WEBVTT

00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.560
on February 27 2023 AMD's ryzen 9

00:00:04.400 --> 00:00:10.139
7950x3d was formally declared to be the

00:00:07.560 --> 00:00:16.440
best CPU at every price point in the desktop Market at least by everyone else

00:00:13.340 --> 00:00:18.960
normally Gamers can count on us to

00:00:16.440 --> 00:00:24.300
confirm or refute manufacturer's claims allowing them to get the most for their

00:00:20.460 --> 00:00:28.080
money but we said nothing

00:00:24.300 --> 00:00:31.619
well about that first our testing was

00:00:28.080 --> 00:00:33.780
plagued with so many crashes

00:00:31.619 --> 00:00:38.940
that our original script for this video had us speculating whether AMD had

00:00:35.579 --> 00:00:40.680
validated this chip at all and once we

00:00:38.940 --> 00:00:45.120
worked that out we're going to touch on that later our performance numbers were

00:00:43.260 --> 00:00:50.280
so far off what others were reporting that we went back and we retested

00:00:47.340 --> 00:00:55.379
everything and what we found was that the deeper we dug the more complex the

00:00:52.920 --> 00:00:59.879
story around this chip became fastest on the planet

00:00:56.280 --> 00:01:01.920
yes but maybe only on roads that most

00:00:59.879 --> 00:01:06.960
people wouldn't drive it on fastest segue on the planet no but you're

00:01:04.920 --> 00:01:12.119
watching it anyway to learn about our sponsor any desk experience seamless and

00:01:09.780 --> 00:01:15.840
top-notch remote access with any desk you can effortlessly connect to any

00:01:14.280 --> 00:01:20.159
device regardless of the operating system and enjoy low latency whether you

00:01:18.720 --> 00:01:24.240
need remote support or you're working from home any desk has you covered don't

00:01:22.259 --> 00:01:29.299
miss out check out any desk at the link below here are the original graphs that

00:01:26.759 --> 00:01:34.740
we were going to publish for our ryzen 7950x3d review you can pause if you want

00:01:31.920 --> 00:01:41.159
to look closely but what matters is that at 1080p while we did see performance

00:01:37.860 --> 00:01:43.860
improvements over the regular 7950x no

00:01:41.159 --> 00:01:48.720
matter how many times we tested our data never quite lined up with AMD's own and

00:01:46.920 --> 00:01:54.720
if that wasn't strange enough look at these Modern Warfare 2 results lower

00:01:51.299 --> 00:01:57.299
than the 7950x then we turn up the

00:01:54.720 --> 00:02:02.759
resolution and I mean how is that even possible normally the performance

00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:08.099
differences between CPUs should shrink as we move to 1440p or especially 4K

00:02:06.479 --> 00:02:14.120
because we're shifting more of the demand over to the GPU well not here

00:02:11.540 --> 00:02:20.280
instead our 7950x3d managed worse performance than

00:02:17.640 --> 00:02:28.680
its X denoted cousin in multiple games at 1440p we retested it and retested it

00:02:24.720 --> 00:02:30.480
a lot same thing and this flies in the

00:02:28.680 --> 00:02:35.220
face of the conventional wisdom that CPUs should be tested at a lower

00:02:33.360 --> 00:02:39.660
resolution to better reveal their relative strength I mean it's basically

00:02:37.319 --> 00:02:45.420
benchmarking gospel that if it's better for gaming at 1080p it should be better

00:02:42.060 --> 00:02:47.519
or at the worst equal for gaming at any

00:02:45.420 --> 00:02:52.260
other resolution I mean outside of gaming we expected performance to be

00:02:49.560 --> 00:02:58.440
underwhelming due to the 7950x3d's lower clock speeds and TDP the last gen ryzen

00:02:55.500 --> 00:03:03.060
7 5800 X 3D behaved much the same way because 3D V cache just doesn't help

00:03:00.840 --> 00:03:07.680
that much with most productivity tasks but it was supposed to make up for this

00:03:05.700 --> 00:03:12.720
with its outstanding gaming performance something we simply weren't seeing the

00:03:10.800 --> 00:03:18.420
bottom line is that the review we never published was scathing performance was

00:03:15.900 --> 00:03:22.200
not in line with AMD's claims especially when we increased the resolution and

00:03:20.400 --> 00:03:26.879
from what we'd heard and what we're now seeing Supply was expected to be

00:03:24.239 --> 00:03:30.780
basically non-existent this combined with our experience with the early

00:03:28.140 --> 00:03:36.000
drivers our BIOS issues and the crashes we saw all pointed to a rushed possibly

00:03:33.540 --> 00:03:40.440
even paper launch AMD had every opportunity to contest our findings but

00:03:38.459 --> 00:03:45.060
when we showed them our results they basically went yeah seems okay so with

00:03:42.780 --> 00:03:49.260
nothing else to go on if we had launched that review we would have been the only

00:03:47.040 --> 00:03:52.860
outlet with a broadly negative take on this chip to their credit AMD did

00:03:51.180 --> 00:03:57.060
eventually acknowledge that our chip was probably defective saving us that

00:03:54.720 --> 00:04:01.440
embarrassment and giving us us the time to get the story right now we had some

00:03:59.400 --> 00:04:06.299
hints that our review sample was more yellow than golden with the integrated

00:04:04.200 --> 00:04:11.519
GPU enabled Windows would immediately crash once our GeForce gpus drivers

00:04:08.519 --> 00:04:13.200
loaded and across four different Expo

00:04:11.519 --> 00:04:17.459
certified memory kits we experienced constant crashes and memory intensive

00:04:15.000 --> 00:04:22.620
applications like blender and 7-Zip both of these behaviors were absent with

00:04:19.440 --> 00:04:24.660
regular non-x3d chips and this pattern

00:04:22.620 --> 00:04:31.320
was observed with multiple motherboards meaning our x3d CPU was the only common

00:04:28.139 --> 00:04:33.540
denominator so you might think why is

00:04:31.320 --> 00:04:37.199
that only a hint at a bad chip well the thing is these kinds of teething panes

00:04:35.759 --> 00:04:41.639
are a lot more common than you'd probably think on brand new platforms if

00:04:39.600 --> 00:04:46.139
you recall we had very similar stability issues with first gen ryzen and with

00:04:44.040 --> 00:04:49.620
12th gen core especially at higher memory speeds usually though they end up

00:04:48.000 --> 00:04:54.120
being footnotes in the review process because everything is pre-release and we

00:04:52.320 --> 00:04:57.660
often see these things resolved by the time they're actually generally

00:04:55.500 --> 00:05:01.860
available but but they're important here because all of this troubleshooting and

00:05:00.180 --> 00:05:06.960
Reporting all of our findings to AMD including the anomalous performance data

00:05:03.900 --> 00:05:10.320
ate up two days out of before that we

00:05:06.960 --> 00:05:12.600
had for testing wait only four days to

00:05:10.320 --> 00:05:16.680
evaluate this thing ah I'm glad you noticed that the unusually crunched

00:05:14.699 --> 00:05:21.360
review window was another reason for us to believe hey maybe our chip is

00:05:19.320 --> 00:05:25.620
perfectly normal and AMD is just trying to limit our time with it so that we

00:05:22.919 --> 00:05:31.199
don't dig too deep I know that's a pretty cynical take but the truth is we

00:05:28.139 --> 00:05:32.759
have seen the strategy before and aside

00:05:31.199 --> 00:05:37.020
from the crashing our performance numbers were at least close enough to

00:05:34.620 --> 00:05:42.360
AMD's expectations that even they initially told us yep everything looks

00:05:39.600 --> 00:05:47.940
fine but here's the thing silicon is notoriously fickle especially with these

00:05:44.699 --> 00:05:50.400
bleeding edge process nodes and good or

00:05:47.940 --> 00:05:54.600
bad might not be as binary as you might think for any given wafer fresh off the

00:05:53.160 --> 00:05:59.880
production line there are going to be multiple unusable eyes it's just the way

00:05:57.780 --> 00:06:04.800
it is as exact as the manufacturing process is it is truly ridiculous how

00:06:02.699 --> 00:06:08.820
small each transistor is these days smaller than even a virus and when

00:06:07.320 --> 00:06:13.560
you're working at that level you're at the mercy of literal quantum physics

00:06:11.520 --> 00:06:16.919
get the gate pitch off by a fraction of an animator and maybe that transistor

00:06:15.300 --> 00:06:20.460
doesn't flip as quickly as its neighbors and you can't ramp up clock speed or

00:06:19.020 --> 00:06:25.020
maybe some of them are bridged together and entirely non-functional unlike our

00:06:22.979 --> 00:06:29.340
Tech accessory holder from ltdstore.com it's got lots of compartments and it's

00:06:27.539 --> 00:06:34.319
very functional now these kinds of defects are normal and these flawed

00:06:32.100 --> 00:06:40.020
lower performing processor dies are often used in lower end products which

00:06:36.840 --> 00:06:42.840
is fine except that from time to time a

00:06:40.020 --> 00:06:47.940
chip can be so marginal that it barely passes those usual quality control

00:06:44.819 --> 00:06:50.100
checks and then ends up falling short in

00:06:47.940 --> 00:06:53.880
the field this is what we call losing the Silicon Lottery winning the Silicon

00:06:52.080 --> 00:06:58.440
Lottery on the other hand isn't simply getting a working chip it's having an

00:06:56.340 --> 00:07:02.400
exceptional one one whose production had very few defects giving it extra

00:07:00.539 --> 00:07:06.600
Headroom compared to the average for a given design in other words a good

00:07:04.680 --> 00:07:09.960
overclocker this is the part where I tell you that once we got our

00:07:08.039 --> 00:07:14.880
replacement chip all of our problems disappeared or at least would be if I

00:07:12.780 --> 00:07:19.319
were a big liar the stability problems are gone but the performance problems

00:07:17.520 --> 00:07:23.419
the ones that led to our negative conclusion in the first place are

00:07:21.419 --> 00:07:27.599
actually no better these new numbers then that I'm showing

00:07:25.800 --> 00:07:31.919
you now are the culmination of what is now weeks of testing and troubleshooting

00:07:29.940 --> 00:07:37.919
and they leave us with some really tough questions like are AMD's yields bad are

00:07:35.819 --> 00:07:42.240
we so unlucky as to get two poor performers in a row or is our testing

00:07:40.020 --> 00:07:46.800
methodology out of whack somehow when we ran our original tests we made sure to

00:07:44.699 --> 00:07:50.460
use AMD's recommended settings with fresh Windows installs and most

00:07:48.599 --> 00:07:54.539
importantly fresh chipset driver installs that last part is much more

00:07:53.039 --> 00:07:59.580
important than usual because the pre-release chipset driver only installs

00:07:57.240 --> 00:08:05.039
the new performance Optimizer and the awkwardly named PPM provisioning file

00:08:01.919 --> 00:08:09.180
driver when it detects a dual die x3d

00:08:05.039 --> 00:08:11.160
processor like the 7950x3d or 7900 x3d

00:08:09.180 --> 00:08:15.060
the release driver might behave the same way by the way so if you buy one of

00:08:13.199 --> 00:08:18.780
these as an upgrade double check to be sure we're gonna have purchase links

00:08:16.319 --> 00:08:22.800
down below these two tools are essential for getting the best performance out of

00:08:20.400 --> 00:08:28.379
these chips because only one of its two dies has 3D V cache and runs at a lower

00:08:25.800 --> 00:08:32.099
clock speed while the other is a standard Cash die that's optimized for

00:08:30.419 --> 00:08:36.539
higher clock speeds performance Optimizer then automatically promotes

00:08:34.260 --> 00:08:41.120
the appropriate dies course as the preferred cores in Windows scheduler

00:08:38.880 --> 00:08:46.920
while the PPM provisioning file driver Parks or puts to sleep the cores on the

00:08:44.399 --> 00:08:51.540
unused Die games will then assuming everything's working properly typically

00:08:48.839 --> 00:08:55.560
gets sent to the 3D V cache die for best performance and as far as we can tell

00:08:53.760 --> 00:08:59.880
this is down to a simple integration with Windows game mode and Xbox game bar

00:08:58.200 --> 00:09:03.060
rather than any special sauce that's been cooked Up by Andy themselves an

00:09:01.800 --> 00:09:07.019
important thing to note though the driver does not disable the other die

00:09:05.220 --> 00:09:11.220
entirely and if enough threads are needed it will wake them up even if

00:09:09.360 --> 00:09:16.800
you're in game so it's worth noting that a 7900x 3D would wake up more often

00:09:14.640 --> 00:09:21.000
since each die has only six cores instead of eight unsurprisingly then if

00:09:19.500 --> 00:09:25.680
these features aren't working properly the Windows scheduler is just flying

00:09:23.220 --> 00:09:30.240
blind unaware of the differences between the two processor dies and it'll end up

00:09:28.080 --> 00:09:34.380
ranking the best course based on the fastest available across the whole CPU

00:09:32.580 --> 00:09:39.180
something it can't rightly determine this can lead to situations where an app

00:09:36.600 --> 00:09:43.560
might run across multiple dies at once despite only needing one die's worth of

00:09:41.519 --> 00:09:47.100
CPU threads which can incur latency penalty since the Dives will have to

00:09:45.000 --> 00:09:50.519
transfer data from cash to cash rather than accessing it directly now we

00:09:48.839 --> 00:09:56.100
confirmed that ours is definitely working correctly by comparing our data

00:09:52.920 --> 00:09:58.380
running stock versus having only one die

00:09:56.100 --> 00:10:02.940
manually enabled in the BIOS so you can see here that in games our performance

00:10:00.779 --> 00:10:08.459
numbers are roughly the same between stock and forcing the V Cash die while

00:10:05.880 --> 00:10:12.899
forcing the frequency die often ran much slower all of which sounds totally

00:10:10.740 --> 00:10:17.940
normal and fine right with the right drivers x3d performs better for gaming

00:10:15.779 --> 00:10:23.519
what's the problem the problem is that it doesn't look at f122 at 4K with Ray

00:10:21.060 --> 00:10:29.120
tracing enabled this is a really heavy GPU load so our CPU should easily be

00:10:26.339 --> 00:10:35.760
able to hit Max boost but not the 7950x3d I mean we expect it to run at a

00:10:32.519 --> 00:10:39.060
lower clock speed than the 7950x but we

00:10:35.760 --> 00:10:41.220
didn't expect is this inconsistency I

00:10:39.060 --> 00:10:48.660
mean with adequate cooling both the 3900k and the 7950x are Rock Solid at

00:10:45.660 --> 00:10:51.120
5.5 gigahertz but the x3d it's all over

00:10:48.660 --> 00:10:56.579
the place that ended up leading to lower GPU power and therefore lower GPU

00:10:54.480 --> 00:11:03.120
performance and when we looked at the CPU package power we can see why the

00:11:00.200 --> 00:11:09.180
7950x3d in this gaming load is drawing less than half of its rated 120 watt TDP

00:11:06.959 --> 00:11:13.820
such low power draws certainly impressive but on a chip that advertises

00:11:11.540 --> 00:11:18.480
pinnacle-tier raw gaming performance it's not a behavior that we we want to

00:11:16.500 --> 00:11:23.399
see and our replacement chip behaved like this across three motherboards from

00:11:21.180 --> 00:11:27.779
three different vendors with multiple Expo certified RAM kits with fresh

00:11:25.500 --> 00:11:33.240
Windows installs and even with different chipset drivers so there were two things

00:11:30.480 --> 00:11:38.040
wrong with AMD's review kit to us the defective chip and the bad product

00:11:35.640 --> 00:11:44.760
positioning I mean if you like to drag race your 700 CPU at 1080p High hits the

00:11:42.420 --> 00:11:50.760
bee's knees but I think it's fair to say that most people with this kind of money

00:11:46.740 --> 00:11:52.320
are running 1440p monitors at least and

00:11:50.760 --> 00:11:56.640
probably don't mind turning on some in-game eye candy and for them our data

00:11:54.779 --> 00:12:01.260
simply doesn't support the conclusion that the ryzen 9 7950x3d is

00:11:59.000 --> 00:12:07.200
unquestionably the gaming performance Monarch that isn't to say it's a bad

00:12:03.600 --> 00:12:09.000
chip AMD in our mind just made the wrong

00:12:07.200 --> 00:12:14.279
call by calling out their less impressive and less defensible claims of

00:12:11.880 --> 00:12:17.279
performance leadership and instead we feel they should have put far more

00:12:15.660 --> 00:12:24.360
services on their true strength performance per watt I mean if we step

00:12:20.399 --> 00:12:26.760
back you are getting core I9 3900k ish

00:12:24.360 --> 00:12:31.700
performance for a substantial reduction in power consumption even in a GPU bound

00:12:29.459 --> 00:12:38.459
scenario like this one that's astounding mind-boggling even under a full Prime 95

00:12:34.800 --> 00:12:42.899
load the 13900k consistently pulls over

00:12:38.459 --> 00:12:45.600
320 Watts with the 7950x3d at less than

00:12:42.899 --> 00:12:49.980
half of that AMD should be shouting this from the rooftops but instead they were

00:12:48.060 --> 00:12:53.820
so focused on the gaming performance crowd that we followed them down that

00:12:51.899 --> 00:12:58.440
rabbit hole expecting to find the same thing but as it turns out the Dual die

00:12:56.040 --> 00:13:03.660
x3d chips work differently from most other CPUs and it looks like the cores

00:13:01.079 --> 00:13:08.160
will aggressively try to clock down or even sleep whenever possible when

00:13:05.760 --> 00:13:12.660
they're not fully loaded and that would explain what we observed with our GPU

00:13:10.139 --> 00:13:18.000
bound scenario and with our 1440p results it would also explain where some

00:13:14.820 --> 00:13:19.920
of that lost TDP went our best guess

00:13:18.000 --> 00:13:23.399
here is that AMD is airing on the side of caution when it comes to their x3d

00:13:21.779 --> 00:13:28.260
chips in order to keep them from redlining thanks to the 3D V cache being

00:13:25.740 --> 00:13:32.399
much more sensitive to voltage and to heat than a typical ryzen die this

00:13:30.540 --> 00:13:36.300
behavior of course means that there is some performance being left on the table

00:13:34.019 --> 00:13:41.040
and we can actually see some of that being clawed back with ryzen Master's

00:13:38.760 --> 00:13:45.000
curve tuner function while it isn't the fully unlocked overclocking that we were

00:13:42.779 --> 00:13:49.139
promised for x3d going forward it does do a decent job of undervolting the chip

00:13:47.339 --> 00:13:52.860
allowing it to push higher frequencies more often the performance difference

00:13:50.820 --> 00:13:56.339
isn't night and day but you are more likely to see that performance

00:13:54.180 --> 00:14:00.240
leadership that AMD is after assuming that your sample is more golden than

00:13:57.600 --> 00:14:05.279
yellow if you enable this function and in our GPU bound F1 run at 4K we can see

00:14:03.480 --> 00:14:10.019
that where the stock performance is all over the place it is much flatter with

00:14:07.740 --> 00:14:13.860
curved tuner enabled while also drawing even less power than it did before it's

00:14:11.940 --> 00:14:18.240
actually scary how efficient this chip is its performance characteristics like

00:14:15.720 --> 00:14:23.820
these which we first noticed to a lesser degree with the 65 watt non-x ryzen 7000

00:14:21.420 --> 00:14:27.899
CPUs that pushed us to start testing at multiple resolutions and that's the

00:14:26.339 --> 00:14:31.800
reason why we will continue to do so going forward it's also why we insist on

00:14:30.300 --> 00:14:36.959
re-running our tests with the latest drivers latest BIOS revisions and the

00:14:34.560 --> 00:14:40.860
same OS date as of the date that we start testing a new product we've been

00:14:38.820 --> 00:14:44.699
doing that for years now and while it means we need to rush more to make these

00:14:42.720 --> 00:14:49.320
deadlines because we are retesting every time we're committed to giving you guys

00:14:46.440 --> 00:14:54.120
a lesser quantity maybe of truly up-to-date data versus a greater amount

00:14:51.600 --> 00:14:57.660
of outdated data the answer to the question then of whether the Dual die

00:14:55.800 --> 00:15:03.600
x3d chips are worth the extra hundred dollars two weeks and 2300 words later

00:14:59.839 --> 00:15:05.339
is probably not if you need all of the

00:15:03.600 --> 00:15:09.000
strengths it brings to the table good gaming performance double-digit core

00:15:07.019 --> 00:15:15.360
counts and industry-leading power efficiency that's the big one then maybe

00:15:12.899 --> 00:15:19.019
but it comes at the cost of worse productivity performance relying on

00:15:17.220 --> 00:15:23.940
chipset drivers to manage the dissimilar dies and the inability to overclock in

00:15:21.779 --> 00:15:28.740
the traditional sense so I suspect that most people would be better off with the

00:15:25.920 --> 00:15:34.800
regular or X variants of the 7950 and 7900 or better off waiting for the 7800

00:15:32.279 --> 00:15:38.279
X 3D but should be able to clock Higher by putting more of its TDP towards its

00:15:37.079 --> 00:15:42.180
single die we're going to have a full review of that chip when it launches but

00:15:40.079 --> 00:15:47.579
for now we have this message from our sponsor backblaze World backup day is

00:15:45.180 --> 00:15:51.540
March 31st and backlays is here to help you back up your data with their easy to

00:15:49.380 --> 00:15:55.860
use Cloud solution that starts at just seven dollars a month they make it

00:15:54.060 --> 00:15:59.760
simple by allowing you to back up almost anything from your Mac or PC and access

00:15:58.079 --> 00:16:04.019
it anywhere in the world with their web and mobile apps backblaze also lets you

00:16:01.860 --> 00:16:07.440
restore your data by mail they will ship a hard drive with your data right to

00:16:05.579 --> 00:16:10.920
your door and after you're done you can return the hard drive for a refund and

00:16:09.540 --> 00:16:15.240
if you're worried about accidentally deleting files you can increase your

00:16:12.660 --> 00:16:20.760
data retention history to a year for an extra two dollars a month two dollars a

00:16:18.000 --> 00:16:24.660
month with over 55 billion files restored and two exabytes of data under

00:16:22.920 --> 00:16:28.320
their management backblaze has got you covered so don't be that person who

00:16:26.699 --> 00:16:33.180
forgets to back up their important files sign up and get a 15-day free trial with

00:16:31.380 --> 00:16:38.040
no credit card required today at backblaze.com LTT thanks for watching

00:16:36.120 --> 00:16:43.019
guys this was a very different format from our usual CPU reviews so maybe go

00:16:40.380 --> 00:16:46.920
check out our review of the ryzen 70065 watt chips for a little bit more about

00:16:45.060 --> 00:16:49.699
the other options available to you on socket am5