Ryzen 7800X3D “Zen 4” CPU Beats Ryzen 9700X “Zen 5” in Gaming, AMD Says

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
11,627
Points
83
The Ryzen 9000 Series, a new generation of desktop processors from AMD that are among the first to feature the company's high-performance Zen 5 cores, will not be faster than the existing, Zen 4-based Ryzen 7000X3D Series in the realm of gaming, according to new statements shared by Donny Woligroski, AMD's Senior Technical Marketing Manager of Consumer Processors.

See full article...
 
Tsing said:
“…when it comes to X3D, and I’ll just get around that now, we’re super committed to X3D. In fact, we have some really, really cool updates to X3D coming. So we’re working on iterating and not just rehashing it."
Click to expand...
Sooo 3D cache for every CCD? Maybe CCDs with more than 8 cores, which means CCD with 3D cache also gets more than 8 cores? When are we gonna get to the point where 3D cache becomes the standard layout for Ryzens? No more special models with the 3D cache. I want AMD to be like Oprah handing out 3D cache to every CCD on every Ryzen.

Tsing said:
"At the end of the day, we give you more performance without increasing power, and at the end of the day, we give you more performance without increasing the heat. At the end of the day, we bought a non-X3D chip very close to an X3D chip when it comes to gaming"
Click to expand...
At the end of the day, you're still saying "at the end of the day" too much.
 
DrezKill said:
Sooo 3D cache for every CCD?
Click to expand...
This is arguably worse; 3D V-Cache only accelerates specific workloads, with the tradeoff of being slower for anything that a) fits in the native cache or b) is too big for even the extra cache and thus needs to access main memory regardless.

a) because of the lower clockspeeds due to lower voltage and heat tolerances as well as faster L3 cache (3D V-Cache is higher latency than the native cache alone)

b) because the 3D V-Cache imparts a main-memory access penalty due to the added latency

So if you're going to have more than one CCD, might as well only have one that has 3D V-Cache. Realistically though, if you have a compute workload, you're better off building a system for that specifically than trying to run heterogeneous CCDs most of the time. For gaming, more than one CCD isn't desirable at all due to the hackiness needed to try and keep games from loading across the inter-CCD bus which imparts massive latency penalties.

DrezKill said:
Maybe CCDs with more than 8 cores
Click to expand...

This might be a better 'middle ground', certainly probably better for a 'gaming first' system than going with multiple CCDs if wanting more compute on the side.

Biggest issue is that games don't really need more than eight cores. Some can use more, but that's the exception rather than the rule, so the effective market for a say 12-core single-CCD part with 3D V-Cache is likely to be too small to have a positive return on investment.

AMD may still do it if it makes sense for them though from a production perspective, or even just a PR perspective to position against Intel's competing lineup.
 
My rig is aging. Might just snag a 7800X3D now. Just need to decide on a mobo.
 
Riccochet said:
I'm ready for a whole new build. 5 years on this one is long enough.
Click to expand...
My current X99 system was built in Fall 2014...
But this is only because finances haven't been where I've needed them to be for a long while, and systems tend to last a lot longer these days anyways. Before that I was building new systems for myself every 4-5 years. I suddenly got a free X470 system with a 2700X a few months back that I've already prepared that I'm about to switch to. Hoping to throw 5700X3D or 5800X3D in there come Black Friday/Cyber Monday. Of course this sh1t is old too, but still an upgrade over X99/Haswell-E. I always keep current-gen plans for building new systems though, and my eye had been on Zen 5 for building an all-new, actually-planned system. I ain't down with Intel's big.LITTLE P-core/E-core nonsense.

I'm no stranger to keeping old sh1t. My car is 25 years old, and I've been driving it nearly that whole time...

LazyGamer said:
Biggest issue is that games don't really need more than eight cores.
Click to expand...
I blame consoles for that. Ever since 7th-gen, console development has led game development on the whole. With the exception of a scant few games, most games are primarily designed for consoles first, and PC is an afterthought. The only thing that has really helped on the PC side is consoles adopting AMD64/x86-64 architecture. By essentially becoming PCs, this also helps make the ports to PC slightly less worse, and I'm pretty sure that the only reason some ports to PC even happen these days is because they're already most of the way there with the console versions. But yeah consoles haven't gone past 8 cores in a couple generations now. The lowest common denominator holds back everything for everyone. I mean we had AMD64 since 2003 and games didn't switch to 64-bit en masse until 8th-gen consoles in 2013. D3D11/OpenGL4.5-class graphics also didn't really take off until 8th-gen consoles some years later. Consoles had a big part in the development and usage of D3D12. Vulkan (and in a way D3D12) is based on Mantle, which AMD designed for consoles first. Game development tends to work out better when you develop a game for PC first then port down to consoles, not the other way around. At least some devs still understand that. No very many, but if you squint hard enough, you can see a few. Sorry for the old-man rant. I'm actually not a console hater. I've had at least one console every generation since 2nd-gen (and I still have every single one except the Atari 2600 which I suspect was stolen), although I think this current 9th generation might be the first time I don't get any of the consoles.
 
DrezKill said:
I blame consoles for that.
Click to expand...
I'd say: sort of. Games are inherently serial enterprises, meaning that the gains from more cores will be hard fought. Since consoles could easily have more than eight cores (and the ones they have are usually slower per core), it seems that the limit is more in terms of game development aspirations, in my opinion.
 
LazyGamer said:
Biggest issue is that games don't really need more than eight cores.
Click to expand...
I agree with you there. My 14600K really has been holding it's own for the most part. I fell into a good deal on an 14700K so I may just throw that in my current board and that should last me a long time.
 
DrezKill said:
My current X99 system was built in Fall 2014...
But this is only because finances haven't been where I've needed them to be for a long while, and systems tend to last a lot longer these days anyways. Before that I was building new systems for myself every 4-5 years. I suddenly got a free X470 system with a 2700X a few months back that I've already prepared that I'm about to switch to. Hoping to throw 5700X3D or 5800X3D in there come Black Friday/Cyber Monday. Of course this sh1t is old too, but still an upgrade over X99/Haswell-E. I always keep current-gen plans for building new systems though, and my eye had been on Zen 5 for building an all-new, actually-planned system. I ain't down with Intel's big.LITTLE P-core/E-core nonsense.

I'm no stranger to keeping old sh1t. My car is 25 years old, and I've been driving it nearly that whole time...


I blame consoles for that. Ever since 7th-gen, console development has led game development on the whole. With the exception of a scant few games, most games are primarily designed for consoles first, and PC is an afterthought. The only thing that has really helped on the PC side is consoles adopting AMD64/x86-64 architecture. By essentially becoming PCs, this also helps make the ports to PC slightly less worse, and I'm pretty sure that the only reason some ports to PC even happen these days is because they're already most of the way there with the console versions. But yeah consoles haven't gone past 8 cores in a couple generations now. The lowest common denominator holds back everything for everyone. I mean we had AMD64 since 2003 and games didn't switch to 64-bit en masse until 8th-gen consoles in 2013. D3D11/OpenGL4.5-class graphics also didn't really take off until 8th-gen consoles some years later. Consoles had a big part in the development and usage of D3D12. Vulkan (and in a way D3D12) is based on Mantle, which AMD designed for consoles first. Game development tends to work out better when you develop a game for PC first then port down to consoles, not the other way around. At least some devs still understand that. No very many, but if you squint hard enough, you can see a few. Sorry for the old-man rant. I'm actually not a console hater. I've had at least one console every generation since 2nd-gen (and I still have every single one except the Atari 2600 which I suspect was stolen), although I think this current 9th generation might be the first time I don't get any of the consoles.
Click to expand...

The only downside to going 5000 series Ryzen on X470 is you are stuck with PCIe 3.0. That'll suck for modern GPU's.
 
Riccochet said:
...you are stuck with PCIe 3.0. That'll suck for modern GPU's.
Click to expand...
I don't think there are any consumer GPUs on the market that require the bandwidth of PCIe 4.0 x16. I think so far PCIe 3.0 is enough. Of course in the future that bandwidth will definitely be needed, but not right now. But on X470 I won't get to use ReBAR/S.A.M., so there's that.
 
Well on one hand prices to do a 7800X3D build have dropped significantly and Amazon day or whatever its called is right around the corner next month plus they should drop even more by BF. If I wasn't already on 5800X3D I'd do one of these with a B650 (btw I posted a story this morning how these are taking over parts of SE Asia).

On the other hand, it's almost "cheap" to do a B550/5800X3D build right now and despite platform age a decent AM4 build can accomplish a lot.
 
I have 5700x and I am waiting until the next gen comes out soon.
 
I've been rocking my 5900x a while now. Might be time when these release with the new motherboards to upgrade. I'd kinda like to do 196 gig of ram too. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top