- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: PC Discussion - Gaming, Performance and Enthusiasts
Posted on 7/6/24 at 5:12 pm to UltimateHog
Posted on 7/6/24 at 5:12 pm to UltimateHog
That's... my point? 
I completely understand why they aren't doing two 3D vcache chips. But the reality is that the 7900x3D does basically nothing well, which is why they've had to sell it for cheaper than the 7800x3D. As such, I don't understand why they are insisting on producing a 9900x3D at all. They should simply produce a 9950x3D, a 9800x3D, and if they need an outlet for six core chips, a 9600x3D.
I completely understand why they aren't doing two 3D vcache chips. But the reality is that the 7900x3D does basically nothing well, which is why they've had to sell it for cheaper than the 7800x3D. As such, I don't understand why they are insisting on producing a 9900x3D at all. They should simply produce a 9950x3D, a 9800x3D, and if they need an outlet for six core chips, a 9600x3D.
1
Posted on 7/6/24 at 7:16 pm to Joshjrn
Since it's cheaper to make it that way it probably allows them that room to discount it so they're probably not losing much even at discount and allows them to get rid of inventory.
If it sells enough still and they make decent money even at discount no reason not to keep the same skus I guess. The vcache still matters as it slaughters the 7900X at gaming.
If it sells enough still and they make decent money even at discount no reason not to keep the same skus I guess. The vcache still matters as it slaughters the 7900X at gaming.
This post was edited on 7/6/24 at 7:17 pm
Posted on 7/6/24 at 7:41 pm to UltimateHog
quote:
Since it's cheaper to make it that way it probably allows them that room to discount it so they're probably not losing much even at discount and allows them to get rid of inventory.
If it sells enough still and they make decent money even at discount no reason not to keep the same skus I guess. The vcache still matters as it slaughters the 7900X at gaming.
But it's only "cheaper to make" than a hypothetical 9900x3D with both CCDs having 3D vcache.
To bring it out of hypotheticals:
- The 7800x3D is cheaper to produce than the 7900x3D.
- The 7800x3D is better at gaming than the 7900x3D.
- The 7900x is cheaper to produce than the 7900x3D.
- The 7900x is better at productivity than the 7900x3D.
Everyone knows the above, which is why no one wanted the 7900x3D at retail pricing. And at which point you have to sell the 7900x3D for less than the 7800x3D and for nearly the same price as the 7900x, it means your margin is lower on the 7900x3D than either of the other chips.
Which brings me back to my original point: why continue producing a lower margin chip? If you have extra 6 core CCDs with 3D vcache lying around this gen, just roll a 9600x3D out the door with higher margins. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see the logic.
Posted on 7/6/24 at 8:01 pm to Joshjrn
Yeah but the 7900X3D still slaughters the 7900X at gaming and that's what these chips are for. You're just getting more cores both future proofing and for better productivity over a potential 6 or 8 core.
I can see a spot for it honestly. Some people don't think 8 cores are enough regardless of usage case.
Only AMD knows what the actual performance difference is in what they call minimum to add second versus the added cost. If it's really that small then yeah makes no sense plus higher cost.
I can see a spot for it honestly. Some people don't think 8 cores are enough regardless of usage case.
Only AMD knows what the actual performance difference is in what they call minimum to add second versus the added cost. If it's really that small then yeah makes no sense plus higher cost.
This post was edited on 7/6/24 at 8:04 pm
Posted on 7/6/24 at 8:38 pm to UltimateHog
quote:
Yeah but the 7900X3D still slaughters the 7900X at gaming and that's what these chips are for. You're just getting more cores both future proofing and for better productivity over a potential 6 or 8 core.
I can see a spot for it honestly. Some people don't think 8 cores are enough regardless of usage case.
Only AMD knows what the actual performance difference is in what they call minimum to add second versus the added cost. If it's really that small then yeah makes no sense plus higher cost.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 7900x3D essentially idle the second CCD during gaming, functionally turning it into a 6 core chip for that usage case?
Posted on 7/7/24 at 12:03 am to Joshjrn
Not sure, just know its gaming performance is about as good as the others and well ahead of the non-X3D chips.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 12:51 am to UltimateHog
That's great and all, but who is using a 4090 to game at 1080p? Any and all performance ratings using a 4090 should be at 1440 and 4K. Sorry, no 4090 owner is running 1080. I don't know if the results change a bunch, but it matters.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 1:50 am to SaintEB
quote:
That's great and all, but who is using a 4090 to game at 1080p? Any and all performance ratings using a 4090 should be at 1440 and 4K. Sorry, no 4090 owner is running 1080. I don't know if the results change a bunch, but it matters.
The chart shows a 4090 at 1080p because that is the best way to show and compare CPU performance.
At higher resolutions (especially at 4k), the GPU becomes the bottleneck of performance. At 1080p, a 4090’s performance becomes strictly limited to how powerful the CPU is…. This allows benchmarkers to demonstrate relative CPU performance when controlling all other variables.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 8:35 am to UltimateHog
quote:
Not sure, just know its gaming performance is about as good as the others and well ahead of the non-X3D chips.
We’ve already established that. My question was in response to your “future proofing” statement. Because the 7900x3D doesn’t use both CCDs simultaneously for games, if future games do require more than six (or eight) cores, the 7900x3D is actually less “future proofed” than the 7800x3D with eight available cores for gaming.
Basically the X900x3D chip only makes sense for someone who cares about productivity far more than gaming, but cares about gaming a little bit, but can’t afford the X950x3D, and the gaming they do is CPU bound, but not CPU bound in a way that only having six cores is a problem.
I’m not saying those people don’t exist; I’m just saying that they make up a vanishingly small percentage of the gaming population.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 2:19 pm to Joshjrn
I think it makes more sense than a pure 6 core offering like a 7600X3D because at least then you have those extra cores for better productivity and the cost would be similar.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 2:46 pm to UltimateHog
quote:
I think it makes more sense than a pure 6 core offering like a 7600X3D because at least then you have those extra cores for better productivity and the cost would be similar.
I 100% agree with you that from a consumer perspective, price being equal, it (probably) makes more sense to buy a 7900x3D than a 7600x3D (the probably being that the 900x3D chips sometimes don't choose the right CCD to use, so it can cause some aggravation).
But from AMD's perspective, you're comparatively losing money if you can't sell the 7900x3D for more enough over the 7600x3D to cover the additional BOM and manufacturing costs of the second CCD.
And hey, maybe they can. I don't have the numbers. But based on the utterly abysmal sales of the 7900x3D at anything near retail, my assumption is that the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:09 pm to Joshjrn
Well let’s see what AMD does this time with the x3ds. They did talk about “tweaking” and “next steps” with the x3ds so the same amount of cache doesn’t sound “exciting”, but if there’s other benefits, then hey that might be interesting.
On the 7900x3d/9900x3d thing, I suspect it’s just purely money related and product stack related more so than “technically makes sense” related.
On the 7900x3d/9900x3d thing, I suspect it’s just purely money related and product stack related more so than “technically makes sense” related.
Posted on 7/7/24 at 4:36 pm to boXerrumble
quote:
Well let’s see what AMD does this time with the x3ds. They did talk about “tweaking” and “next steps” with the x3ds so the same amount of cache doesn’t sound “exciting”, but if there’s other benefits, then hey that might be interesting.
And like I said, genuinely just a mild disappointment. If I do a full rebuild at the end of this year, it will almost certainly be with a 9800x3D.
I just need to decide whether I want to do that full rebuild
ETA: And amusingly, my decision likely won't be predicated on the sexy hardware. My brain has decided that my next build needs to have a rear IO motherboard, so now I have to wait and see whether there are cases and motherboards I like enough to justify tossing my otherwise still gorgeous O11XL Silver
This post was edited on 7/7/24 at 4:53 pm
Posted on 7/12/24 at 10:37 am to UltimateHog
Future proofing doesn't exist.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 11:02 am to cwil1
Ended up grabbing the Alienware AW3225QF 4K/240. It's normally $1199, but thanks to the autistic Slickdeals commenters and their deal magic, I was able to combine a Dell sale, Alienware promo, credit card offer, and Rakuten cashback to get the monitor for a net price of $793.52. Out for delivery now
Posted on 7/12/24 at 11:43 am to Carson123987
quote:
Ended up grabbing the Alienware AW3225QF 4K/240. It's normally $1199, but thanks to the autistic Slickdeals commenters and their deal magic, I was able to combine a Dell sale, Alienware promo, credit card offer, and Rakuten cashback to get the monitor for a net price of $793.52. Out for delivery now
Nice
I am holding out for a new 45" Ultragear ultrawide in 3840x1600 OLED to replace my current Alienware ultrawide.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 12:16 pm to LSUGent
Have you looked at any reviews regarding pixel density? I would potentially have concerns if I were going to be sitting a desk distance.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 12:57 pm to Joshjrn
quote:
Have you looked at any reviews regarding pixel density? I would potentially have concerns if I were going to be sitting a desk distance
The reason why the pixel density sucks on the current models is because they’re 1440p.
If they go to 3840x1600 on the panels the pixel density should easily be around 110ppi+.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 1:08 pm to LSUGent
quote:
The reason why the pixel density sucks on the current models is because they’re 1440p. If they go to 3840x1600 on the panels the pixel density should easily be around 110ppi+.
92 and change, actually. My 34” 3440x1440 is just under 110ppi, and I’m not sure I would want to go much below that at desk distance. That’s why I wanted to flag it for you, just in case.
Posted on 7/12/24 at 2:35 pm to cwil1
Of course it does, now more than ever.
Page 1889 of 1912
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News