AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Linux Performance: Zen 5 With 3D V-Cache

[Michael]

Michael FYI the comma in "Ryzen 7 9800X3D - New DRAM, X870E" makes it impossible to hide that result on openbenchmarking.org. I was not able to make work by quoting with %22 or escaping with %5C.

Yeah it's been on my TODO list to investigate where the escaping is going awry or what but alas only so much time in a day...

[yump]

Michael FYI the comma in "Ryzen 7 9800X3D - New DRAM, X870E" makes it impossible to hide that result on openbenchmarking.org. I was not able to make work by quoting with %22 or escaping with %5C.

[creative]

I agree with everything else you said but this.

This is exactly the point in getting an upgrade, not having to set those settings down or off.

AM4 is a platform I still recommend to people because of x3d CPUs, as a 5"7/8"00x3d just won't bottleneck any GPU, while other CPUs might.

Agree with you about DDR, also other features like PCIe lanes or chipset networking or whatever. If you need it, great, go am5 and get some option that fits your use case. If you're only gaming... AM4 is where it's at for basically every pricepoint.




Just like when nvidia had issues killing their 1080ti. People simply had no reason to upgrade. The venerable 2500k was the same for intel, and then the 7700 (I think).

The 9800x3D is actually pretty impressive, but I'm just not enthused just yet. Me being the dork I am may end up with a 9800x3d setup within a year. Who knows. Nvidia's product segmentation is really really bad. Lets be honest the RTX 4070 TI Super is a 4080 and the 4080 Super is the 4080 Ti. The vanilla 4070 is the 4060, etc. I actually don't blame people for buying this stuff. I'm kind of a punk sometimes.

In terms of bottleneck, really interesting subject. On one hand I think it's kind of silly on the other there is absolutely merit to it. One thing is for sure a much newer CPU is gowing to drive a much older GPU way harder than when the CPU's came out during the time period that GPU came out. Good instance of this is people buying Dell Optiplex's with something like a 12th gen i5 12400 'good chip' and slapping a GTX 1650 in it and going to town with a massive amount of games on steam @1080p. When the 1650 was released it couldn't be driven anywhere near as hard as it is now.

As far as having to turn things down? Some of the games out there have 4090 owners turning things down, I'm not joking. Bad games not being optimized much. Good example of this are the Dead Space remake and Silent Hill 2 remake. Silent Hill 2 will make a 4080 seem within the
margin of error of a 4070 Ti Super 'seen the side by side benchmark, it blew my mind', I'm not joking. Of course in a bunch of other games there is a clear line of demarcation between those GPU's but it's not massive but in certain situations I'm pretty sure the 4080 is definitely worth having over the other. Thing is with me is I already have this 4070 Ti Super setup and just don't want to deal with anymore of it, I have a job to go to. Count my loses I guess, still a nice card.

[DumbFsck]

I mean what are we actually looking at even 30% at best overall for gaming and general desktop usage? Don't even get me started with the X3D stuff, let me just get rid of some meaningless settings in games that don't make a visually meaningful increase in visual fidelity and boom there's my X3D performance!

I agree with everything else you said but this.

This is exactly the point in getting an upgrade, not having to set those settings down or off.

AM4 is a platform I still recommend to people because of x3d CPUs, as a 5"7/8"00x3d just won't bottleneck any GPU, while other CPUs might.

Agree with you about DDR, also other features like PCIe lanes or chipset networking or whatever. If you need it, great, go am5 and get some option that fits your use case. If you're only gaming... AM4 is where it's at for basically every pricepoint.




Just like when nvidia had issues killing their 1080ti. People simply had no reason to upgrade. The venerable 2500k was the same for intel, and then the 7700 (I think).

[creative]

My R7 5800X is still bopping around just fine, just replaced it's fan with a Noctua Chromax NF-A12x25. I have still yet to see a big enough IPC uplift on AM5 for me to go "Oh I must have that now!" Never was that impressed with X3D to actually dump cash into one and I game a lot. Recently replaced my RTX 3070 with a RTX 4070 Ti Super, now that was an actual upgrade ROFL, 70% noticeable performance uplift.

I tend to think that the R7 5800X OG is AMD's i7 2600K moment. I know DDR5 is better and all around so is AM5 but it just doesn't look like a meaningful enough upgrade just yet.

I mean what are we actually looking at even 30% at best overall for gaming and general desktop usage? Don't even get me started with the X3D stuff, let me just get rid of some meaningless settings in games that don't make a visually meaningful increase in visual fidelity and boom there's my X3D performance!

I want more actual performance before I drop that cash! People are just stupid, "Just look at the graphs and fps, I must have it!"

Now if a person hasn't built a system for while, and I'm talking for the past 7 years? Yes, jump to AM5. If your on something like a 2600X or less and on AM4 there are plenty of very cheap yet good CPU's you can get a solid uplift from. Anything that's Zen3.

Of course if you have money to burn and love building new systems than that's honestly good a reason as any, but in reallity your not gaining much.

[qarium]

Intel has made and sold consumer CPUs with 128mb L4 and edram on numerous occasions:

and you miss the point of newly intel interview who intel managers said it was a failure and they will not do it again in desktop or notebook market.
also keep in mind intel has no 3D technology only 2D technology to add cache chiplets.
their new Xeon CPUs with added cache chiplets will put it in by adding 2D cache chiplets.
if you compare the performance between adding 2D cache and 3D cache you will see why they do not want make gamer CPUs with that technology.

intel already said they will do something different they said the 285K cpu loses games benchmarks because the chiplet design means the memory controller and IO chiplet adds latency what is critical for gamer cpus.
they already said that they for notebook cpus and future design will make sure they do less chiplets and remove the memory controller and IO chiplet and add this functionality back into the chiplet who the CPU cores are.
they will only keep chiplets in areas who have no downside because of latency what nukes the games performance.

also keep in mind their 5% bonus for eliminating hyperthreating is already burned with the 285K
there are already bios updated for the X3D cpus of AMD who disable hyperthreating to get this extra 5% FPS in games.

but even if they eliminate the IO chiplet again this maybe gives them 5% more FPS in games this will not save them from the 9800X3D

You misunderstand, anyone that buys a "gaming" CPU from any company is a sucker.

man you are a loser really some people are hard working people with high salary and they only buy it to make their children happy on christmass but you think he is a sucker only because he does not want to trap his children into walled garden prisons of playstation and xbox and apple bullshit devices.

also keep in mind that before the 9800X3D the AMD Gaming GPU's where finished on the market litterally no one did buy it and now with the release of the 9800X3D you can see it on mindfactory statistic and also amazone sales list AMD sells all their RDNA2 and RDNA3 GPUs off right now with 50% marketshare of GPU sales compared to Nvidia... (the market share on money turnover is a little less like 45% if i remember correctly)
before the cpu release the gaming gpu department did make over 67% less sales but this CPU 9800X3D did in fact saved the gaming gpu department. and yes you do not want to believe it but the market share of nvidia is tanked in this field of course they do not care because they make more money with AI...

When a company tries to sell a "gaming" CPU the implication is that it is somehow designed for gaming and consequently vastly superior, but the reality such a small amount of cache does not really have all that much impact on performance, certainly nothing that couldn't be achieved with an extra core.

man you have brain damange really Intel to get 5% more in games already did kill of hyperthreating in the 285K cpu... they only did miscalculation and the extra memory/IO die latency did break their neck.,. (for consumer cpus this chiplet experiment with seperate memory io die is more or less over for intel)

More importantly, when you look at what the PS5 can do with just an 8C/16T Zen 2, 2gb system ram and 16gb video ram, you realize that you don't need crazy specs if you have an optimized OS (BSD) and optimized games.

first of all this: "8C/16T Zen 2, 2gb system ram and 16gb video ram" proof that the orginal playstation 5 was a design failure because xbox had such a design from the start.

"optimized OS (BSD)"

LOL you are clearly a conspiracy theorist because every time if you benchmark BSD vs Linux the result is linux wins.

"optimized games."

touché yes but you know these games optimised for playstation are a disease and you know it.

the result of that for many years was that if you have 32gb ram your game only use 16gb ram because of playstation 5 optimisations.

this argument is correct but complete bullshit because it results in technological advanced only every 5 years of a new playstation is released... you can expect that the playstation 6 then has 32gb overall ram..
and before playstation 6 you do not need to upgrade your pc...

yes thanks to these nonsense optimizations.

[kylothow]

It may need some more testing but it kind of shows how zen5 could perform if amd did their due diligence and also updated their infinity fabric and io die. Guess they wanted to go cheap with zen5 to hope that zen6 really hits hard. But the air is getting thinner and thinner for x86 designs. Like from intel everything surrounding the cpu is still pack leading

Ever considered coming back from 2012 and sobering up before posting? Just a friendly suggestion.

[sophisticles]

why exactly is not intel add some small amount of cheap cache and sell it as a gamer CPU ?

o well they already said they can not do this.

Intel has made and sold consumer CPUs with 128mb L4 and edram on numerous occasions:

https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/207182-intel-launches-new-65w-socketed-broadwell-chips-with-supercharged-graphics-128mb-l4-cache

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/88040/intel-core-i75775c-processor-6m-cache-up-to-3-70-ghz/specifications.html

https://www.anandtech.com/show/10281/intel-adds-crystal-well-skylake-processors-65w-edram

"Only a sucker would buy it."

can you explain this to me why exactly is a gamer who does not buy a 14900k and buy a amd 9800X3D instead is a sucker ?

You misunderstand, anyone that buys a "gaming" CPU from any company is a sucker.

When a company tries to sell a "gaming" CPU the implication is that it is somehow designed for gaming and consequently vastly superior, but the reality such a small amount of cache does not really have all that much impact on performance, certainly nothing that couldn't be achieved with an extra core.

More importantly, when you look at what the PS5 can do with just an 8C/16T Zen 2, 2gb system ram and 16gb video ram, you realize that you don't need crazy specs if you have an optimized OS (BSD) and optimized games.

[qarium]

AMD really knows how to make scam processors.
Add a small amount of cheap cache, and sell it as a "gaming" CPU.
Now if AMD released a CPU with 2Gb of this type of cache, maybe they would have something.
But this?
Only a sucker would buy it.
So AMD will probably sell many of these.

why exactly is not intel add some small amount of cheap cache and sell it as a gamer CPU ?

o well they already said they can not do this.

"Only a sucker would buy it."

can you explain this to me why exactly is a gamer who does not buy a 14900k and buy a amd 9800X3D instead is a sucker ?

[qarium]

Zen5 3D:
1. A blatant rip-off price-wise, "just" $480 for the CPU alone, not counting cooling (and lots of reviewers ran it with liquid cooling/AiO)
2. A pathetic gaming performance increase:

3. A horrible decrease in power efficiency:

AMD fanbase? A wonderful CPU!!! MY NEXT CPU FOR SURE. INTEL DESTROYED AND RECKED!

Reality:

• A pathetic showing vs Apple M4 Pro
• Extremely overpriced; costs as much as Sony PlayStation 5
• Barely any progress in 2 years for the vast majority of people
• A regression in terms of power efficiency despite using a more advanced node
• Continues the tradition of desktop AMD Zen CPUs idling at 25W+

Trump becoming a president again is now not the worst news of the day.

the Apple M4 Pro is not even in the benchmark you posted and many games do not run on a Apple M4 Pro

who buys a new PS5 anyway these days they all buy playstation 5 pro for 900€ and the old PS5 land on ebay dirt cheap

you know that the 5800X3D and 7800X3D where technical failures with the 3D cache on top stop the termals and not be able to clock the chip highe...

compared to that the 9800X3D is a Genius product.

its pretty sure that in comparison with Apple M4 Pro a 9950X3D with 3D cache on both chiplets means double the 3D cache than a 9800X3d the Apple M4 Pro will be nuked the Apple M4 Pro is ~15% faster than a 9950X this means a X3D version with 3D cache on each chiplet could outperform the Apple M4 Pro easily.