5 ms·

9800X3D looks like an all-around winner, so if you don't mind spending $500 on just the CPU, I don't see why anyone would get anything else.

ThatMedicIsASpy 2y ago
All-around winner in what? For $500 you can get a lot more cores. All-around winning, $500, 8 cores makes no sense. This thing has a premium gaming price tag because there is nothing close to it other than their own 7800X3D.
- bhouston 2y ago
  What would you suggest instead? It is pretty competitive on the Multi-Core rating: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8633320 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8633320 compared to other CPUs: https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks
- jandrese 2y ago
  The benchmarks in the article suggest that more cores are largely wasted on real world applications.
  - ThatMedicIsASpy 2y ago
    Yes so buy according to your needs? 8 cores do not cost $500.
    - behringer 2y ago
      They do when those cores are 2 to 4 times faster than the rest.
- sliken 2y ago
  In theory, yes. But in the real world the bottleneck of the same 128 bit wide memory, interface that's been popular way back since the time of dual core chips. Less cache misses (on popular workloads) helps decrease power and increase performance enough that few things benefit from 12-16 cores. Thus the M3 max (with a 512 bit wide memory system) has a class leading single core and multi-core scores.
  - 0xQSL 2y ago
    I'm not so sure about memory actually being the bottleneck for these 8 core parts. If memory bandwidth is the bottleneck this should show up in benchmarks with higher dram clocks. I can't find any good application benchmarks, but computerbase.de did it for gaming with 7800MHz vs 6000MHz and didn't find much of a difference [1] The apple chips are APUs and need a lot of their memory bandwidth for the gpu. Are there any good resources on how much of this bandwidth is actually used in common cpu workloads? Can the CPU even max out half of the 512bit bus? [1] https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-test.90151/seite-6#abschnitt_ramoc_ddr57800 https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/amd-ryzen-7-...
    - wmf 2y ago
      For AMD I think Infinity Fabric is the bottleneck so increasing memory clock without increasing IF clock does nothing. And it's also possible that 8 cores with massive cache simply don't need more bandwidth.
      - sliken 2y ago
        My understanding is the single CCD chips (like the 9800x3d) have 2 IF links, while the dual CCD chips (like the 9950x) have 1. Keep in mind these CCDs are shared with turin (12 channel), threadripper pro (8 channel), siena (6 channel), threadripper (4 channel). The higher CCD configurations have 1 IF link per chip, the lower have 2 IF links per chip. Presumably AMD would bother with the 2 IF link chips unless it helped.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        I can't find anything to back that up. That said, each link gives a CCD 64GB/s of read speed and 32GB/s of write speed. 8000MHz memory at 128 bits would get up to 128GB/s. So being stuck with one link would bottleneck badly enough to hide the effects of memory speed.
        2y ago
- Hikikomori 2y ago
  Cores or "cores"?
LorenDB 2y ago
As a C++ programmer, I just bought a 9900X for my first PC build. Sure, it won't game as well, but I like fast compile times, and the 9900X is on sale for $380 right now. That's $100 cheaper than the 9800X3D launch price.
- jeffbee 2y ago
  Yeah, these Zen 5 are killer for that kind of workload. I also replaced my workstation with a 9900-series CPU since my Intel 14900K fried itself, and I am very pleased with every aspect, except idle power consumption which is a minor drawback. It looks like the X3D is no better than the 9900X for non-game single-threaded workloads like browsers, and it's much worse than the 12 or 16 core parts in terms of overall throughput, so for a non-gamer the plain X seems much better than the X3D.
  - mdre 2y ago
    What's your idle power consumption for AMD vs Intel if you don't mind me asking? I'm getting avg 125W for my 13900k build, measured at the wall and it mildly bugs me when I think of it, I thought it'd be closer to 80. And power is very expensive where I live now.
    - jeffbee 2y ago
      If you are getting 125W at the wall on a PC at idle, your machine or operating system is extremely broken, or you are running atmosphere physics simulations all the time. The SoC on my Intel box typically drew < 1W as measured by RAPL. The 9950X draws about 18W measured the same way. Because of platform overhead the difference in terms of ratio is not that large but the Ryzen system is drawing about 40W at the wall when it's just sitting there.
      - zokier 2y ago
        Discrete gpu can easily add 20-40w of idle power draw, so that's something to keep in mind. I believe that 60ish watts is pretty typical idle consumption for desktop system, Ryzens typically having 10w higher idle draw than Intel. Some random reviews with whole system idle measurements: https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-processor-review?page=5 https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-processo... https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d/23.html https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d/23.ht...
Wytwwww 2y ago
Intel can still be kind of faster for "productivity" stuff? At least if you are willing to pay for the >8000 MHz CUDIMMs (which i don't think AMD even supports at full speed?) which can result in pretty impressive performance. Of course the value/price is probably not great...

ThatMedicIsASpy 2y ago

All-around winner in what? For $500 you can get a lot more cores. All-around winning, $500, 8 cores makes no sense. This thing has a premium gaming price tag because there is nothing close to it other than their own 7800X3D.

bhouston 2y ago
What would you suggest instead? It is pretty competitive on the Multi-Core rating: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8633320 https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/8633320 compared to other CPUs: https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks
jandrese 2y ago
The benchmarks in the article suggest that more cores are largely wasted on real world applications.
- ThatMedicIsASpy 2y ago
  Yes so buy according to your needs? 8 cores do not cost $500.
  - behringer 2y ago
    They do when those cores are 2 to 4 times faster than the rest.
sliken 2y ago
In theory, yes. But in the real world the bottleneck of the same 128 bit wide memory, interface that's been popular way back since the time of dual core chips. Less cache misses (on popular workloads) helps decrease power and increase performance enough that few things benefit from 12-16 cores. Thus the M3 max (with a 512 bit wide memory system) has a class leading single core and multi-core scores.
- 0xQSL 2y ago
  I'm not so sure about memory actually being the bottleneck for these 8 core parts. If memory bandwidth is the bottleneck this should show up in benchmarks with higher dram clocks. I can't find any good application benchmarks, but computerbase.de did it for gaming with 7800MHz vs 6000MHz and didn't find much of a difference [1] The apple chips are APUs and need a lot of their memory bandwidth for the gpu. Are there any good resources on how much of this bandwidth is actually used in common cpu workloads? Can the CPU even max out half of the 512bit bus? [1] https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-test.90151/seite-6#abschnitt_ramoc_ddr57800 https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/prozessoren/amd-ryzen-7-...
  - wmf 2y ago
    For AMD I think Infinity Fabric is the bottleneck so increasing memory clock without increasing IF clock does nothing. And it's also possible that 8 cores with massive cache simply don't need more bandwidth.
    - sliken 2y ago
      My understanding is the single CCD chips (like the 9800x3d) have 2 IF links, while the dual CCD chips (like the 9950x) have 1. Keep in mind these CCDs are shared with turin (12 channel), threadripper pro (8 channel), siena (6 channel), threadripper (4 channel). The higher CCD configurations have 1 IF link per chip, the lower have 2 IF links per chip. Presumably AMD would bother with the 2 IF link chips unless it helped.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        I can't find anything to back that up. That said, each link gives a CCD 64GB/s of read speed and 32GB/s of write speed. 8000MHz memory at 128 bits would get up to 128GB/s. So being stuck with one link would bottleneck badly enough to hide the effects of memory speed.
        2y ago
Hikikomori 2y ago
Cores or "cores"?

LorenDB 2y ago

As a C++ programmer, I just bought a 9900X for my first PC build. Sure, it won't game as well, but I like fast compile times, and the 9900X is on sale for $380 right now. That's $100 cheaper than the 9800X3D launch price.

jeffbee 2y ago
Yeah, these Zen 5 are killer for that kind of workload. I also replaced my workstation with a 9900-series CPU since my Intel 14900K fried itself, and I am very pleased with every aspect, except idle power consumption which is a minor drawback. It looks like the X3D is no better than the 9900X for non-game single-threaded workloads like browsers, and it's much worse than the 12 or 16 core parts in terms of overall throughput, so for a non-gamer the plain X seems much better than the X3D.
- mdre 2y ago
  What's your idle power consumption for AMD vs Intel if you don't mind me asking? I'm getting avg 125W for my 13900k build, measured at the wall and it mildly bugs me when I think of it, I thought it'd be closer to 80. And power is very expensive where I live now.
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    If you are getting 125W at the wall on a PC at idle, your machine or operating system is extremely broken, or you are running atmosphere physics simulations all the time. The SoC on my Intel box typically drew < 1W as measured by RAPL. The 9950X draws about 18W measured the same way. Because of platform overhead the difference in terms of ratio is not that large but the Ryzen system is drawing about 40W at the wall when it's just sitting there.
    - zokier 2y ago
      Discrete gpu can easily add 20-40w of idle power draw, so that's something to keep in mind. I believe that 60ish watts is pretty typical idle consumption for desktop system, Ryzens typically having 10w higher idle draw than Intel. Some random reviews with whole system idle measurements: https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-processor-review?page=5 https://hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d-processo... https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d/23.html https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-9800x3d/23.ht...

Wytwwww 2y ago

Intel can still be kind of faster for "productivity" stuff? At least if you are willing to pay for the >8000 MHz CUDIMMs (which i don't think AMD even supports at full speed?) which can result in pretty impressive performance. Of course the value/price is probably not great...