If you have an AMD AM4 PC, there’s really only one processor worth considering if you want the best for gaming – the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. Except when AMD released the Ryzen 7 5700X3D in January of this year, you suddenly had a tough choice: should you go all out and buy the brilliant but pricey 5800X3D, or save a lot of cash and buy the slower 5700X3D. Well, that’s the conundrum we’ll solve in this review.
The Ryzen 7 5700X3D is almost the exact same processor as the 5800X3D, with the only difference being that it has lower base and boost clocks. You still get eight Zen 3 cores, 16 threads, a 105W TDP, and a massive 96MB of L3 cache. While the 5800X3D has a base clock of 3.4GHz and a boost clock of 4.5GHz, the 5700X3D drops them to 3.0 and 4.1GHz, respectively.
This means the 5700X3D is between 9% and 12% slower than the 5800X3D, and virtually any CPU-focused benchmark will show this.
However, I was much more interested in exploring whether the 5700X3D is a good upgrade for any PC gamer running a quad- or six-core AM4 Ryzen PC after speaking to AMD about the durability of that socket a few months ago. Depending on which retailer you go to, the difference between the 5700X3D and the 5800X3D can be as much as $200, which is a lot of money to spend on a better GPU, for example.
| Editor | Ryzen 7 5700X3D | Ryzen 7 5800X3D | Ryzen 5 5600X | Ryzen 3 4100 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | Zen 3 | Zen 3 | Zen 3 | Zen 2 |
| Cores/Threads | 8/16 | 8/16 | 6/12 | 48 |
| Base/Boost Clock | Frequency 3.0 / 4.1 GHz | Frequency 3.4 / 4.5 GHz | Frequency 3.7 / 4.6 GHz | 3.8 / 4.0 |
| L3 cache | 96MB | 96MB | 32MB | 8MB |
| TDP | 105 W | 105 W | 65 W | 65 W |
To that end, I took a quad-core Zen 2 Ryzen 3 4100, a six-core Ryzen 5 5600X, and a Ryzen 7 5700X3D and put them all through a mountain of tests and benchmarks to see how well the 5700X3D stacks up as an upgrade. You might think the results are a foregone conclusion, but as it turns out, that’s not as clear-cut as you might think.
Enough talk, let’s see the test results! First up, the usual range of CPU-focused benchmarks that are typically run for each modern processor. I’m only showing data for the three Ryzens because Jacob usually does his CPU testing, and his AM4 test platform is different from mine – for example, I used an RTX 4070, while Jacob uses an RTX 3080. Similar, but not exactly the same.
In all performance tests, the Ryzen 7 5700X3D is two to three times faster than the Ryzen 3 4100, thanks to twice as many cores and threads, a more capable architecture, and a much larger L3 cache. However, compared to the Ryzen 5 5600X, the advantage wasn’t always that substantial.
That’s because six cores are more than enough to handle many games, and the 5600X also has a higher clock speed — the 4.6GHz clock speed is only 12% faster than the 5700X3D, but the base clock speed is 23% higher, so depending on the CPU load, the 5600X can run significantly faster than the 5700X3D.
There are other drawbacks to the 5700X3D core and cache compared to other chips. It consumes more power and, with the thermal barrier provided by the 3D V cache layer, its peak temperature is also higher.
But for gaming, the real benefit of the extra L3 cache on the 5700X3D can be seen in the minimum frame rates of the games we used to test the processor. AMD uses a sacrifice cache for the L3 in all of its processors, and its job is to store data that’s thrown out of the L2 when space is needed for incoming data.
When a thread reaches an instruction that requires a specific piece of data, it first checks the L1 cache, then the L2, and finally the L3. But since L1 and L2 are private to each core, all of them can access the L3 cache. The larger it is, the greater the chance that no thread on a core will require the utilize of system RAM for data.
Normally, just increasing the cache size increases the latency of read/write operations, but AMD pulled some magic tricks out of its engineers’ hats to ensure that the additional 3D V-Cache only adds a few extra nanoseconds compared to the regular L3 cache. In low, this makes a substantial difference at minimum frame rates where data access is the bottleneck.
But I wanted to explore this in more detail, since our standard CPU tests are… well… very CPU-centric, for obvious reasons. I wanted to see if the 5700X3D was significantly better in a variety of other games and at different resolutions. So I spent many long hours running through numerous tests in eight games, at 1080p and 1440p.
I also tested the 5700X3D with two cores disabled to see how much of the performance advantage over the 5600X was due to the additional 64MB of 3D V-cache.
In Ghost of Tsushima the 5700X3D and 5600X are pretty similar, though you can clearly see that the extra cache helps at 1080p. Switch to 1440p, though, and that performance difference disappears. The same goes for Satisfactory, despite there being a lot more CPU processing going on in the background.
One game I expected to see the 5700X3D favoring was Hearts of Iron 4, which featured a late-game scenario with thousands of divisions and dozens of battles raging. But as you can see, the extra cache doesn’t assist — it’s all about core count and clock speeds.
But those are the exceptions. All other games I tested saw noticeable increases in average frame rates with 3D V-Cache, even at 1440p. In some cases, the minimum frame rate is the same, between the 5700X3D and 5600X, but that’s likely because performance isn’t constrained by data access.
Just look at the numbers for Dragon’s Dogma 2, Counter-Strike 2, and Spider-Man Remastered, and it’s uncomplicated to see why PC gamers and reviewers have given AMD’s X3D gaming chips such high praise. And if AMD ever wanted a poster child for 3D V-Cache benefits, Factorio is the obvious choice.
If we calculate the geometric mean of the results across the games tested, excluding Hearts of Iron 4 and Factorio (frames per second not recorded), we get a clearer picture of just how much of an upgrade the Ryzen 7 5700X3D is compared to the Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 3 4100.
At 1080p, the X3D has average performance that’s 24% better than the 5600X and 100% better than the 4100. The six-core results show that this is thanks to the inclusion of 3D V-Cache. Even at 1440p, the 5700X3D is clearly the better gaming processor, with average frames per second that’s 21% better than the 5600X and 88% higher than the 4100.
Buy if…
✅ You need a great gaming processor: The architecture may be a few years venerable, but it’s still relevant. With 3D V-Cache boost, it’s very speedy in games.
✅ You don’t want to spend a lot of money: The 5800X3D is faster, but about $150 more high-priced. This one is a bargain in comparison.
Don’t buy if…
❌ You already have a speedy AM4 processor: It’s speedy in games, no doubt, but so is the 5600X. And the 5800X. And the 5950X. 3D V-Cache can’t double your speeds.
Before you all run out and buy the Ryzen 7 5700X3D, let’s stop for a moment and consider the value. At the time of writing this review, you can get the 5700X3D for $183 on Amazonthough you have to be a Prime member. At other retailers, the processor costs between $188 and $212.
On the other hand, the Ryzen 5 5600X processor can be purchased for as little as $114 (Amazon, New egg)—about 38% cheaper than the 5700X3D. The 5600X isn’t 38% slower on average, more like 20%, so you’re paying a bit more for that 3D V-Cache magic.
Is it worth it? I think it all depends on what games you like to play and what graphics card you have. If I was a Factorio, CS2 or Spider-Man fan I would buy the 5700X3D without hesitation, but if I had a broader gaming taste and a significantly slower GPU than the RTX 4070 I would go for the 5600X and save the money for a full system upgrade later.
But for me, the best thing about the 5700X3D is that the 5800X3D still takes all the headlines as the best AM4 gaming CPU. That makes it desirable, while keeping its price tag high at $150 compared to its slower sibling. That makes the Ryzen 7 5700X3D a bargain by comparison, and probably a reasonable choice as a gaming CPU. Sometimes, just sometimes, slower really is better.
