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.

[A&A]

Oprindeligt skrevet af De Hollandse Ezel:

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)

[cutted]

Eh?
There are Xeons that according to their specs should outperform the latest well-made i9 that just works.

-Quad channel memory
-More cache and more cores (Not only 10 or 12 lol)
-AVX512 support
-64 lines of PCIe 5.0
DDR6? Ok, but JEDEC hasn't standardized it yet.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Oprindeligt skrevet af A&A:

Oprindeligt skrevet af De Hollandse Ezel:

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)

[cutted]

Eh?
There are Xeons that according to their specs should outperform the latest well-made i9 that just works.

-Quad channel memory
-More cache and more cores (Not only 10 or 12 lol)
-AVX512 support
-64 lines of PCIe 5.0
DDR6? Ok, but JEDEC hasn't standardized it yet.

1 thats more likely 20000 euro than 2000
2 the bar is the best cpu for gaming and thats not intels i9 but the 9800x3d at the moment.
and it certainly is not within 95% of gaming performance of that
3 I not care for more cores...8 is fine...
4 the x599 was already projected to have 6 channel memory and move beyond quad..
5 crappy slow ecc ram.. will toss that performance in game even more down the drain. HEDT platforms use normal non ecc ram often of a bit higher mhz than mainstream supports..

so give me a cpu with a normal number (8-12 of ONLY performance cores.. with each core basicly as fast as an 98003d.. and equal performance in gaming..
-> but than with way more lanes... as in 60 pcie 5.0 lanes orso and 6 channel memory support..
and NORMAL non ecc ram..
while priced more reasonable.. say upto 2000 euro.. not the 10k+ insanity of xeons.
+
with non of the memory issues the mainsteam amd chips have.. so can handle 9000mhz with all 12 slots filled np..

that be the kind of HEDT chip that be a worthy succesor..

oh and ddr6 is already in "predraft" to be made official in januari.. and as HEDT was always about being cutting edge (including features than in the end did not made the cut like e-sata... just releasing it early 2015.. with ddr6.. alongside some of the first ddr6 chips on the market.. while mainstream will likely not get it until the next gen of cpus... is how that would rolll.. hedt always got that stuff early.. at the very cutting edge.. with always a risk some of those features would not be adopted later by mainstream..

[A&A]

Oprindeligt skrevet af De Hollandse Ezel:

1 thats more likely 20000 euro than 2000
2 the bar is the best cpu for gaming and thats not intels i9 but the 9800x3d at the moment.
and it certainly is not within 95% of gaming performance of that
3 I not care for more cores...8 is fine...
4 the x599 was already projected to have 6 channel memory and move beyond quad..
5 crappy slow ecc ram.. will toss that performance in game even more down the drain. HEDT platforms use normal non ecc ram often of a bit higher mhz than mainstream supports..

1. It's probably 20k euros if you get the top xeon which is quad module, but is that really the case for CPUs like the Intel Xeon w5-2565X? Yes, it is more expensive, but it costs 6K euros, not 20K.

2. You can't compare the best of Intel to the best of AMD. This is absurd.
It's like taking a 1000 series Threadripper and comparing it to an i9 7th gen eXtreme. you can't

3. Ok, there will always be a processor like the Xeon w5-2445.

4. Okay, cool. Then stay on the comet lake platform then?

5. You can always change it, right?

[r.linder]

HEDT is literally designed for loads that needs extraordinary computing power, if you're buying HEDT for "futureproofing" then you let yourself get totally played by marketing.

It doesn't matter what CPU it is, it's not going to last longer just because it costs more unless one is sorely lacking in physical cores (i.e. 6950X vs 6700K), in most cases it's not going to stack up better than the regular desktop flagship from the same generation after 5+ years when there's much faster CPUs out.

The i9-10980XE was exceptional when it came out but now it's pretty much irrelevant compared to the i9s that released on LGA1700.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-Core-i9-12900K-vs-Intel-Core-i9-10980XE/4597vs3630

And if you wasted all of that money just to play games on it, by time those 18 cores actually mean something for gaming, the core performance isn't going to be enough regardless. That's pretty much already the case anyway because it's never going to max out a 4090 and you'll already see differences in performance between it and a much faster CPU with a 3090.

Every time someone tries to make their system more "futureproof" all they succeed in is wasting money for no reason. Stop getting caught up in 5+ years down the road and focus on what's right in front of you right now.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

Oprindeligt skrevet af A&A:

Oprindeligt skrevet af De Hollandse Ezel:

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)

[cutted]

Eh?
There are Xeons that according to their specs should outperform the latest well-made i9 that just works.

-Quad channel memory
-More cache and more cores (Not only 10 or 12 lol)
-AVX512 support
-64 lines of PCIe 5.0
DDR6? Ok, but JEDEC hasn't standardized it yet.

But Intel Xeons (or whatever they are called now) are complete trash for gaming. Cause those tend to have twice and many cores, yes, but run much lower clock speeds. Games care more about clocks then cores/threads.

If you really wanted something better then what Intel offers consumers, or AMD; then you go with the latest AMD ThreadRipper.

[A&A]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Bad 💀 Motha:

But Intel Xeons (or whatever they are called now) are complete trash for gaming. Cause those tend to have twice and many cores, yes, but run much lower clock speeds. Games care more about clocks then cores/threads.

If you really wanted something better then what Intel offers consumers, or AMD; then you go with the latest AMD ThreadRipper.

True, Xeons are a bit of a mixed bag because they have more cache and cores, but clock in like an i5. Unfortunately I don't have any graphs for them showing the clock speed changing with the load.

Anyway, what is the point of getting an HEDT computer, when surely the same amount of money can afford two PCs?
One for gaming and one for more productivity/computing tasks.

[Bad 💀 Motha]

It make sense if your need for a CPU that can run pro applications and render quicker and things like that are more of a priority for you. But overall yes, 2x PCs is the better choice. Like one with 7800X3D or 9800X3D and then the other with a Workstation class type of Intel CPU or AMD ThreadRipper CPU.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Oprindeligt skrevet af A&A:

Oprindeligt skrevet af De Hollandse Ezel:

1 thats more likely 20000 euro than 2000
2 the bar is the best cpu for gaming and thats not intels i9 but the 9800x3d at the moment.
and it certainly is not within 95% of gaming performance of that
3 I not care for more cores...8 is fine...
4 the x599 was already projected to have 6 channel memory and move beyond quad..
5 crappy slow ecc ram.. will toss that performance in game even more down the drain. HEDT platforms use normal non ecc ram often of a bit higher mhz than mainstream supports..

1. It's probably 20k euros if you get the top xeon which is quad module, but is that really the case for CPUs like the Intel Xeon w5-2565X? Yes, it is more expensive, but it costs 6K euros, not 20K.

2. You can't compare the best of Intel to the best of AMD. This is absurd.
It's like taking a 1000 series Threadripper and comparing it to an i9 7th gen eXtreme. you can't

3. Ok, there will always be a processor like the Xeon w5-2445.

4. Okay, cool. Then stay on the comet lake platform then?

5. You can always change it, right?

I compare what HEDT was.. basicly the best consumer gpu for gaming in performance but with a few more cores.. much more ram lanes.. much more pci lanes... and technologically a bit ahead it's time..

today that best cpu is made by amd not intel.. so a proper HEDT platform would be 9800x3d performance but WITH all the extra;s HEDT had

so a beefed up 9800x3d

12 performance cores.. instead of 8
6 ddr6 lanes (for upto 12x128hb ddr6 9000mhz)
60 pcie 5.0 les (for upto 7 gen 5 m.2 slots... and dual pci-e x5 x16 slots
(all new memory controller chip.,. no more mhz with more ramsticks issue)
multiple usb 4.0 slots (back and front)
-with performance in games that equals or slighly supasses (2-5%) the default 9800x3d
with a pricepoint in the ballpartk of 1500-2000 euro..

THAT would be what would embody the spirit of HEDT in a modern form..

xeons/treadrippers were always workstation.. oriented.. the HEDT was a platform on it's own.. basicly somewhere between mainstream and workstations..,.

but as the mainstream got more cores.. those who wanted a budget workstation moved to the regulair lineup..
and those who wanted more memory and such.. to the xeon/treadrippers..

those like me who cared not about the cores NOT want to sacrifice gamning performance with workstation stuff and not prepared to pay workstation prices.. but who DO care about the extra pci lands and much more memory lanes.. + getting future feates a whole generation early (sometimes even 2)..

those basicly got screwed over.. as well mainstream only copied the extra cores I never cared for.. but not the extra ram, more modern features or more lanes..

ad workstation.. still is crap performance and way to expensive..

the HEDT was really the only niche that scratched that need for us..

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Bad 💀 Motha:

Oprindeligt skrevet af A&A:

Eh?
There are Xeons that according to their specs should outperform the latest well-made i9 that just works.

-Quad channel memory
-More cache and more cores (Not only 10 or 12 lol)
-AVX512 support
-64 lines of PCIe 5.0
DDR6? Ok, but JEDEC hasn't standardized it yet.

But Intel Xeons (or whatever they are called now) are complete trash for gaming. Cause those tend to have twice and many cores, yes, but run much lower clock speeds. Games care more about clocks then cores/threads.

If you really wanted something better then what Intel offers consumers, or AMD; then you go with the latest AMD ThreadRipper.

the best treadripper at best performs in gaming like an 7600x... while costing nearly 10k..
all other treadrippers peform worse..

thats not the 5960k that costed 1150 performed equal to an 350 euro 4970k... in games.. (so made performance wise no sence.. but also did not COST you performance)

but came with the boons of :
-an m.2 slot before anybody else had
-ddr4 before anyubody else had
-quad lane memory support (for 8 sticks of memory.. instead of the 4 4790k had)
-yes 8 cores.. and 16 processes.. double what the 4790k had..
-sata-e
-40 pci lanes.. with mainsteam only having 24 pci lanes
(so it allowed for true quad sli)

THAT was was HEDT was.. basicly a befed up overpriced version of the mainstream cpu...
that while often on last gens architecture equalled performance of the best todays gen cpu in gaming.. outclassed it by far in other tasks.. while also coming with a lot extra bells and whisles..

was it worth that much money for gaming performance? most likely not..
after all in most cases the best mainstream cpu performed about equal for a firth of the price (if you factrored in their motherboards were also much more expensive)
->
but you did not have to pick BETWEEN one or the other..
you got the best gaming performance there was AND a lot more.. and that you paid for.
(and the true qual sli support thanks all those extra lanes.. DID allow it to outperform in gaming too if you actually did go sli.) which was a huge selling point...

mainstream only could do at best..

16-8 lane slii
or
8-8-8 lane sli

while HEDT could do

-> 4 lanes for m.2 slot that mainstream not had
+
16-16
16-8-8
or
8-8-8-8

meaning it was the only platform that suppored quad sli.. and due more lanes would get more fps out the 2 and 3 way sli configs too..

granted with the death of sli.. this advantage would be gone.. but having more lanes for 2 16 pci slots still has merit (for if you want to use a video recording card seperate from your gpu rendering the game)

and having 7 m.2 slots all gen 5 where mainstream only has 1 of that.. does not hurt either..

heck it would not beyond HEDT to pull a prank like "pci 5.1"
-> by use of the chipset on the motherboard 32 pci lanes from the cpu are turned into 16 with double the speed... bringing effectively pci 6 a bit early (providing that pci cards keep being backward compatable with old pci slots as they always had...

[r.linder]

Oprindeligt skrevet af De Hollandse Ezel:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Bad 💀 Motha:

But Intel Xeons (or whatever they are called now) are complete trash for gaming. Cause those tend to have twice and many cores, yes, but run much lower clock speeds. Games care more about clocks then cores/threads.

If you really wanted something better then what Intel offers consumers, or AMD; then you go with the latest AMD ThreadRipper.

the best treadripper at best performs in gaming like an 7600x... while costing nearly 10k..
all other treadrippers peform worse..

thats not the 5960k that costed 1150 performed equal to an 350 euro 4970k... in games.. (so made performance wise no sence.. but also did not COST you performance)

but came with the boons of :
-an m.2 slot before anybody else had
-ddr4 before anyubody else had
-quad lane memory support (for 8 sticks of memory.. instead of the 4 4790k had)
-yes 8 cores.. and 16 processes.. double what the 4790k had..
-sata-e
-40 pci lanes.. with mainsteam only having 24 pci lanes
(so it allowed for true quad sli)

THAT was was HEDT was.. basicly a befed up overpriced version of the mainstream cpu...
that while often on last gens architecture equalled performance of the best todays gen cpu in gaming.. outclassed it by far in other tasks.. while also coming with a lot extra bells and whisles..

You're not listening to what people are telling you

1. The reason why Threadripper struggles to keep up in gaming is because it's not designed for bursty single-threaded tasks, it's designed for core-heavy multi-threaded loads that need all of that power, complaining about it only being "up to a 7600X" in gaming performance is freaking hilarious. An 8 core CPU is not going to make a huge deficit on gaming performance compared to the standard socket of the era.

2. The reason why they don't just make it good for both gaming machines and workstations is because that balance is what Ryzen 9 is for, and because gamers are not the target audience for HEDT. Threadripper is intended for professionals, not simple hardware enthusiasts.

3. You're wrong about Intel HEDT not sacrificing on performance, the i9-10980XE had very mixed results for gamers, because while it often matched or beat the 9900KS marginally, there were quite a few instances where it fell behind the 9600K and 3700X. It was also a fair bit behind the 10900K in single-core performance and the 10 cores of the 10900K were plenty capable for enthusiastic gamers.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/3630vs3730/Intel-i9-10980XE-vs-Intel-i9-10900K

4. Intel had better results for gaming on HEDT than AMD, but that still was never the target market for those sockets and it's plainly stupid to buy HEDT when you don't actually need the power behind it, it's waste of money.

You mentioned the 5960X so I'm going to make an example of it; it may have 8 cores but by time that actually mattered, that was at least around 2019-2020, so let's compare core performance between your "futureproof" HEDT CPU and more recent 8 core chips.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/2332vs3485/Intel-i7-5960X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-3700X
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/2332vs4814/Intel-i7-5960X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-5700X
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/2332vs3334/Intel-i7-5960X-vs-Intel-i9-9900K
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/2332vs3733/Intel-i7-5960X-vs-Intel-i7-10700K
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/2332vs3904/Intel-i7-5960X-vs-Intel-i9-11900K
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/2332vs5299/Intel-i7-5960X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-7800X3D
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/2332vs6344/Intel-i7-5960X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-9800X3D

Paying more for HEDT doesn't get you anything when the performance isn't actually an improvement for your use case, still gets demolished down the line regardless, you're really not saving money because even a 4790K can still be usable in 2024, it may not have as many cores, however the end result is mostly going to be the same as long as 4 cores is enough. 4790K also has higher single-core performance.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/2332vs2275/Intel-i7-5960X-vs-Intel-i7-4790K



If Intel was trying to sell HEDT off to gamers then it would just be disingenuous and scummy, because for years they deliberately kept selling ~4 cores to mainstream consumers until Ryzen forced them to change that. They refused to change it before and basically lied about it whenever people asked for reasons.

[Illusion of Progress]

Oprindeligt skrevet af De Hollandse Ezel:

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..

Again, that's strange to me, since high core count applications was sort of the vast majority of the point of them. You were giving up a bit of core performance for those extra cores and other features, because besides LGA 1366, the other HEDT platforms typically released later, so you were waiting around a year to pay a huge premium for performance that already existed for quite a while and was soon to be displaced as the fastest.

Extra PCI Express lanes aren't "future proof". What do extra PCI Express lanes bring to those future PCI Express iteration devices (graphics cards, storage, etc.) if they use the same lane count? Nothing. It helps only you're adding more of the same generation devices. So it's not a future proof thing, it's a "I have a need for the lanes today due to my device count" thing.

Also, saying you wanted these things to future proof while demonstrating you were buying every new HEDT sounds like some of the biggest self destruction I've ever heard?

[A&A]

How to deal with the requirement of having 7 M.2 slots in a computer?
Just buy a second one and use it as a NAS. Problem solved.

And looking at the architecture of the Ryzens, there might be a way using the I/O part of the Infinity Fabric directly as the same thing as the memory controller.

So a computer with Ryzen 9 **50X might be able to perform close to a Threadripper.

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7945WX
Octa channel memory? Who needs it anyway :D

[The_Abortionator]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Peter:

Oprindeligt skrevet af The_Abortionator:

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.

The problem with your reply is that you pulled it from the middle of a lengthy discussion, and you are off the mark.

Like any good gamer that takes an interest in hardware tech, I read the Techpowerup review of the 9800X 3D. It's a good and expensive cpu. I don't have a problem with that. I actually like AMD fanboys trolling Intel because it keeps them honest and has tanked the price of the 14900K, which I'll get when the price falls even further, because I like collecting i9 cpus.

The gist of what I was saying is that a 13th and 14th gen i9 owner is not worried what so ever about the 9800X 3D, nor about the 5800X 3D and, least of all, your own cpu the 7950X

At your resolution of 1400p, and cpu the 7950X, the Techpowerup review of the 9800X 3D showed 7950X average fps was 149.4 fps,

Now compare this with the 12900K, 13900K and the 14900K. Respectively, the average fps is,

146.8.......154.4.......155.0.

LOL, are you on some medication that is impairing your cognitive abilities??? It sure looks like it

The 1% average of the 7950X at 1440p was 130.6 fps,

while for the 12900K-121.6 fps, 13900K-135.00 fps, 14900K-135.9 fps.

You don't have ANYTHING to crow about.

Your take on 4K gaming is laughable, as if it's some special outlier case that I concocted. Like the other poster, you are just backward and behind the times in your tech and thinking.

Take a look at the Techpowerup results. Average 4K fps for the 9800X 3D was 101.4, The 12900K was 98.3. Another LOL result. Don't bother checking the 13th and 14 gen result because it'll give you indigestion.

We could go on and on but given the amount of crowing, shilling and misrepresentation you want to indulge in, the results are embarrassing.

Again more emotional thrashing, I especially like how you cherry pick one source and claims its where everyone should get their results from.

For one thing 14900k owners should worry as their CPUs are literally dying. Not to mention the fix that still may not even save their CPUs puts the 14900k back under its competitors.

I also love you trying to say the 9800x3d is "expensive" and doesn't matter at 4k then go on about how you'll go out and grab a 14900k. If you'd be fine being GPU limited why buy a 14900k?

Why buy a CPU that requires exotic cooling, expensive RAM and motherboard, and 4x the power of its competitors just to not even be guaranteed the losing performance promised in benchmarks?

Like, what are you even on about?

And no, the facts about 4k aren't "laughable" they're not even "my take", its just reality. The gaming population JUST recently had 1080p drop below 60%. 1440p makes up 20%.

You wanna guess 4k? Its 3%. Theres more people running 16 core CPUs than 4k displays(4%).

Infact the amount of gamers with 16GB and 24GB cards outnumber 4k owners by a wide margin.

You know kid if cherry pick, make things up, and claim the world makes the choices you do in order to make a point then that means you don't have one.

Its insane how you try to bend reality in a poor attempt to make it seem like Intel who is LOSING the CPU war is somehow magically "winning" instead. Its mind boggling.

[PopinFRESH]

Oprindeligt skrevet af The_Abortionator:

...
Its insane how you try to bend reality in a poor attempt to make it seem like Intel who is LOSING the CPU war is somehow magically "winning" instead. Its mind boggling.

Fanboi's are gonna fanboi I guess

Real world benchmarks clearly show the 14900k, Core Ultra 100, and Core Ultra 200 cpus (285K) are no where near the 9800X3D in gaming performance; especially in games that are CPU heavy such as sims, even at 4K. Also, in regards to gaming, the Steam hardware survey is obviously the largest and most complete data compilation of relevant hardware and as you've noted 4K is still a very small fraction of the user base. However, people spending the money on top-end CPU, regardless if its AMD or Intel, are a higher probability to be one of those running a 4K display. Comparing the CPU % in relation to the display resolution though shows that most of those on a top-end CPU are still choosing to run 1440p or an Ultrawide 1440p (which is closer to 4K) than a 16:9 4K display.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Oprindeligt skrevet af PopinFRESH:

Oprindeligt skrevet af The_Abortionator:

...
Its insane how you try to bend reality in a poor attempt to make it seem like Intel who is LOSING the CPU war is somehow magically "winning" instead. Its mind boggling.

Fanboi's are gonna fanboi I guess

Real world benchmarks clearly show the 14900k, Core Ultra 100, and Core Ultra 200 cpus (285K) are no where near the 9800X3D in gaming performance; especially in games that are CPU heavy such as sims, even at 4K. Also, in regards to gaming, the Steam hardware survey is obviously the largest and most complete data compilation of relevant hardware and as you've noted 4K is still a very small fraction of the user base. However, people spending the money on top-end CPU, regardless if its AMD or Intel, are a higher probability to be one of those running a 4K display. Comparing the CPU % in relation to the display resolution though shows that most of those on a top-end CPU are still choosing to run 1440p or an Ultrawide 1440p (which is closer to 4K) than a 16:9 4K display.

I am a bit intel fanboy too.. but even I can no longer see any reason to buy intel..

yes I hate it.. for as fanboy.. I prefer the world being righjt..
and right would mean..something like we see with nvirea and radeon..

intel having the most powerfull chips,.. run more stable.. buy boy pricy
and amd being not that far behind but a bit more unsatble.,. but noticaly cheaper

so amd bang for buck king.. intel performance king..

thats how the world was.. and how it should have remnained..
but amd messed it up.. first by falling waaaay to far behind with that fx disaster.. and than by pushing it TOO far with ryzen.. surpassing intel actually and while I hoped and keep hoping intel puts amd back in their place for they do NOT belong to be above intell.. thats the world on it's head..
for the moment and until things change.. they are..

(and the fact that amd has HEDT . -> and that of intel was discontinued... also is sad)