave up single core/gaming performance. The tradeoff was having more cores for highly threaded workloads.

Opprinnelig skrevet av De Hollandse Ezel:

HEDT models did cost 600-1300 euro.. while mainstream chip models topped out on about 400

Huh?

https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/athlon-64-fx-60.c330

"The AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 was a desktop processor with 2 cores, launched in January 2006, at an MSRP of $1031."

That's also over $1,600 today.

Even in Euros, that would be around twice the upper end you're claiming mainstream models topped out at.

[The_Abortionator]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Peter:

Opprinnelig skrevet av r.linder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-lFgbzU3LY

Benchmarks don't lie. There are easily instances like BG3 where it pulls way ahead of Intel and other AMD processors. AMD only promised 8% but they underestimated their own chip in many instances.

Your claims are also for 2160p resolution which is freaking GPU bound, genius. If you're running 2160p, you don't even need a 9800X3D because it won't make a noticeable difference until there are far more powerful GPUs available.

I'll stick with Intel but my point is applicable to the 9800X3D.

Well, if you really really think that the vast majority of people who buy i9 cpus {I own a 12900KS and a 13900K} play at 1080p, then your thinking is out of date and irrelevant and at least a full decade behind the times.

We play with 3090 and 4090 gpus {yep I own both} on 4K OLED and 4K MiniLed monitors like the Asus PG42UQ and Asus 32UQX respectively. {yep I own both}

Sorry to burst your bubble but the 9800X3D has barely a ONE FPS ADVANTAGE over my 2 year old 12900KS at 4K, which will go down as one of the greatest cpus ever released for the enthusiast.

Sorry, what?

Opprinnelig skrevet av Peter:

Opprinnelig skrevet av r.linder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-lFgbzU3LY

Benchmarks don't lie. There are easily instances like BG3 where it pulls way ahead of Intel and other AMD processors. AMD only promised 8% but they underestimated their own chip in many instances.

Your claims are also for 2160p resolution which is freaking GPU bound, genius. If you're running 2160p, you don't even need a 9800X3D because it won't make a noticeable difference until there are far more powerful GPUs available.

I'll stick with Intel but my point is applicable to the 9800X3D.

Well, if you really really think that the vast majority of people who buy i9 cpus {I own a 12900KS and a 13900K} play at 1080p, then your thinking is out of date and irrelevant and at least a full decade behind the times.

We play with 3090 and 4090 gpus {yep I own both} on 4K OLED and 4K MiniLed monitors like the Asus PG42UQ and Asus 32UQX respectively. {yep I own both}

Sorry to burst your bubble but the 9800X3D has barely a ONE FPS ADVANTAGE over my 2 year old 12900KS at 4K, which will go down as one of the greatest cpus ever released for the enthusiast.

Sorry but what? This is such and emotional tantrum its cringe.


First off, no. The 12900k one of the greatest? You mean the CPU thats competitive in gaming with the 5800x? The same CPU that gets destroyed by the 5800x3d while using double the power?


Also, its funny you try to create a scenario where you are GPU bound claiming that theres only a 1 r 2 frame difference at 4k but thats factually false.

You don't have to have a 4090 to generate enough FPS at 4k to see the very LARGE delta between the 9800x3d and the 12900k.

Not only that but pretending that every enthusiest chose 4k is also a joke. I had a 9900k and now a 7950x and I run 1440p 240hz. Unlike the 12900k my CPU generates enough FPS to satisfy my needs.

I have no idea what would posses you to try and do some weird mental gymnastics in a bizzare attempt to make Intel seem like they somehow have an edge when in reality they have been getting their ass handed to them ever since the 10900k.

Weird.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Illusion of Progress:

Opprinnelig skrevet av De Hollandse Ezel:

***buyers like me of the HEDT platform don't care about the extra cores..

This is wild for me to hear someone say.

The primary point of the HEDT platforms has specifically been about higher core counts for highly threaded workloads. The stuff like extra RAM channels was there to compliment that (because once you starts dealing with very high core counts, and feeding all of those cores data at once, you start needing more RAM bandwidth).

Opprinnelig skrevet av De Hollandse Ezel:

-> we also DO love to get future tech a little earlier.. give us DDR6 before the mainstream gets it.. give us usb 4 up the wazoo.. and whatever other new gimmicks are in store..

This just seems like entitlement.

Outside of LGA 1366, didn't all of the other HEDT platforms release later, not earlier?

For example, the HEDT Sandy Bridge CPUs (like the Core i7 3820) launched well after mainstream Sandy Bridge CPUs and immediately before mainstream Ivy Bridge CPUs. It seems like the HEDT platforms typically released late and gave up single core/gaming performance. The tradeoff was having more cores for highly threaded workloads.

Opprinnelig skrevet av De Hollandse Ezel:

HEDT models did cost 600-1300 euro.. while mainstream chip models topped out on about 400

Huh?

https://www.techpowerup.com/cpu-specs/athlon-64-fx-60.c330

"The AMD Athlon 64 FX-60 was a desktop processor with 2 cores, launched in January 2006, at an MSRP of $1031."


--when I say tomorrows tech a little early i mean FEATURES.. like e-sata.. new usb and ddr standards, m.2 and such.
***yes in architecture they were often a generation behind.. which is what bites me now in windows 11 support (and which is unfair given the power of the HEDT platform vs the mainstream) not that I would install windows 11 anyway but still..

as for prices :

Even in Euros, that would be around twice the upper end you're claiming mainstream models topped out at.

I ofcourse did not correct for inflation.. and HEDT have not been released in a while

my intel i7 980x was about 900 euro
my intel i7 3960x was about 1000 euro
my intel i7 5960x was about 1150 euro
my intel i7 6950x was about 1600 euro

but those were the TOP models.. the cheapest HEDT model for the x99 chipset did cost around 600 euro..

and performance wise they matched the consumer cpu's.. like the 5960x performed in games basicly close to an 4790k.. especially if overclocked as the HEDT platform overclocked a lot more than mainstream chips did..

so basicly you sacrificed little to no gaming performance... often even gainted but gained a lot of other stuff but offcourse at the complete out the window trowing of price to performance gain;)

for add to this motherboards for this platform did cost me over 500 euro for a good one.. and started around 350 euro.,, when a regulair motherboard started at 50 euro and good ones were still around 130 euro..

so if you transfer that to todays cpu prices... with the 9800x3d basicly 500 euro (vs the 350 of the 4790k)

than the equavalent of the 5960x today.. would cost around 1650 euro.. which for a cpu with 9800x3d performance but a lot of nice extra's would be a fine price for me.
with the entry level HEDT chip costing around.. 800 euro..

and given good motherboards mainstream now cost 350 euro... a motherboard for it likely would cost around 1200 for a good one.. and 850 euro for entry level HEDT motherboard..

oh and NOBODY in their sane mind considers amd FX HEDT... EVER..
only intel had a proper HEDT platform...
which started basicly with the release of i7 920, 960 and 980x and the x39 chipset.. and was killed off by competion with amd just before the x599 platform properly could release
so the x299 was the last true HEDT platform..

the higher corecount was for users like myself not an issue. it was not why I shelled out the money.. in fact I already found the step from 8 to 10 of the 6950x.. "unneccecairy" you never will ever need more than 8 cores... in decades..

so no.. I was an HEDT consumer.. and I never bought it for the corecount.. I basicly wanted "equal; performance as the best of mainstream.. but more futureproved, more lanes etc..
the only reason I picked not the cheaper model cpu of the HEDT series.. was "it had less lanes" and why not the mid end "cause it performance vs the mainsteam cpu sucked" onlyu the best cpu in each series.. more or less equalled the gaming performance of the mainstream cpu..,

basicly it was closer to what the 7950xd was to the 7800x3d
only with much more features than just those not neccecairy few extra cores..
and costing double what you pay for that 7950xd..

but I guess users like me who basicly fit somewhere between mainstream platform and entry level buisnuiss.. are the exeption.. and many users DID buy HEDT for the corecount.. not the extra lanes and futuristic features..
(or at least to few to consider still making one)