Thursday, August 6th 2020

AMD Ryzen 9 4950X "Vermeer" Tested, the Sample Boosts to 4.8 GHz

by
AleksandarK
 Discuss (74 Comments)
AMD is preparing to launch its next-generation Ryzen 4000 series of desktop processors based on Zen 3 architecture, codenamed Vermeer. Thanks to the sources over at Igor's Lab, we have some new information about the clock speeds of a rumored Ryzen 9 4950X Vermeer model. Featuring 16 cores and 32 threads, the Ryzen 9 4950X is reportedly going to feature boost frequency of at least 4.8 GHz. Given that this is only an engineering sample, the final frequencies could be higher. In the report, the base frequency of the CPU is said to be 3.5 GHz. This is a very good frequency for a CPU that has that many cores. All of this information is coming from decoding the OPN code which states "100-000000059-52_ 48/35 _ Y". The 48 number indicates the boost, and 35 the base frequency. In the previous reports, we got OPN codes "100-000000059-14_46/37_Y" and "100-000000059-15_46/37_N" which suggested 4.6 GHz boost and base of 3.5 GHz, indicating that this is a new stepping.
Sources: Igor's Lab, VideoCardz

Related News

Add your own comment

74 Comments on AMD Ryzen 9 4950X "Vermeer" Tested, the Sample Boosts to 4.8 GHz

#51
aQi
Zen 3 with a combination of ddr5 would have been perfect. Since ddr5 is just around the corner. While ddr5 is already used in high-end mobile phones.

At least Threadripper should get ddr5 support. Supposingly an overkill but it sure adds interest to where amd is going as compared to Intel. (Not comparing AI)
Posted on Reply
#52
Makaveli
Aqeel ShahzadZen 3 with a combination of ddr5 would have been perfect. Since ddr5 is just around the corner. While ddr5 is already used in high-end mobile phones.

At least Threadripper should get ddr5 support. Supposingly an overkill but it sure adds interest to where amd is going as compared to Intel. (Not comparing AI)
Nah all new memory standards always come in slower than the previous one until given time to ramp up in speeds DDR5 will not be different.

It will also be more expensive.

Better to save it for the new Socket and Zen4 which is what I believe they are doing.
Posted on Reply
#53
net2007
A Computer GuyI was curious to see how I could get my 3950x to hit 4.7 so I wrote some threads that added some integers one core at a time and it manged to hit 4.7 on core 0 , 4.5 on the rest of CCD1, and 4.3 all cores for CCD2.
I tried to get 1 core 4.7 and the rest 4.4 on one CCD but the rest of the cores only went to 3.6 for some reason. However, with all cores set to 4ghz @ 1.3v It's a beast.
Posted on Reply
#55
Rob94hawk
lexluthermiesterIt really is! This point in time reminds me of 2004/2005/2006 time frame.
Built a rig just so it could play Doom 3!
Still have all the parts to rebuild! FX-53/X800XT. Good times.
Posted on Reply
#56
robot zombie
At this point, I'm really not getting the obsession with boost clocks. I don't care what the damned thing clocks... it's still a new design. The question is how it performs at those clock speeds. I feel like by now everyone should know well and good that while increasing clocks on any particular chip will increase performance, it doesn't translate across different CPU's. One won't outperform the other because it clocks faster. Every single aspect of a CPU's functionality has compromises. Boost one, lose another. And I'm not talking about simple perf/temp tradeoffs, though that's one example.

AFAIC, boost clocks are just a number until they get attributed to measured performance.
Posted on Reply
#57
stimpy88
Disappointing, but I guess we also have a +-15% IPC boost to go along with a tiny 100MHz bump.

It's a shame, as I was expecting AMD to be part of the 5GHz club, to shut the other team up, as we all know the vast majority think the faster the frequency, the better.
Posted on Reply
#58
nemesis.ie
I presume you mean ~15%, -15% would not be good. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#59
Super XP
BorisDGWhat a joke. AMD literally are doing the same as Intel. Same CPU with little higher clocks and new model number.
ZEN3 is based on a New Micro-Architecture. aka New Design with a completely revamped cache system to reduce or eliminate latency hits. :D
If they can achieve this, my wallet will be :clap:
Posted on Reply
#61
Super XP
AMD should never have confused the naming schemes for desktop discrete Ryzen and integrated Ryzen with the GPU. It's confusing for the majority of people that are not up to date.
When you compare the Ryzen 3700X for example with a Ryzen 4000 mobile, people would assume that the Ryzen 4000 mobile is a newer design but it's not, both are based on ZEN2. One has the graphics integrated.

Not sure why AMD chooses to do this, because it ends up complicating its product line and messes up there naming scheme for future products.

To distinguish mobility and desktop discrete, AMD probably should have called these mobile CPUs Ryzen M3000 or something and ZEN3 mobile as Ryzen M4000.
Posted on Reply
#62
ARF
Super XPAMD should never have confused the naming schemes for desktop discrete Ryzen and integrated Ryzen with the GPU. It's confusing for the majority of people that are not up to date.
When you compare the Ryzen 3700X for example with a Ryzen 4000 mobile, people would assume that the Ryzen 4000 mobile is a newer design but it's not, both are based on ZEN2. One has the graphics integrated.

Not sure why AMD chooses to do this, because it ends up complicating its product line and messes up there naming scheme for future products.

To distinguish mobility and desktop discrete, AMD probably should have called these mobile CPUs Ryzen M3000 or something and ZEN3 mobile as Ryzen M4000.
Technically, the mobile lineup with its monolithic designs is superior to the desktop chiplet offerings.
It makes sense that Zen 2 mobile monolithic is Ryzen 4 U, while Zen 2 desktop with worse power consumption chiplets is Ryzen 3 X.

The topic here is something else, though.

How on Earth would they allow themselves NOT to give any performance upgrade going from the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X to a potential 12-core Ryzen 4000X, much worse if it end up Ryzen 5000X? :kookoo::confused::eek:
It'd be disastrous performance regression not progress or any improvement :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#63
Super XP
ARFTechnically, the mobile lineup with its monolithic designs is superior to the desktop chiplet offerings.
It makes sense that Zen 2 mobile monolithic is Ryzen 4 U, while Zen 2 desktop with worse power consumption chiplets is Ryzen 3 X.

The topic here is something else, though.

How on Earth would they allow themselves NOT to give any performance upgrade going from the 16-core Ryzen 9 3950X to a potential 12-core Ryzen 4000X, much worse if it end up Ryzen 5000X? :kookoo::confused::eek:
It'd be disastrous performance regression not progress or any improvement :laugh:
The topic here is something else?
FYI, I was on topic.

And I wasn't speaking about performance, I was speaking about generational naming schemes. Mobile seems to keep getting the back seat on that, and it shouldn't. Comprenday?
Posted on Reply
#64
ARF
Super XPThe topic here is something else?
FYI, I was on topic.

And I wasn't speaking about performance, I was speaking about generational naming schemes. Mobile seems to keep getting the back seat on that, and it shouldn't. Comprenday?
Nope, mobile is called U, H, and HS, desktop is called X or non-X. Simple as this. :D
Posted on Reply
#65
Super XP
ARFNope, mobile is called U, H, and HS, desktop is called X or non-X. Simple as this. :D
I'm going to upgrade my system with a new Ryzen 4800U because I want ZEN3.
Posted on Reply
#66
ARF
Super XPI'm going to upgrade my system with a new Ryzen 4800U because I want ZEN3.
Nope, Zen 3 will be Ryzen 5000 U, H or HS and Ryzen 4000 X or non-X ;)
Posted on Reply
#67
Super XP
ARFNope, Zen 3 will be Ryzen 5000 U, H or HS and Ryzen 4000 X or non-X ;)
You just proved my point I was talking about. Naming schemes are F'ed Up for those that don't understand them.

I had to stop a co worker from upgrading his Ryzen 1800X with. Ryzen 4800 because he's been waiting for ZEN3 for over a year. And didn't think upgrading to ZEN2 was sufficient to justify a upgrade.

If I wasn't there to stop him, when AMD actually releases ZEN3 this guy would have been pissed off. Understand? Lol
Posted on Reply
#68
ARF
Super XPYou just proved my point I was talking about. Naming schemes are F'ed Up for those that don't understand them.

I had to stop a co worker from upgrading his Ryzen 1800X with. Ryzen 4800 because he's been waiting for ZEN3 for over a year. And didn't think upgrading to ZEN2 was sufficient to justify a upgrade.

If I wasn't there to stop him, when AMD actually releases ZEN3 this guy would have been pissed off. Understand? Lol
No.
A person who understands what Zen 3 is, will for sure know what's under the naming scheme and numbers.

This difference comes from that originally Ryzen 1 launched in March 2017, while the mobile lineup was delivered much later, much closer to the physical Ryzen 2000 desktop availability.
It doesn't make sense to launch products with time gaps of half a year or more and call it in the same grouping.
Posted on Reply
#69
Super XP
ARFNo.
A person who understands what Zen 3 is, will for sure know what's under the naming scheme and numbers.

This difference comes from that originally Ryzen 1 launched in March 2017, while the mobile lineup was delivered much later, much closer to the physical Ryzen 2000 desktop availability.
It doesn't make sense to launch products with time gaps of half a year or more and call it in the same grouping.
Once again you proved my point. 99% of the population knows Jack about CPUs and rely on naming schemes. Such as higher number should mean newer design and performance.

I've proved my point as factual. We will agree to disagree.
Posted on Reply
#70
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
ARFNo.
A person who understands what Zen 3 is, will for sure know what's under the naming scheme and numbers.
Uh, the average person understands that 2 is bigger than 1. As @Super XP said:
Super XP99% of the population knows Jack about CPUs and rely on naming schemes. Such as higher number should mean newer design and performance.
Posted on Reply
#71
ARF
AquinusUh, the average person understands that 2 is bigger than 1.
2 is bigger than 1 for one main purpose - to sell the mobile parts because otherwise people will think that the desktop is superior and will buy the notebooks less.
Hopefully you understand.
Posted on Reply
#72
Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
ARF2 is bigger than 1 for one main purpose - to sell the mobile parts because otherwise people will think that the desktop is superior and will buy the notebooks less.
Hopefully you understand.
I disagree, that makes absolutely no sense.
Posted on Reply
#73
ARF
AquinusI disagree, that makes absolutely no sense.
This is AMD's sales and marketing tactics, and the explanation why it's being used..
Posted on Reply
#74
Super XP
ARFThis is AMD's sales and marketing tactics, and the explanation why it's being used..
I agree that you make a valid point, but that's not the point I was trying to make.

I'm only asking that AMD do a better job with its naming schemes because they are confusing for people that don't understand about CPU tech and rely on such names to understand.
AquinusI disagree, that makes absolutely no sense.
Agreed.

And seems TPU messed up my original post. As double quoting what I wrote. Lol it's fixed now
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Feb 1st, 2025 23:00 EST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts