AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D Game Performance Continued
We are going to continue to explore the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D CPU in gaming performance, focused on game performance only, at 1080p with the highest in-game graphics settings. We will be using an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5090 Founders Edition video card with each CPU, and our comparison CPUs are the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D, and Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. A manual run-through is being used in each game being tested below for real-world gaming performance data, and the games are listed in alphabetical order. All data in this review has been benchmarked fresh on each CPU for this review with updated drivers, BIOS, and game versions.
Indiana Jones and the Great Circle
In Indiana Jones and the Great Circle, we are running at 1080p in the Supreme graphics preset quality, note that Path Tracing is not enabled. We are using a manual run-through for testing. This game has a very linear scaling in terms of CPU performance, which is interesting to see. Also interesting is perhaps some sort of core parking or X3D optimization issue occurring with the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, which is sitting at the bottom of the charts, which is not typical in other games. We saw perhaps an issue in Horizon Forbidden West as well, on the previous page, and we are seeing this again in this game.
Once again the single-CCD X3D cache Zen 5 Ryzen 7 9800X3D takes the lead in performance, but this time it takes a huge, commanding lead, which again is not typical compared to the previous games we looked at. Here, the Ryzen 7 9800X3D is 19% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D, that’s the biggest difference we’ve seen between those CPUs yet. We are really starting to think the dual-CCD X3D CPUs are not quite behaving as they should.
The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D CPU is, though, 19% faster than the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X3D, so that’s pretty big, but we don’t think the Ryzen 9 7950X3D is behaving right in the first place here. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D CPU is 14% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, so it does appear the X3D is doing something, perhaps. The Intel Core Ultra 9 285K does pretty well in this game; the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 6% faster.
Kingdom Come: Deliverance II
In Kingdom Come: Deliverance II, we are running at 1080p in the Ultra quality preset, and we are using a manual run-through. We see another very linear scaling in this game; the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D is slightly faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D by 4%. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is only 2% faster than the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X3D, however, so that is not a big difference in this particular game. However, be aware that our run-through is in an area of the game that is more graphically demanding area and geared for that than a CPU benchmark for this run. There are other areas in the game that can be more CPU-dependent. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 5% faster than the Ryzen 9 9950X and 10% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K. Other areas in the game need to be explored to find a more CPU-dependent run-through, so be aware of that information.
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2: Heart of Chornobyl
In Stalker 2, we are running this game at 1080p and the graphics quality preset of Epic. We also are using a manual run-through in a very CPU-dependent area of a village, where it is greatly affected by CPU performance. In this game, the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D takes a slight lead over the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D by 3%. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 18% faster than the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X3D, showing a very big generational uplift. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 21% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, proving the huge performance gain from the X3D cache. Interestingly, the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K doesn’t do too badly in this game, though the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is still 12% faster than that CPU.
Starfield
In Starfield, we are running at 1080p and Ultra settings in a very CPU-dependent area of a big city, and we are using a manual run-through. This game also shows the advantage of the X3D cache. The AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D still has a slight leg up on the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D, by 2%. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 17% faster than the previous generation AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D, which is a very sizable generational uplift. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is also 28% faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X, proving once again the benefit of that X3D cache. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 20% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K.
Star Wars Outlaws
In Star Wars Outlaws, we are running at 1080p and Ultra settings with a manual run-through in a populated city area, which is CPU-dependent. For the first time, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D actually outperformed the AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D this time, which was unique in our testing, usually they match or the 9800X3D takes the lead, but here, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 3% faster than the Ryzen 7 9800X3D. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 8% faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X3D for a generational uplift. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 34% faster than the Ryzen 9 9950X, which is a pretty big improvement for that X3D cache. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is also 27% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K.
The Last of Us Part I
In The Last of Us Part I, we are running at 1080p with the Ultra preset and using a manual run-through. Well, just like Star Wars Outlaws we actually see the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D beat the Ryzen 7 9800X3D slightly, by 1.2%. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 13% faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X3D for a generational uplift and 12% faster than the Ryzen 9 9950X. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D is 5% faster than the Intel Core Ultra 9 285K, which does remarkably well in this game now by comparison.
Discussion (19 replies)
Join Discussion →Thanks for the review. Just the take i was looking for!
Good review, thanks!
Looks exactly like I suspected.
The multi CCD penalty in gaming is still real, so it consistently performs lower than the 9800x3d in games, but on average the penalty seems less than in the past, maybe because of slightly higher clocks.
It would be interesting to see how it performs in games with one of the CCD's disabled.
I wonder how much better a 9950x3d with one CCD disabled would perform compared to the 9800x3d...
Based on the clock speeds (5.7Ghz vs. 5.2Ghz) the upper bound should be 9.6% at stock clocks, but in reality it will likely be lower, as RAM bandwidth/latency will likely hold it back.
Lets not forget that overclocking is now possible with x3D CPU's. I'm going to presume that the CCD's in the 9950x3d are higher bins to hit the 5.7Ghz clocks, but the question to me is this:
If you are a gaming extremist and overclocker, and want the best gaming performance bar none....
Is it better to buy a 9950x3d for $699 (compared to the $479 9800x3d) and disable one CCD (to get rid of the CCD penalty)?
Or, if you are going to overclock both anyway, are you likely to be limited at about the same clocks/performance.
In other words, can you get higher by overclocking a one CCD 9950x3d than by overclocking a 9800x3d.
I've already seen many 9800x3d overclocks it 5.7Ghz, so we know it can tie the stock 9950x3d, but the question is, is that 9950x3d right at its limit, or will that higher bin allow it to go even higher?
...and if it does go even higher, (6+Ghz?) will it even matter, or will AMD's fabric/memory controller design hold it back anyway?
This would be a really cool test, especially if a few different memory configurations are thrown in for good measure. Which would be faster for games on an AMD system when really pushing the clocks like this? DDR5-6400 in a 1:1 MCLK to UCLK configuration, or DDR5-8000 in a 2:1 MCLK to UCLK configuration.
The DDR5-8000 will get slightly less top level memory bandwidth due to a slightly lower UCLK, but on the flip side, with the RAM running at 4000Mhz (8000MT/s) penalties from things like refreshes are going to be much smaller, as those don't use memory controller bandwidth, and instead operate at the speed of the RAM. Of course, timings and submitting will likely make a difference too.
I have yet to see a really good review that combines all of these complexities of overclocking X3d chips, multiple CCD's and RAM settings when pushed to the limit.
Most sites have been getting hit with back to back launches since CES.....
It's interesting. I've seen some reviewers where the 9950x3d is steadily trading blows with the 9800x3d. Yet the reviews here are showing it largely a step below for gaming. (Well more a 1/2 step really.) Not discounting it mind you.
What resolutions are being looked at in those reviews? Our numbers are at 1080p where CPU bound is more anything. 4k testing is probably going to be within margin of error...
Game Selection, Manual In-Game Run-Through vs Benchmark, Area used within game for manual run-through, length of run-through, Resolution, Game Settings, System Configuration, BIOS version used, BIPO settings used, Memory used and type and speed, Windows Updates applied, Game Bar Updated, Chipset Drivers used, GPU used, System resource minimization, VBS on or off, FPS capture method, Number of run-throughs performed, Fresh data or old data, Clean install of Windows or not, verification of results, etc... name your variable.
Well, the 9900x3d is 679€ and the 9950x3d is 789€ around here, not as bad as the GPU's, still not good though.
Picked up my 9950x3d at Microcenter this morning. Wheee... FOMO skipped! ;)
As of 1:15pm EST, my local Micro Center has 25 in stock. Newegg and Amazon have none. A friend of mine grabbed one from Newegg and said they sold out in 9 minutes. He also got one from Micro Center. He's gonna return the one he got from Newegg.
This morning the Dallas Microcenter had 380 9950x3d's. Currently.. maybe out I don't know.
I'm having a hard time deciding which one I want now. 9800x3d or 9950x3d. Considering I'll have a separate workstation, and my AM5 system will pretty much only be used for games, I'm leaning towards the 9800x3d, but the draw is strong.
I have to admit, your results seem a bit different than most others I am seeing now.
Did you guys confirm that you had proper core parking working during the game tests?
Our results make sense compared to the other CPUs used in our comparison, specifically the 9800X3D and 7950X3D, and the advantages over the 9950X that we saw. The results make sense when you compare our own data to itself. The 9800X3D has the overall advantage, and that makes sense, if core-parking wasn't working, then the results would be far far worse for the 9950X3D, and it isn't. BTW, the 9950X3D was the first CPU we installed with a fresh install of Windows and drivers, and updates, so there is literally nothing getting in the way of the PPM drivers, and other chipset driver optimizations.
Cross-comparing versus other review sites can be misleading due to the myriad of variables I described above, that I will copy below. Game selection and where you benchmark in the game makes a big difference, including if it's a game benchmark or manual run-through. we use manual run-throughs that emphasize CPU-dependency; I cannot speak for other reviews.
Please specify which games you think are questionable.
Compared to Gamers Nexus while graphical settings are different you went with Ultra and they went with Medium. Theirs is showing the 9950x3d = to the 9800x3d. Where yours is reflecting a nearly 5fps difference. That could easily be a margin of error.
F1 24, Gamers nexus running 1080p/High as opposed to Ultra again puts them at equal AS DOES yours. So that lines up.
Hardware unboxed CP 2077 shows a 3fps lead for the 9800x3d over the 9950x3d. Not bad.
(I'm not sighting these to prove or disprove, you asked I'm just doing a bit of research because I'm a nerd.)
Hardware unboxed results for The last of us Part 1 had a 2fps lead over the 9800xed, same effectively as yours.
Hardware unboxed Starfield results are effectively = with a 1 FPS lead for the stock clock 9950x3d. 1080p Ultra.
So your tests are largely the same or margin of error differences in results. It seems other review sites are leaning slightly toward the 9950x3d being the better for gaming depending largely on the game itself. :)
Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was making accusations or anything. I don't have enough information to say one way or another.
Just that most review sets out there I have seen have the two trading blows, and maybe even having the 9950x ahead by one or two percent on average. Most conclusions out there are along the lines of "wow, isn't it amazing. AMD has solved the split CCD performance penalty issue". Your review leads to a different conclusion, so I was just curious what might be different.
Overall game selection in the test suite can certainly be a possible explanation.
Yours seems to be a little bit of an outlier, and outliers are always interesting :) You can learn from them. Understanding the "why" the general conclusion is different can lead to a better understanding of the two CPU's comparative performance.