I’ve compared AMD’s two highest core count Zen 4 processors in 25 games
and applications to help you decide which to pick!
The main differences in specs are seen in the core and thread counts. Compared to the 7900X,
the higher tier 7950X has 4 additional cores and 8 extra threads. The 7950X also
has a slightly higher maximum boost clock speed, as well as more L1 and L2 cache.
As for price difference, right now the 7900X is available for
$550 USD while the 7950X costs an extra $150 more at $700, or 27% more money.
To find out if the 7950X is worth paying more for, I’ve tested both CPUs in this system. So the
exact same hardware for both chips, literally all that’s changing between tests is the processor.
Just before the 25 games, let’s start out with Cinebench R23, as it’s an easy way
to get a general idea of where single and multi threaded performance are at. I’ve got the 7900X
below the 7950X, and we can see that the extra cores and threads with the 7950X are giving
it a 31% higher multi core score. The 7950X was also ahead when it came to single core,
but the gap is much smaller with the 7950X scoring just 1% higher than the 7900X.
Both processors were running at about the same clock speeds during this test
at above 5GHz over all cores. Technically the 7950X has a higher max boost clock of 5.7GHz,
but those higher speeds are only seen in single threaded tasks.
The 7950X needs 17% more power in order to achieve its 31% performance boost,
so from a performance per watt perspective,
the 7950X ends up being more power efficient in this heavily multithreaded workload. Yeah
the 7950X uses more power, but you’re able to get more performance out of that power with it.
More power means more heat. The 7950X was running around 4 degrees Celsius warmer compared to the
7900X, but according to AMD this isn’t a problem and is considered normal behavior. Their Zen 4
processors are designed to run up to 95 degrees 24/7 without risk of damage or deterioration.
If you’re super paranoid about it though, you could always enable Eco mode. This results in the
7950X now using less power than the 7900X while still offering better multi core performance,
which gives the 7950X an even better performance per watt score. Not to
mention the temperatures of both are now far cooler, with the 7950X running cooler.
The 7950X hits lower clock speeds now, but it makes up for this by having more cores.
Different applications do perform differently though, so just before
we get into those 25 games, let’s find out what both processors can do in more workloads.
Blender was tested with the Open Data benchmark. This test relies on multi core
performance, and like Cinebench, there are some nice gains with the 7950X’s extra cores,
which was scoring around 32% higher compared to the 7900X.
The V-Ray and Corona benchmarks also use the processor to render out a scene,
and along with blender and Cinebench had some of the biggest performance gains on
the 7950X out of all applications tested, as rendering workloads love more cores and threads.
Linux Kernel compilation was tested under Ubuntu 22.04, whereas all other tests
were done with Windows 11. The 7950X was 28% faster in this workload, likely thanks to the
additional cores which also have extra cache, as that’s something that benefits compilation.
LLVM compilation is the last test I’ve run under Linux, and the performance difference
was a bit smaller here, with the 7950X being 16% faster compared to the 7900X.
Handbrake was used to convert one of my 4K 60FPS review videos to 1080p h.265.
Lower times are better here too, but the 7950X was only 10% faster in this one.
The gap continues to get smaller in Adobe Premiere. I’ve used the
Puget Systems benchmark which tests things like video exporting, playback and more,
and the 7950X was scoring 9% higher compared to the 7900X.
DaVinci Resolve is a video editing program, though the 7950X only had a 5% lead in this
one. Generally I’ve found this test to benefit more from more GPU power,
so you might be better off using your budget on a better GPU rather than top tier CPU.
The differences seen in Adobe Photoshop were even smaller. I’ve found this test generally
likes having more single core performance, and as we saw in Cinebench earlier, the 7950X was only
1% better in that regard. Here in Photoshop, the 7950X just had a 3% lead over the 7900X.
The differences in Microsoft Office were extremely small, with the 7950X only scoring a
little higher, but let’s be real, either of these are more than overkill for office work anyway.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression. The 7950X was 32% ahead
when it came to decompression, and 16% ahead for compression.
The differences in AES encryption and decryption on the other hand were basically nothing.
Geekbench tests a bunch of various workloads,
and like Cinebench earlier the difference in single core scores was extremely
small. The 7950X was scoring 19% higher in multicore thanks to its additional threads.
On average out of all applications tested, the higher tier and more expensive 7950X was 15%
faster in these specific workloads. Of course this number alone doesn’t mean much as I’ve
got a random combination of both single and multi threaded workloads, but this gives you an idea of
what sort of an overall improvement can be expected by spending the extra $150 on the
7950X. Rendering workloads in particular seem to be the best use case for the extra cores.
So what about gaming? I’ve also tested both processors in 25 games at 1080p,
1440p and 4K resolutions to find out all the differences.
Alright, normally I’d pick the 10 most interesting game graphs and talk through the differences,
but the fact is the performance differences are so small in most of these games that
there really isn’t any point in doing that. It would just be a waste of time. So we’re
instead going to just quickly skip through the results of all 25 games that I’ve tested
at 3 different resolutions so that we can spend our time talking about more important
things. Feel free to pause the video if you want a closer look at any of these 25 games.
On average over all 25 games tested, at 1080p the higher tier Ryzen 9 7950X was
actually slightly slower compared to the 7900X, though it’s such a small difference
and well within the margin of error range. Some games like Rainbow Six Extraction and Total War:
WARHAMMER III were notably better with the 7900X,
while others like Halo, Spider Man and Tomb Raider had a lead on the 7950X.
Stepping up to the higher 1440p resolution and on average we’re still looking at no deal difference
between the two CPUs. Generally there’s less of a difference between CPUs at higher
resolutions as most games start to become more GPU bound, the processor difference matters less.
This continues at 4K, we can now see that 21 of our 25 games had around
a 1% increase or decrease with the different CPUs,
so CPU choice between these two really doesn’t matter if your goal is 4K gaming.
This becomes abundantly clear when we take the average frame rates from all 25 games tested.
There’s like a 1 FPS or so difference between them, which is basically nothing in practice.
Considering the 7950X is an extra $150 more expensive compared to the 7900X,
it should come as no surprise to see that the 7900X is offering better value when
it comes to gaming at all three resolutions tested. The FPS in most games is quite close,
so you might as well just save the money and get the 7900X if
gaming is the focus. The extra budget would be better spent on a higher GPU.
Both processors basically offer similar value in terms of multi core performance,
with the 7950X doing a little better. So basically if you’re doing productivity workloads that
benefit from more cores like rendering, it could be worth spending more on the 7950X.
So basically to summarize, if gaming is your focus, it’s not worth spending the extra $150
to get the 7950X over the 7900X. But if you are getting the 7950X for some other reason anyway,
then rest assured that it will game just as well as the 7900X in most cases.
Honestly if gaming is the focus, most people would probably be just fine with either the
7600X or 7700X, which are much cheaper. The Ryzen 9 processors just seem better suited to people
that do actually need more cores and threads. And generally speaking, that’s just not gamers.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s definitely an argument for Ryzen 9 if you are gaming and
doing a bunch of other things at the same time like streaming, but yeah for someone that just
wants to play games on a budget, Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 are better options. Most games
just aren’t going to see a big performance boost with 12 or 16 cores. 6 and 8 are honestly fine,
there are more important things when it comes to gaming like say IPC, clock speeds and cache.
Now the 7950X would be ideal for people who run multicore workloads where time
is money and need the best performance available. In that case, it might be worth
spending the 27% more money to get an up to 32% performance boost in some multicore workloads.
Now Intel’s Core i9-13900K is actually cheaper than AMD’s Ryzen 9 7950X, and it outperforms
it in many workloads too, so check out this comparison before you buy the 7950X. The 13900K
isn’t a magical silver bullet though, Intel’s platform has less upgradeability compared to
AM5 for example, so make sure you check out that one next before buying your next CPU!