Poll: Ryzen 7950X3D, 7900X3D, 7800X3D

[hobib_ali]

guys the 7950X3D is $699

This in UK sterling is £576.14

Do you think this will be priced around the 580 GBP mark?

 

[rare]

guys the 7950X3D is $699

This in UK sterling is £576.14

Do you think this will be priced around the 580 GBP mark?

Probably be priced at the same price point the 7950 was at launch.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

guys the 7950X3D is $699

This in UK sterling is £576.14

Do you think this will be priced around the 580 GBP mark?

I imagine it's $699 without sales tax (VAT for us), so I'd expect it to be around £700.

 

[Iron Man]

guys the 7950X3D is $699

This in UK sterling is £576.14

Do you think this will be priced around the 580 GBP mark?

$ figure doesn’t include VAT and it’s likely to be £750 ish once you include the distributor and OCUK cut.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Think your a bit confused here we are comparing the 7950x3D to the 7800x3D. In a 8 core limited game (majority of games) the performance in gaming should be pretty much the same as the 8 cached cores are identical in cache and frequency. Any game that uses more than 8 cores will favour the 7950x3D though.

Are there any games that meaningfully utilize more than 8 cores. I am not talking about well more than 8 cores all else equal slightly helps an itty but within margin of error so you do not notice any performance improvements without a benchmark tracker? And I mean without running lots of background tasks either so the game truly benefits significantly from more than 8 cores and 16 threads?. Which such game or games are there?

 

[Iron Man]

Are there any games that meaningfully utilize more than 8 cores. I am not talking about well more than 8 cores all else equal slightly helps an itty but within margin of error so you do not notice any performance improvements without a benchmark tracker? And I mean without running lots of background tasks either so the game truly benefits significantly from more than 8 cores and 16 threads?. Which such game or games are there?

Cyberpunk, championship manager, Ashes of Singularity, Civilization VI, much of the Total War series of games, turn base strategy type games like Stellaris. Drop in the Ocean really compared to the amount of games out there that will use 8 cores.

I will be buying the 7950X3D mostly because I can’t be bothered to wait until April to upgrade but I’m not expecting much of an improvement over the 7800X3D for gaming unless there is a boost in frequency for the cached cores.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Cyberpunk, championship manager, Ashes of Singularity, Civilization VI, much of the Total War series of games, turn base strategy type games like Stellaris. Drop in the Ocean really compared to the amount of games out there that will use 8 cores.

I will be buying the 7950X3D mostly because I can’t be bothered to wait until April to upgrade but I’m not expecting much of an improvement over the 7800X3D for gaming unless there is a boost in frequency for the cached cores.

In turn based strategy games, is the only real benefit just faster turn times?

And how does Cyberpunk benefit and where? Almost ironic as its recommended system requirements do not even recommend anything more than a high tier quad core from Intel.

 

[Dave2150]

Think your a bit confused here we are comparing the 7950x3D to the 7800x3D. In a 8 core limited game (majority of games) the performance in gaming should be pretty much the same as the 8 cached cores are identical in cache and frequency. Any game that uses more than 8 cores will favour the 7950x3D though.

No confusion here, just experience from using a 4090 on my rigs, with 6, 8, 12 and 16 core CPU's. Many games run better on CPU's with > 8 cores (especially newer games with RT)

I'm very curious if the windows/amd software scheduler will be intelligent enough to give certain threads the core on the higher boost CCX (threads that don't rely on cache as much) and other threads the higher cache CCX.

I have my doubts, but we'll see. Then again - unless you game on a windows installation with games and no other software, there'll always be background processes that'll use cores/threads, meaning the 12 and 16 core CPU's will just outperform.

With intel's i7's having 24 threads, you can be sure software developers will leverage this going forward too.

 

[Iron Man]

No confusion here, just experience from using a 4090 on my rigs, with 6, 8, 12 and 16 core CPU's. Many games run better on CPU's with > 8 cores.

I'm very curious if the windows/amd software scheduler will be intelligent enough to give certain threads the core on the higher boost CCX (threads that don't rely on cache as much) and other threads the higher cache CCX.

I have my doubts, but we'll see. Then again - unless you game on a windows installation with games and no other software, there'll always be background processes that'll use cores/threads, meaning the 12 and 16 core CPU's will just outperform.

With intel's i7's having 24 threads, you can be sure software developers will leverage this going forward too.

I get that having extra cores would benefit by running background processes which would mean a small advantage for the 7950x3D but the 7950 vs 7700 is not a great comparison as the base clock and boost speeds are quite different. The ccd of the 7950x3D and 7800x3D have the same clock speeds unless it’s changed on released so I wouldnt foresee the difference would be as pronounced as the 7950 and 7700.

 

[Wolverine2349]

No confusion here, just experience from using a 4090 on my rigs, with 6, 8, 12 and 16 core CPU's. Many games run better on CPU's with > 8 cores (especially newer games with RT)

I'm very curious if the windows/amd software scheduler will be intelligent enough to give certain threads the core on the higher boost CCX (threads that don't rely on cache as much) and other threads the higher cache CCX.

I have my doubts, but we'll see. Then again - unless you game on a windows installation with games and no other software, there'll always be background processes that'll use cores/threads, meaning the 12 and 16 core CPU's will just outperform.

With intel's i7's having 24 threads, you can be sure software developers will leverage this going forward too.

Well that is not me so much. All other software I have is standalone and does not run in background. Only software I have that runs in background is HWInfo64 to monitor temps and ESET NOD32. Nothing else runs in background and I make sure it does not as I disable all startup processes that other software may use.

 

[delta0]

Well that is not me so much. All other software I have is standalone and does not run in background. Only software I have that runs in background is HWInfo64 to monitor temps and ESET NOD32. Nothing else runs in background and I make sure it does not as I disable all startup processes that other software may use.

There’s the OS and a whole bunch of processes that won’t need to run on the 3D cache CCD like audio etc. that can run on the other one.

 

[humbug]

I have never found a situation where 8 cores are not more than enough to run the game and a dozen browser tabs, Discord, Youtube... all at the same time.

5800X

If you're gaming, its the sweet spot.

 

[humbug]

No confusion here, just experience from using a 4090 on my rigs, with 6, 8, 12 and 16 core CPU's. Many games run better on CPU's with > 8 cores (especially newer games with RT)

I'm very curious if the windows/amd software scheduler will be intelligent enough to give certain threads the core on the higher boost CCX (threads that don't rely on cache as much) and other threads the higher cache CCX.

I have my doubts, but we'll see. Then again - unless you game on a windows installation with games and no other software, there'll always be background processes that'll use cores/threads, meaning the 12 and 16 core CPU's will just outperform.

With intel's i7's having 24 threads, you can be sure software developers will leverage this going forward too.

Background tasks just don't use nearly enough CPU cycles to make a difference even if you're already near the limit with your CPU in games.

You don't need 24 threads because your listening to Youtube, have Discord running, maybe Spotify for some weird reason at the same time as Youtube and you have a bunch of browser tabs open because you're too lazy to close them.... does not make the blindest bit of difference to the performance of your game unless you're running 16 potatoes, then you might need a few more spuds.

 

[Wolverine2349]

Background tasks just don't use nearly enough CPU cycles to make a difference even if you're already near the limit with your CPU in games.

You don't need 24 threads because your listening to Youtube, have Discord running, maybe Spotify for some weird reason at the same time as Youtube and you have a bunch of browser tabs open because you're too lazy to close them.... does not make the blindest bit of difference to the performance of your game unless you're running 16 potatoes, then you might need a few more spuds.

Yes exactly true. Background tasks do not use nearly enough for 8 cores to not be more than enough for gaming. Unless like you said you are running an excessive amount of them. Though these days many people do as they have like triple or more monitors all active, lots of Chrome tabs with videos' in background or rich web pages, Spotify, Discord, HWInfo, Afterburner RGB utilities, and much more on top of all that.

Though just Discord and a few Chrome tabs with only 1 monitor and HWInfo, and Afterburner not at all where 8 cores is not more than enough.

 

[Grim5]

Background tasks just don't use nearly enough CPU cycles to make a difference even if you're already near the limit with your CPU in games.

You don't need 24 threads because your listening to Youtube, have Discord running, maybe Spotify for some weird reason at the same time as Youtube and you have a bunch of browser tabs open because you're too lazy to close them.... does not make the blindest bit of difference to the performance of your game unless you're running 16 potatoes, then you might need a few more spuds.

A family member recently got a new laptop to replace their 8 year old laptop and while they are not good with computers I tried to explain how the one should be fast for a very long time unlike the one it replaced. Both are Intel based laptops but the former only had 2 cores and over the years it became increasingly slow to the point where even just web browsing was painful, the new one has 14 cores and I can't think of any reason why this laptop needs 14 cores (because it's not a gaming laptop and it's not a portable workstation) but at least I'm pretty sure it's not going to run out of cpu cycles like the old one

 

[Twinz]

Won't a first gen threadripper get trounced by current gen stuff with far fewer cores? (Particularly for gaming)

I think we are conflating overall cpu performance with the various approaches to how overall performance is packaged / delivered.

 

[humbug]

Won't a first gen threadripper get trounced by current gen stuff with far fewer cores? (Particularly for gaming)

I think we are conflating overall cpu performance with the various approaches to how overall performance is packaged / delivered.

Ya, 16 core Zen 1 Threadripper vs 8 core gen 3 Zen....

IMO this is mental, the 1950X was a true HEDT, fast by any standard, the 5800X is what? 2 or 3 years newer?

 

[humbug]

I'm going to say it..... after a decade of stagnation AMD have pushed CPU performance forward massively, yes Intel have caught up, somewhat, AMD still lead and by a huge margin in sectors beyond the performance category we buy but its AMD that's driven all of this.

We should remember that.

I'm basically running 1.5X i7 6950X's (a $2000 CPU in 2017) with a dead in the mid range 2020 retail CPU.

 

[subbytna]

guys the 7950X3D is $699

This in UK sterling is £576.14

Do you think this will be priced around the 580 GBP mark?

OCUK exchange rate means that $699 for the CPU, will be £699 in OCUKland

 

[humbug]

That's the same price as the 13900KS.