AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D vs. Ryzen 7 7800X3D: 45 Game Benchmark

It's probably not a significant enough upgrade for many gaming with the 7800X3D, but a decent generational gain for those with anything less.

I have a machine with a 7800X3D and will carry through til Zen 6 and then buy whatever is the fastest final gaming processor for AM5 in two years or so. That would end up being a very long lived system and excellent value in that respect. Viable into 2027 and a few years after most likely.

I would hope by Zen 6 there should be 16 core 3D cache models with all the cache accessible by one 16 core CCD. That would provide a nice upgrade for a 7800X3D.
 
Ok, but most play on 1440p or 4k, what is the difference with that? I think smaller..
Incorrect, 1440p and 4k combined are still a minority of steam users, most are 1080p or below.

Also, you do not run at high resolution for a CPU test. The propose of CPU testing is to stress the CPU, not the GPU. Please learn, every single time someone has this question and it has to be explained to them.
 
Ok, but most play on 1440p or 4k, what is the difference with that? I think smaller..
The difference is smaller as the resolutions go up due to the GPU becoming more of a limiting factor. GPUs are heavily impacted by increased resolution, but CPUs are not. This is exactly why CPU performance in games is tested at a low resolution to ensure the GPU is not the bottleneck. This is all explained in the article linked in one of the first few paragraphs of this article. https://www.techspot.com/article/2618-cpu-benchmarks-explained/
 
What doesn't tell us that in 1080p there is not also a bottleneck with the RTX 4090 and that it will be lifted once we upgrade to an RTX 5090? Maybe the gap between these 2 CPUs will be bigger than now...
I'm sure they'll have that information for their RTX 5090 review.
 
AM4 5900x gamer here, I had planned to skip a gen when AM5 released, and then the 9000 series came out with a bit of a whimper.

This x3d chip surprised me greatly, hoping it lives up to the hype. I game on ultra wide and 4090 so will be curious to see how much this improves stuttering and 1% lows!
 
Well now the problem is the price, in Spain the 7800x3d is around 530euros and the 9800x3d is around 650euros or out of stock. I will keep waiting to see if the prices can come down to normal or keep rising. There's no way in hell or heaven that I'll pay that price. F*** scalpers!!!!
 
Incorrect, 1440p and 4k combined are still a minority of steam users, most are 1080p or below.

Also, you do not run at high resolution for a CPU test. The propose of CPU testing is to stress the CPU, not the GPU. Please learn, every single time someone has this question and it has to be explained to them.
And 4090 owners make up 0.91% of gamers as of October 2024. While these benchmarks do tell use what CPU is technically faster, it doesn't tell us anything about real world performance or what product you should actually buy. People gaming at 1080P overwhelmingly are paired with 60 class cards or anything sub $500 really.

Something I find infuriating about these benchmarks is that, while it find it important to eliminate bottlenecks, it doesn't tell the target market anything about how this product actually performs in their setups.

The testing methodology that everyone is using is designed specifically to find bottlenecks and exagerate performance. It tells us nothing about real world performance. The thing is, real world performance numbers don't sell clicks or move products.

While eliminating bottlenecks is important, it is also important to measure performance when THERE ARE bottlenecks. I'm not saying stop testing this way all together. The thing is, the way everyone is testing these chips leaves out valuable information that if people saw they might say, "wow, I don't need this product. That money is better spent elsewhere"

I love building building PCs as a hobby, I think this tech is cool and I'm happy it's around. But I see this in a similar way to cars as a hobby. Go buy a hellcat if you want one, but it isn't going to get you to work any faster. Websites are marketing this thing for AMD and it's going to end up hurting consumers in the long run. People with limited budgets are going to look at this and say "well I have to get this $500 CPU or my gaming computer wont work right". Fact of the matter is that many gamers out there will never own a GPU where the 9800X3D makes any difference in performance. want more FPS, buy a 7800X and a 4080 instead of a 9800X3D and a 4070.
 
Well now the problem is the price, in Spain the 7800x3d is around 530euros and the 9800x3d is around 650euros or out of stock. I will keep waiting to see if the prices can come down to normal or keep rising. There's no way in hell or heaven that I'll pay that price. F*** scalpers!!!!
Wait 1 year like I did with the 5800x3d and those 500/600€ will soon become 300-350, probably at the time the 10800x3d (?!) releases.
 
The testing methodology that everyone is using is designed specifically to find bottlenecks and exagerate performance. It tells us nothing about real world performance. The thing is, real world performance numbers don't sell clicks or move products.

Agreed. I think frustration comes when readers expect these CPU benchmarks to answer 2 questions at once:
1) Which CPU is faster?
2) How much CPU do I need -or- how future-proof is this CPU?

When buying a CPU, I think you need to combine more than one piece of information. Personally, I start by using 1080p benchmarks to find performance/value to zero-in on a couple of SKU's. Then I'll wait to find videos benchmarking the exact CPU/GPU combo I want to know about.

I'm trying to think of a better or complimentary benchmark. Maybe show a list of average CPU gameplay utilizations using a flagship GPU at 4K, with maxed settings? Seems like there could then be a lot of debate about which settings are used and we're back to the same place.
 
Selling the 16 month old used 7800X3D for an $156 out of pocket cost to experience the best cpu in gaming today. Which from AMD'S own outlook will not be replaced by 2027. 😎
 
And 4090 owners make up 0.91% of gamers as of October 2024. While these benchmarks do tell use what CPU is technically faster, it doesn't tell us anything about real world performance or what product you should actually buy. People gaming at 1080P overwhelmingly are paired with 60 class cards or anything sub $500 really.

Something I find infuriating about these benchmarks is that, while it find it important to eliminate bottlenecks, it doesn't tell the target market anything about how this product actually performs in their setups.

The testing methodology that everyone is using is designed specifically to find bottlenecks and exagerate performance. It tells us nothing about real world performance. The thing is, real world performance numbers don't sell clicks or move products.

While eliminating bottlenecks is important, it is also important to measure performance when THERE ARE bottlenecks. I'm not saying stop testing this way all together. The thing is, the way everyone is testing these chips leaves out valuable information that if people saw they might say, "wow, I don't need this product. That money is better spent elsewhere"

I love building building PCs as a hobby, I think this tech is cool and I'm happy it's around. But I see this in a similar way to cars as a hobby. Go buy a hellcat if you want one, but it isn't going to get you to work any faster. Websites are marketing this thing for AMD and it's going to end up hurting consumers in the long run. People with limited budgets are going to look at this and say "well I have to get this $500 CPU or my gaming computer wont work right". Fact of the matter is that many gamers out there will never own a GPU where the 9800X3D makes any difference in performance. want more FPS, buy a 7800X and a 4080 instead of a 9800X3D and a 4070.

Plenty of other sites test at all 3 resolutions. I understand the 1080p testing but why not add 1440 and 4k also. At 4k my 5600 is only 7% behind the best gaming processor ever.

If you're playing at 4k, focus on GPU and don't worry about having the latest CPU. If you're still on AM4, get a 5600X3D which will probally be 2% behind and you won't notice any real world difference.

These theoretical exercises are just to show the potential difference between the CPUs if they ran unconstrained. IMO, stick to looking at application benchmarks since those can be tailored to be CPU bound. Since gaming is rarerly CPU bound, there is less usefull information to be gained by gaming bechmarks.
 
Ok, but most play on 1440p or 4k, what is the difference with that? I think smaller..
The difference grows bigger every time you upgrade to a faster GPU.

Steve tested 5800X3D, 5800X and 3950X with 3090 Ti. All three CPU's showed identical performance on 4K despite showing significant advantage to 5800X3D at 1080p.
Logically you would assume no one is buying 5800X3D and 3090 Ti to play at 1080p and at 4K they are all as fast as each other. Maybe even go for 3950X since it has double the cores?

Then he tested these with a 4090 and 5800X3D was 30-40% faster at 4K like it was at 1080p with a slower GPU before. And 3950X was the slowest.

This is why low resolution testing with high end hardware matters.
 
The 980X3D may be faster, but also more expensive than when I got the 7800X3D 11 months ago. For people looking to buy a new AMD Ryzen setup for gaming, this 9800X3D will make sense if it is within ones' budget. For people like me on the 7800X3D, I feel it is not worth the upgrade. The supposed 21% improvement looks like a best case scenario here, though there's limited games being tested. The outlier like Watch Dog Legions that experiences one of those best case performance improvement is a very aged game, which I don't think is widely played now.
 
1) no one would buy these CPUs at launch because between the scalpers and premium price tag, it’s too irracional. And I don’t like scalpers at all

2) this chip gives an uplift from 11% average at 1080p but no one buying the highest end CPU and GPUs are going to play at FHD except in a bunch of titles; these tend to play at QHD/4K at the highest level and as such these 11% will be even smaller, at least for the next years

As such the best option is still the 7800X3D if found at a good price or sale. Even older CPUs like the 5800X3D would provide a good experience.
 
Incorrect, 1440p and 4k combined are still a minority of steam users, most are 1080p or below.

Also, you do not run at high resolution for a CPU test. The propose of CPU testing is to stress the CPU, not the GPU. Please learn, every single time someone has this question and it has to be explained to them.

What they said is not incorrect. The performance at 1440p and 4k is indeed drastically reduced when testing with the same GPU, the RTX 4090, which is the fastest GPU available. The average gaming performance gain of the 9800X3D over the 7800X3D, with an RTX 4090, is down to 3% at 1440p. With anything less than a 4090, there is no difference.

Also, Steam's user base playing at 1440p or higher representing around 27% of their total userbase has no bearing on that fact. But it's relevant that that 27% running 1440p and bigger are likely 98%+ of the market for top-end gaming CPUs and GPUs, and so are who reviews should be most tailored to. Extremely few people are buying the top-end gaming CPU to game at 1080p.

The fact that the performance gain experienced from a 9800X3D at 1440p or higher is greatly reduced (and basically non-existent with anything less than an RTX 4090) is relevant information for a CPU review, because it lets people gaming at 1440p or higher know they won't get any benefit from upgrading if they already have a high-end CPU. If only 1080p benchmarks are shown and it isn't shown or explained that those performance spreads aren't available at 1440p with any existing GPU, then a lot of people will not know that and will be misled into thinking there's a benefit to upgrading that won't actually be there.
 
The difference grows bigger every time you upgrade to a faster GPU.
This is missing the enormous elephant in the room that renders this sentiment pointless for nearly everybody. In order to experience a performance increase from a 9800X3D when buying a new GPU, your new GPU first has to clear the performance threshold that will stop bottlenecking the CPU. For the 9800X3D at 1440P, that requires a minimum GPU performance of an RTX 4090. And even with a 4090, there's only a 3% average performance increase over a 7800X3D. So, to actually get an appreciable performance increase from a 9800X3D at 1440p, you'll need at least an RTX 4090.

BTW, around two years after the 4090 released, less than 1% of Steam users have one. And something like 2% have an RTX 4080. So, for just about everybody, who isn't going to spend $2000 on an RTX 5090, there won't be a lifting of the 9800X3D's GPU for at least another 2.2 years - with the 2.2 years minimum timeframe being conditioned on the RTX 6080 lifting the bottleneck appreciably (because the RTX 5080 won't at all), and a person buying an RTX 6080 or higher. And that is depending on the RTX 6080 being faster than the RTX 4090, which might not be the case.

Realistically, the large majority of people with a 9800X3D won't see the GPU bottleneck at 1440p lifting at all for the next 6+ years. And by that time, there will be another three CPU generations released, and people might be upgrading their 9800X3D CPUs and encountering the next GPU bottleneck, and also might be playing on a higher resolution than 1440p and so also having a higher GPU bottleneck threshold.

There's no reason to buy a 9800X3D on the basis of thinking of experiencing the bottleneck being removed with a future GPU purchase, unless you game at 1440p and you're planning to buy an RTX 5090. The RTX 5090 probably still won't do anything to lift the bottleneck at 4k.
 
Last edited:
Well now the problem is the price, in Spain the 7800x3d is around 530euros and the 9800x3d is around 650euros or out of stock. I will keep waiting to see if the prices can come down to normal or keep rising. There's no way in hell or heaven that I'll pay that price. F*** scalpers!!!!

Yes same in the UK, we don't get anywhere near your prices this side of the pond. FYI US $ and Euro are similar value
 
Back