Friday, October 11th 2024
MSI OCLab Reveals Ryzen 9000X3D 11-13% Faster Than 7000X3D, AMD Set to Dominate "Arrow Lake" in Gaming
MSI OCLab made some groundbreaking disclosures about the gaming performance of upcoming AMD Ryzen 9000X3D processors. It looks like AMD is set to dominate the Intel Core Ultra 2-series "Arrow Lake-S" desktop processors in gaming performance, if these numbers hold up. In the games that MSI tested, namely "Far Cry 6," "Shadow of the Tomb Raider," and "Black Myth: Wukong," the "8-core 9000X3D" processor, or the Ryzen 7 9800X3D, is found to be 11% faster on average than the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. The "16-core 9000X3D" processor, which is expected to be the Ryzen 9 9950X3D, is an impressive 13% faster than its predecessor, the Ryzen 9 7950X3D.
Normally we'd expect bigger gen-on-gen gains for the 8-core part than the 16-core part, but the 16-core 9000X3D pulling ahead by that much over its predecessor hints at the possibility of AMD either giving it significantly higher clock speeds, or the rumor about AMD deploying both 3D V-cache on both its CCDs could be true after all. The 9950X3D could end up roughly on-par with the 9800X3D if this turns out to be true, given that the gaming performance delta between the 7800X3D and 7950X3D is roughly that much—2-3 percentage points. Intel earlier this week officially announced the Core Ultra 2-series desktop processors. As part of the announcement, the company put out some first-party gaming performance numbers, which put the top Core Ultra 9 285K either on-par with the Core i9-14900K, or faster by 2-3%, which means it should land behind even the 7950X3D in gaming performance, and AMD is set to dominate Intel in gaming performance with the 9000X3D series.
Sources:
HardwareLuxx.de, Videocardz
Normally we'd expect bigger gen-on-gen gains for the 8-core part than the 16-core part, but the 16-core 9000X3D pulling ahead by that much over its predecessor hints at the possibility of AMD either giving it significantly higher clock speeds, or the rumor about AMD deploying both 3D V-cache on both its CCDs could be true after all. The 9950X3D could end up roughly on-par with the 9800X3D if this turns out to be true, given that the gaming performance delta between the 7800X3D and 7950X3D is roughly that much—2-3 percentage points. Intel earlier this week officially announced the Core Ultra 2-series desktop processors. As part of the announcement, the company put out some first-party gaming performance numbers, which put the top Core Ultra 9 285K either on-par with the Core i9-14900K, or faster by 2-3%, which means it should land behind even the 7950X3D in gaming performance, and AMD is set to dominate Intel in gaming performance with the 9000X3D series.
94 Comments on MSI OCLab Reveals Ryzen 9000X3D 11-13% Faster Than 7000X3D, AMD Set to Dominate "Arrow Lake" in Gaming
A good method for keeping perspective is to imagine yourself applying the same level of exacting enthusiasm to every area of your life, which then leads to a humbling realization that you (or, at least, me) really don't know (or care to know) about all sorts of things. Whenever I hear someone bemoan the state of "normies," that's always my first thought--at this very moment, there are probably countless enthusiasts in other communities who feel exactly the same way about people like me. We're all normies in certain contexts. And for the most part, we're happy being normies.
But this isnt a bad thing. I'm not sad about saving money, especially given our economy right now.
Does make them less of a compromise compared to the 7000/5000 series though.
you're better off using older games that can be CPU limited to show differences.
this need to use popular games that everyone plays is asinine & ruining reviews.
Starfield, on the other hand, can make CPUs cry. Cyberpunk 2077 scales exceptionally well (despite anything beyond 150 FPS is practically an overkill in this case), one might also want to crunch it with CoD, Counter-Strike, Fortnite and other games where having a lot of FPS is much higher priority than having optimal visuals.
Using old games, you clearly don't have to worry if your GPU is a bottleneck. Using new games, you will need to use outdated resolutions like 720p and set everything GPU intensive to the lowest possible settings if you wanna be as CPU of benchmarker as possible.
I want to know how a CPU will run games I might actually play. Being 10% faster at running Shadow of the Tomb Raider is irrelevant because anyone who wanted to play it did so years ago. I could see if it was using an engine that was still really popular, but no one is using the Foundation Engine. If it turns out that any CPU will work for new games because I'll always be GPU bound, then that's great because I can save money.
You missed all gen till that 1k bucks 7800-3D ( ? ). Or you hought 7 or 8 series? If you bought the over praised Ryzen sorry dude..
Also this must be hurtful but costly as it is indeed, intel is still better for gaming but cine bench where amd and its 59 trillion cores shine. It doesn't help that lot of press having sony, micro and valve with a mediocre apu even the pro to be released unless it has a 4090 ^^.
Yeah finally years of had press is affecting intel, still what they got in revenue 1 un fiscal year can use it to buy amd no prob. But they make fool gpu XD.
According to those charts there is a real good chance the X3D x900 and x950 parts are NOT compromised massively on productivity like the 7xxx series parts were!!
.
If this is true then your not trying to jugle between the "money maker" non x3d parts for your day to day work and sacrificing the gaming benefits the X3D gives you.