The AMD Ryzen 7000X3D series is expected to be officially unveiled at CES2023 as PC enthusiasts anxiously await the successor to the 5800X3D. The AMD Ryzen 5800X3D debuted in 2022 with its 96MB 3D-stacked L3 cache. The new design allowed the 8C/16T processor to trade blows in gaming with the Intel i9-12900KS flagship Alder-Lake S processor despite it costing hundreds of dollars less. For gaming, it still manages to do well against the Intel i9-13900K and has even provided competition for AMD’s newest Ryzen 7000 “Zen 4” CPUs. AMD recently released its Ryzen 7000 series processors but an X3D model was noticeably absent and now a leaked slide shows it will be released in 2023. WccfTech has obtained a slide, and confirmation about the upcoming unveiling of these next 3D V-Cache processors.
AMD will reportedly be releasing two AMD Ryzen 7000X3D series processors for the AM5 platform. One will be aimed at PC enthusiasts while the other is intended for gaming. It is also said that voltage and overclocking restrictions could be less limited with these but their stock clocks will still be lower than the non-3d V-cache counterparts. Overclocking for the 5800X3D, while possible, was not recommended but these new Zen 4 5mm processors could have a bit more headroom. There’s still no official word from AMD regarding more X3D variants for its long-lived AM4 platform but a recently leaked slide did show production continuing throughout 2023.
A detailed explanation of AMD’s 3D V-cache technology can be found here where Brent Justice compared the 5800X3d with the 5800X.
Discussion (19 replies)
Join Discussion →Figures this would drop the week of the Raptor Lake announcement.
Nice. Amd could stand to do a slight price adjustment. I already bought my 7700x though, and I will probably get the X3D chip anyway.
I'm kinda surprised Intel hasnt released their '4d uber cache" line to compete. Best CPU for gaming is a title both companies want badly.
Yea when I'm ready to refresh again I'll gl for the best at the price point I'm good with. I don't have a specifc brand loyalty.
Undoubtedly this is because the new 13th gen Intel CPU's launched - what- yesterday(?) are faster than anticipated, and priced lower than expected.
This is why we recently saw price reductions on the 7xxx series, and saw the X3D variant, which likely was being planned earlier, bumped up in priority and expedited.
I've seen a lot of posts on social media stating things like "RIP AMD", which is a bit premature.
I think we find ourselves in a period where Intel and AMD are leapfrogging each other, just like they did in the good old days from ~1999 to ~2004. That was a good time. CPU's got faster very quickly, and CPU prices were more affordable.
The more competition there is, the better things are for the consumer.
We will have to see how well AMD can respond over time though. Intel has had a few bad years, but they are still the much larger company with many more resources available to them. It is still a bit of a David and Goliath fight, even though AMD has grown stronger as of late, and Intel has had some problems.
The best possible outcome is that they keep leapfrogging each other with each release and keep doing so for a long time. I - for one - don't want Intel or AMD to become dominant. This is not a sports game where you hope for your team to win. If one side crushes the other, it is worse for everyone.
I'm still using my Zen2 based Threadripper 3960x, and I will continue to play my games on this platform until such time a title I am interested in playing becomes CPU limited at 4k resolution and max settings. (or at the very least can't hit a minimum of 60fps if I am forced to run down GPU settings).
When that happens I will continue to use the Threadripper in my workstation, but probably get a secondary mini-itx board for the second slot in my Corsair 1000D case, move the big GPU over to it and use it as a dedicated game build. I'd just need to pick up a light workjstation GPU that can support three monitors for the Threadripper.
For some stupid reason the Radeon Pro W6400 - which would otherwise be perfect - has been limited to only two monitors. The next one up (Radeon Pro W6600) supports three, but has a steep price increase to like $750.
On the Nvidia side maybe the Quadro T400 would do the trick, but it lists max horizontal res as 5120 x 2880. IN my setup with two 1600x1200 screens and one 3840x2160 screen, combined that might be a little too much. Maybe the 2GB of RAM just isn't sufficient.... There is a 4GB version though...
It's always good to have competition.
I don't either, but I've been using Intel chips the last 7-8 years just based on their reliability. It's funny to read the remarks of fanboys of a certain brand (whether that's Intel or AMD) that get butt hurt because their favorite company isn't on top anymore. In reality, who cares, just buy what you want.
It is. Pretty crazy that some of the new Intel chips boost up to 6Ghz stock!
Edit:
Well... It says they do here:
But that is based on this link, which came somewhat before release.
Looking at the currently detailed models, the max appears to be 5.8
(I don't know how much to trust these numbers though since Max turbo for the 13900K is lower than the Turbo boost...)
Still that's pretty crazy, and would never have happened unless AMD lit a fire under their asses with Ryzen.
At the performance both AMD and Intel offer does it really matter much anymore unless you are crunching serious amount of data/code daily and seconds to add up?
As for gaming...OMG this game at 280 FPS on this AMD is unplayable, better get the Intel so I can get 290 FPS.
The only benefit this generation that Intel has over AMD is the ability to use Z690 with cheaper DDR4 which brings the cost down. And if cost is the factor it's a wash if you go Z790 with DDR5. Which brings up a question. Has anyone done a side by side of 13th gen Intel using Z690 w/ DDR4 versus Z790 w/ DDR5?
Either way you go, AMD or Intel, you're getting a smokin fast system that'll play any game on the market for many years to come.
I did see a review saying gaming performance was largely within the margin of error with ddr4 or ddr5.
You'd be surprised.
Some of the kids these days think it is total bullshit that they can't maximize their 360hz 1080p panels by turning all the quality settings down.
To many of them these days there is no "good enough" framerate. It's I need the most possible, damn everything else, or have FOMO about being at a disadvantage against other players.
it's totally insane, but it is what it is.
I mean, I liked the idea of the 5800X3D, it could've been a great gaming CPU, if it wasn't priced just high enough to be not worth buying at all.
I expect the same from the 7000 series version.
The AM5 platform is DOA anyway, the price of admission is just too high to begin with. Not just the price of the CPUs, but also needing to pay for the insanely priced MBs, and get DDR5 while you are at it, and you are looking at a $2000 bill for a simple upgrade. No thanks.
How do you get to 2000 for an upgrade? 200 for 32gb ddr 5, 300 for processor, and 300 for a MB.
AM5 just needs to mature a bit. Let the B series motherboards come out and the lower tier X board. DDR5 is also still expensive compared to DDR4.
I took the 7900x as an example, which costs €650 here, the cheapest X670MB which is €350 here, and the cheapest 64GB DDR5 kit, which is also €350, since I have 64GB DDR4, I'm never going to "upgrade" to 32GB DDR5. OK, it's not 2000, only 1400. Still a hell no from me.
Comparatively Intel is looking really, really good, can use the old memory, and MBs start at half the price.