The FASTEST Gaming Laptop CPU is Here! 7945HX3D 25 Game Test

This gaming laptop has the  fastest mobile CPU in games, with up to 50% more FPS compared  to the next best option! It’s the new Ryzen 9 7945HX3D, the first  laptop processor with AMD’s 3D V-Cache, which is meant to give us more FPS in games. But just what sort of a boost are we talking  about? 50% sounds way too high - and it is, that’s just in one game. Results vary  by game, which is why I’ve tested it in 25 games at 3 resolutions and compared  it against AMD’s cheaper 7945HX without the extr

a cache and the best from Intel to  find out if it’s really the best laptop CPU! But first, Gigabyte have  sponsored this part of the video. Gigabyte's high-end Aorus gaming  laptops have been redesigned this year, while budget conscious gamers  are covered by the updated G5. These laptops are more powerful than ever with  Nvidia's latest GeForce RTX 40 series graphics, allowing you to enhance your gaming  experience and get smoother gameplay with DLSS 3 frame generation in the latest titles. An

d Gigabyte have got content creators  covered with their newly updated Aero 16 and brand new Aero 14 for ultimate portability. Check out the sponsored  link below to find out more. Back to the comparison. The main difference  between the 7945HX3D and 7945HX is that the newer 3D version has double the L3 cache,  which matches AMD’s top-end desktop 7950X3D processor! The 3D version has slightly lower base  clock speed, and although the max boost is the same on the spec sheet, the 3D version won't 

clock as high on the CCD with the 3D V-Cache. Here’s how the 7945HX3D looks. There are three  chiplets with the I/O die down the bottom and two CCDs, which each contain 8 CPU cores - just  like the non 3D version. The left CCD is where things get different in the new 3D version,  as these 8 cores have the additional L3 cache. This additional complexity presents a  problem. If your game or application is running on the CCD without the extra cache,  then it’s not going to get the FPS boost. Compa

red to Intel’s best laptop processor, the  i9-13980HX, AMD is giving us 16 cores and 32 threads, while Intel offers 24 cores and 32  threads. Intel’s chips use a hybrid approach, with 8 performance cores and 16  lower powered efficiency cores. I’ve used ASUS’s Scar 17 and Scar 18 gaming  laptops to make this testing as fair as possible, with the exact same kit of DDR5-4800  memory tested in all three laptops, as this is the speed ASUS sells them with. Something worth noting is ASUS are not using

  liquid metal with the newer 7945HX3D, and it’s not recommended, because it uses different  materials and may react negatively, resulting in performance degradation over time. The 7945HX  and 13980HX laptops do use liquid metal though. It’s also worth noting the Scar 18 is slightly bigger and has three fans instead  of two, as it uses a newer design. But the Scar 17 is the only laptop available with  the 7945HX3D right now, and ASUS didn’t make a 17 inch version of the Scar with Intel 13th  gen

this year. So this is the best we can do. All three laptops have Nvidia  RTX 4090 mobile graphics, and although this is a CPU comparison, game  testing has mostly been done at max settings, which may be more GPU heavy,  especially at higher resolutions. The reason for this is that the 7945HX3D is  only available with RTX 4090 graphics, and realistically, if you’re buying a laptop with max  specs like this, let’s be real, you’re probably not playing games with minimum settings, so I  chose to ma

ke this a more realistic comparison. Alright let’s get into the game benchmarks. We’ve  tested all three laptops in 25 games at 1080p, 1440p and 4K resolutions. And all games  were tested fresh for this comparison with the same drivers, Windows versions  and game updates. So let’s start out with the games and then afterwards  we’ll compare things like thermals, battery life, integrated graphics  performance and non-gaming workloads. Let’s start out with Microsoft Flight Simulator,  because it ha

d the biggest improvement with the 7945HX3D out of all games tested. I’ve  got the 1080p results down the bottom, 1440p in the middle, and 4K up the top.  Intel used to have a clear lead over AMD in this game at 1080p and 1440p, but the newer 3D  V-Cache chip is just dominating, reaching a 54% higher average FPS compared to itself without the  cache, or 40% ahead of Intel, a big difference. Spider-Man is another game that saw a  nice FPS improvement with the extra cache, reaching a 32% higher av

erage frame rate  at 1080p compared to the non 3D version, or 16% higher compared to Intel’s  best laptop CPU. Like the last game, the differences matter far less at the  higher 4K resolution as it’s more GPU bound, but also like the last game, Intel wasn’t  quite in-line with both AMD options. The 7945HX3D was 13% faster than  Intel in Cyberpunk 2077 at 1080p, or 9% faster than the cheaper non-3D version, but  there’s no real difference at 1440p. The RTX 4090 can easily handle 1440p ultra setti

ngs here,  as we’re hitting 90 FPS without features like DLSS or frame generation, so you’ll probably  actually play this game on this resolution with the laptop’s 1440p screen, meaning  the CPU choice ultimately doesn’t matter. Watch Dogs Legion only had a small improvement  at 1440p with the 3D chip, just 6% faster, but at 1080p there’s a much larger 27% boost over the  7945HX, and similar gains compared to Intel. We’ll come back to this game later, as we had slower FPS  on the 3D chip when th

e game ran on the wrong CCD. Although the average FPS wasn’t too  different at all resolutions in Warhammer 3, the dips in performance, shown by  the 1% lows, were higher with AMD, with the extra cache showing the best result. Hogwarts Legacy was a little different. Intel  had the best 1% low results at all resolutions, and even its average FPS was notably  higher at 4K. Ok it’s only like 4 FPS, but at 4K that’s a fair margin when we  should be GPU bound and see no change, but I double checked t

he results and confirmed it. Apex Legends looks a little strange too, but  that’s because of the 300 FPS frame cap at 1080p. At 1440p and 4K the 7945HX3D had a  clear win, so the extra cache may be worth it if you’re playing this one competitively at a  higher resolution. Then again, if you’re serious about the best FPS to compete you might not even  be using a laptop or higher resolution anyway. Far Cry 6 also enjoys the extra 3D cache, at  least compared to the non-3D version which was a fair

bit behind at 1080p and 1440p. Intel  was very close in terms of average FPS though, while also producing higher 1% lows at all three  resolutions, which means better stability for Intel, and I’d argue that’s more important  when the average FPS difference is so minor. Shadow of the Tomb Raider is an older game, but another where the extra cache was useful  at lower resolutions, allowing the 3D version to hit a 17% higher average frame rate than  the non-3D, or 21% faster compared to Intel. For

the most part, the differences aren’t quite  as interesting in the other 16 games that we’ve tested. I’ll just quickly skip through the rest  of the results on screen now instead of wasting your time talking through every individual  result, so feel free to pause the video if you want a closer look at any of the games  tested. All this testing took a full week, but I think it’s important to use a wide selection  of games so that we can get an accurate picture of the average performance differenc

es to make  the fairest possible conclusion. In other words, more data equals more better. Let’s  look at those average differences next. On average over all 25 games tested, at 1080p  AMD’s new Ryzen 9 7945HX3D with the extra cache was almost 9% faster compared to the older  version without the extra cache. This graph shows how much faster or slower the 3D version  was in each game, so best case Microsoft Flight Simulator at the top was over 50% faster with  the extra cache, while a number of o

ther games also saw nice performance improvements. Many  of the games saw no real difference though, with only minor swings in either direction  that are within the margin of error range. Stepping up to the higher 1440p resolution and  the 3D processor was now 4% faster on average. There are still a handful of games that  see nice improvements with the extra cache, but now most of the games only had minor  differences, and this continues at 4K because we’re mostly GPU bound now and the CPU diffe

rence  matters less. Apart from a couple of outliers, Apex Legends still loving the extra cache even  at 4K, and Borderlands 3 seemingly preferring the higher clock speeds without it, all other games  were only 2% different one way or the other, which again is margin of error stuff and not a  difference you’re likely to notice when playing. The 7945HX3D was ahead of Intel in more games  than the 7945HX at 1080p, but on average over all 25 games there’s a slightly smaller 7% lead  compared to the

9% difference seen between the two AMD chips. Again some of the titles see big  gains with AMD’s 3D V-Cache, but these lower at the higher 1440p resolution. Of course some games  still had nice FPS improvements with the 7945HX3D, the overall average is just smaller in a wider  selection of games. The difference is again even smaller at 4K. For whatever reason  Hogwarts Legacy just preferred the Intel laptop at this resolution, but again I double  checked it and it's only a 4 FPS difference. Her

e’s how frame rates look if we instead take  the average of all 25 games at all resolutions. I think this better allows us to visually see the  overall difference in a quick and easy summary. This really shows how small the difference is  at 4K, on average the 7945HX basically performs the same as the 7945HX3D, with 1080p showing the  biggest difference in favor of the extra cache. Unfortunately, it’s not all smooth sailing  though. There is a problem with this laptop that we need to talk about

before  we get to the price difference. Remember how I mentioned earlier  that the game needs to run on the correct CCD with the extra cache? Well,  this doesn’t always seem to happen. Take Watch Dogs Legion for example. The first time  we tested it, it performed about the same on both the 3D and non 3D processors. I re-tested  it again a day later and the FPS from the 3D chip was 29% higher at 1080p and 8% higher  at 1440p. Which shows the first time we ran it, it was either running on the CCD

without  V-Cache, or maybe on both CCDs, I’m not sure. It kind of sucks if randomly some games just  might not take advantage of the extra cache, because it defeats the purpose of  spending more money on the 3D version. Fortunately there is software like Process Lasso,  which basically lets you control which cores a process runs on. I tried used this on the games  that didn’t show much performance difference between 3D and non-3D processors the first time,  but only identified one other game tha

t was wrong. So just to be clear, in the previous 25 game  comparisons I’m pretty certain that all of them were running with the extra cache. But at  least 2 of our 25 games didn’t automatically open on the right CCD, resulting in performance  that was similar to the non-3D version. The rest of the games that saw no real differences  presumably don’t care about having more L3 cache. I mean, it’s cool that this tool exists  for tweaking, but realistically most people won’t know about it or be awa

re that  this is how the 7945HX3D operates. Ideally, AMD and Microsoft need to do a better job of  making sure that games always use the correct CCD. So then, how much more money does the 3D  V-Cache cost? Prices and availability will change over time, so check the links below the  video for updates and current sales. And if any of these laptops do have a good sale we’ll  be sure to add it to our gaminglaptop.deals website. We update that daily so that  you can save money on your next gaming lap

top! But sales come and go every day,  so make sure you check it out regularly. At the time of recording, $3400 USD is the best  price I can see for the ASUS Scar 17 with Ryzen 9 7945HX processor and RTX 4090 graphics.  The Intel based Scar 18 costs $500 more, but it also has double the  SSD space, a larger screen, and a newly updated design, so the  extra money isn’t only for the CPU. ASUS told me that the Scar 17 with  7945HX3D has an MSRP of $3700 USD, so $300 extra compared to the non-3D  ve

rsion, but $200 less compared to Intel. Despite the higher cost, it’s actually worth  it from a cost per frame perspective if your primary goal is 1080p gaming. And assuming that  you even care about value if you’re spending close to four thousand dollars on a laptop. The Intel  based Scar 18 is the worst value of these three, but again, there’s more than a CPU  difference between these laptops. Gaming is only part of the story though, so let’s check out thermals and see how  all CPUs compare in

other applications. Let’s start out with Cinebench, as it’s a quick  way to get a rough idea of single and multi core performance. I’ve tested both laptops  with two different power limits in place, 65 watts and 130 watts. Intel wins in single  core performance, while AMD’s lack of lower powered E cores give it the win in multicore.  At 65 watts there’s basically no difference between the 7945HX3D and 7945HX, but with a higher  power limit the new 3D V-Cache version was behind. These are the te

mperatures after  40 minutes in this workload and the fans maxed out. The newer 7945HX3D ran  the coolest out of all three laptops, despite the fact that it’s also the only one that  doesn’t have liquid metal. As mentioned earlier, the material on the 3D version  prevents the use of liquid metal. None of the laptops were actually hitting  the defined 130 watt limit in this test, because all three laptops were thermal throttling  first in this workload. The clock speed difference was interesting.

I’ve divided the AMD results into  the two CCDs, so 8 cores in each. The 7945HX was clocking similarly over both CCDs, while we can  see a bigger difference between the 7945HX3D’s CCDs, because the CCD with the extra cache  can’t clock as high - one of its tradeoffs. The 7945HX3D was drawing the least amount of  power at the wall, and more power generally means more heat. This puts the 7945HX3D on  top from a performance per watt perspective, at least in this specific workload.  The 7945HX was

scoring 4% higher in this test in terms of performance, but  it used 14% more power to pull that off. Linux kernel and LLVM compilation were the only  workloads tested in Linux instead of Windows. Unfortunately Ryzenadj hasn’t been updated  to support these Dragon Range processors, so I wasn’t able to power limit them in Linux.  Anyway, I was expecting the extra cache to help the 7945HX3D the most in this workload,  and although it is faster, the difference is only small. But to be fair, I don't

actually  know if Ubuntu 23.01 understands 3D V-cache. Honestly, in most other workloads the difference  between AMD’s 7945HX and 7945HX3D were only small. I’m not going to waste your time, so I’ll  just quickly skip through all of the tests, but feel free to pause the video if you want  a closer look at any of the results. As the 3D version isn’t much different, there’s  not really any point talking about how the 7945HX3D compares to Intel, as I’ve already  covered that in depth in another vid

eo. AMD’s new Ryzen 9 7945HX3D was 13% faster in these  specific workloads when compared against Intel’s 13980HX with both power limited to 65 watts.  Intel has the edge in single core tests, MATLAB, and AES encryption and decryption. AMD’s lack of  lower powered E cores gave it the win in multicore rendering tests though. The gap gets smaller when  both processors are allowed to run with higher power limits, but AMD was still a little ahead  on average in this selection of workloads. Look, at t

he end of the day, in these specific  workloads the 3D option was barely faster than the non-3D option. Best case we’re looking  at a 5% performance gain with the extra cache with both processors power limited to  65 watts. With the higher 130 watt limit, both could potentially thermal throttle depending  on the workload, but now the non-3D version had a slight lead. Perhaps its liquid metal is  helping it out, or these workloads don’t care about cache so much and the higher clock  speeds from n

on-3D give it the advantage. There wasn’t much difference between the  integrated graphics in Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 720p. The extra L3 cache didn’t help  out the 7945HX3D in this game with the iGPU only, like it did in this game earlier  with the Nvidia graphics in use. None of these laptops are able to offer amazing  battery life, but the Intel one was lasting for 57% longer when playing a YouTube video  on the integrated graphics. In the past, AMD has usually done much better than  Inte

l here, but that just wasn’t the case with these top-end processors. It’s not  looking so great for the Radeon 610M iGPU. So then, is the 7945HX3D worth it? Outside of  gaming, no, unless you have a specific niche workload that will benefit from more L3 cache, and  I didn’t come across any in our usual test suite. As for gaming, well, by the time you’re  spending $3400 USD on a 7945HX laptop, an extra $300 is only 9% more money,  which you may be willing to spend if you want the best. Especially

if you plan  on playing games at lower resolutions. 9% more money for an average 9% FPS boost at  1080p doesn’t sound unreasonable. And if you’re playing games that benefit from  the extra cache, then it’s even better. For most people though, the 3D probably  isn't worth it. The 1440p screen and RTX 4090 graphics mean that you’ll probably  be gaming at 1440p anyway. Maybe even 4K, and the extra cache just matters  less at those higher resolutions. And then when you throw in the possibility of 

a game not even running on the correct CCD, and potentially you’re paying  more for nothing. But to be fair, that didn’t happen too much to us. We only  noticed it in 2 out of 25 games. And I can only assume that would improve over time with  updates. But still though, when it happens it kind of makes you wonder why you didn’t  just save the $300 going for the non-3D. There’s way more to the ASUS Scar 17 and Scar  18 than just the CPUs though. Check out one of my detailed reviews over here next

before  you buy. These are not cheap gaming laptops, so it’s worth spending an extra few minutes to do  some research - I’ll see you in one of those next!