guru3d AMD: 7800X3D up to 24% faster than Intel

[UltraMega]

Quote

AMD has released official gaming benchmark results for its upcoming 8-core Ryzen 7 7800X3D processor, which is set to launch in April. The benchmark shows that the Ryzen 7 7800X3D outperforms Intel's Core i9-13900K by up to 24%.

 

Source: Guru3D

 

 

 

 

1080p gamers rejoice! 

Edited March 14, 2023 by UltraMega

[bonami2]

The sad thing is all of those game are at 200+ fps on a 13900k

Horizon is singlethreaded was using 20-40% of one of my 13900k core probably e core not even p core.

 

Wonder how future game will perform. Still a great cpu power comsumption probably insane low

[Sir Beregond]

I still say AMD is sandbagging pretty hard by waiting till April to launch this, but guess that's how they push more 7900X3D and 7950X3D on gamers who don't need them.

 

7800X3D should be a a monster, plus no scheduling issues like its bigger counterparts.

[mouacyk]

Bring it on. VR really needs these levels of performance.  Also, OLED motion clarity at 240Hz demands it.

[bonami2]

7 hours ago, mouacyk said:

Bring it on. VR really needs these levels of performance.  Also, OLED motion clarity at 240Hz demands it.

Only issue for VR is we need a 10999 RTX Dual die gpu   8k per eye 

[mouacyk]

12 hours ago, bonami2 said:

Only issue for VR is we need a 10999 RTX Dual die gpu   8k per eye 

No doubt about that being needed.  However, there is an obvious priority for VR and that is frame pacing.  Having the visuals rendered at just a few millimeters away from the retnas will make any kind of stutter a jarring experience.

 

I hope viewers understand what's important in this video, albeit it's just a few pixels:

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by mouacyk

[bonami2]

8 hours ago, mouacyk said:

No doubt about that being needed.  However, there is an obvious priority for VR and that is frame pacing.  Having the visuals rendered at just a few millimeters away from the retnas will make any kind of stutter a jarring experience.

 

I hope viewers understand what's important in this video, albeit it's just a few pixels:

 

At a point i see 35% cpu usage 13900k and 48% 7950x3d that where you see that the 13900k is a monster. Low are pretty close but the 13900k as worse minimum fps. 

We need multithreading optimisation the 7950x3d just show how most game are not really well optimised.

[Imglidinhere]

On 17/03/2023 at 12:35, mouacyk said:

No doubt about that being needed.  However, there is an obvious priority for VR and that is frame pacing.  Having the visuals rendered at just a few millimeters away from the retnas will make any kind of stutter a jarring experience.

 

I hope viewers understand what's important in this video, albeit it's just a few pixels:

 

There's a reason reviewers don't show 4k results in CPU reviews. It's because if you're testing CPUs, you need to create a bottleneck for that part. Running at 4k is largely pointless solely due to how it's 100% a GPU bottleneck, as showcased here. Yes, there is some variance, but the difference is notably larger at 1440p and 1080p, where you'd want to use these parts.

 

I personally find the 7000X3D parts a little lackluster if only because the 5800X3D is so good. I can see why AMD didn't launch a 16-core X3D part with Ryzen 5000. It'd have completely invalidated Zen 4 across the board. xD 

[Sir Beregond]

13 hours ago, Imglidinhere said:

There's a reason reviewers don't show 4k results in CPU reviews. It's because if you're testing CPUs, you need to create a bottleneck for that part. Running at 4k is largely pointless solely due to how it's 100% a GPU bottleneck, as showcased here. Yes, there is some variance, but the difference is notably larger at 1440p and 1080p, where you'd want to use these parts.

 

I personally find the 7000X3D parts a little lackluster if only because the 5800X3D is so good. I can see why AMD didn't launch a 16-core X3D part with Ryzen 5000. It'd have completely invalidated Zen 4 across the board. xD 

Yes, this is true. Still I do like seeing 4k results too just to get an idea of how minimums perform.

 

Really the only Zen 4 X3D part I find of any interest will be the 7800X3D. I see where the split CCD's might benefit someone like @J7SC_Orion where they can still provide good productivity performance as well as gaming performance boost, but from a gamer only perspective, why mess with parts that have to work right in the Windows scheduler, and have cross CCD latency penalties? Clearly the 7800X3D will be the one to get for gamers.

 

I'd be really curious to see if Zen 5 increases the core count per CCX. We went from 4 in Zen 2 to 8 in Zen 3. Would be nice to see that double again. Imagine a 12 or 16 core Zen 5 part but that's all on one CCX on one CCD. No latency penalty crossing the Infinity Fabric between CCD's and you could have the 3D v-cache on higher core parts without this split CCD's you're getting on the 7900X3D and 7950X3D.

Edited March 19, 2023 by Sir Beregond

[neurotix]

Having the 7900x3d myself, and playing at 3440x1440p 144hz, and having an 4090, the R9 5900x was bottlenecking me.

 

I really only play Forza Horizon 4 and 5 and here's the result:

 

168 fps in FH5 benchmark on Ultra with the 5900x

192 fps in FH5 benchmark on Ultra with the 7900x3d

195 fps in FH5 benchmark on Ultra with the 7900x3d with cas 30 6200MHz RAM

 

I'm happy. About the cross CCD latency penalties and the like, if you install the correct chipset drivers with x3d optimizations, and set Windows power plan to Ryzen Balanced, then when the system detects a gaming load it will park cores in the non-V-Cache CCD to enable the V-Cache CCD to only run the load while idling the other. I'm satisfied with my purchase even if it probably is slower than a 13900k or ks, especially if they are running DDR5-7000+.

[J7SC_Orion]

1 hour ago, Sir Beregond said:

Yes, this is true. Still I do like seeing 4k results too just to get an idea of how minimums perform.

 

Really the only Zen 4 X3D part I find of any interest will be the 7800X3D. I see where the split CCD's might benefit someone like @J7SC_Orion where they can still provide good productivity performance as well as gaming performance boost, but from a gamer only perspective, why mess with parts that have to work right in the Windows scheduler, and have cross CCD latency penalties? Clearly the 7800X3D will be the one to get for gamers.

 

I'd be really curious to see if Zen 5 increases the core count per CCX. We went from 4 in Zen 2 to 8 in Zen 3. Would be nice to see that double again. Imagine a 12 or 16 core Zen 5 part but that's all on one CCX on one CCD. No latency penalty crossing the Infinity Fabric between CCD's and you could have the 3D v-cache on higher core parts without this split CCD's you're getting on the 7900X3D and 7950X3D.

 

I agree on both issues. 4K is becoming more widely used, and apart from minimum FPS, there are games and sims when at least a RTX 4090 (and presumably subsequent models such as 4090 Ti/ Titan Ada) can get bottle-necked at 4K by the CPU. What is more, DLSS3/FrameIns/NVReflex also impact heavily at 4K (in a positive way).

 

As to 7800X3D (and even the older 5800X3D), it clearly is the gamer's choice. For folks like myself who are using these things for productivity, the 7950X3D makes more sense, not least as you can set it to 'just' be a 7800X3D but still retain the full 32 threads when needed for productivity. 

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by J7SC_Orion

[Imglidinhere]

On 19/03/2023 at 13:38, Sir Beregond said:

Yes, this is true. Still I do like seeing 4k results too just to get an idea of how minimums perform.

 

Really the only Zen 4 X3D part I find of any interest will be the 7800X3D. I see where the split CCD's might benefit someone like @J7SC_Orion where they can still provide good productivity performance as well as gaming performance boost, but from a gamer only perspective, why mess with parts that have to work right in the Windows scheduler, and have cross CCD latency penalties? Clearly the 7800X3D will be the one to get for gamers.

 

I'd be really curious to see if Zen 5 increases the core count per CCX. We went from 4 in Zen 2 to 8 in Zen 3. Would be nice to see that double again. Imagine a 12 or 16 core Zen 5 part but that's all on one CCX on one CCD. No latency penalty crossing the Infinity Fabric between CCD's and you could have the 3D v-cache on higher core parts without this split CCD's you're getting on the 7900X3D and 7950X3D.

I'm not so sure we really need to increase core count. If the rumored 30% IPC uplift actually happens with Zen 5, that alone will improve multicore performance by something to the tune of 50-60% at minimum.

 

I am tempering my expectations with Zen 5, even though Zen 4 was already beyond my expectations across the board in every regard. Here's to hoping AMD can keep up the momentum.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Imglidinhere

[Sir Beregond]

1 hour ago, Imglidinhere said:

I'm not so sure we really need to increase core count. If the rumored 30% IPC uplift actually happens with Zen 5, that alone will improve multicore performance by something to the tune of 50-60% at minimum.

 

I am tempering my expectations with Zen 5, even though Zen 4 was already beyond my expectations across the board in every regard. Here's to hoping AMD can keep up the momentum.

Yeah I agree. Just wondering the next logical architectural change for Ryzen. I could see a push for more core count given the lack of really continuing to support Threadripper platforms.

 

As for how good Zen 5 is, probably depends on where we land with TSMC 3nm.