AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested
by Dr. Ian Cutress on November 5, 2020 9:01 AM ESTGaming Tests: Final Fantasy XV
Upon arriving to PC, Final Fantasy XV: Windows Edition was given a graphical overhaul as it was ported over from console. As a fantasy RPG with a long history, the fruits of Square-Enix’s successful partnership with NVIDIA are on display. The game uses the internal Luminous Engine, and as with other Final Fantasy games, pushes the imagination of what we can do with the hardware underneath us. To that end, FFXV was one of the first games to promote the use of ‘video game landscape photography’, due in part to the extensive detail even at long range but also with the integration of NVIDIA’s Ansel software, that allowed for super-resolution imagery and post-processing effects to be applied.
In preparation for the launch of the game, Square Enix opted to release a standalone benchmark. Using the Final Fantasy XV standalone benchmark gives us a lengthy standardized sequence to record, although it should be noted that its heavy use of NVIDIA technology means that the Maximum setting has problems - it renders items off screen. To get around this, we use the standard preset which does not have these issues. We use the following settings:
- 720p Standard, 1080p Standard, 4K Standard, 8K Standard
For automation, the title accepts command line inputs for both resolution and settings, and then auto-quits when finished. As with the other benchmarks, we do as many runs until 10 minutes per resolution/setting combination has passed, and then take averages. Realistically, because of the length of this test, this equates to two runs per setting.
| AnandTech | Low Resolution Low Quality |
Medium Resolution Low Quality |
High Resolution Low Quality |
Medium Resolution Max Quality |
| Average FPS |  |
 |
 |
 |
| 95th Percentile |  |
 |
 |
 |
All of our benchmark results can also be found in our benchmark engine, Bench.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
339 Comments
View All Comments
Jvanderlinde - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
Glad to read the 2700x is taken into account. The 5950X seems like a hell of an upgrade coming from that path. Gotta love AMD for what it's bin accomplishing in the last few years.Kallan007 - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
I just want to thank AMD for a lovely way to end 2020! I cannot wait for those AMD 6000 series card reviews! Good job as always AnandTech!Pumpkinhead - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
How is that possible that peak power for the 3700x having 8 cores is lower than for 3600 with 6 cores?nandnandnand - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
"Compared to other processors, for peak power, we report the highest loaded value observed from any of our benchmark tests."They selected the highest single wattage value from ANY of their tests. So at the same TDP, they should be very close to each other. I guess the point is to find the worst case scenario for each processor, rather than an average, to determine the power supply needed. Other reviews point to 3600 using less power on average:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-3...
Pumpkinhead - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
>https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-5-3...Interesting that 3700x being 1/3 faster in handbrake still draws only 13% more power, I always thought that in parallel workloads it power consumption scales linearly as you add more cores.
Even tho in AIDA stress test it draws 35% more power so peak consumption is different too, also look at the 5800x - draws almost twice as 5600x (also 6c vs 8c)
Kjella - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link
It scales linearly until you hit the TDP, past that more cores lets you use a lower, more efficient frequency. As long as you can keep all cores loaded 8 cores on a 10W/core power budget will get less done than 16 cores at a 5W/core power budget even though 8*10 = 16*5. But with disabled cores you might have to run more of the chip, like the whole CCX to support 3 of 4 working cores. That will obviously be less efficient since the "overhead" has to be split by 3 instead of 4.Murilo - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
..and AMD price? ahahah.I want price!
psyclist80 - Saturday, November 7, 2020 - link
Im glad you guys added in Tiger Lake...very important data point. If it beat willow cove in its full implementation then its certainly going to beat the watered down 14nm version cypress cove and slay it on power efficiency.Im glad AMD has taken the crown back (last held 2003-2006)...as has been said in the past, the Empire will strike back...Hopefully Golden Cove can do that for Intel. That will face 5nm Zen 4 though...AMD looking strong for the next year or two!
Sushisamurai - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link
apparently, looking at other reviews, there appears to be a performance uplift/downgrade (depends how you look at it) with the number of RAM sticks populated on the board (2 vs 4). I wonder how much of a difference it is with RAM speeds and memory stick population on the 5000 series.umano - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link
I bought in june a 3800x and an x570 creator planning to upgrade to 5950x after zen 4 launches, but often, when we have more power, we find a way to crave for more. I work in fashion ph, for me the 35% bump in ps compared to my 3800x (bought because the price was the same as 3700) is a no brainer. It will also help me in capture one exports and zip compression. I did not think an upgrade so soon will benefit me so much, but you know life happens. Good job amd you made technology fun again