DragonSlayer101

Rumor mill: AMD is gearing up to launch its first Ryzen 9000 processor featuring 3D V-Cache on November 7, but multiple leaks have already provided insights into its performance. A new, extensive leak appears to confirm the rumored specifications of the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, expected to be the flagship CPU in AMD's upcoming lineup.

According to a listing on the European price comparison website Geizhals, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D will feature eight Zen 5 cores and 16 threads. It reportedly offers a 4.7 GHz base clock and a 5.2 GHz boost clock – both higher than those of the 7800X3D, which has a 4.2 GHz base clock and a 5.0 GHz boost clock. The 9800X3D is also expected to have a 120W TDP, matching the 7800X3D.

As for cache, the 9800X3D is listed with 104MB of total cache: 8MB of L2 (8 x 1MB) and 96MB of L3 (32MB internal + 64MB stacked). It will support up to 192GB of dual-channel DDR5-5600 memory at one DIMM per channel. Additional specs include support for 28 PCIe 5.0 lanes (24 accessible) and an RDNA 2 "Granite Ridge" iGPU clocked up to 2.2 GHz.

(Click to enlarge)

Additionally, the leak suggests that the upcoming Ryzen processors will support all AMD 600-series motherboards, including the A620 and PRO workstation lines. It also appears that the 9800X3D will use the same "GNR-B0" silicon as existing models. Notably, the Tjmax has been raised to 95 degrees Celsius from 89 degrees on the 7800X3D, aligning it with the other Ryzen 9000 (non-X3D) CPUs.

The listing confirms that the 9800X3D will feature an unlocked multiplier, which is welcome news for overclocking enthusiasts. If accurate, this would represent a significant shift from the previous generation of 3D V-Cache CPUs, which had locked multipliers and didn't support conventional overclocking.

AMD is expected to release official benchmarks for the 9800X3D next week. However, recent leaks indicate it could deliver up to eight percent higher gaming performance than the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. The leaked document also reaffirmed compatibility with all AM5 motherboards, including models featuring the X870E/X870 and X670(E)/B650(E) chipsets.

Permalink to story:

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D leak reveals unlocked multiplier, 5.2GHz boost clock

yRaz

I don't really see the need for overclocking anymore. Most chips are run right at the edge of stability ANYWAY. I wouldn't want to overclock the X3D chips AT ALL because of what happened with the last gen chips. They were boosting too high and the LGA de-laminated from the bottom of the chip.

The Extra Cache will make the chip faster than any OC on a standard chip anyway.

Frankly, I don't understand why people keep chasing ever higher FPS numbers. Going BACK to 75-90FPS was an obvious improvement. I don't know if people remember the dark days of when LCDs took over CRTs and we were stuck at 60FPS for nearly a decade. 90-120 is nice to have. I can't tell the difference between a 120 and 144. My buddy has a 240hz OLED but I think that's more the responsive time of the OLED than the actual refresh rate.

I'm getting away from the point I was trying to make. Anyway, overclocking these chips isn't going to yield any noticeable performance gains. With the risks associated of what happened with the 7000X3D series, I don't think chasing bragging rights is worth killing a $500 CPU. If I wanted to waste $500 I'd spend it on cocaine and have a lot more fun doing it.

antiproduct

"The Ryzen 7 9800X3D doesn't really need to compete against Intel's new Arrow Lake processors"

There, I fixed your headline.

MarcusNumb

Let's wait for the price, I have a hunch that it will be 465usd/euros MSPR xD

Puiu

The all core boost clock is very decent, but I expected more from the max boost clock.

yRaz said:
Frankly, I don't understand why people keep chasing ever higher FPS numbers. Going BACK to 75-90FPS was an obvious improvement. I don't know if people remember the dark days of when LCDs took over CRTs and we were stuck at 60FPS for nearly a decade. 90-120 is nice to have. I can't tell the difference between a 120 and 144. My buddy has a 240hz OLED but I think that's more the responsive time of the OLED than the actual refresh rate.

"I can't tell the difference between a 120 and 144." - nobody can tell such a small difference, but going from 90 to 120/144Hz is very easy to tell on a half decent monitor. 240 is kinda my limit, going faster is not something I can notice at all.

"I don't understand why people keep chasing ever higher FPS numbers." - the higher the averages, the higher the 1% and 0.1% lows will be (or at least that's how it generally works). going from 120FPS avg to 60 lows is very noticeable, but going from 240FPS avg to 120 is less of an issue. this is extremely obvious in games like CS2 which is why most play on low settings.

Achaios

yRaz said:
Frankly, I don't understand why people keep chasing ever higher FPS numbers.

This does not rly concern you and me but the niche-dwellers called FPS gamers.

For ppl who do not play FPS games, 30, 50, 100 or ovah 9000 FPS make no difference whatsoever.

yRaz

Achaios said:
This does not rly concern you and me but the niche-dwellers called FPS gamers.

For ppl who do not play FPS games, 30, 50, 100 or ovah 9000 FPS make no difference whatsoever.

I hate to break it everyone, but MOST FPS gamers play at 60hz or below because consoles. I guess it is part of gaming elitism, but I play games to have fun, not work fulltime to keep my ranking.

takaozo

More or less than a week until reviews and actual price. Let's see if AMD screw up the launch again or not.
Maybe they learn something from Zen5% and RX7000 series launch.

Yes OCK since some years is just for records and other bragging purposes. Long gone are the days when I had to resolder resitors/caps to change the FSB or CPU ratio when a 700Mhz part was running past 1Ghz.
With the current AMD cpu's if you can squeze 100Mhz it's a happy day.

Best thing with this new part it's the lower temps compared to Zen5, if the leaks are right.

oasked

I'm more interested in whether it can be undervolted to run cooler and quieter.

Not that I'm going to bother upgrading to it - not much point given the substantial platform upgrade cost from AM4 (with my 5800x3D).

nitebird

Glad to hear about unlocked multiplier, the enthusiast will always get more out of a good CPU

ScottSoapbox

Achaios said:
This does not rly concern you and me but the niche-dwellers called FPS gamers.

For ppl who do not play FPS games, 30, 50, 100 or ovah 9000 FPS make no difference whatsoever.

I can tell a difference on the not-FPS games Spider-Man and Everspace. Below 90 FPS feels sluggish to me, while 90-120 feels slightly sluggish in those games.

I think some people believe it doesn't matter because they haven't experienced truly smooth gameplay. If you've never ridden in a luxury car, an Accord's ride seems great. And compared to a Taurus it is. It's all about the reference point of your own experience.

ScottSoapbox

If these leaks are true, it makes the 9800X3D more compelling for a work/play PC. Great gaming without sacrificing productivity for most work tasks. While for some tasks (e.g., video editing) "more cores!" is always better, for most things software parallelism doesn't make it past 8 cores. For my work these days, the extra cores in my 5900X are best justified as keeping background tasks at bay while I run two instances of statistical analysis because the program scales cores poorly.

But is it enough of a jump to justify a whole new system? Eh. Maybe. These leaks are more in the respectable rather than exciting range.

Vulcanproject

It'll be the de facto choice for new high end gaming builds but I suspect it might not sell as well as it might have because 7800X3D is still kicking the butt of Intel's best efforts, and it'll be doing it for less money.

I would think that AMD will support at least one more generation of 3D cache chips on AM5 after this, in another two years or so perhaps.

That version will end up the fastest gaming chip on AM5 ever available and that chip will be the one everyone ends up buying to prolong the life of their AM5 systems as the platform is replaced. Just like how it happened with the 5800X3D and AM4, which still remains very relevant for gaming, two and a half years since it launched.

Eldrach

At this point I'm more eager to hear about the 9950 X3D - If the 9800 X3D can manage to outpace the X parts, and the 9950 X3D gets an increased 3D cache shared between both chiplets - That cpu will be a beast to be reckoned with

m3tavision

yRaz said:
I hate to break it everyone, but MOST FPS gamers play at 60hz or below because consoles. I guess it is part of gaming elitism, but I play games to have fun, not work fulltime to keep my ranking.

Most people in the world do not buy a 9800X3D for their console.

Most PC gamers don't care about 60Hz or lower, or they would just play on a console instead of build a Gaming rig. So I hate to break it to you, there ARE reasons for wanting a faster rig, just don't pretend they don't exist, based on single-player games that you play.

And I agree, why would anyone who plays a single-player game that you can save, care about fps frames... just sit on the couch and have fun.

Mr Majestyk

oasked said:
I'm more interested in whether it can be undervolted to run cooler and quieter.

Not that I'm going to bother upgrading to it - not much point given the substantial platform upgrade cost from AM4 (with my 5800x3D).

It has full PBO support, so yes undervolting via curve optimiser which is now much more advanced on Zen 5. Properly optimised you can get higher clocks and lower temps and power usage. With the v-cache below the ccd now, it will be easier to cool.

yRaz

m3tavision said:
Most people in the world do not buy a 9800X3D for their console.

Most PC gamers don't care about 60Hz or lower, or they would just play on a console instead of build a Gaming rig. So I hate to break it to you, there ARE reasons for wanting a faster rig, just don't pretend they don't exist, based on single-player games that you play.

And I agree, why would anyone who plays a single-player game that you can save, care about fps frames... just sit on the couch and have fun.

I will disagree with you in one aspect of that. 60FPS is the minimum tolerable frame rate targeted by gamers and thought about often by gamers.

But, yeah, I am happy with anything over 75, 90 is my target and everything after that is just a bonus. There was my buddies 240hz OLED, but I swear that was a pixel response time thing and had very little to do with the FPS. Now that I think about it, he was showing me cyberpunk with Ray tracing on his 3080 so I doubt he was getting more than 70FPS@1440p.

Axeia

Vulcanproject said:
That version will end up the fastest gaming chip on AM5 ever available and that chip will be the one everyone ends up buying to prolong the life of their AM5 systems as the platform is replaced. Just like how it happened with the 5800X3D and AM4, which still remains very relevant for gaming, two and a half years since it launched.

Didn't have much choice on AM4, the 5800X3D was the only AM4 chip that got the X3D treatment for a long time.
On AM5 every generation is getting a X3D version. If the 9000X3Ds and 10000X3Ds stay stupidly priced the 7800X3D might stay the people's champion.
Although AMD has shown they've learned from NVIDIAs tactics. Why keep selling the older product for cheap when you can simply halt production and force people onto the more expensive version.
(Let's hope Intel steps up so that through competition those tactics are kept at bay)

brucek

Up to 8% faster? I won't notice the difference.

Maybe I can use the CPU budget to put a down payment on the 50xx series upgrade.

VemigoAmigo · Wednesday at 3:39 AM

Leaks show like 13-16% increase from 7800X3D in Far Cry 6 which is heavily CPU bound.

26% up in Blender too. 9800X3D shows 10% uplift from 9700X here.

Cinebench, 20% increased ST perf and 30% increased MT perf. 9800X3D will be no joke for applications and fix 7800X3D's biggest weakpoint.

Also, unlocked for OC will increase this even further for tuners.

Last gen, 7800X3D was at like 7700 Non-X level in terms of productivity performance. This won't be the case for 9800X3D. Leaks shows 9700X application perf or even better.
Some applications likes the cache as well.

Placing the cache below the CCDs was clever. 2nd gen 3D cache looks to fix many of the issues. 9000X3D will have vastly higher clockspeeds and this was the weakest point for 5000X3D and 7000X3D.

Can't wait for reviews. My 7800X3D might be going in the HTPC once 9800X3D hits.

I am a 360 Hz user and high fps gamer. I need every drop of CPU performance I can get. Especially when I am going 480 Hz OLED next year.

People that don't know how to tune for high fps gaming, don't need a golden gaming CPU like this. 240 Hz is bare minimum too. This is not for casual gamers.

If you are using a 100-144 Hz monitor, just get a cheaper CPU. You won't need this kind of CPU power for gaming at those fps. Even 7800X3D is overkill here.

MarcusNumb

Talking about upgrading to the 9800x3d, I need some opinions. I'm using a 3600x OC 4.4hz with a 3070ti to game at 1080p. Should I jump to new AM5, which will cost me around 1000euros, or should I just upgrade my monitor to a OLED 1440p, which also will cost me almost the same ???

VemigoAmigo · Wednesday at 7:43 AM

MarcusNumb said:
Talking about upgrading to the 9800x3d, I need some opinions. I'm using a 3600x OC 4.4hz with a 3070ti to game at 1080p. Should I jump to new AM5, which will cost me around 1000euros, or should I just upgrade my monitor to a OLED 1440p, which also will cost me almost the same ???

Platform then Monitor. You won't be able to max out a 1440p/240+ Hz OLED with that setup. The cheap option would be slapping in a 5800X3D or 5700X3D if you can't find the former. Will help alot for your minimum and avg. fps.

3070 Ti is fine for high fps gaming, as GPU is much less important than CPU speed here. Going for 200+ fps usually means lowering settings to medium overall, tweaked ofc. Meaning stuff like blur, dof etc = Always off. VRAM is not that important. GPU speed is semi important, however 3070 Ti is still good here.

However, 9800X3D is probably overkill for you, if you don't chase top tier frames in the 200+ range, alot of newer CPUs can hit 100+ if you are fine with that.

100 fps is "fine" but 200 is alot smoother.
300/400 fps on 360/480 Hz is next level smoothness, especially on an OLED panel.

However 240 Hz with an OLED panel is as clear as LCD running in the 300-400 Hz range with BFI. So 240 Hz OLED is a nice sweet spot for most people.

If you chase smoothness, frames and just low latency gaming, listen to people that does it. Don't listen to people that play AAA games with 60 fps locked or sumthing. Building a rig for high fps gaming is vastly different. You don't need alot of VRAM either.

For AAA gaming at 60 fps, you simply use most of the money on GPU. Most CPUs will suffice, even 5+ year old ones.

For high fps gaming, CPU is way more important and you can spend less on GPU. This is where CPUs like 7800X3D and 9800X3D will matter alot.

VemigoAmigo · Wednesday at 7:52 AM

Eldrach said:
At this point I'm more eager to hear about the 9950 X3D - If the 9800 X3D can manage to outpace the X parts, and the 9950 X3D gets an increased 3D cache shared between both chiplets - That cpu will be a beast to be reckoned with

In gaming? Nah, will probably still loose to 9800X3D even if it gets 3D cache on both CCDs. Yet most leakers say AMD is going to repeat, with only cache on a single CCD.

Why? Because you will be gimping both CCDs in terms of clockspeed then, and you buy 16 cores for productivity, not gaming.

I firmly expect 9800X3D to beat 9950X3D overall in gaming, by 5-10%

Just like 7800X3D beat 7950X3D by 5-10%

Gamers don't need more than 8 cores and this won't change anytime soon. By the time AMD can put 16 cores on a single CCD, it might be worth doing. Till then, nah, not worth going dual CCD and eat the latency hit, especially not if AMD only puts 3D cache on a single CCD again with 9900X3D and 9950X3D.

7900X3D was pretty bad because it only had 6 cores with 3D cache. It was closer to 7600X3D than 7800X3D in gaming. 7900X3D did not really make sense for anyone. "Bad" for gaming and "mediocre" for productivity - The chip did not excel at anything.

I would rather have bought 7950X and enabled PBO then, then you would get way better MT perf and gaming perf would still be close.

Expect to see the same thing repeated with 9900X3D. 9950X will make more sense. Splash for 9950X3D is better for people that actually need productivity perf and still have close to top tier gaming perf. 9800X3D will win in gaming tho, while costing less, running cooler and drawing less power.

Gastec · Wednesday at 11:29 AM

MarcusNumb said:
Talking about upgrading to the 9800x3d, I need some opinions. I'm using a 3600x OC 4.4hz with a 3070ti to game at 1080p. Should I jump to new AM5, which will cost me around 1000euros, or should I just upgrade my monitor to a OLED 1440p, which also will cost me almost the same ???

If you are European and you have the money and the desire to upgrade your gaming PC do it this year, because next year and the years to come we will be living in "interesting times", filled with "special operations", if you know what I mean. Unlike the savvy noob VemigoAmigo I won't tell you exactly what parts to buy because at this point I consider you a competitor. The more you buy the more the prices increase. It just works!

Gastec

yRaz said:
I don't really see the need for overclocking anymore. Most chips are run right at the edge of stability ANYWAY. I wouldn't want to overclock the X3D chips AT ALL because of what happened with the last gen chips. They were boosting too high and the LGA de-laminated from the bottom of the chip.

The Extra Cache will make the chip faster than any OC on a standard chip anyway.

Frankly, I don't understand why people keep chasing ever higher FPS numbers. Going BACK to 75-90FPS was an obvious improvement. I don't know if people remember the dark days of when LCDs took over CRTs and we were stuck at 60FPS for nearly a decade. 90-120 is nice to have. I can't tell the difference between a 120 and 144. My buddy has a 240hz OLED but I think that's more the responsive time of the OLED than the actual refresh rate.

I'm getting away from the point I was trying to make. Anyway, overclocking these chips isn't going to yield any noticeable performance gains. With the risks associated of what happened with the 7000X3D series, I don't think chasing bragging rights is worth killing a $500 CPU. If I wanted to waste $500 I'd spend it on cocaine and have a lot more fun doing it.

It is not cool to promote the consumption of illegal drugs online.

Posts: 512 +3

Posts: 7,018 +10,903

Posts: 354 +535

Posts: 209 +372

Posts: 6,697 +5,901

Posts: 567 +1,473

Posts: 7,018 +10,903

Posts: 1,018 +1,548

Posts: 79 +134

Posts: 134 +130

Posts: 1,321 +2,374

Posts: 1,321 +2,374

Posts: 1,738 +3,278

Posts: 138 +151

Posts: 1,573 +1,315

Posts: 2,260 +2,087

Posts: 7,018 +10,903

Posts: 237 +280

Posts: 1,922 +3,048

Posts: 99 +51

Posts: 209 +372

Posts: 99 +51

Posts: 99 +51

Posts: 585 +305

Posts: 585 +305

Similar threads