AMD 3D V-Cache

[Leo]

What could this do for chess engines?

[Cardoso]

These cpu variants are very sensitive to the application as far as performance goes.
Until proven wrong I don't think it will make a lot of difference in chess.
Although more cache is better, a chess engine already lives in the L3 cache of the standard non V-Cache cpus.
Also these chips have slightly lower frequency and are not overclockable to avoid frying the v-cache chip with higher voltages.
But I'm sure the server variants will be very good for... servers.

[Ras]

What could this do for chess engines?

Not that much. You do get more cache, but also lower clock speed because of the additional thermal insulation layer over the CPU part. What you gain after weighing both is fewer, but faster cores in gaming. Then again, a 5900X is not only considerably cheaper in terms of street price than a 5800X3D, but also offers much more overall application performance because it has more cores. It's only in CPU bound gaming that the 5800X3D outperforms the 5900X because games don't really use the 12 cores of the 5900X.

On another note, AMD has arrived at the point where the "Ryzen" brand has built up enough credibility so that they can cash in on that even with complete garbage. The recent 5500 non-X and its lower variants should at best have gone under the "Athlon" brand, and even at their rather low price point, they are not worth buying. It also ties in to AMD's totally ridiculous and seriously misdesigned discrete GPUs on the lower end, the 6500XT and 6400, as well as their intentionally shady and highly misleading benchmarking about the laptop 6000 iGPUs compared to the 5000 ones.

This indicates that AMD thinks they don't have to compete via actual value anymore. That's astonishing for a company that hovers around 25% market share and even less than that in the dGPU market, but the conclusion as customer is that you have to evaluate their offers a lot more critically than in recent years.

[Cardoso]

What could this do for chess engines?

Not that much. You do get more cache, but also lower clock speed because of the additional thermal insulation layer over the CPU part. What you gain after weighing both is fewer, but faster cores in gaming. Then again, a 5900X is not only considerably cheaper in terms of street price than a 5800X3D, but also offers much more overall application performance because it has more cores. It's only in CPU bound gaming that the 5800X3D outperforms the 5900X because games don't really use the 12 cores of the 5900X.

On another note, AMD has arrived at the point where the "Ryzen" brand has built up enough credibility so that they can cash in on that even with complete garbage. The recent 5500 non-X and its lower variants should at best have gone under the "Athlon" brand, and even at their rather low price point, they are not worth buying. It also ties in to AMD's totally ridiculous and seriously misdesigned discrete GPUs on the lower end, the 6500XT and 6400, as well as their intentionally shady and highly misleading benchmarking about the laptop 6000 iGPUs compared to the 5000 ones.

This indicates that AMD thinks they don't have to compete via actual value anymore. That's astonishing for a company that hovers around 25% market share and even less than that in the dGPU market, but the conclusion as customer is that you have to evaluate their offers a lot more critically than in recent years.

Hi Rasmus,
interesting comment, and in a sense comes in my direction as my personal experience regarding hyperthreading is not good on the Ryzen 5000 series.
Please check my post today:
forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=79744