Ryzen 7xx0 3D V Cache or No?

[Niku-Sama]

I know the base 7 series chip isnt even out yet but i thought i'd ask since it seems a bit more people looking to upgrade this time around.

if your upgrading are you going to grab a standard Ryzen 7 chip out of the gate or wait for the 3d V cache version?



My unintentional upgrade schedule is placing my next major upgrade around this RTX 4xxx / Ryzen 7xxx time frame and in the past if i had the choice of getting a cpu with a larger cache i usually did. It used to be an overlooked part. Granted then we're talking about a few kb or maybe a meg then but still...
By the time i find work and replace some of the money from my house that i've been living off of the 3d V cache versions should be out and my r5 2600 1660 and r5 3600x 2070 systems should feel like they are well and truly showing their age

 

[Kenrou]

I do a lot of online gaming, so 3d cache is a definite yes please. Most games are either single threaded or very badly optimized, so very hyped to see what the new ones can do

 

[freeagent]

The 58X3D is great if you "just" game. Outside of that it is a step backwards, and a waste of money if you do anything outside of playing games.

 

[SF101]

Honestly I think your going to need to buy a 7xxx cpu first and then replace it with a 3d cache one later .. its not a bad deal when I think about it.
the platform will last it will have everything modern and the 7000X cpus will be quite great while using far less power/heat than intel's offerings.
Even if you get 70% of your initial purchase price on the non 3d cache CPU you buy early its probably worth it as it will still be fast as hell.

 

[TerranBrackiatt]

that video compares a 3800x to a 5800x3d... two processors from different generations. the performance difference is from going from a Zen2 to a Zen3 processor. of course the zen3 (5800x3d) will perform better, even without the 3d cache

if you want a good answer,
~first, look for comparisons of 5800x to 5800x3d.
~second, while it's true that most games don't benefit from more cores, it is also true that some games have additional programming to specifically take advantage of more cores. (like RIFT. it has a setting for multicore use that improves performance with more cores)
~third, some DX11 and DX12 games naturally perform better with more cores, since they have better thread management and fewer downtime gaps in the main thread while waiting for the other threads to return their information to the main thread. (i noticed a huge difference in GuildWars2 in the DX11 renderer with 5900x 12 core / 24 thread CPU, compared to using the old DX9 renderer... to the tune of roughly double the FPS) ~ (but i notice no difference in performance for Control Complete Edition between the old i7-4930k 6c/12t CPU and the ryzen 9 5900x 12c/24t CPU, using the same 2070 super GPUs in NVLink at 2k QHD 2560x1600 resolution)

TLDR: it's a trade off depending on your games. some games will benefit from the extra cache, and not from more cores, while other games will benefit from having more cores. one game will run better on a 5800x3d, while another game will run better on a 5950x (with double the cores) so, you really need to compare benchmarks for your specific games.

PS: RIFT and GuildWars2 are both online MMOs, while Control Complete Edition is a single player offline game

 

[EarthDog]

RightO. According to TPU's review, across all their tests, the 5800x3d is 2% slower... but it depends on the tests...

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D Review - The Magic of 3D V-Cache

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D is the company's new flagship gaming processor. It introduces 3D V-Cache, a dedicated piece of silicon with additional L3 capacity. In our review, we're testing how much the larger cache can help intensive gaming workloads and applications and compare it to the Intel Core...

www.techpowerup.com

If you want the ultimate AMD game performer, that's it... but it lacks in other areas. If you're good with that, it's a winner.

 

[Woomack]

For a couple of days, I'm wondering if the X3D version is so good idea. I guess we have to wait for the premiere, and it will probably be delayed by the next 2 weeks (after mid-Feb).
What I mean is that the 3D cache is confirmed to work only on one CCD, and this CCD is limited to 5GHz. "Standard" Ryzen 7000 cores can boost up to 5.3-5.7GHz. In the end, for games, overclocked Ryzen 7600 can be similar and probably ~30-40% cheaper than the 7800X3D. There is 2 cores difference, but games are not really using 8 cores anyway.

AMD is generally not as popular nowadays as we could expect. Way too high motherboard prices are killing it even more than for Intel. I doubt that the X3D version will change much but will probably improve it a bit, as many people are waiting for the new series and won't buy anything until then.
I was expecting there will be many more AMD 7k users on the forums by now. I see that many stay with the older generations for many reasons.

 

[mackerel]

What I mean is that the 3D cache is confirmed to work only on one CCD, and this CCD is limited to 5GHz. "Standard" Ryzen 7000 cores can boost up to 5.3-5.7GHz. In the end, for games, overclocked Ryzen 7600 can be similar and probably ~30-40% cheaper than the 7800X3D. There is 2 cores difference, but games are not really using 8 cores anyway.

As always there is a big "it depends on the game". I feel that 6 cores today is an entry level option for more budget constrained builds. 8 cores is probably still the general balance point but for highest end I'm not sure it is ideal any more. I recently did CPU scaling testing on Watch Dogs Legion as I got into a discussion elsewhere on the value of threads vs cores. I didn't expect scaling beyond 8c16t, but it was there. 12c (12 or 24t) was over 6% faster at 1080p low. We get more frequent reports of highest end GPU owners hitting CPU limits more often. For sure, it wont matter to vast majority of people but the CPU may be more important than it has been in the recent past if you want to be on the highest end.

 

[Niku-Sama]

For a couple of days, I'm wondering if the X3D version is so good idea. I guess we have to wait for the premiere, and it will probably be delayed by the next 2 weeks (after mid-Feb).
What I mean is that the 3D cache is confirmed to work only on one CCD, and this CCD is limited to 5GHz. "Standard" Ryzen 7000 cores can boost up to 5.3-5.7GHz. In the end, for games, overclocked Ryzen 7600 can be similar and probably ~30-40% cheaper than the 7800X3D. There is 2 cores difference, but games are not really using 8 cores anyway.

AMD is generally not as popular nowadays as we could expect. Way too high motherboard prices are killing it even more than for Intel. I doubt that the X3D version will change much but will probably improve it a bit, as many people are waiting for the new series and won't buy anything until then.
I was expecting there will be many more AMD 7k users on the forums by now. I see that many stay with the older generations for many reasons.

I didnt see anything about that, but i've also been super busy lately.
you have a link about this only working on one CCD

As always there is a big "it depends on the game". I feel that 6 cores today is an entry level option for more budget constrained builds. 8 cores is probably still the general balance point but for highest end I'm not sure it is ideal any more. I recently did CPU scaling testing on Watch Dogs Legion as I got into a discussion elsewhere on the value of threads vs cores. I didn't expect scaling beyond 8c16t, but it was there. 12c (12 or 24t) was over 6% faster at 1080p low. We get more frequent reports of highest end GPU owners hitting CPU limits more often. For sure, it wont matter to vast majority of people but the CPU may be more important than it has been in the recent past if you want to be on the highest end.

yea, its surprising how many games are still limited on the number of cores they'll use.

regardless upgrading from DDR4 2600\3600 systems to DDR5 and 7xxx, 3d v cache or not, will be a big change. plus i feel like DDR5 desktop memory has worked out the early run kinks by now.
question is do i build completely from scratch minus the video card or do i try and swap as much as i can from the previous setup... thats a question for another thread though, after all the info is out there

 

[Woomack]

I didnt see anything about that, but i've also been super busy lately.
you have a link about this only working on one CCD


yea, its surprising how many games are still limited on the number of cores they'll use.

regardless upgrading from DDR4 2600\3600 systems to DDR5 and 7xxx, 3d v cache or not, will be a big change. plus i feel like DDR5 desktop memory has worked out the early run kinks by now.
question is do i build completely from scratch minus the video card or do i try and swap as much as i can from the previous setup... thats a question for another thread though, after all the info is out there

One of many links, picked it randomly - https://www.pcgamer.com/amds-lopsid...games-want-more-cache-or-higher-clock-speeds/

"And it turns out that those CCDs are not equal. Where two CCDs are used in these new X3D chips, only one of them gets the added V-Cache. The net result is a rather complex asymmetric design that throws up all kinds of questions.

That said, the asymmetric layout does at least explain why the 7800X3D is so much slower than the other two models. The eight-core chip has a peak boost speed of 5GHz, much lower than the 5.7GHz and 5.6GHz speeds of the 16-core and 12-core models."

One CCD with 3D cache and max 5GHz = 8 cores max and the second CCD with up to the next 8 cores without 3D cache that boosts like a regular Ryzen 7000, up to ~5.7GHz. It's not a bad idea, as long as Microsoft improves core management so when need, software use one or another for the best results. I saw news somewhere that AMD works with MS to improve it for better results. Knowing MS, we can expect results in a year ... at least this is how long it took them with the last "new" CPUs.


Most games use old engines because when it's enough, then there is no point in paying for a new engine or improving anything. Usually, textures are getting better, larger, and more detailed. Only a few new games use new engines every year, so we can see performance improvements in games with some delay.

 

[Niku-Sama]

hmm interesting. so its almost like they are doing their own type of P cores and E cores in an unintentional way.
i wonder if the limited boost clock problem is related to heat or possible memory leakage issue from the cache at higher speeds.
If its thermal then i would think that would make for a decent OCable chip or CCD if 79xxX3D if you can cool it well enough, i imagine a 360 rad should handle it but who knows.

also if it was a thermal issue they could have stacked cache on all the CCDs and disabled some of the cores to lessen the thermal load

but time will tell i guess...

i was planning on getting the lower of them, maybe a middle road one. but if its dependent on M$ trying to impliment some sort of wonky CPU scheduling for multi CCD chips i'd probably just stick to the 7800, and hope to OC it to maybe the 5.6 boost of the others.

 

[Woomack]

Intel cores are like P are good for everything, and E are just meh, only to boost multithreading performance at low wattage. I feel like it's a desperate move from Intel to show better results in benchmarks vs AMD, which was leading in multithreading for some time already. Some gamers are still disabling E-cores as some games show worse performance.
In X3D chips, it's more like 3D cache = better in games, regular cores = better in everything else. A good balance with OS support would give AMD great results in everything. However, it all depends on MS right now, and they are known to deliver some updates with huge delays ... or never. Look at M.2 SSD performance on Win11, a year later it barely improved, and in some tests it's still 30-50% lower than on Win10 (I mean deep queue write tests like in CrystalDiskMark).

I'm thinking about 7800X3D too. I'm after lower heat/noise, more than additional 200-300MHz. At least in my gaming PC. I doubt I will see any significant difference because of higher CPU frequency, but 3D cache can improve results. We will see, there is still nearly 1 month to the premiere.

 

[mackerel]

Intel cores are like P are good for everything, and E are just meh, only to boost multithreading performance at low wattage. I feel like it's a desperate move from Intel to show better results in benchmarks vs AMD, which was leading in multithreading for some time already. Some gamers are still disabling E-cores as some games show worse performance.

Obviously more cores help with multithread scaling workloads, but it leads to two questions I wonder if anyone has tested:
1, Efficiency: Hybrid has been proven in phone uses for a long time. Has anyone done power efficiency testing of Intel hybrid CPUs with and without E cores?
2, Gaming performance: Is there a significant performance penalty for gaming using a hybrid CPU as intended, specifically with Windows 11? Nearest I could dig out was link below, which intentionally used Win 10 as worst case. While a handful of games take up to 10% perf hit, a similar number go the other way with up to 10% increase, and a load more have a smaller benefit to having E cores. An average win for E cores I'd say.

RTX 4090 & 53 Games: Core i9-13900K E-Cores Enabled vs Disabled Review

In this week's TPU50 Megabench we're testing whether you can unlock additional gaming performance by disabling the E-Cores on a Raptor Lake Core i9-13900K processor. For our benchmarks we used the mighty GeForce RTX 4090, with 53 games at three resolutions.

www.techpowerup.com

In X3D chips, it's more like 3D cache = better in games, regular cores = better in everything else. A good balance with OS support would give AMD great results in everything.

Better in some games. It reminds me of when 5800X3D came out. It did really well in some games, not so much in others. Skimming TechPowerUp's results it didn't lead often, but when it did, it could be by a LOT. It was another win on average but it wasn't clear cut and even lost out to its non-3D relatives in some scenarios. If scheduling works great then 7950X could give best of both worlds, clocks or cache as best suited to the title.

 

[Zerileous]

It's interesting to see the changes. It's highly speculative, but maybe after bonding the 3d cache the fab has been unable to fuse off cores. It also seems to streamline production only having a single 3d cache part instead of both 6 and 8 core parts.

The shift for the 12 core parts from a 6+6 to an 8+4 configuration is interesting though. Are they doing this for the 7900x as well? Is it variable? As far as I can tell everything on AM4 was always 6+6.

 

[Woomack]

Some 7600X CPUs already have it split into two CCD and it's only a 6 core chip. I know only about the 7600X that has divided cores this way. I mean some have one CCD, some have two. 7800X have one CCD with 8 cores. Recently there was a problem with AGESA 1.0.0.4 as it couldn't recognize which 7600X has one and which two CCD. Those with two CCD couldn't boot, so every BIOS that is using 1.0.0.4 AGESA was removed from manufacturers' websites. I only wonder how it could pass internal tests.
I heard that 7600 (non-X) is a single CCD chip and it doesn't have this problem. 7800X3D is expected to be only one CCD too. I'm not really sure how 7900X3D will look, but it's expected to have 8x 3D + 4x regular cores.

 

[SF101]

Intel cores are like P are good for everything, and E are just meh, only to boost multithreading performance at low wattage. I feel like it's a desperate move from Intel to show better results in benchmarks vs AMD, which was leading in multithreading for some time already. Some gamers are still disabling E-cores as some games show worse performance.
In X3D chips, it's more like 3D cache = better in games, regular cores = better in everything else. A good balance with OS support would give AMD great results in everything. However, it all depends on MS right now, and they are known to deliver some updates with huge delays ... or never. Look at M.2 SSD performance on Win11, a year later it barely improved, and in some tests it's still 30-50% lower than on Win10 (I mean deep queue write tests like in CrystalDiskMark).

I'm thinking about 7800X3D too. I'm after lower heat/noise, more than additional 200-300MHz. At least in my gaming PC. I doubt I will see any significant difference because of higher CPU frequency, but 3D cache can improve results. We will see, there is still nearly 1 month to the premiere.

Bart always gets it..
The non x3d cores will be already P cores (regular fast) the rest will be better.
My concern is where they will end up on Clockspeed.
If the 78000X3d can do 5.5+ PBO then this race is over.

 

[Woomack]

There was news in the last few days that all X3D CPUs are unlocked. There was also news that unlocked, but overclocking is available only via PBO and not fully manual. Considering that at lower voltages and better cooling, you can boost a regular Ryzen 7k by 200-400MHz, then it's still good. We will see in a couple of days. The only weird thing is that I haven't heard about the official premiere date, and it's still in Feb, while we have almost Feb already.

 

[Woomack]

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D launches February 28th, costs $699 - VideoCardz.com

First AMD Ryzen 7000X3D CPUs to launch on February 28th AMD has confirmed the launch date and pricing for its Ryzen 7000X3D series. AMD Ryzen 7000X3D Pricing, Source: AMD The company reveals that its flagship 16-core Ryzen 9 7950X3D will cost just as much as the ‘original’ Ryzen 9 7950X 16-core...

videocardz.com

If it's a true date, then it's somehow disappointing as I'm already waiting for two weeks with a mobo for the expected 7800X3D, which is supposed to be launched on April 6 ... why so late?

 

[mackerel]

Lots of speculation on the staggered release schedule:

• More time to build up stock for release
• Getting those impatient/undecided to buy the higher models as they come out first
• Sales to count for particular quarter results
• Separation of reviews of the parts, get two waves of coverage

 

[Woomack]

I understand various reasons why different CPU premieres are divided, and we have already seen 7000X and non-X separately, so it's a bit weird when only 7800X3D from 3 new CPUs has such a delayed premiere date. Of course, AMD can count that they sell more expensive chips to all those users who can't wait, but it's still not a good reason to do that. They also don't have to delay anything waiting on Intel's move, as this is usually happening when both brands release products at about the same time, but 13900KS was already released and we are talking about the lowest X3D CPU, not something that is a direct competitor vs top Intel CPU.