Impact of 3D V-Cache

1 : Anonymous2021/06/16 11:49 ID: o130ei

Hi everyone, I'm looking to switch back to AMD this year in a few months and had my eyes on a 5950X (assuming I can find one). However, the 3D-V-cache technology looks pretty promising. Now, I primarily game on my current CPU (Intel 9900k) and plan to do that on the new system, potentially with some mild video editing on the side. I'm not looking for comments on my cpu choice in regards to what I plan to do with it, but I'm just wondering what the actual impact of this 3D V-Cache tech will actually bring. Do you think it's worth the wait, and probable price increase?

2 : Anonymous2021/06/16 12:17 ID: h1ykf7x

AMD claims that adding the additional 64MB of L3 cache to the 5900X resulted in a 15% performance increase in gaming.

Increasing the cache size won't have a uniform performance impact on all workloads and workloads that already fit inside of the existing cache won't perform better.

You can generally tell that more cache won't help if a given workload doesn't scale with faster RAM since cache's function is to bring data closer to the CPU cores and avoid having to access main system memory.

ID: h1yszm4

I guess if reducing RAM timings brings any performance uplift at all, increasing size of L3 cache will benefit the performance.

Besides, there is a potential bottleneck between CCD and IOD (which could explain why increasing RAM speed doesn't help, since it's further down the chain), so giving each CCD more L3 will make them more independed and less reliant on cross-chiplet communication to begin with.

We'll have to wait and see the proper independed reviews. For now it just looks interesting, but I don't buy it before I really know it 😛

ID: h1ykrth

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I've grown to realize that trusting marketing numbers is a fool's errand, because it rarely delivers in the way you expect. The reality for me is that I wanna do a rebuilt on AMD soon, and I'd most likely not even notice the cache increase. But my innovator tendencies make me always want the most cutting edge thing. I'm purposefully avoiding getting Alder lake to try to save a little and play it safe.

ID: h1zijxs

If you're mainly gaming I'd bet you will notice the cache increase.

3 : Anonymous2021/06/16 12:12 ID: h1yjz31

10%+ performance is pretty decent especially when everything else is the same so a 5950 with 10%+ is going to be a nice bonus,

It just depends on pricing really as long as price is up to 10% more expensive it will be a very good buy.

ID: h1yk9u0

Fair enough. To be honest, my current rig is fine but I have an omnipresent desire to upgrade and get more. I can wait a bit longer. I was really looking forward to getting my pc under a water-cooling loop but maybe waiting wouldnt be a bad idea.

4 : Anonymous2021/06/16 14:41 ID: h1z199h

As others have mentioned, AMD is claiming a ~15% average gaming performance increase.

As you already have a 9900k, PCIe 4.0 is not needed for current GPUs, and you're primarily a gamer, you should wait for the 3D cache chips to come.

Upgrading from a 9900k to 5950X for gaming will be a very small upgrade.

ID: h1z1p9k

Fair enough. I thin I already actually know this to be true but I need the logical side of me to beat the FOMO. I'll just do what I can with that I get when I repatirate.

ID: h1z3lp1

If you want to see up to date benchmarks to see the difference, you can search for i7 11700k reviews.

A good review will include the 10700k (which is identical to the 9900k) and at least the 5900X (which is identical in gaming to the 5950X).

So you'll get up to date drivers and GPUs being used.

But, to save you the effort, you're looking at 5-10% more performance, definitely closer to the 5% if the 9900k is running in enhanced core mode (or whatever the mobo maker calls it, basically allowing it to run at the all-core turbo all the time).

5 : Anonymous2021/06/16 13:07 ID: h1ypm74

It will be super workload dependant. Will go from literally 0% (as I suspect it will in 3D rendering for example) to 15% in gaming (and other memory intensive workloads), maybe much more in some cases (there are some games that scale beyond comprehension from cache size)

ID: h1ypwe4

Yeah, there's a lot to think about. Most of it is probably FOMO to be honest, in my day to day I'm not gonna notice the difference in real-world applications.

ID: h1yq8ri

I wouldn't worry until at least DDR5 if I was you. The 9900K is a beast.

ID: h1zku1h

I would expect 3d rendering to be significantly improved on any complex scenes rendered on the CPU, but since most is done via GPUs these days, you're right for the majority of cases.

6 : Anonymous2021/06/16 15:04 ID: h1z4ddd

There is also the fact that the cache is much closer to the core now. That will likely have the largest effect. Better signaling, less temp, potentially less power. The process is gettting more refined every run so the yields/ quality is going to be increasing somewhat.

7 : Anonymous2021/06/16 17:44 ID: h1zqz6j

Will performance scale at all though at higher resolutions? This may only be useful at 1080p and below.

8 : Anonymous2021/06/16 19:23 ID: h204x0j

giving in to your FOMO is a bad thing, wait for the right time and strike with precision, my advise would be wait, maybe upgrade something else, your ssd, monitor etc,

your cpu is fine and i would only advise you to upgrade to the second gen of ddr5 cpus or zen 4 a few months after launch when most problems are ironed out,

if you had a slower cpu grabbing the last ddr4 cpu isn't a bad choice but 9900k is fast enough where that wouldn't be a good upgrade, unless you really need more cores

ID: h208rya

Yeah you're probably right.

9 : Anonymous2021/06/16 12:39 ID: h1ymjjs

So you have 2 completely unrelated questions and both of them irrelevant towards your goals.

Will allow compilation of code much faster, probably increase rendering speed, increase compression and decompression speed, may increase some games. Completely not worth it for a meager increase in some high FPS scenarios. You already own defacto top 3 gaming CPUs, you will not get any benefit switching platforms. Best price to perf for you is to fine tune your memory clocks and timings, and overclock cpu to your max cooler capacity. Costs around idk what your time is worth, I guess 2 days of work so 100 bucks tops, spent as tinkering ?
ID: h1yn40m

Of course the best idea would be to just keep the hardware I have. If I'm being totally honest, 8 cores is plenty for my use case, but I have this itch to upgrade as many people do. I guess apart of my concern is also that I want to get on at least PCIE 4.0. I have a 3080 and could definitely benefit from a faster ssd. Thing is, I'm disenfranchised with Intel as a company now, they've disappointed me many times. In a couple months I'll have a choice, and I'm looking for guidance on what to do, I guess. Upgrade, wait, or do nothing as I have what I need.

ID: h1ynp9t

Well if we are talking quality of live improvements overall then things can change. At face value pure gaming you are not gonna get much by switching. But you have some FOMO ( as all of us do, I am 1st to admit ) and you want some cool toys then by all means, go with a 5900x or maybe last year's 3900x if you are bargain shopping. Slap some gen 4 devices on a mid to high end board and play with tech.

You will need memory OC tuning even more on ryzen btw.

10 : Anonymous2021/06/16 12:54 ID: h1yo6lp

It depends. Some games are gonna see massive increase in fps, some less. Wait for benchmarks. It's gonna be between 10-20% fps imo

ID: h1ypmk4

That's not insignificant tbh.

ID: h1z663j

Yea it's not. If the data fits in the cache there'd be higher than average fps increase. You already see that with some competitive games that are lighter on data that runs over 20% faster than intel's chips. Cache tech has massive potential but the performance gains are more uneven across different apps

As the data access gets quicker you should expect the bottleneck to shift towards the core processing speed (frequency and "ipc") so the new vcache chips could scale better with clockspeed

11 : Anonymous2021/06/16 15:11 ID: h1z5feu

15% avg in gaming. It will certainly be great for games loving L3 (think CS: GO) but about 0 effect for the ones which don't.

ID: h20pax6

Yeah, that makes sense. I've never played CS:GO in my life lol

12 : Anonymous2021/06/16 18:00 ID: h1ztb4a

In some applications it will do nothing. In others it can greatly increase performance. A small application that runs in cache could be much much faster.

AMD showed us a slide with 5 games showing a performance uplift of between 4% and 25%, and a claim of 15% faster on average. I don't doubt their data, tho i would like to see independent testing of more games and more gpus.

Do i think its worth the wait? No.

Before the announcement i was still waiting for a 5900x. During the announcement i did consider waiting, but by the next morning i was looking for a 5900x again. I was able to buy a 5900x 2 weeks ago, so i didn't wait. (or I'm still waiting depending how you look at it, fedex lost it for awhile, found it, and its been sitting on my desk for a couple days now, hopefully today i have time to build the system)

There will always be faster chips on the horizon. If they had said coming out in june, and the price didn't increase much, i absolutely would have paid more(within reason, say $50 in the case of a 5900x) for a vache version.

They said production at the end of the year, that means release sometime in 2022. At minimum that's a 7 month wait. Too long in my opinion.

For me next upgrade would be 2nd or 3rd gen of ddr5. So if its another zen chip, that would be zen 5 or 6. If vache is good, ill get it then.

ID: h20pmb8

Yeah, I'm sure V-Cache will be coming on all their future chips so there's not much to worry about there.

I'll end up deciding in microcenter what I want to do next month lol

13 : Anonymous2021/06/16 21:08 ID: h20jals

Since you will be gaming, and you are planning on spending eight hundred dollars on a CPU, my opinion is that the 3D v-cache was announced and targeted toward you and your planned use cases and budget. I wouldn't be surprised if these become the very best CPUs for gaming when they come out. But I think this technology is going to give AMD a reason to charge even more for the top-end products.

It kind of comes down to if you could flip your 5950X on the second hand market, or give to a family member, etc. How much is that hassle worth to you? If it's no big deal, buy the 5950X now and see what happens. If you like it, you can keep it. If you can easily sell it, then buy the 6950X or whatever they end up calling it.

The wildcard would be motherboards, DDR5 support, etc. All speculation there, but my thoughts are that this is probably another AM4 product.

ID: h20pzss

Oh yeah totally. It's probably the last am4 CPU they'll release before they transition. I'll probably wait till I'm in the store itself to decide if I buy it or not.


Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x