AMD Announces Ryzen 7800X3D / 7900X3D / 7950X3D Pricing & Availability

[polarathene]

If nothing else, I'll wait for more 65W TDP SKUs. I don't have air conditioning.

They have an eco mode that allows you to run at lower TDP. 65W 7700X performs slightly better than a 7700 (about 10% loss of 105W 7700X). But there are other tunables where you can decrease temps while still keeping most performance, some BIOS also allow you to set a temperature limit so the CPU won't heat up excessively for an extra 100MHz or so.

[ssokolow]

They have an eco mode that allows you to run at lower TDP. 65W 7700X performs slightly better than a 7700 (about 10% loss of 105W 7700X). But there are other tunables where you can decrease temps while still keeping most performance, some BIOS also allow you to set a temperature limit so the CPU won't heat up excessively for an extra 100MHz or so.

Then why shouldn't I just buy a cheaper SKU and get more value for my dollar? I'm not made of money.

[skeevy420]

The 7800X3D is launching at the same price as the 5800X3D: same MSRP.

The 33% price premium over the street price of the 5800X3D is about equal to the performance increase, too.

Given that demand for PC components has fallen off a cliff, it wouldn't surprise me to see the 7800X3D selling below MSRP in not too long.

I don't doubt it either, but moving to those also means needing a new motherboard and ram. For me, the biggest issue is that I already get a nice 2K60 with a 4650G APU paired with a 6700 XT so I'd have to upgrade a lot of stuff for unnoticeable in gaming gains in regards to the games that I play. A 5800X3D and better really would really only benefit me for poorly optimized games that need as much single-core performance as possible and when I compile some software once or twice a week. For everything else I'm basically at the point of diminishing returns since I'm not chasing the 4K dragon.

[Spacefish]

Then why shouldn't I just buy a cheaper SKU and get more value for my dollar? I'm not made of money.

Depends on binning, maybe the 65W chips need more voltage to be stable, so the clock is lower..
Better chips = lower voltage and higher clock you can run them on, so less power consumption for more performance

[F.Ultra]

I really wonder how Linux will handle the lopsided cache, especially in singled thread applications and games. Will it have any clue about where a process will perform better?

On the Windows side they're apparently building lists of which applications/games to run on which chiplet.

I'd much rather buy a 7950X3D with BOTH sides getting extra cache, but they're not making that, so I'll probably just get a 7800X3D.

yeah the 7900x3d and 7950x3d will be a complete shit show scheduler wise. And as you said it looks like Microsoft will simply make this a whitelisting thing in Windows 11. There will simply be no means for any scheduler to be able to determine if your thread would benefit from a larger L3 cache or a higher potential boost clock, also not to mention that what your thread would benefit from would change from time to time and moving the thread across ccd:s imposes a huge penalty.

[Mahboi]

AMD should really question themselves, I'm available if they need a strategist at their service.

There's no real question to have: everyone buys at the same shop which is TSMC. Apple, Sony, AMD, Nvidia, even Intel for ARC.
Since AMD generally targets pricing rather than top power, they simply do not invest sums as big as their competitors. The one with the most money invested can also add yet more to get priority, and thus build bigger inventories faster.
AMD also has hit an all time low of 10% of the GPU market in Q3 2022, it's not shocking that they wouldn't get a MASSIVE investment with extra costs right away.

[polarathene]

Then why shouldn't I just buy a cheaper SKU and get more value for my dollar? I'm not made of money.

You can get more value from a 7700X than the 7700, depends on pricing difference. In my country they actually sell at the same price (approx 400 USD), so getting a 7700X makes more sense.

For you if 10% less (eg $360USD) in price for that decrease in performance, then sure not value loss, performance scaled down too. If you only care about the temperature difference however, the 7700X can achieve that while not losing 10% performance at the same time. Base clock of 7700 drops by 700MHz and boost clock by 100MHz.

In the more premium models like the 7950X, they can also operate at 65W and single core performance is unaffected. It's only around 8 threads workload or greater that performance begins to decline especially under full load. But they can operate with minimal loss too and much cooler without as much power draw, just 65W for that model is pushing it.

FWIW, I'm still using a 2016 system I built on a budget with an Intel skylake i5-6500 (3.2GHz with boost to 3.6GHz and only 4 cores and 4 threads). I am considering upgrading to AM5 and due to the cost of a whole new system a 7700X makes more sense to me as a minimum than a 7700 even if there was a 40USD difference. I could buy into AM4 instead, but I am not sure if the savings are going to matter as much when I would like to have features that AM4 is mising, such as USB4 for an SFF build (_I/O in general is better on the motherboards, the cost not so much_), and AVX-512.

[shmerl]

I'd much rather buy a 7950X3D with BOTH sides getting extra cache, but they're not making that, so I'll probably just get a 7800X3D.

That's not necessarily going to be better. Some workloads benefit from more cache, some benefit from higher clocks. They can't combine higher clocks with more cache at the same time if I understood correctly due to fact that cache silicon is stuck at certain size like memory in general and can't be switched to smaller process node so they need to limit the power usage there in some way.

AMD spoke before how logic circuits are shrinking, while some others like cache - already stopped because their density reached the limit.

[middy]

I really wonder how Linux will handle the lopsided cache, especially in singled thread applications and games. Will it have any clue about where a process will perform better?

On the Windows side they're apparently building lists of which applications/games to run on which chiplet.

I'd much rather buy a 7950X3D with BOTH sides getting extra cache, but they're not making that, so I'll probably just get a 7800X3D.

you'll end up with worse performance or at best, 10% better performance than a regular 7950x. back when amd launched the 5800x3d, amd-robert did an interview on a podcast talking about why they abandoned the 5900x3d. to do a long podcast short, having the large cache on both ccd's caused to many ccd to ccd infinity fabric talks because unless both caches can stay fully saturated, the one ccd with cache that is saturated will cross talk to the other ccd's cache that wasn't and try to draw from it. the only benefit came when both cache's were fully saturated and at most you saw a 10% increase. and gaming performance across the board was worse than the 5800x3d. it wasn't worth to release a product that more often than not, was slower. with having such a large cache on both ccd's the chances of both being fully saturated was slim in their findings. so that's why with zen 4 they went with the "lopsided" cache configurations. it will have a lower chance of infinity fabric ccd to ccd cache communication. couple that with windows application pinning to a ccd it will further help reduce it. which is also interesting because it does show there is a limit to cache sizes with multiple ccd's in use. to much cache can result in regressions.

that said, i wouldn't get either the 7900x3d nor the 7950x3d because its to much of a mess. linux or windows. i'm glad i maxed out my am4 board with my 5950x. i'm going to coast on that till zen 5.

[pWe00Iri3e7Z9lHOX2Qx]

You can get more value from a 7700X than the 7700, depends on pricing difference. In my country they actually sell at the same price (approx 400 USD), so getting a 7700X makes more sense.

For you if 10% less (eg $360USD) in price for that decrease in performance, then sure not value loss, performance scaled down too. If you only care about the temperature difference however, the 7700X can achieve that while not losing 10% performance at the same time. Base clock of 7700 drops by 700MHz and boost clock by 100MHz.

The other thing to remember when comparing prices of the 7700 vs 7700X is that the former comes with a nice (for an OEM) cooler. The 7700X doesn't come with any cooler.