Conclusion
We have titled this review “Fastest 8-Core” because technically, it is true. AMD has three main 8-core (single full CCD) CPUs in its product stack: the Ryzen 7 9700X, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, and the Ryzen 7 9850X3D. Up until now, we had found that the Ryzen 7 9800X3D was it if you wanted the fastest 8-core CPU from AMD, outpacing the Ryzen 7 9700X even in productivity and multi-threading. The now new Ryzen 7 9850X3D surpasses that even more, and slightly improves in all benchmarks compared to the Ryzen 7 9800X3D.
Therefore, technically, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is now AMD’s fastest 8-core CPU, which translates to both productivity and gaming performance. It translates to multi-core and single-core performance advantages. Notably, there were very large gains compared to the 8-core Ryzen 7 9700X, even in multi-threading, and even in productivity.
The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D shows a performance gain in productivity and content creation performance advantages, compared to the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D does show a technical advantage over the Ryzen 7 9800X3D in gaming, but not a meaningful or practical advantage or difference in gaming performance specifically.
In our testing, we used a GeForce RTX 5090 video card, which would be a best-case scenario for showing a performance difference in gaming. Since there is no meaningful or practical performance difference in gaming, anything less than a GeForce RTX 5090 GPU will be completely GPU-bound, and therefore, there will be zero performance difference in gaming between the Ryzen 7 9800X3D and Ryzen 7 9850X3D.
Final Points
At the end of the day, the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D isn’t for people who already own the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, or even the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. It is, in fact, rather for people upgrading from AM4-platform systems, those waiting to make the switch from AM4 to AM5. As an upgrade from AM4 CPUs, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D will provide a substantial upgrade to gaming performance and will offer the highest-end gaming performance you can get on the AM5 platform. It’s also a good upgrade option for those on lower-end AM5 CPUs.
One thing is certain from our testing: Intel gaming performance is dominated by AMD. Whether it be non-3D V-Cache CPUs or the “X3D” CPUs, AMD wins gaming on the CPU side. If you have a high-end GPU, pairing it with an X3D CPU is a good idea. If you need high refresh rate gaming or superior e-sports, or competitive gaming, an X3D CPU is a good idea. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D is just another option in the pocket for gamers, and we do love options. You can always save a buck with the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, which is overall the better value CPU. However, if you just want to have the best and potentially fastest gaming CPU, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is that CPU.
Let’s be clear, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D isn’t the best value for dollar, that is the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, but the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is all about innovation. AMD has earned this award for innovation, bringing very fast 3D V-Cache to the market for gaming performance, and providing a gaming-oriented CPU with even faster boost clock frequencies, which also directly affects gaming performance. When all is said and done, no one else is providing gamers the best experience with CPU performance than the AMD X3D CPUs at this time, and the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is technically the fastest 8-core CPU from AMD.
Discussion (19 replies)
Join Discussion →That is an impressive 8 core single CCD CPU. Very nice...
Would be neat to see what a single CCD 12 core 3dvcache CPU would be awesome. :)
Exactly what we expected.
This is the only review showing less power use vs the 9800x3d, all other tests show the 9850x3d consuming more power.
[embedded media]
Brent can probably speak to this better, but there's a ton of variables that go into power consumption - including the game, the game resolution and game settings that are selected for testing. We don't typically do far ranging power analysis - Toms, for example, seems to be running all their standard tests through benchlab which makes it easy to pull together a ton of power graphs that correlate to the benchmarks run. Our power testing tends to focus on games.
There can also be differences in where the power is measured - benchlab (which they used on the power testing page) is an external to the system pass through that doesn't directly measure CPU usage, whereas we're pulling our power measurements from HWiNFO64. Though, really, I can't tell what method they used to measure CPU power usage in their gaming benchmarks as it's not disclosed....
As stated in the review: "
As stated in the review: "On this page, we are going to test the power draw on the CPUs, testing multi-core performance in Cinbench 2026 running for 15 minutes."
The method I used (and always have used) is a simple Cinebench Multi-Core, full-load, power test. I run Cinebench on the multi-core benchmark for at least 15 minutes, looping. I have HWiNFO up on the screen, and monitor the "Package Power" reported. I then graph the maximum or peak power number represented.
I do not claim that this is a thorough or detailed power test. It is meant to verify or validate all-core power loads and report on the quoted or rated TDP from AMD and Intel. I am aware that TDP is the thermal design power recommendation for cooling.
I do claim this is a valid measurement, and a real-world use-case scenerio that an end user would realistically encounter in real-world usage. For example, if you are editing and encoding or transcoding video in a video editor, or running 3D renders, or anything that pushes all cores to the max, this is the power you would experience in a real-world use case.
This is different than testing power while gaming. This is not showing power while gaming. I have done that in the past, on certain CPUs, but this was not that. You will note that Tom's testing was in games, which has a very different load than what I was doing. I was using productivity-based testing.
In addition, I am aware there are more accurate ways to capture power usage, but our reviews don't focus on that aspect. This method shows the 'cap' that the motherboard BIOS sets for package power. We can see that power is above the "TDP" number they provide, and we can see where it caps out with this method. I encourage you to look at other reviews for more detailed power testing and analysis.
I hope that helps.
One thing I'll also add to my statement: Testing power while gaming will be very different from all-core full-load testing because, while gaming, the CPU cores will boost to higher frequencies and voltages, since less of them are being used, and the workloads are lighter. Therefore, the peak power registered on such things as the EPS rails will be higher and peak higher than pushing all-cores to full-load at the same time. When doing that, the clock frequency and voltages are lower, and thus it peaks lower overall.
That makes sense to me. You're not investing in power measurement devices like what others are doing as that is not your intended level of testing. This is more a user experience and repeatable test than say a specialized break down. Its clear tne texhnical chops are here and are in essence providing the tools and guidance to replicate local testing by us more... savvy I dare say... readers. Letting us more easily identify anomalous behaviors.that may or may not exist. (Looks cautiously at ASROCK motherboards.)
Nice CPU for sure but I'll be waiting for one (either the 9950X3D2) or something else down the road to replace the 5800X3D in my spare rig and the main one with a 9800X3D is plenty for now.
As always, thanks for the review!
why all the hoopla on a CPU that's not worth buying?
It's only a little bit faster than the 9800X3d, but is more expensive, draws more power and generates more heat.
I don't see any scenario where getting a 9850X3D over a 9800X3d makes sense.
The folks who have to have "the best"
Someone who just now is coming into tax money to build a new box and leave their 3000 series behind?
Should depend on pricing and availability more than anything. My guess is that we'll see the 9800X3D chips start drying up leaving the 9850X3D as the only choice and/or the price point will be so close that the extra $10-20 might as well be spent.
My original theory is the 9800X3D will go away and be replaced by a lower binned 9700X3D to provide some separation, but AMD has stated the 9800X3D production will continue (of course, that may mean just for one day....)
I've seen this suggested by others. I think they have contacts too. Starting to think this is a leak. :p
If the rumors of the 9700X3D are true, that's one more kick to Arrow Lake. The 265K will lose its appeal quickly since the 9800X3D's $449 price was making it turn up in the shopping cart of some people. Now people like that could opt for the 9700X3D if they can get it at something like $389.
Using canadian pricing as an example, I don't see an imaginary CPU causing any issues for intel.
265KF is $399
9700x is $460
7800X3D is $550
14900K is $620
9800X3D is $640
9850X3D is $720
285K is $780
Intel is the value leader right now. Given the price of ram. A full $240 difference between a 265k and 9800x3d. I won't even talk about the 9850x3d because the pricing makes zero sense. $80 more Cad$ is just terrible.