
AMD AMD RyzenTM 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition Desktop Processor
AM5, 4.30 GHz, 16 -Core

AMD’s trying something new: the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 is the first CPU to utilise 3D V-Cache on both CCDs. Initial tests show a performance increase, but only a modest one. And given the high price, it’s a difficult product to recommend.
One year after the 9950X3D, AMD’s launching the 9950X3D2. Its special feature: both chiplets use 3D V-Cache. Sounds like double the performance – but the reality is quite different. All the testers agree: while there is an improvement, it’s small at best. And the price? It’s sure to raise some eyebrows.
In Tom’s Hardware’s gaming benchmark, the 9950X3D2 easily keeps pace with other Zen 5 X3D CPUs. Still, it’s not any faster than the 9850X3D, as Jake Roach soberly notes.
Techspot agrees: on average, the 9950X3D2 delivers one frame per second more than the 9950X3D. Steve Walton calls it «a bloody expensive frame» – you’d be hard-pressed to find a more apt way to describe this lack of progress.
PC Games Hardware tests both CPUs with swapped power limits to isolate the pure cache effect. Their findings: the additional cache offers hardly any benefits for gaming. The best option is still to run both CPUs at their default limits.
According to Tom’s Hardware, the 9950X3D2 is only four per cent faster than the 9950X3D in everyday use cases. That’s not much – and it feels that way, too. But when it comes to specialised work loads, the new chip really shines: according to Jake Roach, it surges ahead in data science applications. Anyone who tackles these tasks on a daily basis will feel the difference.
Techspot provides concrete figures: in Blender, it’s ahead by seven per cent; in Cinebench Multi, it’s four per cent; and in Photoshop and Premiere, it’s two per cent. However, when compiling shaders, the 9950X3D2 lags by four per cent – a negative outlier.
PC Games Hardware confirms this too: the added cache does make a difference, but only to a limited extent. Their test using a reduced power limit is interesting: even under those conditions, the 9950X3D2 outperforms the 9950X3D with an increased limit in most applications. So the cache effect is real, but modest.
The biggest downside of the 9950X3D2: its power consumption. The TDP has increased from 170 to 200 watts, but according to TechSpot, the CPU actually draws even more power in practice. Steve Walton measures a 27 per cent increase in power consumption for a mere four per cent increase in performance. PC Games Hardware has observed peak power consumption of over 270 watts – almost on par with an Intel Core i9-14900K. That’s not exactly something to be proud of for a modern CPU.
The recommended retail price is $900/€900 – up 30 per cent from the 9950X3D. A steep price to pay for performance gains that rarely reach double digits. All reviewers come to the same conclusion: the 9950X3D2 isn’t a mass-market processor.
For gamers, the 9850X3D remains the better choice – it’s cheaper and delivers similar performance. If you’re a power user, the 9950X3D or the Intel Core Ultra 9 270K Plus offer better value for money – without any significant compromises. PC Games Hardware sums it up nicely: the price difference between the 9950X3D and the 9950X3D2 is out of proportion to the performance gain.
If you’re looking for top performance and work in areas that take full advantage of the dual cache, the 9950X3D2 is the CPU for you. Everyone else is better off opting for cheaper alternatives.

AMD AMD RyzenTM 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition Desktop Processor
AM5, 4.30 GHz, 16 -Core
From big data to big brother, Cyborgs to Sci-Fi. All aspects of technology and society fascinate me.
Interesting facts about products, behind-the-scenes looks at manufacturers and deep-dives on interesting people.
Show all