AMD has lifted the review embargo for the Ryzen 7 9800X3D CPU and from the looks of it, this is the best gaming CPU you can get. The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is faster than both the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D and the Intel Core 9 Ultra 285K. So, below, you can find some third-party benchmarks for it.
According to PCGamesHardware, the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is significantly faster than Intel’s latest offer in Starfield, Baldur’s Gate 3 and Ghost of Tsushima. However, there are also a couple of games in which Intel manages to top the AMD CPU by a couple of frames. Still, a win is a win, right?
WCCFTech states that AMD’s latest CPU is faster in games like Battlefield 5, Cyberpunk 2077 and Doom Eternal.
Things get even better for the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D. TechPowerUp claims that the CPU is 18% faster than the Intel Core 9 Ultra 285K. It’s also 8% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D.
Finally, HardwareUnboxed claims that the AMD Ryzen 7 9800Χ3D is 28% faster than the Intel Core i9 14900K in the games they benchmarked. The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is also 11% and 35% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 7800Χ3D and the Intel Core 9 Ultra 285K, respectively.
All in all, this appears to be a huge win for AMD. Right now, the AMD Ryzen 7 9800Χ3D is THE best gaming CPU you can buy. If you already own a high-end CPU, there is no point in upgrading to it. But if you’re building a new PC system, this is the CPU I’d recommend!
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
I look forward to this beast unleashing its full potential when paired with the RTX 5090!
BTW John, will you be upgrading to this CPU, or will you wait for the 9950X3D?
Nyah, there is no point at all in replacing our 7950X3D right now. Once we start getting CPU bottlenecks, we’ll consider upgrading.
I think you should upgrade John. 5090 will be a real thunder & I don't think 7800X3D will be up there easing CPU bottlenecks that much.
In more realistic game scenarios it will be fine.
You are getting a 5090?
lol no, my next GPU will be AMD since my current one is nvidia. I'll get the RTX 6080 or 6090 after that.
8 cores should never sell above 250$ in 2024-2025 this is a complete rip off at 479$
at this price points i don't really care if the 8 core can run a game at 300 fps while the 24 core CPU can run it at 200fps (mind you they all using a dead resolution 1080p)
i'd rather get the 24 cores CPU
Gaming benchmarks using 1080p should stop being a thing, because nobody that can afford expensive hardware are playing at these resolutions
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ca96ec053ee98ba6639e930fb8450b0eb24cd4a4cfd319c7e34a6cee83a928e8.jpg
1080p benchmarks are meant to show raw CPU power under fully CPU-bound scenarios, not to represent realistic use cases.
It is sad that there are still people as clueless as you that cant comprehend why 1080p is used for CPU benchmarks.
Well, actually they do play at 1080p res. You know why?? There is a metric in video games called FPS. Once you are used to very high FPS, you will buy just a super expensive hardware to game at max settings to get maximum possible FPS. 4K res is absolutely brilliant for details & clarity. But high refresh rate FHD monitors are a league of their own.
Well, actually they do play at 1080p res. You know why?? There is a metric in video games called FPS. Once you are used to very high FPS, you will buy just a super expensive hardware to game at max settings to get maximum possible FPS. 4K res is absolutely brilliant for details & clarity. But high refresh rate FHD monitors are a league of their own.
1080p is still the most common screen resolution for gamers. Especially those playing competitive shooters. That's not why they test it though, as others here have stated, it's due to the fact that it stresses the GPU less and the FPS can go higher, which puts more stress on the CPU and makes it more obvious which CPU is better for gaming.
so the replies are either hinting i'm an intel shill or defending 1080p testing
nobody cares that AMD after 7 years of their Ryzen launch they are still selling 8 cores CPUs for a premium
That's because AMD's 8-core CPU's are actually good. Intel had to pad out the numbers with low powered "efficiency cores" to do well in productivity scores. If you pay attention to the "performance core" counts, they're not actually more than AMD has. Games are processed in the P-cores, not the E-cores (at least not the render threads), which is how an 8-core AMD CPU can be compared to a 24-core Intel CPU and still hold up in gaming benchmarks. Obviously Intel's extra cores are good in productivity tasks, bust most people aren't doing software video encoding.
More cores is not automatically better. There's a lot more nuance to it than that.
AMD X3D !!!!
The Return of The king !
https://media2.giphy.com/media/7eK21KznVSEeY/giphy-downsized-small.mp4
https://media2.giphy.com/media/igp6NwuS3Cet2/giphy-downsized-small.mp4
How many FX6300 duct taped together?
As much as Pat Gelsinger looks clueless & hopeless.
Salt.
Truly RIP Intel!
Intel has to go back to redesigning a completely new design architecture, like what Ryzen did ~8 years ago.
Absolutely. This is a masterpiece from AMD & Intel has simply nothing to counter it. Their BIG.Little architecture was good but Core Ultra CPUs are just simply stripped off hardware. NO AVX512, NO HT, faulty thread scheduler. This is all bad and frosty.
There were too many security issues in Hyperthreading. It needed to go. Don't mourn its loss.
Problems that could have been avoided if it was designed properly, ie security baked in. But with that amount of silicon needed to do it properly vs the lower gains due to the deeper/wider line i bet its more efficient to just add more physical cores than widen/deepen the present ones.
Intel has had security issues in their tech to prevent security issues. It's almost like they've added too many gimmicks to their CPU's over the years, and they need to start scaling back on the attack vectors by gutting all of the bloat out of their chips.
Isn't that what the new Arrow Lake architecture was supposed to be? A new tile based design where the CPU die is comprised of multiple tiles soldiered together, similar in concept to AMD's chiplet design but theoretically with lower latencies?
It took AMD a few generations to get their chiplet design right, so something tells me that it may end up being the same for Intel. Especially since Intel is still having trouble getting their new fabrication nodes online to compete with TSMC.
Maybe for gaming but it's still the king of the corporate desktop which is where all the money is at right now. The 285 is a very good productivity CPU although AMD still leads in efficiency but the gap has closed significantly
CPU overall market share
Intel – 62%
AMD 35%
Actually AMD has lost a little market share since the 2021 peak of 39%
Mind you I'm not the least bit biased towards Intel, I haven't had an Intel desktop CPU since the late 90's and haven't had a laptop with an Intel CPU for about 10 years and I once owned AMD stock.
Datacenter is more money than you think and Amd just overtook intel there from what i saw, both companies have their strong suits. Hope competition will heat up in the desk space or 10780x3d or 11780x3d or whatever they will be called will be lackluster when innovation goes into milking due to lack of competition