In gaming tests, most testers tend to lower the resolution to 720P or 1080p, which works to show the CPU FPS, however, it's not very realistic for how a person would use a CPU in the real-world. We record 720P results in case they are ever needed, but we show 1080p as it is still one of the most popular resolutions. We also test 1440p and 4K, which some may question, and I will explain.
I want to show you who may be considering a purchase of these chips the actual difference you will see based on the resolution you may be gaming at. I believe this will open the minds of many to see that many CPUs can provide a great gaming experience sans 1-2 FPS if you are gaming at higher resolutions.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider
First up in the Shadow of the Tomb Raider test, we have the 1080p performance. The reason we test 1080p is that at lower resolutions, we can see how many frames the CPU can push to the GPU, which is lightly loaded. Here we see the 3100 pulls a reasonable result for its price point, but we can see some definite bottlenecking of the GPU to the tune of 28% compared to the top of the chart 9900K. The $120 3300X closes that gap a bit to an 18% differential.
Moving up to 1440P and we see more of the load transfer to the GPU. Now the 3100 is only trailing the 9900K by 18%. The 3300X closes the gap to a mere 8% as it passes the flagship 2700X.
Now we get to 4K, where all of the load has moved to the GPU, and now we are talking a 1-2 FPS differential between the CPUs tested, except for the 3400G APU, which drops to 74 FPS average or 4-6FPS behind the leaders.
Wolfenstein at 1080p, we see that the field shuffles a bit due to how the game performs at extreme FPS. Here we see the 9900K topping the chart with the 3100 beating out all of the Zen+ chips except for the 2700X. The 2700X sits firmly between the 3300X and the 3100. The 3300X is nipping at the heels of the 3600X, which tells me that the clock speed and efficiency are more important here, rather than thread count.
Cranking things up to 1440p, and the results were pretty shocking. The first thing to note is that the 7700K jumped up to the top of the chart while the 3900X, 3600X, and 3300X all trail it by a few FPS. The 9900K and 8700K fall in line with the 3300X.
Pushing things to 4K, and once again, things level out. The 7700K still shows its relevance as it leads the chart by a single frame, and the 132FPS marker covers the trailing 60% of CPUs until we get down to the 2600X, which drops an additional frame.
Civilization is a quite popular game, and its performance we will test consists of standard graphical tests, which we will represent with average frame times for each resolution. We will also examine the AI turn time for each CPU to show how long each turn for AI will take based on your CPU performance and efficiency.
First up is the AI Turn time benchmark, which uses your CPU to process turns for the AI players. You end up with a result at the end, which is an average time in seconds your system will take to complete AI player turns. Here we see that Civ prefers not just cores but frequency and efficiency. As you can see, the quad-core 3300X easily surpasses the Zen+ offerings, while the 3100 is near the 3400G just behind the 2600X.
Now, we move to graphics testing and start at 1080p. The 2600X shuffles downwards, moving in between the 3300X and the 3100. The 7700K is ahead of the 3300X, and the top of the charts is once again the 3900X.
Cranking things up to 1440P, and once again, we see the results consolidate, and the gap narrows. However, it is worth noting that the 3300X and 3100 stay the course not moving in their positions. The top 80% of the chips are within striking range of each other while the 3100 and 3400G fall a bit off the trend here having frame times a full millisecond longer than the 2600X.
4K is the great equalizer here as we see that all of the chips perform very close to one another, except for the poor 3400G, who still falls over a full millisecond off the pace. Now the 3300X moves up to a commanding spot near the top, but the shuffle is so close it could be called the margin of error, had it not been averaged over several runs.
Last updated: May 7, 2020 at 04:01 pm CDT
- Page 1 [Introduction, Specifications, and Pricing]
- Page 2 [CPU, New Tech, Packaging, and Test Setup]
- Page 3 [WPrime, SuperPi, Cinebench, and AIDA64]
- Page 4 [Handbrake, Blender, POV-Ray, CoronaRender, 7-Zip, and WebXPRT]
- Page 5 [Unigine and UL Benchmarks]
- Page 6 [Gaming Benchmarks]
- Page 7 [Storage Performance]
- Page 8 [Clocks, Overclocking, Thermals, and Power Consumption]
- Page 9 [Final Thoughts]