AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Official Gaming Benchmarks Leaked

[Tsing]

Official slides and review guides for the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D have leaked out, offering an early glimpse at how red team's flagship Ryzen 7000 Series CPU with 3D V-Cache compares with the 13th Gen Intel Core i9-13900K. If AMD's own testing is to be believed, the new processor is around 6% faster than the standard Raptor Lake flagship and up to 16% faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X, offering up to 27% better performance in the 1080p resolution versus Intel's chip in select games that include Horizon Zero Dawn under certain configurations. The AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D ($699) will be available alongside the Ryzen 9 7900X3D ($599) next week on Tuesday, February 28, 2023.

See full article...

 

[Zarathustra]

People are probably going to make a big deal about how Intel leads it in CSGO...

...but then you look at the details, and it is like 766 vs 781 fps

 

[Riccochet]

People are probably going to make a big deal about how Intel leads it in CSGO...

...but then you look at the details, and it is like 766 vs 781 fps

Yeah, CS:GO benchmarks need to go away. They're pointless.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yeah, CS:GO benchmarks need to go away. They're pointless.

I'd argue it might be time for yet another generational leap. You know, like one of those counter strike does every 6-8 years or so, moving from three generations old graphics, to two generations old graphics.

 

[Grimlakin]

I'd argue it might be time for yet another generational leap. You know, like one of those counter strike does every 6-8 years or so, moving from three generations old graphics, to two generations old graphics.

For that to happen wouldn't we need a new source engine and wasn't that made with half life... HL3 CONFIRMED . Again...

 

[LazyGamer]

Yeah, CS:GO benchmarks need to go away. They're pointless.

People still play CS:GO, and there are actually 500Hz monitors available...

...none of which is for me or most of us I gather, but there's still an audience. I just look at it as the way Quake 3 Arena was used as a benchmark for a decade after mostly just to show how far we've come.

 

[Uvilla]

At this point I dont want hl3

 

[Grimlakin]

At this point I dont want hl3

It's interesting to do a mental comparison between hl2 and Hogwarts. Both are great games but pure look the graphics advancement is amazing.

 

[Zarathustra]

At this point I dont want hl3

It would have been nice if they had just concluded the story arc. Even a HL2 Episode 3 that wrapped things up would have been enough. No need for a HL3. But 16 years later on, I don't know if I care anymore.

 

[Zarathustra]

For that to happen wouldn't we need a new source engine and wasn't that made with half life... HL3 CONFIRMED . Again...

Not sure if a new engine is needed.

They could just use the existing engine and add more detailed models and better textures.

The whole point of CS:GO is to remain relatively low tech so that it has mass appeal even among those who play on potato machines, so they would unlikely be shooting for the latest and greatest RT based immersive environments.

Updating it from its current ~2007 standards to what, like 2014 standards is maybe what we would be talking about.

No need for any new features in the engine to do that.

Besides, even if they wanted to add a sprinkling of RT, the source engine was designed to be modular, so it probably wouldn't be an overwhelming task to add the capability to that to the rendering module. Still, that would probably cost more in developer time than it is worth to them, unless the engine were also to be used for something else.

I think it is very unfortunate the source engine was not kept up to date. As an engine I like it way better than the engines that have taken the lead today. Unreal Engine is annoying. I would have loved to see what an up to date Source engine could do.

But Valve realized they could make more money as a sore front for others products than making their own products, so it didn't make sense for them to do that.

 

[Riccochet]

I never saw the point of CS:GO since it added nothing over CS:S. It's literally the same game.

 

[Niner51]

People are probably going to make a big deal about how Intel leads it in CSGO...

...but then you look at the details, and it is like 766 vs 781 fps

I know most of you here are AMD junkies, but I'm honestly getting tired of these "dumb" comparisons as well. They throw this one game in that one manufacturer does better in which is usually useless (like CSGO). I don't build my PC's to run benchmarks on an outdated game, or even any benchmarks at all.

 

[Zarathustra]

I know most of you here are AMD junkies, but I'm honestly getting tired of these "dumb" comparisons as well. They throw this one game in that one manufacturer does better in which is usually useless (like CSGO). I don't build my PC's to run benchmarks on an outdated game, or even any benchmarks at all.

My perspective is a little different.

Most of my gaming is in gorgeous large open environment single player shooters these days. I play them at 4k, with the settings as high as I can get them for maximum eye candy, provided they don't prevent me from attaining a minimum frame rate of 60fps.

Because of this, the CPU is mostly irrelevant. Yest, I can't use anything TOO old (this is why my x79 system finally had to go in 2019) but in general, I am always going to be GPU limited before I am CPU limited, and because of this any reasonably modern enthusiast CPU will work for me.

So while I prefer AMD on the grounds of it bringing me warm fuzzies, really, either brand will work for me, so I generally don't buy CPU's for their gaming performance. I buy them for everything else I do, as for my gaming, they generally won't make a difference.

 

[Brent_Justice]

CPU actually matters a lot for large open-world games, data asset streaming as the world loads in, NPC movement and interaction, level of detail constantly changing, AI, and compression/decompression.

 

[Zarathustra]

CPU actually matters a lot for large open-world games, data asset streaming as the world loads in, NPC movement and interaction, level of detail constantly changing, AI, and compression/decompression.

Fair, but I guess my point is I don't need it to perform beyond the ~60fps level in most cases.

As such my "old" Zen2 based Threadripper provides plenty of performance for all the games I play at the settings I play them despite not having the latest and greatest high clocks and newest architetures. And in most cases the crazy 24C/48T is of little real world benefit in games.

One thing I just thought about and found interesting though, is I wonder if DLSS3 Frame generation aids in both CPU limited situations as well as GPU limited ones.

If a higher framerate requires more CPU processing power, and the frame generation results in fewere frames needing to be rendered at the same frame rate, one would think it probably does, right?

 

[Brent_Justice]

If a higher framerate requires more CPU processing power, and the frame generation results in fewere frames needing to be rendered at the same frame rate, one would think it probably does, right?

Yes, that's called a CPU bottleneck, the very thing Frame Generation can provide an advantage. Now while this will improve the framerate, it won't improve the frametime, latency, and input. Therefore the experience is a unique one when Frame Generation is used. While the perceived sense of the game by your eyes is faster, the user input and interaction feel the same and don't change, and can even feel worse as the frametime increases

 

[LazyGamer]

Yes, that's called a CPU bottleneck, the very thing Frame Generation can provide an advantage. Now while this will improve the framerate, it won't improve the frametime, latency, and input. Therefore the experience is a unique one when Frame Generation is used. While the perceived sense of the game by your eyes is faster, the user input and interaction feel the same and don't change, and can even feel worse as the frametime increases

To add @Zarathustra - if your target is 60FPS, and DLSS3 Frame Generation provides a 3x increase in framerate output, let's say that your game now runs at 20FPS.

Now, there are plenty of games that can be played outright at 20FPS, but I can guarantee that you'll not do so on purpose, even with frame generation in play. You're going to want your input / output loop to be fast enough to handle player interactivity, so ideally you wouldn't want to stray much below 60FPS anyway.

I see DLSS 3 Frame Generation as being useful for situations where hard GPU limits come in to play, say for laptops and extreme SFF builds, or where one has significant output headroom with say a 240Hz output monitor.

 

[Dan_D]

Not sure if a new engine is needed.

They could just use the existing engine and add more detailed models and better textures.

Engines actually have limitations as far as this is concerned. There are texture size limits and other limitations where models are concerned. Not to mention, limitations with lighting, streaming environments and so on.

I think it is very unfortunate the source engine was not kept up to date. As an engine I like it way better than the engines that have taken the lead today. Unreal Engine is annoying. I would have loved to see what an up to date Source engine could do.

Valve would have to get back into being a game developer to even care about such things.

 

[Zarathustra]

To add @Zarathustra - if your target is 60FPS, and DLSS3 Frame Generation provides a 3x increase in framerate output, let's say that your game now runs at 20FPS.

Now, there are plenty of games that can be played outright at 20FPS, but I can guarantee that you'll not do so on purpose, even with frame generation in play. You're going to want your input / output loop to be fast enough to handle player interactivity, so ideally you wouldn't want to stray much below 60FPS anyway.

I see DLSS 3 Frame Generation as being useful for situations where hard GPU limits come in to play, say for laptops and extreme SFF builds, or where one has significant output headroom with say a 240Hz output monitor.

Yeah, I imagine mouse input would be a little lagged.

I was expecting this when I turned it on in Dying Light 2, but to my surprise I didn't feel it at all, but I was pinned to m y screen smax refresh at 120fps which probably made a difference.

 

[Zarathustra]

Engines actually have limitations as far as this is concerned. There are texture size limits and other limitations where models are concerned. Not to mention, limitations with lighting, streaming environments and so on.

Could be, but those seem to be rather trivial changes to update an engine for in the grand scheme of things.

Valve would have to get back into being a game developer to even care about such things.

Probably, yeah. Unless they want to go the route of of Epic and maintain an engine they sell to everyone else for development, but that ship has likely sailed, as just about every developer out there now is fully trained and experienced on the Unreal Engine environment, so it would be a tough sell to get them to change to something else, unless there was a huge financial incentive to do so, which means less profits (or maybe even running the effort at a loss for a while).

Even so, when Source was the coolest engine on the block ~20 years ago, it looked good compared to others, and the interface and console command structure was nice to work with. I would have loved to see what they could have done with it had they tried.