AMD Ryzen 9800X3D

Instant for me but I have a beefy CPU Ryzen 9800X3D and some crazy nvme. And most important: no corporate spyware disguised as anti-virus, in this machine.

Can confirm. I have a Ryzen 9800X3D with RTX 5070, 128GB of RAM and TBs of Gen 5.0 NVMes. Not only it is screamingly fast (the fastest on earth for some workloads), but I can upgrade it easily. And is dead silent too. The best thing is it runs native Linux and it just works.

Depends wildly on what you're doing. I'm a gamer, often playing games that need a BEEFY CPU, like MS Flight Simulator. My upgrade from an i9-9900K to a Ryzen 9800X3D was noticeable.

I rocked my Haswell i5 until last year when I built a brand new machine around the 9800x3d. Along the way I upgraded it from 8gb of ram to 32gb, got a gen 1 pcie3 NVME, and went through successive hand-me-down GPUs starting from a GeForce 770 to the RTX 2070 it has now. In fact my wife is still rocking that machine - although her gaming needs are much less equipment intense than mine. After a small refurb I gave it (new case, new air cooler, new PSU) - I expect it to last another 5 years for her.

Yeah to be clear I’d never say it’s “easy” and ready for mass adoption. But I also had 0 issues getting bazzite going on my PC I built with an AMD 9800x3d/9070 working out the gate. I played expedition 33 the day I finished building! Kind of remarkable given the GPU was only a month or two old. What’s striking was that I never had to open a terminal window or install a single driver. Some of the distros are near-turnkey at this point.

Standard Ryzen chips also support ECC (minus the monolithic G models). I run 2x48GB ECC with my 9800x3d.

It's probably very hardware dependent now, just like it was back then. My calculator opens to interactive in much less than 1 second, but I've got a 9800x3d and fast memory and nvme drive. The other guy saying his start menu takes 8 seconds to open probably has a pretty shit computer. I definitely got the stupid hourglass in win 95 when trying to open anything, but my understanding of computers at the time was that black ones were faster than beige ones, so my computer was probably shit. I tried to look up calculator win 95 vids on YouTube, there are a couple. One gets an hourglass - but less than a second, one is instant, one shows the calculator crashing lol. During this I also found out that Microsoft Calculator is open source: https://github.com/microsoft/calculator

Wrong. See benchmarks. Many games and single-threaded workloads run faster on 9800X3D. There are various reasons for this, major one being that the 9800X3D has more L3 cache per thread than the 9950X3D. And also wrong that a 9950X3D is 2x 9800X3D combined. A quick glance would tell you that, since 9950X3D has 128MB of L3 cache shared between more threads while 9800X3D has 96mb for half the threads, so more L3 per thread. And most of the times, even when a 9800X3D loses to 9950X3D in games, it's usually within 1-4% margin for most games. It's a monster for games and some workloads. It's funny that people who blindly buy 9950X3D for gaming+office workloads without checking benchmarks often end up with similar or slower performance. Much smarter to use the price difference on other hardware to speedup other things such as faster NVMEs, efficient silent cooling, faster GPUs, etc.

It’s hard to take you seriously if you’re going to claim equivalent AMD processors cost double or more. Your example of tossing your motherboard away is not a very good one here. That was your choice to act illogically. My AMD AM4 motherboard started with a Ryzen 1600, 3600, and now runs a 5600X3D. Basically I’ve had this same motherboard for something like 6 or 7 years and the performance difference between a Ryzen 1600 and 5600X3D is completely wild. I’ve had no need to buy a new board for the better part of a decade. If you’re buying a new board with every processor purchase that’s a huge cost difference. When I say that generic benchmarks are bad I mean that cpu benchmarks like the one you are just now linking are bad. You need more practical benchmarks like in-game FPS, how long a turn takes in Stellaris, how long it takes to encode a video or open an ZIP file, etc. That is where the X3D chips play in as well. You might be able to buy an Intel chip with more cores and better productivity performance, but if you’re eyeing gaming performance like I imagine most desktop DIY builders are, you’d rather get better gaming oriented performance and sacrifice some productivity performance. If you are gaming and buy a 9800X3D, Intel literally doesn’t not make anything faster at any price. You can offer Intel $5,000 and they won’t have anything to sell you that goes faster at playing games. At lower price points, AMD still ends up making a lot of sense for their long-supported socke…

Not really. A laptop CPU defeats the purpose. Get a 9800X3D for gaming will be waaaay faster or Threadripper for productivity or the 9950X3D chips with 16 cores/32 threads. Why this laptop crap when you can get a nice PC case. Then again he thinks the Fractal North was "bulky"? What?

Well there's much more to memory performance than bandwidth. Generally applications are relatively cache friendly, thus the X3D helps a fair bit, especially with more intensive games (ones that barely hit 60 fps, not the silly game benchmarks that hit 500 fps). Generally CPUs have relatively small reorder windows, so a cache miss hurts bad, 80ns latency @ 5 GHz is 400 clock cycles, and something north of 1600 instructions that could have been executed. If one in 20 operations is a cache miss that's a serious impediment to getting any decent fraction of peak performance. The pain of those cache misses is part of why the X3D does so well, even a few less cache misses can increase performance a fair bit. With 8c/16 threads having only 2 (DDR4) or 4 (DDR5) cache misses pending with a 128 bit wide system means that in any given 80-100ns window only 2 or 4 cores can continue resume after a cache miss. DDR-6000 vs DDR-7800 doesn't change that much, you still wait the 80-100ns, you just get the cache line in 8 (16 for ddr5) cycles @ 7800MT/sec instead of 8 (16 for DDR5) cycles @ 6000MT/sec. So the faster DDR5 means more bandwidth (good for GPUs), but not more cache transactions in flight (good for CPUs). With better memory systems (like the Apple m3 max) you could have 32 cache misses per 80-100ns. I believe about half of those are reserved for the GPU, but even 16 would mean that all of the 9800X3Ds 16 threads could resolve a cache miss per 80-100ns instead of just 2 or 4. Tha…