Ryzen 9 7950X3D vs. Core i9-13900K, Pre-Fight Z790 Issues

foreign [Music] box today I have a bit of a different video for you something that was very much unplanned but I think it's interesting and worth exploring in this video so while I do have some updated 7950x 3D versus 1300k results the focus is on the issue that I ran into while updating my core I9 data using a z790 motherboard but before we get to that today's sponsor spot is brought to you by hetzner a reliable hosting partner with a passion for RIT petzna runs their own high-tech data centers in Helsinki Finland as well as German cities Nuremberg and falkenstein by merging its capabilities in Cutting Edge technology attractive pricing and skilled customer service hetzner has also increased its market share both inside and outside of Europe as one of the leading hosting providers hetson is still innovating when it comes to new products offering a variety of services outstanding self-developed high-tech dedicated servers such as their recent launch of the ex-44 featuring Intel's Core i5 5 13 500 and ex-101 using Intel's core I9 13900 so for affordable approaches to modernizing your it infrastructure please check the link in the video description okay so if you watched my recent 13900k ddr5 memory scaling and tuning video you'll recall that I mentioned there are a few instances where the gigabyte z790 motherboard that I was using for that content piece was a good bit faster than the MSI board that I had been using now some of the performance discrepancies can be solely attributed to gigabytes use of slightly more aggressive memory timings but there were also a few very significant performance margins that went well beyond the difference that could be attributed to memory timings so I wanted to set aside some time to look into this issue and having now done that well you're getting this bonus video so without wasting any more time let's get into the data and I'll explain further what's going on for all Intel results I've used the core I9 13900k with ddr5 7200cl34 memory using XMP then for the graphics card we have the GeForce RTX 4090 and all of the data is 100 fresh for this content so let's get into it first off we have the rift breaker and everything looks pretty well right here gigabyte Asus as rock and MSI all delivered roughly the same level of performance there is some variation in memory timings used by each brand but nothing significant enough to heavily influence the data also if you're wondering why there are two gigabyte boards here well that'll become clear a little bit later on here we have shot of the Tomb Raider and these results are much the same with no more than a one percent deviation in the results of the Callisto protocol also much the same here we're seeing up to a two percent difference between the fastest and slowest z790 boards and there's basically no difference in performance in Watchdogs Legion either or boards were within one FPS of one another and then we're seeing much the same in a plague tale Requiem no more than a two percent performance difference between these z790 motherboards therefore given what we've seen in the five games we just looked at these results are pretty puzzling and initially were rather concerning this is because initially I'd only gathered data with the MSI z790 carbon Wi-Fi the board we using our test system so finding the aorus elite ax to be 17 faster on average in Horizon zero Dawn with 25 greater one percent lows was a concerning Discovery now having triple checked the game settings for both boards I was puzzled as to what was going on here so I tried a second gigabyte board the Rog and found the same result as the aorus elite ax so maybe this was just an MSI z790 issue however after testing boards from both Asus and ASRock this didn't appear to be the case now it might have been a situation where there was some kind of bug in Horizon zero Dawn but that's not the case as this wasn't the only game to exhibit this strange behavior for example we found that the gigabyte boards were also much faster in Spider-Man remastered around 14 in this example and this difference was too large to Simply chalk up to memory timings so having triple checked the data and confirmed it was accurate I went hunting for answers after several hours of messing around with settings Windows installations baths revisions and so on I found the answer and it's a remarkably straightforward answer but it wasn't something I expected to be the problem wasn't something I was on the lookout for and the reason being that we are using z790 motherboards so the issue was that by default gigabyte disables resizable bar on their z790 motherboards whereas Asus ASRock and MSI all enable it and this causes some strange issues when using GeForce gpus as the RTX 490 is much slower with resellable bar enabled in Horizon zero Dawn and Spider-Man remastered at least on an Intel platform and here's a look at Spider-Man remastered and it's the same story disabling rebar and the MSI board solves the performance issue seen previously while enabling it on the gigabyte board's lowest performance to the same level seen on the Asus as rock and MSI boards and just for a quick sanity check here's another look at shadow of the Tomb Raider with and without rebar enabled basically you're looking at the same performance and and it's the same story in watchdog's Legion which explains why most games saw little to no performance difference between these various motherboard brands now here's a look at how the ryzen 9 7950x3d using ddr56000cl30 memory on the aorus master compares to the core I9 13900k with ddr5 7200 cl34 memory on the aorus elite both with rebar enabled and disabled in this example using the rift breaker we see the 1300k delivered roughly the same level of performance with and without rebar while the 7950x3d was five percent fast with rebar enabled and that meant the 1300k was one to two percent faster depending on the configuration we find a similar thing in shut off the Tomb Raider here the 1300 case saw no real performance change with or without rebar enabled but the 7950x3d was eight percent faster with rebar on making it five percent faster than the 1300k or three percent slower without the aid of resizable bar performance in the Callisto protocol was much the same on both platforms regardless of whether or not resize or bar was enabled or disabled and as an example we set the 7950x 3DS average frame rate was two percent greater with a six percent Improvement to one percent lows and here we have another example in Watchdogs Legion where the 13k delivered the same level of performance with or without rebar enabled meanwhile the 7950x 3D saw a mod three percent boost with the technology turned on making it 14 faster than the 13900k in this example like watchdog's Legion of the 13900k saw no change in performance with rebar enabled and a plague Tower Requiem whereas the 1750x 3D that saw a five percent boost allowing it to match the 1300 okay though in this example one percent low as well still seven percent lower with the ryzen processor now the Horizon zero dorm results are again very interesting with rebar disabled both CPUs produced their best results and here the 7950x3d led by an 11 margin however with rebar enabled on both platforms the 7950x3d is now 25 faster giving the AMD processor a much larger performance Advantage basically resizable are on the 4090 only reduced the 750 x 3DS performance by four percent whereas the 13900k was 15 slower that's a similar situation with Spider-Man remastered the 1750x3d was four percent fast with rebar disabled while the 139 hurricane was 14 faster making the 7950x ready six percent faster than the core I9 processor once we enabled resize or bar but then three percent slower with it disabled I'm so glad that I used a gigabyte board for our recent Intel memory scaling and tuning video because had I stuck with the MSI z790 carbon Wi-Fi I would have never discovered this configuration issue it's really interesting because a few of you who do use Intel processors have in the past noted better scores in Horizon zero Dawn's Benchmark when compared to what we've been reporting but after numerous retests I was never able to replicate those results it's likely those of you who were seeing the better results were using a gigabyte board or had manually disabled resizable bar on that note we only started testing exclusively with resize or bar about a year ago after being pressured into doing so we were initially hesitant to jump on the resizable bar bus given how many odd results we'd found in our testing and overall it didn't appear to make that much difference sure there were some games that did benefit a lot but there were some that didn't and as I said overall the results really did remain much the same but with am5 and LJ 1700 boards electing to enable resize mobile fault the change was inevitable so for all platforms that did support the technology we made sure that it was enabled on the am5 front for example we've tested just about every single x670 and b650 board that there is and with the current bias revisions that were available at the time of testing all did enable resource or bar by default including the x670e aorus master that we use in our am5 test system and this was also true for our LJ 1700 test system which used the MSI z790 carbon Wi-Fi and of course as we've now discovered the only exception here being gigabytes z790 range so when using our current modern test systems on the am5 and LJ 1700 platforms I don't automatically check to see if resize or bar is enabled as it should be enabled by default and I've not had any problems to date other than of course running into these gigabyte z790 motherboards for all the test systems though like our am4 test system I do check to see if resizable bar is enabled as I generally have to manually enable that setting as it's not enabled by default now it's really important to note that resizable bar is not a feature that you can just freely enable or disable within Windows instead you'll have to completely reboot the system enter the BIOS and then adjust it there so this isn't a setting that you'd enabled for one game and then disable for another at least that's not very practical and realistically it's probably going to be a setting that you'll just set and forget or in most instances on a modern system you'll actually just never touch it so that being the case we're not going to enable rebar for some games and disable it for others as basically no gamer is ever going to do that that being the case I'd buy preference stick to the configuration that we're currently using and that's the configuration used by MSI Asus and ASRock and of course that being to enable resource or bar by default leaving up to Nvidia to sort out their resize or bar support something they seem unable to do despite claiming that they'd only use the feature when it was of benefit but of course let me know what you think in the comments section should we test LJ 1700 processors with or without rebar enabled and keep in mind there are some games where the feature is of great benefit for Intel users it's also worth keeping in mind that if you do see large performance discrepancies between reviews for certain games it's worth taking a look at the motherboard used and noting if resizable bar was enabled or not plus the various other things that could affect results such as memory configurations the games use like are they testing the same game in the same way are they using a can Benchmark versus custom Benchmark passes a lot of things there can influence the results but I guess the point I'm probably trying to make here is that they're probably not paid chills they're just using a configuration that might not be the most optimal for a given game despite making the most sense overall and I'll leave it at that for now let me know how you think Intel's LJ 1700 processor should be tested and I'll be sure to read your comments if you enjoyed the video well thank you give it one of those also subscribe for more content and you can get a lot more Harbor unbox goodness via our float plane and patreon accounts signing up to either one of those will give you access to our exclusive Discord server for members only monthly live stream team and I get together and answer your questions live we have a behind the scenes uh content lots of that and what else do we do Q A's so some cool stuff there check it out if you're interested but if not that's perfectly fine and I would like to thank you for watching this video I'm your host Dave see you next time [Music] thank you foreign

Channel: Hardware Unboxed

Views: 106,197

Keywords: hardware unboxed

Id: -w0PI_aJJXI

Length: 12min 34sec (754 seconds)

Published: Wed Mar 22 2023

Reddit Comments

[u/Bladesfist]

I wish resizable bar was toggleable in game options somehow, even if it required a restart of the game. Seems to normally not do much at all but the cases where it swings one way or another heavily are quite annoying to deal with

[u/AK-Brian]

PSA: Nvidia just released an updated GeForce Studio Driver (531.41) which specifically addresses this issue for Horizon Zero Dawn. I'd expect a similar Game Ready release soon.

https://www.nvidia.com/Download/driverResults.aspx/200284/en-us/

"Disable Horizon Zero Dawn Resizable Bar profile on Intel platforms [3759681]"

ETA: An updated Game Ready driver has also now been posted.

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/drivers/results/200382/

[u/Drinking_King]

"Pre-fight"????

[u/AK-Brian]

After watching this video, my first question was whether or not this was an issue with Nvidia's ReBAR whitelisting. Unlike AMD and Intel, this setting is addressed on a per-application basis with Nvidia, and can be toggled via the registry or with tools like nvProfileInspector.

I checked on my own system - sure enough, toggling the setting via nvProfileInspector results in higher performance when HZD is set to ReBAR Disabled, even if it is set to enabled via the BIOS. The profile is applied correctly at runtime.

It's still a good catch by HUB, as most people would assume that ReBAR being enabled by default (which it is in the Nvidia drivers) would result in the highest performance, when that certainly doesn't seem to be the case. The upside is that this can be fixed with a simple software setting, and it wouldn't surprise me to see this roll out in the next driver release.

I don't have Spiderman to be able to check that title, but I assume the situation is similar.

[u/[deleted]]

[removed]

[u/Mightylink]

It seems better for me, does this only effect 7000 series?

[u/FreddyFromunda]

ReBAR != SAM