Photos 2/2: Affinity Photo, Topaz Labs AI Apps, ZPS X, ...
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.
Affinity Photo (benchmark)
Test environment: built-in benchmark.
Topaz Labs AI apps
Topaz DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI. These single-purpose applications are used for restoration of low-quality photos. Whether it is high noise (caused by higher ISO), raster level (typically after cropping) or when something needs extra sharpening. AI performance is always used.
Test environment: As part of batch editing, 42 photos with a lower resolution of 1920 × 1280 px are processed, with the settings from the images above. DeNoise AI is in version 3.1.2, Gigapixel in 5.5.2 and Sharpen AI in 3.1.2.
XnViewMP
Test environment: XnViewMP is finally a photo-editor for which you don’t have to pay. At the same time, it uses hardware very efficiently. In order to achieve more reasonable comparison times, we had to create an archive of up to 1024 photos, where we reduce the original resolution of 5472 × 3648 px to 1980 × 1280 px and filters with automatic contrast enhancement and noise reduction are also being applied during this process. We use 64-bit portable version 0.98.4.
Zoner Photo Studio X
Test environment: In Zoner Photo Studio X we convert 42 .CR2 (RAW Canon) photos to JPEG while keeping the original resolution (5472 × 3648 px) at the lowest possible compression, with the ZPS X profile ”high quality for archival”.
- 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.