For half the price, the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D does a much better job at gaming than the new dual X3D edition Ryzen 9000X3D chip.
Several Independent Tests Revealed Little to No Performance Gains in Gaming or Productivity With the $900 Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition
Typically, almost every Ryzen generation brings some kind of performance uplifts, and even though we didn't see much growth in gaming performance going from Ryzen 7000 to 9000, the Zen 5 family did provide a helpful boost in productivity. On the other hand, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950XD2 Dual Edition is one of the worst CPUs when it comes to performance gains despite a promising "innovation" that theoretically meant better performance in select workloads.
It appears that we no longer need two 3D V-Cache chiplets, as one seems sufficient, and AMD will unlikely produce such a chip again, at least in the current Ryzen 9000 family. We are surprised to see AMD had the audacity to charge another $200 for a mere 1% jump in productivity and 0% boost in gaming performance. Many independent reviews for the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition are out now, and every benchmark exposes the irrational price hike for the new "flagship" CPU.
With a second 3D V-Cache chiplet sitting underneath the second CCD, many expected some satisfactory gains, at least in gaming, but it turned out to be a disaster, particularly due to the horrible pricing AMD came up with. As shown by Quasar Zone, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 gained nothing in gaming performance and sits right beside the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, Ryzen 7 9850X3D, and Ryzen 7 9800X3D when compared in several games at 1080p. Even in productivity, we hardly saw an average of 3.6% gains over 9950X3D, but you can't convince us that a 3-4% gain justifies the $899 tag.
Techspot's (HUB) testing showed similar results, with no gains in gaming performance and marginal gains in productivity apps. This was despite pairing the CPU with the RTX 5090 at 1080p, which is perhaps the best case scenario in modern times to see the real difference. Tom's Hardware titled the review right (More Cache, More Cash), as the CPU failed to bring any noticeable gains in gaming over the 9950X3D. In fact, both the Ryzen 7 9800X3D and 9850X3D were slightly faster.
Sure, the Ryzen 9950X3D2 is a bit faster in multi-threaded workloads, but that's nothing compared to paying much more for a 3-4% higher score compared to cheaper options like the 9950X3D or the Core Ultra 7 270K Plus. All in all, the additional 64 MB of cache doesn't seem to be beneficial currently, and it would be an absolute waste of money when decent options like Ryzen 7 9800X3D/9850X3D and Ryzen 9 9950X3D are already available for hundreds of dollars less.
The Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 might appear great in theory, as a 64 MB higher L3 cache and higher PPT of 270W vs 200W on 9950X3D should provide some decent gains, but in reality, nothing works as AMD anticipated. Maybe if AMD puts it up at $749, it would make more sense, but it still won't beat cheaper X3D chips anytime soon.
About the author: Sarfraz Khan is a hardware reporter with a focus on PC components and the builder community. With years of experience writing about PC hardware and laptops, his work has been featured on several reputable technology publications. Sarfraz's hands-on experience is demonstrated through his first-person accounts of using and comparing different hardware configurations, providing practical and relatable insights for everyday users. His technical analysis is respected by peers in the enthusiast community and has been cited by specialized hardware sites such as Germany's Igor's Lab.
Follow Wccftech on Google to get more of our news coverage in your feeds.
