Microsoft Flight Simulator
We’re wrapping up tests of the new Ryzen 9000 desktop CPUs. This with a model that once increased the number of cores compared to its predecessor, or a pilot model (Ryzen 9 3900X) from eight to twelve on AMD’s mainstream platform. Even compared to the Ryzen 9 5900X, the new Ryzen 9 9900X is more than twice as fast in some practical situations. This model is also the best when it comes to efficiency.
Microsoft Flight Simulator
Disclaimer: The performance of this game changes and improves frequently due to continuous updates. We verify the consistency of the results by re-testing the Ryzen 7 5900X processor before each measurement. In case of significant deviations, we discard the older results and start building the database from scratch. Due to the incompleteness of the MFS results, we do not use MFS to calculate the average gaming performance of the processors.
Test environment: resolution 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset Low; API DirectX 11; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.
Test environment: resolution 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset Low; API DirectX 11; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.
Test environment: resolution 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset High; API DirectX 11; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.
Test environment: resolution 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset Ultra; API DirectX 11; extra settings Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.
- Contents
- AMD Ryzen 9 9900X in detail
- Methodology: performance tests
- Methodology: how we measure power draw
- Methodology: temperature and clock speed tests
- Test setup
- 3DMark
- Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla
- Borderlands 3
- Counter-Strike: GO
- Cyberpunk 2077
- DOOM Eternal
- F1 2020
- Metro Exodus
- Microsoft Flight Simulator
- Shadow of the Tomb Raider
- Total War Saga: Troy
- Overall gaming performance
- Gaming performance per euro
- PCMark and Geekbench
- Web performance
- 3D rendering: Cinebench, Blender, ...
- Video 1/2: Adobe Premiere Pro
- Video 2/2: DaVinci Resolve Studio
- Graphics effects: Adobe After Effects
- Video encoding
- Audio encoding
- Broadcasting (OBS and Xsplit)
- Photos 1/2: Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom
- Photos 2/2: Affinity Photo, Topaz Labs AI Apps, ZPS X, ...
- (De)compression
- (De)encryption
- Numerical computing
- Simulations
- Memory and cache tests
- Processor power draw curve
- Average processor power draw
- Performance per watt
- Achieved CPU clock speed
- CPU temperature
- Conclusion
I am wondering what is going on with certain tests where 9900x is inferior to 7900x. In particular, AIDA64 FPU Julia and Mandel. For instance, in Julia test 9900x only achieves 28% of 7900x’s performance…!? Does it have something to do with test versions (7900x was tested almost 2 years ago).
This also makes me to ask if there is a way to tell which cases are actually comparable? Is it possible to select only the exact same versions?
I assume that this is a consequence of non-optimization of the application (in this case Aida64) for given tests with specific processors, or rather their architectures.