AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D Review: 3D V-Cache Powers a New Gaming Champion

96MB of L3 cache goes Brrrr

Ryzen 7 5800X3D
Editor's Choice
(Image credit: © Tom's Hardware)

Why you can trust Tom's Hardware Our expert reviewers spend hours testing and comparing products and services so you can choose the best for you. Find out more about how we test.

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D Application Benchmarks — The TLDR

Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • Kamen Rider Blade
    Depending on what applications you're using, there are potentially HUGE performance gains, even on non common workloads.

    Level1Techs & Hardware UnBoxed has shown that the 5800X3D is a good value compared to the 12900KS or 12900K
    Reply
  • Makaveli
    Tom Sunday said:
    The 5800X3D on the surface looks good. Not the $449 price tag to be sure as many of us given our ongoing dilemma at the gas pumps leaves little or no cash available for higher-end PC fares. Besides AMD being a latecomer to the party with a practically outdated and niche CPU and especially with an all new CPU and hardware generation sitting virtually on our doorstep! At this point in time I would think that many will ‘hold and fold’ until better economic times are in sight and mind. At the latest local computer show the 5800X3D came up in discussion and it was said: “Looks like a very nice chip, but at this late time it’s not a good investment!”

    I see this the other way its a fantastic upgrade for those on AM4 that may still be on Zen+ or Zen 2 and will prolong the life of those systems a few more years. Leaving time for pricing to go down on DDR5 when its time to upgrade.
    Reply
  • M42
    Clearly, something is wrong with the 12900ks sample used (or the setup) if it can't be overclocked at all, and especially if it is not faster than an overclocked 12700k.

    Also, how could any conclusion be made without including 12900k/ks + DDR5 tests?

    For example, from a TechSpot review, 12900k FarCry 6 performance was the following (no overclocking):
    157 frames/sec - 12900k DDR4-3200
    170 frames/sec - 12900k DDR5-6400

    Details can be found in the "Gaming Benchmarks" section here:
    https://www.techspot.com/review/2443-intel-core-i9-12900ks/
    Even after benchmarking the 12900k/ks with DDR5, the 5800X3D might still be ahead in the geometric mean. But since DDR5 prices are dropping I think most people buying a 12900k/ks may end up using higher-end motherboards with DDR5 to squeeze out every last drop of performance. So, can you add some Alder Lake + DDR5 results, please? (thanks!)
    Reply
  • sizzling
    Makaveli said:
    I see this the other way its a fantastic upgrade for those on AM4 that may still be on Zen+ or Zen 2 and will prolong the life of those systems a few more years. Leaving time for pricing to go down on DDR5 when its time to upgrade.
    This is me. I just upgraded from a 3700X to a 5800X3D. I’m going to get a couple more years out my B450 Tomahawk Max and 2x16gb DDR4. This is paired with a 3080 and 1440p 240Hz monitor. By the time I need to upgrade cpu DDR5 will hopefully be more mature, cheaper and actually bring beneficial improvements for games.

    The only thing that I have noticed is my RAM seem to run hotter on the 5800X3D than the 3700X. It now runs at about 45-49c on stock XMP, previously 40-43.
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    While it may be the best in gaming for AMD's current offerings, other reviews, such as Techpowerup's, which use an RTX 3080, show the 5800X3D to lead by only 7.4% on vs the 5900X in gaming at 1920x1080 on average. Assuming you aren't using a ~$1500 3090 but a ~$900 3080, are you really telling us that you should buy the 3080X3D instead of spending, currently, $80 more on the 5950X, for twice the number of cores and a much better all around system?
    Reply
  • sizzling
    Alvar Miles Udell said:
    While it may be the best in gaming for AMD's current offerings, other reviews, such as Techpowerup's, which use an RTX 3080, show the 5800X3D to lead by only 7.4% on vs the 5900X in gaming at 1920x1080 on average. Assuming you aren't using a ~$1500 3090 but a ~$900 3080, are you really telling us that you should buy the 3080X3D instead of spending, currently, $80 more on the 5950X, for twice the number of cores and a much better all around system?
    The 5950X is outperformed by the 5900X for gaming, so if gaming is the main concern then it makes sense to compare to a 5800X or 5900X.
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    sizzling said:
    The 5950X is outperformed by the 5900X for gaming, so if gaming is the main concern then it makes sense to compare to a 5800X or 5900X.

    True, but not in applications, which is half of this test, and the 5950X beats the 5900X quite handily due to having more cores. And since they compared it against an Intel processor with 16 cores, the 12900K, as well as the 12900KS variant, then they should have included a 16 core AMD processor as well for good measure, even though the 12900K and KS are quite a bit faster anyway.
    Reply
  • sizzling
    Alvar Miles Udell said:
    True, but not in applications, which is half of this test, and the 5950X beats the 5900X quite handily due to having more cores. And since they compared it against an Intel processor with 16 cores, the 12900K, as well as the 12900KS variant, then they should have included a 16 core AMD processor as well for good measure, even though the 12900K and KS are quite a bit faster anyway.
    True, but this review is about the 5800X3D which is being pushed as a gaming cpu, nothing more. Therefore it’s reasonable to compare on that basis. If you are not after a purely gaming cpu the 5800X3D probably does not make sense.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    The biggest winners with the 5800X3D are AM4 owners; the people that actually trusted AMD and, well, they have fully delivered, I'd say. I personally didn't go with the 5800X3D, because the 5900X dropped to under $400 and that's just way too good as an upgrade (I got it for £370). I've gone through 3 Zen generations (2700X, 3800XT and now the 5900X) and while I still think the 9K gen from Intel is still good, I can't help but feel kind of sorry for them. Almost the same for 10K gen owners, but the 10700K is still a great CPU in my eyes and let's not talk about 11K gen.

    Also, this thing is still 8 cores and 16 threads, it's not like it suddenly got degraded to a 4 core 8 threads CPU. I'm sure it should be fairly similar to the 11700K or at least 10700K and those you wouldn't say are slouches, no? Perspective is as common as the common sense, innit?

    Regards.
    Reply
  • Alvar "Miles" Udell
    The biggest losers are people like me who bought a high end X370 motherboard trusting AMD to support all AM4 processors on all AM4 motherboards like they said at the beginning, then bought a X570 motherboard after they said no Zen 3 support on X370 motherboards only for them to then change their minds and actually support Zen 3 on X370 motherboards...
    Reply