AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D Linux Performance

[tozo]

I tried to compare the FPS numbers between the 7800X3D and 7950X3D, but the 7950X3D numbers are different on the charts in this article than they were in the original 7950X3D article (https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-...950x3d-linux/2).

For example here Hitman3 at full hd and ultra level has 323 FPS for 7950X3D while on the other article it was 449 FPS. Similar strange numbers at 2K resolution.
Has anything changed regarding the settings or how is the FPS measured?

There is a newer kernel used in this article, but that makes 7950X3D that slower? That would sound strange to me.

Am I missing something?

[creative]

The performance of these new parts is insane. My 5800X non-3D is already way overpowered for what I do but glad I have it.

[creative]

Unless something breaks bad here on my Ryzen 5xxxx series Linux desktops, I'll hold off upgrading ... at least this year. I just don't have a need for 'more' anything right now (Ie. I have no applications or VMs that are 'slow' to 'do' anything... Everything is just 'quick' ... zip zip zip). I'll see how things look come about this time next year . That said, I do like what these X3D chips bring to the table for even general computing (I don't 'game'). With the low power consumption, air coolers look like they should work too. I don't like 'pumps' in my system if I can help it. I'd go for the 7950X3D and/or the 7800X3D if needed by then ... Who knows though as AMD may have another round of CPUs queued up, and the AM5 platform should have more than matured by then with plenty of BIOS and OS software support along with it.

16 threads of Ryzen 5000 is already way overpowered for the research work and gaming that I do. Even if I edit and render a video it blisters through it, same thing for AUR building, graphics editing etc. My R5 3600 was just fine, I just wanted a full 16 threads for further down the line, on a later node/architecture. I felt like 16 threads was a magical thread count for my uses for a pretty decent length of time. Originally I aimed for 24 threads but certain things got in the way of that and it turned out that that many threads was not really necessary for what I do.

I may be more apt to get a 4k display and appropriate GPU before a new rig base, getting older with aging eyes bigger displays and higher
definition is generally better. 27in 2560x1440 seems alright for right now though. In actuality I want a large OLED display over my current nano cell IPS screen.

[rclark]

16 threads of Ryzen 5000 is already way overpowered for the research work and gaming that I do.

Hear you loud and clear. My general box has a 5600X in it, while my R&D workstation has a 5900X installed, both air cooled. I did up my memory to 64GB on the workstation as I do pull up a few VMs now and then with plenty of allocated threads on them. DDR4 memory prices are 'low' right now where upgrading to more memory is easily doable. I do wish AMD had a low end part within the 5000 series. Right now I am running a 2400G on my home server which, don't get me wrong, works well for that purpose. But I would upgrade if there was a true 5000 series replacement in the sub $100 range (just because the AM4 socket allows it). Not going to see it though, as we are off and running on the AM5 platform now... The replacement has to have onboard graphics as I run headless, and don't want to have a graphics card in it just for occasional use.

I may be more apt to get a 4k display...

When you do, go for size >= 32" . I have a 27" 4K and find at highest resolution on my R&D box -- everything is 'tiny'. I have to 'up' the font size for comfortable reading which almost defeats the purpose of 4K . On our general purpose desktop, we have a curved 32" 2K (2560x1440) which turns out to be 'perfect' for size/readability at that resolution.

That said, I have been changing out my SSDs as my 'upgrade'. Since 2TB SSD is hanging around $100, I've replaced my 500GB SSDs (over 3 years old) . The 800 TBW rating 'should' give me a long life on the new 2 TB drives as I only use a 'fraction' of the disk space.

Point is it makes more sense to upgrade parts for the current systems, than buying new 'motherboard/memory/cpu' systems for no real 'noticeable' performance gain (like 'noticeable' when you upgrade from HDD to an SSD).

[creative]

rclark

Prices may eventually come down to under $100 for something like a 5600G it's already $140 on Amazon. That's a 12 thread chip.

I had not owned or used a hard drive for over a decade. Right now I am rocking 4TB of SATA SSD's and 1 NVME drive. I really like the Western Digital Blue SSD's a lot but also have one intel and a few PNY's which are pretty decent. I am not really that impressed with the NVME stuff. They are great if you copy large large files and very often but I rarely do that.

About OLED, I am waiting for them to become more common/refined, lower in price, and yes, I would be rocking a 32' if I bought one. Maybe about 3 years down the road. By then a 4k 16:9 OLED should be about the price of a 3440x1440 OLED. The older I have gotten the more I have started considering my display to be the most important part of my setup, one reason I went with a Dell S2721DGF, best display I have ever bought and experienced. I always got cheaper Acer monitors before that.

[rclark]

I had not owned or used a hard drive for over a decade

I do use them for backup purposes. I have one 4TB internal for my home server for those quick backups when you just need an updated snapshot. And then for off-site I use the 4TB HDD USB drives. Can't beat the price of HDDs for backups.

My 4K monitor is a Dell also and it is sharp.... But 27" doesn't cut it .

Prices may eventually come down to under $100 for something like a 5600G it's already $140 on Amazon. That's a 12 thread chip.

For a data server 4 core/8 threads is plenty really, and 'should' use less power. AMD just doesn't have a chip in play for low end needs. We'll see. Might have to settle for the 5600G before all is said and done . No hurry.

[creative]

rclark Look in your 2400G setups UEFI. Look for something like "max platform thermal throttle limit". If you can find that anywhere or something similar, you can thermally limit that 5600G to whatever degree's you want. The option may not be available until a 5600G is installed, that tends to be the option of later chips. Also you can reduce the power limits manually, will take some tinkering though.

I use USB keys for backup, audio projects, research text and study notes take up very little space. I just leave most my steam/gog/disk games installed on SSD's, unless I actually don't like a game I never uninstall them. Same thing goes for game mods. All the SSD's are not only operators but default backups by the nature of how they are used.

I find most data when not being used for long periods of time disposable. I have literally not a single thread of data I would consider dying wish data, philosophical reasons why I don't. All human life is so transient whats the point?

Of coarse software development in terms of backup is a totally different story in relevant terms, exigencies call for redundant backups for that data.

[Teadrinker]

I tried to compare the FPS numbers between the 7800X3D and 7950X3D, but the 7950X3D numbers are different on the charts in this article than they were in the original 7950X3D article (https://www.phoronix.com/review/amd-...950x3d-linux/2).

For example here Hitman3 at full hd and ultra level has 323 FPS for 7950X3D while on the other article it was 449 FPS. Similar strange numbers at 2K resolution.
Has anything changed regarding the settings or how is the FPS measured?

There is a newer kernel used in this article, but that makes 7950X3D that slower? That would sound strange to me.

Am I missing something?

I too literally registered to ask the same question. What is going on here?

[Anux]

I too literally registered to ask the same question. What is going on here?

Looks like the cache wasn't used in those cases, the performance is pretty simmilar to the non X3D models. Also different Kernel and Mesa builds.

[Teadrinker]

phoronix Michael Could you please explain why in these benchmarks 7950X3D is running Hitman 3 1080p Ultra at 323.16 FPS (under performing 13900K) while in another article 449.56 FPS (outperforming 13900K)?! Almost 100 FPS difference at same setting same game same hardware?!

Hitman 3 1080p Ultra from this article:

323.16 FPS

Hitman 3 1080p Ultra from AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D Linux Performance article:

image.png