Thursday, July 25th 2024
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X Pre-Launch Sample Overclocked at 6 GHz
Despite the postponement of the Ryzen 9000 launch announced by AMD on Wednesday, early engineering samples used by motherboard makers reached some users (mainly overclockers). As it is the case with a pre-launch sample of AMD's flagship Ryzen 9 9950X. This CPU is equipped with 16 cores, 32 threads, a base clock frequency of 4.3 GHz with a 5.7 GHz max boost, 80 MB cache (64 MB L3 + 16 MB L2), and a TDP of 170 W.
A user overclocked the 9950X sample to 5.953 GHz using an ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E motherboard equipped with 32 GB DDR5-6000 memory. (Note: There's no information on whether air or water cooling was used.) The user then posted new results in Geekbench 5 and Geekbench 6, which demonstrate impressive performance gains for the 9950X. It's worth noting that AMD also overclocked the processor to 6.6 and even 6.7 GHz, however, they used liquid nitrogen.
GeekBench 5 scores
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X Zen 5 processor, running at 6.0 GHz, achieved 2795 points for single-core and 30050 points for multi-core performance. These results represent improvements of 10% in single-core and 13% in multi-core performance compared to the CPU's stock configuration. When measured against the non-overclocked Intel Core i9-14900K, the overclocked Ryzen 9 9950X demonstrated a 12% advantage in single-core performance and a 16% lead in multi-core performance.
GeekBench 6 scores
The processor achieved Geekbench 6 scores of 3706 points in single-core and 26047 points in multi-core tests. These results show a 10% improvement in single-core and a 20% boost in multi-core performance over its stock configuration. When compared to the non-overclocked Intel Core i9-14900KS, this chip outperforms it by 16% in single-core and 19% in multi-core benchmarks.
Sources:
IT Home, Videocardz
A user overclocked the 9950X sample to 5.953 GHz using an ASUS ROG Crosshair X670E motherboard equipped with 32 GB DDR5-6000 memory. (Note: There's no information on whether air or water cooling was used.) The user then posted new results in Geekbench 5 and Geekbench 6, which demonstrate impressive performance gains for the 9950X. It's worth noting that AMD also overclocked the processor to 6.6 and even 6.7 GHz, however, they used liquid nitrogen.
GeekBench 6 scores
62 Comments on AMD Ryzen 9 9950X Pre-Launch Sample Overclocked at 6 GHz
"These results represent improvements of 10% in single-core and 13% in multi-core performance compared to the CPU's stock configuration. "
Or are you using their chart and comparing stock 9950x to stock 7950x and getting 13.8%? Either way, I don't think geekbench is a good way to judge a CPUs overall value
Was also reading a 30% failure rate in 1-2 months with Minecraft servers, heavily single thread point being, running 14900K chips, correct me if I am wrong.
The fact itself that they are forced to use overclocked results vs. pure stock just goes to show how desperate they are, and how guilty they feel about the lack of generational performance improvement.
This is a two-generation difference, 2-year cadence.
Even if you ignore that huge debacle, Intel performs much better in geekbench vs AMD as compared to the average delta between the two processors (as you can see by comparing the 7950X to the 14900K). It's not representative of the average performance difference as he implies. It's a best case scenario for the 14900K and that's before you consider the naunce of the situation like longevity, power consumption, cooling, heat output, and others.
We still don't know what kind of performance impact any potential fixes might have as well. Intel identified 3 separate issues (2 for it's desktop processors and 1 for it's laptop processors). One it claimed to already fix and the 2nd which is says will require 2 micro-code updates.
Then for some reason you talk about monolithic being one of the 'real product qualities' and chiplets are 'nasty and at the edge of the die' when none of those are true. The delta is a few degrees at best even for non optimised coolers. What's the actual issue?
Then you want to jump ship to intel who are also going with their version of chiplets in the future.
Very strange.
I'm more interested in what Intel releases in a few months' time. I also will not waste my time looking at Zen 6, unless it addresses all my critiques of the platform, but it would have to be amazing to make me want to dump money on a dead socket, and I doubt Zen 6 will be anything special at the rate AMD is going.
Zen 7 should be the debut of the AM7 platform, which had better be great from day 1, and not yet another case of "more of the same, just more expensive".
The result in your screenshots is impressive, especially on Single thread.
The Multi-tread is not bad too for 16/32 CPU.
I only build a new computer when I know I can tell the difference in performance and hobbling a system with DDR6400 max in 2025/6 will not be a good look for a high-performance system that I expect to get 4 years out of. At this moment in time, I'm probably just going to throw an RTX5080 in my current system and enjoy it for another 2 or 3 years. So my AM4 system is likely going to be the longest I've ever owned a system, and I don't regret it at all, and I've seen nothing in the AM5 platform that has interested me so far.
AMD dropped the ball on IF speed and memory controller improvements for Zen5, and now it's just embarrassing seeing all those fanbois claiming they can't wait to spend $500+ on a new MB and another $400 to $750 on a new Zen 5 CPU, and another $250+ on DDR8000 modules that will give less performance and higher latency than DDR6000 with tight timings... This is simply a ludicrous proposal to my mind, and a terrible waste of money.
1. Operating system, potential new update that tanks the performance;
2. CPU;
3. SSD.
RAM is never the bottleneck, unless it is volume, but with modern systems that support north of 128 GB, it is hardly the case.
I only build a new computer when I see that the current performance of my system is too low.
For example, when I had a Core 2 Quad Q9450, some games started to ask for more cores, I got extreme micro-stuttering, as well as another CPU bottleneck.
I'm able to play Cyberpunk with 20 mods that improve detail, draw distance etc as well as a 4K texture pack at 60fps HDR using DLSS quality, and my dream is to be able to play that at native resolution, without DLSS, with path tracing at 60fps, and the 5080 will do that. I know it won't be my CPU that holds it back, as I'm not playing at 1080p or 1440p so my system will still be GPU bound.
The way I see it, yes, a Zen5 9950X3D will offer about 25% more performance, but no games even begin to use 50% of my current 5950x CPU. For instance, Cyberpunk uses about 12-14% of my CPU...
Task manager while playing Cyberpunk...
I'm just not feeling even the slightest that my system is slow or unresponsive. It's lightning fast, and if there were any kind of slowness, I'll reinstall Windows. I work in IT, and see dozens of computers every week, some worse than mine, some with higher specifications than mine, but mine still feels faster because it's not full of corporate crap, 3-year-old drivers, etc. The only aspect my system sucks in, is the GPU. But the RTX30x0 were unobtanium and did not offer enough performance improvements to justify the cost, the 40x0 is not enough of a leap over the 30x0, so I'm waiting for the 50x0 series, as that's now going to be a night and day difference to my ancient 2070. That's where the rubber will hit the road for me, so I can watch AM5 get phased out without crying.
I hate it, but nGreedia just offers more performance, and vastly more usable features. I can't see how a bugfixed RDNA4 equipped RX 8900 XTX is going to compete with a 5070, let alone a 5080, and the money will be close, unless nGreedia gets even more greedy, which would not actually surprise me in the least.