[Phoronix] AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Benchmarks: The Best Desktop Performance For Linux Developers, Creators Review
Posted by Noble00_@reddit | hardware | View on Reddit | 49 comments
ime1em@reddit
instead of dual CCD or CCD on 1 size, why not 1 big CCD? what's the difference?
2uantum@reddit
Much more difficult to manufacturer. The larger the CCD, the more likely a defect will occur during manufacturing. Using smaller, but multiple, CCDs increases yield.
ElementII5@reddit
Honestly didn't expect this much of an uplift. It's not much mind you but I thought it was going to be within test margin variation.
Still the extra manufacturing cost and resulting sales price is just not worth it. I guess there was a reason why AMD was so reluctant to even consider this.
SJGucky@reddit
Its the same uplift you get from a 9800X3D to a 9850X3D, meaning you get a better binned die, but you also get a higher power usage.
Vb_33@reddit
Water coolers rejoice
Noble00_@reddit (OP)
If you were AMD and the 9800X3D is the top seller, with the shortages going on as well, the margins for a dual v-cache chip doesn't make sense with niche workloads
Sopel97@reddit
Thanks for the wide variety of benchmarks. Youtube celebrities spreading misinformation again.
dev_vvvvv@reddit
80% more expensive than the 9950X ($899 vs $499) and 36% more expensive than the X3D ($659) for 8% and 6% faster compile times, respectively, doesn't seem very good.
Isn't the biggest benefit of the extra cache for games?
RealPjotr@reddit
Over all benchmarks, more than 10% faster! Not bad!
dev_vvvvv@reddit
Most benchmarks are in the 3%-10% range vs the 9950X and 4-8% range vs the 9950X3D. For an 80% and 36% price increase, respectively, that seems pretty bad.
crab_quiche@reddit
It’s not an 80% cost increase to the system
dev_vvvvv@reddit
It's an 80% cost increase for the part.
Nobody would say "gas has only gone up 0.001% compared to the cost of my car"
crab_quiche@reddit
Let’s make this simple. $100 cpu vs $200 cpu, 100% increase in price, but only 30% increase in performance. That’s a bad deal if you are only looking at price of CPUs compared to system performance. But if the total cost of the system is $1k, it’s only a 10% increase in system price to get a 30% improvement.
Does that mean that these are good deals? Definitely not for you and me. But just comparing cpu price to system performance is very flawed.
dev_vvvvv@reddit
Your logic and fundamental premise of your argument are extremely flawed.
For one, you are ignoring that benchmarks are performed and designed to use overkill hardware so that bottlenecks are removed. So your $100 CPU may only require a $300 system rather than the $1000 system required by your $200 CPU. By your logic, this would make the system with the $200 CPU 70% more expensive rather than 10%.
As if that wasn't bad enough, I seriously doubt you are considering all parts of the system. For a gaming PC, I obviously need my monitors ($400), a desk ($1000), audio ($300), keyboard ($150), mouse ($100).
If I want to extend your logic, I also need a place to live, electricity, food, health insurance, internet, etc. By the end of it, I can get threadripper system for only 5% more! What a deal!
Hopefully you can see how ridiculous it gets.
crab_quiche@reddit
All CPUs are useless bricks without a system, so it’s pointless to compare just CPU prices. TCO is what matters, not the cost of one component.
Your example of including all your peripherals is precisely my point, you can get a much better output by only spending a bit more percentage wise on your system in the right places.
dev_vvvvv@reddit
You're picking and choosing what to include in TCO.
You aren't even considering the surplus energy usage of the 9950X3D2 (20W-25W mean/median), which is directly part of the TCO and will vary by region.
You also aren't considering the other parts needed to get that extra performance (or the parts you can skimp on to match the lower performing CPU).
If you think my example of peripherals helps your point, then you've completely missed the point. A system is useless without a building to provide it power. So you have to include the price of an apartment, house, or commercial building.
That you didn't understand how ridiculous that is, is baffling.
crab_quiche@reddit
You are basically saying it makes no sense to use engine oil in your car that gives you 10% more power because it costs 100% more than the basic one that only costs $20.
That you didn’t understand how ridiculous that is, is baffling.
dev_vvvvv@reddit
No. I'm saying if you have a $20 oil and a $40 oil, then the $40 oil is 100% more expensive than the $20 oil.
You are the one saying "well actually it's going into a $50,000 car, so the $50,040 car+oil system is only 0.04% more expensive than the $50,020 car+oil system".
It's completely irrelevant, borderline non-sequitur, when we're talking about the oil, not the oil+car system. Especially since many of the things you're factoring into the equation (mouse, keyboard, monitors, etc) are kept between systems (and thus won't be purchased) or will be equivalent between the two (and thus just fluff the numbers). As I said in my example, you might as well include a $400k house in the price while you're at it. Then the $1000 CPU will only be 0.1% more expensive!
You seem really desperate to defend this overpriced CPU so I'll let you have the last word as I won't be responding.
Sopel97@reddit
no one is arguing how math works man
CaptainMonkeyJack@reddit
This is actually pretty close to how I think about it. u/crab_quiche is correct IMO.
A lot of review discourse focuses on $/performance for individual parts, but real buying decisions happen at the system level. A PC is not just a CPU chart. It is a whole setup, and the goal is not “maximum benchmark efficiency per component,” it is “best overall experience for the money.”
So if I have, say, $3,000 to spend on a setup that already includes a good PC, OLED display, and sound system, I am not asking “is this CPU the best value per frame?” I am asking what upgrade improves the experience the most. Maybe that is a GPU. Maybe it is a display. Maybe it is audio. Maybe it is nothing yet.
That is also why I have not bothered upgrading my older CPU: my TV is already 4K/120Hz, and the gains versus a newer platform look pretty minor for my use, especially once you factor in needing a new motherboard and RAM too. Meanwhile, upgrading to dual subwoofers made a much more noticeable difference. Audio is one of the most underrated upgrades.
So CPU $/performance is useful, but it is only one input. For actual purchasing decisions, whole-system value matters more.
dev_vvvvv@reddit
They're incorrect because
For #1, it is factually correct that the CPU costs 80%/36% more for a 5%-10% uplift.
For #2, this is what they are trying to do:
$3000 is 20% more than $2500, so System 1 is only 20% more expensive for some level of performance increase (we'll ignore this for now)
While that is true, it is ignoring that, as you say, it usually isn't a single component that uplifts performance that drastically. There are usually a bunch of different parts that end up being bottlenecks. So now consider this system:
System 2 and 3 have the same performance. So instead of being 20% more expensive it's 50% more expensive, despite the price ratio being the exact same.
It's also ignoring that many people reuse peripherals and even components. If I build a new desktop, I'm probably going to be using the same monitors, keyboard, mouse, network card, etc that I currently do.
What will change is the motherboard, the CPU, and maybe the RAM (ie if going from DDR4 to DDR5).
Including everything else in the system just introduces a ton of noise.
CaptainMonkeyJack@reddit
None disputed this.. what was pointed out is that this might not be a particularly useful metric for an end user.
A perfectly reasonable analysis.
Sure, in this hypothetical.
I'm not sure I follow. Reusung just means those aren't parts your putting budget to today, but it is still part of the overall experience and cost.
Again, not really following the point being made here.
A CPU or Ram or GPU do not in themselves do anything of value... except as paper weights. So the full picture does require considering the entire system as a whole.
dev_vvvvv@reddit
I build two systems over time:
Does CPU2 cost 100% more than CPU1 (1000/500) or would you look at system cost and say it's only 20% more (3000/2500)? Or are you getting even deeper in the weeds and amortizing the rest-of-system cost to get 33% ((1000+2000/2) / (500+2000/2))? It's a shitshow.
Windshield wipers on their own do not in themselves do anything of value.
I have a choice between
Do the $20 windshield wiper blades cost 100% more than the $10 windshield wiper blades?
Or do you consider the system as a whole (car+windshield wipers) and say they only cost 0.02% more because your car is worth $50,000? What if your car is worth $20k or $100k? The math completely changes with no change in the product being analyzed. It's completely nonsensical.
CaptainMonkeyJack@reddit
I'd ask what the performance gain is and if it hits my performance targets/value judgment vs other uses.
I think the challenge here is you're only looking at the $ but not figuring out the value.
Take your windshield wiper analogy, under either model if there is no value difference then obviously go with the cheaper wiper.
If the more expensive wiper is going to need less replacing, then factor in time savings. If it's going to lead to 1% fewer crashes by working better, then factor in the expected cost of the incremental crashes of th cheaper one.
dev_vvvvv@reddit
Ignore the performance. It is impossible to figure out the value (price/performance) if we cannot agree in the price.
CaptainMonkeyJack@reddit
The price is the cost. So say $10 or $20 for the wipers, depending on which one you buy.
dev_vvvvv@reddit
That is the CPU equivalent.
Why aren't you factoring in the rest of the system (the car)? Using your example, the windshield wipers are useless without the car.
CaptainMonkeyJack@reddit
Sure, as a transportation system wipers are not useful, so yes, the cost f say a car usually included the purchase (and possible interest), fuel, maintenance, insurance etc.
A CPU costs what a it costs, but an overall PC covers a lot more.
What is the point you're trying to make, since this seems to be a lot of restating a premise but unclearly.
dev_vvvvv@reddit
I didn't ask about the cost of transportation. I asked why aren't you including the cost of the car (rest of the computer analogy) with the cost of the wipers (CPU analogy) when you are comparing two wipers?
I think I've been pretty clear on my point and have stated it several times, but I'll do so again:
CaptainMonkeyJack@reddit
Because you framed it just as wipers, and didn't provide any more useful can text.
You are simultaneously hm getting upset that I talk about the cost if transportation and then upset when I try to follow your one part reasoning.
Sure, though I think the problem.here is framing. What is considered 'unrelated costs' and what is the 'product'?
For compiling that's absolutely a valid point. For a gaming system it's not as valid a point, be cause sound is typically considered an integral part of the experience.
Look it's just one way of thinking about it. It's not like you are proposing a solution.
I agree, sunk cost wise one should not rely on the value of parts they already have (albeit except that they could sell them) when making decisions about new parts.
Except it doesn't?
The wiper costs $10 or $20. Whether the car costs $10k or $100k doesn't change that analysis.
Err what?
===
I'm struggling to fully understand your argument... but I think your confusing a systems level analysis with a parts level analysis.
What people are saying is that yes, you can do the parts level analysis, but in reality you use the entire system, so that's where the overall value needs to be judged from.
Is it possible you're getting stuck by trying to decide purchases off of their cost, instead of independently deciding their value to you and then having your decision criteria laid out. For most people they either have a set performance goal, and want to spend the least for it, or a set budget and want to get the most performance for that budget.
TwoCylToilet@reddit
Yes, but I would say that an engine upgrade for a car only costs $4500 when the base car was $30000 (same ratio as $300 premium for a $2000 PC). It's not even close to the same analogy.
kikimaru024@reddit
Not when time=money.
An extra $400 initial means nothing when that can translate into a $4000 project finishing faster.
996forever@reddit
Most of that “improvement” is just from having a higher stock power limit. Nothing you can’t replicate on another sku
dev_vvvvv@reddit
If time is money and you are running that many continuous workloads, EPYC or even Threadripper would seem to be a far better solution.
Noble00_@reddit (OP)
No, and that has been heavily misinterpreted by the community. AMD has stated multiple times that you want to have cache residency on the same CCD where the game is scheduled. This has been said when they released 9950X3D when people thought they wanted a dual 3d v-cache chip to improve performance. AMD went so far as to resolve scheduling software with the 7900X3D/9900X3D and 7950X3D/9950X3D to stay on the v-cache CCD when playing games while the other CCD remains idle or is used for other software in the background as to prevent being worse than the 7800X3D/9800X3D seen during benchmarks at that time.
imaginary_num6er@reddit
Yeah even with 3D V-cache, there is latency between the CCDs. It is always going to be faster to process games within 1 CCD on the same architecture generation.
errdayimshuffln@reddit
Let me explain it this way. If you have to cross CCD, the cache is no longer any different than 2D cache across CCD which is the slowest L3 cache situation. In other words, 3D caches whole benefit and the whole point of the '3D' tech is to keep more cache as close as possible to the core. That all goes out the window when you have to go all the way to the other CCD through the I/O die.
SirActionhaHAA@reddit
The cache is split and ain't gonna benefit games. It's mostly for productivity workloads. They've had almost no gaming marketing for this thing.
SJGucky@reddit
The inter-CCD latency is still as high as the other Zen5 CPUs. Its about 4x as high as inside the CCD.
There are very few applications that benefit from a second CCD with extra cache, like some AI applications.
Noble00_@reddit (OP)
It's not even that. There are a lot of applications that don't really care about inter-CCD latency, just look at Snapdragon X or Apple's M-series chips (heterogenous cores that are one the same package). They just care more about per thread performance or more cores, not necessarily more L3 cache. In Phoronix workloads you can see Threadripper (or Xeons) flying through most of these since they have more cores/bandwidth and have mediocre inter-CCD latency
Artoriuz@reddit
The higher power consumption is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, it's not just the cache.
TwoCylToilet@reddit
I'm genuinely curious about the performance uplift purely from the additional cache, even if it's only of academic value. As I understand, even if inter-CCD latency is incredibly high compared to on-CCD L3, it's still faster DDR5. Having 16-cores constantly fed with low latency data instead of 8 could also show up in some (albeit niche) use cases.
A power normalised test between 9950X, 9950X3D and 9950X3D2 for all of the benchmarks that had the highest performance uplifts for the X3D2 would be very interesting to me. Do I want a 9950X3D or a 9950X3D2 for my mini-ITX SVT-AV1 encoding server that's ~120W cooling limited at video village?
xole@reddit
The timed LLVM compilation shows that fairly clearly. There's barely any difference between an x3d chip and non x3d chip on both 8 and 16 core. But this shows a noticeable improvement over the regular x3d 16 core chip.
This should be the highest performing zen 5 chip that's reasonably possible, so if someone has a strong use case for this, it's nice that it's available. But most people won't need it, so I doubt they make a lot of them. A low volume niche product would increase the price consumers see. Ironically, if it had a bigger advantage in more applications, it'd probably be cheaper because it would sell more.
i_shit_not@reddit
Seems like a good CPU for people who make over $300K a year.
Gippy_@reddit
+12% Stockfish (Chess) analysis speed over the 9950X3D miiiiiight be worth it for the very few people who do Chess analysis content creation. That's really the only benchmark that popped out to me.
-CynicalPole-@reddit
What a garbage title that doesn't reflect reality whatsoever. The best - but by tiny bit while costing a fuckton more.
Noble00_@reddit (OP)
Eat your heart out HPC bros. From a multicore perspective, obviously the new 270K Plus has it beat with it's very competitive MSRP of $300 for 24 cores. Though, when it comes to specific workloads it takes advantage of the extra v-cache (though looking at some benchs, 270K Plus can be respectable)..
Cherry picking we see easyWaveR34 that 'simulates tsunami generation and propagation in the context of early warning systems' see a 2x improvement over the 9900X3D/9950X3D.
Or in CFDs like openFOAM can be competitive to their $5000 Threadrippers.
Oh and Alexander Yee [author of y-cruncher] hope you're happy lol
Clean_Experience1394@reddit
Are there any gaming benchmarks for linux? Windows parks one core when gaming, I can imagine different results for linux if you can get it to use both ccds, given that there are games that aren't bound that much by inter-ccd latency like CIV etc.
Noble00_@reddit (OP)
Eat your heart out HPC bros. From a multicore perspective, obviously the new 270K Plus has it beat with it's very competitive MSRP of $300 for 24 cores. Though, when it comes to specific workloads it takes advantage of the extra v-cache (though looking at some benchs, 270K Plus can be respectable)..
Cherry picking we see easyWaveR34 that 'simulates tsunami generation and propagation in the context of early warning systems' see a 2x improvement over the 9900X3D/9950X3D.
Or in CFDs like openFOAM can be competitive to their $5000 Threadrippers.