CPU Benchmark Performance: Power, Web, And Science

Our previous set of ‘office’ benchmarks has often been a mix of science and synthetics, so this time we wanted to keep our office section purely on real-world performance. We've also incorporated our power and science testing into this section too. 

In this version of our test suite, all the science-focused tests that aren’t ‘simulation’ work are now in our science section. Where possible these benchmarks have been optimized with the latest in vector instructions.

We are using DDR5 memory on the Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 5 7600X, as well as Intel's 12th Gen (Alder Lake) processors at the following settings:

  • DDR5-5200 CL44 - Ryzen 7000
  • DDR5-4800 (B) CL40 - Intel 12th Gen

All other CPUs such as Ryzen 5000 and 3000 were tested at the relevant JEDEC settings as per the processor's individual memory support with DDR4.

Power

The nature of reporting processor power consumption has become, in part, a dystopian nightmare. Historically the peak power consumption of a processor, as purchased, is given by its Thermal Design Power (TDP, or PL1). For many markets, such as embedded processors, that value of TDP still signifies the peak power consumption. For the processors we test at AnandTech, either desktop, notebook, or enterprise, this is not always the case.

Modern high-performance processors implement a feature called Turbo. This allows, usually for a limited time, a processor to go beyond its rated frequency. Exactly how far the processor goes depends on a few factors, such as the Turbo Power Limit (PL2), whether the peak frequency is hard coded, the thermals, and the power delivery. Turbo can sometimes be very aggressive, allowing power values 2.5x above the rated TDP.

AMD and Intel have different definitions for TDP but are broadly speaking, applied the same. The difference comes from turbo modes, turbo limits, turbo budgets, and how the processors manage that power balance. These topics are 10000-12000 word articles in their own right, and we’ve got a few articles worth reading on the topic.

(0-0) Peak Power

Looking at the results of our Peak Power test, the Ryzen 9 7950X topped out at 221.8 W, which is around 30% higher than the TDP of 170 W it comes with. As stated by AMD, the Power Package Tracking or PPT limit for AM5 motherboards when used with 170W TDP Ryzen 7000 SKUs will be 230 W. Still, while it draws more power than its generational predecessors such as Zen 3 and Zen 2, the Zen 4-based Ryzen 7000 series benefits from higher core clock speeds, a higher single core boost frequency, as well as other implementations around TSMC's 5 nm manufacturing process.

The AMD Ryzen 5 7600X is more aimed at the mid-range, and as such has a lower overall power draw, with the peak power figures in our testing reaching 134.3 W. This is around the same levels of power draw as the Ryzen 9 3950 X, the Ryzen 9 5900X, and the Ryzen 7 5800X. Per AMD's specifications, the Ryzen 5 7600X has a TDP of 105 W, with around a 27 % variance in peak power compared to TDP.

From our testing, so far, it seems that Ryzen 7000 when combined with a premium X670E motherboard allows for up to 30% in terms of extra power allowances for higher single-core boost and overall faster all-core frequencies.

Web

(7-1) Kraken 1.1 Web Test

(7-2) Google Octane 2.0 Web Test

In our web tests, the overall improvements in IPC, frequency, clock speeds, and the switch to DDR5 all play a part in performance here. Both the Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 7 7600X top our charts in regards to web testing, although performance isn't as apparent as it should be in other areas.

Science

(2-1) 3D Particle Movement v2.1 (non-AVX)

(2-2) 3D Particle Movement v2.1 (Peak AVX)

For our 3DPM v2.1 testing, we added in the Intel Core i9-11900K (Rocket Lake) to show performance across AVX workloads. Although Intel officially fused off the AVX2/512 extensions on Alder Lake which did cause a little controversy and gave the impression that AVX-512 on consumer platforms was dead. AMD clearly believes the opposite, as it has implemented it so that AVX-512 runs two cycles over a 256-bit wide instruction. The performance of the Ryzen 9 7950X here is phenomenal, although the Core i9-11900K which did indeed feature AVX instruction sets in the silicon, is still better than the Ryzen 5 7600X with AVX workloads.

(2-3) yCruncher 0.78.9506 ST (250m Pi)

(2-4) yCruncher 0.78.9506 MT (2.5b Pi)

(2-4b) yCruncher 0.78.9506 MT (250m Pi)

Focusing on our more science-based tests, both the Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 5 7600X perform well against the competition. In our 3DPMv2.1 test in non-AVX, the Ryzen 9 7950X provided a jump of 35% in performance against the previous generation Ryzen 9 5950X processor.

Interestingly, in our yCruncher 0.78 test, the Ryzen 9 7950X and the Core i9-12900K trade blows consistently, although the Ryzen 5 7600X performs well for its price point.

SPEC2017 Multi-Threaded Results CPU Benchmark Performance: Simulation And Encoding
POST A COMMENT

205 Comments

View All Comments

  • Yirath - Tuesday, October 11, 2022 - link

    Well I appreciate the info on the new chip. I am a bit disappointed reading the comments that the chip falls short of it's expectations. As a fan of AMD I'll still probably go with this on my next build. Reply
  • fybyfyby - Tuesday, October 18, 2022 - link

    And what shortcomings do you mean? Im fresh user of 7950x and I wouldnt go back to 5900x. 7950X is much more efficient and powerful. Of course now its also investment into new platform. Its not as cheap. And for many people it doesnt make sense. Its absolutely understandable. Reply
  • Vorl - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    If this is a rewview of the 7950 and the 7600 why isn't the 7600 in the SPEC tests? Reply
  • namcost - Friday, October 21, 2022 - link

    1:1:1 would mean 3000:3000:3000.... The infinity clock doesnt run 3000. So this whole article is factually wrong except the part where you stated that infinity clock was running 2000. That would mean 2000:3000:3000 which is not 1:1:1 at all.... Reply
  • npoc - Wednesday, October 26, 2022 - link

    Why doesn't anyone report idle power consumption anymore. I don't care how much power my computer uses when it's running full out because that only happens 1% of the time. 99% of the time my system sits idle waiting to do things. Please report idle power consumption both at the 12v CPU rail, and at the whole system level *(with similarly specced machines, i.e. same nvme, same ram, same GPU, same PSU, similarly specced motherboard). I don't game, but I do have a server that needs upgrading. I honestly care most about how much power this upgrade will cost or save me over my existing i7-4771 (yes that's a thing). Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now