MSI OCLab Reveals Ryzen 9000X3D 11-13% Faster Than 7000X3D, AMD Set to Dominate "Arrow Lake" in Gaming

[btarunr]

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.



View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Sarajiel]

Check out the other slides in HardwareLuxx's image gallery. They also include comparisons between Core Ultra 200K CPUs and Ryzen 9000s.

That said, AMD will basically have to slash prices for the lower non-X3D parts, unless they got the balls to release the 9800X3D for $550+.

edit: looks like they removed the slides now

 

[phints]

Check out the other slides in HardwareLuxx's image gallery. They also include comparisons between Core Ultra 200K CPUs and Ryzen 9000s.

That said, AMD will basically have to slash prices for the lower non-X3D parts, unless they got the balls to release the 9800X3D for $550+.

$550 huh? 9700X is already $330. But 9800X3D is so performant it'll likely come out at $420-450.

 

[Sarajiel]

But 9800X3D is so performant it'll likely come out at $420-450.

That's cheaper than the 7800X3D price in many regions... That's not going to happen. AMD loves increasing prices if they don't have competition, like they did with the 5000 and 7000 series Threadrippers.

 

[RogueSix]

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.

Looks like TPU fell for WCCFTech's clickbait .

There is only a single game in the three games that were shown on the slides that reached 11% to 13% and that is Far Cry 6. There is no "11% faster on average" here. Far from it. The other two games (Wukong and SotTR) only performed 2% to 4% better which is, quite frankly, pathetic. This makes it an average of 5.6% as WCCFTech pointed out themselves:

That's an average gaming performance increase of 5.6% which is once again going to be better on the final chips.

Far Cry 6 is the outlier because it reacts pretty well to faster clocks. We will likely see a lot more increases in the 2% to 4% range (or maybe 4% to 6% on final silicon) because Far Cry 6 is NOT the norm.

If this turns out to be true, it would make the 9800X3D about as equally disappointing as the regular Zens in a gen vs. gen comparison. We are mostly looking at single digit average performance gains here.

On the pro side: This should hopefully bring the prices of the 7800X3D back in line and 9800X3D also should not sell for a new kidney. I hope AMD will have decent stock available at launch. Otherwise, we will probably have to wait quite a bit longer for that much needed price slide to happen.

 

[Melvis]

AMD set to dominate at gaming? hmmmmm pretty sure that has been a thing for the past what? 2yrs now?

 

[JohH]

Dominate? Won't it be within like 10%?
Not a big deal...

 

[cerulliber]

Check out the other slides in HardwareLuxx's image gallery. They also include comparisons between Core Ultra 200K CPUs and Ryzen 9000s.

That said, AMD will basically have to slash prices for the lower non-X3D parts, unless they got the balls to release the 9800X3D for $550+.

edit: looks like they removed the slides now

can u make an ultra-resume, please, since there's no slides available according to you?

 

[jmcosta]

AM5%

 

[Outback Bronze]

Dominate? Won't it be within like 10%?
Not a big deal...

Yeah, there is not a lot in it atm. I think power consumption is the big winner for AMD especially on the X3D parts.

 

[Carillon]

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

The graph is incorrect, the one on the left is the 16 cores, with +11%, the one on the right is 8 cores with +13%.
As pointed out above, it's one game only.

 

[londiste]

Isn't Far Cry very frequency-dependent? 7800X3D boosts to 5GHz, in theory. Looking at Cinebench results 9800X3D has to be boosting as high as 9700X which is 5.5GHz and multicore results being comparatively better hints directly at a higher power limit as well. Cinebench never cared about the large cache on X3D CPUs.

This'll be interesting.

 

[R0H1T]

AM5%

Wait till you find out where the biggest bottleneck in games is

 

[jesdals]

Considering the performance of 9000 series lets see them in real life before any judgement is made - a 5% procent gain isnt a great win but stable ddr 5 and a stable platform is...

 

[Vayra86]

Looks like TPU fell for WCCFTech's clickbait .

There is only a single game in the three games that were shown on the slides that reached 11% to 13% and that is Far Cry 6. There is no "11% faster on average" here. Far from it. The other two games (Wukong and SotTR) only performed 2% to 4% better which is, quite frankly, pathetic. This makes it an average of 5.6% as WCCFTech pointed out themselves:



Far Cry 6 is the outlier because it reacts pretty well to faster clocks. We will likely see a lot more increases in the 2% to 4% range (or maybe 4% to 6% on final silicon) because Far Cry 6 is NOT the norm.

If this turns out to be true, it would make the 9800X3D about as equally disappointing as the regular Zens in a gen vs. gen comparison. We are mostly looking at single digit average performance gains here.

On the pro side: This should hopefully bring the prices of the 7800X3D back in line and 9800X3D also should not sell for a new kidney. I hope AMD will have decent stock available at launch. Otherwise, we will probably have to wait quite a bit longer for that much needed price slide to happen.

Exactly this. This is not representative of overall gaming results. Lots of games are simply already capped on a 7800X3D, others already run at astronomical FPS. Its just going to be a frequency win, really, which was obvious since Zen 5 itself doesn't do much for gaming either. Its still an X3D following the same architecture. Games that ran 50 FPS will now perhaps run 53-55 FPS. Yay?

 

[tfdsaf]

We can see that the bottleneck in not in the CPU designs, its in game engines. First AMD with the 9000 series failed to significantly increase gaming performance and now Intel seems to have just tied their previous generation as well. Looking at the 9000x3d performance it seems that they are going to squeeze out every last bit of performance they can with it, but its not going to be much faster than the 7000x3d parts.

So to me this looks like game engines need to be updated and optimized to not only use more threads of the processors, but also utilize the existing threads more efficiently.

 

[_roman_]

No progress implies current hardware keep their value and their flaws.

Do not forget - with the first and second security flaw updates the hardware will be slower as current hardware or even. The compare point is current 7000 amd processor generations. Second compare point for 100% is this hardware at release date.
~10% is easily lost with a security flaw/s as the past has shown.

 

[Space Lynx]

so this must mean AMD knows more x3d cache does not scale, otherwise we would have got more cache this round. so we have entered a period of Moore's Law is severely gimped. x3d cache really changed the game briefly, but yeah even a 5800x3d still holds its own now

interesting, and unfortunate, but it is what it is. honestly my 7900 xt and 7800x3d were smart purchases

 

[grady115]

And with an AMD machine it takes 20% longer to boot up to get to those games.

 

[Chrispy_]

Dominate? Won't it be within like 10%?
Not a big deal...

Media frenzy loves to use the word "dominate" or "destroy" when the differences are often so small that a good portion of people wouldn't even notice.

Where I consider AMD's dominance is in Performance/Watt, hopefully something Intel will address this generation, since their extremely over-volted, over-heating, over-clocked CPUs haven't been appealing for several generations now. TSMC to the rescue, as always!

 

[rdk]

8-core 9000X3D is less than 6% faster than 7800X3D, not 11%:

FC6 +13%
SOTR +2%
Wukong +2%

= 17% /3 = 5,67%

The same for 16-core

 

[GoldenX]

Zen5%, a total skip for any Zen4 or 5800X3D owner.

 

[AusWolf]

Nice. I'm wondering what this means for people with more reasonably priced GPUs. Not much, I suppose.

 

[usiname]

And with an AMD machine it takes 20% longer to boot up to get to those games.

First, this is nonsense, my AMD machine boot for 10 sec
Second, the Intel machines BSOD during gameplay every day or so, which cause much more wasted time and progress

 

[Toothless]

First, this is nonsense, my AMD machine boot for 10 sec
Second, the Intel machines BSOD during gameplay every day or so, which cause much more wasted time and progress

None of my Intel or AMD rigs bluescreen on any task. Sounds like you have a PEBCAK issue.