videocardz.com/newz/amd-ryzen-9000x3d-series-rumored-to-fully-support-overclocking-zen5-gets-improved-ddr5-memory-support
AMD Ryzen 9000X3D series rumored to fully support overclocking, Zen5 gets improved DDR5 memory support
RumorI don’t think we know yet how the multi-ccd parts will be configured. With the 5000x3d and 7000x3d the 8 core single ccd parts had 3d cache across all cores but the multi-ccd parts didn’t.
not true, zen 3 x3d only had single ccd parts and the multi ccd zen 4 x3d parts had vcache only on 1 ccd
Having 3dcache on both CCDs wasn't a limitation. AMD didn't do it because of cost and diminishing returns. The 5900X3D prototype, the first 3d vache CPU they ever showed has 3d vache on both CCDs.
Not only diminishing returns but basically 0 scaling in gaming and even less productivity performance. As long as you have several CCDs you won't see much benefits from having cache on all of them. Same scaling problem that has been around since Zen 1 with having seperate core complexes.
Zen 1 and Zen 2 were different with their CCXs tho. Zen 1 and 2 had 4 core CCXs, so 2 CCXs made up a 8 core CCD. That changed starting with Zen 3 which went to 8 core CCXs, the whole CCD. That was more limiting than what we have today.
I agree, 8 core CCX is far less problematic as games rarely scale beyond that, I'm just trying to justify why putting 3D cache on every CCD might not be as much as a good idea as people think.
It's not or AMD would have released it. Lol. I think they just need to do a better job with their scheduler.
If they unlocked overclocking then i think that means TSMC have overcome the voltage limitation on stacked chips that they had before (for the 5000 series for example it was capped at 1.35 volt while the non-x3d chips could run up to 1.45v for boost clocks)
If the voltage limitations have been reduced vs the non-x3d chips, then the tradeoff between extra cache and higher boost clocks should be gone or at least greatly reduced. And that could prompt AMD to make 9900x3d and 9950x3d's with extra cache on both dies.
But, it's still all speculation at this point.
You don't want v-cache on both CCDs you want more cores per CCD (Zen6). V-cache on both CCDs would result in performance regression.
Really keeping a close eye on this, I want to upgrade to a 9000X3D... we should also get to see how arrow lake will stack up. I'll definitely be looking to upgrade when reviews have come out.
Me too :) Its finally time to retire my 3600.
While I agree to be open to what Intel does, if its just shove more power into the die I'm not interested at all even if there is a little more performance than AMD. I'm more interested in good tech then tech from 5 years ago but just more wattage.
This would be fantastic if true!
At this point CPU features won't sell me on upgrading, only motherboard improvements will. I want 3 PCIe 4.0 NVMe on ITX with dual 10G ethernet. Until then the only thing that can convince me is an ITX board with bifurcation support (x8/x8, x8/x4/x4, x4/x4/x4/x4) at the same time as AMD moving to 16 cores on a single CCD.
You can already now buy am5 boards with dual 10gb or even dual 25GB NICs. asrock rack.
Like this, ITX, dual 10GB nics, IPMI, oculink and 4 dimm slots https://www.asrockrack.com/general/productdetail.asp?Model=AM5D4ID-2T/BCM#Specifications
I know about ASRock Rack. They don't have an AM5 ITX board. They have AM5 deep-ITX boards. And also they lack I/O and NVME.
You're better off designing the mobo yourself if you want such an specific configuration.
Why are you entitled to such board?
Have you counted does AM5 platform offer enough pcie lanes for your wishes? Dual 5G is coming. 3 m.2 in ITX is quite much. At least asrock rack offers 4 dimms which usually in ITX sizes are not available. I bought 5 of those.
Ha, I'm totally with you on this. That's why I had to go Asus gene x670e mate just for nvme slots but it's overkill lol price wise.
I want 3 PCIe 4.0 NVMe on ITX with dual 10G ethernet
So you want ITX but don't want to have the downsides of ITX? Let me guess, you also want 4 RAM slots and multiple PCIe slots?
10G ethernet runs hot, that might just melt an ITX sized board 😂
I still see no reason to replace my 7950x unless it means we can run more than 2 sticks of ram. Doesn’t matter in gaming, but dune if my big photoshop projects and my finite element modeling would like more ram.
(Yes I know, we just built a threadripper system at the office to do the FEM, but I have some work from home days.)
Same here, already have a high end X670e mobo, if I can just drop a 9000x CPU and be able to run 4 dual rank dimms @ 6000mhz I'll be a happy camper.
You can buy 48gig sticks for your current setup, ecc too, so you could have 96Gigs which is getting pretty close to what pros in studios often use.
This is true, but I already have a pair of 32s, and so it’s kind of annoying to just pull it out. That could basically mean paying $300 for 32GB
Yea, it be the way that it is.
I've recently resolved that in matters of memory and storage, I go with bigger than I need anticipating this and the unanticipated.
For memory support, is 8000+MHz at 1:2 faster than the EXPO settings of 6000 or 6400 MHz at 1:1?
I imagine that it depends on the use. Memory sensitive apps would probably prefer 8000/1:2, while other apps might prefer the higher clocked infinity fabric at 6400/1:1. I'm not 100% certain, but I think that games prefer faster infinity fabric because I remember that you could push memory on Zen 3 over 4000MHz if you switched to 1:2, but game performance suffered. I suspect that 6400/1:1 will be the sweet spot for the 9000 and 9000X3D series when it comes to gaming, but I'm very interested to see testing done once they release to know for sure.
I remember that you could push memory on Zen 3 over 4000MHz if you switched to 1:2, but game performance suffered.
Game performance suffered in that configuration because losing UCLK=FCLK sync added a massive amount of latency. People only ran UCLK=FCLK on Zen 2/3.
To do UCLK=FCLK on zen 4, you have to run clocks like 4000mt/s mem at 2000uclk and fclk - OR - 8000mt/s mem at 2000 uclk and fclk. The latter is much better and provides the lowest latency configurations because DDR5 doesn't work very well at 4000mt/s.
Clocks around 6000 are actually desyncing UCLK from FCLK and eating a latency penalty to do that - they simply can't clock FCLK up to 3000, and syncing the memory controller with the fabric at 1500mhz would cause even more performance loss than the desync would.
AMD cut the latency penalty for desyncing UCLK=FCLK in half from around 8ns to around 4ns, but it's still there and very notable.
I actually find this kind of a none exciting thing. Overclocking has been all but meaningless for the majority for gamers for quite some time. Performance gains can not come in ways that do not create potential stability issues and often give more performance boosts.
Further the X3D series has shown that WITHOUT overclocking they are fastest gaming chips for their generation so adding overclocking to me seems almost useless.
I would rather see other improvements like lower power draw or moving the X3D line away from the Ryzen 9 to just the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 series of chips.
X3d chips have always have throttled clocks, being able to let them scale up more can make a difference. Not sure what you’re going on about tbh.
Going on about how frequency scaling in gaming performance isn't what it used to.
The reason overclocking these days doesn't do much is because you aren't actually overclocking very much. Going from ~3.4GHz to ~4.7GHz is a 38% clock speed increase. Going from say 5.2 to 5.8GHz is only 11%. Basically most modern CPUs overclock by ~10% at best. Consequently performance can't improve by more than 10%. 10% is right on the edge of being a percievable performance difference. 5% is straight up impossible to notice.
That, plus ryzen's gaming performance was barely bound by frequency. People have overclocked 3800x to 5ghz on liquid nitrogen and it was barely any faster than stock in games and still spanked by a stock 9900k.
This is about Zen 5 and not Zen 2. Or do you think they all behave the same because marketing call them "Ryzen".
Even for the same architecture frequency scaling is probably different between a non 3D part and a 3D part. As you remove other bottlenecks frequency scaling is going to increase.
It is indeed, i tested that specifically when i got my 5800x3d
For example in SOTTR with memory overclocking, a 32% frequency boost on 5900x gave +24% performance
+31% frequency boost on 5800x3d gave +29% performance
Differences even bigger if you are not using a supertuned dual rank bdie setup to reduce the memory binding on the 5900x.
That was largely because of the 16MB of cache, as well as other bottlenecks in the memory subsystem.
These CPU's have 96MB of shared cache and DDR5 so they aren't anywhere near as memory-bound. Frequency scaling on X3d, even back to Zen 3, is nearly 1:1 in games.
Frequency scaling in games is basically 1:1, especially on X3D cpu's because all of the cache runs at the same clock as the cores in lockstep.
You can bump clocks by 10% and see a 9.5% performance gain.
The problem on older CPU's where you did +10% clocks and saw only a 6% performance gain was that the cores were waiting on RAM which wasn't being boosted by the same +10%. With vcache the hot code runs in the cache and gets the same frequency boost, lowering latency and increasing BW.
OCing can still give you performance gains you just need to be ok with raising power/voltage limits and dealing with more power and heat in your system while finding the right balance of power/performance increase. On the stability side it really is just the silicon lottery and stress testing enough to figure out the stability limits.
I have my 12600K OCed to 4.7GHz all core and 5.1GHz single core with just a slight bump in power consumption. Not a huge OC but enough to give me a 5-10% performance boost depending on the application.
4070Ti Super I have OCed with +220MHz clock and +1500MHz memory for a 10-12% performance gain with power limit raised to 320W. Basically gets me to 4080 level performance.
With some optimized OCing I've raised the performance of my system by a tier with only slight increases in power consumption. I've ran stress tests on it for hours and hours with no crashes and haven't had any issues while gaming.
TLDR OCing can still be beneficial but you can't be "lazy" about it and need to do a good deal of stress testing and optimization to find the sweet spots of your hardware.
My 5800X3D uses less power than the 5600X it replaced. You want 15w X3D chips?
I would truly love to see AMD, Nvidia and Intel take a few generations and focus more on power draw than performance. If you could give me a 7800X3D that has a total package draw of 50 watts max I would love it. Or a 7900XT that only draws 250 watts max....
Or a 7900XT that only draws 250 watts max....
Can't you do this yourself by just using a lower power limit. I prefer high default power limits so I can choose myself at what power limit I want a to run my CPU/GPU at.
I think we are seeing this with current AMD chips being exceptionally power efficient in general when run within spec, and then with Intel launching high end desktop processors on TSMC 3 nm node, their max power usage should be reduced drastically vs 14th gen.
Undervolting is a thing. 7900XT can be undervolted to use around 260w without losing any performance.
And my 5800X3D barely surpasses 60w when gaming (-20 PBO2 Tuner).
Games I play runs my 6950xt at 100w in 4k.
even upcoming path of exile 2 is likely to be fine with that powerdraw vs 290w...
If gameplay isnt affected, OC dont make sense really
look forward 9800x3d though
I have install 12 different 7900XT and never seen one that can under volt to 260 watts with no performance hit.
Your 5800X3D actually draws more power than that, your looking at chip power not actual total package draw.
I'm reading from the same numbers that I did with the 5600X in HWINFO. I also have a meter to measure power usage but thanks.
Not sure what to tell you regarding the 7900XT's. Plenty of examples out there.
No it can t you ll still lose performance. I own one myself.
You might lose like 5% depending on the game undervolting it to 260w. It is still worth it if you want a quiet and more efficient card.
If you could give me a 7800X3D that has a total package draw of 50 watts max I would love it.
A tuned 7800x3d typically doesn't use much more power than that, and that's with a maximum performance OC. Why don't you just set a 50w PPT limit?
Gone are the days of 10%+ performance improvement from a mild overclock, I remember riding my 4790k so hard
The manufacturers just got better at extracting reliable performance out of the box with less variation in chip quality. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I suppose we pay for it.
Higher room for OC means PBO can work better
How much better do you need than fastest in class?
If I'm paying for the best, I want the absolute best. Might as well try to squeeze out that extra perf if I can do that.
See in my thinking if I paid the premium for the best I should NOT need to tweak it, it should be amazing without me doing anything. When it comes to gaming (the target of an X3D chip) for quite a few years now we have seen that overclock yields no meaningful experience boost. Looks great in benchmarks but does not actually make game play any better as the chips give an amazing experience at stock.
How much better do you need than fastest in class?
If there was a CPU 2x faster than the 7950x3d for £500 and one 4x faster than the 7950x3d for £1000, i'd buy the second one with no contest.
A worse CPU existing at £500 does not impact my decision at all, the "in class" part is not really relevant. It doesn't make the better options any better or worse. That's AMD's problem, not mine.
A lot of the stuff that i'm doing every day is just CPU bound to a massive extent that 2-3x performance won't entirely fix, and that means that more performance beyond that point has a non-zero value.
Given the profiles of things being limited by Amdahl's law and cache/memory, there is no other way to solve this problem. Nothing performs better than a 7950x3d for a lot of this stuff.
Not if you use diesel. Then you are cooking with POWER.
Hey OP — /r/AMD is in manual approval mode, this means all submissions are automatically removed and must first be approved before they are visible, this is done to prevent spam, scams, excessive self-promotion and other rule-breaking posts.
Your post will be approved, provided it follows the subreddit rules.
Posts regarding purchase advice, PC build questions or technical support will not be approved. If you are looking for purchasing advice, have a PC build question or technical support problem, please visit the PC Build Questions, Purchase Advice and Technical Support Megathread .
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Could 30% IPC increase be true from early reports but only when you overclock the zen 5? Zen 4 and zen 5 run at the same frequency maybe to match the TDP but can run at higher frequency if you choose the overclock? 9800x3d with 30% IPC increase would be insane. And didn't amd say they will increase the frequency of non x3d 9700x to beat the 7800x3d in gaming? Something tells me AMD will surprise everyone when Zen 5 benchmarks come out. Maybe they are holding out true zen 5 performance so they can keep selling Zen 4?
That’s not how IPC works. In a vacuum, total performance = ipc * clock frequency, so increasing clock will increase total performance, but IPC doesn’t change.
Makes sense.
If they finally get the 3D v-cache to be able to handle the same clocks & PBO they're gonna be excellent. Maybe enough to upgrade from the 7950x3d I have but I think I'm waiting until Zen 6x3d for that.
Look here AMD, I had zero intention of upgrading my 7800x3d. Stop forcing my hand
What GPU are you running that your 7800X3D is the bottleneck?
No bottleneck I just like to tinker
Intel in shambles
Wow so it seems we will get zen 5 upgrade plus full or very close to full clock speed while having the cache. Will likely upgrade from 7600x to 9800x3d
Is there any chance the X3D chips will have improvements for multitasking and rendering? It's sad that the benefits only focus on games, there is almost nothing new for content creators.
Some programs just don’t rely on the cache so it makes no difference. But if the X3D chips can sustain higher clock speeds that will benefit every application, alongside other IPC improvements in the cores.
Tired of this s. Threw XOC bios for serious vrms motherboards and call it a day. AIBs like Gigabyte released motherboards capable of sustain not one, but two cpus. If Intel releases each year 400w cpus, for amd going from 350w to 400w won’t be a huge difference on hedt segment.
I haven't been following the news, so does it finally have 3D cache across all cores? Did they surpass the limitation, or is it the same as the 7th series X3D lineup?