AMD’s X3D processors only help in two areas, and most gamers have neither

I’m sure most of us are currently obsessed with AMD’s X3D processors. This is an easy recommendation for gamers, and I completely understand why. Ever since I ditched my 5900X for a 5800X3D, I’ve been a big fan myself as it finally allowed my RTX 4090 to stretch its legs at 1440p. That’s why I recently upgraded to the 9800X3D, even though I didn’t necessarily need it. When you see this kind of increase in FPS and GPU usage, it’s hard not to want to revisit it.

But that doesn’t mean everyone should grab the newest X3D processors on the market without hesitation. Benchmarks on YouTube make these processors look like a universal upgrade, as they often highlight the processor-related scenarios in which V-Cache 3D shines the most. And while it’s a good showcase of potential, most players won’t benefit from it in the same way. The GPU remains the main bottleneck in the vast majority of PC setups, which means you may never reach the CPU limits where that extra cache is actually important.

Cache is only useful when you are limited to CPU, and that’s it

For gamers, that means chasing triple-digit frame rates or playing CPU-limited titles.

Many of you are quick to assume that X3D processors are much better than their non-X3D counterparts for gaming at any time. I mean, I understand why because that’s what the criteria suggests. But what you don’t see is that these tests are done at 1080p, where the processor is intentionally pushed to its limits. This is useful for showing the maximum possible difference between different CPUs, but most people don’t use flagship GPUs for 1440p gaming, let alone 1080p. On the contrary, those who play at lower resolutions usually have a budget or mid-range card in their builds, meaning they are much more likely to be GPU-bound anyway.

Of course, many gamers target very high frame rates in competitive titles like Valorant, Counter-Strike 2And Call of Duty: Warzoneand for them, these processors totally make sense. In these scenarios, a massive L3 cache can hold more data closer to the processor, reducing the need to constantly fetch it from slower system memory. This reduces latency and helps the CPU feed the GPU more consistently, which is exactly what you want when pushing 200+ FPS. And it’s not just about esports titles. Games rich in simulation like Microsoft Flight Simulator and large open world titles can also benefit from the extra cache as they work with large, repetitive datasets sensitive to memory latency.

The other real-world use case is for cache-aware workloads.

Some niche software benefits a lot from this, but most regular workloads don’t care.

I’ve seen a lot of people asking on Reddit where the stacked L3 cache on X3D CPUs has any use outside of gaming. And to be honest, I understand the confusion, because it’s not something you’ll notice on a daily basis. 3D V-Cache is useful when an application keeps working with the same data over and over again. If this data can stay in the CPU cache instead of being pulled from your RAM, you reduce latency and power the cores more efficiently. Niche workloads such as simulation, code compilation, and data-intensive tasks that reuse the same data can benefit from this additional L3 cache on X3D processors.

The problem is that most typical workloads don’t behave this way. Even many creative tools that we are familiar with, like Mixer, Adobe Premiere ProAnd DaVinci solve don’t benefit from all that extra cache. They are more sensitive to other factors like CPU clock speed, core count, and GPU acceleration, which is why the 9950X remains a reasonable choice for professionals. Overall, if you’re getting an X3D processor purely for productivity, you’re essentially rolling the dice and hoping your specific workload cares about cache. It’s better to focus on a faster processor with more cores.

X3D processors are simply easier to recommend

But most people spend more for no real gain, just to be safe.

Everyone is quick to recommend processors with 3D V-cache, like the 9800X3D and 7800X3D for gaming, and there’s nothing inherently wrong with that advice. After all, they consistently occupy the top of the benchmark rankings, and if there’s anything we’ve learned from the 5800X3D, it’s that these processors tend to age like fine wine. Whether you’re gaming at 1440p or 4K, the X3D processors offer plenty of headroom that’s hard for me to argue with. You don’t have to worry about edge cases or wonder if your CPU will become a bottleneck after a few years when you upgrade your GPU.

But that doesn’t mean it’s always the right decision. Most people don’t run into CPU limitations, especially at higher resolutions or with mid-range GPUs. In these scenarios, even a $200 processor like the Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus can provide a very similar experience even if it doesn’t have the extra L3 cache. And that’s because in 4K, it’s the GPU that does the heavy lifting anyway. Sure, you might see some difference in benchmarks, but that’s not enough to make a noticeable difference in how games run overall. Rather, most people pay more for peace of mind, not the performance that matters today.

Don’t fool yourself into thinking you need more cache

It’s easy to see how good AMD’s X3D processors are on the benchmark charts, but don’t forget the scenarios where they actually make a difference. These tests highlight CPU performance when paired with flagship GPUs at lower resolutions, which isn’t how most people configure their PC for gaming. If you play exclusively AAA titles at 4K, even a CPU without 3D V-cache can give you the frame rates and consistency you expect, because your GPU does most of the work. So if you’re on a tight budget, save your money and focus on the component that’s actually holding back your performance.

8/10

Socket

FCLGA1851

Cores

18 (6 P cores, 12 E cores)

Topics

18

Base Clock Speed

Core P: 4.2 GHz, Core E: 3.3 GHz