AMD’s V-Xache-infused X3D series of processors has been an absolute smash hit in the PC gaming space, pushing AMD to the forefront of the performance discussion after years of Intel dominance. But after three generations of success, fans were probably wondering when AMD would pull out all the stops for a new design. Well the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition, the absolute pinnacle of consumer desktop performance, is here…and you probably shouldn’t buy it.
That sounds pessimistic. But I have to give credit to AMD here: The company isn’t marketing this chip to PC gamers. And it easily could have, taking advantage of a bit of consumer confusion to sell a flagship product to people who don’t need it. But AMD has been very clear in its intent with the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2, right from the start. This chip isn’t designed for PC gamers (though of course it’s more than capable of gaming), it’s for those who need extra performance in incredibly powerful media and “AI” applications. Our initial benchmarks bear this out, showing basically zero gaming change in the $900 9950X3D2 versus the 9950X3D that launched last year at $700.
The reason is complicated. X3D chips use extra 3D V-Xache — that’s their “special sauce” that delivers extra performance over AMD’s standard Ryzen chips that go without it. But for the dual-CCD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and its successor the 9950X3D, the V-cache is only present on one of the dies, available to eight of the processor’s 16 primary cores. AMD itself told us years ago that there’s minimal performance gains for putting it on both CCDs in a given chip — most individual processes, including games, just can’t take advantage of both of them. So that’s why, for four years, we’ve seen that V-Cache available to only half the cores on dual-die chips.
Of course “most” isn’t “all.” Games, as very focused programs, have different parameters from some other programs, namely the kind of number-crunching that goes into media production. Highly-tuned video editing, 3D rendering, and similar programs could take advantage of the extra cache. That’s the kind of user AMD wants to sell the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 to, while it markets the 9950X3D (sans 2) to regular gamers.
Well, regular gamers who can afford a $700 CPU, anyway. But I digress.
AMD’s Ryzen 9 9950X3D is an absolute monster
Our initial hands-on with the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 was performed with a Falcon Northwest Talon, compared to the 9950X3D in the same machine. AMD didn’t provide PCWorld (or many outlets) with a Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 to review prior to embargo, but the Falcon Northwest team was able to sample us in one of its expertly-designed bespoke systems. It’s using an Asus Strix X870-E motherboard, 96GB of 6000MHz RAM, an RTX 5090 graphics card, and a Gen 5 2TB SSD, putting potential bottlenecks squarely on the processor. The same machine should be available to buy today.
Foundry
The Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 has 192 megabytes of V-Cache spread across both CCDs, compared to the 9950X3D’s 128MB of V-cache on the primary CCD . The new chip is ever-so-slightly slower in its boost clock (5.6GHz versus 5.7GHz), but uses more power (200 watts versus 170 watts). Otherwise, it’s using the same 16-core, 32-thread Zen 5 setup.
One twist: In the vanilla 9950X3D, the die without 3D V-Cache boosts to higher speeds in non-gaming tasks, albeit by only a few megahertz. On the 9950X3D2, both dies run the slower speeds demanded by V-Cache, which can potentially affect peak performance in multi-threaded chores.
We also compared the output to the $499 Ryzen 7 9850X3D (8 cores, 16 threads), a more gamer-friendly X3D alternative with one CCD, and Intel’s Core Ultra 7 270K Plus on a test bench machine. We matched up the hardware closely, but these shouldn’t be taken as one-to-one comparisons, all done in the same system; they’re just here for context. The flagship 9950X3D2, of course, was tested in Falcon Northwest’s Talon desktop.
First the good news. In multi-thread workstation benchmarks, which can at least theoretically take better advantage of 3D V-cache on both sides of the chip, the 9950X3D2 generally outperformed the 9950X3D. In some tests Intel pulled ahead, and in a couple the 98050X3D did. But in general, those who splurge on the top-of-the-line AMD chip will see at least some boosted performance according to tests like Blender, Geekbench and Pugetbench.
Tom’s Hardware subjected the 9950X3D2 to a battery of workstation-class tests and found it performed significantly faster than the vanilla 9950X3D in some niche applications, like running chess engines, the Linpack algebraic stress test, and other data science tools, achieving roughly 20 percent more performance in very specific workstation tasks. That can be real money saved for professionals! But for general productivity, as mentioned, the 9950X3D2 is a beast that’s hit-or-miss compared to its rivals.
Now for the gaming stuff, which most of you are probably here for. In the tests run in the PCWorld lab, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 was within one or two percentage points of the 9950X3D, some higher, some lower, but basically all of them within the margin of variability for any given test. To be clear, this is exactly what we would expect, and what AMD told us to expect. For pure gaming performance, the upgrade to the 9950X3D2 versus the 9950X3D just isn’t practical. We only ran a handful of tests to confirm that.
In fact if you do decide to splurge an extra $200 (or more, thanks to the probable rarity of the chip), you might just be shooting yourself in the foot. In our testing the 9950X3D draws significantly more power from the total system than the 9950X3D. Again, this is expected — it has an almost 20 percent higher TDP. But the point is, if you’re using this setup for games and not highly demanding, basically industrial-grade media or “AI” purposes, you’re spending more both at purchase and during the general operation.
Gamers, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 is not for you
To sum it up, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition is a processor meant for absolutely no-compromise workstations for media production or similarly intense tasks. At $900, it could almost be seen as a “budget” alternative to AMD’s Threadripper line, which is similarly capable of gaming but not intended for that purpose. Despite the X3D branding — which is more about its technical construction than the associations with gaming — it is not intended for gaming PCs.
Go with the cheaper 9950X3D, unless you absolutely need that extra sliver of performance for non-gaming purposes. And don’t seek out the Dual Edition in finished desktop PCs, again, unless you can really make use of it. The extra $200 (or more) can make a tangible difference in some ultra-specific workstation tasks — the sort of PCs that Falcon Northwest specializes in — but outside of those, it might be hard to justify.
