Gaming Performance: 1440p

In our Ryzen 7000 series review, we saw users commenting about testing games for CPU reviews at 1440p, so we have duly obliged here. Those interested in 1440p performance with minimal image quality – particularly the esports crowd – will be glad to know that we will be testing at this resolution going forward into 2023 and beyond.

Civilization VI

(a-3) Civilization VI - 1440p Min - Average FPS(a-4) Civilization VI - 1440p Min - 95th Percentile

Borderlands 3

(c-3) Borderlands 3 - 1440p VLow - Average FPS(c-4) Borderlands 3 - 1440p VLow - 95th Percentile

Grand Theft Auto V

(e-3) Grand Theft Auto V - 1440p Low - Average FPS(e-4) Grand Theft Auto V - 1440p Low - 95th Percentile

Red Dead Redemption 2

(f-3) Red Dead 2 - 1440p Min - Average FPS(f-4) Red Dead 2 - 1440p Min - 95th Percentile

F1 2022

(g-5) F1 2022 - 1440p Ultra High - Average FPS(g-6) F1 2022 - 1440p Ultra High - 95th Percentile

Hitman 3

(h-5) Hitman 3 - 1440p Ultra - Average FPS(h-6) Hitman 3 - 1440p Ultra - 95th Percentile

Total War: Warhammer 3

(i-3) Total War Warhammer 3 - 1440p Ultra - Average FPS

We noticed some discrepancies in our Cyberpunk 2077 testing at 1440p and 4K; we will publish these results once we identify the issue.

The first thing to note in our 1440p testing is that in Civ VI, and throughout, we've seen dominance from AMD's Zen 4 core here. I've retested numerous times to confirm, and they are correct. It's also worth noting that again, the Ryzen 7 5800X3D performs well in some of the titles, especially Red Dead Redemption 2, Grand Theft Auto V, and in Borderlands 3. If a title can utilize all of that 3D V-Cache, then the 5800X3D excels, even against the latest and great Zen 4 and Raptor Lake chips.

Throughout our 1440p testing, the latest Intel 13th Generation core has performed well, and although it gets pipped by the Core i9-12900KS in some of the tests, most of the processors are competitive in titles such as F1 2022, and Grand Theft Auto V.

Gaming Performance: 1080p Gaming Performance: 4K
POST A COMMENT

169 Comments

View All Comments

  • Pjotr - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Closing thoughts typos: Ryzen 580X3D and Ryzen 700. Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Thanks! Reply
  • mode_13h - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Thanks for the review!

    Could you please add the aggregates, in the SPEC 2017 scores? There's usually a summary chart that has an average of the individual benchmarks, and then it often has the equivalent scores from more CPUs/configurations than the individual test graphs contain. For example, see the Alder Lake review:

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/17047/the-intel-12t...
    Reply
  • Arbie - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    TechSpot / Hardware Unboxed show that to complete a Blender job the 13900K takes 50% more total system energy than does the 7950X. Intel completing a Cinebench job takes 70% more energy. Meaning heat in the room. And that's with the Intel chip thermal throttling instantly on even the best cooling.

    Looking at AT's "Power" charts here, which list the Intel chip as "125W" and AMD as "170W", many readers will get EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE impression.

    Sure, you mention the difficulties in comparing TDPs etc, and compare this gen Intel to last gen etc but none of that "un-obscures" the totally erroneous Intel vs AMD picture you've conveyed.

    ESPECIALLY when your conclusion says they're "very close in performance" !! BAD JOB, AT. The worst I've seen here in a very long time. Incomprehensibly bad.
    Reply
  • gezafisch - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Cope harder - watch Der8auer's video showing that the 13900k can beat any chip at efficiency with the right settings - https://youtu.be/H4Bm0Wr6OEQ Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    We go into the subject of power consumption at multiple points and with multiple graphs, including outlining the 13900K's high peak power consumption in the conclusion.

    https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph17601/130...

    Otherwise, the only place you see 125W and 170W are in the specification tables. And those values are the official specifications for those chips.
    Reply
  • boeush - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Not true. You have those insanely misleading "TDP" labels on every CPU in the legend of every performance comparison chart. This paints a very misleading picture of "competitive" performance, whereas performance at iso-power (e.g. normalized per watt, based on total system power consumption measured at the outlet) would be much more enlightening. Reply
  • boeush - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    *per watt-hour (not per watt)

    [summed over the duration of the benchmark run]
    Reply
  • dgingeri - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Is it just me, or does the L1 cache arrangement seem a bit odd? 48k data and 32k instruction for the P cores and 32k data and 64k instruction on the e-cores. Seems a bit odd to me. Reply
  • Otritus - Thursday, October 20, 2022 - link

    Golden/Raptor Cove has a micro-op cache for instructions. 4096 micro-ops is about equal to 16Kb of instruction cache, which is effectively 48Kb-D + 48Kb-I. I don’t remember whether Gracemont has a micro-op cache. However, it doesn’t have hyperthreading, so maybe it just needs less data cache per core. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now