Typo alert‘

The 7950x3d specially in europe is not worth it rn since the most power intel cpu variant can cost to less than 700 dollars while the 7950x3d can cost from the lowest price 880€ to 1200€

​@@morpitz7188 Lol

Your excuse for delaying your review is pretty pathetic. It should not be your job to display AMD in the best light possible (or any company). I would hope your goal is to be a consumer advocate above all.

team amd cuz i have a ryzen 3

@@p-__ Gratz

​@@p-__ I can confirm this is true

@@p-__ based

@@p-__ Hope your diet improves.

Exactly, this review validates everything they're trying to do with LTL

I second this, especially for 3D vcache CPUs 👍

3d vcache is huge for dwarf fortress and crusader kings as well.

Yes, and other games *without* built-in-benchmarks?

DCS's biggest problem is that it only had single core utilization. They have a multi-core engine out in beta currently so it should become a much smoother experience on maps with a lot of ground/air stuff happening once they get the kinks worked out.

I keep thinking a massive rocket in KSP could do well as a stress test :p With mechjeb and a standard rocket and update version, it should be very easily reproducable too

They probably will do some crazy thing for steam deck type chip

It would be an actual selling point, considering intel dropped the ball on efficiency so very hard.

Yep. My regular 7950x was nice to have this winter, but now that summer is knocking I'm sweating a bit. (Both figuratively and literally)

@@voided_sun Nvidia too, with their GPUs, but that is another story I guess

@@TheEightfoldPath_ You can set a power draw limit in BIOS. Mine is a 3950x. No cap but heat limit set to 95c. Cooler is Arctic Freezer II 240mm. Should be the 360, but I thought the 240 would fit inside the case. It doesn't. It doesn't seem to have a noticeable effect on room temp. I just want whatever performance I can get without sudden seizing. I'd set power draw limit if I notice it causes the room to be uncomfortably warm. With the temp cap, it's still going to put out a lot of heat with a good cooler constantly taking it away.

That's my mindset. When getting a new CPU I'd ideally like to keep the same cooler that I've been using forever. Getting something like a 13900K all but requires an AIO cooling solution now. Meanwhile AMD is putting out this absolute beast of a CPU that operates in the same range as a higher-end i5

Sounds like cope. Better to just go with the 7950X. It is still solid and doesn't have all the weird problems the X3D has for barely any improvement on gaming performance. Especially if you are running 4k resolution. Which my new high end comp will be doing. I also hear from other reviewers that it runs bad with indie games as it relies heavily on Xbox game bar to perform well. Which I absolutely hate. This isn't an ad for Intel as much as it is a warning to just stick to the tried and true normal chip.

@@Silentguy_ No need to get an Intel chip. Refer to my last comment. Also if you are getting a top tier CPU you might as well get a liquid cooling system.

The problem with that is that if not day one, you can't get it until it's old news.

@@diegoaccord "old news", this chip will be relevant for at least another year and its only be a month since release. Calm your horses lol

​@@diegoaccord 99.9% of all people who buy pc components dont upgrade on each single new release

if Linus and his crew, Steve at Gamers Nexus, and Jay say it's shit, it's probably shit.

@@diegoaccord what? 5800X3D is still a strong competitor NOW, 1 year later, on an older platform. You save 100€ on CPU, 200€ on Mobo, 100€ on memory and get comparable performance to the newer stuff. It loses? Yes, but not by much. You get about a 300€ saving, which is enough to buy a 3060 12G or a RX 6650XT, or to bump your GPU budget 1 or 2 tiers above where it was. And even then, you could have bought it in October and you'd have got the best CPU possible, even after 6 months from launch. This can be "old newsed" only by the 7800X3D at this point, or next gen Intel or AMD that's coming in 7 months at the earliest, and even then considering there won't be a ram spec overhaul nor a pcie platform bump it will probably still be a massive competitor.

hey

LTT here is the bad actor. All it would have taken is testing MS Flight Sim with half the cores disabled, to show the good in the product.

@@mikeb3172 lmfao

@@mikeb3172 Because the 15.3 million people are all waiting on the edge of their seat to play *checks notes* MS Flight Sim. LoL.

lmao bot account detected. Top comments on this video are all from somebody named FirstnameLastname1234

You think hiding a review of a poor product for a month is nuanced huh? 🤡

​@@GregoryCunningham spoken like someone who doesn't understand nuance

@@Stinggyray Nope, just someone who isn’t dumb enough to buy a bad product. By all means though, please buy this. A CPU that relies on Windows Game Bar for its scheduling. 😂

​@@GregoryCunningham clown

@@GregoryCunningham I dislike the "touch grass" crowd but you seem so invested in something that's just not even existing. Even this video's conclusion is not that positive and it's not "hiding" a review, its validating your results. Who said anything about buying the chip? not anyone in this comment thread..

Fr we understand

I don't

I don’t either, this is preposterous! >:(

I don't. I can't believe linus would do this. He's obviously an Intel shill. I can only imagine how deep this rabbit hole goes

Linus is my father

womp womp

Right because no one else is doing what LTT does.. right

​@@p-__ok

@@p-__ proof

It doesn't, they have made a video in the past on an old gpu and the performance was all within margin of error

Since the hardware is on the shelf between tests, it wont ... would be interesting to do a longevity test tho with a constant (x)hours a day load.

@@brantwedel der8aer did that one already i think

new builder from the future here. can confirm paired it with a RX 7800XDX card for 950 dollars

Dang. I can't find that card for that price

Yes, very good job by LTT of both performance testing, as well as explaining the actual phenomenon going on, which indeed is rather complicated due to the complicated asymmetric architecture that AMD used to try to compensate for the fact that putting in the extra L3 cache on both CCXes just wasn't going to work (too hot temps, lowering clock on both CCXes). Let me add some extra observations on what AMD actually did here and its consequences. First, the so-called AMD "solution" (to the problem of really needing two CCXes with extra L3 cache, but that being impossible) is a giant kludge of a hack. Part of the problem may stem from the fact that although Microsoft worked hand in hand with Intel to make sure that they patched the Windows Scheduler to work seamlessly with hybrid Intel CPUs containing both Performance and Efficiency cores, it appears to me that AMD got less coordination and less help (than Intel did) from Microsoft in terms of adapting the Scheduler to handle asymmetric 3D V-Cache in AMD 7950X3D and 7900X3D chips. The notes from AMD say, "When a game is detected ..." and I ask, how??? Apparently through some giant kludg since they later note that it's "Down to a simple integration with Windows Game Mode and XBox Game Bar." Apparently some funky parameters get set there, and then the Scheduler decides how to place threads onto cores (in either CCX) based on those settings plus certain statistics. I suspect they don't do a good enough job on collecting such per-thread statistics, and that might be part of the problem. Continuing the AMD notes, "... the game is restricted to a single CCX (by parking the other CCX) to reduce latency and increase the frame rate. When this happens, the game is restricted to the CCX with the higher game performance - almost always the CCX with the larger cache - increasing performance even further." I question whether that kludge is even working properly in the exhaustive tests that LTT conducted. For instance, how does it determine which CCX is (i.e., has been giving) the so-called higher game performance. Sounds like they're doing this dynamically based on statistics, but what statistics? Who knows, they might even be parking the wrong CCX!!! What if their statistics are messed up, and the statistics wrongly "say" that the non-extra-L3-cache CCX "has been giving higher game performance"??? That might well be true since it's slowing down the extra-L3-cache CCX cores to keep them from overheating and if the extra cache is not a huge benefit to some given game, then the non-extra-L3-cache cores (the "frequency" cores, so to speak) might be running faster in some sense, so who knows, they might be parking all the cores in the CCX with the extra L3 cache, and running exclusively on the no-extra-L3-cache cores. That would essentially demote a 7950X3D to a 7700X. We can't be sure, but this might be happening. Just one extra reason why the 7800X3D is a much better gaming CPU than the 7950X3D (since obviously a 7800X3D is faster than the 7700X that the 7950X3D might get demoted to). Even if the Scheduler does (by what magic I don't know) make the correct decision and run it all on the extra-L3-cache CCX cores, it might be slowing those cores way down to prevent overheating, such that the advantage of the extra cache is completely offset by the slowing down of the core clocks. This is probably why we see the wattage go so low in the test results. The AMD kludge basically throws away 8 cores without the extra L3 cache, and then slows way down the 8 cores with the extra L3 cache, such that the slowdown completely offsets the gain that the extra L3 cach otherwise might have provided. So perhaps in the end, it makes no difference which of the CCXes gets parked - it's maybe equally bad or the game no matter which one you park and which one you use. AMD engineering needs to determine for sure (in games, testing a lot of them) which CCX runs the game(s) faster. Once having done this, then the existing code is a but. You don't decide which one to use based on some dynamic statistics (that are probably complete BS in any event), but rather you always use the CCX that your lab tests have proven to be fastest. Probably that's going to be the CCX with the extra L3 cache, but AMD needs to do extensive lab tests to prove that. Let's say that's the case. Then you alwayse use the CCX with extra L3 cache, and always park to other CCX cores that don't have the extra L3 cache. In other words, the current algorithm is most probably a bug.

Another potential problem is lack of coordination between a game program per se and the above-described (probably faulty) mechanism for parking a full CCX worth of cores. What if the game program was written to be very efficient and use all the cores available to it? That's how I would write my game program. I ask Windows how many cores do you have in total? Oh, you say you're a Ryzen 9 7950X3D and you have 16 cores? OK, great, then I will create a total of 16 threads (sharing the same memory space) to be as efficient as possible in using all resources available to my game. [Note: At most I might refrain from using one core, leaving that for system programs to use. But let's say I use all 16 cores, launching a total of 16 threads.] But now AMD in conjunction with the Windows Scheduler in conjunction with some funky kludgey settings (in XBox Game Bar and Windows Game Mode) tries to outsmart me (the writer of my game program) by parking 8 out of my 16 cores hat I paid for. Wait a minute!!! That's right, I paid for for all 16 cores and now I'm trying to use them. Furthermore, I paid about $100 extra for some of those cores to have extra L3 cache. And now you (Windows and AMD) cavalierly decide to throw away about half of what I paid for??? I think I would demand my money back, and spend it on a 7800X3D instead!!! So I at least partly question whether the "park half of your cores" strategy makes any sense at all. In the case I'm arguing here (where I cast myself as the author of some hypothetical game in which I go to explicit steps to use all of my cores, but then AMD + the Windows Scheduler steals 8 out of those 16 cores from me), I claim that it would have been better if AMD + Windows Scheduler had let me keep using all of my 16 cores. Yeah sure, some cores would be accessing some (regular or extra) L3 cache off the opposite CCX, but that's just a minor delay subtracted from an almost doubling of the cores I'm attempting to use to do the work my game code must do (to hand off the right stuff to the GPU). I say almost doubling since running all 16 cores does slow the clocks a bit. But isn't it better to run my code on 16 cores all running at 4 GHz than on only 8 cores running at 4.5 GHz??? Of course it is. The problem is, it is impossible (barring use of perhaps some even bigger kludge) for the game program to optimally communicate with the Scheduler and the kludge settings. Well, actually, maybe something like that is exactly what's needed, but te devil is in the details. But this brings up another test that LTT should have added to their already great testing efforts (perhaps adding another week to the 4 weeks hey actually used up for testing). That is, try the same tests once more, but this time doing whatever it takes to totally disable the core parking mechanism. Those results might be interesting. BTW, i does state in AMD's notes that "If thread utilization is high enough, in the case of multitasking, the cores on the parked CCX will be automatically enabled as needed." So maybe if that feature works properly one wouldn't need to disable core parking? The above mentioned extra tests might have answered that question. Another possibility might be cycling back and forth between core parking or not. What if AMD parks cores cuz it notices it's a game running, but then since it's my game that uses all 16 cores in 16 threads, thread utilization is high so it unparks the 8 cores in the slow CCX, and for a bit I get all 16 cores on the job, but then maybe there's a less challenging spot in the game such that CPU utilization goes down, and it reparks 8 cores, and then keeps vacillating back and forth between parked and unparked cores. Basically, in the end it might turn out that the core parking business was just a bad idea in the first place. Finally, I'll note that the next comparison that LTT should do (in a new video, since this could be considered a separate subject that just expands on the subject of this video) is a comparison (in the gaming context) of a Ryzen 7950X3D to a Ryzen 7900X3D. It might well be that (with proper tweaking and/or not-using of the various parameters) the 12-core 7900X3D might exceed the gaming speed of the 16-core 7950X3D. For one thing, you have the same amount of total L3 cache spread over 12 cores instead of 16 cores, so on average there's more cache per core on the 7900X3D part. Furthermore, there's less total heat with 12 cores running than with 16 cores running, so the 12 cores can hit a higher clock speed before being throttled. We already know that the speed bump by going from a 7900X to a 7950X is less than the optimal +33% that you might hope for, due to clock-slowing. You might only get an 18% boost instead of 33% boost. Just as an example, let's assume that's approximately the case for the 3D V-Cache parts as well. That would imply that the 7900X3D's 12 cores are only about 15% slower in total horsepower than the 7950X3D's 16 cores. Furthermore, after throwing away half (6) of the 7900X3D's cores, the result is still only about 15% less total horsepower than after throwing away half (8) of the 7950X3D's cores. And it might not even be that bad, since the clock rate would go up after getting rid of half the heat source. I conjecture that the 7900X3D might be approximately equally as fast in gaming as the 7950X3D. And the 7800X3D might beat them both by a slight margin (since no core parking needed and it gets even more total L3 cache per core than either of its big brothers). Bottom line is probably that the 7800X3D is best for gaming, because the 7950X3D starts with 16 cores but only has 8 after parking half, and the 7900X3D is equally bad since although it only loses 6 cores due to core parking, it only starts with 12 cores so it ends up using 6 cores (not 8) albeit at a slightly faster clock rate.

I know I'm nitpicking here, but if you're trying to save on typing out 'processor', why not write 'cpu' instead of 'proc' 😅

I agree too but that would put it in a weird category. Is it a more efficient version of the top chip? Or a better performance at the same TDP as a lower chip? That distinction is very important when it comes to positioning and pricing and giving that more people care about gaming performance than power efficiency (for the most part), I think that impacted their decision.

​@Sivan Sharma not even nitpicking. Entirely valid. That "proc" shit made me uncomfortable.

The problem is they advertise this CPU to gamers. Gamers will not care about additional 30W CPU power usage while gaming - not when their GPU is using 300 or 400W at the time.

They shot themselves in the foot by clocking the base CPUs incorrectly.

Damn straight

@@p-__ nah bro u are on something for thinking of this

That can go both ways. Make sure it's right but that can also mean hiding faults from the viewer to protect a sponsor, _especially_ when AMD is a new major sponsor. Kinda sus if you ask me when that chip could have just as easily ended up in a consumer's hands instead of LTT.

This really looks like something ChatGPT wrote

@@zodwraith5745 The possibility is there, but at least he doesn't go straight praising how good the CPU is to lick AMD's ass like a lot of peoples are. And he's still completely honest in this review, although suspiciously late.

Well, here we are

​@@mads6103gamer nexus faked everything there is no evidence to his claims he's just looking for drama after his channel died lol

@@p-__ ikr I always thought Linus' farts were second rate.

@@p-__ i need to get the sniffer on this case to fact check

@@kel1590 sorry, sniffer lab results are only allowed to be checked by certified sniffologists

bingo, 100%

Appreciation for good work is fine and all but LTT is not the only place where you can find detailed and accurate reviews and you should be checking more than one so you can get a bigger picture and/or spot inconsistencies.

Well sucks to be you then. I have i5 3210M. It can run GTA Vice city you know.

​@@p-__ no Linus is better

My daily driver is a hp laptop that has 5500u(2 core, 4 thread). Even my phone has 4 times more core than this pc.

That still better than the dual core sandy bridge 2328M I'm running😂

i5 - 3570k here.

In part I was expecting this, because the non 3D 7000 CPU's already have more cache than previous gen. So less games run out of the cache on the CPU.

lol they are very clear that sponsorship will never effect their reviews. And if it does, they'll ditch the sponsorship before they ditch the review.

I mean...if you watch the entire video, Linus is actually praising the CPU. What he's criticizing is AMD's misplaced marketing. AMD positioned this CPU as the best gaming CPU when it's actually the best performance per watt CPU.

​@@PacMonster0 makes sense. You're getting 7950x performance at much lower power consumption (and therefore, likely less heat). So it deserves some praise for performance. Whether to purchase it or not, he said "probably not" up to "maybe." That's pretty unbiased.

@@PacMonster0 Ah yes, the classic praise of "if u want benefits of these 3 specific things together" while "giving up 3 things" is praise.

You mean his channel is now AMD biased. That's not a good thing unless you are a fanboy.

LOL

Lmao

@@p-__ I've tasted both and I can confidently disagree

lol

​@@Synclon and i

I know right. I hate using my 13700k in power saver mode, cause I can do about everything except continuous gaming at 3-6W. I think that is the draw of a LED light bulb.

what they did actually ?? people doing tests on huge number of games, he just did on 7 random games.. And who cares actually on 4k, everyone knows there GPU is the limit not the CPU.

@@ZondaRbg in this ERA some people claim 2-3yo CPU = Bottleneck with their new GPU..I have 5600X and then i upgraded to 5800X3D (Double the price) but the FPS I get on my game that i play is like 1-5 FPS Increase 3440x1440 Resolution.. So pretty much its like 50$ = 1 FPS increase. Its not worth it at all :(

@@toytulog576 Where the advances are seen are in productivity, specially doing 3D graphics (and even 2D, specially video). As every notch they improve is less time needed for 3D rendering or video rendering/export. Also, these allow to handle larger 3D scenes while editing, etc. But for gaming... yeah... a 5600 is a heck of a CPU yet for most games.

@@toytulog576 How can u buy 5800x3d for games where 3d is not good? I got 5800x3d becouse i got 2 times more fps compare to my old 3600x in WoW and other mmorpg games.

have they fixed delivery times of those desk pads tho lol

This might be it, its a pretty easy thing to overlook

Is this just am5? is am4 safe from this or also susceptible? I've got it enabled rn with ryzen 5600 and rtx 2060, should i also disable?

​@Aye 20 series cards don't support it. So even if you have it enabled in bios it will never actually use it.

@@jim4556 oh....

this might be a bug. on Nvidia GPUs which games are affected by reBAR is supposed to be controlled by drivers/nvidia panel software, so nvidia determines which games actually use rebar while on AMD it is always on even if the game has problems with rebar, last I heard or maybe it really isn't active while the games are running but it still affects everything

it is a cleare performance benefit here too till you go gpu limited and the cpu has less utilization. prolly a result of aggressive power management to protect the 3d vcache

Because it's a clusterf*ck of a chip, only one CCD with 3D cache creates a huge mess of scheduling stuff (there is no "Thread Director"). AMD should have added 3D cache to both CCDs.

@@saricubra2867 Adding 3D cache to both chips would have limited the performance in multithreading even further, gimping the productivity performance and specific games like DOOM Eternal (which was shown to not really care about the cache and really loading all cores) to be even worse VS the basic 7950X non-3D. AMD said this was possible but they decided against it. It would also be more expensive and probably much less yield for the 2x CCD chips, making them again more expensive and scarce. The chip itself is fine, but as with every special tech, it needs a LOT of optimization to perform as expected. This thing still gives you insane gaming performance while being super efficient, but at higher resolutions you get the same effect with the normal 7950X which is cheaper, easier to find, faster in specific loads and more stable across the board. Maybe in a year things will be more optimized and other reviewers showed a benefit but then again you are so hard GPU limited - nobody cares outside of people who run 1080p 360Hz monitors and want max FPS above all.

It's 100% the different testing methodology Linus and the lab has vs GN. Ultra is unnecessarily taxing on the GPU and is turning the CPU benchmark into more of a GPU one. This really isn't a CPU benchmark, but its moreso a realistic scenario benchmark. He's right in that the people spending this type of money for a CPU and GPU aren't going to be playing at lower quality settings and monitor resolutions, but there's also an argument that the Ultra presets are just outright stupid and don't give much of a perceived visual benefit vs the step down in exchange for a big performance hit.

Yeah, they have other issues somewhere.

"The office handshake meme"

its really not it loses to the i9 most of the time that i9 only has 8 p cores 36mbs of slow cache the ryzen 9 has 16p cores 128mbs of 3d cache in scale its genuinely awful good cpu but not no where as good as it should be

@@kieranlee9610 did you even watch the video

@@kieranlee9610 The point is it's drawing less than half the power and matching the i9 performance. the i9 is horribly inefficient by comparison despite having "Efficiency" cores.

@@mas7rreaper126 i did its best pro is power consumption but even here in the UK that still a couple pence extra every year for an i9 13900k and most of the time the i9 was on top in those benchmarks so we'll have to see what 15th gen intels like

I could be wrong, but I remember seeing some stuff about how idle power draw is actually really high for some reason on X3D chips. If that's just an inherent issue, then that's a pretty big shot in the leg for their chances in the laptop space, barring the sorts of laptops that are meant to be plugged in all the time and are basically just desktops you can throw in a backpack.

@@Leap623 if you're using the ccd without the 3d v-cache then you won't really have a power draw issue. only when you use it for workloads that require it

AMD laptops are nice but they need to work on their idle power draw so much.

@@Leap623 I mean you aren't wrong. My 5800x3d draws 35w at idle in high performance power plan under windows. Although, for a x3d chip in a laptop, I wonder if it would work in one of those clevo desktop replacement machines they have with a desktop AM4 socket.

They are monolithic, would destroys the desktop chips with infinity garbage

Who knows what those marketing people were thinking. Running a 170W Ryzen 7*** or Raptorlake and the GPU that is accompanying such a beastly CPU during summertime won't be a pleasant experience.

Only because it's turning off the 2nd CCD. Once you get a game that utilizes more than 8 cores, or run OBS etc. then you'll be above the competition again. Also AMD has awful idle power draw, something that is always swept under the rug.

you don't need such powerful processors, take the i5 13600K it's the coolest processor for all tasks it's also cheaper

@@p-__ I've tasted both and I can confidently disagree

@@existentialselkath1264 I've tasted both and I can confidently agree

or waiting for sponsors

@Carl Gunderson or you could go the other direction and be honest on review day. Gamers Nexus would have just said AMD is sending out chips with poor quality control. But LTT wouldn't upset a sponsor like that.

@Carl Gunderson yeah, they're essentially advertising channels. I'd call them ads, LTT, Hardware Canucks, Jay are more like entertainment and GN, HUB are for information. Just my view of those channels though

Could just have a preview, telling about broken CPU in this case, then a proper review later.

Or Oxygen Not Included; known for having CPU bottleneck frame rate/simulation slowing issues with large bases.

Microsoft Flight Simulator would be an excellent test, for me it's the entire target for upgrading my PC.

Arma 3 or DCS would be great too. They are both VERY CPU intensive games.

Unity games in general benefit from extra cache and in particular VRChat is a big one. If you test VRChat, make sure it's always the same worlds, and always the same avatars being displayed - it's a *very* user generated content / UGC-centric game, and that has a big effect on performance.

7950X is super efficient as well, just enable the 105W ECO mode in the PBO section of the BIOS; Normal consumption: 38k points in Cinebench Multi-Core @ 245Watts Eco mode: 35k points in Cinebench Multi-Core @ 145 Watts

@@jerostephan That's nice... I have since a while a 3900X... I did not use an eco mode, per se, but long ago I undervolted it and tuned some other matters in BIOS, and was able to reduce quite the power consumption and (drastically, like from 95º C to 75º C more or less) lower the temps in the CPU while 3D rendering in Blender, while apparently the speed in rendering did not change much. Glad that the new gen can be set to work efficiently, too.

The thing is, isn't that efficiency from the boost algorithm rather than architecture? It's not the 3d cache giving better efficiency it's the lower boost voltage to not damage the 3d cache that is. Meaning that, if I understand correctly, this could be a bios option or you could manually undervolt/underclock to get the same results. There was a hit to performance remember. That last bit of performance being squeezed out could account for a disproportionate increase in power draw.

this post was not written by an AMD bot btw

I agree with the efficiency on thr cpu side but rdna3 is not and energy star especially compared to the 4080 or 4099

If AMD ever have the courage to release a high end laptop GPU again. I've given up waiting, Dragon Range 16 core is a far more efficient and genuine alternative to the Raptor Lake HX, but there's zero news out there of anything beyond these tiny 200mm^2 midrange RDNA3 GPUs making me think they're not happening ever, let alone late this year Laptop dGPU pricing is at nvidia's absolute mercy and they know it, desktop buyers complaints sound like #firstworldproblems tbph

@@FLLAable I'm thinking the same way and I ain't an AMD bot, gotta admit tho it's a bit risky going for a CPU like this and not the 13th gen Intel CPUs that are dominating the market rn.

7950X3D cant cool its hotspot effectively due to the stacked dye. If you use it, the stock behavior pushes it to 89C all the time under full load. It ll draw 142W or so. Thats from personal experience using a 360mm rad to cool the chip. If I take Rise of the Tomb Raider, since its GPU limited at 4K with RT, the chip peaks at 77C and 70W of power, although it mostly hangs around 72C and 60-65W. But then consider this: at idle desktop, it runs on the non v cache chip with 44C at 50W....

@@HexerPsy well that's disappointing

X3D saves more power, the price of electricity in France is very high, the electricity cost I use to play games with 7950X3D is 1/2 of my brother's 13900K...I don't even need to use AIO water cooling

@@diegochen5350 For a country that uses nuclear energy, such a rip-off.

It’s not going to be any different than the 7950X3D with the non vcache ccd disabled. If anything it’ll be slightly worse since the advertised boost clock is only 5.0ghz.

i really wouldn't expect it to run any better than the simulated tests on the 7950x3d

@@diegochen5350 for gaming the cost in power usage is negligible.

That’s the point though. The games where there is no performance increase are the games which are more balanced between CPU and GPU load. The thing is, if you are buying a chip for gaming only, the 7950X3D is not a good chip to buy, because in gaming scenarios the 7950X3D is actually just a 7800X3D, but worse

My 7950X3D is definitely faster than my 7950X with an RTX 4090. Fortnite averaged 100fps higher with 1440p with a mix of very high and low settings.

@@ShanleH COD: Warzone is a game I would think is very balanced between CPU and GPU, and yet I gained a very significant improvement with the 7950X3D. My previous 7950X would do about 200-218 fps. Now with the 7950X3D I’m getting 240-268 fps with exact same High settings on 1440P. That’s a pretty good boost by just going from a 7950X to a 7950X3D. On MSFS, I’ve gone from 60 fps to nearly 100 fps.

Why did you exchange 13900K tho if you dont mind me asking?

Ahaha and some older games will fit completely in the Vcache 😁

there are definitely going to be teething issues with this , especially since some games struggle with using chiplets period, let alone with 3d v-cache. I am excited to see how this tech changes and how the 7800x3d does.

That was my thought too! Linus kept mentioning the drivers and windows controlling the work balancing, and if it's that specific it sounds like there would be a performance loss while running linux. Very curious on this

You mean for both nerds using it?

Three!

Four

I do wonder if the sole distro of Linux really made the difference on gaming performance. If that's really the case, the entire comment section would just turn into war between Distro Shill comparing the prick size since Linux customizable is really that limitless

I knew I wasn't the only one! LOL

What meme? You mean dead joke

Because it's only using 8 cores lol

i see way less crashing with intel.

Wait, is that *squints* a gorgeous black labrador? ❤

@@rustler08 What are you talking about, the 5800X3D blows the 7900X out of the water in terms of gaming performance. And it's $300 at microcenter

@@martinzhang5533 yeah i was about to say lol if you doing stuff other then gaming sure but just gaming the 5800x3d wins vs the 7900X

@@rustler08 People can ride AM4 for years. You act like it’s falling apart and is a decade out of date when AM5 just came out last year. That’s nice that you upgraded to AM5, but AM4 is plenty viable for a very long time. Considering the growing pains AM5 has gone through, some may prefer AM4.

So which are you going with??

7950 for me

@TechyRod cool thats what I was thinking as well. I was looking at that one and the 7900X . I have to replace my whole gaming system. Mine was stolen in a burglary

@@davidjames7382 the X :)