CPU Latest news

Ryzen 9 9900X disappoints in gaming: First benchmarks show lag behind 7800X3D

The release of the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X “Zen 5” is imminent and the first benchmarks are already circulating, leaked by an Italian YouTuber called SaddyTech. These early tests give us a first insight into the performance of the new processor compared to its predecessor, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D “Zen 4”, which features the innovative 3D V-Cache. The benchmarks show that the Ryzen 9 9900X lags behind the older model in some aspects, although it is certainly competitive in other areas.

Source: SaddyTech via YT

SaddyTech tested the Ryzen 9 9900X on a Gigabyte X670 AORUS Elite AX motherboard with the latest BIOS version and DDR5-7200 memory configured with a 2400 fabric clock. For comparison, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D was used, which was tested in various popular games at resolutions of 1080p, 1440p and 2160p. These tests were intended to reflect the performance of the two processors under typical gaming conditions.

Results:

Alan Wake 2: In this game, the Ryzen 9 9900X showed slightly better average FPS scores, but the Ryzen 7 7800X3D came out on top in the important 1% and 0.1% low FPS scores. These metrics are crucial as they represent the frame rate drops that can affect the gaming experience.

SaddyTech via YT

Call of Duty Warzone 2: The Ryzen 7 7800X3D was again ahead in the 1% and 0.1% low FPS scores, while the average FPS of both processors was almost identical. This shows that the older processor remains more stable in intensive gaming situations.

SaddyTech via YT

Counter-Strike 2: This title, known for its high CPU dependency, was clearly dominated by the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. It led in all three metrics measured: average FPS, 1% low FPS and 0.1% low FPS.

SaddyTech via YT

Cyberpunk 2077: At the highest resolution of 4K, both processors were on par, which indicates that the graphics card is the bottleneck here. At lower resolutions, however, the Ryzen 7 7800X3D had clear advantages, which indicates its better ability to distribute the CPU load efficiently.

SaddyTech via YT

Fortnite: The Ryzen 7 7800X3D also performed better in this popular game and was significantly faster than the Ryzen 9 9900X.

SaddyTech via YT

The Ryzen 9 9900X showed an average power consumption of 102W during gaming, with peak values of 111W. The temperatures remained within reasonable limits: An average of 66°C was measured, with a maximum temperature of 85°C reached in Cyberpunk 2077. These values confirm AMD’s claim of lower power consumption and temperature compared to the previous Ryzen 7000 CPUs. The first benchmarks show that the Ryzen 9 9900X lags behind the Ryzen 7 7800X3D in some games. Nevertheless, the Ryzen 9 9900X could be convincing as a multi-thread processor, especially if the price is competitive. It remains to be seen how the processor performs in a wider range of games and applications. Further testing and analysis will be required to assess the full potential of the new chip.

AMD plans to launch the Ryzen 9000 “Zen 5” desktop CPUs on July 31. In addition, AMD has stated that the Ryzen 7 9700X should be about 2% faster than the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. It is important to note that the current benchmarks are based on a limited number of games and actual performance in other applications may vary. Overall, the leaked benchmarks show a mixed picture of the Ryzen 9 9900X’s performance, which will require further observation and analysis in the coming weeks and months.

Source: SaddyTech via YT

Kommentar

Lade neue Kommentare

Hoebelix

Mitglied

57 Kommentare 37 Likes

Damit bestätigt sich aber doch nur was man aus den Vorgänger Generationen bereits weiß - was für ein riesen Vorteil der 3D V-Cache in Spielen bringt.
Ich bin schon sehr gespannt was die 9x00 X3D Prozessoren bringen.
Nächstes Jahr tausche ich dann sehr wahrscheinlich meinen 5900X aus - da kann ich wieder was von der Steuer absetzen. ;)
Von Intel erwarte ich kurz- bzw. mittelfristig erstmal nix mehr - und ich hatte bis zum aktuellen 5900X seit meinem 386er fast ausschließlich Intel Plattformen (nur 1x kurzzeitig einen AMD Phantom irgendwas, kann mich schon garn nicht mehr erinnern).

Aber ohne ein Fanboy zu sein, kann man sich nun mal einfach das aktuell beste gönnen - die letzten 2 Jahrzehnte war das Intel, jetzt halt nicht mehr.

Antwort 5 Likes

komatös

Veteran

119 Kommentare 99 Likes

Was hatte der Youtuber denn erwartet? Dass der 9900x ohne Cache auf dem Die eine Rennsau ist? Sie mag nicht schneller sein als der Vorgänger 7900x jedoch effizienter.

Antwort 3 Likes

Y
Yumiko

Urgestein

578 Kommentare 274 Likes

Große Erkenntnis: Auto ohne Räder rollt langsamer als Auto mit Räder. Der 5800X3D spielt ja auch weiterhin ganz oben in der Liga der Spiele-CPUs mit, insbesondere mit passendem RAM.

Antwort 4 Likes

FfFCMAD

Urgestein

691 Kommentare 196 Likes

Ich behaupte das der kommende 9800x3D schneller ist beim Gaming als der 9900x und der 7800x3D.

Heilige Glaskugel hat gesprochen

Antwort 7 Likes

b
bitracer

Mitglied

48 Kommentare 31 Likes

hmmm
nativer Zen4 8-Kerner mit 3D cache
gegen
zusammengekleisterten Zen5 12-Kerner (6 plus 6) (mit entsprechend hohen Latenzen bei inter-CCX Kommunikation, wenn zwei oder mehr voneinander abhängige threads mal auf unterschiedlichen CCX ausgeführt werden)

Finde den "Fehler" in diesem zugegebenermaßen behelfsmäßigen Vergleich.

Anyway:
bin inzwischen der Ansicht, daß in 2024 kein Mensch mehr auf die "Durchschnitts-fps" schauen sollte, sondern vielmehr _ausschließlich_ auf die "1%_lows". Und da schägt sich das Ding trotz seiner layout-Schwäche garnicht mal schlecht - wenn es auch erwartbar hinter den Ergebnissen eines Zen4_x3d mit einem einzelnen CCX zurückbleibt.

Antwort 4 Likes

RedF

Urgestein

4,911 Kommentare 2,739 Likes

Hast du die Lottozahlen für mich ^^

Antwort 3 Likes

M
Midnight Angel

Mitglied

12 Kommentare 10 Likes

Huh? Der 9900X ist der Nachfolger des 7800X3D?

Ich hätte schwören können, der 9900X ist der Nachfolger des 7900X; als Nachfolger des 7800X3D kommt irgendwann der 9800X3D...

Antwort 5 Likes

b
bitracer

Mitglied

48 Kommentare 31 Likes

... an dieser Stelle sei mal erwähnt, was ich tatsächlich gerne sähe mit den Eröffnungs-gaming-Benchmarks für zen-5 ist:
die "Schlacht der 8 Kerne"
zen 3-x3d vs zen-4 vs zen-4_x3d vs zen-5 jeweils gepaart mit preisgünstigem "sweet-spot"-RAM 2x16Gibyte
und dann später vielleicht als Bonus eben die 12-Kerner von zen-4 + zen-5 in Stichproben. Gerne auch in Optimierungs-Katastrophen wie bspw. EA WRC (rally auf unreal-4 Stutterfest-Basis).

Antwort 2 Likes

Y
Yumiko

Urgestein

578 Kommentare 274 Likes

Bei Konsolenspielern ist das schon seit Jahrzehnten so. Die sind aber such schon seit vielen Jahren bei 4k (4k TVs gibt es halt schon gefühlt ewig).
Ist halt ein Kulturproblem: Konsolenspieler wollen ein ruckelfreies tolles Spielerlebnis, während viele PC-Spieler kurz eine hohe max. FPS in Benchmarks haben wollen um alle anderen zu flamen die es nicht haben (Spiel egal, Doping mit Frame-Doppler und Upscaling inklusive).

Antwort 2 Likes

O
Oberst

Veteran

347 Kommentare 140 Likes

AMD hat doch schon gesagt, dass ein 7800X3D schneller als ein 9900X sein wird:

Verstehe daher nicht, warum das jetzt überraschend kommt...

Antwort 5 Likes

C
Captain Slow

Mitglied

45 Kommentare 11 Likes

Mit solchen "News" gewinnt man nicht unbedingt an Ansehen.

Antwort 1 Like

Papusan

Mitglied

18 Kommentare 12 Likes

In short... AMD needs two types of CPUs. One for gaming and one for computing. You can't have it all from AMD. That's sad.

Antwort Gefällt mir

8j0ern

Urgestein

2,789 Kommentare 879 Likes

Nicht nur 4K, auch so Sachen wie HDR10+ kommen von den Konsolen.

Das HDR10+ und der Gaming Mode werden bei meinem TV nicht für RADEON beworben sondern für Xbox und PlayStation.
Trotzdem kann meine GPU das auch, beide nutzen FreeSync Premium Pro.

Und ja es ist wirklich sehr smooth vom Bildverlauf, das kannte ich so davor noch nicht. ;)

Antwort 1 Like

DMHas

Mitglied

61 Kommentare 21 Likes

Einfach auf die ersten offiziellen Tests warten und dann haben wir richtige Fakten. Ich hoffe @Igor Wallossek wird ebenfalls Tests veröffentlichen.

(YouTube ist nicht immer die beste Quelle für seriöse Informationen.)

Antwort 3 Likes

b
bitracer

Mitglied

48 Kommentare 31 Likes

Of course you can. You do the exact same thing as you would with Intel: you buy the most expensive chip on the consumer socket and then proceed to fine-tune it manually in order to keep it running healthily for longer than 3 months.

For intel: you manually set all the clock-speeds and various voltages, so that sucker does not boost itself into the sun and die prematurely,

on AMD you "Project Lasso" the living Jesus out of your x3d-16-core as to make sure it runs your games on ONE compute-chiplet ONLY. And of course you pick the one that is fastest for the game at hand...

Simple, ey?

Antwort Gefällt mir

Igor Wallossek

1

10,559 Kommentare 19,820 Likes

Jack Huynh, AMD SVP and GM of Computing and Graphics.

“We appreciate the excitement around Ryzen 9000 series processors.  During final checks, we found the initial production units that were shipped to our channel partners did not meet our full quality expectations.  Out of an abundance of caution and to maintain the highest quality experiences for every Ryzen user, we are working with our channel partners to replace the initial production units with fresh units.  As a result, there will be a short delay in retail availability. The Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X processors will now go on sale on August 8th and the Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X processors will go on sale on August 15th. We pride ourselves in providing a high-quality experience for every Ryzen user, and we look forward to our fans having a great experience with the new Ryzen 9000 series.”

Antwort 1 Like

Papusan

Mitglied

18 Kommentare 12 Likes

I'm sure he will test the 16 core X3D chips later.

Antwort Gefällt mir

Y
Yumiko

Urgestein

578 Kommentare 274 Likes

Your comment does not make sense:
Intel has NO game cpu (all have e-cores and no 3D memory).
AMD has cpus superior to Intel in general and an IN ADDITION special gaming cpus for enthusiasts (like the 4090 for enthusiast gamers).
Hence why AMD does all the console chips and not Intel.

Antwort Gefällt mir

b
bitracer

Mitglied

48 Kommentare 31 Likes

I hope you did not mind my random sprinkles of sarkasm too much.

Thing is: chiplets have their downsides as much as Intel's idea of bringing "big-little" to the PC-Desktop. It all depends on the OS being aware of them (which it is clearly not in the same way that phone-OSs have had a decade to change and adapt for). And then again: Software needs to utilise all the new transistors added to new generations of silicon - or you will only see marginal gains, at best. And which of these new inventive/innovative silicon-additions will reign supreme? In the now distant past this was Intel's backyard because of sheer market-dominance and R&D might. But times are changing with installed compute-power over-all veering further and further towards parity and AMD quickly gaining market-share in the datacenter (as one hears). So the race once again is more open and undecided, as ever. And the next software-update / -upgrade you get on your personal machine might show a significantly different picture compared to any launch-day benchmark you performed a month ago. It is not as clear-cut any longer who "leads the pack" as 6..10 years ago.

Beginning with Zen 2 AMD has enjoyed good success with building the "one computer-chip that does it all" and Ryzen evolved into their "test-bed" for the enterprise. And now with Zen 4 and later Zen 5we see the "v-cache infused" chiplets "trickling down" from Epyc to consumer. Whereas Intel seems to have hit another wall with the reliability of their top-end products when actually used as intended - just before they plan to introduce a new socket.

Gone are the simple days where you had single-core CPUs that were sold and priced according to their state of health and clockspeed compared to the competition ( and still had quite a bit of a safety margin for overclocking built-in ). But granted: nobody was editing 4k raw video-footage on those back in that era. They used accelerator add-in cards with their own purpose-built logic on them or used computing-farms with many machines sharing a work-load. And yes: those former top-CPUs usually cost a solid $1000 for whichever was the fastest out of the box that year. And they would usually "just work" for a decade or two - except that almost noone would take that theory to the test - because next year / year-and-a-half sure enough: there was a new kid on the block asking for that magical 1000$, again and it would anihilate the old without breaking a sweat.

I believe I should end thes "impressions" of mine - as I am steering off topic too much. Thing is: there is no "best CPU overall" at this point in time. There is only: "Is this enough for my needs, today – and can I trust it to still work tomorrow-morning?" as of July 2024.

Antwort 1 Like

Klicke zum Ausklappem

Danke für die Spende



Du fandest, der Beitrag war interessant und möchtest uns unterstützen? Klasse!

Hier erfährst Du, wie: Hier spenden.

Hier kannst Du per PayPal spenden.

About the author

Samir Bashir

Werbung

Werbung