9 Years of AMD CPUs: From AMD FX to Ryzen 5000 Series, Tested

Recently we took an interesting look at how much progress Intel CPUs have fabricated over the past six years, testing 5th-gen Core against 10th-gen Cadre processors' gaming performance. We covered two angles: first nosotros isolated gains that have come from increasing the operating frequency, and second what they accomplished by adding more cores. This gave u.s.a. a clear picture of the architectural refinements Intel's achieved while stuck on their 14nm process.

Of course, over the years they've as well achieved much greater operating frequencies while also expanding the core count. That existence the example, we also took a look at how increasing to 6, 8 and even 10 cores has improved gaming functioning, though we did ignore the frequency gains as that's been well explored at this point and frequency scaling is more predictable. Ultimately, nosotros plant that Intel'south journey on the 14nm procedure has seen limited improvements from fifth-gen to 10th-gen, amounting to a ~10% jump in gaming operation, when comparing CPUs at the same cadre count and operating frequency, and that proceeds includes the transition from DDR3 to DDR4.

By far, the biggest operation gains for Intel have come from increasing L3 enshroud chapters, cranking up the operating frequency well-nigh to its limit, and of grade, adding more cores. Substantially, Intel could have created their 2022 10th-gen lineup five years earlier with Skylake, but because there was no competitive pressure, they didn't see the need and therefore cashed in on smaller 122mm2 dies.

Speaking of the competition, today's review is all about AMD's own progress using the aforementioned testing methodology. We'll be comparing flagship parts of each generation with merely iv cores enabled at a stock-still frequency, along with some current-gen parts running with all cores enabled.

Without even looking at whatsoever new numbers, we acknowledge this could paint AMD in a more positive light as nosotros're leap to highlight the massive gains the company has achieved since the FX days and at present on Ryzen'south latest generation. However, the fact is that the company's CPUs accept come from miles behind Intel equally AMD was by and large irrelevant during the FX era.

Then allow's talk virtually what exactly we're looking at here...

We're going back to 2022 when AMD released the FX-8350 based on the Piledriver core using GlobalFoundries' troubled 32nm process. Technically, the first FX series processors arrived a year prior and were codenamed Bulldozer, merely we're going to skip the FX-8150 and that entire series, we really only need i FX processor and we might besides go with with the "best," and I do similar to use that term loosely when discussing FX processors.

There was also the FX-8370 which arrived two years later and was the aforementioned CPU, equally well as the super dumb FX-9370 and 9590 which were substantially the same parts again simply with an increased TDP of 220 watts, or virtually 80% higher than the 8350 (!). These were just overclocked models and in the case of the FX-9370 and FX-9590, the base and heave frequencies weren't even improved by twenty%.

Because nosotros're testing all parts at 4.2 GHz, we went with the FX-8350 and locked information technology at that frequency. We're also testing with but iv cores enabled, merely since the FX series merely went up to 4 cores with 8 threads, we haven't had to make any changes here. Some might still argue that the FX-8350 is an eight core CPU, but information technology'south not, and it's certainly non according to the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act. In 2022, AMD was successfully sued for allegedly misrepresenting the specifications of Bulldozer chips and in August 2022, AMD agreed to settle the conform for $12.1M.

The latest motherboard BIOS revisions still merits the FX-8350 is an 8 core processor while Windows states it's a 4 core CPU with eight logical processors, so basically a quad-core with SMT support. For testing the FX-8350, we're using the Asus M5A99FX Pro R2.0 with DDR3-2400 CL11-13-13-31 memory.

So for comparison we have the Ryzen 7 1800X, 2700X, 3800X and 5800X. With the exception of the 1800X, we limited all CPUs to 4 cores running at 4.2 GHz. The 1800X yet ran with just iv cores enabled, but they were clocked at four.one GHz equally that was the highest stable frequency I could achieve with that part.

Nosotros've too included the Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 9 5950X for vi to xvi-core comparisons and these tin be directly compared with the FX-8350, though they are at a clock speed disadvantage given they're underclocked at just 4.two GHz.

The Ryzen 7 2700X up to the 5000 serial were tested on the Gigabyte X570S Aorus Master, while the 1800X was tested on the MSI B450 Tomahawk Max.

All Ryzen CPUs were paired with DDR4-3200 CL14 dual-rank, dual-aqueduct retentivity with all primary, secondary and 3rd timings manually configured. Then finally all CPU configurations were tested with the Radeon RX 6900 XT. Permit'southward check out the results...

Benchmarks

Starting with Rainbow Six Siege we see that the FX-8350 was good for 211 fps on average, which is obviously enough of functioning and this Vulkan championship really doesn't require a great bargain of CPU performance. That said, information technology was still miles slower than even the get-go generation Ryzen part with the 1800X offering almost 40% more than performance, and remember merely one-half the Ryzen CPU is enabled, though it is heavily overclocked.

The 2700X only offered a small upgrade from the 1800X, here nosotros're looking at a 9% operation boost. Then equally nosotros know Zen 2 provided a sizable performance boost from Zen+, and in this example we're looking at a 23% increase in frame rate, taking the Radeon 6900 XT to 390 fps which is an incredible 84% increase over the FX-8350.

And so we see the biggest pace forward with the introduction of Zen 3 and here the 5800X with half the cores enabled was 135% faster than the FX-8350, and this highlights just how bad the FX series was, limiting the performance of the 6900 XT by more than half.

For those wondering, the 5800X has been tested in a four+0 configuration considering AMD moved to an eight-cadre CCX with Zen three, where as Zen 2, Zen + and Zen featured just four-cores per CCX. Finally, it's interesting to encounter just a nine% functioning increment when testing with Rainbow Six Siege when increasing the Zen 3 core count from iv to 6 and then simply a ten% functioning increment when going from 4 to 16-cores.

Obviously this title doesn't heavily leverage the CPU and it'south why the FX-8350 is able to deliver highly playable performance.

The experience playing Assassin's Creed Valhalla is very different, at to the lowest degree with the FX-8350. Whereas things remained very smoothen in Rainbow Half dozen Siege, constant stuttering was very noticeable when playing Valhalla with a i% low result of merely 39 fps. The 1800X boosted one% depression functioning past nigh sixty% and this provided a significantly better gaming feel.

The 2700X was much faster again, boosting i% low performance by a further 21% and and so we came very close to maxing out the 6900 XT with the 3800X. In fact, the 4-core 5800X wasn't any faster while the full fledged 5950X only improved the frame rate by 7%.

Battlefield V is a great example of just how bad the AMD FX series was, and of form, yet is. It seems the more you leverage the FX processors, the more they fall apart. Low-level APIs like Vulkan which help featherbed the CPU, resulting in significantly less CPU overhead, oftentimes play well with heavily underpowered CPUs, such as the FX-8350 and we only saw that a moment agone in Rainbow Six Siege.

Merely playing Battleground 5 using the preferred DX11 API for this title, the FX-8350 crumbles. With just 47 fps on boilerplate and a 29 fps i% low the game was completely unplayable by my standards and utterly useless for even semi-competitive gameplay, and recall we're using a Radeon RX 6900 XT for this testing.

The Ryzen vii 1800X, on the other hand, was 160% faster, that's a 160% functioning uplift from i generation to the adjacent for AMD, a failed generation to a somewhat successful generation. AMD were so able to improve performance by a further 11% with the Zen+ update so another 16% with Zen 2, as the 3800X allowed for 158 fps on average.

Then with Zen 3 we meet a further 21% performance increase hitting 191 fps, a 306% increase from the FX-8350.

Going from the 4-core configuration using the 5800X, performance in this title was boosted by x% with 6-cores and so 27% with 16-cores. That means the Ryzen 9 5950X is offering 415% more than functioning than the FX-8350, wow.

F1 2022 isn't the most demanding championship and it also supports DirectX 12. So here the FX-8350 does reasonably well and certainly enables an enjoyable and very playable gaming experience. Nevertheless nosotros're however looking at a 46% performance uplift with the 1800X, which over again only has half the cores enabled for a more apples to apples comparing of the architectures.

Again AMD made a small step with 2nd-gen Ryzen, here the 2700X offered a 9% performance uplift and so nosotros come across a further 15% uplift with 3rd-gen. When nosotros see a rather substantial 24% increase from the 3800X to the 5800X, hitting 266 fps.

And then when enabling more cores for the Zen 3 architecture, we see a 14-xv% boost going from just 4 cores upward to 16 cores. In this example, the 5950X was 162% faster than the FX-8350, and we're looking at a similar margin for the 6-core version.

Hitman ii is far more CPU intensive than F1 2022 and this causes bug for the FX-8350. The game was more playable than Battlefield, but the feel with a 6900 XT wasn't ideal to say the least. The 1800X offered a 67% increase to the average frame rate and an comeback in 1% low functioning of 82%, so the 1st generation Ryzen processor was miles faster.

We see similar performance improvements throughout the Ryzen generations, and by the fourth dimension we hit Zen 3, AMD has improved performance from the FX-8350 by 147% when making a normalized core and frequency comparison.

And then from the 4-core 5800X configuration, the 6-core 5600X was 10% faster and the 16-core 5950X 21% faster. We're looking at roughly a 200% performance increase from the FX-8350 to the 5950X, with both CPUs running at iv.2 GHz.

Horizon Nada Dawn plays well on the FX-8350 and what we accept here is a game using a low-level API that's not particularly CPU enervating again. Even then, the 1800X with half its cores enabled offered 35% greater performance and by the time we reach the 5800X, which still only has half its cores enabled, we're looking at a 105% operation improvement from the FX processor.

Interestingly, adding more cores doesn't do much for this game, so if there was a quad-core Zen iii CPU it would exist more than capable of getting very near the nigh out of the 6900 XT in this game.

Cyberpunk 2077 is another game that makes use of a low level API, but this games is very CPU demanding and every bit a upshot the FX-8350 tanks, delivering a one% low result of just 32 fps and let me tell you lot, compared to every other CPU tested, the feel with the FX processor was horrible.

Even the 1800X with half its cores enabled was able to improve ane% low operation past 94%, an incredible performance uplift. Then from the 1800X to the 5800X AMD was able to better their core operation past 53%, seen when looking at the boilerplate frame rate. So with 2 more cores enabled the 1% low operation is improved the most, going from 86 fps to 101 fps, and then a overnice 17% functioning boost.

The 5600X and 5950X delivered virtually the same level of functioning in this title and that meant the 5600X was 216% faster than the FX-8350 when comparing 1% depression performance.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider is another DX12 championship that's very CPU demanding. For testing we don't use the built-in criterion as information technology's more of a GPU test, instead we test in a large village which increases CPU load dramatically.

Hither the FX-8350 kind of delivers playable performance, depending on your standard. For a unmarried player game I'd say information technology'due south playable only not desirable considering we're using a very fast GPU similar the Radeon RX 6900 XT. This meant that the Ryzen 7 1800X was able to better 1% depression functioning by 51%, a massive generational improvement, made possible by the fact that the FX series was a dumpster fire that AMD took vi years to put out and even so the stench hung around for some other twelvemonth or so.

AMD was really away with the arrival of Zen 2, which boosted performance over the 1800X past almost 30% when matched at the aforementioned core and clock frequency, which was never the case every bit TSMC's 7nm procedure clocked much meliorate. Past the time Zen 3 came out, AMD was offering 126% more performance than the FX-8350 when matching the cadre count and clock frequency.

Just with 6-cores enabled we're looking at a farther 30% increase and then a 38% increase with the 5950X. And so the 5950X is 213% faster than the FX-8350 when comparing the average frame rate and 250% faster when comparing the i% depression result. So yeah, it'south a fleck faster.

Terminal up nosotros have Watch Dogs Legion which is also CPU demanding and thus crushed the FX-8350 to the point where I'd say information technology wasn't entirely playable with a 1% depression of just 28 fps. The 1800X with half its cores enabled blasted ahead with 76 fps on boilerplate, an 81% performance uplift.

After that we see a massive 126% performance uplift with the 3800X and 152% with the 5800X, again with only 4 cores enabled. Jumping upward from quad Zen 3 cores to 6 nets u.s.a. an comeback of 18% when looking at the average frame rate, or 29% for the 1% low. The jump from 6 to sixteen cores doesn't exercise much in this title and we're miles off that kind of processing power existence a requirement for gaming.

Performance Summary

As expected from AMD's nighttime days of the FX series, the company has made serious performance improvements with Ryzen and finally managed to overtake Intel with Zen 3, though Intel is expected to strike back with Alder Lake (twelfth gen Core series) shortly.

Before we go whatever farther with this discussion, let's have a expect at the boilerplate performance seen beyond the 9 games tested.

On average, the FX-8350 was proficient for lxx fps with a 1% depression of 47 fps. In comparing the Zen architecture represented by the 1800X with half the cores disabled, but a fairly substantial frequency heave, improved clock for clock operation by a whopping 60%, or 70% if we look at the 1% depression results. That's a mega generational performance improvement and although the 1800X didn't come clocked at four.i GHz and only the best silicon fabricated information technology to that frequency, that remains a massive architectural improvement when matched at the same clock speed.

Even if we were to wind the 1800X down to 3.6 GHz, which is a 12% frequency reduction, you'd only await to run across around a x% drib in performance. Notwithstanding you slice it, 1st-gen Ryzen was a monumental upgrade for AMD.

And then from Zen to Zen+ we see another 10% boost. This time the iv.2 GHz frequency was more realistic from an out of the box product perspective. AMD managed a further xv% increase with Zen 2 and then 17% more with Zen 3. Those are solid clock for clock gains seen across Ryzen generations.

An Impressive Run

It'south crazy to see AMD'south progress over the last decade and how much catch up it had to do to finally knock at Intel'south door with tertiary-gen Ryzen. At the fourth dimension Intel was plucking abroad with Coffee Lake which architecturally was merely Skylake from 2 years prior.

Back in 2022, a twelvemonth before the release of the outset Ryzen processors, AMD was relying on parts similar the FX-8350 to fight confronting Skylake; CPUs like the 4C/4T 6600K and 4C/8T 6700K, AMD struggled to proceed pace fifty-fifty with the Core i3 dual cores of the time as most games only required an Intel 2C/4T CPU.

Roughly speaking, the i7-6700K is equivalent to the 3800X when locked at the aforementioned frequency and core count. Which ways, there was a menses of time that if you removed GPU limits, Intel processors offered ~100% more performance. This is why the FX-8350, which realistically was the flagship part of the series, came in cheaper than Intel'due south fastest Core i5's and at that price it was still a terrible buy.

Since then, AMD's made serious inroads with Ryzen, boosting performance by ~50% from the 1000 series to the 5000 series when matched at the aforementioned frequency. Given Zen three clocks higher and has 12 and 16-core models, the true performance uplift is much greater.

In instance you're asking yourself "where are the power consumption figures?," we prefer not to include them in these "for science" type benchmarks because they're horribly inaccurate and no real conclusions tin be drawn from them. This is because parts like the 1800X are heavily overclocked and as such were fed a serious amount of voltage to accomplish stability, while the 5800X was essentially underclocked. Power measurements are best performance at stock, allowing us to make a operation per watt comparison, and you can already detect that information in the twenty-four hours one reviews for these parts.

Granted, you can't compare Intel's 10% architectural gains over the by six years to AMD's 50% uplift over the past four, because they were coming from 2 very unlike starting points and it'south taken them a very long time to become back on meridian.