Test setup
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.
Test setup





| Test configuration | |
| CPU cooler | Noctua NH-U14S@12 V |
| Thermal compound | Noctua NT-H2 |
| Motherboard * | Acc. to processor: Gigabyte B650E Aorus Pro X USB4, ASRock B650E Taichi, MSI MEG X670E Ace, Asus ROG Strix Z790-E Gaming WiFi, MEG X570 Ace, MEG Z690 Unify, MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4, Z590 Ace, MSI MEG X570 Ace alebo MSI MEG Z490 Ace |
| Memory (RAM) | Acc. to platform: z DDR5 G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo (2× 16 GB, 6000 MHz/CL30) a Kingston Fury Beast (2× 16 GB, 5200 MHz/CL40) a DDR4 Patriot Blackout, (4× 8 GB, 3600 MHz/CL18) |
| Graphics card | MSI RTX 3080 Gaming X Trio w/o Resizable BAR |
| SSD | 2× Patriot Viper VPN100 (512 GB + 2 TB) |
| PSU | BeQuiet! Dark Power Pro 12 (1200 W) |
* We use the following BIOSes on motherboards. For the B650E Aorus Pro X USB4 we use F4c, for the Asus ROG Strix Z790-E Gaming WiFi we use v0502, for the MSI MEG X670E Ace we use v1.10NPRP, for the MEG X570 Ace we use v1E, for the MEG Z690 Unify we use v10, for the MAG Z690 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4 we use v11, for the MEG Z590 Ace we use v1.14 and for the MEG Z490 Ace we use v17.
Note: The graphics drivers we use are Nvidia GeForce 466.77 and the Windows 10 OS build is 19045 (22H2) at the time of testing.
Processors from other platforms are tested on the motherboards MSI MEG Z690 Unify, MAG Z490 Tomahawk WiFi DDR4, Z590 Ace a Z490 Ace, MEG Z690 Unify (all Intel) and MEG X570 Ace, MEG X670E Ace (AMD).
On platforms supporting DDR5 memory, we use two different sets of modules. For more powerful processors with “X” (AMD) or “K” (Intel) in the name, the faster G.Skill Trident Z5 Neo (2×16 GB, 6000 MHz/CL30) memory. In the case of cheaper processors (without X or K at the end of the name), the slower Kingston Fury Beast (2×16 GB, 5200 MHz/CL40) modules. But this is more or less just symbolism, the bandwidth is very high for both kits, it is not a bottleneck, and the difference in processor performance is very small, practically negligible, across the differently fast memory kits.
- 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.