AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 vs Ryzen 9 9950X3D faceoff — How far does dual cache take you?

Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus vs AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D — Can Intel finally beat X3D?

⭐ Winner: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Although it has a slightly lower boost clock, the larger L3 cache pool just makes the 9950X3D2 hard to beat on paper, especially when all the other specs are the same.

We tested the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 and the 9950X3D in a suite of 17 games across various genres to get a good idea of the two CPUs' general performance, along with some relevant competitors. The CPUs were paired with a GeForce RTX 5090, and the tests were run at 1080p to minimize bottlenecks and maximize the differences between the two CPUs.

This round will focus specifically on gaming performance, but you can get a more detailed analysis of the 9950X3D2 in our in-depth review .

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Starting with the overall gaming geomean, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 lands at a 211.3 FPS average across our test suite, while the original 9950X3D comes in at 209.6 FPS. That works out to less than a 1% difference, barely over a single frame per second on average. Across 17 titles at 1080p, the two processors perform almost identically, and in real-world usage, you would not feel the difference. Right out of the gate, the generational step from 9950X3D to 9950X3D2 is essentially a rounding error.

The 1% low results follow the same pattern. The 9950X3D2 posts a geomean 1% low of 148 FPS, compared to the 9950X3D's 146. Again, it’s a negligible margin that won’t translate into a perceptibly smoother experience in blind testing. This average doesn’t hold up in every title, though, which is where the comparison gets more interesting.

When you break things down per game, most titles show the two trading blows within a frame or two. In Baldur’s Gate 3, DOOM: The Dark Ages, Far Cry 6, Starfield, The Last of Us Part I, and Cyberpunk 2077 , both CPUs are within a frame or two of each other. In the bulk of our test suite, there’s no real difference between them, but they alternate between the first and second spots.

That makes the edge cases all the more worth pointing out. Borderlands 4 is the clearest example where the 9950X3D pulls ahead of the newer dual-V-cache part. The older 9950X3D has a 9% lead in average FPS, and an 8% lead in 1% lows over the newer processor. This reinforces the point that more cache on both CCDs doesn’t always translate into better real-world performance.

However, when you look at Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 , the script flips completely. The 9950X3D2 soars to a 24% lead in average FPS lead and a 21% higher 1% low score over the 9950X3D. However, the base Ryzen 9 9950X3D had core parking issues in this title, parking the cores on the X3D CCD instead of the non-X3D, which explains the large gap we’re seeing.

Crimson Desert also gives the 9950X3D2 a 6% lead in 1% lows, even though the averages are within a frame, showing that while the numbers can flip, the dual-cache configuration can sometimes stabilize frame delivery in certain engines. The 1% low situation in Final Fantasy XIV is worth mentioning, too. The 9950X3D2 has a higher average FPS, but the 9950X3D actually posts a better 1% low (134 versus 130). That's a small gap, but the pattern is opposite to what you'd expect from a newer chip.

During gaming, the 9950X3D2 pulls an average of 135.4 W across our test suite, compared to 130.1 W for the 9950X3D. Translating that to frames per watt, the efficiency drops from 1.61 on the original to 1.56 on the new part. It’s not a wild regression, but it’s a step backward at a time when efficiency is increasingly important. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 averaged 67 °C during our tests, while the 9950X3D averaged 65°C.

The 9950X3D already sits at $640, and the 9950X3D2 pushes that to $900 based on the pricing at the time of writing. When you do the FPS-per-dollar math, the 9950X3D turns in 0.32 FPS/$, while the 9950X3D2 drops to 0.23 FPS/$. That’s a brutal 28% decline in value for a sub-1% average uplift in the geomean. Make no mistake, the top-shelf gaming performance here is an upside, not the main draw for either of these CPUs.

We're looking at basically identical performance between the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and its dual cache counterpart. Considering the base model has an edge in efficiency and scores much better on the value front, it takes the lead this round.

Interestingly, the single-threaded ranking is flipped, with the older 9950X3D leading the 9950X3D2 by 0.7%. This is an interesting trend, so let’s look at individual results to get a clearer picture.

In the Cinebench 2024 multi-core test, the new Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 leads the 9950X3D by 4.3%. The lead for the new dual V-cache CPU is 1.3% in POV-Ray’s multi-core test, and 3.3% in Blender Junkshop. In fact, similar leads for the 9950X3D2 can be seen in Blender Monster, Classroom, V-Ray 6, and the Cinebench 2026 multi-core test. So far, so good for the new flagship X3D processor.

In encoding tests, a similar pattern can be observed. The HandBrake x265 10-bit encoding test shows the 9950X3D2 leading the 9950X3D by 2.3%. Similarly, it leads by 6.4% in the HandBrake SVT_AV1 10-bit encoding test, and by 8.7% in the x264 10-bit benchmark. It looks like the second L3 cache stack provides a small but noticeable performance uplift for multi-core, heavily threaded tasks.

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Now the story becomes a bit more interesting once we look at single-threaded results in individual benchmarks . The new 9950X3D2 actually trails the 9950X3D in these tests, despite leading the same tests in multi-core scores. Bear in mind that the two CPUs have the same number of cores and threads, but the 9950X3D2 has a 100 MHz lower boost clock due to its unique dual 3D V-cache design, which is likely the reason for its lower single-threaded performance.

In POV-Ray’s single-core test, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D leads the new 9950X3D2 by 2%. It also leads by 0.7% in Lame’s single-thread audio encoding test as well as in the Lame Extended test. However, in Cinebench 2024’s single-core test, the 9950X3D2 wins back the lead by scoring 1.1% higher than the 9950X3D.

The regression in single-threaded performance is to be expected due to the slightly stunted boost clocks of the 9950X3D2. Still, the roughly 4% bump in multi-core performance is underwhelming, given that AMD marketed this chip for workstation use. Not to mention, the 9950X3D2 is $200 more than the standard 9950X3D at the time of writing, making this a tough sell even for creative professionals.

There are some upsides in specific applications, however. We saw leads of 20% or higher in AI inference workloads, as well as a boost to data science tasks.

The new Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 provides better overall multi-core performance, although only slightly. It wins this round despite actually losing the single-threaded tests; however, its value proposition is looking shaky in the initial rounds.

AMD hasn’t introduced anything new or revolutionary with the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2's overclocking suite. It has the same overclocking capabilities and features as the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, and by extension, the rest of the Ryzen 9000 lineup.

Both the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 and 9950X3D have fully unlocked multipliers for manual overclocking, but the tool of choice for Ryzen CPUs remains Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2). AMD CPUs respond better to this semi-automated overclocking feature, which adjusts the CPU's clock speed based on available power and thermal headroom. There is also support for Curve Optimizer in both CPUs.

Regardless, the basic overclocking functionality remains almost identical. What differs is the underlying CPU and its cache layout. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 already has a 100 MHz lower boost clock due to its unique design, and perhaps more importantly, it consumes way more power at stock. Its peak power consumption is about 50 watts higher than the 9950X3D, which can limit its overclocking headroom.

However, that will vary chip to chip. It also depends on the system that houses these CPUs and on the cooling solution used to keep temperatures in check. While there are minor differences in the overclocking potential, both CPUs offer the same basic functionality and core features.

Despite the 9950X3D2 having a lower boost clock and higher power consumption, the two CPUs end this round in a tie due to shared overclocking features and capabilities.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D was already a pretty power-hungry chip, and AMD seems to have pushed the limits with the 9950X3D2. In our testing, we saw the new dual 3D V-cache CPU consume around 250 watts on average in all-core workloads, while the 9950X3D sat around 200 watts. Let’s look at individual benchmarks to get a better idea.

Moving onto all-core workloads that give us an idea of peak power consumption, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 consumes 18.5% more power on average than the 9950X3D in y-cruncher’s multi-threaded AVX test. In Linpack, the 9950X3D2 again pulls ahead in power consumption, sipping 15% more power than the 9950X3D. The same can be observed in the Cinebench 2024 multi-core render, with the 9950X3D2 consuming 25% more power.

In Blender Monster, the new dual-cache chip is 31% more power hungry, while the difference is 13% in Blender Classroom. The gap widens in Blender Junkshop, where the 9950X3D2 hits nearly 240 watts, 54.2% more than the 9950X3D in this test. HandBrake x264 shows the 9950X3D2 pulling ahead by 23%, but in HandBrake x265, the two CPUs consume pretty much the same amount of power.

In single-threaded workloads, the story is a bit different. The Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 is actually more efficient in y-cruncher’s single-threaded AVX test, consuming 11.6% less power than the 9950X3D. This is a one-off, but it's likely due to the 9950X3D2's lower peak boost clock.

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Efficiency is a better metric to consider than just raw power consumption numbers alone. In Handbrake x265, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 consumed 6.56 watts per frame, while the 9950X3D was almost identical at 6.55 watts per frame. The situation becomes a bit clearer with Linpack’s efficiency graph, where the 9950X3D2 is 3.2% more efficient than the 9950X3D. The Cinebench 2025 watts-per-point result is more conclusive, with the 9950X3D leading by 16.5% in efficiency over the new 9950X3D2.

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) (Image credit: Tom's Hardware) Another great way to visualize efficiency is via a scatter plot. In this chart, the CPUs towards the bottom right are most efficient. We can see that across all three plots, the two CPUs are in very similar positions, with the 9950X3D2 often providing slightly better performance.This means that the average efficiency numbers are very similar despite the slight performance difference.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D shines in this round, consuming less power and delivering better efficiency than the 9950X3D2. The new dual V-cache CPU is quite power-hungry, and although it managed to score some wins in a few tests, it just can’t compete with its single-cache counterpart in this category.

With a lower average power consumption and better overall efficiency, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D takes this round despite being slightly slower.

Usually, when we compare the pricing of two CPUs in our faceoffs, we have to compare the price of the entire platform to get a clear picture. It is important to factor in the price of the motherboard, RAM, and CPU cooler, in addition to the CPU, since these costs are directly attached to the chip itself. However, with the 9950X3D2 and 9950X3D, that conversation takes a back seat to the MSRP.

The Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 has launched at $900, $200 higher than the 9950X3D's launch price of $700. However, at the time of writing, the 9950X3D can be found at various retailers, regularly priced between $640 and $660. Moreover, although AMD has yet to announce any price cuts for the 9950X3D, it wouldn’t be out of the question to expect discounts on the horizon.

Looking at the platform costs for a moment, both CPUs are compatible with DDR5 memory and AM5 motherboards. Both CPUs are high-end, power-hungry CPUs, so a premium X870E motherboard is the way to go. Although DDR5 RAM prices are absolutely ridiculous at the moment due to the global memory crisis, this factor cancels out between the two CPUs.

The CPU cooler conversation is a bit more interesting. While the Ryzen 9 9950X3D can be adequately managed by a dual-tower air cooler ($100-120) or a 280mm AiO ($120-150), a 360mm AiO liquid cooler ($150-250) is more appropriate. The 9950X3D2 consumes more power and produces more heat, so a 360mm AiO is a must for this one. You may even consider a custom liquid-cooling loop if you can afford it and handle the technical challenges.

That does not even account for miscellaneous costs, such as the potential need for a higher-capacity power supply. The 9950X3D2 is simply a more expensive CPU to own and operate, and there’s no pricing category where it comes out on top. As we saw in previous rounds, it also loses in the FPS-per-dollar metric, which is a big blow to its value proposition.

With a lower initial price, potentially lower platform cost, and a higher FPS-per-dollar value, the Ryzen 9 9950X3D wins the pricing round with ease.

Power Consumption, Efficiency, and Cooling

Key considerations

Investor positioning can change fast
Volatility remains possible near catalysts
Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows

Reference reading

More on this site

Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.

Key considerations

Reference reading

More on this site

Related posts:

Leave a Comment Cancel reply