SerpApi.Org
The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D: The Frame-Rate Chaser's Dream
The AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D is the most recent Ryzen 7 processor to feature AMD's much-lauded 3D V-Cache, housed in a "chiplet" (in essence, a module on the processor). The 3D V-Cache claim to fame is that it works well to accelerate gaming frame rates under certain circumstances.
The 9850X3D has eight CPU cores based on AMD’s Zen 5 microarchitecture and can reach a peak clock speed of 5.6GHz. This architecture supports simultaneous multithreading (SMT), enabling each CPU core to execute two processing threads simultaneously, boosting overall performance in heavily threaded workloads.
The processor’s most attractive feature is its large 96MB pool of L3 cache. (The 3D V-Cache portion comprises 64MB of that.) Having a big pool of cache on the processor can improve performance in certain applications. Games, in particular, respond well to this generous cache allotment, which is why the 9850X3D sells well as a gaming processor.
The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus: A Master Stroke Among Low-Cost CPUs
Then we have the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus. Intel based this mainstream-focused processor on its "Arrow Lake" processor architecture, which differs a lot from the AMD competition. One way in which they are similar, though: The Arrow Lake family of processors is made up of the first modern Intel chips to use a chiplet design, which AMD adopted generations earlier.
Intel also implemented something of a hybrid processor design with Arrow Lake, by which we mean the processor has two distinct microarchitectures for its CPU cores. The 250K Plus has 18 CPU cores, six of which are performance cores (P-cores). P-cores are designed for peak processing speed within a given CPU design. The 12 remaining cores are efficiency cores (E-cores), designed for lower power draw and to handle less demanding tasks.
It's notable that the 250K Plus has four more of these E-Cores than non-Plus 200S-series processors like the Intel Core Ultra 5 245K. This places the 250K Plus between the 245K and the Intel Core Ultra 7 265K in terms of resources, with the 250K Plus coming much closer to matching the 265K. This also enables the 250K Plus to perform more like a Core Ultra 7 processor than an Ultra 5, and it is partially why we are comparing it to the Ryzen 7 9850X3D. At launch, the 250K Plus was priced at $199, but it has since risen to $219.
The Core Ultra 5 250K Plus tops out at 5.3GHz on its P-cores and at 4.6GHz on its E-cores. It has far less L3 cache than the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, with just 30MB, but the 250K Plus has a large 30MB L2 cache that helps to make up for this. In comparison, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D comes equipped with just 8MB of L2 cache.
CPU Tests: Advantage, Intel
In terms of raw CPU performance (which is to say, excluding gaming scenarios), the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus proved to be a much faster chip than the Ryzen 7 9850X3D in our benchmark tests. In most of them, the Core Ultra 5 250K Plus decisively outran the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, notably in multi-threaded workloads. For example, the 250K Plus was almost 35% faster than the 9850X3D in Cinebench 2024, and it completed the multi-threaded POV-Ray 3.7 test almost 48% faster. The sheer number of physical cores that the 250K Plus has versus the 9850X3D clearly comes into play here.
In single-threaded tests, the 250K Plus outpaced the 9850X3D, but by smaller margins. In Cinebench 2024, the two were essentially tied: The 9850X3D scored slightly higher, but within the 3% margin of error. In the POV-Ray 3.7 single-threaded test, the 250K Plus held a small 6% lead. These results suggest that the 250K Plus can perform better than the 9850X3D in single-threaded tests, but generally, these processors should be close in those scenarios.
The Adobe Creative Suite test results (run via the PugetBench for Creators benchmark utility) also show these two CPUs trading blows. (The Intel chip was ahead decisively on Adobe Premiere, and the AMD on Photoshop.) But I wouldn't draw strict conclusions from these results, as I've found Intel’s Arrow Lake processors have performed inconsistently in these specific tests.
Winner: Intel
Gaming Tests: 3D V-Cache Brings the Heat
While the 9850X3D’s general processor performance lags behind the competition, its gaming performance tells a different story. When tested with low graphics settings, the 9850X3D outpaced the 250K Plus in all our test games by a large margin. The performance gap between the 250K Plus and the 9850X3D narrowed somewhat in Black Myth: Wukong, and while the 250K Plus wasn’t as far behind the 9850X3D in this game, it still lagged.
It's a different story, though, when testing games with high graphics settings (see chart below). That reduces the performance gap between the two processors. First, in 3DMark Time Spy Extreme, we again have a test result that you take in context. This shows the 250K Plus scoring way higher than the 9850X3D on the CPU score, but that doesn’t align with our real-world gaming test results. The Overall Score is much closer.
From these numbers, it's clear: The 9850X3D will give you a better gaming experience than the 250K Plus, especially when paired with a top-end graphics card like an Nvidia GeForce RTX 5090. All of the test data I’ve gathered from games supports this. It is worth mentioning that this performance lead that the 9850X3D holds will be smaller, in a relative sense, if you use a weaker graphics card. To squeeze the most juice from the 9850X3D's strengths, it makes the most sense in higher-end builds. You don't want to economize on the CPU when, for example, pairing it with a four-figure graphics card like a GeForce RTX 5090.
Winner: AMD
Integrated Graphics Tests: Intel’s One-Sided Advantage
AMD and Intel each take a different approach to the integrated graphics processors (IGPs) that are part of their processors. While AMD has a few chips with powerful IGPs, the IGP in the Ryzen 7 9850X3D, like on its other X3D chips, is relatively weak. It's dubbed “AMD Radeon Graphics,” and it is intended to power only basic display workloads. It will work fine for most tasks like that, but it isn’t powerful enough to play modern games.
Intel, conversely, equips most of its desktop processors with a powerful IGP. The Arc Xe LPG attached to the 250K Plus is more potent than the Radeon competition on the 9850X3D. The “LPG” part of the name stands for "low-power gaming," signifying that Intel indeed designed this graphics solution to be more than just a display adapter. This shows up in test results, where the 250K Plus was far faster than the 9850X3D when each processor was using only its respective IGP.
That said, this is something of an empty victory from a "proper" gaming perspective. If you're looking to play light games at modest settings without any graphics card at all, the Xe LPG graphics will suffice. But the whole point of the Ryzen 7 9850X3D and similar 3D V-Cache-equipped processors is to pair them with a GPU, which would make any real IGP talents or muscle moot.
Winner: Intel
Cost of Ownership: Intel Wins on Dollars and Cents
The Intel Core Ultra 5 250K Plus is priced at $219 (a few months after it launched the chip, Intel raised its pricing guidance from $199), while the AMD Ryzen 7 9850X3D retails for $499. Given the significant price difference and the 250K Plus' performance advantage in many CPU benchmarks, the 250K Plus offers better value under many circumstances. The Ryzen 7 9850X3D would need a major CPU-performance boost (or a significant discount) to provide anything close to the 250K Plus’ performance-to-price ratio.
The 250K Plus is an arguably better value for mainstream gaming, too. The widest gulf in our tests: The 9850X3D was 43% faster than the 250K Plus in F1 2024. That's a very big difference, but that was at 1080p, with the graphics settings set to the ultra-low preset, and with an RTX 5090. The 3D V-Cache tech excels when settings and resolutions are low, and the CPU is the limiter on frame rates. Of course, if peak frame rates at any cost, with any graphical-level sacrifice, are what you're after, the Ryzen 7 9850X3D is your chip. Esports hounds and frame-rate chasers want it for a reason.
For most folks, though, running a more moderate GPU, they'll hit the limits of their graphics card in games before the CPU becomes the frame-rate bottleneck. Scenarios like that won't justify the 9850X3D costing about twice as much as the 250K Plus, given that the 250K Plus has far superior CPU performance.
Plus: The hundreds of dollars you save by opting for the 250K Plus is enough to pay for most of an Nvidia GeForce RTX 5060, or to pad out your budget for an even more powerful graphics card. The price difference between these CPUs is larger than the difference in price between Nvidia's GeForce RTX 5070 Ti and Nvidia's Geforce RTX 5080, and this price difference certainly could make the difference in which of these cards you buy. The advantage you would gain from the faster graphics card will far outweigh any gain you would see from the 9850X3D.
Winner: Intel
