AMD's older Zen 4 gaming flagship pounds Zen 5 in new gaming benchmarks — Ryzen 7 7800X3D was up to 23% faster than Ryzen 9 9900X

News
By
published

One of the first 3rd party reviews of the Ryzen 9 9900X confirms that the Zen 5 won't be faster than the Zen 4 with 3D V-Cache in gaming.

Ryzen 7000 3D V-Cache CPU
Ryzen 7000 3D V-Cache CPU (Image credit: AMD)

Third-party reviews of the Ryzen 9 9900X have begun to crop up, giving us our first authentic look at the actual performance of AMD's new Zen 5 architecture. A Ryzen 9 9900X review by SaddyTech on YouTube has revealed that the 12-core Ryzen 9 9900X beast doesn't have the chops to outperform AMD's current Ryzen 7 7800X3D, one of the best CPUs around. The Zen 4 chip with 3D V-Cache outperformed the Ryzen 9 9900X in gaming at 1080p and 1440p resolutions by up to 23%.

SaddyTech tested Alan Wake 2, Total War Warhammer, City Skylines 2, Call of Duty: Warzone 2, CS: GO 2, Cyberpunk 2077, Fortnite, Hogwarts Legacy, Starfield, and The Last of Us: Part 1.

Virtually all titles showed favor toward the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. At 1080p, City Skylines 2 demonstrated the highest performance lead, boasting a 23% lead in favor of the older 7800X3D. Cyberpunk 2077, The Last of Us: Part 1, Fortnite, and Hogwarts Legacy showed very similar behavior as well, with Ryzen 7 7800X3D boasting anywhere between a 13% and 18% higher performance.

Swipe to scroll horizontally
Game - 1080pPerformance LeadFrame Rate - Ryzen 9 9900XFrame Rate - Ryzen 7 7800X3D
City SkylinesRyzen 7 7800X3D - 23% Faster70.386.9
Cyberpunk 2077Ryzen 7 7800X3D - 15% Faster165.2191.1
StarfieldRyzen 7 7800X3D - 2% Faster125.3127.4
Alan Wake 2Ryzen 9 9900X - 1% Faster176.9175.2
Hogwarts LegacyRyzen 7 7800X3D - 13% Faster145.6164.8
The Last of Us Part 1Ryzen 7 7800X3D - 18% Faster201.1238.1
CS: GO 2Ryzen 7 7800X3D - 8% Faster346.8376.1
Total War: Warhammer 3Ryzen 7 7800X3D - 1% Faster272.7277.9
COD: Warzone 2Equal249.1249.7
FortniteRyzen 7 7800X3D - 15% Faster320.3371.4

The only games that favored the Ryzen 9 9900X were Starfield, Alan Wake 2, Total War: Warhammer 3, and Call of Duty: Warzone 2. Alan Wake 2 was the only game where the Ryzen 9 9900X gained a tiny advantage over the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, outperforming the Zen 4 chip by just 1%. Call of Duty: Warzone 2 showed identical performance between the two chips, each featuring frame rates of 249 FPS. Meanwhile, CS: GO 2 and Total War: Warhammer 3 were between 1% and 8% faster on the Ryzen 7 7800X3D.

At 1440p, the same behavior from all the games was present but at lower margins, which is inevitable given the higher resolution. 4K squeezed margins down even further to the point where both chips were performing virtually identically in most titles, except for City Skylines 2, which is known to be a very CPU-intensive game. The higher resolutions put more work on the GPU and less strain on the CPU.

RYZEN 9 9900X - LA RECENSIONE "GAMING" - YouTube RYZEN 9 9900X - LA RECENSIONE
Watch On

SaddyTech's gaming benchmarks confirm AMD's previous statements about Ryzen 9000 not beating the Ryzen 7000 X3D processors in gaming. This is not a surprise and a trend that started with the Ryzen 7 5800X3D. For instance, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, despite being a generation old, was still able to outperform the Ryzen 9 7950X flagship by 8% in our testing.

3D V-Cache continues to be AMD's magic pill for incredibly efficient gaming performance, providing a generational improvement in performance for chips that take advantage of it. We must wait until the Ryzen 9000 X3D launches before Zen 5 officially dethrones Zen 4 with 3D V-Cache in gaming.

Aaron Klotz
Aaron Klotz
Contributing Writer

Aaron Klotz is a contributing writer for Tom’s Hardware, covering news related to computer hardware such as CPUs, and graphics cards.

See more CPUs News
20 Comments Comment from the forums
  • edzieba
    SaddyTech's gaming benchmarks confirm AMD's previous statements about Ryzen 9000 not beating the Ryzen 7000 X3D processors in gaming.
    Really? Because that's not what Tom's article on Zen 5 indicates AMD claimed:
    Notably, AMD avoided comparing its new chips to its own previous-gen Zen 4 models but says the 9700X would beat the Ryzen 7 7800X3D, currently the best gaming CPU on the market, by a “couple percentage points.”

    So, did AMD claim that Ryzen 9000 would be faster (even if only by a “couple percentage points”) than 7000X3D, or did AMD claim that 7000X3D would be faster (by 10s of percent in some cases) than Ryzen 9000?
    Reply
  • DougMcC
    edzieba said:
    Really? Because that's not what Tom's article on Zen 5 indicates AMD claimed:


    So, did AMD claim that Ryzen 9000 would be faster (even if only by a “couple percentage points”) than 7000X3D, or did AMD claim that 7000X3D would be faster (by 10s of percent in some cases) than Ryzen 9000?
    It's not like there's a limit on the number of claims, even contradictory claims that you can make. Maybe they said both.

    Edit: some reading suggests that Tom's misread/typoed here. The AMD claim is very clearly that 9000 will edge out 5000 X3D not 7000x3d. It is literally in the picture right above the claim in the article.
    Reply
  • TheHerald
    edzieba said:
    Really? Because that's not what Tom's article on Zen 5 indicates AMD claimed:


    So, did AMD claim that Ryzen 9000 would be faster (even if only by a “couple percentage points”) than 7000X3D, or did AMD claim that 7000X3D would be faster (by 10s of percent in some cases) than Ryzen 9000?
    The 9900x is the worst chip for gaming, it's a 6+6 ccd chip.

    It is very likely that the 9700x will be roundabout as fast as the 7800x 3d in games.
    Reply
  • logainofhades
    TheHerald said:
    The 9900x is the worst chip for gaming, it's a 6+6 ccd chip.

    It is very likely that the 9700x will be roundabout as fast as the 7800x 3d in games.


    AMD themselves has already stated the non x3d 9000 chips would be slower than a 7800x3d in games, and about 12% faster than a 5800x3d.
    Reply
  • Phaaze88
    logainofhades said:
    AMD themselves has already stated the non x3d 9000 chips would be slower than a 7800x3d in games...
    Even in ones that don't care for the extra cache?
    Reply
  • ezst036
    Despite some variance on another Toms Hardware article....................

    "Chip with way, way more cache beats chip with significantly less cache"

    This is not news. Not really. Dog bites man.
    Reply
  • karagra
    Even if the 9900x won here I would be asking why a comparison with a 6+6 core was compared against an 8 core. Thats not how you compare last gen vs current Gen lol...

    Granted I can go even further to say for a true comparison you would need an x3d vs x3d but we don't have that yet.. so again why is a chip that is only going to be using 6 cores for gaming being compared to an 8 core for gaming?

    Was the article written by someone who doesn't understand how gaming works?
    Reply
  • lordmogul
    I mean, look at the 5800 X3D and how that performs compared Zen4. Nothing special about having the same here with the 3D vache Zen4 performing well against Zen5
    Reply
  • Neilbob
    'Pounds'?

    Sigh. I know using headlines like that draws clicks (I fell into the trap too, even if it was just to gripe), but I really wish you wouldn't resort to using sensationalist terms like that. It makes it look like some sort of shocker, when even AMD themselves said that Zen 4 X3D would still be faster in gaming.

    And in a couple of those examples it's not unexpected that the margin is large. Isn't Cities Skylines (I assume the almost decade-old one there) known for being very cache sensitive?

    ---

    In retrospect, I'm not sure why I care. I'm at the point where I'm satisfied with my PC being just as creaky as my bone structure. Soon I'll pass my days looking at photographs that have gone sepia.

    Edit: for the children in the audience, photographs used to be taken using cameras with rolls of film, which would then be given to specialist services, developed and printed on to a nice type of smooth card. I know, it's shocking!
    Reply
  • phxrider
    The real question is "who cares?" The only one of those where you might be able to perceive a difference (I can't tell the difference between 145 FPS and 165 FPS without a counter on screen) is City Skylines, which I've never even heard of until now. And if you have any GPU below a 4090, the differences will be either smaller or even zero. I have identical 7900XTX GPU models in 7800X3d and 5800X3D systems, and they perform the same. CPU doesn't matter much except for e-Sports, which I don't care about.

    I get it that IF you're a competitive player, then this might matter to you, but for everyone else, it's a big giant nothingburger and the one that runs everything else faster is the better pick. The 9700x might even use less power than the 7800X3D (although that CPU really is easy on the power bill).
    Reply