2degrees has launched the SupportHER Club to empower young girls in New Zealand, aiming to promote sports participation amidst declining engagement rates. Read...

AMD loves to build to a crescendo. As it’s shown since 2016, when its first Ryzen CPUs launched, the company progresses incrementally but steadily—until Team Red sits all the way at the top. That time has come for its 3D V-Cache processors, which sport extra L3 cache to boost gaming performance. When AMD released its first variant into the wild, that AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D shot past Intel’s best in gaming—but only gaming. Ryzen 7000X3D chips pulled more even with Team Blue, but still couldn’t pull ahead in some key benchmarks.  But now, with the release of the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, AMD can take the crown for best chip for both gaming and productivity tasks. This $699 16-core, 32-thread slots above last August’s Ryzen 9 9950X, which previously served as the company’s premier chip. Accompanying the 9950X3D onto retail shelves today is the $599 12-core, 24-thread 9900X3D. This outcome seemed likely when the first Ryzen 9000X3D processor dropped last November, with the $479 8-core, 16-thread 9800X3D easily trouncing Intel’s best chips (both current and last gen). But now, as the benchmark numbers show, it’s confirmed. Because the run-up to this March 12 launch has been stuffed with hardware releases, we on the PCWorld team have only had a short time in our labs to give the 9950X3D a spin. But between my colleague Adam Patrick Murray’s preliminary numbers and other reviews from around the web, the story’s pretty clear—this chip slaps hard, as my boss Brad Chacos said in his 9800X3D write-up. Let’s dive into the highlights. (For a longer discussion about the 9950X3D, check out this week’s episode of our hardware show, The Full Nerd, embedded below.) 1. It’s a productivity beast (and still a gaming monster) For this third generation of 3D V-Cache CPUs, AMD’s top-tier X3D processor fully ties together the best in gaming and productivity performance. Productivity tasks have been a standing weakness for this subset of Ryzen CPUs, even with last gen’s improvements. This time around, no qualifiers are needed.  We’ll start with a look at how the Ryzen 9 9950X stacks up against its predecessor, the Ryzen 9 7950X3D. For productivity, our benchmarks showed improvements as high as 19 percent, with the average about 14 percent: If you’re a Premiere Pro person, you’ll see the smallest gain compared to last-gen’s best X3D chip—just a little under 5 percent. But for other hefty workloads, you’ll see as much as 11 percent in Cinebench 2024’s multithreaded test, 16 to 19 percent in Blender, and 16 percent in Photoshop. Meanwhile, in games, our initial benchmarks showed around a 10 percent average across the four titles we ran. While that may sound lackluster, sites with a broader range of games benchmarks show an average closer to 16 percent, with some notable variance between titles. But how about compared to the 9950X, AMD’s best non-3D V-Cache chip? This new 9950X3D holds even with the 9950X in productivity benchmarks. For concrete numbers, you can pop into Paul Alcorn’s review over at Tom’s Hardware. At stock settings, the 9950X3D shows an average improvement of about 1.5 percent across Cinebench’s multithreaded test, POV-Ray, V-Ray, Blender, Handbrake, and y-cruncher over the standard 9950X, or still within the margin of error. So the two deliver similar content creation performance. As for gaming, comparing the 9950X and 9950X3D shows the latter coming in with a huge jump in performance at 1080p. (Reminder: Reviewers test at lower resolutions to better evaluate CPU performance, as lower resolutions shift the workload from the GPU to the CPU.) Tom’s Hardware puts those gains at an average of 30 percent across 16 games. It’s a big win. All in all, if you’ve been looking to get high performance across the board, the 9950X3D is truly AMD’s flagship consumer part—no caveats. 2. The 9950X3D continues the Intel beatdown As we covered in our overview of the 9800X3D last November, AMD’s mid-range X3D chip put the pain on Intel’s best consumer chip, the Core Ultra 9 285K. My boss Brad Chacos sums it up well here: “In the four games we tested, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D runs an average of 25 percent faster than the 285K at 1080p resolution. That’s a massive unheard-of gulf, and it’s actually being dragged down by the results in Total War Warhammer 3, which runs similarly on every processor we tested. If you take that out, the 9800X3D runs a whopping 30 percent faster than Intel’s biggest dog. It’s 45 percent faster than the 285K in Cyberpunk 2077 with ray tracing off.” While reviews across the web show nearly equal performance between the Ryzen 9 9950X3D and Ryzen 7 9800X3D, the mix of superior gaming and productivity performance is what catapults the 9950X3D above other CPUs. In fact, Intel’s current flagship part is not just outdone by AMD’s best parts, but its own last-gen processor, the Core i9-14900K. The Core Ultra 9 285K only manages to hold its own in select productivity benchmarks, where it ekes just past the 9950X3D—so if you have specific workloads, it could still be the better choice. But for raw numbers, the difference is small when the 9950X3D is left at stock settings—and it pretty much disappears when you flip on PBO for the 9950X3D, which gives it an added boost. 3. But you do pay less for Intel…and the AMD 9800X3D Intel does have one advantage, which is price. The MSRP for the 285K is $589, or $110 less than the $699 9950X3D. That’s a sizable chunk of cash that could be put toward a better motherboard, nicer power supply, or more RAM. However, it’s not the only chip with a cost advantage. AMD’s own Ryzen 7 9800X3D sports an MSRP of $479. As an 8-core, 16-thread CPU, it punches hard for its weight, given that its gaming performance is competitive with the 9950X3D and sometimes even beats the more expensive CPU. For its part, the standard Ryzen 9 9950X has a new list price of $549. So while the 9950X3D doesn’t cost more than its predecessor at launch, you are paying a premium for its high-end performance across the board. Street price for the Ryzen 7 9800X3D on Newegg on March 11, 2025.PCWorld As for street prices—as of March 11, the day before the new Ryzen 9 9950X3D’s launch, the calculus looks like this on Newegg: $539 – AMD Ryzen 9 9950X $479 – AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D $445 – Intel Core i9-14900K $620 – Intel Core Ultra 9 285K Unless you need the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K for specific productivity tasks that favor Team Blue, those who are predominantly productivity focused will get the most bang for their buck from AMD’s 9950X. Gamers seeking top performance can lean on Ryzen 7 9800X3D, unless they really want to save cash and drop down to the older Intel Core i9-14900K. Basically, if you want no limits on consumer CPU performance, you’ll pay more for it—but you get plenty for your money. 4. More power, more performance For Ryzen 9000X3D, AMD tucked the extra L3 cache at the bottom of the die, rather stacking it on top—and that allowed the company to run more electricity through the chips. Accordingly, this new 9950X3D has a 170W TDP, up from the 7950X3D’s 120W TDP. The additional juice does help its performance, but as you might guess, it boosts overall power consumption, too. At least, during use. Adam Patrick Murray / PCWorld When we ran Cinebench R24’s multi-threaded benchmark, the total system power draw rose on average by about 70W, or 27 percent. But at idle, we saw lower total system power draw with the 9950X3D, which coasted about 10W under the 7950X3D PC. So while this chip is more efficient, it still will take more power. Adam Patrick Murray / PCWorld For people who need this kind of performance, that difference in energy use likely won’t hit too hard—even with today’s kilowatt-hour rates. But that plus potential additional heat generated should be considered by buyers, if those are concerns. Read...

Christian Petracca`s split from Connors Sports Management has raised eyebrows. Read...

The move follows the most tumultuous period of Christian Petracca’s career. Read...

Across major tournaments in all sports, never has a non-host country enjoyed the treatment that India were afforded during the Champions Trophy. Read...

On a session dubbed ‘Super Saturday’ due to all the Olympic stars in action, it was the daughter of a former gold medallist who shone brightest. Read...

Tamer Uzun insists he did not provoke the former Fox Sports journalist before their infamous street brawl in Rozelle. Read...

Wales` double Olympic taekwondo champion Jade Jones is switching sports and has taken up boxing. Read...

Wests Tigers host the Newcastle Knights in Round 1 of the 2025 NRL Premiership at Campbelltown Sports Stadium, Sydney. Read...

DirecTV is trying to break up the pay TV bundle this year with cheaper, genre-based packages, but one genre in particular is standing in the way. When you look at DirecTV Stream’s new MySports, MyEntertainment, and MyNews packages, they all have one thing in common: Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC are included whether you want them or not. Those mandatory cable news offerings are likely adding around $5 per month to each package based on reported per-subscriber carriage fees. Cable news is still a lucrative part of the pay TV ecosystem, so programmers may be unwilling to break them off from any TV package. But the result for DirecTV is a trio of bundles that still feel a bit bloated. Breaking down DirecTV’s new bundles DirecTV has a web page showing all its new bundles, with channel lists for each one, but here’s the gist: MyEntertainment ($35 per month) includes a broad mix of entertainment channels and cable news, but no local or sports channels. Disney+ and Hulu (with ads) are also included, and Max will be added soon at no extra charge. Notable channels include HGTV, History, Discovery, and Bravo. MyNews ($40 per month) has the big three major cable news networks along with local NBC and Fox stations, plus CNBC, CNBC World, Fox Business, CNN International, i24, and Newsmax. MySports ($70 per month) has local ABC, Fox, and NBC channels; plus, ESPN channels, Fox Sports channels, Turner channels (TNT, TBS, and TruTV), all four league-specific channels, and USA, along with cable news. ESPN+ is included as well. DirecTV is also selling a $35-per-month MiEspañol package and some optional add-ons, including a $10-per-month MyCinema package and a $13-per-month MySports Extra package with NFL RedZone. You’re allowed to mix and match different genre packs, but DirecTV also still offers larger channel bundles (which it now calls “Signature Packages”) that start at $90 per month. Because cable news is included in each of the three main packages listed above, you’re paying for them even if you never watch them. Fox News was seeking per-subscriber fees of around $3 per month as of 2023 according to Vanity Fair, while CNN’s carriage fees were $1.01 in 2020 according to Variety and have surely increased since then. Assuming similar fees for MSNBC, the three channels combined likely add around $5 per month to every pay TV package. Who are DirecTV’s new bundles for? It’s hard to imagine the ideal customer for DirecTV’s MyNews pack at $40 per month when its three most popular cable news channels are included in every other DirecTV English-language package. DirecTV’s MyEntertainment package, for instance, is $5 per month cheaper, yet it includes Disney+, Hulu, and Max (a $17-per-month value on their own); plus, a bunch of entertainment channels. Compared to MyNews, it’s only missing some less popular cable news channels, such as CNBC and Fox Business. While MyNews does include local Fox and NBC stations, it’s missing ABC and CBS, so it’s not a complete replacement for basic cable. You might be better off trying to get local channels with an antenna, signing up for a bigger bundle, or looking at other ways to get broadcast TV programming. DirecTV’s $70 per month MySports package is more compelling for sports fans, or at least it will be if DirecTV manages to add CBS stations. An option to add regional sports—the package’s other big missing piece—will come to select markets by the time baseball season starts. Still, it’d be a stronger package if sports fans didn’t have to pay a cable news tax as well. Everyone gets cable news DirecTV isn’t alone in having to carry cable news. In January, Comcast launched its own “Sports and News” package for $70 per month, the same price as DirecTV MySports. Though it omits sports programming from Warner Bros. Discovery (including TBS and TNT), it still includes Warner’s CNN along with Fox News and MSNBC. Meanwhile, Fubo is planning its own “Sports & Broadcast” bundle, with sources telling TheDesk’s Matthew Keys that it will cost between $50 and $60 per month. That package will reportedly include Fox News and Fox Business as well, because Fox is still requiring distributors to bundle its sports and news channels together, one source said. (Fox, for that matter, plans to include both sports and news in its forthcoming standalone streaming service.) Cable news still represents some of the most popular programming on cable, with MSNBC and Fox News routinely landing in the top 10 for total annual viewers, so some folks might appreciate that it’s part of every emerging skinny bundle. But for those who get their news elsewhere—be it via free streaming news channels or, dare I say it, print journalism—cable news is an unnecessary expense that stands in the way of more flexible and more affordable packaging. Sign up for Jared’s Cord Cutter Weekly newsletter for more streaming TV advice. Read...