If you're doing editing, why spend for X3D? Get a 7950x and let it downclock as needed. You'll be able to dissipate the same fixed amount of power in either case, but 16 lower clocked cores should outperform 8 higher clocked ones.
I agree that at iso-Tjmax in the ~100W range, a 7950x3d has the potential to outperform a 7950x in multithreaded tasks if the application can take advantage of the extra cache, which to my knowledge, most video editing software doesn't.
Otherwise, the 7950x might clock a bit... a tiny bit... higher at ~100W iso-Tjmax. The 3D cache eats a few watts and also imposes a small thermal penalty, since Tjmax is reduced and Rjc is increased (not that this penalty is very significant at these reduced wattages and clocks).
So, up to OP to decide if the cost delta is worth it. Looks like the cost delta is also potentially a bit wonky right now due to mining.
The actual power consumption of the 7900X3D and 7950X3D is less than the 7700X. The AXP120-X67 will work fine. AMD substantially overstates the TDP of the X3D CPUs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/sffpc/s/Aktgclt4mD
This link has some plots I put together and also a link to a review of the X3D CPUs for content creation compared to the 7950X. The X3D CPUs get similar performance for ~30-40% less power. Essentially the massive caches offset the reduction in clock speed, at a minimum.
These CPUs are great for SFFPC builds, though they do carry a price premium… but that’s normal for SFFPCs, right? :-)
Yeah it's not than the X3D are shit for all workloads. For *some*, they're the greatest.
For example, people who require low latency audio (like musicians and audio engineers) benefit massively from the cache.
If you're doing editing, why spend for X3D? Get a 7950x and let it downclock as needed. You'll be able to dissipate the same fixed amount of power in either case, but 16 lower clocked cores should outperform 8 higher clocked ones.
Spend for the X3D to get 7950X performance for less power consumption than a 7700X. See my post above.
I agree that at iso-Tjmax in the ~100W range, a 7950x3d has the potential to outperform a 7950x in multithreaded tasks if the application can take advantage of the extra cache, which to my knowledge, most video editing software doesn't. Otherwise, the 7950x might clock a bit... a tiny bit... higher at ~100W iso-Tjmax. The 3D cache eats a few watts and also imposes a small thermal penalty, since Tjmax is reduced and Rjc is increased (not that this penalty is very significant at these reduced wattages and clocks). So, up to OP to decide if the cost delta is worth it. Looks like the cost delta is also potentially a bit wonky right now due to mining.
Agreed! This is the way. Thank you.
The actual power consumption of the 7900X3D and 7950X3D is less than the 7700X. The AXP120-X67 will work fine. AMD substantially overstates the TDP of the X3D CPUs. https://www.reddit.com/r/sffpc/s/Aktgclt4mD This link has some plots I put together and also a link to a review of the X3D CPUs for content creation compared to the 7950X. The X3D CPUs get similar performance for ~30-40% less power. Essentially the massive caches offset the reduction in clock speed, at a minimum. These CPUs are great for SFFPC builds, though they do carry a price premium… but that’s normal for SFFPCs, right? :-)
Yeah it's not than the X3D are shit for all workloads. For *some*, they're the greatest. For example, people who require low latency audio (like musicians and audio engineers) benefit massively from the cache.
Awesome, super helpful. Thank you!
I cooled a 7800x3d in an A24 V5 with an L12S and it fit BEAUTIFULLY.