Four months have passed since the release of AMD's impressive Ryzen 7 9800X3D CPU, and it seems the market still can't get enough of it. Supply has been reasonable, but demand has been overwhelming. And because this is yet another in-demand product built using TSMC's N4 process, the 9800X3D is fighting for supply with countless other sought-after chips.

As a result, even today, the 9800X3D is often out of stock and difficult to purchase at MSRP. We should mention that when we were writing this Newegg had it in stock for $480 and it was their number one best-selling CPU.

The reason for its extreme popularity is simple – the 9800X3D is the world's fastest gaming processor, without exception, and at $480, it is affordable compared to even a basic graphics card. The only downside is that it isn't particularly strong in productivity workloads. For those who need both work and gaming performance, alternatives like the 7950X3D or Core Ultra 9 285K have been better choices.

That changes today with the release of the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, along with its sidekick, the 9900X3D.

The 9950X3D is a 16-core/32-thread Zen 4-based processor featuring two 8-core CCDs, one of which is equipped with AMD's 3D V-Cache technology. It is priced at $700 – the same MSRP as the previous generation 7950X3D. Meanwhile, the 12-core/24-thread 9900X3D is set to launch at $600, again matching the MSRP of its predecessor.

We have heard that initial supply for these new CPUs is quite good, particularly for high-end models. However, as was the case with the 9800X3D, it's unlikely there will be enough supply to meet demand, so getting one will likely be a challenge, at least for the next month or so.

AMD has only sent out the 9950X3D for review, and frankly, it's the only part that truly makes sense. The 9900X3D is just 16% cheaper than the 9950X3D yet has 25% fewer cores, making it a poor value proposition. Worse still, only six cores have direct access to the larger 3D V-Cache, making it less effective for gaming. In a way, it's essentially an overpriced 6-core processor.

Unless the 9900X3D is offered at a 30% discount relative to the 9950X3D, it isn't worth considering. This is likely why AMD has opted not to send it out for review.

It may seem odd that these Zen 4, dual-CCD 3D V-Cache processors are only being released now – four months after the 9800X3D. Supply constraints could be a factor, but another possibility is that AMD has been refining scheduling optimizations to prevent the 9950X3D from falling behind the 9800X3D in certain games due to improper CCD usage or excessive cross-CCD communication.

To improve performance and ensure better scheduling, AMD has updated its Provisioning Packages Service and 3D V-Cache Performance Optimizer. Additionally, AMD is introducing a new Application Compatibility Database.

The Provisioning Packages Service is a significant update, as it eliminates the need to reinstall Windows for a new Ryzen processor to function correctly. However, AMD still recommends a fresh install. The service monitors the system, and if it detects a change in CPU name, core count, logical processor count, or L3 cache size, it will automatically uninstall and reinstall the necessary drivers.

This service is designed to optimize CPU power and performance for dual-CCD processors when gaming. It achieves this through a combination of power and frequency adjustments, along with core parking while using the Windows Game Mode power profile. These optimizations may be dynamically applied to specific power profiles, typically when launching an application.

When the operating system detects that a game is running, it "parks" the cores on the non-3D V-Cache-enabled CCD, making those cores temporarily unavailable to the OS.

Then there's the AMD 3D V-Cache Performance Optimizer, which enhances the performance of Ryzen 9 3D V-Cache processors for both gaming and non-gaming tasks by dynamically adjusting the favored processor cores based on the active application. When gaming, the operating system prioritizes cores connected to the larger L3 cache. Conversely, for non-gaming tasks, it prioritizes the highest-frequency cores. Unlike the Provisioning Packages Service, this software does not park cores.

Finally, there's the AMD Application Compatibility Database, which requires both a new BIOS and chipset driver. This database is designed to address problematic games that cannot be fully optimized through the Provisioning Packages and supports all dual-CCD models. Currently, it includes optimizations for Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, Dying Light 2, Far Cry 6, Metro Exodus, Total War: Three Kingdoms, Total War: Warhammer III, and Wolfenstein: Youngblood.

So a lot of effort has gone into ensuring that, when it comes to gaming, the 9950X3D performs just as well as the 9800X3D. We look forward to testing this claim with the 12 games in our day-one reviews and later exploring it further with a 40 – 50-game benchmark. For now though let's go over the data we have…

Test System Specs

CPU Clock Behavior (Stock, PBO, Eco Mode)

First, let's take a look at how the 9950X3D behaves out of the box with nothing more than EXPO settings applied. After half an hour of looping Cinebench's multi-core test, we recorded an average core clock frequency of 5,085 MHz and a peak CPU temperature of 84°C. These results were recorded in an ATX case using a 360mm AIO.

To enable PBO, we did this manually in the BIOS and benchmarked this configuration, which you will see in the following graphs. Using the advanced PBO options, the PPT, TDC, and EDC were all manually maxed out, the PBO scalar was set to 10X, the boost clock override was set to 200 MHz, and the curve optimizer was set to -20.

Under these conditions, we saw an average clock frequency of 5,227 MHz, a mere 3% frequency increase over stock. However, because we used a negative curve optimizer, the peak CPU temperature dropped from 84°C to just 78°C, as the average package power dropped from 193W down to 186W.

Finally, we also benchmarked the 9950X3D using Eco mode, which reduced the all-core frequency by almost 30% to 3,633 MHz. As a result, we saw a peak CPU temperature of just 61°C with a package power of only 88W.

Productivity Benchmarks

Cinebench 2024, Multi Core

Now, let's look at Cinebench multi-core performance. Out of the box, the 9950X3D scored 2,448 points, making it 4% faster than the standard 9950X in our testing. However, to be fully transparent, we have not had a chance to update our 9950X data with the latest chipset drivers. When compared to the 285K, the 9950X3D was just 3% slower, and our 285K data is up to date.

It's also worth noting that when compared to the 9800X3D, we observed a 77% performance boost. Manually enabling max PBO resulted in only a small 3% increase, while the power-efficient Eco mode reduced performance by 25%. We will examine power consumption shortly.

Cinebench 2024, Single Core

As for single-core performance, it remains the same as what we previously observed from the 9950X, scoring 141 points. The same performance was achieved using PBO, while the Eco mode resulted in just a one-point drop. When compared to the 285K, the 9950X3D was 6% slower.

Cinebench 2024, Power Consumption

When it comes to power consumption, we measured 229W across the EPS12V rails, the same power draw as the 9950X and 7950X. Thanks to a negative offset, PBO slightly reduced power consumption.

The Eco mode, which also led to a 25% performance reduction, managed to cut power consumption by almost 60%, making it significantly more power-efficient. It's impressive that, for the same power draw as the 9600X, the 9950X3D delivers 87% more performance in this test.

7-Zip File Manager Compression

Next, we have the 7-Zip File Manager Compression test, where the 9950X3D leads, outperforming the 7950X3D by 7% and the 9950X by 15%. This performance margin is similar to what we saw between the 9700X and 9800X3D. Even when using Eco mode, the 9950X3D still matched the 9950X, making it just 4% slower than the 285K while sipping power.

7-Zip File Manager Decompression

For decompression performance, the 9950X3D is comparable to the 9950X and 7950X, making it 31% faster than the 285K. Even in Eco mode, the 9950X3D was just 2% slower than the 285K, so AMD is crushing Intel in this workload.

Blender Open Data

Moving on to the Blender results, the 9950X3D once again tops the charts, coming in just 4% faster than both the 285K and 9950X. Enabling Eco mode kills performance, dropping the samples per minute to 202 – an almost 30% reduction from stock. However, this is still roughly twice the performance of the 9600X for a similar power draw.

Corona 10 Benchmark

The 9950X3D also tops the charts in Corona, beating Intel's 285K by a 13% margin and the previous generation 7950X by 20%. Enabling max PBO only provided an additional 4% boost, but it still resulted in the best performance we have seen from a mainstream platform to date.

Adobe Photoshop 2025

Photoshop does not take full advantage of high-core-count CPUs, so the 9950X3D does not offer much improvement over the 9800X3D. In fact, out of the box, it was slightly slower. However, compared to the 285K, the 9950X3D was nearly 20% faster, making for a significant performance advantage.

Adobe Premiere Pro 2024

Premiere Pro benefits more from higher core counts but not to the same extent as 3D rendering tests. The 9950X3D was 5% slower than the 285K but matched the 14900K when running in low-power Eco mode.

Gaming Benchmarks

Star Wars Jedi: Survivor

Time for the gaming benchmarks, and we'll start with Star Wars Jedi: Survivor. Here, the 9950X3D was able to match the 9800X3D, which is a great result, though really to be expected given the 7950X3D matched the 7800X3D. This points to the 9950X3D being a significantly better all-rounder, especially for those who also want high-end gaming performance from a workstation, as the 9950X3D is 52% faster than the 285K here.

The 7950X3D and 7800X3D were also comparable in The Last of Us Part 1, and the same is true of the 9950X3D and 9800X3D, with the dual-CCD Zen 4 part allowing for 210 fps, making it just 7% faster than the 285K in this example.

Cyberpunk 2077: Phantom Liberty

Now, the Cyberpunk 2077 results are interesting. Here, the 9950X3D allowed for 216 fps, making it just 1% slower than the 9800X3D, so in other words, performance was much the same. That's a great result because the 7950X3D is 8% slower than the 7800X3D here, and we've seen a bit of this in the past, where the dual-CCD model can be anywhere from a bit slower to a lot slower for gaming, and AMD has been working to solve this.

Assetto Corsa Competizione

Scheduling issues weren't a problem for the 7950X3D in Assetto Corsa Competizione, as we can see it matched the 7800X3D. The same is true of the 9950X3D, which was able to match – or even slightly nudge ahead of – the 9800X3D, delivering chart-topping results. This also meant that the 9950X3D was an insane 77% faster than the 285K in this game.

Remnant II

Remnant II is another game where we previously didn't see any scheduling issues, so the 9950X3D performed as expected, delivering a few more frames than the 9800X3D, making it 33% faster than the 285K.

Homeworld 3

The 9950X3D was a beast in Homeworld 3, despite slipping behind the 9800X3D by a small 4% margin. That's an excellent result given the 7950X3D was a massive 25% slower than the 7800X3D. This also meant that the 9950X3D was 52% faster than Intel's 285K.

A Plague Tale: Requiem

The 7950X3D had some frame pacing issues in A Plague Tale: Requiem, and as a result, it ended up trailing the 7800X3D by a 6% margin when comparing the average frame rate and 20% slower for the 1% lows. The 9950X3D, on the other hand, behaves like the 9800X3D, delivering the same excellent performance, making it 58% faster than the 285K. By the way, we went back and re-tested the 285K, and sadly, in cases like this where performance is horrible, Intel has been unable to improve the situation.

Counter-Strike 2

The 7950X3D was only slightly slower than the 7800X3D in Counter-Strike 2, but whatever the issue was, it has been cleared up with the 9950X3D, which matched the 9800X3D almost exactly. This also made it 29% faster than the 285K.

Starfield

The previous-generation CPUs didn't suffer any major scheduling issues in Starfield, so unsurprisingly, the 9950X3D performs like a 9800X3D here, making it 11% faster than the 285K.

Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2

Next up, we have Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine 2, and here, the 9950X3D is delivering 9800X3D-like performance, which is great news as the 7950X3D was 10% slower than the 7800X3D in this title. This also means that, compared to the 285K, the 9950X3D is 25% faster.

Hitman 3

The Hitman 3 results are really surprising because here, the 9950X3D is actually 6% faster than the 9800X3D, allowing for 306 fps – a 14% boost over the 285K. That's also a great result, as the 7950X3D was 4% slower than the 7800X3D.

Watch Dogs: Legion

Finally, we have Watch Dogs: Legion, and here, the 9950X3D was 3% faster than the 9800X3D, making it a massive 39% faster than the 285K. Overall, excellent gaming performance from the 9950X3D.

Power Consumption When Gaming

Cyberpunk 2077

Now, when it comes to power consumption, the 9950X3D consumed 44% more power than the 9800X3D in Cyberpunk 2077, matching the 12900K and consuming just 8% less power than the 285K. But let's look at power efficiency when factoring in the resulting fps performance.

Cyberpunk 2077 - Watt per Frame

Here, we can see that in terms of power efficiency, the 9950X3D is comparable to the 9600X and 7600X, making it 35% more power-efficient than the 285K in this example. Still, it was 48% less efficient than the 9800X3D, though that gap was reduced to 17% when using Eco mode.

The Last of Us Part 1

Measuring power usage in The Last of Us Part 1 saw the 9950X3D consume 32% more power than the 9800X3D but 14% less than the 285K. So, let's see how that works out when calculating efficiency.

The Last of Us Part 1 - Watt per Frame

The 9950X3D is comparable to the 5800X3D or 7600X when it comes to power efficiency, making it around 30% less efficient than the 9800X3D and 37% less efficient than the 7950X3D. Still, when compared to the 285K, we're looking at an almost 20% improvement in efficiency.

Performance Summary

Here's the 12-game average data, and no surprises – the 9950X3D is a beast, taking the top spot and delivering essentially the same performance as the class-leading 9800X3D. Even in Eco mode, it was on average 8% faster than the 7800X3D and 31% faster than the 285K.

Overall, we're only looking at a 1.4% performance boost from PBO, at least across the games we tested, but this did improve power efficiency, so it might be worth considering. That said, the overall performance is outstanding and remarkably consistent for a dual-CCD processor – AMD has finally nailed it.

X3D Turbo Mode: Enabled vs Disabled

Gigabyte made a big deal out of X3D Turbo Mode when they first introduced it in their BIOS, making bold claims about performance gains. At the time, no one really knew what it did. Since then, we've learned that it's a mostly useless feature that few would actually use.

In short, this mode disables the second CCD entirely, along with SMT support, reducing a processor like the 9950X3D from a 16-core/32-thread CPU down to an 8-core/8-thread one. Gigabyte also tweaks some memory timings for better gaming performance. The idea is to ensure that games run on the CCD with the 3D V-Cache while disabling SMT, which can sometimes negatively impact gaming performance. However, our testing indicates that leaving SMT enabled is generally beneficial for gaming.

The biggest issue with this feature is that it can only be enabled at the BIOS level, meaning the system must be completely reset every time you want to toggle it on or off. It's not something you can quickly and easily switch within Windows before launching a game. If a toggle option were available, this would be an incredibly useful and practical feature.

With X3D Turbo Mode enabled, we saw a 3% improvement on average across the dozen games tested, with notable gains in titles like Homeworld 3 and Space Marine 2. However, there were also significant performance drops in other games, such as Starfield and The Last of Us Part I.

Cost per Frame

For those solely interested in gaming, the 9950X3D doesn't make sense from a cost perspective, given that it costs $700 and delivers similar gaming performance to the much cheaper 9800X3D.

Of course, if cost isn't a concern, there's no reason not to choose the 9950X3D over the 9800X3D, as both should provide essentially the same gaming performance. However, for those who prioritize value while still seeking high-end performance, the 9800X3D or even the 7800X3D is a much smarter choice.

For a higher-core-count CPU, though, the 9950X3D is the best all-around solution, generally matching or beating the productivity performance of the Core Ultra 9 285K, while smashing it for gaming and offering better overall value.

Bonus DDR Results

A quick additional data point before our conclusion. G.Skill recently sent over their new Trident Z5 Neo RGB DDR5-6000 CL28-36-36-96 memory kit, so we decided to test how it performs with the 9950X3D.

One of the known benefits of 3D V-Cache processors is that they aren't particularly sensitive to memory performance, so unsurprisingly, we saw minimal improvement with the lower-latency memory kit. This is good news, as 32GB CL30 kits can be found for under $100, making memory an affordable component.

What We Learned

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D is an easy recommendation with very few caveats. It's fair to say this new Ryzen chip has cemented itself as the best all-around processor for those seeking ultimate performance for both work and play. If productivity is your primary focus, the 9950X3D is likely the best option outside of a super expensive Threadripper processor.

In workloads like Cinebench, the 9950X3D and Intel's 285K were neck and neck, with the Ryzen processor consuming just over 10% less power. In general, they should be highly competitive for productivity tasks, but as always, it's best to research specific application performance based on your workflow.

Where Intel falls behind significantly is in gaming. Here, the 9950X3D delivered, on average, 35% more performance – a mind-blowing margin unlike anything seen before in AMD vs. Intel comparisons, certainly prior to the release of the 9800X3D.

It appears that AMD has effectively addressed the scheduling issues that previously affected 3D V-Cache-enabled dual-CCD processors, at least based on the games we tested. Of course, we will need to analyze this further in future content, but for now, we recommend checking out multiple reviews to get a broader perspective, as different sources will cover a wide range of games.

The key takeaway here is that buying a dual-CCD processor with 3D V-Cache is now a far more reliable choice for gamers. There's significantly less need to rely on third-party applications to manually fix scheduling issues, making the overall experience much smoother.

The 9950X3D is by far the best dual-CCD processor AMD has released – it just works, and it works exceptionally well.

The above is the detailed content of AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D Review: The Best High-End CPU. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!