Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
There are some tradeoffs to attaining the leading gaming performance, though — some games don’t benefit from the 3D V-Cache, and the chip isn’t as fast in productivity apps as competing Intel chips. The 7950X3D also suffers from many of the pain points we’ve already seen with the fledgling AM5 platform — the motherboard ecosystem is more expensive than Intel’s offerings, and the strict requirement for DDR5 significantly increases costs compared to Intel’s DDR4-friendly platform.
PlaneInTheSky said:The cons just weigh too heavy for me to even consider the CPU or the AM5 platform. When it comes to the synthetic benchmarks, there's very little difference between the 7950X3D and the 7950X. Both chips are phenomenal multitaskers, and though the 7950X has consistently stronger single core scores than the 7950X3D, the 7950X3D performs better with multi core performance than its non-3D V-Cache counterpart. The Ryzen 9 7950X3D pretty much matches the 7950X in Blender and Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Premiere tests, though it lags a bit in VRay 5 (though not by that much). Where it really shines though is with HandBrake 1.6. This is one of the creative tests we use where we get to measure it's true real-world performance on a creative workload, especially one that is highly CPU dependent. Quite simply, AMD does so much more with far less power than either of the competing flagship processors, and you don't have to accept lower performance as a tradeoff. Much more often than not, you're getting a substantially faster processor in practice — especially for gaming — making it very hard to deny the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D its due.Here is a tuned 4090 running on a 7950X3D using process lasso to force games to the cache CCD and other apps to the frequency CCD. The latest CPUs in the AMD Ryzen 7000 Series are here. Teased at CES 2023, the X3D Ryzen 9 models are finally hitting the shelves!As of April 6 th, we now also have an X3D Ryzen 7 model too! The heat produced by the 3D V-Cache forced AMD to lower the max operating temperature of the processor from 95 degrees C on the Ryzen 9 7950X to 89 degrees C on the Ryzen 9 7950X3D. A corresponding reduction in thermal design power (TDP) rating also occurred, with the Ryzen 9 7950X having a 170-watt (W) TDP and the Ryzen 9 7950X3D having a 120W TDP.
If you want the best performance, do not use process lasso. People will advise using it, but when I tested Process Lasso in games, I saw lower performance compared to when I just used game bar to automatically handle CCD assignment. If you want the easier option, use game bar it's less hassle in the long run. If you decide to follow my advice, all you need to do is the following and everything should work as intended. Cache has been an essential and highly influential part of computers for decades now, and its importance is unquestionable. What is questionable, however, and what has been questioned since the beginning, is how much cache is enough. Some argue that you can never have enough, but this is illogical. More cache means a larger, or in this case, an extra, chip—and that leads to higher costs. Past a certain point, it becomes questionable if the CPU will even be able to use or take advantage of all the cache you have. And this test highlights that even at 1440p the extra L3 cache of the 7950X3D tangibly makes a difference to the gaming performance of the system at the highest graphical presets. But, as always, at 4K it's all about the GPU. Metro is the only benchmark that displays some difference between the three chips attached to the RTX 4090, and then that's more down to some vagaries in optimisation and drivers. If the software detects a certain high level of thread utilisation, however, it will spin up that dormant chiplet and bring it online if its extra core count is needed. Stress testing tools like Cinebench R23 push the processor to its engineered limits in terms of power use and operating temperature, and I use these to make sure that every chip is pushed to full 100% CPU utilization under load to determine the minimum and maximum amount of power the processor uses (measured in watts) and the minimum and maximum temperature recorded (measured in Celsius).
Language
By this measure, the Ryzen 9 7950X3D outperforms the 7950X by about 10% and the 13900K by about 6% when I average out all of the degrees of difference between the three chips, across every test. But even then, the demonstrably better performance of the 7950X3D can be somewhat obscured, since Intel especially benefits from much higher synthetic benchmark scores that don't really translate cleanly into actual real-world performance where the 7950X3D is simply the better processor overall.
With both tuned, I'd still rather have the 16 core variant personally. It'll be the better overall chip IMO, basing this off the 7950X vs the 7700X.
Design: 'Zen 4,' Cached Out
In most CPU tests, however, the cache is not that helpful, and this is what paints the worst picture of the Ryzen 9 7950X3D. Out of all of our CPUs tests, the Ryzen 9 7950X3D is beaten by the Ryzen 9 7950X in all of them except one. That one is the single-threaded POV-Ray 3.7 test, and admittedly that's within the margin of error.
You need to use a supported Windows 10/11 build or later. These are the earliest supported versions, so if you are using a version that predates these, you'll need to update. The chipset drivers also install the AMD PPM Provisioning File Driver, which improves performance by parking the slowest cores when Game Mode or Mixed Reality Mode is active. In effect, this shuts down the ‘standard’ CCD when Game Mode or Mixed Reality Mode is active, thus constraining latency-sensitive workloads (like games) to the 3D V-Cache chiplet. This improves the cache hit rate and reduces high-latency communication between the two CCDs, resulting in faster performance for workloads that don’t need access to (or benefit from) all the cores. You also really can't discount the performance-per-watt that you're getting with the Ryzen 9 7950X3D, which is at least twice what you'd get with the Intel Core i9-13900K and about 55% better than the 7950X. This difference is even more telling when it comes to gaming performance. Compared to the 7950X, the 7950X3D performs like it is fully one to two generations ahead of its non-3D V-Cache counterpart with roughly 20% to 25% better gaming performance at 1080p. Likewise, when it comes to the Intel Core i9-13900K, the 7950X3D lands about 16% to 19% faster on average, but some games will perform substantially better, and the 7950X3D is never that far behind the 13900K when it does occasionally lose out. The score in 3DMark obtained by the Ryzen 9 7950X3D is slightly lower than the one obtained by the Ryzen 9 7950X, but by so slim of a margin that it's essentially a tie. These two chips tie in other tests as well but, in F1 22, the Ryzen 9 7950X3D holds a decisive advantage over its similarly named counterpart while also narrowly passing the Intel competition.It is good practice to update game bar once or twice a month as new games get released. It will often prompt you when you press the game bar hotkey when launching a game if there is an update available. I’ve tested something like 30+ games in my Steam, Battle.net, Origin, GOG, Ms-Store, Ubisoft and everything was recognised and worked without issue.
Great Deal 
New Comment