Tuesday, April 12th 2022
AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D Gets Full Set of Gaming Benchmarks Ahead of Launch
XanxoGaming has finally released its complete set of benchmarks for the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D and it's been tested against an Intel Core i9-12900KF. This time both platforms are tested using an NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 Ti and four times 8 GB of 3200 MHz CL14 DDR4 memory. The only difference appears to be the OS drive, motherboard and cooling, although both systems rely on a 360 mm AIO cooler. Both systems were running Windows 10 21H2. The site has a full breakdown of the components used for those interested in the exact details.
The two platforms were tested in 11 different games at 720p and 1080p. To spoil the excitement, it's a dead race between the two CPUs in most games at 1080p, with Intel being ahead by about 1-3 FPS in the games where AMD loses out. However, in the games AMD takes the lead, it's by a good 10 FPS or more, with games like the Witcher 3 and Final Fantasy XV seeing an advantage of 40-50 FPS. AMD often has an advantage when it comes to the one percent low numbers, even when Intel is ahead when it comes to the average FPS, but this doesn't apply to all of the games. It's worth keeping in mind that the Intel CPU should gain extra performance when paired with DDR5 memory in some of these games, but we'll have to wait for more reviews to see by how much. The benchmarks displayed are mostly the games TPU normally tests with, but aren't the entirety of games tested by XanxoGaming.
As for the 720p tests, AMD only loses out in Strange Brigade, even though it's a loss of over 20 FPS on average FPS and by over 10 FPS when it comes to the one percent low frames. As for the other games, it's mostly a dead race here too, but with an advantage to AMD instead of Intel by 1-3 FPS. However, the 3D V-Cache seems to kick in here when it comes to the one percent low frames, as AMD edges out Intel by a large margin in more games here by at least 10 FPS, often by around 30 FPS or more. Take these benchmarks for what they are, an early, unconfirmed test of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. We're just over a week away from the launch and we should be seeing a lot more benchmarks by then. Head over to XanxoGaming for the full set of tests and their conclusion, especially as they made an effort to write the test in English this time around.
Source:
XanxoGaming
The two platforms were tested in 11 different games at 720p and 1080p. To spoil the excitement, it's a dead race between the two CPUs in most games at 1080p, with Intel being ahead by about 1-3 FPS in the games where AMD loses out. However, in the games AMD takes the lead, it's by a good 10 FPS or more, with games like the Witcher 3 and Final Fantasy XV seeing an advantage of 40-50 FPS. AMD often has an advantage when it comes to the one percent low numbers, even when Intel is ahead when it comes to the average FPS, but this doesn't apply to all of the games. It's worth keeping in mind that the Intel CPU should gain extra performance when paired with DDR5 memory in some of these games, but we'll have to wait for more reviews to see by how much. The benchmarks displayed are mostly the games TPU normally tests with, but aren't the entirety of games tested by XanxoGaming.
139 Comments on AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D Gets Full Set of Gaming Benchmarks Ahead of Launch
Asus cheaped out on the BIOS chip:
I'm sure the VRM is up to scratch, but it doesn't have a big enough BIOS chip to support more CPUs without losing features or older CPU support. It's up to ASUS to make that call and they either can't be bothered, or feel that the losses don't justify the gains.
They're also not impartial; they want to sell you a new motherboard. If you don't like their behaviour, stop buying Asus motherboards.
The memory controller won't have issue to send the files as it's being decompressed or compressed and current memory is fast enough. The cache will be used for the dictionary or something like that. You want to have in cache things that the CPU won't be able to prefetch and loading a file is not that at all.
Cache are useful for things that are accessed frequently. not for single file access. In the case of a file server, it could cache portion of the File table, portion of the ACL etc. but even there, CPU are fast enough for most of theses scenario.
Or let say you have a data set that is quite large (30 MB+) and you have to execute command based on random input (a Player playing a game), well in this case, the Prefetcher won't exactly know what to prefetch into cache and having a large L3 cache will help you to save some time on memory access. if you don't reuse that data for any reason, then it's useless to have it in cache.
Take your blindfold off
edit: so 3d not supported yet .. we ll see what amd ll do :)ASUS has had to either remove BIOS features or remove supported CPU models to fit new features into a small 16MB BIOS. It's not up on their official website yet so I can't say for sure what's suffered to make it possible.
Vendors like Asrock and Gigabyte choose to drop support for older AM4 CPUs like A4/A6/A8 instead when using smaller BIOS chips so that they can keep all of the original BIOS features intact. It's clearly listed what they've had to drop if you look at warnings and notes on each BIOS version available to download.
EDIT:
According to reddit, it's not an official ASUS BIOS, it's a crossflash from the Fatal1ty B450 gaming K4 and it strips almost all but basic boot compatibility for Pinnacle Ridge, Raven Ridge or Summit Ridge CPUs. (so 1000-series CPUs/APUs, 2000-series CPUs) There's also a massive list of caveats going all the way back to the last AGESA that fully supported the graphics output of those APUs.
Apparently a 256Mb BIOS chip is about $1.05 more expensive. And given that the BOM cost of a $150 retail board might be only $30, that's a big deal. I think @TheLostSwede wrote an article for TPU on BOM cost of motherboards a few months back.
It's by no means crazy money, but 128 Mbit or 16 MB of NOR Flash is about US$1.32 these days if you buy 2k units on a reel, 4k units only saves you a cent or so.
The cheapest 256 Mbit or 32 MB NOR flash on a reel right no is about US$2.38. This is admittedly from a distributor and not directly from a memory manufacturer, but some of these companies only sells through distribution. Yes, you do get discounts as the volume increases, but that only goes so far.
16 MB was plenty, until AMD's AGESA grew in size and became an issue. It's also worth remembering that companies like Gigabyte had their Dual BIOS implementation that used two flash chips at double the cost.
These days the second flash chip seems to have been replaced by an MCU that allows for the BIOS/UEFI to the flashed without a CPU in the board, which also adds cost, but hopefully reduces RMA's due to bad flashes.
language is clear .. pay for new board .. we dont keep promises
clearly its just greed not hw restrictions.
As amazing as Alder Lake is, Intel is still forcing things that gamers do not care about. They need to change something about their i7 lineup. The i7 should be a top tier gaming CPU with more cache, the i9 should be dedicated to productivity competing with 12- and 16-core Ryzens.
Also, I'd add this interesting bit of comparo to the 5800x.
The IO die that accompanies the 5800X3D's updated CCD is unchanged, identical to every other Zen3 CPU with an MCM design, and in case you weren't aware, the memory controller for Zen3 is on that IO die.
Mixing and matching DIMM kits isn't something that's been too heavily explored in more definitive terms. It's the odd one out, but more DIMM's are harder to keep stable so why not simply offset it a bit with a stronger kit if it's that simple!? I mean if you can use a really high quality larger kit in the first DIMM then offset it with smaller capacity, but higher perform kit in the other DIMM slot that's another angle to it. You'd end up with more capacity and more stability if it works well from a general standpoint provided you train the memory on the first kit for the additional kit to operate at. I've seen some investigating of it, but not quite the serious deep dive into it I'd prefer to see to really explore possibilities and nail down how well it can work more definitively. Every kit varies and I understand that, but would a stronger kit in the other two DIMM slots generally allow and provide for better stability is a legitimate question?
I think from a technical standpoint you would imagine it could and would provided you train timings for the slower kit. Given that the second kit is a bit higher quality it should be able to offset some of the signal intolerance's with running 4 DIMM's you would think and hope. I really can't think of any reason why getting a kit with 1CL tighter latency for the second kit at the same frequency setting wouldn't generally help 4 DIMM stability.
I think in cases similarly a stronger CPU cache might help with DIMM stability, but it's hard to say definitively. If you don't test it there is no way to know for certain what sort of impact it can play in sort of less orthodox scenario's. The thing is even if it is less orthodox a procedure and come across as oddball if it can work better legitimately for technical reasons with signal integrity and/or IMC stress increased or relieved by the cache or number of DIMM slots populated that's what's more important. Outside the box thinking I suppose, but signal integrity is a technical hurdle and perhaps that's what's needed in cases and if it works who cares long as it gets the job done!!?
Something unstable can seem stable if it's used so little that you don't trigger a crash, but it's still unstable and will fall over with greater loads.
To use an analogy, a weak bridge won't collapse if you don't drive heavy vehicles over it, but not driving heavyvehicles over it doesn't somehow reinforce the bridge - it's still a weak bridge.