Four years of Ryzen. CPU and GPU scaling

This time, we compared AMD's 6-core Ryzen processors using a variety of quality, resolution, and GPU settings, and the results are extremely interesting… and not just for the reasons we thought they would be.

For this one, we want to see how the Ryzen 5 1600X, 2600X, 3600X, and 5600X stack up in half a dozen games using GeForce RTX 3090, RTX 3070, Radeon RX 5700 XT, and 5600 XT, using the ultra and medium quality presets at 1080p, 1440p and 4K.

There's a lot to go over here, so let's jump to the results as quickly as possible.

If you're wondering why we don't use more Radeon GPUs like RX 6900 XT and 6800 instead of RTX 3090 and RTX 3070, there are two main reasons: Most of you are interested in buying a GeForce 30 series GPU and most of you they have, at least according to a recent survey we conducted. Also, it shouldn't matter as they represent a similar level of performance, although, as you're about to see, our decision to use Ampere GPUs has led to the discovery of some very interesting results.

Our test platform consisted of 32GB of DR4-3200 CL14 memory in a dual-channel, dual-rank configuration for all CPUs, on the Gigabyte X570 Aorus Xtreme. Cooling them down is the Corsair iCUE H115i Elite. Other than loading XMP, no other changes have been made to the BIOS. Let's go into the results ...

Performance Summary

A lot of mixed data between resolutions and games, so let's take a look at the 6 game averages.

The ultra-average 1080p data looks pretty normal. On average, across the half-dozen games tested, all four Ryzen 5 CPUs peaked from the 5600 XT and 5700 XT, with only minor variation in the 1% low data with the 5700 XT. Then as we upgraded to the faster RTX 3070, the 1600X generally saw no real improvement in performance. The 2600X only saw a 10% increase, while the 3600X became 23% faster and the 5600X 31% faster.

The margins were further widened with the flagship RTX 3090, here the 5600X was on average 20% faster than the 3600X, 43% faster than the 2600X and 59% faster than the 1600X, that's basically the Double the margins seen with the RTX 3070.

At medium quality settings at 1080p, we also see little to no difference between the various CPUs tested. Margins were widened with the 5700 XT and now the 5600X was up to 17% faster than the 1600X, although it was basically matched by the 3600X.

Then, as we saw numerous times, the 1600X and 2600X fall back in terms of fps performance when moving to the RTX 3070; in this case, the average frame rate was reduced by 15% for the 1600X and 7% for the 2600X. The 1600X, 2600X, and even the 3600X see a little extra boost when upgrading from the RTX 3070 to the 3090, just a 6% increase for the 3600X, while the 5600X got an additional 14% performance.

Now, at 1440p using the ultra quality setting, we found that all four CPUs were able to maximize the 5600 XT and 5700 XT, while we see an increase of up to 15% in performance from the 1600X to the 5600X with the RTX 3070. For Of course, the actual margins are seen with the RTX 3090 where the 5600X was on average up to 9% faster than the 3600X, 23% faster than the 2600X, and 38% faster than the 1600X.

The 1440p medium quality results are quite similar to what we just saw, although the CPU bottleneck with the RTX 3070 is more apparent here.

Then, as we saw time and time again, ultra 4K performance is similar across the board with only small margins for the 1% low performance seen when using the RTX 3090. However, those margins were widened a bit using the medium quality setting is running an RTX 3090 likely not with a 1st or 2nd gen Ryzen processor.

What we learned

That was an incredible amount of data and we have to admit that we are coming out of this with more questions than answers. We want to retest some of these games with the 6900 XT, RX 6800 and RTX 2080 Ti and at the same time include some Intel CPUs for reference.

As for what we learned here, there are some conclusions.

First, while it was a big step forward for AMD, Zen wasn't the most efficient architecture for gaming and while that won't necessarily be a first for any of you, it was interesting to see how it compares to Zen +, Zen 2, and Zen 3 in everywhere. a variety of GPU hardware and configurations.

We know, for example, that the Ryzen 5 1600X has aged better than the Core i5-7600K, so it was certainly not a bad buy and if you are somewhat realistic about the hardware configuration, a part like the 1600X is still respectable even today. . . Of course you can test it with an extreme GPU like the RTX 3090 and claim that it is pathetic as the R5 5600X is usually 50% faster, but combine it with a more reasonable budget combination like the 5600 XT or even the 5700 XT and that does it quite well.

Testing with a next-gen GPU like the RTX 3090 helps highlight how far AMD has come with Ryzen in just a few years. Zen +, which is just a refined version of Zen, provides on average a 14% increase in gaming performance when the CPU is limited. Then from Zen + to Zen 2, we see a bigger increase of 17% and the most recent update (Zen 3) provided a further 23% increase in performance.

Without a doubt, the gaming performance of the AMD Zen architecture has improved by leaps and bounds, although you won't always see huge performance gains when upgrading your CPU because, as we've just seen, you need the right GPU to unleash the extra processing power. . So if you're currently using an RTX 2060 or 5600 XT (or maybe something slower), and your current CPU is a Ryzen 1600X or 2600X, then upgrading to a Core i5-10600K or Ryzen 5 5600X, for example, won't. . gives you a lot of extra performance.

This kind of assumption will always depend on the games you play and the settings; what is optimal for you may not be optimal for a different gamer, but the rule will apply when you have a balanced choice of CPU and GPU.

We should also quickly discuss core counts as that came up a lot in our previous CPU / GPU scaling feature that focused on the Zen 3 parts. We want to reiterate what we said in our Ryzen 5 5600X review, and that is that Gamers shouldn't focus on CPU core count and the only real consideration should be CPU performance and how much CPU performance you actually need.

To play games, all you need from the Zen 3 range is the 6-core / 12-thread model right now, but that's not to generalize by saying that any 6-core / 12-thread processor is all you need to play because, like We've seen here, 6-core / 12-thread performance can mean just about anything with the 5600X up to 100% faster than the 1600X in the most extreme scenarios, so focus on CPU performance and get over this obsession with the core count by games.

There is a lot more testing to do and we can't wait to add Intel's next 11th Gen Core series to the mix shortly. If you enjoyed this feature, you can thank Steve, who spent an incredible amount of time on this test.