The AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 3700X and 3900X Raising The Bar
by Andrei Frumusanu & Gavin Bonshor on July 7, 2019 9:00 AM EST** = Old results marked were performed with the original BIOS & boost behaviour as published on 7/7.
Gaming: Grand Theft Auto V
The highly anticipated iteration of the Grand Theft Auto franchise hit the shelves on April 14th 2015, with both AMD and NVIDIA in tow to help optimize the title. GTA doesn’t provide graphical presets, but opens up the options to users and extends the boundaries by pushing even the hardest systems to the limit using Rockstar’s Advanced Game Engine under DirectX 11. Whether the user is flying high in the mountains with long draw distances or dealing with assorted trash in the city, when cranked up to maximum it creates stunning visuals but hard work for both the CPU and the GPU.
For our test we have scripted a version of the in-game benchmark. The in-game benchmark consists of five scenarios: four short panning shots with varying lighting and weather effects, and a fifth action sequence that lasts around 90 seconds. We use only the final part of the benchmark, which combines a flight scene in a jet followed by an inner city drive-by through several intersections followed by ramming a tanker that explodes, causing other cars to explode as well. This is a mix of distance rendering followed by a detailed near-rendering action sequence, and the title thankfully spits out frame time data.
| AnandTech CPU Gaming 2019 Game List | ||||||||
| Game | Genre | Release Date | API | IGP | Low | Med | High | |
| Grand Theft Auto V | Open World | Apr 2015 |
DX11 | 720p Low |
1080p High |
1440p Very High |
4K Ultra |
|
| *Strange Brigade is run in DX12 and Vulkan modes | ||||||||
There are no presets for the graphics options on GTA, allowing the user to adjust options such as population density and distance scaling on sliders, but others such as texture/shadow/shader/water quality from Low to Very High. Other options include MSAA, soft shadows, post effects, shadow resolution and extended draw distance options. There is a handy option at the top which shows how much video memory the options are expected to consume, with obvious repercussions if a user requests more video memory than is present on the card (although there’s no obvious indication if you have a low end GPU with lots of GPU memory, like an R7 240 4GB).
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
| GTA 5 | IGP | Low | Medium | High |
| Average FPS |  |
|
 |
 |
| 95th Percentile |  |
 |
 |
 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
447 Comments
View All Comments
djayjp - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
So results for Intel chips are completely invalid then.futrtrubl - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
You will need to have to explain that then. Comparing Intel with mitigations vs AMD with mitigations.djayjp - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
No. Fallout/ZombieLoad does not affect AMD chips.djayjp - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
Intel performance will suffer whereas AMD's won't be affected.WaltC - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
Ha-ha...;) So because AMD has a newer architecture without most of the vulnerabilities that plague Intel's ancient CPU architectures--it should be held against AMD? Rubbish...;) Look, what is unfair about testing both architectures/cpus with all the mitigations that each *requires*? I can't see a thing wrong with it--it's perfect, in fact.extide - Sunday, July 7, 2019 - link
They tested Intel WITHOUT Fallout/ZombieLoad which would affect them. Probably not by much, though, honestly.RSAUser - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
Well the results are close enough for a lot of tests to be error margin, that the mitigation would put AMD in the lead.The tests should reflect real world as of when the article is published, using old results without declaring that Intel doesn't have mitigation applied on every page is the equivalent of falsifying the results as people will buy based on these tests.
mkaibear - Monday, July 8, 2019 - link
"using old results without declaring that Intel doesn't have mitigation applied on every page is the equivalent of falsifying the results as people will buy based on these tests."Oh, that's just inane. They quite openly state the exact test specification on the "Test Bed and Setup" page, including which mitigations are applied. Arguing that not putting one particular piece of information on every page means it's the equivalent of falsifying the results is completely ridiculous.
RSAUser - Tuesday, July 9, 2019 - link
How many go through the test bed set up page?Meteor2 - Sunday, July 14, 2019 - link
Pretty much everyone reading such an in-depth review, I should think.