AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D Delivers 8% Better Gaming Performance and 15% Better Multi-Threaded Performance than 7800X3D, Marketing Materials Reveal

[Tsing]

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D, one of AMD's first "Zen 5" desktop processors to leverage 3D V-Cache technology, will deliver 8% higher gaming performance and 15% higher multi-threaded performance than its predecessor, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, according to a marketing slide that leaked online today.

See full article...

 

[Riccochet]

That's not a very compelling reason to upgrade over a 7800X3D.

Personally, in my opinion, I feel that skipping 2-3 generations of processors isn't that detrimental to your gaming experience unless you're still playing at 1080P. Unless there is a massive leap in performance due to architecture changes.

 

[Brian_B]

I don't know that there have been very many compelling reasons to do step upgrades each generation for a long time now.

The going from Zen2 to first x3d chip, maybe. That's about the only one I can think of in the past ... several years. Then again, my minimum threshold for cost vs performance gain is considerably higher than a lot of folks around here.

 

[Endgame]

I stopped the generational upgrades at roughly Sandy Bridge. Before that I was close to every generation, but hopping between intel and AMD around the P4 days made that a bit muddy if I was really upgrading every generation or not. I skipped Sandy Bridge for reasons I don't remember, went with a full custom watercooled, very overclocked Ivy Bridge, and then didn't buy anything until I got my 2700x. Now I'm more or less doing every other generation.

 

[Brian_B]

I skipped Sandy Bridge for reasons I don't remember

I had a nice Nahalem set up and at the time, thought, well I'll just wait this one out.

Sandy ended up being a very nice generation, and that may have been one of those generational gaps where it was worth it to go back to back upgrades in hind sight. But I've got my money's worth out of that 920 -- in fact, it's still running in a server today.

 

[Niner51]

Yeah I thought about jumping to a 9800X3D, but this just backs up my thought process as why it isn't worth it. Gaming at 4K I will not see a difference.

 

[LazyGamer]

Yeah I thought about jumping to a 9800X3D, but this just backs up my thought process as why it isn't worth it. Gaming at 4K I will not see a difference.

The 9950X3D is the interesting one; the single-CCD version is unlikely to show that much of a difference as you state, because the main advantage is a core clock increase which does very little for games.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

It's kind of funny. I admit feeling some fomo with this one, and/or the 9900/9950 X3D parts, and only because I've seen reviews showing 5-15 FPS difference 5800X3D vs 7800X3D at 4K and this could be up to another 8 FPS, or more, on top of that. The only thing I need at this point are for the b750 motherboards to come out.

Otherwise it's starting to make more sense to upgrade my 4090 build to AM5 for less $$$ than going through the initial launch madness of trying to get MSI Liquid Suprim 5090 if/when it launches in 2025. I figure around $1K or maybe $100-$200 more for the AM5 motherboard/ram/cpu and around $2K-$2500 for that 5090. Meanwhile the platform upgrade could easily give over 20 FPS with the 4090 I already have, even at 4K.