We've tested the Ryzen 7 5800X3D with Windows 11 24H2 and compared it to the new Ryzen 7 9700X. This review dives into performance data across patched 23H2 and 24H2, examining how both CPUs stack up.
We've tested the Ryzen 7 5800X3D with Windows 11 24H2 and compared it to the new Ryzen 7 9700X. This review dives into performance data across patched 23H2 and 24H2, examining how both CPUs stack up.
There's no point explaining it, comments that do not understand basic testing methodology, will never understand it.They have to do the CPU testing with a 4090 in 1080p or even lower. Like every other benchmarking site. Otherwise the charts would be very boring for the readers.
Or then not. Zen5 is first consumer class CPU to REALLY have good AVX512 implementation. How much future games will use AVX512? Oh, we don't know yet. Then what these 1080p benchmarks tell about how what CPU will be better on future? Basically nothing. AVX512 is about only technology today outside very large caches that can give high double digit performance boosts on games. Predicting how AVX512 will be implemented on future games is nearly impossible and so any "long term prediction" benchmarks are totally useless.For example: Do prepare for lots and lots of 'absurd' 1080p reviews with the even mightier 5090, once it launches. Seems absurd, okay. But it's logical. Because you need the fastest GPU and lowest resolutions to clearly show the differences in CPU performance in this context. And a 5090, and that's the point, will show greater differences of the CPUs than todays flagship, the 4090. Those reviews will provide us with a better view on what type of silicon will age better with the faster GPUs and more demanding games of the future.
I don't think so. History tells us otherwise, I.e. in all those "CPU xy revisited" articles. CPUs age differently. Some of those revisits are even tested with the 4090. There are a couple of revisited articles and graphs from Steve here at Techspot.Then what these 1080p benchmarks tell about how what CPU will be better on future? Basically nothing.
CPUs age differently, that's true. However when there is something that could offer massive improvement, like AVX512, it's pretty much impossible to tell how much it will impact on future.I don't think so. History tells us otherwise, I.e. in all those "CPU xy revisited" articles. CPUs age differently. Some of those revisits are even tested with the 4090. There are a couple of revisited articles and graphs from Steve here at Techspot.
Subtle CPU differences, even in 1080p, tend to grow over time with modern games and faster GPUs, and the low 1% and 0.1% FPS are usually showing this very good, also in higher resolutions.
That said, you should (in context of better aging) start betting on singlecore and multicore scaling, on cache vs frequency, on hyperthreading vs physical cores, on rentable units vs orthodox core management and so on.
Even Cinebench ditched AVX512 because Intel used it so badly. However Zen5 proves that AVX512 is excellent if CPU architecture is made right. And Zen5 is.I strongly doubt AVX512 will get important in gaming (the consoles don't have it, Intel ditched it, we saw no game developers jumping on the older AVX128 and AVX256 trains, etc.). But it's a great boost for scientific apps. Maybe for hyperealistic physical calculations in games (but chances are, those will be done on the GPU level).
That's true. Intel has too much market share and applies much of it's power on vendors, software and benchmark developers to go their way.Zen5 is excellent CPU, but benchmarks suck. Again, double digit performance increase takes few seconds work. Why not get it?
Hey look, another fool who doesn't understand what a CPU bottleneck is!Dear Lord, yet another pointless 4090@1080p benchmark. This is so silly
But no doubt there will be a lot of sage pontificating in the comments, as if these results had some meanigful bearing on real life scenarios.
Also, saying that 5800X3D wasn't an expensive CPU is an icing on the cake. And 5xxx X family still remains a better proposition for somebody on a tight budget.
You use the word "could" a lot. 512 Could change a lot. Or it could do nothing in the long run. Or Intel could release a faster CPU, or.....CPUs age differently, that's true. However when there is something that could offer massive improvement, like AVX512, it's pretty much impossible to tell how much it will impact on future.
Even Cinebench ditched AVX512 because Intel used it so badly. However Zen5 proves that AVX512 is excellent if CPU architecture is made right. And Zen5 is.
Reason why AVX512 Should get more support is reason that it takes literally few seconds to add support for it. In other words, if you can get double digit performance increase with few seconds, only morons leave that on table. And that is situation with Zen5. And that is why I say Cinebench developers are *****s. And most current software is trash. And Zen5 is excellent CPU, but benchmarks suck. Again, double digit performance increase takes few seconds work. Why not get it?
You use the word "could" a lot. 512 Could change a lot. Or it could do nothing in the long run. Or Intel could release a faster CPU, or.....
There is always something new on the horizon. If you look at every review with " well they should have waited because this thing Could change" you'll read a ton of reviews and never buy anything.