Saturday, March 11th 2023
AMD Shows First Ryzen 7 7800X3D Game Benchmarks, Up To 24% Faster Than Core i9-13900K
AMD has finally released some of the official gaming benchmark for its 8-core Ryzen 7 7800X3D processor that should be coming in April, and, now that AMD has released some of the first gaming benchmarks, it appears that it outperforms the Intel Core i9-13900K by up to 24 percent. Officially, AMD is putting the Ryzen 7 7800X3D against the Intel Core i7-13700K, leaving the Core i9-13900K and the Core i9-13900KS to its 16- and 12-core Ryzen 7000X3D SKUs.
Although some of its Ryzen 7000X3D series chips are available as of February 28th, namely the Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Ryzen 9 7900X3D, AMD has pushed back the launch of its 8-core/16-thread Ryzen 7 7800X3D. This was quite a surprise and a big letdown, especially due to its tempting $449 price tag. One of the reasons might be the fact that the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is simply too good and might put a lot of pressure on even AMD's own SKUs, let alone Intel's lineup.
The AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D has yet another significant advantage compared to the rest of the Ryzen 7000X3D series, as while the 12-core and 16-core SKUs are a multi-chip module with two CCDs, and feature an asymmetric chiplet design, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D has a rather standard design, with single 8-core CCD with 3D V-Cache.
The Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Ryzen 9 7900X3D have two CCDs with only one CCD with 3D Vertical Cache, which means it relies on software control, or the 3D Vertical Cache Optimizer Driver, to ensure that workload from games are directed to the CCD with the 3D Vertical Cache using dynamic "preferred cores" flagging for the Windows OS scheduler. You can find more details in our Ryzen 9 7950X3D review.
AMD has released two new slides, putting the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D against the Intel Core 9 13900K in four games, Rainbow Six Siege, Total War: Three Kingdoms, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Horizon Zero Dawn. In all four, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is ahead of the Core i9-13900K, by anywhere between 13 and 24 percent. The second slide puts the Ryzen 7 7800X3D against the previous generation AMD Ryzen 5800X3D in Rainbow Six Siege, Warhammer: Dawn of War III, CS:GO, and DOTA 2, where the new generation is anywhere between 21 and 30 percent faster.
If these benchmarks turn out to be even close to painting the realistic picture, as these are just three games handpicked by AMD, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, priced at $449, might be a big winner for AMD, and becoming one of the best sellers as it managed to outperform Intel's $579 priced Core i9-13900K SKU, while being $130 less expensive. The Core i7-13700K, which is what AMD is actually putting the Ryzen 7 7800X3D against, is priced at $405.
Of course, these are handpicked benchmarks provided by AMD so take them with a grain of salt, and we would rather wait to check out these performance figures by ourselves when it officially launches on April 6th. In the meantime, you can check out our Ryzen 7800X3D preview, which is a simulation of the performance with a single CCD enabled.
Source:
Toms Hardware
Although some of its Ryzen 7000X3D series chips are available as of February 28th, namely the Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Ryzen 9 7900X3D, AMD has pushed back the launch of its 8-core/16-thread Ryzen 7 7800X3D. This was quite a surprise and a big letdown, especially due to its tempting $449 price tag. One of the reasons might be the fact that the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is simply too good and might put a lot of pressure on even AMD's own SKUs, let alone Intel's lineup.
The Ryzen 9 7950X3D and the Ryzen 9 7900X3D have two CCDs with only one CCD with 3D Vertical Cache, which means it relies on software control, or the 3D Vertical Cache Optimizer Driver, to ensure that workload from games are directed to the CCD with the 3D Vertical Cache using dynamic "preferred cores" flagging for the Windows OS scheduler. You can find more details in our Ryzen 9 7950X3D review.
AMD has released two new slides, putting the AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D against the Intel Core 9 13900K in four games, Rainbow Six Siege, Total War: Three Kingdoms, Red Dead Redemption 2, and Horizon Zero Dawn. In all four, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D is ahead of the Core i9-13900K, by anywhere between 13 and 24 percent. The second slide puts the Ryzen 7 7800X3D against the previous generation AMD Ryzen 5800X3D in Rainbow Six Siege, Warhammer: Dawn of War III, CS:GO, and DOTA 2, where the new generation is anywhere between 21 and 30 percent faster.
Of course, these are handpicked benchmarks provided by AMD so take them with a grain of salt, and we would rather wait to check out these performance figures by ourselves when it officially launches on April 6th. In the meantime, you can check out our Ryzen 7800X3D preview, which is a simulation of the performance with a single CCD enabled.
85 Comments on AMD Shows First Ryzen 7 7800X3D Game Benchmarks, Up To 24% Faster Than Core i9-13900K
Damn amd and product price protection measures :slap:
This CPU will be perhaps the best option for what you might call the zero-compromise gamer; it's definitely priced better than the 13900k, but that's not saying much.. IMO any "gaming" CPU over about $250 is silly. This was a problem for the 5800x3d too, which enjoyed a lot of good press at launch, but the love fest really only went into turbo mode later on, when A) the price went way down, and B) AM5's high platform costs made any drop-in upgrade for AM4 owners look that much better by comparison. The 5800x3d is still sitting pretty, in fact, as are various lower-end Intel options.
Otherwise, i'm locked at my monitor's refresh rate anyway, so no point.
The 7800X3D will be the best option for someone who wants to build the fastest gaming build possible but without having to overspend to get flagship performance like the 13900K. I do believe though that for higher resolutions, the R7 7700 or the i5 13600k will be a better choice, since one could save some money and lose like 4-5% peformance only in terms of gaming.
Just disable the CCD without 3DNow! cache on 7950X3D and bench it out. :sleep:
Woohoo and amen again at these AMD-style upto jokes. April fool's day came a bit early this year. :lovetpu:
Would be great if Intel dropped off these E-Core gimmicks. Just plain P-cores. I have found 0 usage for those notepad-tier CPU cores, disabled in BIOS already.
Well I doubt amd or even intel for that matter go though what W1z goes through to 10 or 11 os either so test/ benchmark environments are a little different I'd bet so expect different results.
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/windows-10-tweaks-for-vga-benchmark.228698/
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/windows-11-tweaks-for-gpu-benchmark.287480/
I can see the power consumption being a driving factor for purchasing the 7800X3D for those with expensive energy. In Japan the power consumption difference will equate to about 58 cents less per day to run, which equals 211 USD per year. You save even more money if you factor in the reduced cost of AC during the summer, as less waste heat means less to cool. $211 is nothing to scoff at and that's considering that Japan is middle of the pack in terms of energy cost. It's nearly double that in Hungry or the Czeck Republic.
Rainbow Six Siege.
Total War.
Horizon.
Red Dead 2.
Which of these 4 games did TPU include in his review? None.
He selected Cyberpunk instead of Red Dead 2, God of War instead of Horizon Zero Dawn, Age of Empires instead of Total War, all games that heavily favor Intel. I'm not accusing him of doing anything wrong, I'm just pointing out that there are 4 games that are massively ahead with Ryzen, and they were not in his 12 game selection. He had many games that Intel is usually ahead at.
That's why it was 4 percent faster on average instead of 10 percent.
Personally I love Red Dead 2, and detest Cyberpunk. Horizon Zero Dawn is a much better game than God of War. And the new Age of Empires is not good, so Ryzen is great for me. Rainbow Six Siege no comment, but is seems a lot more important than CS:Go or other 1000fps games ;)
Since AMD is really only worrying about gaming then the line-up should have been 7600X3D and 7800X3D. Hell they should release a 4 core 7400X3D as well.
wow... just no... go read the reviews again
2) You can set eco mode to 65W on regular chips and they will have the same energy savings without any additional tweaking needed.
The only reason to get these 3D chips is for gaming or a workload that really benefits, if there is any outside of games.
Bigger energy savings would be had from laptops because desktop base power is relatively large due to inefficiency but really the consumption here is not that much in most people’s energy use.
The power difference between the 7950X3D and 13900K in mixed workloads is nearly 100w as well so even in mixed workload scenarios the 7950X3D is going to consume vastly less power.
That said I'd challenge the notion that most people buying a 7950X3D aren't putting all those cores to use. If they aren't they are wasting their money. It still takes me 1 1/2 days to run a high quality AV1 encode on a 7950X.
There are certainly other professions that will be putting these CPUs to work around the clock whether that be encoding, rendering, ect.65w will tank performance on a 13900K. The 7950X also looses performance at 65W as well. Mind you nothing is stopping you from enabling eco mode or tweaking these X3D chip's either. ECO and PBO power settings are available on all Ryzen 7000 series processor.Would the energy savings actually be larger if you switched to a laptop though?
AMD's comparable mobile processor, the 7945HX has a TDP between 55 and 75w and consumes over 100w during a heavy multi-core workload. When limited to 100w, it scores 33487 points in CB R23 MT. Meanwhile the 7950X3D scores 35693 when set to prefer cache and consumes 141w. Given that even at stock it's within sticking distance of the very new 7945HX, it's very possible that when limited to 100w the 7950X3D can match or even beat the power efficiency of the mobile part. It's also good to note that the 7945HX is only a few days old and is 36% faster than the i9-13980HX when both are limited to 100w so it's by far and away the most efficient part for this comparison.
Source for 7945HX info: www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-strikes-back-Ryzen-9-7945HX-beats-Intel-Core-i9-13980HX-despite-much-lower-power-consumption.698349.0.html
I think you are under-estimating the efficiency of the 3D cache, even without the power binning a top end laptop SKU goes though or the power optimizations you have the 7950X3D which could feasibly match a laptop chip in power efficiency.
I can think of many regions in the world where either electricity price or climate heavily incentivizes a 7950X3D or 7800X3D purchase, aside from it's class leading performance.