I just get paranoid it’s not doing what it should.
And no I’m getting no stuttering before you ask
That's exactly what I said to you yesterday! I'd constantly be wondering what's going on lol.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Poll: Ryzen 7950X3D, 7900X3D, 7800X3D
- Thread starter kindai
- Start date
That's exactly what I said to you yesterday! I'd constantly be wondering what's going on lol.
Deleted member 258511
D
Deleted member 258511
You’ve got me paranoid now. I’m just going to test everything and I can almost guarantee most games are better with just the 3d.
Finally the cheap boards Lisa promised are here, only 5 months later
videocardz.com
First AMD AM5 motherboard is now available below $125 - VideoCardz.com
ASRock’s B650 motherboard drops below $125 And it is not the rumored entry-level A620 chipset Cheaper PC motherboards would enable more people to afford building their own computers or upgrading their existing ones. With AMD launching more Ryzen 7000 CPU options and DDR5 memory reaching even...
videocardz.com
Last edited:
Deleted member 258511
D
Deleted member 258511
This is my point about the 7950x 3d. The only way to find out if a game performs better on one or both is to test. I think most games apart from Spider-Man and maybe one or two others perform better with just the 3d. I just find myself thinking “I wonder if it’s better if I turn that off”. Im starting to get a bit bothered by it. This video sums it up.
m.youtube.com
7950X3D vs 7800X3D - Is AMD's 16 Core a SCAM?
After taking a look at two separate channels, I decided to run some tests with an Ryzen 9 7950X3D with half its cores cut (so basically a Ryzen 7 7800X3D Sim...
m.youtube.com
This is my point about the 7950x 3d. The only way to find out if a game performs better on one or both is to test. I think most games apart from Spider-Man and maybe one or two others perform better with just the 3d. I just find myself thinking “I wonder if it’s better if I turn that off”. Im starting to get a bit bothered by it. This video sums it up.
7950X3D vs 7800X3D - Is AMD's 16 Core a SCAM?
After taking a look at two separate channels, I decided to run some tests with an Ryzen 9 7950X3D with half its cores cut (so basically a Ryzen 7 7800X3D Sim...
I don't think the 7950X3D is a perfect cpu for anything.
If you set it up you can get the best performance or maybe if they make the scheduling better in the future but can't rely on that. Buying it today you have to be aware that you will run into scenarios that it doesn't perfectly assign cores and manual intervention may be required.
But I dunno about some of his testing. Running cinebench while gaming as a test is questionable but if you put the effort in you could absolutely run the game on the 8 3d cores while letting cinebench run on the 8 regular ones. It just won't do that automatically. Also power budget is probably going to kick in.
To be fair I think he did acknowledge that quite heavily. You can go through all this complexity and make it work, but for most people - especially most people who just want to play games, it’s really questionable if it’s worth it.
I think they would have done better to offer a 7800x3d and a 7600x3d.
But the latter would probably have turned out to be the best gaming cpu in terms of price/positioning and would end up undercutting the whole lineup too much…
Deleted member 258511
D
Deleted member 258511
I think the reason he used Cinebench was to recreate a test others have done to compare.
I don’t mind putting the effort in and fiddling, I kind of enjoy it. But you would have to test on a game by game basis and that can be a bit of a headache. Like I say most situations will be better on the 3d alone, the odd game it might not.
I expect it to improve over time, but I mean prices will drop when the 7800 x3d is released and I honestly can’t see anyone other than a few weirdos like me wanting to have the hassle, when most just work better on the plain 3d.
Deleted member 258511
D
Deleted member 258511
It makes the 7800 x3d really quite something when you take price and efficiency without the mess on into account. Will there be one or two scenarios where the 7950x 3d will be a bit better? Yes, but not enough that it should put people off.
Good luck getting a 7800 x3d though. They will be like hens teeth for a good while. Which might be the only reason to pick up one of the others.
Last edited by a moderator:
After some delay I managed to build my new 7950X3D system! Had no difficulty putting it together which was a welcome change and managed to do a reformat of my nvme and updated the bios, chipset drivers, gamebar, Nvidia drivers. I’m away on business until the weekend but think I just need to do a few tweaks in the bios and I’m good when I’m back. Can’t wait to fire up some benchmarks 
Yeah that is my only concern, could be months. Would like to think AMD has prepared itself for the probable demand, and that the fairly low AM5 adoption rates would help with availability. Not like when 5800x3d launched, there were millions of people using AM4 boards. Then again…
Not in a rush, its a planned buy after summer for a nice upgrade.
The best is yet to come
would be interesting to get an idea what prices AMD (and Intel) charge for their various chipset now and over the last few years.Finally the cheap boards Lisa promised are here, only 5 months later
First AMD AM5 motherboard is now available below $125 - VideoCardz.com
ASRock’s B650 motherboard drops below $125 And it is not the rumored entry-level A620 chipset Cheaper PC motherboards would enable more people to afford building their own computers or upgrading their existing ones. With AMD launching more Ryzen 7000 CPU options and DDR5 memory reaching even...
Sure traces for PCIe 5.0 have to cost more than 3.0 or 4.0 currently do but would be nice to get an idea who is driving most of the inflation.
I feel like the launch of the 7950x3d shattered my hopes of that really. Feels like they sent barely any over to most of Europe, and it doesn't seem like they've sent a new shipment since. 7900x3d is still available but I feel like that's more because it's an odd duck product that not many really want.
Thing is that the current thread management feels a bit fiddly, I wonder if the OS could have simply directed the cores by detecting common graphic libraries (DirectX, Opengl, Vulcan) being called by an executable.
@LtMatt - Not sure if you can offer any advice on this:
My SP suddenly jumped to 112!
Except... through all the CO optimising and messing up using Ryzen Master, I have some weird Y-Cruncher / CPU behaviour
Effectively, with any form of PBO enabled, the BBP stress test (second in the sequence if using 1-7-0 to run all stress tests) instantly fails, citing Core 8 and Core 9.. If I 'disable' PBO it also fails.. I bumped CO Offsets for 8 and 9 in the BIOS all teh way to +30 eventually and they will never pass..
But setting PBO to auto which is default will then pass with CO at various values
The silly thing is, if I set PBO to 'auto' and use a CO all core offset of -25 or -30, I get great cinebench scores (38900 in R23 being the highest so far), that also passes the first BKT stress test (10 runs) in Y-Cruncher and cores are giving very nice sustained clocks @ 80C package temp max..
I suspect the BIOS might have got itself messed up (Ryzen Master didn't help!) as the SP shouldn't just increase like that, and why it fails if PBO is 'disabled' (along with CO also disabled) yet passes if PBO/CO are both 'auto' is odd too..
Before I reset everything (including reinstalling windows), I just wanted to check, Y-Cruncher core definitions are identical to the BIOS, i.e. Core 8 failing in Y-Cruncher = Core 8 in the CO BIOS section?
My SP suddenly jumped to 112!
Except... through all the CO optimising and messing up using Ryzen Master, I have some weird Y-Cruncher / CPU behaviour
Effectively, with any form of PBO enabled, the BBP stress test (second in the sequence if using 1-7-0 to run all stress tests) instantly fails, citing Core 8 and Core 9.. If I 'disable' PBO it also fails.. I bumped CO Offsets for 8 and 9 in the BIOS all teh way to +30 eventually and they will never pass..
But setting PBO to auto which is default will then pass with CO at various values
The silly thing is, if I set PBO to 'auto' and use a CO all core offset of -25 or -30, I get great cinebench scores (38900 in R23 being the highest so far), that also passes the first BKT stress test (10 runs) in Y-Cruncher and cores are giving very nice sustained clocks @ 80C package temp max..
I suspect the BIOS might have got itself messed up (Ryzen Master didn't help!) as the SP shouldn't just increase like that, and why it fails if PBO is 'disabled' (along with CO also disabled) yet passes if PBO/CO are both 'auto' is odd too..
Before I reset everything (including reinstalling windows), I just wanted to check, Y-Cruncher core definitions are identical to the BIOS, i.e. Core 8 failing in Y-Cruncher = Core 8 in the CO BIOS section?
Last edited:
If you add voltage using curve optimiser (+ instead of -) in theory SP might improve, but almost certainly performance will go down. SP rating should be judged off BIOS default settings.
Changing stuff in BIOS and RM generally a bad idea. You pick one and stick with it, I prefer BIOS but RMT can be handy for monitoring.
Put BIOS back to default settings, dial in your XMP or memory settings and rerun the test. Assuming your memory is stable y cruncher should pass.
For diagnosing which core is which, use this table.
core 0 = 0/1 logical core
core 1 = 2/3 logical core
core 2 = 4/5 logical core
core 3 = 6/7 logical core
core 4 = 8/9 logical core
core 5 = 10/11 logical core
core 6 = 12/13 logical core
core 7 = 14/15 logical core
core 8 = 16/17 logical core
core 9 = 18/19 logical core
core 10 = 20/21 logical core
core 11 = 22/23 logical core
core 12 = 24/25 logical core
core 13 = 26/27 logical core
core 14 = 28/29 logical core
core 15 = 30/31 logical core
Again i see now why AMD never made a 16 core X3D Ryzen 5000 series.This is my point about the 7950x 3d. The only way to find out if a game performs better on one or both is to test. I think most games apart from Spider-Man and maybe one or two others perform better with just the 3d. I just find myself thinking “I wonder if it’s better if I turn that off”. Im starting to get a bit bothered by it. This video sums it up.
7950X3D vs 7800X3D - Is AMD's 16 Core a SCAM?
After taking a look at two separate channels, I decided to run some tests with an Ryzen 9 7950X3D with half its cores cut (so basically a Ryzen 7 7800X3D Sim...
You don't do anything, you just leave it as it is, if i set core affinity to run games only on the logical cores you would gain performance some times, other times you would loose performance, this for any CPU of the past 20 years.
Are you now going to agonise about turning HT off or on for the next two weeks? No, you're not, you're just going to run it as it is and not worry about it.
This is just another one of these guys looking for problems in a new technology so he can cash in on a video about it, these people don't care about the technology, they don't care about you, they just want you to be anxious enough about his contrived subject to talk about it and spread his video all over the place like a cancer.
You're not buying a CPU that does either or, its a 16 core CPU with the benefits that brings and it runs games better than the 16 core CPU without the cache, its got exactly what people wanted, what a way to twist that in to a negative....
Don't make AMD feel like they made a mistake answering actual PC hardware enthusiasts requests. #### #### like him are why we can't have nice things.
Last edited:
Deleted member 258511
D
Deleted member 258511
That’s the thing though you should be able to just leave it and it works, but if you want the best performance you aren’t getting it every time because it can hurt performance in some games. It’s just the way it is.
Yes turning HT off is also a thing and some people have tested this on here and had better performance doing so.
You can literally just leave the Intel CPU’s and guess what…..they work without any of this. I’m not apologising for talking about how messy AMD have implemented this. Even the pro AMD YouTube channel Moores Law literally said the exact same thing, Jayz2Cents said if he had of known how it was implemented he would have gone Inte. Everyone is saying the same thing but not because it’s some big conspiracy, but because it is what it is. You know fine well if this was Intel you’d be all over this.
You have to compare apples to apples here Humbug. Not everything AMD produce is going to better in every way, and it’s nothing personal.
They don’t know you exist!
Last edited by a moderator:
Only had the misfortune to suffer Intel's big.LITTLE copy on my work laptop, but there are plenty of things which run better with the E cores turned off. Plenty which don't. With the E-cores off one particularly complext SQL query was 35 mins vs 15 mins (and 11 mins on my old "ancient" Haswell laptop). Still I have left the E cores on as other tasks do use them.
Not gaming loads but I am pretty disappointed that Intel does not "work without any of this".