Gaming Performance
Now we come to the interesting testing we are sure you all can’t wait for, we were also anxious to get to this part and see how it all ends up for gaming performance. We are going to include 1080p, 1440p, and 4K performance to see the overall big picture of performance. That said, you’ll want to focus on the 1080p results primarily to gain a sense of the level of framerate each CPU is able to provide to the GPU, it is the best predictor of potential performance. In addition, we think you’ll see some interesting scaling starting to happen in the 1440p area as well in some games between the CPUs, so look for that.
For testing, we are using an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 Founders Edition video card with driver version 560.70. All games are being run in their “Ultra” game settings, at native resolution, and with no ray tracing. Each graph is first sorted by 1080p performance, and then second by 1440p performance. In this way, you’ll see which is the fastest CPU with a 1080p resolution. For games with a built-in benchmark, the benchmark is used, in games that do not have a benchmark we do a manual run-through.
Horizon Forbidden West
In Horizon Forbidden West the top performing CPU, to no one’s surprise, is the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D with 177.8 FPS at 1080p and 148 FPS at 1440p. Next down the list is the Intel Core i9-14900K in both Extreme and Performance profiles. The new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X falls behind a bit in this game, with performance that is only about 0.4% behind the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X at 1080p. This performance is so close, this is margin of error results we are experiencing with a manual run-through in this game. What this means, is that the new Ryzen 9 9950X is showing no performance differences compared to the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X, even at 1080p, in Horizon Forbidden West. The 1440p performance is also the same, as well as 4K.
If we compare the new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X to the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, at 1080p the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is behind the 7950X3D by 4%. We can also see that the Intel Core i9-14900K is faster, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is behind the 14900K by 1.2%. If we are comparing the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X to the new AMD Ryzen 9 9900X as well, both CPUs are performing exactly the same in this game with no differences.
Alan Wake 2
In Alan Wake 2 we find the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Intel Core i9-14900K at the Extreme Profile neck-and-neck at 1080p, and the 14900K edging out at 1440p. However, when the Intel Core i9-14900K drops into the Performance Profile, its performance drops by a significant 4.4% at 1080p which places it below the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X in performance. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is therefore about 1.1% above the 14900K in the Peformance Profile, but 3% behind it in the Extreme Profile. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is also 3% behind the 7950X3D.
Compared to the previous generation though, the new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X provides a 4% performance uplift at 1080p compared to the Ryzen 9 7950X. At 1440p and 4K it’s pretty much the same performance. If we compare it to the Ryzen 9 9900X the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is about 2% faster.
Returnal
In Returnal we are again seeing the Intel Core i9-14900K at the Extreme Profile edge out the CPUs, but this time it’s a much smaller 1 FPS or 0.4% difference, so within the margin of error. Once again, when the Intel Core i9-14900K drops to the Performance Profile it loses about 2.3% of performance this time, but it’s enough to allow the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X to slot in ahead of it.
The new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is therefore just 1% faster than the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X and on par with the Ryzen 9 7950X3D in performance. Compared to the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 2% faster. The performance is so close in this game, the only real difference is between the Ryzen 9 7900X where the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 6 FPS faster.
Avatar Frontiers of Pandora
We wanted to include Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora for two reasons, it is an Unreal Engine 5 game which are increasing in number, and we also experienced no performance differences to speak of between the CPUs, even at 1080p. This game utilizes Ray Tracing which is “always on.” In this scenario, even on an RTX 4090 at 1080p no CPU really has a noteworthy advantage, just about 3 FPS difference from the lowest to the highest. This example is relevant just to show that some games may still be bound by the GPU, even at 1080p and CPU performance differences may not show depending on the game and settings. It’s just an example of how game-dependent CPU performance can end up being, but let’s move to the next page.
Discussion (14 replies)
Join Discussion →@Brent_Justice
Thank you again for a good review worth reading.
But....
Did you realize that picture at the top of the article looks like a bandaid?
Damn you - now I can't unsee this.
Would be better if it were a 90 yr old stripper with a boob job.
ps - I finally found a good use for AI
Damn it totally does...and I kinda want those for the Datacenter for the inevitable nicks and scratches people get handling computers. CPU themed bandaids.
Great review!
Could you delve a little further on this? I find myself not really familiar with what this is, and why one would disable it.
It sounds like it might be an important security feature?
Also....
Memory appears to behave rather interestingly with this release.
If you guys get around to it at some point I'd love to see your breakdown on memory settings and performance.
The settings you used seem like they would be the best easily achievable RAM settings for this platform, and a good choice for the initial review, but I am curious about other settings as well.
How do they - for instance - compare to DDR5-6400 with fabric at 2133 in a 1:1:1 configuration? Is this stable?
And how does the performance of this compare to - say - DDR5-8000 in a non 1:1:1 configuration? Is it better to go for that perfect 1:1:1 or to shoot for higher clock speed?
Also, I understand CL is less important than it once was, but how important are timings?
I think this could make for an interesting follow-up test.
Wendell over at level1techs also has some really interesting remarks in his Zen5 reviews (both on the main channel and the level1techs Linux channel) about how he thinks the current Windows 11 scheduler might be wonky with Zen5 and is holing it back. Unlike with other CPU's he is seeing much better performance under Linux with this architecture. I'll be looking forward to further investigation into this.
Also,
One more thought,
Your review does not have this data, but in other reviews I've seen, the 9950x - while it does well in average frame rate, it has been very impressive in 1% and 0.1% lows compared to other CPU's even beating the 14900k in many benchmarks.
I find this to be very interesting and I can't help but wonder why. What about this CPU specifically makes it so good at minimum frame rates?
I suspect some of it may have to do with Intel's E-cores getting in the way, and Intel's much higher memory bandwidth allowing the CPU to run away with it in some cases, pulling up the average, but keeping the minimums where they are. Not sure though
I've been a long time believer that 1% and 0.1% lows are of much greater importance than average frame-rates. That's what I determine my "playability" on. I want minimums/lows to be 60fps or greater. IN reality this tends to result in averages at or about 90fps, but some CPU/GPU's have a smaller difference between averages and lows than others.
I'm glad I'm at the age where I can truly forget things because I need to forget this. @Dan_D , I think you mentioned something like this in another thread recently.
Yes I did.
Nice my CPU holds up for gaming at least.
Yea that's a solid CPU and I wouldn't go with a 9000 series just yet.
I don't think she'd take no for an answer.
I should probably go to the gym more often.
Ummm.... what?
The 90 year old with a boob job.
Ahhhh ook
Hi guys ! I have a 9950x. BTW, I used to me a moderator for 17 years on Anandtech forums. The main site is dead as of today, so I may be here a lot more.
Sorry to hear about the final shutdown of Anandtech. I used to read the site a lot from founding in the late 90's until 2014 when Anand left and sold the site, and I felt that the quality of the content started to go downhill.
I still miss Anandtechs excellent SSD reviews (from ~2010-2014). They were some of the best.
The more the merrier. Good to have more people in these forums! :)