Numerical computing
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.
Disclaimer: For big.LITTLE-based processors, the result is missing in some tests. This is because they didn’t scale properly with P cores and the achieved performance was too low. In such cases it is indeed possible to force performance on all cores, but this does not happen by default at the user level. To avoid creating the illusion in some cases that measured results such as those presented in the graphs are normally achieved, we omit them. However, these are a negligible fraction of the total set of test results.
Y-cruncher
Stockfish 13
Test environment: Host for the Stockfish 13 engine is a chess app Arena 2.0.1, build 2399.
Aida64, FPU tests
FSI (SPECworkstation 3.1)
Kirchhoff migration (SPECworkstation 3.1)
Python36 (SPECworkstation 3.1)
SRMP (SPECworkstation 3.1)
Octave (SPECworkstation 3.1)
FFTW (SPECworkstation 3.1)
Convolution (SPECworkstation 3.1)
CalculiX (SPECworkstation 3.1)
Note: If a processor is missing a SPECworkstation test result, it is because the application failed to execute it for some reason. In this case, “error” is written to the chart instead of a numeric value.
Continue: Simulations
- 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.