Gaming Performance Cont.
In order to test gaming performance properly and really get a good feel for it, and cover all the bases for the big picture, we decided to test 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions, all three resolutions to see from top to bottom how these CPUs affect performance games. For testing, we are using an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti Founders Edition video card. Since we are testing all 3 resolutions, it’ll be a good mix to see where the CPU matters and where it doesn’t.
All the graphs below are not sorted, they are not sorted from fastest to slowest as in previous graphs, instead, they are simply labeled in groups by platform, from fastest CPU to least fastest CPU. As you look at performance, try to look down the column of the resolution, to see which one is faster than the other, to help your eyes see which one is faster.
Cyberpunk 2077
Cyberpunk 2077 is notoriously demanding, and as such at 4K we are most certainly GPU bound. Even at 1440p, we are GPU bound, but we do see the new 7900X perform faster than the 5950X and 5900X at 1440p by 8%. At 1080p the new 7900X is 10% faster than the 5900X, which is a nice uplift in this game. The Intel Core i9-12900K is still faster than the 7900X though at 1440p and 1080p, at 1080p its 4% faster.
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 is a notoriously CPU-driven game, and you can see that above with the performance being so close in each resolution. We are using the latest patch in the game, and DX12 is enabled. The first thing that you can clearly see is how much faster the new Zen 4 CPUs are in this game. The Ryzen 9 7900X and 7600X simply blow away every CPU here, including all the Alder Lake CPUs.
Firstly, Alder Lake is superior in performance over the Ryzen 5000 series, they offer a lot of performance, and the Ryzen 7 58003D is also a champion in this game. But as much as Alder Lake improved performance over the Ryzen 5000 series, the new Ryzen 7000 CPUs blow away Alder Lake in this game. They just truly allow the best experience at every resolution, 4K included.
The Ryzen 9 7900X is 18% faster at 4K compared to the 5900X, and 29% faster at 1440p and 32% faster at 1080p. Even compared to the Intel Core i9-12900K the 7900X is slightly faster at 4K, 7% faster at 1440p and 7% at 1080p.
We have included Crysis Remastered because this game is also very CPU-driven. At 4K, we can see it is not so much, but at 1440p and below it is. The Ryzen 9 7900X is 2% faster than the 5900X at 1440p and 12% faster at 1080p. However, the Intel Core i9-12900K is faster at 1440p and 1080p compared to the 7900X. At 1440p it is 6% faster and at 1080p it is 7% faster.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
We decided to throw in an older game, which we used to use for GPU benchmarks quite a bit because this game was used in AMD marketing for performance, it was in one of their graphs for gaming performance. We thought it would be good to have some validated tests done so you can validate their results as well and compare against it. But this game actually turned out to be quite good for the 1080p results. At 4K it’s GPU bound, and also at 1440p. At 1080p though we can see the Ryzen 9 7900X is 14% faster than the Ryzen 9 5900X. The 7900X also beats out the 12900K a bit at 1080p.
Discussion (12 replies)
Join Discussion →I was interested in the 7000 series, but for gaming the performance difference with my 12700k is not there, power draw also is worse as are temps.
Will see what intel brings, so far it looks like I will skip upgrading my CPU for now.
Ugh.
I wasn't thrilled about Intel because of the higher power draw, and AMD goes and follows in their footsteps. It's not quite as bad as Intel, but it's a lot worse than Zen3 was.
But yeah, for gaming, the only real difference on the chart - aside from the 5800x3d - seems to be if you are running DDR4 or DDR5.
But the 5800X3D, using 100W less, on DDR4 and still punching in that weight class. Damn. They should just keep making that chip for gaming. Zen4 looks nice for rendering and workstation-ish tasks though, but for general purpose or gaming I don't see any reason to do anything other than a 5800X3D if I were building a new system right now. That really was my take away from all of this.
As usual Brent, excellent review!
GN's review of the 7950X explains AMDs strategy for the high temps.
[embedded media]
No need to dive into all of their benchmarks but they explain the high temp and power usage.
Nice review guys.
I have 5700x so not ready jump in just yet. Will wait for things to mature and affordable motherboards.
Microcenter is running a promo right now though, buy a 7700x or higher and get a free 32gb DDR5 g.skill kit. It's ddr5-5600 though... maybe they are clearing out inventory of the slower speeds? Who knows maybe it can be overclocked to 6000.
In store only though. Of course.
Maybe next year when the X670 platform and DDR5 gets cheaper, I can use a 7900X to finally replace my 5930K. Assuming I can get the funds. Would also be really nice to see Zen 4 on Threadripper non-Pro.
I'm leaning towards going with Intel right now, as the Z690 platform looks decent enough and I can get Thunderbolt and 10G Ethernet on a Mobo for under $300
If this is the one you're thinking of: https://www.newegg.com/p/N82E16813145376?Item=N82E16813145376&quicklink=true
I had to return mine to Newegg - it killed three DDR5 kits from G.Skill (which I also had to return) inside of two months. Can't say if it's still a problem as it's not a very popular board and there is very little data available.
Other options I'm seeing go up quite a bit in price. In general, Thunderbolt doesn't seem to be that popular, and you're better off using a 10Gbit card if that's what you need.
I have to admit, having both a Mac and PC, I honestly can't say what's Thunderbolt and what's USB-C anymore.
I used to have a bit of Thunderbolt stuff - it was first/second generation. Back when it used mini-DisplayPort plugs. Then it was distinct and you knew it wasn't just USB (although I have seen people plug them into their video cards and wonder why their backup drive doesn't work there). But now - I don't think I have anything that's Gen 3/4, but honestly wouldn't know how to tell.
The branding / marketing has been a mess on both sides.
I have to agree the new am5 socket motherboards are surprisingly expensive. I have to wonder I'd that is an early adopter tax + a sign of the times or something new.
Seems like the x570 started out the same way
Three main reasons:
They did, but consider - MSIs 'enthusiast'-oriented line is the Carbon, ASUS' is the Strix-E - these are the lowest-end boards in their respective product stacks that feature a post code display, while having essentially equivalent power delivery and memory speed support of higher-end boards. Going further up the stack gets you into the territory of boards that have all that and better connectivity, as well as typically features that support sub-ambient cooling (chilled water, dry ice, LN2...) and extreme overclocking (meaning, benchmarkable but beyond reasonable for daily use).
The prices of these boards have gone up too. While X570 more or less caught AMD up to Intel in terms of feature parity on the boards, X670E seeks to match Intel right out of the gate and appears to have largely succeeded. Just at a cost!
They're working on putting better markers on the ports themselves, and for USB4 on the release set of X670E boards, they're using Intel's TB4 controller. They can't call it TB4 apparently because the implementation isn't certified by Intel (I'm quoting Wendel at L1T here), but as TB4 is a full superset and then some of USB4, at least these boards shouldn't have compromises.
What we all need to watch out for, though, is future USB4 'cut-down' implementations. USB4 allows for lower data rates and lower power delivery than TB4.
Nice review. It looks like I'll stick with my 12900K.