Performance variance between reviews is primarily determined by the specific set of games tested. Sets containing games like Civilization VI or Counter-Strike: GO shed less light on the results. However, the question is whether they have relevant informative value. In the case of a turn-based strategy the responses are not played (so if the game is running at 300 or 400 FPS it has no hypothetical impact on gameplay) and in the case of a game where the frame rate is slowly approaching the thousand FPS , no matter if the value is above or below 100 FPS, because everything is extremely beyond the capabilities of the Acer Nitro XV252QFbmiiprx with a refresh rate of 390 Hz.
Average ComputerBase game testing at 720p
Then we can discuss whether to test CPUs in games at 720p. There are two views here – either to test at exactly the resolution the player will be using on set, say 1440p (but then it’s pointless to test, as there’s 90%+ limiting graphics card performance. Or we can legitimately assume that the processor will serve more than one graphics card (which is common in the retail segment) and we buy it for the next generation (or generations) of graphics cards, and we know that at least this year processor performance will therefore be needed, because there is nothing worse than finding out that a certain amount of six months saves a new processor board by reducing the performance of the new graphics card by an inferior model, which is half the price of the amount we saved on the processor.
There are also games where Ryzen 7 5800X3D shows a significant lead at 1080p (Linus Tech Tips)
Sometimes you can come across an argument like: “Well, yes, but I don’t plan to buy graphics for $2000, that’s the budget to upgrade all the components” (about $2000 is the amount around which the next high-end graphics should be moved). Such an approach is of course possible, nothing can be objected to. But two facts must be taken into account. The first is (say) a conservative extrapolation. If this year there will be a high-end market at $2000, which will increase performance by 2.5 times compared to the current one, then in 2024 a product that will offer this performance in half the price range will probably come with a new generation. Thus, an incorrectly selected gaming processor can hamper even “mainstream” products in two years.
The second fact concerns the price comparison. Let’s start with our user, who is ready to upgrade all the components around $2000 (this time I dare to count in dollars, because it’s hard to say where the price will be at the end of the year when these graphs “at $2000” will go into the market). The user wants a game at the top, but within the price limit he does not take the most expensive so that all the components fit:
- Core i9-12900KS – $800
- middle class cooler – $45
- DDR5-6000 CL36 32GB – $370
- Z690 middle class motherboard – $185
- on GPU for Christmas – $800
- total: $2200
The first alternative illustration may be an extremely favorable situation where the upgrade concerns a user equipped with a system with a B550 or X570 chipset and, for example, a Ryzen 5 2600X. By switching to the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, it can use a substantial part of the existing assembly: heatsink, DDR4 memory and motherboard with PCIe 4.0. He will have $1,750 left on the purchase of $2,200. Either after buying a graphics card for $800, he will thus save almost a thousand dollars, or he will buy a much more powerful graphics card for the entire remaining amount ($1750) (it will probably not be a high-end model of the new generation, but a top-1 model).
Another user may be affected by a less favorable situation based on an excavation solution, where the motherboard cannot be used, however, even here the combination of the board with B550, DDR4 memory and Ryzen 7 5800X3D would be disadvantages. more favorable and significantly higher resources for the graphics card.
Consumption by GamersNexus
The purpose of this comparison is to remind you that if we compare two high-end gaming processors, they are neither roughly comparable in price ($799 for the Core i9-12900KS and $449 for the Ryzen 7 5800X3D) or roughly comparable platform price. . DDR5 is almost twice as expensive as DDR4 and if you want them to bring a bonus to gaming performance, you have to combine very high beats with the lowest possible latencies. Paradoxically, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D does not have this problem, because the large L3 cache (96 MB) makes the performance of the processor less dependent on the nature of the memory.
The only major drawback of the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is the fact that it is a gaming processor. Of course, this is not a disadvantage for users-gamers, but for users-gamers, for whom the kro games play a large percentage of time in CPU-intensive applications (software video encoding, rendering, etc.). Although the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is not a sharpener, application performance is on par with the Ryzen 7 5800X, so the Core i9-12900KS significantly outperforms it in this regard. The second thing is at what price – but that’s a specific balance of games and apps for a particular user.
With the Ryzen 7 5800X3D, AMD has slapped Intel’s marketing policy, which is based on the approach: Do you want the best gaming performance from us? You must purchase our processor with the highest number of cores that you don’t need, that you don’t use, and after which the processor consumes >200 watts, for which you must size the cooling and the source. AMD has managed to show that the best gaming performance does not have to be conditioned by extreme price or extreme consumption (Ryzen 7 5800X3D has continuous consumption between Ryzen 7 5700X and Ryzen 7 5800X) and therefore also extreme cooling requirements.