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

[GFreeman]

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.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site | Source

 

[Arkz]

Nice decent jump, but I'm still sticking with AM4 till it's a bigger gap. Maybe there will be an 8600X3D.

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Damn amd and product price protection measures

 

[Wasteland]

It is obviously impossible to dispute any claim of "up to," but W1zzard's testing has the 7950x3d (with or without the second CCD disabled) barely edging out the 13900k on average. There's no reason to expect that the 7800x3d will do substantially better.

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.

 

[evernessince]

While the performance uplift is nice, the best part of the 3D chips this gen is the energy efficiency. Getting a 16 core chip to 21w in single thread and 140w with no compromises is impressive. I expect the 7800X3D to hit at or lower than the 5800X3D in regards to power consumption. Flagship performance for 90W or less? That's extremely enticing to me.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Regardless of AMD likely BS slides what makes these X3D chips so enticing this generation is how little power they suck down vs similarly performing chips.

 

[TheDeeGee]

Will most likely work flawless after 103 BIOS updates.

 

[Psychoholic]

Looks pretty sweet, i'd be interested if i didnt do SOME productivity/encoding on my 7950X.
Otherwise, i'm locked at my monitor's refresh rate anyway, so no point.

 

[Ayhamb99]

As usual, It is best for reviews to come out to validate this claims. Although TPU's test results with the 7950X3D with 1 CCD disabled managed to just slightly edge out the 13900K and that was with a 4090 and at 1080p and 720p, so i doubt the 7800X3D will outperform both the 7950X3D and the 13900k by that much. To be honest though, I don't see people buying the 7800X3D and then decide to play at 1080p, i expect people who'll buy it to either want to play at 1440p or 4K, where it'll probably be GPU-Bound.

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.

 

[mäggäri]

up to 999% <> reality -1-5%

Just disable the CCD without 3DNow! cache on 7950X3D and bench it out.
Woohoo and amen again at these AMD-style upto jokes. April fool's day came a bit early this year.


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.

 

[ThrashZone]

It is obviously impossible to dispute any claim of "up to," but W1zzard's testing has the 7950x3d (with or without the second CCD disabled) barely edging out the 13900k on average. There's no reason to expect that the 7800x3d will do substantially better.

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.

Hi,
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.

Windows 10 Tweaks for VGA Benchmark

Updated for Windows 10 21H2 Update - Install without Internet, so you can create an offline user - name the user "TPU" (the user will be deleted at the end of the scripts and you're using "Administrator") - Install VGA driver, from USB, still without network, so Windows Update won't install a...

www.techpowerup.com

Windows 11 Tweaks for GPU Benchmark

Updated for 22H2 - Install without Internet - When it prompts you to go online, press Shift+F10 and type "OOBE\BYPASSNRO" (that's an o not a zero at the end). After the automatic reboot you can install without network - Install on systems without TPM, UEFI or other requirements...

www.techpowerup.com

 

[evernessince]

As usual, It is best for reviews to come out to validate this claims. Although TPU's test results with the 7950X3D with 1 CCD disabled managed to just slightly edge out the 13900K and that was with a 4090 and at 1080p and 720p, so i doubt the 7800X3D will outperform both the 7950X3D and the 13900k by that much. To be honest though, I don't see people buying the 7800X3D and then decide to play at 1080p, i expect people who'll buy it to either want to play at 1440p or 4K, where it'll probably be GPU-Bound.

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.

The X3D chip's performance really depends on the games tested. There are some games that benefit a lot and others that hardly benefit at all.

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.

 

[mäggäri]

The X3D chip's performance really depends on the games tested. There are some games that benefit a lot and others that hardly benefit at all.

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.

24h 100% load every day?

 

[Garrus]

It is obviously impossible to dispute any claim of "up to," but W1zzard's testing has the 7950x3d (with or without the second CCD disabled) barely edging out the 13900k on average. There's no reason to expect that the 7800x3d will do substantially better.

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.

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

 

[Minus Infinity]

The 7950X3D and 7900X3D make little sense, as they are productivity focused cpu's and that derives zero benefit form v-cache and lower clocks means lower performance in 95% of productivity software. The only thing that v-cache brings is much higher energy efficiency, so if you have money to burn a 7900X3D will outperform a 7900 and only use a bit more power.

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.

 

[Steevo]

My question is what benefit does liquid cooling on this offer? What RAM tuning does it offer to make it a long lived high performance system. What about a lapped die or exposed die?

 

[Garrus]

The 7950X3D and 7900X3D make little sense, as they are productivity focused cpu's and that derives zero benefit form v-cache and lower clocks means lower performance in 95% of productivity software. The only thing that v-cache brings is much higher energy efficiency, so if you have money to burn a 7900X3D will outperform a 7900 and only use a bit more power.

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.

You say "they are productivity focused cpu's and that derives zero benefit form v-cache"

wow... just no... go read the reviews again

 

[Deleted member 120557]

The X3D chip's performance really depends on the games tested. There are some games that benefit a lot and others that hardly benefit at all.

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.

1) who runs their PC 24/7 load? Unless you donate time to a project like Folding@home?
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.

 

[Kodehawa]

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.

I actually can think of one usage: leaving android emulation on the background using 4 E-Cores and be able to game on the P-cores at the same time. I usually find it bothersome that leaving the Android emulator running makes some games (see: RDR2 and HW Legacy) run significantly worse, even if the CPU usage of the emulator is just about 20%.

 

[Psychoholic]

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.

The E-Cores arent terrible, they are equivalent to Skylake cores, maybe a little faster than skylake.

 

[Garrus]

The E-Cores arent terrible, they are equivalent to Skylake cores, maybe a little faster than skylake.

No, they are much slower than that. That's the speed in an ideal situation where there are no cache or memory issues. Cinebench cores.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Will most likely work flawless after 103 BIOS updates.

This is why I decided to build a Raptor Lake system. It's preposterous how even at the very end of the road, my 5950X still gave me BIOS-level issues that couldn't be fixed without AMD fixing the AGESA and motherboard manufacturers releasing the updates.

No, they are much slower than that. That's the speed in an ideal situation where there are no cache or memory issues. Cinebench cores.

Even in Alder Lake their performance was regarded to be more or less the same that of Broadwell, it's quite possible that the newer E-cores in Raptor Lake bench similarly to Skylake. Will be interesting to find out when my CPU arrives. It's sure taking a long time!

 

[katzi]

As someone who is currently using a 5800X3D there is little reason to upgrade, the Big cost of doing so isn't worth it for "20-25%" and I doubt the performance increase would be noticeable in World of Warcraft. Going from a 5800X to the X3D was such a massive improvement I can't imagine that the 7800X3D would be any better without Also getting a Much stronger GPU than the RTX3080 I have.

 

[Nater]

up to 999% <> reality -1-5%

Just disable the CCD without 3DNow! cache on 7950X3D and bench it out.
Woohoo and amen again at these AMD-style upto jokes. April fool's day came a bit early this year.


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.

I'd take a dual core at 6.5Ghz over all of these CPU's if the price was right.

 

[Minus Infinity]

You say "they are productivity focused cpu's and that derives zero benefit form v-cache"

wow... just no... go read the reviews again

Yeah, I have several times on multiple sites, unless do do encryption or machine learning for a living, show me the productivity benefits. The PBO'd + undervolted version of the X3D almost got the productivity scores on par with the X and usually when it won the X3D version was only a tiny bit faster. So value is just not there at all especially if you are doing scientific productivity. As for the game improvements, they are irrelevant to me, I play none of the cache dependent games and the benefits were shown in the best possible light with 4090 at 1080p. Despite v-cache, Raptor Lake's average 1% lows are still higher. I'd much rather have frame consistency than peak fps.