Our research indicates that this offer is $50.99 lower (6.7% savings) than the next best available price from a reputable merchant with prices starting from $749.99
This collaborative space allows users to contribute additional information, tips, and insights to enhance the original deal post. Feel free to share your knowledge and help fellow shoppers make informed decisions.
Our research indicates that this offer is $50.99 lower (6.7% savings) than the next best available price from a reputable merchant with prices starting from $749.99
People who want to play CS:GO at 500fps at 1080p? I don't get it either. After a certain point the fps become meaningless. OTOH it may just be the way sites run benchmarks now, 1080p benchmarks allow the CPU to fly without relying on a beefy GPU like 4K would.
I am of the same thought process with CSGO and stuff. The ultra competitive gaming professionals with those 480hz monitors, even though I don't think its humanly possible to really see and take advantage of the FPS over 200
This is a really good price for this. But it's still overkill for almost everyone. What I find kind of odd is that this chip, which is normally $900-1000, is really only preferable over the 9950X (which is about $550 regularly) for 1080p gaming. Reason being that for high quality 1440p or 4K, the GPU is the bottleneck, not the CPU. Who is dropping this kind of money on a chip but still gaming at 1080p?
There are games where CPU is the bottleneck at 1440p+. Valorant and Escape from Tarkov both are.
Too much for just the chip. A good deal was that 9950x with motherboard and 32gb ram for 599 at Microcenter. I got that and paired it with the Nvidia 5070 from Nvidia for 550 from a couple weeks ago and so far the computer has been a beast, handles everything I throw at it.
If it beat the 9800x3d would be a different story but for a dedicated gaming rig the power draw brings the flex into question.
It's not like it has a massive passive power draw above the 9800x3d.
It's only when you're actively computing stuff that it'll go hard and heavy at 200w. 9800x3d has 30w idle, 9950x3d has something like 34w idle.
So... I guess just don't be running any crypto miners or similar in the background with unlimited CPU draw, and it should basically be the same power as any other AMD chip.
It'll just get through whatever you do run faster, but with about the same net power draw per flop.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank tripknotix
To clear some of the questions.
The 9950x3d does have more power draw and heat then the 9800x3d when gaming. In all circumstances.
The main circumstance is to use software or bios settings to limit games to just 8cores (known as ccd 0 since they have 3d vcache) . The other 8 cores (ccd 1) do not. This improves game performance by up to 30% in some games under some settings and reduces heat and power draw drastically.
In rare cases also turning off hyper threading will help to reduce heat so there's more thermal headroom particularly in the 9950x3d variant. However the low 1% takes a hit in many games under many settings without hyperthreading
Where the 9950x3d shines is when you're running other things on the other 8 cores that you aren't gaming on such as streaming, or discord, or pretty much anything else.
Now the discussion about 240fps/480fps. I've been playing at 240hz for 6 months. And I tried to play at 120hz and now it looks like a slide show. My monitor also supports 480hz 1080p however on small maps I still get around 400fps on large maps 320fps with lows of 300fps, I can absolutely tell the difference between 320fps and 240fps. I was able to turn my sensitivity way up because I can see more visual updates while turning and see enemy changes as I'm turning. That's a huge win in modern gaming.
This issue didn't exist 10 years ago when 144hz was the new new, but close quarters, fast reactions benefit greatly in the 240 to 320fps range. However you'll be happy to know the 400fps range. I cannot tell the difference between 400 and 320. But when I turn on frame gen just to see 480. It looks like there is absolutely no images missing in between at all, however I pay the price in a minor latency cost. Which defeats the purpose. It's not THAT bad. Like it feels like I'm playing with 120hz latency but 480fps visuals.
But trust me. 320fps no latency is the good stuff. If you can get to 240hz it's probably the best of all worlds because the low 1% at 240 and average 240 and screen settings 240hz. All matching together is the smoothest possible gameplay with no variance. Im on a 4080 super with a 9950x3d. I hope the information helps.
Last edited by tripknotix May 20, 2025 at 07:05 PM.
Got one on launch day. Nice cpu. Just don't pair it with an Asrock or asus board right now. No one knows if it's an AMD and /or Asrock issue but tons of board and cpu failures with this chip and asrock. Needless to say every motherbaord has a few but asrock has the most kill rates.
1
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
I am of the same thought process with CSGO and stuff. The ultra competitive gaming professionals with those 480hz monitors, even though I don't think its humanly possible to really see and take advantage of the FPS over 200
Well that's the thing about professionals in anything. When they're really really good at something, they're so far and above at it then normal people that normal people think it's easy or attainable.
I can guarantee you there are people that can feel the difference. And anything that lowers latency is welcome.
People who want to play CS:GO at 500fps at 1080p? I don't get it either. After a certain point the fps become meaningless. OTOH it may just be the way sites run benchmarks now, 1080p benchmarks allow the CPU to fly without relying on a beefy GPU like 4K would.
You mean CS2?
Like
Helpful
Funny
Not helpful
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Top Comments
38 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
There are games where CPU is the bottleneck at 1440p+. Valorant and Escape from Tarkov both are.
It's only when you're actively computing stuff that it'll go hard and heavy at 200w. 9800x3d has 30w idle, 9950x3d has something like 34w idle.
So... I guess just don't be running any crypto miners or similar in the background with unlimited CPU draw, and it should basically be the same power as any other AMD chip.
It'll just get through whatever you do run faster, but with about the same net power draw per flop.
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank tripknotix
The 9950x3d does have more power draw and heat then the 9800x3d when gaming. In all circumstances.
The main circumstance is to use software or bios settings to limit games to just 8cores (known as ccd 0 since they have 3d vcache) . The other 8 cores (ccd 1) do not. This improves game performance by up to 30% in some games under some settings and reduces heat and power draw drastically.
In rare cases also turning off hyper threading will help to reduce heat so there's more thermal headroom particularly in the 9950x3d variant. However the low 1% takes a hit in many games under many settings without hyperthreading
Where the 9950x3d shines is when you're running other things on the other 8 cores that you aren't gaming on such as streaming, or discord, or pretty much anything else.
Now the discussion about 240fps/480fps. I've been playing at 240hz for 6 months. And I tried to play at 120hz and now it looks like a slide show. My monitor also supports 480hz 1080p however on small maps I still get around 400fps on large maps 320fps with lows of 300fps, I can absolutely tell the difference between 320fps and 240fps. I was able to turn my sensitivity way up because I can see more visual updates while turning and see enemy changes as I'm turning. That's a huge win in modern gaming.
This issue didn't exist 10 years ago when 144hz was the new new, but close quarters, fast reactions benefit greatly in the 240 to 320fps range. However you'll be happy to know the 400fps range. I cannot tell the difference between 400 and 320. But when I turn on frame gen just to see 480. It looks like there is absolutely no images missing in between at all, however I pay the price in a minor latency cost. Which defeats the purpose. It's not THAT bad. Like it feels like I'm playing with 120hz latency but 480fps visuals.
But trust me. 320fps no latency is the good stuff. If you can get to 240hz it's probably the best of all worlds because the low 1% at 240 and average 240 and screen settings 240hz. All matching together is the smoothest possible gameplay with no variance. Im on a 4080 super with a 9950x3d. I hope the information helps.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Well that's the thing about professionals in anything. When they're really really good at something, they're so far and above at it then normal people that normal people think it's easy or attainable.
I can guarantee you there are people that can feel the difference. And anything that lowers latency is welcome.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.