Bad processor. Ryzen 7 9800X3D Review — what was AMD thinking?

It seems that the manufacturer himself does not know who this model is aimed at and how many places it occupies in the line.

The new AMD Zen 5 microarchitecture has proven to be a significant improvement over the previous generation – Zen 4. While performance may not have increased significantly, power consumption and heat dissipation have decreased significantly, indicating an overall increase in efficiency.
AMD is now introducing a new version of their 3D V-Cache technology, which is aimed primarily at gamers. This technology was first introduced in the Ryzen 7 9800X3D desktop processor, priced at $479. This processor includes a reliable additional component with 64 MB of cache, increasing the total L3 cache size to 96 MB. While this provides advantages in certain areas, for most buyers, the Ryzen 7 and 9 processors from the 9000 series without 3D technology would be a better choice.

Technical specifications

• Number of cores: 8.
• Number of threads: 16.
• Base clock speed: 4.7 GHz.
• Maximum frequency in boost mode: 5.2 GHz.
• Unlocked Multiplier: Yes.
• Socket compatibility: AMD AM5.
• Technical process: 4 nm.
• L3 cache size: 96 MB.
• Power Consumption (TDP): 120 Watts.
• Integrated Graphics: AMD Radeon Graphics.
• Built-in graphics base frequency: 2200 MHz.
• Built-in cooler: none.

What is the second-generation 3D V-Cache?

The new 3D V-Cache, in fact, turns the old technology upside down. The 3D V-Cache chips of the first generation were located on top of the upgraded Zen 3 or Zen 4 Core Complex Die matrix (CCD, or the main computing part), but in the design of the second generation, the 3D V-Cache chip is placed under the modified Zen 5 CCD matrix. This change is intended to solve one of the most serious problems that affected the design of the first-generation 3D V-Cache.

All computer chips have limitations on power and heat dissipation. As a general rule, one or both of these factors determine the upper limit on the capabilities of a chip. Increasing power allows the chip to operate at higher speeds, leading to improved performance, but only if you don’t supply too much power, which could damage the chip or cause it to overheat. That’s why cooling components like processors are essential for achieving optimal performance. The 3D V-Cache chip design, to some extent, interferes with this process in its first generation.

This happened for two main reasons. Firstly, the 3D V-Cache layer directly blocked heat transfer from the computing part to the integrated heat distributor of the processor (IHS) and, accordingly, to the processor cooler. Secondly, since the 3D V-Cache chip itself consumed energy and generated heat, the processor part of the chipset had to be configured to produce less heat in order to avoid overheating.

Placing the 3D V-cache under the processor cores effectively reverses the issue. The cache may not be able to operate at such high frequencies, but the more critical processor cores are better cooled and therefore do not require such a reduction in clock speed to prevent overheating. In many processors, cache memory, especially the L3 type, often operates at lower clock speeds than the processor cores, so this design aligns better with standard best practices in processor design.

This time, the 3D V-Cache chip is the same size as the Zen 5 CD chip, which is placed on top of it. I don’t have precise measurements of the old 3D V-Cache, but according to the diagrams, it appears to be about half or a third smaller than the Zen 3 CD and Zen 4 CD chips. AMD has installed spacers on the left and right sides of these 3D VCache chips to create a flat mounting surface for the IHS. The larger, spaced VCache matrix, which still holds 64 MB of capacity, probably helps with heat dissipation by spreading it over a larger area.

Another advantage of this design is that the AMD 9800X3D has been unlocked. Earlier processors with 3D VCache had a fixed multiplier, which limited overclocking. This was likely necessary because overclocking the CPU cores when the 3D cache was on top could lead to overheating and damage. In the new design, the 3D VCache is located at the bottom, so this is still a potential concern, but it is less likely to cause damage. AMD seems confident enough to allow overclocking in this configuration with the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, as it has included this feature.

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D on paper

Let’s take a closer look at the Ryzen 7 9800X3D processor before we move on to the test results. As a Ryzen 7 processor from the 9000 series, this review’s hero has many similarities to the Ryzen 7 9700. Both have eight processor cores in a single CCD, and they can run 16 threads simultaneously thanks to simultaneous multithreading (SMT). Both also have an integrated Radeon RDNA2 graphics processor and support for DDR5 RAM up to 5600 MHz clock speeds.

These processors differ in performance in four key areas:
Internally, they differ due to the presence of the 3D V-Cache chip in the 9800X3D model, which is the most significant difference on paper. The 9800X3D has 96 MB of L3 cache, compared to only 32 MB for the 9700X.
The base frequency of the 9800X3D processor is surprisingly higher at 4.7 GHz, while the base frequency for the 9700X is 3.8 GHz. However, this specification can be misleading, as it suggests that the 9800X3D will always have higher clock speeds.

In reality, base clock speeds don’t mean much today, as they have been irrelevant for more than a decade. Instead, it’s the boost clock speed that determines the maximum operating frequency.

Looking at the boost frequency, we can see that the 9700X processor is the more powerful of the two. It can reach a maximum speed of 5.5 GHz, while the 9800X3D can only reach 5.2 GHz. This gives the 9700X a performance advantage of about 6%.

Another key difference between the two processors is their thermal design power (TDP). The 9800X3D has a TDP of 120 watts, while the default TDP for the 9700X is 65 watts. However, if desired, the TDP of the 9700X can be increased to 105 watts with a simple BIOS setting. For this review, we tested both configurations to compare their performance.

Although the technical specifications may not differ significantly, it’s also important to consider the price difference. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D is priced at $479, significantly more than the Ryzen 7 9700X at $359. While this makes it closer in price to the Ryzen 9 9900X ($499), the latter has twelve cores and 64MBL3 cache, making it more similar to the 9800X3D than the 9700X. Therefore, the advantage of the 9800X3D over the 9700X is minimized.

Processor Performance

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D processor was tested on our AMD test bench, using the Gigabyte X870 Aorus Master motherboard and two 16GBGB DDR5 RAM modules, for a total memory capacity of 32GBGB. A PCIe 4.0 NVMe SSD with a capacity of 1T was added, along with a SilverStone DA850 power supply of 850 watts, a Cooler Master MasterLiquid PL240 water cooler, and an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4080 Super Founders Edition graphics card. All these components were installed in the Praxis Wetbench case, and the tests were performed under Windows 11 Pro with the latest available updates.

AMD’s Ryzen 7 9800X3D results are more interesting compared to others because they are less predictable. In the Cinebench 2024 benchmark, the 9800X3D outperformed the standard 9700 in the multithreaded test by 20%. However, this victory may not be significant. The 9800X3D has a higher TDP, which could be the reason for this difference. When configured to operate at 105W TDP, the advantage of the 9700 is reduced to 7%. If the 9700 could be easily adjusted to 120W TDP, it could potentially match the performance of the 9800X3D.

In any case, a 20% or 7% increase will not compensate for a 33% price increase. In the same multithreaded Cinebench test, the Ryzen 9 9900X, with its additional cores, was certainly faster than the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, by almost 30%.

However, Blender was able to take advantage of the increased cache size on the 9800X3D, as it is one of the few benchmarks in which the 9800X is significantly ahead of the 9700 (I will now mainly focus on the results with a TDP of 105 watts for the 9700). Here, the 9800X was up to 11% faster than the 9700 when using this higher power setting. It also comfortably beat the newly released Intel Core Ultra 245 on the Arrow Lake architecture, but the R9 9900X still proved to be significantly faster than all three.

The Ryzen 7 9800X3D achieved a remarkable triumph over the Ryzen 7 9700X in Cinebench 2024 and Blender, but it also demonstrated commendable performance in other benchmarks. In HandBrake 1.8, the 9800X3D was 9 seconds faster than the 9700X when performing a rendering task with a 105W TDP configuration. However, Intel Core Ultra 5 245K was able to complete the test 15 seconds faster.
In POV-Ray 3.7, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D had the worst single-threaded performance among all processors, including the latest generation 3D V-Cache chips. However, its multithreaded performance was closer to the level of Risen 7 9700X and still a little slower than Ultra 5 245K and Ryzen 9 9900X.

Our evaluation of Adobe Premiere Pro 24 using the PugetBench for Creators benchmarking tool revealed that the Ryzen 7 9800X3D may have a slight advantage due to its additional cache, outperforming the Ryzen 7 9700 by approximately 6%. However, the latest test, AIDA64, did not show a significant difference between the Ryzen 7 9800X3D and the Ryzen 7 9700, but it again confirmed the clear superiority of the Ryzen 9 9900.

3D V-Cache + RTX 4080 Super

In processor tests, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D showed a small increase, but not so much as to justify its higher price compared to the Ryzen 7 9700X. The situation may change in game tests. After all, AMD focuses its 3D V-Cache processors on enthusiasts, so it’s in games that they should show their best side, right?

Well, starting with 3DMark, we didn’t see a noticeable advantage in any of the test processors. In F1 2024, the Ryzen 7 9800X managed to raise the number of FPS slightly higher than the competition, but not by much. The difference between the 9800X3D and the Ryzen 7 9700X with a TDP of 105 watts was less than 2% in all indicators. With a stock TDP, the 9700X was only 3% behind the 9800X3D, as was the 9900X.

In Cyberpunk 2077, the 9700X and 9800X3D showed similar results, almost matching when the 9700X has a higher TDP; in other cases, the difference is only 3%. In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, 9800X3D, 9900X and 9700X showed the same results.

Only in the last two tests did we see any differences. In the games Total War: Three Kingdoms and Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 1080p resolution, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D finally demonstrated gaming abilities higher than the Ryzen 7 9700X. In Total War, the 9800X3D was 6% faster than the 9700X with a TDP of 105 watts, and 8% faster than the 9900X. In Shadow of the Tomb Raider, the 9800X3D was 12% ahead of the 9700X with a TDP of 105 Watts and 10% ahead of the Ryzen 9 9900X.

Radeon RDNA2 IGP Performance

AMD’s desktop processors haven’t changed much in terms of integrated graphics. The new Ryzen 9000 series uses the same IGP chip as the older Ryzen 7000 series, with identical clock speeds and specifications.
IGP isn’t too bad, and it was able to run all the games we tested. However, the frame rate in these games will be acceptable only if you lower the resolution to 720p and significantly reduce the graphics settings. But if you only had this IGP, you’d be able to find a few games, probably old ones, that would run and play at decent settings. Of course, almost no one buys a processor with 3D V-Cache to use IGP.

Note right away: Ryzen 7 9800X3D is missing from the Call of Duty table. This is not a bug — the game was constantly crashing on 9800X3D. This may seem to contradict the previous point, but as already mentioned, these AMD processors have exactly the same IGP. Therefore, their performance is about the same.

The IGP 9800X3D was stable outside of Call of Duty and never caused a system crash, so its issues here are most likely related to a driver issue or something similar, which will probably be fixed (if not already fixed by the time you read this). At the moment, without data on 9800X3D in Call of Duty, we can assume that if it worked, it would show the same results as the other AMD Ryzen 9000 series chips presented in the table above.

Power and thermal characteristics

Improved power consumption and lower heat generation are the hallmarks of the new Ryzen 9000 series. In the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, AMD pushed all this to the back burner. We use a Kill-A-Watt meter to measure the power consumption of the test bench as a whole, so expect some variation as we test the entire system, not just the CPU. However, the graph shows that 9800X3D consumes much more power relative to the number of cores than all competitors.

To be fair, the Ryzen 7 9700X with a TDP of 105 watts is also less efficient than the same processor with a TDP of 65 watts, and with a higher TDP, it is even closer to 9800X3D. However, the 9800X3D consumed 37-62% more power than the 9700X at 65W TDP. It’s also surprisingly close to drawing as much power as the Ryzen 9 9 9900X, and its power consumption is also slightly higher than the Ultra 5 245K.

The operating temperature of the 9800X3D was acceptable and reached 82°C, but this is noticeably higher than that of the 9900X.

Feedback

Ryzen 7 9800X3D is a processor whose positioning and price are unclear. This verdict may seem harsh given its performance, but you should look at the big picture and how 9800X3D compares to its competitors. The Ryzen 7 9800X3D has three main competitors, and in reality it loses to all of them.

First, compare the Ryzen 7 9800X3D with the Ryzen 7 9700X. The performance of the review hero is clearly higher. The double-digit percentage gains in Blender and Cinebench are impressive. However, setting the 9700X’s TDP to 105 Watts helped it significantly close the gap with the 9800X3D. If the 9800X3D didn’t cost $ 479 and the Ryzen 7 9700X didn’t cost $ 369, then the 9800X3D would be the best of the two chips. But here you will have to pay 33% more money for a 17% advantage in Blender and, quite realistically, a 7% advantage in Cinebench.

This is followed by the Core Ultra 5 245K, which is priced even lower at $ 309. In this case, it’s even easier to make the case for the Ultra 5 245K, because in addition to being cheaper than the 9800X3D, it’s also faster in many tests and closer to matching the performance of the 9800X3D in Blender than the 9700X. If 9700X is more profitable than 9800X3D, then Ultra 5 245K is more profitable than 9700X.
And the latest model is the Ryzen 9 9900X. It costs only $ 20 more than the 9800X3D. With this increase in cost, you get significantly more performance in everything that does not concern games. As an example of how much faster the 9900X is, check out the Cinebench results, and you’ll see that the 9900X was about 30% faster than the 9800X3D.

In general, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D looks like a Ryzen 9 on paper, but it works like a Ryzen 7, so it’s hard to recommend it. We can’t even name a niche in which this processor would have an advantage. AMD, of course, would suggest using it for games, but this advantage is only apparent at low resolutions and graphics settings — and in our tests it turned out to be insignificant. Whatever you plan to do with your PC, you can easily find the processor with the best price-performance ratio, starting with the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 9 9900X. However, this processor may gain some appeal if AMD eventually reduces its price.

Positive

• 96 MB of L3 cache memory.
• Eight cores.
• Acceptable integrated graphics.

Minuses

• Too expensive in terms of price – to-performance ratio.
• Uncompetitive price.
• High power consumption.