News AMD's older Zen 4 gaming flagship pounds Zen 5 in new gaming benchmarks — Ryzen 7 7800X3D was up to 23% faster than Ryzen 9 9900X

[Admin]

One of the first 3rd party reviews of the Ryzen 9 9900X has revealed that AMD's previous generation, Ryzen 7 7800X3D, is still the best CPU for gaming, beating the 9900X by up to 23%.

AMD's older Zen 4 gaming flagship pounds Zen 5 in new gaming benchmarks — Ryzen 7 7800X3D was up to 23% faster than Ryzen 9 9900X : Read more

 

[edzieba]

SaddyTech's gaming benchmarks confirm AMD's previous statements about Ryzen 9000 not beating the Ryzen 7000 X3D processors in gaming.

Really? Because that's not what Tom's article on Zen 5 indicates AMD claimed:

Notably, AMD avoided comparing its new chips to its own previous-gen Zen 4 models but says the 9700X would beat the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, currently the best gaming CPU on the market, by a “couple percentage points.”

So, did AMD claim that Ryzen 9000 would be faster (even if only by a “couple percentage points”) than 7000X3D, or did AMD claim that 7000X3D would be faster (by 10s of percent in some cases) than Ryzen 9000?

 

[DougMcC]

Really? Because that's not what Tom's article on Zen 5 indicates AMD claimed:


So, did AMD claim that Ryzen 9000 would be faster (even if only by a “couple percentage points”) than 7000X3D, or did AMD claim that 7000X3D would be faster (by 10s of percent in some cases) than Ryzen 9000?

It's not like there's a limit on the number of claims, even contradictory claims that you can make. Maybe they said both.

Edit: some reading suggests that Tom's misread/typoed here. The AMD claim is very clearly that 9000 will edge out 5000 X3D not 7000x3d. It is literally in the picture right above the claim in the article.

 

[TheHerald]

Really? Because that's not what Tom's article on Zen 5 indicates AMD claimed:


So, did AMD claim that Ryzen 9000 would be faster (even if only by a “couple percentage points”) than 7000X3D, or did AMD claim that 7000X3D would be faster (by 10s of percent in some cases) than Ryzen 9000?

The 9900x is the worst chip for gaming, it's a 6+6 ccd chip.

It is very likely that the 9700x will be roundabout as fast as the 7800x 3d in games.

 

[logainofhades]

The 9900x is the worst chip for gaming, it's a 6+6 ccd chip.

It is very likely that the 9700x will be roundabout as fast as the 7800x 3d in games.

AMD themselves has already stated the non x3d 9000 chips would be slower than a 7800x3d in games, and about 12% faster than a 5800x3d.

 

[Phaaze88]

AMD themselves has already stated the non x3d 9000 chips would be slower than a 7800x3d in games...

Even in ones that don't care for the extra cache?

 

[ezst036]

Despite some variance on another Toms Hardware article....................

"Chip with way, way more cache beats chip with significantly less cache"

This is not news. Not really. Dog bites man.

 

[karagra]

Even if the 9900x won here I would be asking why a comparison with a 6+6 core was compared against an 8 core. Thats not how you compare last gen vs current Gen lol...

Granted I can go even further to say for a true comparison you would need an x3d vs x3d but we don't have that yet.. so again why is a chip that is only going to be using 6 cores for gaming being compared to an 8 core for gaming?

Was the article written by someone who doesn't understand how gaming works?

 

[lordmogul]

I mean, look at the 5800 X3D and how that performs compared Zen4. Nothing special about having the same here with the 3D vache Zen4 performing well against Zen5

 

[Neilbob]

'Pounds'?

Sigh. I know using headlines like that draws clicks (I fell into the trap too, even if it was just to gripe), but I really wish you wouldn't resort to using sensationalist terms like that. It makes it look like some sort of shocker, when even AMD themselves said that Zen 4 X3D would still be faster in gaming.

And in a couple of those examples it's not unexpected that the margin is large. Isn't Cities Skylines (I assume the almost decade-old one there) known for being very cache sensitive?

---

In retrospect, I'm not sure why I care. I'm at the point where I'm satisfied with my PC being just as creaky as my bone structure. Soon I'll pass my days looking at photographs that have gone sepia.

Edit: for the children in the audience, photographs used to be taken using cameras with rolls of film, which would then be given to specialist services, developed and printed on to a nice type of smooth card. I know, it's shocking!

 

[phxrider]

The real question is "who cares?" The only one of those where you might be able to perceive a difference (I can't tell the difference between 145 FPS and 165 FPS without a counter on screen) is City Skylines, which I've never even heard of until now. And if you have any GPU below a 4090, the differences will be either smaller or even zero. I have identical 7900XTX GPU models in 7800X3d and 5800X3D systems, and they perform the same. CPU doesn't matter much except for e-Sports, which I don't care about.

I get it that IF you're a competitive player, then this might matter to you, but for everyone else, it's a big giant nothingburger and the one that runs everything else faster is the better pick. The 9700x might even use less power than the 7800X3D (although that CPU really is easy on the power bill).

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

What GPU? What settings? What system? How reputable is "SaddyTech"?

Interesting these details were not given in the article...

 

[TMRichard]

And in other breaking news, Scientists have discovered that water makes things wet, the sky behind the clouds is blue and leaves are varying shades of green. How is this article news? Multiple people from AMD and techYouTube have been saying this forever and has been the case since the OG X3D range... Not to mention the title misrepresents the findings as far more impressive than they otherwise are...

 

[hotaru251]

Even in ones that don't care for the extra cache?

no.

if soemthing doesnt use the cache the x3d is slower than the x version.

 

[Pemalite]

The real question is "who cares?" The only one of those where you might be able to perceive a difference (I can't tell the difference between 145 FPS and 165 FPS without a counter on screen) is City Skylines, which I've never even heard of until now. And if you have any GPU below a 4090, the differences will be either smaller or even zero. I have identical 7900XTX GPU models in 7800X3d and 5800X3D systems, and they perform the same. CPU doesn't matter much except for e-Sports, which I don't care about.

I get it that IF you're a competitive player, then this might matter to you, but for everyone else, it's a big giant nothingburger and the one that runs everything else faster is the better pick. The 9700x might even use less power than the 7800X3D (although that CPU really is easy on the power bill).

This. It's really a whole lot of nothing.

For me I am sitting on the Ryzen 5950X, so I will see strong double-digit performance increase numbers when AMD releases the Ryzen 9950X3D. - But my 5950X can still handle everything I throw at it, so should I dump a few thousand and upgrade? Probably not, I'll need a motherboard and Ram upgrade to go with it anyway.

But if you are already on Ryzen 7000, it's really really a pointless upgrade... But if you are on Ryzen 1000, 2000, 3000... Then this is worth the jump.

X3D beating non-X3D parts is par the course as well, the 5800X3D was beating most Ryzen 7000 parts.

As for the "CPU doesn't matter" angle... Well. Yes and no. If you are someone like me who does a lot of compute and not strictly just games, more CPU grunt can be highly beneficial.

 

[usertests]

Obviously an expected outcome. X3D gives great but wildly inconsistent performance gains, in the ballpark of +15% average which is near what the Zen 5 IPC gain is. It should also be better on minimum frame rates.

Once the data is in on Ryzen 9000 CPUs next week, we can add whatever the gains were from Ryzen 7000 to 7000X3D in specific games on top of that, plus an additional 1-3% to account for higher clocks/overclocking support, and have a good idea of how 9000X3D will perform.

 

[Atom Symbol]

Major problem with the video review: The 9900X was running with on-demand scheduler instead of performance scheduler. It is either a BIOS issue, a Windows scheduler issue, or both. It is impossible to make any conclusion about the relative performance of 7800X3D vs 9900X based on a botched review.

 

[Dementoss]

Specialist gaming CPU, faster in games.

Whatever next...

 

[gamerk316]

The only one of those where you might be able to perceive a difference (I can't tell the difference between 145 FPS and 165 FPS without a counter on screen) is City Skylines, which I've never even heard of until now.

Ouch; Cities Skylines (and more especially its sequel) are the spiritual successor to SimCity, and like all other Paradox titles *crush* CPUs.

That being said, the ultimate CPU test is Stellaris running on the 2.7 patch on a huge Galaxy. *shivers*

 

[jeremyj_83]

But if you are on Ryzen 1000, 2000, 3000... Then this is worth the jump.

I'm going to go to a 9700X this year as an upgrade to my venerable 11 year old i7-4770k. While I doubt I will get much high FPS with my 6700XT at 3440x1440, I'm sure that micro stuttering will be lessened with a newer CPU. Overall most people who are looking to upgrade are going to be on an Intel 8000 series or earlier or maybe older Ryzens but even that can be majorly fixed by going to a 5000/X3D chip if needed.

 

[phxrider]

As for the "CPU doesn't matter" angle... Well. Yes and no. If you are someone like me who does a lot of compute and not strictly just games, more CPU grunt can be highly beneficial.

Obviously, but I was speaking to game performance specifically, and there, it really doesn't matter much except under fairly specific circumstances, those being graphically simplistic games played at low resolutions with a GPU that's powerful enough to be obscenely fast at 4K with cutting edge graphics.