Here comes the best gaming processor of today, AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D

Here comes the best gaming processor of today, AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D
AMD introduced a new processor a few days ago AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3Dwhich brings Zen 5 architecture and 3D V-Cache memory. In the past, this has proven to be beneficial especially for games where it not only increases the average frame rate, but especially the minimum ones. The processor has 8 cores and support for 16 threads, compared to its predecessor, the base frequency increased from 4.2 to 4.7 GHz, Boost then from 5.0 to 5.2 GHz. It has 8 MB of L2 cache (1 MB per core) and a total of 96 MB of L3 cache (32 MB of L3 + 64 MB of 3D V-Cache memory). Its TDP consumption is 120 W, PPT is 163 W. The classic Ryzen 7 9700X also has 8 cores, but it has to make do with 32 MB of L3 cache, its base clock is only 3.8 GHz, but Boost is 5.5 GHz. So, according to the reviews, how does this processor stack up against the 7800X3D, 9700X or the new Intel Core Ultra 7 265K?

They performed extensive testing, for example, on the TechPowerUp (TPU) server. As regards application performancethe novelty is surpassed by the aforementioned Intel by 13%. However, the 9700X is 6% weaker against it and the previous 7800X3D even 15% weaker. It can therefore be seen that the application performance has increased significantly against older game processors, and the novelty could thus be good not only in games.

As for playing in Full HD resolutionso the new Ryzen 7 9800X is the best processor on the market. The Core Ultra 7 265K is a very significant 14% weaker. So it can be seen that Intel is aiming more at application performance, while Ryzens are more processors for gamers. Unfortunately, compared to the previous generation, the new Ryzen has not improved much in games, as the original loses only 4% to it. But the 9700X without 3D V-Cache loses 11%. As it seems, the new gaming Ryzens are the best gaming processors on the market, but if AMD managed to significantly improve anything, it is mainly application performance. IN 1440p resolution the differences disappear, Intel loses 8%, the predecessor only 3% and the 9700X then 8%. At 4K resolution, the influence of the processor is so insignificant that all other processors fit within a 3% loss (the 7800X3D even offers the same performance as the new 9800X3D).

On the contrary, the TechSpot editors showed in a test on 14 games that the 7800X3D loses 10% (the TPU reported only 4%), and the 9700X even 23% (the TPU measured 11%). According to measurements, the 285K should have been 25% slower (TPU measured 14% for the weaker 265K). As we can see, the measured results are quite different.

As for consumption (in the TPU review), it was only tested in one application in the case of single-threaded and multi-threaded deployment, which does not give a very good picture. It is therefore more interesting to look at the average in applications and games. The novelty used an average of 88 W from 47 applications. This is significantly more than the variant without 3D V-Cache (9700X), which was satisfied with only 61 W. But let’s remember here that the 9700X only has a 65W TDP (88W PPT). But the predecessor was more economical, it even managed 48 W. But the 265K from Intel was more voracious than the new one, it took 20 W more, i.e. 108 W.

The high efficiency of the novelty is shown in games, the average of 13 games was 65 W. However, even here the predecessor was more economical with only 46 W. The 9700X is a little worse at 71 W (let’s not forget that it has much worse game performance) and the 265K is at 77 W (lower consumption in games is also confirmed by other reviews with one exception, where the new AMD was supposed to be more demanding even than 285K). In games, the 9800X3D thus achieves the title of the 2nd most efficient processor behind its predecessor. The 265K and 9700X are pretty close in terms of gaming efficiency, but AMD still has a slight edge. AMD’s problem is just the high idle consumption of the entire system, which amounted to 78 W. Here, Intel had only 57 W.

Source: www.svethardware.cz