Will there be an equivalent Ryzen 9 upgrade coming soon as well?
Edit: I’m not as familiar with AMD as I am Intel, but I want to switch over next build. It looks like the last major relase was in August, with a 7 and a 9. Does this mean the 9 will get a similar upgrade to match the 9800X3D?
As with intel, I would recommend not really paying attention to the 3, 5, 7, 9 numbers. Those are just marketing vague indicators; ideally of performance, but realistically just of cost.
Instead, look at the actual model numbers and seek out benchmarks performed by groups you trust with workloads similar to what you might actually do with them. E.g. If you are a gamer, look for comparisons between CPUs as to how they perform in various games. Linus Tech Tips do videos about recent CPU releases and compare how they do vs the competition in a bunch of games, and it shouldn’t be hard to find websites with the same kind of comparisons.
But also, yes, they are due to release a 9900x3D and 9950x3D early next year, supposedly. I am keen to see if the 9950x3D is symmetrical this time around; the 7950x3D was asymmetrical so I avoided it.
Is that the case with most 7’s and 9’s? I did see people recommend 7 more for gaming, but I couldn’t tell if that was just because it was a better price to performance ratio or if 7’s were objectively better for gaming.
Usually 9s are better than 7s due to higher clock speeds but since the ccx with the extra cache already ran at its limit there’s (or was) no room for improvement for x3d parts. And in zen4 only one ccx (half the cores) had extra cache in the case of 7900x3d and 7950x3d, making performance inconsistent
Will there be an equivalent Ryzen 9 upgrade coming soon as well?
Edit: I’m not as familiar with AMD as I am Intel, but I want to switch over next build. It looks like the last major relase was in August, with a 7 and a 9. Does this mean the 9 will get a similar upgrade to match the 9800X3D?
As with intel, I would recommend not really paying attention to the 3, 5, 7, 9 numbers. Those are just marketing vague indicators; ideally of performance, but realistically just of cost.
Instead, look at the actual model numbers and seek out benchmarks performed by groups you trust with workloads similar to what you might actually do with them. E.g. If you are a gamer, look for comparisons between CPUs as to how they perform in various games. Linus Tech Tips do videos about recent CPU releases and compare how they do vs the competition in a bunch of games, and it shouldn’t be hard to find websites with the same kind of comparisons.
But also, yes, they are due to release a 9900x3D and 9950x3D early next year, supposedly. I am keen to see if the 9950x3D is symmetrical this time around; the 7950x3D was asymmetrical so I avoided it.
Yes, but it’s likely that it will not be any better than this for gaming, and might even be worse if they go hybrid again
Is that the case with most 7’s and 9’s? I did see people recommend 7 more for gaming, but I couldn’t tell if that was just because it was a better price to performance ratio or if 7’s were objectively better for gaming.
Scratch what I said: https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/unannounced-ryzen-9-9950x3d-dominates-ryzen-7-9800x3d-in-factorio-benchmark-ryzen-9000x3d-flagship-up-to-18-percent-faster-than-current-fastest-gaming-cpu
Oh damn, I’ll be eagerly awaiting more news about this come January. (Not that I can afford it right when it comes out though haha)
Usually 9s are better than 7s due to higher clock speeds but since the ccx with the extra cache already ran at its limit there’s (or was) no room for improvement for x3d parts. And in zen4 only one ccx (half the cores) had extra cache in the case of 7900x3d and 7950x3d, making performance inconsistent