AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D: Two-minute review

This generation of processors has been a mixed bag at best (and disappointing at worst), so it makes sense that Team Red would go all out to ensure the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D delivered something that exceeded expectations.

In that regard, the 9800X3D is a smashing success, delivering substantially better gaming performance than the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D that it replaces, though at a slightly higher $479 / £449.99 (about AU$700) price point. For gamers though, most will happily pay a bit more for a roughly 15% increase in gaming performance on average.

The chip isn't without faults, though. It isn't the absolute best processor for gaming in terms of framerates (that title belongs to the Intel Core i9-14900K over several games, averaged out), but where the last-gen Intel flagship simply threw raw wattage to get to the top, AMD's latest gaming processor uses substantially less power to come within 6% of the 14900K's overall gaming performance, a difference that is so close to being within the margin of variance and test setups that if I reran all my tests next week, the 9800X3D might beat it outright.

But, honestly, it doesn't need to do that. Intel's 14900K is overkill for anyone not running creative workloads like video editing, and the power cost is simply too high to justify getting an extra 6% overall gaming performance in synthetic tests. The Ryzen 9800X3D, meanwhile, will get you effectively identical actual performance and at a lower cost, both in MSRP terms, but also reduced power consumption and indirect savings like not needing to shell out for a 360mm AIO cooler to get the most out of the chip.

For that, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D is indisputably the best processor for gaming you can buy right now, and it cements 3D V-Cache as the second most impressive innovation for gaming hardware after AI upscaling and it's something that Intel just doesn't have an answer for it.

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D: Price & availability

• How much is it? Its MSRP is $479 / £449.99 (about AU$700)
• When is it out? It went on sale November 7, 2024
• Where can you get it? You can get it in the US, UK, and Australia

The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is available now in the US, UK, and Australia for $479 / £449.99 / AU$799, respectively.

This is a bump up from the price of the Ryzen 7 7800X3D it replaces, which launched at $449 / £439 / AU$779. I would have loved to see the price remain the same, of course, but the last-gen chip wasn't exactly a cheap processor to begin with, and both chips are very much targeted at an enthusiast market where the price bump here isn't exactly going to be a dealbreaker—so long as the performance increase justifies the bump in price.

In terms of Intel's competing offerings right now, on the performance side, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K (and Intel Core i9-14900K, for that matter) is $110 / £100 / AU$300 more expensive to get the same kind of gaming performance. As for in-class silicon, the 9800X3D is about 15-20% more expensive than the competing Intel Core Ultra 7 265K, and is roughly 33% more expensive than the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X.

Essentially, the 9800X3D is a specialist chip for gamers, and while it isn't a performance slouch, at this price it's really only for PC gamers who want the best overall gaming processor and don't much care about stellar performance elsewhere. For those who need more than just a gaming chip, other options from AMD and Intel will be a better fit for the price.

• Value: 3.5 / 5

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D: Specs

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D: Features & chipset

The fundamental specs of the 9800X3D aren't much different from the 7800X3D. They both sport the same 8-core/16-thread setup as the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X, but like the 7800X3D, the 9800X3D has an additional 64MB L3 cache while the Ryzen 7 9700X only has 32MB L3 cache.

This 3D V-Cache in the Ryzen 7 9800X3D has been redesigned from the previous two generations of AMD X3D chips. This second-generation 3D V-Cache, as AMD calls it, fundamentally changes how the 3D V-Cache die interfaces with the main processing die, which addresses some of the main complaints of the previous two generations of X3D chips.

In the first iteration of 3D V-Cache, the extra cache die was stacked on top of the main processing cores, but with 2nd-generation V-Cache, the extra cache die is underneath the main die, leaving the main processing cores free to directly interface with the CPU cooler.

This is a big deal, since the processing cores are where all the heat is being generated, so having an extra layer of silicon between it and the CPU cooler had a lot of implications for what the chip could do. Thermals had to be carefully managed, so clock speeds had to be kept in check and there was no ability to overclock the chip.

By moving the 3D V-Cache die underneath the main processor core complex, the thermal restraints around clock speeds and voltage no longer apply, so the 9800X3D is the first 3D V-cache chip to feature full overclocking support, allowing precise voltage controls at the same voltage limits as the rest of the Ryzen 9000-series lineup.

Compared to the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D, then, the 9800X3D benefits from noticeably faster base clock and boost clock speeds out of the box, and overclockers can now tinker with their CPUs without too much concern that they'll brick the chip (though with overclocking, that is always possible and can void your warranty, so use caution).

Beyond that, the only major change from the previous generation is faster DDR5 memory support, from 5200MHz with the 7800X3D to 5600MHz with the 9800X3D, though both chips support AMD EXPO memory overclocking for even faster memory speeds.

• Features: 4 / 5

AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D: Performance

At the end of the day though, all that fancy new tech wouldn't amount to much if the chip's performance didn't deliver, and thankfully, it does - though not universally.

In the synthetic benchmarks, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D showed very strong single-core performance on par with the rest of the Ryzen 9000-series lineup. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D, meanwhile, lags behind its Ryzen 7000 siblings noticeably, owing to the need to control thermals by limiting clock speeds. The Ryzen 9800X3D does not have this problem. Likewise, its multi-core performance is also unconstrained, running ahead of the Ryzen 7 9700X across the board.

On the creative front, this is generally not going to be a chip for creatives to concern themselves with - though there is one exception. If you're a photographer or graphic designer who does a lot of work in Adobe Photoshop or its alternatives, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D's extra cache is going to be a serious benefit for your workflows, beating out even the Intel Core i9-14900K in PugetBench for Adobe Photoshop be a few hundred points.

Everyone else though, this chip is not going to do much for you.

On the gaming side, this is where the 9800X3D really shows off, though there's a bit of a caveat to that. In games where the main CPU bottleneck is game logic, such as Total War: Warhammer III or Civilization VI, the extra 3D V-Cache isn't necessarily going to help your game performance. In that instance, you're going to want something with the fastest clocks possible to plow through all those AI decision trees or physics calculations before a game frame is even drawn.

As such, Intel's last-gen (and even current-gen) chips have an advantage in some games like Returnal (where complex bullet and geometry physics are the main CPU workload) or Total War: Warhammer III (where a lot of individual actors need to have their logic calculated quickly) because these gaming workloads benefit from faster clock speeds.

Where 3D V-Cache really benefits gaming is when there's data being communicated from the CPU to the GPU, like texture files or model geometry, and that additional cache memory can retain these smaller-but-not-tiny files in the fastest possible memory that can hold it. This mitigates the latency introduced when drawing a new game frame when the CPU has to go back to RAM to fetch a file because it didn't already have it in its much closer cache memory.

Games like F1 2023 and Tiny Tina's Wonderland benefited mightily from the extra available cache. In the case of the former, the Ryzen 9800X3D just wallops the Intel Core i9-14900K, and in the case of the latter, runs a very close second to it.

Taken all together, the Intel Core has a slight advantage just given the mix of games I used to test these chips, but for most gamers, the odds are good that the thing you're going to be looking for is a processor that works with your graphics card the best most of the time, and in this case, that'll be the Ryzen 7 9800X3D.

Overall, then, with performance that comes in neck-and-neck with the best Intel processors in gaming workloads on average, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D would already be an incredible chip.

But I simply can't get over the fact that the 9800X3D can do this with just 53% of the power of the Core i9-14900K. Add to that the Ryzen 7 9800X3D's impressive single- and multi-core performance, surprisingly great Photoshop performance, and gen-on-gen performance gains at very little power or monetary cost, and the Ryzen 7 9800X3D is easily one of the best AMD processors ever made.

• Performance: 5 / 5

Should you buy the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D?

Buy the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D if...

Don't buy it if...

Also consider

• Originally reviewed November 2024

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K & Intel Core Ultra 5 245K: One-minute review

I've had a couple of pre-briefings with Intel over the past couple of months about Intel Arrow Lake, so I can't say I'm surprised by the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Intel Core Ultra 5 245K, but it doesn't mean enthusiasts are going to be any less disappointed with what we got in the end.

Both Core Ultra chips effectively match the performance of the chips they are replacing, and while I've been saying for a while now that we have to stop looking at performance as the only metric that matters, the efficiency gains offered by these chips are not substantial enough to really merit the investment if you're rocking a 13th-gen Intel chip or better.

The new chips do come with some architecture changes worthy of note, though, and they aren’t all useless for consumers. For starters, the chips come equipped with an NPU, the first Intel desktops to do so, and the new Intel Arc integrated GPU offers some improved graphics capabilities that will make a real difference for some AIO (all-in-one) PCs.

However, these are largely going to be unnecessary for just about any gamer or content creator out there since most desktops are going to have a discrete graphics card that will run AI circles around the NPU in these chips, and make the Intel Arc iGPU pretty much a non-factor in anything other than the most budget gaming PC from a couple of years ago.

For some folks, unfortunately, Intel Arrow Lake misses the target they wanted it to hit, and with strong competition from AMD’s Ryzen 9000-series, these aren't the best processors for gaming or content creation. But, Intel has to start somewhere as it shifts to a new platform, and it managed to produce a very different kind of chip over its predecessors without giving up too much on the performance front, which is no easy feat.

Ultimately, they're perfectly fine chips if you're buying them in a prebuilt PC or if you're coming in from 11th-gen Intel or older (or making the move from AMD), since you'll have to buy all-new kit anyway, so you might as well set yourself up for Nova Lake next year. But anyone with a Raptor Lake chip isn't going to see any real benefit from these, so they're better off waiting for Nova Lake in 2025 to make the jump.

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K & Intel Core Ultra 5 245K: Price & availability

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Intel Core Ultra 5 245K are available now in the US, UK, and Australia, priced at $589 / £548.99 / AU$1,099 and $309 / £289.99 / AU$589, respectively.

While the prices for these two chips stay the same or come in slightly lower than their predecessors, which is good, there are a bunch of added costs to upgrade to these chips... which is bad. First, they require an LGA 1851 chipset, so you’re going to have to buy a new motherboard in order to use them. They also don’t support DDR4 RAM, so you’re likely going to have to buy new DDR5 RAM as well.

The LGA 1851 socket does take the same CPU coolers as an LGA 1700 socket, though, so if you have a 12th-gen or better processor, at least your cooler will fit.

Against AMD’s latest, the Core Ultra 9 285K is better priced than AMD’s flagship Ryzen 9 9950X, but more expensive than the Ryzen 9 9900X. The Core Ultra 5 245K is slightly more expensive than AMD’s competing Ryzen 5 9600X.

• Value: 3 / 5

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K & Intel Core Ultra 5 245K: Specs

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K & Intel Core Ultra 5 245K: Chipset & features

The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Intel Core Ultra 5 245K are newly architected desktop processors, powered by the same Lion Cove P-cores and Skymont E-cores found in the Intel Meteor Lake chips released late last year for laptops.

Intel Arrow Lake is essentially Intel Meteor Lake for desktops, and so it also features the same Intel NPU 3 13 TOPS neural processor as Meteor Lake, and the same Intel Arc Alchemist integrated GPU with four Xe cores (including four ray tracing cores) as its laptop cousin.

The max clock speeds of the Core Ultra 9 285K and Core Ultra 5 245K are slightly lower on performance cores (though with a higher base frequency) and higher across the board on the efficiency cores over the Core i9-14900K and Core i5-14600K, respectively.

The maximum amount of RAM is unchanged at 192GB, though the Core Ultra chips do not support DDR4 RAM, but they can support faster DDR5 memory up to 6,400MT/s.

Other than that, the TDP of the two Core Ultra chips is essentially unchanged from the 14th-gen chips they’re replacing, but they do have a 5°C higher TjMax (Tjunction max, which is the maximum thermal junction temperature that a processor can hit before it lowers performance to prevent overheating), so the chips won’t start to throttle until they hit 105°C.

• Features: 3.5 / 5

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K & Intel Core Ultra 5 245K: Performance

Well, we’ve finally come to the performance segment of the review, and I wish I had better news for you, but most of you will be disappointed.

Starting with synthetic performance, the Core Ultra 9 285K is a very mixed bag vis-a-vis the Core i9-14900K and AMD Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X.

In some tests like Geekbench 6.2, the Core Ultra 9 outperforms the 14900K in single-core performance by about 8%, only to lose out by about the same in Cinebench R23’s single-core benchmark. Meanwhile, in Cinebench R23’s multi-core performance, the Core Ultra 9 285K comes in about 12% faster than the 14900K and is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X.

The Core Ultra 5 245K, meanwhile, is effectively even with the Core i5-14600K, but fares much better in PCMark 10’s Home CPU benchmark, showing a roughly 14.5% performance boost over the 14600K and a 5.6% better showing than the AMD Ryzen 5 9600X.

In terms of average creative performance, the Core Ultra 9 285K does slightly better than the 14900K but slightly worse than the Ryzen 9 9950X — it’s substantially better than the Ryzen 9 9900X, on average, however.

The Core Ultra 5 245K, meanwhile does slightly worse, on average, than the Core i5-14600K, but comes out nearly 23% better on average than the Ryzen 5 9600X.

The gaming performance of the Core Ultra chips was easily the biggest disappointment, however, and is where these two chips really falter against Raptor Lake Refresh.

The Core Ultra 9 285K came in about 14% slower in gaming performance than the Core i9-14900K (though about 7-8% better than the Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X).

The Core Ultra 5 245K, meanwhile, came in about 9% slower than the i5-14600K, and only about 4% faster than the Ryzen 5 9600X.

Needless to say, if you’re looking for the best processor for gaming, you’ll want to look at the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D or wait to see what the upcoming AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D does later this year.

When all the scores are tabulated and the final averages calculated, the Core Ultra 9 285K shows slightly better multi-core performance, slightly lower single-core performance, slightly better creative performance, and much worse gaming performance against its predecessor.

The Core Ultra 5 245K is generally slower for just about everything compared to the Core i5-14600K, though it does have much better productivity performance, so this will make a great chip for affordable AIO PCs without discrete graphics.

The real disappointment with Arrow Lake, though, lies with its energy efficiency... or lack thereof. Most people don’t even need the performance of the Intel Core i9-14900K or even the Intel Core i5-14600K, so I’d be fine with lower performance if it meant that there was much less power draw, but the Core Ultra 9 285K and Core Ultra 5 245K max out at 90.5% and 93.3% of the power of their predecessors, respectively.

That’s still much too high, and at that point, you might as well just stick with Raptor Lake Refresh and undervolt the CPU.

Ultimately, given the significantly higher cost of making the switch to these processors from the LGA 1700 chips, the performance and efficiency just don’t make these compelling purchases on their own.

If you’re shopping for the best prebuilt gaming PC though, though, I won’t be too worried about picking between one with a 14th-gen chip or these new Core Ultras. You’re not going to notice the difference.

• Performance: 3.5 / 5

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K & Intel Core Ultra 5 245K: Should you buy it?

Buy the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K or Intel Core Ultra 5 245K if...

Don't buy them if...

Intel Core Ultra 9 285K & Intel Core Ultra 5 245K: Also Consider

How I tested the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K and Intel Core Ultra 5 245K

When I test processors, I put them through a rigorous process that takes into account synthetic benchmarks, creative workloads, gaming performance, and more to arrive at my scores.

I use industry standard tools like Geekbench, Cinebench, and PCMark, as well as creative apps like Adobe Photoshop, Blender, and Handbrake.

For gaming, I use built-in benchmarks for CPU-intensive games like Total War: Warhammer III on low graphics settings at 1080p to better isolate a CPU's impact on the game's framerates.

Finally, I make sure to use the same system for common-socket processors, the fastest RAM and SSD, and the most powerful GPU and motherboards available to maintain consistency wherever possible to ensure that CPU scores are comparable.

With each new processor I review, I retest previous processors I've reviewed in order to get updated scores for each, after installing the latest system and BIOS updates.

I've tested and retested two generations of processors more times than I can count over the last couple of years, so I am intimately familiar with how these chips perform, and my deep computer science and journalism background allows me to put all of this testing data into its proper context for consumers so they can make the right choice when shopping for a new processor.

• Originally reviewed October 2024