AMD Shows First Ryzen 7 7800X3D Game Benchmarks, Up To 24% Faster Than Core i9-13900K

[Wasteland]

TPU's review had the 7950X3D at 4 percent faster in gaming over the 12 games he picked. A slightly different group of games (some games swing wildly with cache's benefits, some barely change) and the 7800X3D and 10 percent is believable. AMD's slide:

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

It goes without saying that different test suites will yield different results. My point wasn't, "AMD is LYING," or, "I MUST DEFEND INTEL's SACRED HONOR!" I don't care to enlist in the eternal (and eternally tedious) corporate-fanboy war. My point was that we don't need AMD's PR campaign to give us a glimpse at the 7800x3d's performance profile. We already know that in the general case, it will not perform anywhere near "24% faster than the 13900k." But sure, there are always outliers. If you happen to adore a particular game that massively favors one architecture over another, then buy accordingly, averages be damned.

Benchmarks aside, the main thrust of my comment is that no CPU priced at $450 is particularly appealing for a gaming use case. Sure, if money is no object, or if you're a highly competitive twitch gamer who craves stratospheric frame rates in CPU-bound situations, then the 7800x3d might be for you, but most gamers will be vastly better off buying a $200-300 CPU instead, and putting the extra money towards a beefier GPU (or really towards anything else; pretend that Lisa Su bought you two weeks worth of groceries or w/e, lol). Future proofing doesn't really work as a justification here either, because if you buy into AM5 with a cheaper CPU now, then later you can grab a relatively inexpensive (say, Zen6) drop-in upgrade that will likely spank the 7800x3d--or you can just grab a 5800x3d or an i5 now and skip AM5 entirely. It isn't as if current mid-range CPUs will become obsolete for gaming any time soon.

A Ryzen 5 7600 will get you ~80% of the 7800x3d's gaming performance, for roughly half the money, today--and probably more performance in practice, once we invest the difference in other components. So yeah, I'm impressed by the tech, but until the price comes down on these Zen 4 x3d chips, I don't think they really move the needle in the gaming market. As noted earlier, even the 5800x3d didn't exactly rocket to the top of recommended lists until it dropped from its initial $450 MSRP, and that chip had (still has) a huge positional advantage, given the high number of existing AM4 owners looking for a final upgrade to their aging platform. There is, in other words, a built-in $200+ discount for large swathes of the 5800x3d's target audience. Its Zen4 successor has a much tougher row to hoe, value-wise.

 

[mäggäri]

It goes without saying that different test suites will yield different results. My point wasn't, "AMD is LYING," or, "I MUST DEFEND INTEL's SACRED HONOR!" I don't care to enlist in the eternal (and eternally tedious) corporate-fanboy war. My point was that we don't need AMD's PR campaign to give us a glimpse at the 7800x3d's performance profile. We already know that in the general case, it will not perform anywhere near "24% faster than the 13900k." But sure, there are always outliers. If you happen to adore a particular game that massively favors one architecture over another, then buy accordingly, averages be damned.

Benchmarks aside, the main thrust of my comment is that no CPU priced at $450 is particularly appealing for a gaming use case. Sure, if money is no object, or if you're a highly competitive twitch gamer who craves stratospheric frame rates in CPU-bound situations, then the 7800x3d might be for you, but most gamers will be vastly better off buying a $200-300 CPU instead, and putting the extra money towards a beefier GPU (or really towards anything else; pretend that Lisa Su bought you two weeks worth of groceries or w/e, lol). Future proofing doesn't really work as a justification here either, because if you buy into AM5 with a cheaper CPU now, then later you can grab a relatively inexpensive (say, Zen6) drop-in upgrade that will likely spank the 7800x3d--or you can just grab a 5800x3d or an i5 now and skip AM5 entirely. It isn't as if current mid-range CPUs will become obsolete for gaming any time soon.

A Ryzen 5 7600 will get you ~80% of the 7800x3d's gaming performance, for roughly half the money, today--and probably more performance in practice, once we invest the difference in other components. So yeah, I'm impressed by the tech, but until the price comes down on these Zen 4 x3d chips, I don't think they really move the needle in the gaming market. As noted earlier, even the 5800x3d didn't exactly rocket to the top of recommended lists until it dropped from its initial $450 MSRP, and that chip had (still has) a huge positional advantage, given the high number of existing AM4 owners looking for a final upgrade to their aging platform. There is, in other words, a built-in $200+ discount for large swathes of the 5800x3d's target audience. Its Zen4 successor has a much tougher row to hoe, value-wise.

"AMD marketing style" reminds me of these television evangelists, btw good humor videos in youtube. Oh well, in the end it's not only AMD I guess, but all tech-companies and their marketing, creating hype... Which is often translates in hat full of shit for customers. Still some people are ready to believe in whatever.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

"AMD marketing style" reminds me of these television evangelists, btw good humor videos in youtube. Oh well, in the end it's not only AMD I guess, but all tech-companies and their marketing, creating hype... Which is often translates in hat full of shit for customers. Still some people are ready to believe in whatever.

It's a bit off topic. But I wonder how much cheaper the CPUs; GPUs and other components would be if international marketing events were not done and paid for, including attendance at various international trade shows and the cost of marketing through media and other resources, including online distribution of advertising and of course if marketing departments were not maintained with all the inherent costs of offices, equipment, salaries, heating, fitness, pools, supplies...

 

[Garrus]

It goes without saying that different test suites will yield different results. My point wasn't, "AMD is LYING," or, "I MUST DEFEND INTEL's SACRED HONOR!" I don't care to enlist in the eternal (and eternally tedious) corporate-fanboy war. My point was that we don't need AMD's PR campaign to give us a glimpse at the 7800x3d's performance profile. We already know that in the general case, it will not perform anywhere near "24% faster than the 13900k." But sure, there are always outliers. If you happen to adore a particular game that massively favors one architecture over another, then buy accordingly, averages be damned.

Benchmarks aside, the main thrust of my comment is that no CPU priced at $450 is particularly appealing for a gaming use case. Sure, if money is no object, or if you're a highly competitive twitch gamer who craves stratospheric frame rates in CPU-bound situations, then the 7800x3d might be for you, but most gamers will be vastly better off buying a $200-300 CPU instead, and putting the extra money towards a beefier GPU (or really towards anything else; pretend that Lisa Su bought you two weeks worth of groceries or w/e, lol). Future proofing doesn't really work as a justification here either, because if you buy into AM5 with a cheaper CPU now, then later you can grab a relatively inexpensive (say, Zen6) drop-in upgrade that will likely spank the 7800x3d--or you can just grab a 5800x3d or an i5 now and skip AM5 entirely. It isn't as if current mid-range CPUs will become obsolete for gaming any time soon.

A Ryzen 5 7600 will get you ~80% of the 7800x3d's gaming performance, for roughly half the money, today--and probably more performance in practice, once we invest the difference in other components. So yeah, I'm impressed by the tech, but until the price comes down on these Zen 4 x3d chips, I don't think they really move the needle in the gaming market. As noted earlier, even the 5800x3d didn't exactly rocket to the top of recommended lists until it dropped from its initial $450 MSRP, and that chip had (still has) a huge positional advantage, given the high number of existing AM4 owners looking for a final upgrade to their aging platform. There is, in other words, a built-in $200+ discount for large swathes of the 5800x3d's target audience. Its Zen4 successor has a much tougher row to hoe, value-wise.

I have a Ryzen 7600 myself, as clearly the cheapest over-clockable CPU is always the best choice for gaming. Intel left the chat when they released the 13600k for $80 CAD more than the Ryzen option, and it is slower in gaming also.

"no CPU priced at $450 is particularly appealing for a gaming use case" - you say this but you know the vast majority of i9 CPUs are bought for gaming though, if it is good for Intel, the 7800X3D is $200 less and faster for gaming, it absolutely makes sense, it is all about the high refresh rate gamer

 

[wheresmycar]

"AMD marketing style" reminds me of these television evangelists, btw good humor videos in youtube. Oh well, in the end it's not only AMD I guess, but all tech-companies and their marketing, creating hype... Which is often translates in hat full of shit for customers. Still some people are ready to believe in whatever.

television evangelist or not, they've certainly caught the markets attention (incl. me), pulled ahead trading blows and completely took me by surprise with super snug efficiency. I expected more from Intel but i guess maybe next time round.

It's a bit off topic. But I wonder how much cheaper the CPUs; GPUs and other components would be if international marketing events were not done and paid for, including attendance at various international trade shows and the cost of marketing through media and other resources, including online distribution of advertising and of course if marketing departments were not maintained with all the inherent costs of offices, equipment, salaries, heating, fitness, pools, supplies...

If saving costs from marketing somehow maintains current demand levels... would NVIDIA/AMD/INTEL (esp.) offer better value products? Nahhhh!! We'll still be stuck in some sort of post-pandamemic-price-apocalytpic day light profiteering robbery with NVIDIA steering the wheel.

 

[mäggäri]

I have a Ryzen 7600 myself, as clearly the cheapest over-clockable CPU is always the best choice for gaming. Intel left the chat when they released the 13600k for $80 CAD more than the Ryzen option, and it is slower in gaming also.

"no CPU priced at $450 is particularly appealing for a gaming use case" - you say this but you know the vast majority of i9 CPUs are bought for gaming though, if it is good for Intel, the 7800X3D is $200 less and faster for gaming, it absolutely makes sense, it is all about the high refresh rate gamer

 

[Garrus]

View attachment 287726

Said many times Techpowerup messed up all their reviews with the wrong ram and a limited game selection. 6000C30 or 5600C28. Ryzen 7600 is faster in gaming with $130 32GB ram.

View attachment 287726

This is what happens when you use the same ram for both. Jarrod's Tech was one of the few reviewers that used the good ram for both CPUs. 25 games here. Kind of conclusive.

 

[mäggäri]

Said many times Techpowerup messed up all their reviews with the wrong ram and a limited game selection. 6000C30 or 5600C28. Ryzen 7600 is faster in gaming with $130 32GB ram.



This is what happens when you use the same ram for both. Jarrod's Tech was one of the few reviewers that used the good ram for both CPUs. 25 games here. Kind of conclusive.


View attachment 287861

Okai, need to re-check GN after waking up, now back to bed.

 

[spnidel]

Precisely why i think arguing about which CPU is better for gaming is pointless in my honest opinion

what? if i'm looking to buy a cpu with my main intent of playing games and if, at 720p, on average, one cpu gets 250 fps and the other gets 500 fps, then for gaming i'm better off getting the one which achieves 500 fps, because it shows that it has a ton of resources in the tank for future games and/or higher refresh rates
then there's the question of 1% lows

it's not pointless at all (well, arguing IS pointless, but picking the best cpu for gaming (if that's what you're after) is not pointless )

and the differences will be even less noticeable with the GPUs that people are more likely to use (3080s and 6800/6900 XTs.)

that makes no sense. pairing a slow cpu with a fast gpu and a high refresh rate monitor will leave you bottlenecked cpu-side and you won't have a good time, and also - people that buy 3080s (or faster) don't buy a 4k60hz display. they buy 4k144hz+
spoilers: you can be cpu-limited at 4k, too

 

[mäggäri]

what? if i'm looking to buy a cpu with my main intent of playing games and if, at 720p, on average, one cpu gets 250 fps and the other gets 500 fps, then for gaming i'm better off getting the one which achieves 500 fps, because it shows that it has a ton of resources in the tank for future games and/or higher refresh rates
then there's the question of 1% lows

it's not pointless at all (well, arguing IS pointless, but picking the best cpu for gaming (if that's what you're after) is not pointless )


that makes no sense. pairing a slow cpu with a fast gpu and a high refresh rate monitor will leave you bottlenecked cpu-side and you won't have a good time, and also - people that buy 3080s (or faster) don't buy a 4k60hz display. they buy 4k144hz+
spoilers: you can be cpu-limited at 4k, too

1% low's (more constant drops than 0.1%) are great along the AVG. The max doesn't matter too much.

 

[ValenOne]

Said many times Techpowerup messed up all their reviews with the wrong ram and a limited game selection. 6000C30 or 5600C28. Ryzen 7600 is faster in gaming with $130 32GB ram.



This is what happens when you use the same ram for both. Jarrod's Tech was one of the few reviewers that used the good ram for both CPUs. 25 games here. Kind of conclusive.


View attachment 287861

AMD's Zen 4 CPU has higher sensitivity with memory latency when compared to its Intel counterpart.