Review : AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D, the new king of gaming?

After reviewing the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D a few weeks ago, we were lucky enough to receive a copy of the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. If you’re a regular visitor to our site and have read our article dedicated to the Ryzen 9 7950X3D, you’ll know that we’ve been eagerly awaiting the availability of the Ryzen 7 7800X3D model, which carries a lot of hope for gaming performance at a lower price than its two big brothers. So, did we have the flair to put a lot of hope in this processor?
The answer in our article!

Thank you to AMD to have made available to us a copy of this Ryzen 7 7800X3D.

[nextpage title=”A little reminder:”]

While we thought we were getting only one CPU, we finally got three processors launched in February with the Ryzen 9 7950X3D and 7900X3D as well as the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. If the first two were available on February 28, we had to wait until today to see the 7800X3D. To put it simply, this series of processors 7000X3D benefits from a “3D V-Cache” which is materialized by the addition of 64 MB of L3 cache.

These processors are mainly intended for gaming and competitive games such as e-sport in 1080p and 1440p. The idea is to ensure maximum FPS or at least maximum FPS consistently. AMD aims to offer the best performance, especially against the i9-13900KS.

The series consists of three CPUs: the 8-core/16-thread Ryzen 7 7800X3D , the 12-core/24-thread Ryzen 9 7900X3D and the 16-core/32-thread Ryzen 9 7950X3D. The 7800X3D comes with a base frequency of 4.2 GHz as well as a boost to 5.00 GHz. The 7900X3D has a base frequency of 4.40 GHz and a Boost up to 5.60 GHz. Finally, the top of the range represented by the 7950X3D operates at 4.20 GHz base and a Boost that can flirt with 5.70 GHz.

They come in a box quite similar to the Ryzen 7000X and do not have cooling solutions like the non-X Ryzen 7000. This is quite logical since it will be necessary to opt for an AIO type cooling as advised by AMD.

On the price side, if we base ourselves on the prices in dollars, the Ryzen 9 7950X3D would be sold at the same price as the 7950X, the Ryzen 9 7900X3D would be sold 50$ more expensive than the 7900X and finally, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D would be available at 449$. You should know that currently, the Ryzen 7950X is around $650 thanks to a drop started by AMD a few weeks ago. It remains to be seen if the Ryzen 7000X3D will be displayed directly on these new prices.

A little reminder about the architecture:

If you haven’t yet read our article regarding the testing of the new Ryzen 7000X, now is the time to check it out. The new Ryzen 7000X see the amount of L2 cache doubled, from 512 KB to 1 MB of L2 cache per core, compared to the previous generation (Ryzen 5000). On the other hand, there is no change in the amount of shared L3 cache memory, which remains at 32 MB per CCD. Here is a representation of the internal architecture of a Ryzen 9 7950X.

If we calculate the amount of L2 and L3 memory for our 7950X, we are at 16 MB of L2 since 16 cores + 2 x 32 MB of L3 (CCD0 + CCD1), which gives us a total of 80 MB. If you do the same calculation for the 7900X, you get 76 MB.

If we look at the specifications of the Ryzen 9 7950X3D, we have the original 80 MB of the processor + the 64 MB of L3 cache (3D V-Cache), which gives us a total of 144 MB. The 7900X3D will go from 76 to 140 MB (L2+L3) and the 7800X3D from 40 to 104 MB.

Ryzen 7 7800X3D: a single CCD

Knowing that the 7800X3D has only one CCD, the 64 MB are therefore implemented on it. The Ryzen 9 7950X3D and 7900X3D also see a similar integration, which means that only one CCD benefits from the “3D V-Cache” technology and the other one is without it. When the cores are used for gaming, it is the CCD with the “3D V-Cache” solution that is used. The idea is to reduce the TDP and also to save money. We will see how this works in practice in games and in multitasking benchmarks.

In our article about the Ryzen 9 7950X3D, we suggested that the presence of a single CCD would be much easier to handle for the “3D V-Cache” than the other two processors with 2 CCDs. We will see in our benchmarks if we were right.

[nextpage title=”The test configuration:”]

Preparing your configuration for the Ryzen 7 7800X3D:

On our side, we used the latest BIOS for our ROG Crosshair X670E Gene motherboard, namely BIOS 1004 which supports AGESA version 1.0.0.6 and which dates from March 30th. For the rest, we followed AMD’s recommendations and used the latest drivers for the Ryzen 7000X3D compatible chipset.

The different test configurations:

All the results that you can discover in the following pages have just been updated during the month of September. We have replayed all the processors at our disposal in order to have results realized with the latest BIOS from the manufacturers as well as the latest drivers, especially for the chipset, whether it be the Z690 or the X570.

The question of the memory kit:

Yep, which memory kit should we use for our comparative tests? This is a question we asked you on our Discord. Whether it is for DDR4 or DDR5, we are on memory kits composed of two 16 GB strips for a total of 32 GB. For our tests using DDR4, it is a Corsair Vengeance LPX kit clocked at 3733 MHz in 18-22-22-42. For the AMD platform in DDR4, the FCLK is 1866 MHz in order to keep a 1:1 ratio. The rest of the BIOS settings are in auto mode.

For DDR5 on the Z690 platform, we used our Teamgroup 6400 MT/s CL34 kit which we set to 6000 MT/s in 30-38-38-96. Why this choice? The kit delivered by AMD for the tests on the X670E chipset is a GSKill Trident Z5 NEO 6000 MT/s in 30-38-38-96. So we have two kits with almost identical performances on the two platforms AMD X670E and Intel Z690.

Here is a summary table of the four configurations we used for these comparative tests. Each test is of course carried out several times to ensure the accuracy of our results.

Finally, as far as the operating system is concerned, we chose Windows 11, which is the latest version. You should know that we have noticed that for benchmarks, overall the results are always slightly better under Windows 10.

[nextpage title=”The frequencies reached?”]

As with every new test concerning processors, our first idea is to check if the announced frequencies are really reached. To do this, we will use the Cinebench R23 benchmark. Two cases will be used: a single core bench and a second one in multi core. The idea is to be able to judge the frequency reached and thus, to compare with what was announced by AMD in its slides.

Remember that the Boost frequency in bench is different depending on the processor. Be careful, as AMD points out, when we talk about maximum Boost frequency, it is the maximum frequency achievable by one of the processor’s cores running a single-core workload (mono-thread). The maximum boost varies according to several factors: the load, the cooling system and therefore the temperature of your processor. This is a notion to keep in mind. Here are the maximum frequencies that we should reach on a single core during our run under Cinebench R23.

First step, we leave everything in AUTO in the BIOS except the EXPO profile that we load in order to have a frequency of 6000 MT/s in 30-38-38-96 for our memory kit. We do not make any other changes in the BIOS.

Test with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D:

Here we go with our Ryzen 7 7800X3D. As you can see, we opened several windows to check the frequencies as well as the temperatures.

In single core, we can see that core #1 and #3 work alternately and reach the frequency of 5045 MHz, which is slightly higher than the 5.0 GHz announced by AMD. The reason for this is most likely the cool temperatures brought on by our liquid cooling. Note however that the Ryzen 7 7700X sees its boost frequency reach 5500 MHz with the same cooling system.

When the 8 cores of our Ryzen 7800X3D are used, the frequency varies between 4850 and 4875 MHz. If we compare it with the Ryzen 7 7700X, which also has 8 cores, the frequency can rise to 5275 MHz. It is therefore logical that we have differences in performance in the benchmarks between these two processors even if on paper they both have 8 cores and 16 threads. The temperature rises to 75°C during the R23 run with our liquid cooling loop and we had a temperature of 84°C with the 7700X.

[nextpage title=”Cinebench, Geekbench and CPUZ benchmarks:”]

Let’s start with a staple of processor benchmarks, the Cinebench series. We chose Cinebench R15, the R20 version, which is also more and more used and finally Cinebench R23, the latest one. The scores will be given in Single core and Multi core. This means that the benchmark tests the performance on one of the processor’s cores and then on all the available cores.

To do this, we will use Benchmate which has just been updated to version 10.12.2 and can be downloaded here. The advantage of Benchmate is that it already contains a whole series of benchmarks and moreover, it is recognized and certified when you want to encode your results on the Hwbot site.

As a reminder, before you start reading these results, make sure you take a look at the previous page to understand the operating frequencies of these non-X Ryzen.

Cinebench R15 Single Core and Multi Core:

A benchmark very much used especially by overclockers in order to be able to compare the performance of processors between them. It also allows you to judge the optimizations of your OS as well as your memory kit by setting a frequency and trying to score a maximum of points. Even if it is less used today with the arrival of R20 and R23, it remains a reference to compare CPUs between them since it is one of the first benchmarks used by the community.

We were expecting an improvement in single thread performance with the Ryzen 7000 and we have to admit that it is indeed the case. It is the (big) Ryzen’s that take the top spots. Our 7800X3D gets a score of 295 points.

In multi-threaded mode, the results are slightly different and this is logical. It is mainly the total number of cores that will determine the score as well as their frequency. Our Ryzen 7 78000X3D is behind and this is quite logical because of its lower boost frequencies than the Ryzen 7700X and 7700.

Cinebench R20 Single Core and Multi Core:

Cinebench R20 offers similar testing to the R15 version with SingleThread and MultiThread. Freshly landed in March 2019, it offers a more complex benchmark than the R15 version which had become a bit too easy for CPUs with many cores. Cinebench R20 requires eight times more computing power than the R15 version, and four times more memory. It can already be more like a stress benchmark since it forces your CPU to be stable for the duration of the bench.

The same is true for Cinebench R20 where our 7800X3D scores 707 points. Note that the arrival of the new Raptor Lake processors has changed the top three.

In multi, it is the number of cores that speaks once again. We’re on a chart that looks like the Cinebench R20 with the 7800X3D behind the 7700 and 7700X.

Cinebench R23 Single Core and Multi Core:

How does this new version differ from the previous ones? First of all, it is more realistic when it comes to the score obtained depending on the processor used. As a reminder, Cinebench only test the capabilities of your processor in single thread or multi thread. But the main difference is to propose a benchmark which by default will last 10 minutes! The idea for MAXON with Cinebench R23 is to propose a benchmark which will allow a certain stability in term of temperature and Boost frequencies. We will test here the fast version.

First bad surprise on this more recent benchmark where the score is only 1796 points, i.e., behind the Ryzen 5 7600. Once again, the single core plus base frequency has an impact on the score.

In multi, we do not change the profile of the graph with scores once again convincing and reflecting the number and frequency of operation of the cores for our Ryzen 7 7800X3D.

Geekbench 3.4.4 Single Core and Multi Core:

This is a benchmark available in several revisions, version 5 is more and more used in recent months and is also often used for CPU performance leaks. It allows to obtain two scores: one in single core and the other in multi core. The version used for the tests is 3.4.4 and 5.2.5. Attention, in order to take full advantage of these two benchmarks, a license is required and we perform the bench in 64-bit.

The score obtained under Geekbench 3 in singlecore is still a bit behind but it is still a total of 8515 points that is obtained.

In multicore, the graph becomes coherent again with a score of 56405 points. Compared to the 7700X, which also has 8 cores and 16 threads, the latter is 11% more powerful.

GeekBench 5.2.5 Single Core and Multi Core:

The latest version of the GeekBench software, it is becoming more and more widespread and used by journalists. It allows, like the version above, to do memory and processor performance tests. We decided to add this additional benchmark but why? The CPU benchmark uses new tests that more closely simulate the tasks that processors face with recent applications. Geekbench 5 also increases the memory used in the benchmark to better reflect the impact of this parameter on the CPU results.

Performance is more consistent than on Geekbench 3 even though our 7800X3D is still behind the 7600X. We already had the thought that this was not the latest version of Geekbench 5 and it is correct. But it was not available at the time of updating our graphics, so we are still on this version 5.2.5. Geekbench 6 has just been released and we may integrate it in our tests soon.

In multi-threaded mode, our sample of the day takes up a place that corresponds to its potential, which is still limited by its frequency compared to the 7700X.

CPU-Z 17.01.64 benchmark in Single Thread and Multi Thread :

New benchmark that we have just added since it is more and more used by brands in order to put forward the performance of the processor. To use it, nothing could be easier, just download the latest version of CPU-Z which is currently version 2.0.2. Then go to the “Bench” tab to check the performance in single and multi thread. The version of the benchmark that we used is 17.01.64.

Same observation as in Geekbench3, the single score is very low, once again penalized by the Boost frequency.

Finally, we find a table that respects a little more the number of cores and the most recent generations of processors. This first series of tests allows us to highlight that our Ryzen 7 7800X3D is a bit behind the 7700X in multithreaded tasks because of lower frequencies!

[nextpage title=”Synthetic benchmarks:”]

Let’s start with a series of synthetic tests that we use regularly. We have chosen the CPU scores of the 3DMark benchmarks. The idea is to isolate only the CPU score by making a customtest.

Here are the results obtained in Fire Strike and Time Spy. In Fire Strike, whether it is for the “standard” or the “ultra” version, the physics test (CPU) is identical. Therefore, you will only find the score of Fire Strike. On the other hand, for Time Spy and Time Spy Extreme, the tests are different, so you will get both scores. These scores are very interesting for overclockers to choose the platform that will offer the best performance in order to break a maximum of records.

CPU score in Fire Strike:

Let’s start with 3DMark Fire Strike, which is one of the most widely used benchmarks today. It consists of two graphics tests, a CPU test and a fourth test that combines GPU and CPU. Don’t forget to disable the demo which doesn’t add anything to the final score and prolongs the benchmark(unnecessarily).

This is once again a penalizing score obtained by our Ryzen 9 7800X3D which struggles to keep up with the non-X Ryzen 7 7700. If you’re looking to do 3DMark benchmarks, look to an AMD 7700X processor for the same number of cores and threads.

CPU Score at Time Spy:

The second test is 3DMark Time Spy. Although this one is done in 1440p, it has the particularity of using DirectX 12. It consists of two graphical tests and a CPU test. As for Fire Strike, don’t forget to disable the demo. These two first benchmarks are proposed by UL Benchmark.

Same observation as before with a score that is finally close to that of the 7700X since only 181 points separate them.

CPU score at Time Spy Extreme :

The second test is 3DMark Time Spy. Although this one is done in 2160p, it has the particularity of using DirectX 12. It consists of two graphical tests and a CPU test. As for Fire Strike, don’t forget to disable the demo.

Well, as you can see, this is not a processor made for 3DMark benchmarks, and it is in the gaming part that we expect it!

[nextpage title=”Benchmark AIDA64: “]

So, for this test which will be done with the AIDA64 software, I will compare the two platforms, AMD and Intel, since I used the same kit at the same frequency and with the same timings.

AIDA has just seen its beta version evolve to 6.85.6336. It can be downloaded directly on the site but in order to benefit from all the results, you will need a license.

AIDA 64 :

It is a software capable of providing you with a lot of information about your configuration but it has the particularity of having a memory benchmark. It will calculate the speed of reading, writing, copying and the latency of your memory kit. It is very often used to compare memory kits between them. It is an excellent tool if you want to compare the performance of your memory kit with those we have already had the opportunity to test.

We know that since the launch of Ryzen 7000X and DDR5, there is a “bottleneck” in terms of throughput that is not as good as Intel’s. This problem does not really seem to have a solution for AMD. So yes, it climbs against the Ryzen 5000 combined with DDR4, but it is far behind what the Alder Lake and Raptor Lake offers.
Some motherboards have options in the BIOS to increase performance by automatically tightening timings and subtimings.

In writing, the performance is already better and the graphic is more balanced than the previous one.

The same is true for copying, where throughputs are improving for our Ryzen 7000X, but they are still not at the level of what the Alder Lake and DDR5 combination offers.

We will not hesitate to come back to the performance in AIDA64 if the next BIOSes solve or improve these scores.

[nextpage title=”Power consumption: “]

As for the power tests, we didn’t modify anything and we wanted to know how our configuration would react by default. Basically, we installed the CPU and loaded the XMP profile. Then we did our various readings and benchmarks.

Regarding the power consumption, we used the Cinebench R23 benchmark. We are here on multi thread. The idea is to measure the average consumption of our different processors. Be careful, this is a global consumption of the configuration. Currently, we are not yet able to measure independently and correctly the CPU consumption, but it is in progress. We still have some points to optimize in order to be fully convinced of the accuracy of our readings.

We finish with a very positive note since the total consumption of our PC has nothing to do with that of the 7700X. We go from an average of 259.2 watts to 187.1 watts, which is really much better even if we are still above that of the 5700X. The lower performance can also be explained by the lower TDP. It is clear that even if the i9-13900KS is often at the top of the benchmarks, its consumption is close to 500 watts and we are on a benchmark that only uses the whole processor cores and not at all the graphics card.

[nextpage title=”Gaming performance 1080p:”]

So, you’ll tell us, but what’s the point of testing two such high-end cards, NVIDIA’s RTX 4090 and AMD’s RX 7900 XTX, in 1080p definition when they are both intended for 2160p. Simply because this is the only way to be able to highlight the differences between the processors. You can see this on the next page after taking the time to read these first results. You should know that this 1080p definition is very popular with professional gamers who are looking for the maximum FPS combined with the lowest latency. Now, let’s face it, the majority of gamers with such cards play at higher resolutions.

The ROG STRIX RTX 4090 OC in 1080p:

We will start our first series of gaming tests with a copy of the ROG Strix RTX 4090 OC, which we will offer a full test and much more in the coming weeks. The configurations are identical except for the i9-13900KS, which we tested on an APEX Z690, since all our games are installed on the latter. Finally, you can find all our graphics card tests by following this link.

There is no doubt that our Ryzen 7 7800X3D is in first place in almost all of our tests, except for Cyberpunk 2077 where it is in second place. As we can see and as we expected, the presence of the “3D V-Cache” combined with a single CCD seems to be easier to manage and therefore performs much better.

Our Ryzen 7 7800X3D is largely in front even if we have to take into account that the performance gain in The Division 2 distorts the results a little bit but on average, we are much more performing than the 7900X3D and therefore than the i9-13900KS. Let’s not forget that we are on a 1080p definition.

The RX 7900 XTX in 1080p:

Let’s move on to the AMD side of things with a copy of the RX 7900 XTX reference card that we had the chance to review. It will be interesting to see if the combination of an AMD GPU with an AMD processor has an impact on the performance of the different processors.

By combining our Ryzen 7 7800X3D with an AMD card, the observation is the same, it is still as powerful! This new processor seems to be on its way to becoming the CPU you will need for gaming!

The same observation can be made when we look at the graph of the averages obtained with our RX 7900 XTX. What changes slightly is the difference between the processors, which is on average 7% with the i9-13900KS. As always, it depends on the games used and once again, in some games, the differences are quite impressive, but it is clear that this Ryzen 7 7800X3D is the new king of gaming!

[nextpage title=”Gaming performance 2160p:”]

Let’s move on to the 2160p definition which should be the one used by most owners of high-end graphics cards, provided of course that you have a 4K compatible screen. As a reminder, we tested the 1080p definition since it allows us to highlight the differences between the different processors.

So we performed the same series of tests using the same graphics settings on the same series of games. We won’t offer you each graphic independently since the two performance summaries will be sufficient. Let’s start directly with the ROG RTX 4090 Strix OC.

As you would expect, the gaps are narrowing considerably and our three processors are almost equal in this definition. Now you can see why we had to go to 1080p in order to highlight the differences.

And when we combine these processors with an AMD card, it is finally our i9-13900KS that comes out the best, well okay, by a hair. So if you have a high-end AMD card, you can choose the cheapest processor of the three.

[nextpage title=”Overclocking: “]

A lot of information has been circulated when the Ryzen 7000X3D processors were announced concerning overclocking. The most optimistic spoke of the possibility of overclocking the CCD not having the “3D V-Cache” and the most pessimistic of a complete limitation of overclocking. So what about it and do we have access to manual modifications at the level of the different cores for our Ryzen 7 7800X3D which only has a CCD associated with the “3D V-Cache”? Let’s cut to the chase, it’s locked again but!

Manualoverclocking via the multiplier coefficients is still locked and therefore impossible to change them via the AMD Ryzen Master software. If you want to push your processor, then you’ll need to enable the Curve Optimizer and Precision Boost Overdrive. However, if you look in the BIOS of our ROG Crosshair X670E Gene, there is a CPU profile called “Load X3D OC Profile”.

This profile will activate the ” Asynchronous ” mode which will allow the increase of the BCLK2 frequency without affecting the memory frequency. By default, the profile proposes an increase of the BCLK frequency to 103 MHz.

We tried to increase this BCLK as much as possible by playing with the CPU voltage in order to have a stable frequency. Finally we were able to increase it to 107 MHz. The frequency in single core goes from 5045 MHz by default to 5403 MHz allowing us to go from a score of 1796 points to 1951 points (gain of 8.6%).

Regarding the multi-core, we go from 4850/4875 MHz to 5150/5175 MHz and there, in Cinebench R23, the gain is 6%. But unfortunately, the CPU heats up a lot and we quickly reach 90°C despite our liquid cooling loop associated with a 480 mm radiator. Indeed, at the original frequencies, our 7800X3D already reaches a frequency of 70°C in multi-core. We will therefore need a good cooling solution.

[nextpage title=”The last word:”]

The king is dead, long live the king! It only took a few weeks for the Ryzen 9 7950X3D to be dethroned by one of its own little brother, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D! We understand better, even if we suspected it, the reason for this delay in the launch of this processor compared to its two big brothers. Announced at 449$ in the US and 509,99€ in Europe, it will offer the 5800X3D a well-deserved retirement and become the new king of gaming.

AMD has thus fully succeeded in its bet, but at what price? The availability of this Ryzen 7 7800X3D may completely overshadow the interest of the Ryzen 9 7900X3D and the Ryzen 9 7950X3D. Why pay more for less interesting performance in games?

There is no doubt in our mind that this is the best offer on the market if you want to build a gaming setup for 1080p in AM5. We have seen that when we switch back to 2160p, the performance is almost identical for the 4 competing processors, so you can opt for the cheapest one. We will expand this file in the coming weeks by adding processors with fewer cores to see the repercussions in 2160p by combining them with a high-end graphics card. As a reminder, we didn’t have a 5800X3D so we didn’t include its performance in our graphics.

Finally, the only regret is the lack of overclocking possibilities since the operating frequencies are much lower than those of the Ryzen 7 7700X as well as the Ryzen 7 7700. The performance in the benchmarks is therefore lower than that of these two processors. We did manage to overclock the 7800X3D via the BCLK frequency, but the temperatures rise very quickly! The integration of the “3D V-Cache” in a single CCD seems to have the small defect of producing a lot of heat. It will thus be necessary to be attentive and to have a good solution of cooling.

Let’s finish on a positive note concerning the power consumption which is improving against the 7700X and this is a very good thing. This is also a point to consider since there is a real difference with the Raptor Lake processors as shown in our table of readings.

As we expected, the choice of a processor combining the “3D V-Cache” and a single CCD shows a much better performance than the other two Ryzen 7000X3D.
AMD has succeeded in winning the title of best gaming processor in 1080p definition and can thus offer a retirement to the 5800X3D. Its price is much more attractive than its two big brothers, which could lead them to a premature retirement. We understand better the choice of AMD to have delayed the launch of this Ryzen 7 7800X3D. In conclusion, too bad for the limited overclocking, but for us, this new processor deserves a big yes!