Introduction
AMD is launching its new Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Ryzen 9 9900X3D CPUs, based on the Zen 5 architecture on the AM5 platform, featuring 2nd Gen AMD 3D V-Cache for Gaming and Content Creation. In this Ryzen 9 9950X3D review, we are going to focus purely on the gaming performance of the CPU. This is a gaming-oriented review, looking at the performance of the Ryzen 9 9950X3D versus the Ryzen 9 7950X3D, Ryzen 9 9950X, Ryzen 7 9800X3D, and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K.
The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D are launching and will be available on March 12th, 2025. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D sits at the top of the stack as the flagship CPU, priced with an MSRP of $699, while the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D sits below it with an MSRP of $599. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is the big 16-core/32-thread CPU with a whopping 144MB of total cache, while the Ryzen 9 9900X3D is the 12-core/24-thread CPU with 140MB of total cache. Both CPUs feature AMD’s 2nd Gen 3D V-Cache, which flips the cache upside down to provide higher sustained clock speed and control temperatures to the processor cores.
The new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is the successor to the previous generation AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, which launched in February of 2023, exactly 2 years ago. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D also launched with an MSRP of $699; therefore, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D demands no price increase, maintaining the price for this segment of CPU, which is great to see.
The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D is an AM5 platform CPU, but of course, it is based on the Zen 4 architecture, while the new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is using the new Zen 5 architecture, similar to the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, which launched in August of 2024. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X launched with an MSRP of $649; therefore, the new Ryzen 9 9950X3D commands a $50 price premium for the extra 3D V-Cache for gaming.
The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is a 16-core/32-thread CPU with a CPU clock frequency of 4.3GHz and a turbo clock of up to 5.7GHz. It has 128MB of L3 added 2nd Gen 3D V-Cache on board, which is what makes this an X3D CPU. It has a TDP of 170W and a PPT of 230W. The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X3D is a 12-core/24-thread CPU with a CPU clock frequency of 4.4GHz and a turbo clock of up to 5.5GHz. It also has 128MB of L3 added 2nd Gen 3D V-Cache on board. It has a TDP of 120W and a PPT of 230W.
3D V-Cache and Driver Package Updates
We first heard about 2nd Gen AMD 3D V-Cache back in November 2024 when the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D launched. That was the first CPU to debut with the 2nd Gen ‘flipped’ 3D V-Cache on a CPU from AMD; we explored what that means in that CPU review. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Ryzen 9 9900X3D are continuing SKUs of this technology, a follow-up with more CPU cores using dual-CCD configurations. However, an important key fact to remember, even with this new 3D V-Cache method, is that only one CCD still receives the 3D V-Cache on the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Ryzen 9 9900X3D.
Along with this updated 2nd Gen 3D V-Cache are some new chipset driver updates and optimizations. Since the Ryzen 9 9950X3d and Ryzen 9 9900X3D are dual-CCD CPUs, they do still rely on core parking, X3D optimizations, and the Windows Game Bar. AMD has updated the AMD Provisioning Packages Service, AMD 3D V-Cache Performance Optimizer driver, and added a new driver called AMD Application Compatiblity Database. These are all in an effort to help Windows figure out what to do with itself when it comes to gaming on an X3D CPU.
The AMD Provisioning Packages Service has been updated with automatic processor detection. This allows CPU changes to occur without having to re-install Windows when swapping out processors. Previously, this was a problem; if you were to swap out a CPU with or without the X3D 3D V-Cache, or between a dual-CCD and single-CCD CPU, it wouldn’t negotiate correctly and provide the right performance. With this update, it will re-provision the packages changing CPUs, so you can safely do this without having weird performance issues.
The AMD 3D V-Cache Performance Optimizer driver gets a minor update. The driver is updated to work properly in Windows 10 with VBS enabled, so this won’t affect Windows 11 users.
There is a new component being added, the AMD Application Compatiblity Database driver. The goal of this driver is to optimize specific game titles that may have issues not fully addressed by the AMD Provisioning Packages Service by reducing the thread pool size. This is a whitelist feature; AMD will have to add titles to this database, and you’ll have to perform chipset driver updates to get the new titles added. This is basically a last-resort feature to allow AMD to brute force problematic games that won’t work correctly with X3D chips. In the current game list, which isn’t many, we have one game in our testing suite we are using, Dying Light 2.
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D
The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is similar to every other AMD AM5 platform Zen 5 CPU we have seen so far, with no deviation in the visuals, it has the typical engravings and markings. It fits into our AM5 socket well, and installation was simple. Below, you can see the HWiNFO64 and CPU-Z screenshots after installation.
Discussion (19 replies)
Join Discussion →Thanks for the review. Just the take i was looking for!
Good review, thanks!
Looks exactly like I suspected.
The multi CCD penalty in gaming is still real, so it consistently performs lower than the 9800x3d in games, but on average the penalty seems less than in the past, maybe because of slightly higher clocks.
It would be interesting to see how it performs in games with one of the CCD's disabled.
I wonder how much better a 9950x3d with one CCD disabled would perform compared to the 9800x3d...
Based on the clock speeds (5.7Ghz vs. 5.2Ghz) the upper bound should be 9.6% at stock clocks, but in reality it will likely be lower, as RAM bandwidth/latency will likely hold it back.
Lets not forget that overclocking is now possible with x3D CPU's. I'm going to presume that the CCD's in the 9950x3d are higher bins to hit the 5.7Ghz clocks, but the question to me is this:
If you are a gaming extremist and overclocker, and want the best gaming performance bar none....
Is it better to buy a 9950x3d for $699 (compared to the $479 9800x3d) and disable one CCD (to get rid of the CCD penalty)?
Or, if you are going to overclock both anyway, are you likely to be limited at about the same clocks/performance.
In other words, can you get higher by overclocking a one CCD 9950x3d than by overclocking a 9800x3d.
I've already seen many 9800x3d overclocks it 5.7Ghz, so we know it can tie the stock 9950x3d, but the question is, is that 9950x3d right at its limit, or will that higher bin allow it to go even higher?
...and if it does go even higher, (6+Ghz?) will it even matter, or will AMD's fabric/memory controller design hold it back anyway?
This would be a really cool test, especially if a few different memory configurations are thrown in for good measure. Which would be faster for games on an AMD system when really pushing the clocks like this? DDR5-6400 in a 1:1 MCLK to UCLK configuration, or DDR5-8000 in a 2:1 MCLK to UCLK configuration.
The DDR5-8000 will get slightly less top level memory bandwidth due to a slightly lower UCLK, but on the flip side, with the RAM running at 4000Mhz (8000MT/s) penalties from things like refreshes are going to be much smaller, as those don't use memory controller bandwidth, and instead operate at the speed of the RAM. Of course, timings and submitting will likely make a difference too.
I have yet to see a really good review that combines all of these complexities of overclocking X3d chips, multiple CCD's and RAM settings when pushed to the limit.
Most sites have been getting hit with back to back launches since CES.....
It's interesting. I've seen some reviewers where the 9950x3d is steadily trading blows with the 9800x3d. Yet the reviews here are showing it largely a step below for gaming. (Well more a 1/2 step really.) Not discounting it mind you.
What resolutions are being looked at in those reviews? Our numbers are at 1080p where CPU bound is more anything. 4k testing is probably going to be within margin of error...
Game Selection, Manual In-Game Run-Through vs Benchmark, Area used within game for manual run-through, length of run-through, Resolution, Game Settings, System Configuration, BIOS version used, BIPO settings used, Memory used and type and speed, Windows Updates applied, Game Bar Updated, Chipset Drivers used, GPU used, System resource minimization, VBS on or off, FPS capture method, Number of run-throughs performed, Fresh data or old data, Clean install of Windows or not, verification of results, etc... name your variable.
Well, the 9900x3d is 679€ and the 9950x3d is 789€ around here, not as bad as the GPU's, still not good though.
Picked up my 9950x3d at Microcenter this morning. Wheee... FOMO skipped! ;)
As of 1:15pm EST, my local Micro Center has 25 in stock. Newegg and Amazon have none. A friend of mine grabbed one from Newegg and said they sold out in 9 minutes. He also got one from Micro Center. He's gonna return the one he got from Newegg.
This morning the Dallas Microcenter had 380 9950x3d's. Currently.. maybe out I don't know.
I'm having a hard time deciding which one I want now. 9800x3d or 9950x3d. Considering I'll have a separate workstation, and my AM5 system will pretty much only be used for games, I'm leaning towards the 9800x3d, but the draw is strong.
I have to admit, your results seem a bit different than most others I am seeing now.
Did you guys confirm that you had proper core parking working during the game tests?
Our results make sense compared to the other CPUs used in our comparison, specifically the 9800X3D and 7950X3D, and the advantages over the 9950X that we saw. The results make sense when you compare our own data to itself. The 9800X3D has the overall advantage, and that makes sense, if core-parking wasn't working, then the results would be far far worse for the 9950X3D, and it isn't. BTW, the 9950X3D was the first CPU we installed with a fresh install of Windows and drivers, and updates, so there is literally nothing getting in the way of the PPM drivers, and other chipset driver optimizations.
Cross-comparing versus other review sites can be misleading due to the myriad of variables I described above, that I will copy below. Game selection and where you benchmark in the game makes a big difference, including if it's a game benchmark or manual run-through. we use manual run-throughs that emphasize CPU-dependency; I cannot speak for other reviews.
Please specify which games you think are questionable.
Compared to Gamers Nexus while graphical settings are different you went with Ultra and they went with Medium. Theirs is showing the 9950x3d = to the 9800x3d. Where yours is reflecting a nearly 5fps difference. That could easily be a margin of error.
F1 24, Gamers nexus running 1080p/High as opposed to Ultra again puts them at equal AS DOES yours. So that lines up.
Hardware unboxed CP 2077 shows a 3fps lead for the 9800x3d over the 9950x3d. Not bad.
(I'm not sighting these to prove or disprove, you asked I'm just doing a bit of research because I'm a nerd.)
Hardware unboxed results for The last of us Part 1 had a 2fps lead over the 9800xed, same effectively as yours.
Hardware unboxed Starfield results are effectively = with a 1 FPS lead for the stock clock 9950x3d. 1080p Ultra.
So your tests are largely the same or margin of error differences in results. It seems other review sites are leaning slightly toward the 9950x3d being the better for gaming depending largely on the game itself. :)
Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was making accusations or anything. I don't have enough information to say one way or another.
Just that most review sets out there I have seen have the two trading blows, and maybe even having the 9950x ahead by one or two percent on average. Most conclusions out there are along the lines of "wow, isn't it amazing. AMD has solved the split CCD performance penalty issue". Your review leads to a different conclusion, so I was just curious what might be different.
Overall game selection in the test suite can certainly be a possible explanation.
Yours seems to be a little bit of an outlier, and outliers are always interesting :) You can learn from them. Understanding the "why" the general conclusion is different can lead to a better understanding of the two CPU's comparative performance.