Zen 5 3D V-Cache could be a strong long-term strategy for AMD.
Zen 5 3D V-Cache could be a strong long-term strategy for AMD.
Currently, it appears that Zen 5 isn't ideal for gaming. While some productivity tasks perform adequately or even well, it falls short in this area. Still, it remains a power-efficient design—about 10% more efficient than Zen 4—and enhances IHS thermal performance, reducing heat generation by roughly 7°C. However, direct comparisons between sensors and Zen 4 are challenging. Improved power efficiency combined with better thermal management addresses a major challenge of 3D V-Cache: needing lower clock speeds to control heat. It seems likely that the 9800X3D could gain meaningful speed improvements, potentially boosting performance in games. While a 50% speed jump isn't realistic, reaching around 10% more average speed could be significant, especially if clockspeed can match the 9700X. This might help eliminate games where the 7800X3D previously dominated. Pairing an X3D chip with a 5.5GHz processor should also eliminate titles where the 14900K excels, as frequency remains the primary advantage. This combination could make the 9800X3D a strong contender, not just for gaming but overall performance. Should we consider Zen 5 a promising step forward for gaming, or is it still a missed opportunity?
Zen5 non-3D matches the TDP and power draw of Zen4 3D, so we should see comparable clock speed increases. Expect roughly a 20°C rise in temperature, resulting in around 5.2GHz boost across all cores versus 4.8-4.9GHz in Zen4 3D.
I’m sure you mean it, though it might sound a bit odd. I really hope AMD can outdo Intel, but I also think Intel’s CPU lineup needs to stay competitive since it seems like Intel isn’t really focusing on its customers right now.
I'm actually just a few kilometers away from Intel's primary manufacturing site in Israel.
It's a bit absurd that these firms don't prioritize your interests as you might expect. Right now, one is managing a mess, yet you should hope Intel resolves it and thrives. Healthy rivalry exists, and no giant with hundreds of millions invested seems to care about your concerns.
I believe the outcome hinges on aspects we haven't fully examined yet. I'm interested in understanding: Was 7700X inefficient, consuming excessive power that the 7700 addressed with only slight performance loss? Could the 9700X already reach an optimal balance, or is there still room for better power savings without hurting speed? Or is it essentially a 7700 alternative offering only about a 10% boost in performance? If further power reduction is achievable with little performance drop, the X3D might match or even surpass the 9700X in efficiency while maintaining solid speeds. I'm curious about its behavior under memory overclocking compared to the 7700X. I've heard rumors suggesting 8000MT/s could be possible, so I'd like to observe how the CPU handles that with manual timing adjustments for peak performance. It seems likely that unlocking new motherboards would be necessary to sustain the required memory speeds regularly. I'd appreciate detailed analysis using tools like Curve Optimizer and Curve Shaper, applying both overclocking and undervolting settings. From the Der8auer review, it appears multi-core speeds could jump 20% to 25% compared to the 7700X under full power, though gaming scores remain mostly unchanged. This hints that memory limitations might still be the bottleneck, and X3D could play a role or FCLK could be a limiting factor. I'm also interested in the potential for significant frequency increases.
It is better on average for gaming, but it's not that much faster. There are some outliers where it's about 10% faster, but on average across a wide range of games, it's more like 3% faster. If we're generous, we can call it 5% faster on average. But it also costs about 30-40% more than Zen 4. Examples where the 9700X is faster than the 7800X3D barely exist. In most cases, the X3D chip is miles ahead - even the 5800X3D occasionally bests the 9700X, which is pretty sad to see after two generations. My hope is that the X3D could save this generation for gaming. The thermal improvements are the clearest advantage that could help, as it could let them up the clocks, but there's also some reason to think that the Zen 5 architecture itself could benefit from the cache more than Zen 4 did, which could give a bit more of a bump, but is even more speculative. The 9800X3D is likely to be the best gaming CPU in the world when it launches, but the question is whether or not its enough of an improvement to matter. If it literally always wins, then that's a nice selling point that's hard to argue with.
That’s why I wanted Intel to stay competitive. My dad actually worked in their main fabrication plant, but I’m leaning toward AMD because they don’t update their socket every 2–3 generations. Plus, I appreciate the performance gains from Intel’s SD V cache—being an Intel fanboy is tough!
7800X3D now leads in gaming performance. It makes sense that the 9800X3D, a similar chip with slightly better efficiency, will likely follow suit. Even if its clock speed matches earlier models, this seems quite reasonable. It appears some internal adjustments were made by AMD regarding CPU design choices. Typically, efficiency gains allow for higher clock speeds, but there might be other factors at play. There was also a recall involved; manufacturing issues could have forced them to lower clock speeds to ensure stability across all chips. They didn't disclose all-core boost timings beforehand, which might explain the weaker results. Therefore, I doubt they'll increase the clock speed of the 9800X3D compared to the 7800X3D. In fact, it's more likely it will be lower, similar to how the 7700X compared to the 9700X performed.