AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D: What Reddit Really Thinks

There's no such thing as a bad product, just a bad price. If the price and performance of that chip meets your needs, go for it.

AMD only has 8 core chips. The big chip is for PCIe/RAM, the small chip is an 8 core CPU. For a 9950X, they use 2x 8 core CPU chips + 1 big chip. This means RAM has to talk to the big chip, and the big chip talks to the CPU — which introduces latency that hurts gaming performance in dual-CCD setups.

The problem with the 9900X3D is that it isn't better for gaming than the 9800X3D (or 7800X3D - it's closer to the 7600X3D), and it's not better for tasks that need many cores than the 9700X. It's kind of the worst of all worlds.

6 + 6 means AMD can use defective CCDs for both. It's pure gravy since they're binned dies that can't otherwise be used. Whereas a perfect X3D CCD could instead go into higher margin products.

9900X3D is up to 50% faster than 9800X3D at heavily multithreaded workloads. But it also can be a bit slower than 9800X3D at gaming. Since you effectively get only 6 cores with 3D cache and it's best to not even touch remaining ones as that means going through an extra CCD which really slows it down.

They should probably just stop messing with this CPU line. Its in no-mans land. Worse for gaming than the cheaper 8-core. And more expensive than just the regular non x3d chips if productivity is your concern. I would bet they'll sell fewer than 1-2% of all 9000-series x3d chips in this 12-core configuration.

People hate it because it's like 'if you're spending for a 9900x3d you should just get a 9950x3d'. It's still a great budget 12 core CPU with good productivity and access to a 6 core CCD x3d for an in between of a 9800x3d and 9950x3d. There's literally nothing wrong with it.

Obviously the price is the problem. There was a brief period last year when the 7900X3D was going for around the same price as the 7800X3D, which is when I bought one. At that price, a CPU which performs within a few percentage of the 7800X3D in gaming but blows it away in productivity workloads is a great deal. I've been very happy with it. I just wouldn't have paid MSRP.

Its weaker for most games, thats about it I believe.

Ryzen 9900x3D has two chiplets of 6 cores, basically a cluster of cores and one chiplet has a 3D memory, while the other one has the regular cache memory. Games simply cant utilize so many cores. Maybe in the future but I would say we are far away from that.

I don't see it as comparable. It's up to 20% slower in 1%s in some games. That's an entire CPU gen of performance. In the Pharaoh example the regular 9950x has better minimums than the 9900x3D. In some games 6 cores is not enough.

0 reason to get this over a 9800x3d if you're primarily gaming. If your workflow will take advantage of 12 cores over 8, it's worth it, though.

The core layout just makes it weird for games, since it's 6 x3d cores and 6 regular. So for games, you really only want it to be using those first 6 cores. Meaning if that's a priority, you're getting a CPU that is worse than a cheaper one. But outside of that it's decent.

If not for the price, it's a great CPU, it is comparable to 9950x3d in gaming and retains the productivity of 9900x which is a single core champ.

Is the point of these two chips not to target the niche of people who want productivity and gaming on the same machine? The 9800x3D may be the best gaming CPU, but in video editing and motion graphics (and any program that requires renders really) the more cores the better.

The 9900x and 9900x3d both consistently beat the 9700x in multi-threaded productivity. Phoronix did an extensive review of the 9900x3d for productivity and it significantly beats 9700x in every benchmark.

Best this generation is subjective; If you need a CPU for heavier workloads/workstations, the x900/x950/X3D is the better choice over the x800X3D, while still being top tier for gaming. If you need a CPU for gaming on the other hand, the x800X3D is the better choice and can still do well in workstation usage.

There are simulation type games that are usually multithreaded like city skylines 2 where the more cores the better. Unity has developed their game engine to use data oriented programming to give developers better tools to make games that benefit from more cores.

Gaming: 9800X3D = 9950X3D > 9900X3D. Productivity: 9950X3D > 9900X3D > 9800X3D.

One thing that no one is mentioning is power consumption. The 9950x3d has a TDP of 170 watts whereas the 9900x3d has a TDP of 120 watts (same as the 9800x3d). That makes the 9900x3d a pretty compelling upgrade option for someone that doesn't want to spend an additional $100 for a 9950x3d and then have to drop another $100+ for a decent 360mm AIO.

This is exactly why I have a 9900x3d. Went with it due to the lower power draw, and saving a few bucks was a side perk. Otherwise, I'd absolutely have a 9950x3d, but I don't want a 170w processor. Lower temps and fan volume ftw. Still tweaking settings, but my processor is currently idle around 37c.

It's not a good deal just because the 9950x3d is comparatively expensive. If you actually need the threads for workstation type stuff, then unless you're gaming at 1080p for some reason the 9950x is just a better deal for less money. And if you value gaming more than the workstation stuff, then the 9800X3D makes way more sense both financially and in terms of performance. This isn't really a good middle ground at this price.

12 core is perfect for production, you can run a game and multiple instances of anything and wont fall behind or notice anything slowing down. In my opinion 9900x3d is way better option for a regular joe that does multitasking applications.

I think Amazon had a glitch. I got the 9900x3d for 499 lol I am super excited. Haven't been team red since early 2000s.

It's not that it's bad. If your priority is games then there's a CPU that's as good or better and cheaper. If your priority is heavily multithreaded productivity, there's a CPU that's better and cheaper. You're paying more for a compromise that is decent at both.

Just bad price. Great cpu ..... its coming down in price anyways its a great buy if you need 12 core processor.

I had the 9800x3d and currently the 9900x3d and honestly you won't notice the difference when playing any game at all lol. You will notice the difference when using your rig to game and multitasking on another screen or two.

Get the 9900 x3d. The pricing is a bit bad but overall it is a great CPU for Gaming and productivity. When u need NASA performance for rendering then the 9950X3D is the better choice. Would AMD sell 9900 X3D for 100 US Dollar lesser this CPU would be the Best Pick. A lot of benchmarks did show that the 9900 X3D not has the top max fps but more stable FPS than a 9800 X3D in several games.

I got the same price somehow, and man I love this thing. It's honestly a best of both worlds CPU for me so far.

The problem is in the design and layout of the chip, its 2 x 8 core CCDs each with 2 cores disabled. Only ONE of the CCDs has the 3D VCache, so when you're playing a video game its only going to be running on one CCD, meaning it will only have 6 cores instead of 8 cores, which will lead to performance being lower in certain games vs the 8 core design of the 9800 and 9950.

I had the exact same question when choosing between the 7800X3D and the 7950X3D. I got the 7900X3D and I'm very happy with it. It is technically a bit worse in games compared to the 7800X3D but I've never been cpu bottlenecked ever with my 4070 ti super.

The 9900x3d just fulfills a niche. The people who use a CPU for productivity make enough money off of it to be worth the extra investment. So it's a mix of needing a tight budget to make money and to have a good gaming CPU.

I think some of the issue is that productivity often means something you get paid to do. And, in that scenario, time is money, so the extra money for the extra speed of 16 cores instead of 12 cores pays for itself fairly quickly. And, you go X3D because you are self-employed and want to use the same computer to game.

At the last deal price ($830) this was a stupid buy, at $699 id say its worth pulling the trigger over a 9800X3D. Will be a little slower (like in the 1-2%) in games under specific conditions and you need to make sure your PC is set up in a very specific way to make sure it only uses the 6 vcache cores for gaming.

The actual problem with 9900x3d is there's no market place for it: For gaming only, 9800x3d beats up 9900x3d. For gaming+productivity, 9950x3d beats up both. For around the same price, you can get 9950x, which is much faster in productivity.

9800x3d DOES perform better in gaming than the 9900x3d. This is because the 9900x3d is 1x 6 core cpu, and 1x 6 core with 3d vcache. When gaming, it only uses the 6 cores on 1 ccd with vcache. The 9800x3d is 8 cores, but all 8 cores are on one ccd and have access to vcache. This means in gaming, the 9800x3d is an 8 core and the 9900x3d is a 6 core with 6 at idle.

I just went with the 9900X3D. I had a r7 7700 and I wanted to keep power low (plan on using 105W with as much of an undervolt as I can get away with). I ran 65W-95W on the 7700 with a UV and could stream and game just fine most of the time, just needed a lil more multi core perf and I think I'll get what I need from this chip.

93c is perfectly safe for a modern AMD CPU. In fact, they are designed to reach that max temp and stay there until the load goes down. They'll always hit the maximum speed allowed by the amount of heat dissipated. Therefore, a better cooler mean higher speed but, at some point, you reach the point of diminishing returns.

I would choose the 9900X over the 9900X3D, I don't believe that a 6 core 3d vcache ccd is worth that much. The 9900X is already a fast chip that does not require software to manage load on different ccds, which is a very good thing if you think to use it on linux.

The 9900X3D is a dual 6-core CCD CPU — worse than the 8-core 9800X3D for gaming and of course worse than the dual 8-core CCD 9950X3D for working and gaming. If your main use for PC is as a workstation where MT horsepower is important and gaming is secondary, I would even consider the 9950X.

I think that the 9900x3d is interesting for people that want to have a lower watt usage and dont need the extra performance. Right now in europe there is a 150 euro price difference vs the 9950X3D. Its not bad — gaming performance is good enough in most cases to allow 144fps in most WQHD games. While 8 core is a substantial step down for me, I want to watch youtube, use discord for streaming and play a game at the same time.