# AMD Ryzen 9 5950X



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2020)

Ryzen 9 5950X is AMD's flagship 16-core, 32-thread monster. It offers outstanding application performance, your productivity tasks will complete faster than before. Thanks to the Zen 3 IPC advantage, it also excels in gaming, even winning against Intel's Core i9-10900K.

*Show full review*


----------



## Ravenas (Nov 17, 2020)

W1zzard- I'm cooling my 3950x with a Noctua nh-d15 black, I'm not seeing a significant difference in temperatures between my 3950x and the 5950x. What are your thoughts with air cooling on this chip? I noticed you are using air cooling for testing purposes, but I'm wondering how much of an advantage I'm giving up on PB without running water cooling with a larger radiator.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2020)

Ravenas said:


> I'm not seeing a significant difference in temperatures between my 3950x and the 5950x.


They are both same TDP, so don't expect any significant differences in thermals


----------



## Cheeseball (Nov 17, 2020)

Looks good @W1zzard! Thanks for including the 3800C16/3090 results as well.


----------



## droopyRO (Nov 17, 2020)

Any chance of adding RTS in those test like TW Warhammer II Skaven benchmark ?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 17, 2020)

droopyRO said:


> Any chance of adding RTS in those test like TW Warhammer II Skaven benchmark ?


For the 2021 CPU bench I'll definitely think about other games. But if you had to pick 1 strategy game, wouldn't it be Civ?


----------



## Ravenas (Nov 17, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> For the 2021 CPU bench I'll definitely think about other games. But if you had to pick 1 strategy game, wouldn't it be Civ?



This may be getting picky, but for strategy I would like to see one of the following: TW: Any current release, Cities (sim I know but still in the genre), or Ashes of Singularity.


----------



## HD64G (Nov 17, 2020)

Great review and effort there @W1zzard . You might need to work overtime for the multiple combos to review with Big Navi and the additional features incoming (rage mode and SAM for instance). Sleep as much as possible.


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 17, 2020)

This cpu is just the all in one package. Great or good at everything. What ever it's gaming, rendering or power consumption for that matter. Amd has nailed it with zen 3. 5950X really doesn't have any compromises to be chosen between. 

A fine replacement for my old i7 980X. Now I just have to wait for this little beast to come back in store


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (Nov 17, 2020)

@ W1zzard Will you ever visit RTX 3090 SLI and/or DX12 mGPU ? to compare 10900K and 5950x ?
when not graphics bottlenecked....


----------



## Tomgang (Nov 17, 2020)

DemonicRyzen666 said:


> @ W1zzard Will you ever visit RTX 3090 SLI and/or DX12 mGPU ? to compare 10900K and 5950x ?
> when not graphics bottlenecked....



I dont se much point in that. SLI as well as Crossfire is a dead thing these days.


----------



## bpgt64 (Nov 17, 2020)

GN and Tech Jesus was saying 4 dimm performance was showing an uplift...wonder if there really is a difference...might depend on the memory topology.


----------



## dgianstefani (Nov 17, 2020)

Nice, I have 3800/14 ram so I can't wait until my chip arrives.


----------



## droopyRO (Nov 17, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> For the 2021 CPU bench I'll definitely think about other games. But if you had to pick 1 strategy game, wouldn't it be Civ?


I mentioned TW Warhammer II because it is a CPU intensive game that i play a lot, also ARMA 3 is one of those games where CPU matters.
This is my "old" 2700X vs my new 5600X in 720p, Ultra preset. Even in regular gameplay with Ultra settings @1440p it is way more smoother compared to the 2700X no more dips and stutters.
PS: that Skaven benchmark is the most CPU intensive out of the three benchmarks this game has.


----------



## phill (Nov 17, 2020)

Hi @W1zzard, great review as always but the only thing that stumpted me was I couldn't see any 3950X to compare it to the 5950X??  Was a result in the chart mislabelled or are the results missing for the 3950X?  

It clear that I need a 5950X in my life tho...     What an amazing CPU!!


----------



## Icon Charlie (Nov 17, 2020)

Thank you for the info you put up.  As I have stated before I no longer can trust just about every youtube rand many tech sites that does tech. It is due to them selling out to Nvidia and deliberately omitting important facts during the 3000 series launch. 

It is good to give out the information given on product and let people decide  what they want to purchase.


----------



## tsillis7 (Nov 17, 2020)

i attacked you on the 5900x review thinking that you did it on purpose to bottleneck the 5900x!sorry for that!i was to hard to you i admit!great review on 5950x !


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Nov 17, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> For the 2021 CPU bench I'll definitely think about other games. But if you had to pick 1 strategy game, wouldn't it be Civ?


Your not wrong but they do tend to scale with CPU performance better than other genres, it's a consideration.


----------



## Jism (Nov 18, 2020)

This CPU is in all aspects, 40% faster then a 2700X which is my current chip. Best part is; i dont have to replace the motherboard in order to start using PCI-E 4.0 and the new 5x00 series CPU. Is'nt AMD innovative and amazing?


----------



## Fluffmeister (Nov 18, 2020)

Impressive yet overpriced at the same time, sums up tech these days.


----------



## Flanker (Nov 18, 2020)

phill said:


> Hi @W1zzard, great review as always but the only thing that stumpted me was I couldn't see any 3950X to compare it to the 5950X??  Was a result in the chart mislabelled or are the results missing for the 3950X?
> 
> It clear that I need a 5950X in my life tho...     What an amazing CPU!!


I think Wizz never had a 3950X to perform reviews on


----------



## tancabean (Nov 18, 2020)

I walked into a Microcenter yesterday looking for a 3090 and left with a 5950x. They had just put them on the shelf minutes before I got there. Now I just need to find that pesky graphics card.


----------



## biffzinker (Nov 18, 2020)

bpgt64 said:


> GN and Tech Jesus was saying 4 dimm performance was showing an uplift...wonder if there really is a difference...might depend on the memory topology.


The performance uplift is a result of moving away from single rank sticks of DDR4 too dual rank sticks. There’s also a performance uplift for Intel’s Core i9-10900K with dual rank sticks.









						Ryzen 5000 Memory Performance Guide
					

In this article we'll be searching for Zen 3's memory sweet spot and looking at DDR4 memory performance with the new Ryzen 5000 CPU series, and a...




					www.techspot.com


----------



## okbuddy (Nov 18, 2020)

they will say why no 3090
and cine r23

r23 score shows 5900x is much worse than 3950x
in r20 5900x much better, so r23 is "modified"


----------



## Erazor6000 (Nov 18, 2020)

Even with today's games more than 6 cores for gaming is a complete overkill.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 18, 2020)

DemonicRyzen666 said:


> @ W1zzard Will you ever visit RTX 3090 SLI and/or DX12 mGPU ? to compare 10900K and 5950x ?
> when not graphics bottlenecked....


SLI is dead, NVIDIA disabled implicit SLI (the SLI you're thinking of). It will no longer work in nearly all games.



Ravenas said:


> This may be getting picky, but for strategy I would like to see one of the following: TW: Any current release, Cities (sim I know but still in the genre), or Ashes of Singularity.


Umm I don't think anyone actually plays Ashes of the Singularity. It's only used as benchmark. I still feel like Civ the better choice of all those?


----------



## Wyverex (Nov 18, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> For the 2021 CPU bench I'll definitely think about other games. But if you had to pick 1 strategy game, wouldn't it be Civ?


As much as I like Civ games, I don't think FPS is that important in turn-based games... so a real time strategy game would probably be more appropriate (IMO)


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 18, 2020)

Wyverex said:


> As much as I like Civ games, I don't think FPS is that important in turn-based games... so a real time strategy game would probably be more appropriate (IMO)


That is a great point, but strategy games load the CPU in ways other than typical games, note how multi-core processors do much better here


----------



## The Lighthouse (Nov 18, 2020)

MT Energy Efficiency so insane. Very ideal for a quiet homeserver build. If Asrock pulls Asrock thing and allows X370 to take 5000 series I may consider it for my homeserver upgrade.


----------



## coco10 (Nov 18, 2020)

Great review. 
But i disagree when you state High price as negative. For this number of cores and potential its excellent deal


----------



## Turmania (Nov 18, 2020)

why is the temperature on 5800x is in high 70`s and this one is in high 50`s?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 18, 2020)

coco10 said:


> Great review.
> But i disagree when you state High price as negative. For this number of cores and potential its excellent deal


What's your math for this? Mine is here https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-5950x/images/performance-per-dollar.png

Now of course if you charge $200 per hour to your clients to get something done, then a faster PC will mean less cost that could quickly make it worth it



Turmania said:


> why is the temperature on 5800x is in high 70`s and this one is in high 50`s?


5800X is one CCD, so all heat is concentrated on one die, on 5900X it's split between two CCDs


----------



## phill (Nov 18, 2020)

Flanker said:


> I think Wizz never had a 3950X to perform reviews on


That's a real shame


----------



## Emanulele (Nov 18, 2020)

As good as the review is as usual, without the 3950X in there is just incomplete data. Don't mean to be picky here, but people like me with a 3950X are the most likely to consider a 5950X upgrade.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 18, 2020)

Emanulele said:


> As good as the review is as usual, without the 3950X in there is just incomplete data. Don't mean to be picky here, but people like me with a 3950X are the most likely to consider a 5950X upgrade.


Unfortunately AMD never sent me a 3950X for review and not worth buying one now that it's obsolete


----------



## DemonicRyzen666 (Nov 18, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> SLI is dead, NVIDIA disabled implicit SLI (the SLI you're thinking of). It will no longer work in nearly all games.
> 
> Umm I don't think anyone actually plays Ashes of the Singularity. It's only used as benchmark. I still feel like Civ the better choice of all those?



If you're going to base your rig around what people are buying  and playing you might was well not use any of the top end cpu's or gpu's and just build a bench rig that based on performance pre dollar, with game bundles.¯\_(ツ)_/¯

w1zzard that 5950x is one of the sucky ones you got one that's about second to last in over clocking it seems. being 4.3-4.4ghz is the worst clocking ones while the better ones will hit 4.6-4.7ghz
Zen 3 has huge variations on cpu's. Even de8auer said some chips on cold don't like below -60 and other will got -196C crazy how big a difference some chips have


----------



## Prometeia (Nov 18, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> They are both same TDP, so don't expect any significant differences in thermals



I've been reading techpowerup for many years, and this is the first time I'm so disappointed with the reviews of the Ryzen 5000 series.
No one seems to want to read the data, otherwise you would have noticed some obvious errors.
It's seems like a sponsored review, because there are too many errors in the precess and data.

If you want to test a CPU, you must use tests that highlight the CPU bottleneck, not the ones in wich it's obvious that the GPU is the bottleneck.
You said that 2080Ti and Ultra details it's the best case scenario to replicate the most common use of the CPU.
But it's WRONG! You are TESTING A CPU, not a system.
If you want to test a CPU you have to avoid GPU bottleneck, so use the best GPU on the market like 3080 or 3090, like all the other best reviewers on the web.
The RAM speed/latency and number of modules are not the problem, because they tested that both brands (Intel and AMD) reach better perfomance.

If you see in your CPU test that a slower or older CPU reach better performance than the newer models...maybe you are doing it wrong.
How it's even possible that a i9 10900K, a CPU with 10 core (14nm), 5GHz, and tdp of over 200W can reach lower temps in a stress test than a Ryzen 5600X with 6 core  (7nm), 4,6GHz, tdp 65W?!
C'mon! We are not stupid, and the rest of the tech reviewers are telling us the opposite!
I'm a fan of PC world and I immediately noticed that something was wrong on your chart, I wonder how a professional in this field with a lot of years of experience like you can't see the same...

Like A.Einstein said: "Everyone is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
If you test a CPU without focusing on actual CPU performance, you are doing a useless job.

You are an important tech site, you have to delete all the wrong reviews and remake a totally update version with all the benchmarks corrected.


----------



## AKBrian (Nov 18, 2020)

Prometeia said:


> I've been reading techpowerup for many years, and this is the first time I'm so disappointed with the reviews of the Ryzen 5000 series.
> No one seems to want to read the data, otherwise you would have noticed some obvious errors.
> It's seems like a sponsored review, because there are too many errors in the precess and data.
> 
> ...



Small die area = hot spot. Hot spot does not equal total heat output (watts). It's the same reason you can burn your finger, yet not turn your immediate environment into a flaming inferno when you flick a lighter on.

5600X will run hot at the die, but not pull a lot of power. 10900k can run cooler at the die sensor, but pull a ton of juice. Both wattage values are well within the dissipation abilities of a basic 240mm AIO.


----------



## Erazor6000 (Nov 18, 2020)

Prometeia said:


> You are an important tech site, *you have to delete all the wrong reviews* and remake a totally update version with all the benchmarks corrected.


You have to stop being so ignorant.


----------



## Prometeia (Nov 18, 2020)

AKBrian said:


> Small die area = hot spot. Hot spot does not equal total heat output (watts). It's the same reason you can burn your finger, yet not turn your immediate environment into a flaming inferno when you flick a lighter on.
> 
> 5600X will run hot at the die, but not pull a lot of power. 10900k can run cooler at the die sensor, but pull a ton of juice. Both wattage values are well within the dissipation abilities of a basic 240mm AIO.




...maybe someone forgot to show the correct temperature, without the 65W tdp factory lock?










						Intel Core i9-10900 Review - Fail at Stock, Impressive when Unlocked
					

In our Core i9-10900 review we're taking a close look at what can be gained from unlocking the power limit of this 65 W processor. Results are impressive: up to 40% faster apps and performance that rivals the Core i9-10900K at much lower pricing, but heat output is increased, too.




					www.techpowerup.com
				












Erazor6000 said:


> You have to stop being so ignorant.



explain why they made an article wich analyze the problem in the reviews, but no mention of this article is shown in the original review of 5900X, 5800X and 5600X








						How is Intel Beating AMD Zen 3 Ryzen in Gaming?
					

Our Ryzen 5000 Zen 3 launch day reviews saw unexpected gaming FPS results many questioned. In this article, we will investigate these results in more detail, and do more testing to figure out what is going on. The results are surprising and set things right in the battle of AMD vs. Intel.




					www.techpowerup.com
				




If the site was mine, i would be the first to want to inform my user that i've found a problem.

I mean, everyone can make a mistake, but you should be more clear and inform the users.
If I am wrong, why the rest of the tech website shows different results?


----------



## Marshal_90 (Nov 18, 2020)

Damn I'd love to see FX8350 in this chart!


----------



## Ravenas (Nov 18, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> SLI is dead, NVIDIA disabled implicit SLI (the SLI you're thinking of). It will no longer work in nearly all games.
> 
> 
> Umm I don't think anyone actually plays Ashes of the Singularity. It's only used as benchmark. I still feel like Civ the better choice of all those?



That's the point of Ashes of the Singularity being mentioned, it is a benchmark. In my opinion, Total War (current total war games) or AotS can achieve the benchmarking desires for most users. I didn't include a game like Cities Skylines, but it is a great benchmark too.

To me CIV is like running DotA 2 or CS:GO as benchmark.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Nov 18, 2020)

So it absolutely spanks everything as expected, except GPU-limited gaming, in which case you could afford a 5950X so you can afford a 3090 too.


----------



## Atnevon (Nov 18, 2020)

The 3800 memory in gaming seems very pro-AMD and I won't complain a bit. Competition is GREAT to see. However wouldn't it be more fair to include the same memory speed on the Intel variants too in order to show that level of gain comparison as well?

Nonetheless us consumers are really benefiting from the improvement AMD has made lately. Bravo!!!


----------



## Ravenas (Nov 18, 2020)

Atnevon said:


> The 3800 memory in gaming seems very pro-AMD and I won't complain a bit. Competition is GREAT to see. However wouldn't it be more fair to include the same memory speed on the Intel variants too in order to show that level of gain comparison as well?
> 
> Nonetheless us consumers are really benefiting from the improvement AMD has made lately. Bravo!!!



Your marked improvement comment is noted, however, it's not worth stating improvement when the term should be decisive victory. The 5950x is the best consumer CPU on the market. Intel top line CPUs get blown away in everything outside of gaming performance, when the performance is heavily GPU dependent and the consumer system isn't pairing a top tier CPU with top tier components, i.e., memory and GPU. 

You're stating W1z didn't perform the same testing on the Intel variant, and that is false. The same testing was performed on top tier which is essentially what is being compared here.

Once again, this cycle has shown Intel is backed into superficial (kuddos for W1z for digging in deep on this) corner of being crowned king of gaming, at the cost of low efficiency and absurd power demands at this point in time. Intel will eventually outsource fabbing of their CPUs to please shareholders.


----------



## Atnevon (Nov 18, 2020)

Ravenas said:


> Your marked improvement comment is noted, however, it's not worth stating improvement when the term should be decisive victory. The 5950x is the best consumer CPU on the market. Intel top line CPUs get blown away in everything outside of gaming performance, when the performance is heavily GPU dependent and the consumer system isn't pairing a top tier CPU with top tier components, i.e., memory and GPU.
> 
> You're stating W1z didn't perform the same testing on the Intel variant, and that is false. The same testing was performed on top tier which is essentially what is being compared here.
> 
> Once again, this cycle has shown Intel is backed into superficial (kuddos for W1z for digging in deep on this) corner of being crowned king of gaming, at the cost of low efficiency and absurd power demands at this point in time. Intel will eventually outsource fabbing of their CPUs to please shareholders.



I'm not up-to-date on how RAM affects systems nowadays. Golly, I still make jokes to friends about being late because I got on the wrong front-side bus!

I'm not a big overclocker and in the past few years I've been a little behind on my knowledge of some of the ram, clock, busses, and many of those other relationships that cntribute to performance figures. I have a surface-level impression that Ryzen benefits from faster RAM more than Intel machines would however I realize I could be wrong.

I was a little confused when all of a sudden a graph liek that shows up. Whoa! It...looks neat but its making me now ask more questions.

EDIT: apoloigies if my post possibly came off as "look fast ram make go fast why? AMD rUl3z! LoLz"  which is certainly no my intent. I just noticed the 5950X was the only one with the extra RAM speed and was curious why overall

DOUBLE EDIT: OPPS! I didn't read the chart well enough. I see the system check with the 3090, better ram, and more NOW! hahahaha. Ok, I think I just didn;t read close enough. Carry on folks, carry on.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 18, 2020)

Wyverex said:


> As much as I like Civ games, I don't think FPS is that important in turn-based games... so a real time strategy game would probably be more appropriate (IMO)



Civ VI main benefit is its beautiful cinematography and effects.

If you were actually in the mood for a strategic game however... you pretty much should stick to... well... any other Civ  that ever came out. I think Civ VI oversimplifies the mechanics of the series. I realize that its important to simplify things for new audiences and all... but its almost anti-strategy. A lot of decisions (tall vs wide, workers/builders vs settler, etc. etc.) are streamlined to the point where the optimal strategy is obvious.

While earlier Civ games were much more difficult to make optimal decisions.


----------



## Ravenas (Nov 19, 2020)

dragontamer5788 said:


> Civ VI main benefit is its beautiful cinematography and effects.
> 
> If you were actually in the mood for a strategic game however... you pretty much should stick to... well... any other Civ  that ever came out. I think Civ VI oversimplifies the mechanics of the series. I realize that its important to simplify things for new audiences and all... but its almost anti-strategy. A lot of decisions (tall vs wide, workers/builders vs settler, etc. etc.) are streamlined to the point where the optimal strategy is obvious.
> 
> While earlier Civ games were much more difficult to make optimal decisions.


I’m not downplaying anything you’re stating. I love CIV games just like I love DotA 2. The problem is I don’t think either is worthy of benchmarking, and that’s not their purpose in the market either.


----------



## coco10 (Nov 21, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> What's your math for this? Mine is here https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-5950x/images/performance-per-dollar.png
> 
> Now of course if you charge $200 per hour to your clients to get something done, then a faster PC will mean less cost that could quickly make it worth it



I compared it to 16 cores category , it's one of the cheapest ever released has 16 cores.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 21, 2020)

coco10 said:


> I compared it to 16 cores category , it's one of the cheapest ever released has 16 cores.


But you can get your work done with 12 cores too, at lower hardware cost, just have to wait a little bit longer, which is acceptable for most


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 21, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> High price
> Multi-CCD design costs some performance
> Slightly limited by power/TDP
> CPU cooler not included
> No integrated graphics


I can't agree with 3 of these 5 points

$800 is not a bad price, especially when compared to Intel offerings of 16core parts which run at far slower clock speeds;








						Intel Core i9 X-Series - Core i9-9960X Skylake X 16-Core 3.1 GHz (4.4 GHz Turbo) LGA 2066 165W BX80673I99960X Desktop Processor - Newegg.com
					

Buy Intel Core i9 X-Series - Core i9-9960X Skylake X 16-Core 3.1 GHz (4.4 GHz Turbo) LGA 2066 165W BX80673I99960X Desktop Processor with fast shipping and top-rated customer service. Once you know, you Newegg!




					www.newegg.com
				




No one who buys this CPU is going to use or expect a heatsink. Third party cooling is a given for a product like this.

No one is going to expect an IGP for a product like this, especially when space is a premium on the die area. While an IGP could be useful, most buyers will not care or ever use an IGP.



bpgt64 said:


> GN and Tech Jesus was saying


Um, GN(GamerzNexus) *IS* Tech Jesus. Tech Jesus is Steves tongue-in-cheek nick name. Literally the same person. Just throwing it out there...


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 21, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> I can't agree with 3 of these 5 points


Excellent, all i want is that you think About all of them and come to your own conclusions


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 22, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Excellent, all i want is that you think About all of them and come to your own conclusions


Ah, I see what you did there.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 22, 2020)

lexluthermiester said:


> Ah, I see what you did there.


No I'm serious, really. Who am I to decide what you should care about when spending your own money?


----------



## Calmmo (Nov 22, 2020)

You should make a recommendation calculator where ones social status, income, average per month expenses and use case can be input.
"Objective" reviews amrite?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 22, 2020)

Calmmo said:


> You should make a recommendation calculator where ones social status, income, average per month expenses and use case can be input.
> "Objective" reviews amrite?


 I think none of those apply to what hardware you buy.

I know objectively "poor" people who bought a RTX 2080 Ti, at full price, because it was the biggest achievement for them in their life, and because it brought them more happiness than anything else

or just 






t.t


----------



## lexluthermiester (Nov 22, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> No I'm serious, really. Who am I to decide what you should care about when spending your own money?


I agree. When I said the above comment I was implying that you were making your end remarks, as you always do, to invoke the audience to think for themselves.


----------



## Thuban (Apr 4, 2021)

5950x consumes roughly the same watts as 5900x, but runs even cooler than 5800x. What gives?


----------



## Deleted member 205776 (Apr 4, 2021)

Thuban said:


> 5950x consumes roughly the same watts as 5900x, but runs even cooler than 5800x. What gives?


5800x has all 8 core complexes combined on a single CCD. 5900x and 5950x both have two CCDs. Also AMD's claims that high thermals are by design especially for that CPU.


----------



## Thuban (Apr 4, 2021)

Alexa said:


> 5800x has all 8 core complexes combined on a single CCD. 5900x and 5950x both have two CCDs. Also AMD's claims that high thermals are by design especially for that CPU.


Well, looking at the temperatures and the power draw, I only like two AMD cpus, 5600x and 5950x. Thanks Alexa. Still surprised that two CCDs run way cooler as a total package, though.


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 4, 2021)

Thuban said:


> Well, looking at the temperatures and the power draw, I only like two AMD cpus, 5600x and 5950x. Thanks Alexa. Still surprised that two CCDs run way cooler as a total package, though.


It's because of the maximum allowed wattage for the cpu to draw is the same for 5800X, 5900X and 5950X. So the fewer cores there is to spread the load, the hotter each core will get. Also 5950X has better binned Chiplets that can run the same clocks or higher at lower voltage and 5600X has lower max allowed power draw which give less hot cores. All throw at full load 5950X runs at lower clocks as well than 5800X, that as well help to lower temp. 

So basically, 5800X draws the same power as the 12 and 16 core with a worse binned Chiplet. Means this chip runs in a combination of higher voltage than 5950X and the same power draw allowed on fewer cores = a hotter running cpu than 5950X. Hope this helps to understand why 5800X runs the hottest of all the CPU's.


----------



## kapone32 (Apr 5, 2021)

I have reserved a 5950X for $1299 (basically $1000 US) but not sure if it's worth it.


----------



## Thuban (Apr 5, 2021)

@Tomgang

Makes a lot of sense, thanks for elaborating. I prefer the 5950x approach and design. Going to postpone my upgrade from 4790k a bit (need a GPU as well).

@kapone32

I can buy it off you.


----------



## kapone32 (Apr 5, 2021)

Thuban said:


> @Tomgang
> 
> Makes a lot of sense, thanks for elaborating. I prefer the 5950x approach and design. Going to postpone my upgrade from 4790k a bit (need a GPU as well).
> 
> ...


PM me if you are really interested.


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 5, 2021)

Thuban said:


> @Tomgang
> 
> Makes a lot of sense, thanks for elaborating. I prefer the 5950x approach and design. Going to postpone my upgrade from 4790k a bit (need a GPU as well).
> 
> ...


Yeah 5950X is an interesting cpu. I am myself waiting for one becomes available to my own build. I building a 2 in 1 system. All ready just got a Ryzen 5 5600X, now trying to get a 5950X with out paying a scalper or a greedy store because they are the only ones that have one in stock.


----------



## Chrispy_ (Apr 5, 2021)

Tomgang said:


> Yeah 5950X is an interesting cpu. I am myself waiting for one becomes available to my own build. I building a 2 in 1 system. All ready just got a Ryzen 5 5600X, now trying to get a 5950X with out paying a scalper or a greedy store because they are the only ones that have one in stock.


Built my first stack of 5950X render nodes last month. They're fast but they're 50% more expensive than the 3950X and definitely nowhere close to 50% faster. Render times are down by about 10-15% but it's not such a big jump that it makes any sense whatsoever to replace and ebay the existing 3950X cpus (which are a 5-minute, drop-in upgrade). I think a big part of why the 5900X and 5950X are underwhelming is because the unified cache/CCX makes a massive improvement to the 5600X and 5800X over their predecessors but the 5900X and 5950X still have to deal with the performance penalties of splitting work over two CCDs via infinity fabric. Sure, the CCX doubling per chiplet helps, but it's not the same improvement scaling as the 5600X and 5800X because to do that you'd need to make a massive 16C monolithic die rather than use chiplets.

I guess if you need the best AM4 and can't make the jump to threadripper, it has a valid place but both the 3950X (current pricing) and the 5900X make a mockery of it when it comes to performance/$


----------



## Tomgang (Apr 5, 2021)

Chrispy_ said:


> Built my first stack of 5950X render nodes last month. They're fast but they're 50% more expensive than the 3950X and definitely nowhere close to 50% faster. Render times are down by about 10-15% but it's not such a big jump that it makes any sense whatsoever to replace and ebay the existing 3950X cpus (which are a 5-minute, drop-in upgrade). I think a big part of why the 5900X and 5950X are underwhelming is because the unified cache/CCX makes a massive improvement to the 5600X and 5800X over their predecessors but the 5900X and 5950X still have to deal with the performance penalties of splitting work over two CCDs via infinity fabric. Sure, the CCX doubling per chiplet helps, but it's not the same improvement scaling as the 5600X and 5800X because to do that you'd need to make a massive 16C monolithic die rather than use chiplets.
> 
> I guess if you need the best AM4 and can't make the jump to threadripper, it has a valid place but both the 3950X (current pricing) and the 5900X make a mockery of it when it comes to performance/$


That is was 5600X and 5950X i wanted, was deside all ready before reviews came out as intel has nothing to compete with. These two cpu will replace a I7 980X, so they will be major upgrade no matter what for me. I go after 5950X over 3950X because i have my hardware for years and 5950X still has the best gaming performance besides it brute compute power.

Also i want to treat my self to something good after this past year with covid-19 hell.


----------

