AMD Ryzen 9 9950X Pre-Launch Sample Overclocked at 6 GHz

[ARF]

Again, I meant general use, not world record under exotic cooling. Intel's most recent attempt at that just made headline days ago, and I could see why AMD did not make that 6GHz+ overclock stock.

That was 15-20 years ago when the coolers were smaller and thus weaker. Try the pentium 4 under Thermalright Phantom Spirit 120 EVO with Blacknoise NB eLoop B12-PS fans, you will see that it is not hot.

 

[AnarchoPrimitiv]

Only 13% performance difference between Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 9 9950X clearly shows that AMD has made a strategic mistake to keep with the 8-core CCDs.
This is too little, too late, and will render the whole Ryzen 900 series as DOA, and not worthwhile purchase.
No buy.

Where are you getting that "13%" figure from? If it's from the article, I believe that they are comparing the overclocked 9950X to the stock one to get that figure, not to a 7950x

"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

 

[Daven]

250MHz It's not much of a feat really, is it! Especially when thinking about the exotic cooling used, access to AMD engineers, special BIOS, hand-picked hardware/samples etc...

Its a big feat if its 6 Ghz across all 16 cores sustained. TPUs best on the 7950x was 5.1 Ghz across all cores sustained. That would be a 900 Mhz increase.

 

[529th]

Oced 14900k get around 3500 and some change, so overall a 5-6% increase in ST performance.

Don't the 13th and 14th gen chips degrade when overclocked?

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.

 

[ARF]

Where are you getting that "13%" figure from?
Or are you using their chart and comparing stock 9950x to stock 7950x and getting 13.8%?

It is 13.0%.

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.

Either way, I don't think geekbench is a good way to judge a CPUs overall value

In gaming it will be much less difference. Probably 1-2-3%.

 

[evernessince]

Pretty nice OC gains, wonder what the power consumption is like though.

Don't the 13th and 14th gen chips degrade when overclocked?

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.

They degrade when underclocked to 5.3 GHz let alone overclocked. 30% failure rate in 1-2 months and 50% failure rate overall and that is considering gaming server providers are underclocking their 14900Ks and 13900Ks significantly. I'd say it's questionable whether the performance numbers of an OC'd 14900K are even admissible if the CPU is questionably unstable and if voltages are so extreme to the point where the CPU has an extremely finite life.

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.

 

[dir_d]

It is 13.0%.

View attachment 356458


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.


View attachment 356457



In gaming it will be much less difference. Probably 1-2-3%.

I agree with you that the 9000 series is not much of an upgrade from the 7000 series but i don't think the 9000 series is DOA. I believe it will be the perfect series for people like me that are still on AM4. Once the X3D parts come along then you will see a lot of AM4 move to the 9000 series. I am even debating a 9800x if it can hang with the 7800X3D. Of course price will tell all, if it is more expensive it might be the time to pick up a 7800X3D instead.

 

[ARF]

I believe it will be the perfect series for people like me that are still on AM4.

I will skip the entire AM5. And will choose based on real product qualities, if intel delivers monolithic with good thermal management (not the nasty chiplets at the edge of the IHS like on all AM5 CPUs), then I will jump off the ship and move intel.

 

[Dyno]

Has anybody found out what the sweet spot is for these 9000 series AMD cpu's? Is it really 6400MHz?

 

[Visible Noise]

A 250MHz overclock is newsworthy?

 

[JohH]

A 250MHz overclock is newsworthy?

Welcome to 2024.

 

[mkppo]

I will skip the entire AM5. And will choose based on real product qualities, if intel delivers monolithic with good thermal management (not the nasty chiplets at the edge of the IHS like on all AM5 CPUs), then I will jump off the ship and move intel.

Take a chill pill man. You're looking at one leaked result 3 weeks before the product's launch and talking like you know everything about a product and even decided you'll skip the whole generation entirely because you seem to also know how the X3D versions are going to be.

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.

 

[ARF]

Take a chill pill man. You're looking at one leaked result 3 weeks before the product's launch and talking like you know everything about a product and even decided you'll skip the whole generation entirely

I am not going to skip the 7(9)000 generation, I am going to skip the AMD platform altogether..

 

[stimpy88]

I agree with you that the 9000 series is not much of an upgrade from the 7000 series but i don't think the 9000 series is DOA. I believe it will be the perfect series for people like me that are still on AM4. Once the X3D parts come along then you will see a lot of AM4 move to the 9000 series. I am even debating a 9800x if it can hang with the 7800X3D. Of course price will tell all, if it is more expensive it might be the time to pick up a 7800X3D instead.

As a happy AM4 5950x owner, I can tell you that I see nothing in AM5 that makes me feel like I'm missing out. The high cost of the platform, the awful memory speeds, bandwidth, and latency puts me off.

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".

 

[mkppo]

I am not going to skip the 7(9)000 generation, I am going to skip the AMD platform altogether..

Well you can skip it all you want but your earlier post I quoted made zero sense. But yeah you do you

 

[dir_d]

As a happy AM4 5950x owner, I can tell you that I see nothing in AM5 that makes me feel like I'm missing out. The high cost of the platform, the awful memory speeds, bandwidth, and latency puts me off.

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".

Time will tell, since i will need to do a whole platform upgrade myself i will look at Intel as well. My biggest ticket will be price.

 

[AVATARAT]

It is 13.0%.

View attachment 356458


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.


View attachment 356457



In gaming it will be much less difference. Probably 1-2-3%.

Geekbench 6 is heavily dependent from RAM speed/timings (as you can see pictures in first post on clocked result).
The result in your screenshots is impressive, especially on Single thread.
The Multi-tread is not bad too for 16/32 CPU.

 

[stimpy88]

Time will tell, since i will need to do a whole platform upgrade myself i will look at Intel as well. My biggest ticket will be price.

Unless they make Zen 6 formally support DDR8000+ without memory dividers, then I'm out of the AM5 market. The rumours are that Intel's next platform and CPU will formally support DDR8600+.

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.

 

[ARF]

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.

Depends on where the bottleneck is.
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.

 

[stimpy88]

Depends on where the bottleneck is.
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.

True, but I see the bottleneck, in my system anyway, as the graphics card. I have an RTX 2070, and a monitor that runs at near 4K (5120x1440) and that's the bottleneck in my system, I have the fastest PCiE 4 SSD on the market and have no issues with waiting for anything. Windows Boots in seconds, much faster boot that AM5.

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.

 

[ARF]

True, but I see the bottleneck, in my system anyway, as the graphics card. I have an RTX 2070, and a monitor that runs at near 4K (5120x1440) and that's the bottleneck in my system, I have the fastest PCiE 4 SSD on the market and have no issues with waiting for anything. Windows Boots in seconds, much faster boot that AM5.

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.

Why not Radeon RX 7900 XTX 24GB?

 

[JustBenching]

Why not Radeon RX 7900 XTX 24GB?

View attachment 356634

Because he wants to play cyberpunk with RT / PT as he mentioned

 

[stimpy88]

Why not Radeon RX 7900 XTX 24GB?

View attachment 356634

I wish I could, as I hate nGreedia. But the whole DLSS/RT/PT thing is theirs. AMD does not compete in those arenas. And now AMD have said RDNA4 is just a bugfixed RDNA3, I'm out of that race too.

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.

 

[SL2]

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.

Will we even see a new AMD card that could match the 7900 XTX? I've seen all this talk about them not making a high end card, but I'm a bit out of the loop here.

 

[ARF]

Because he wants to play cyberpunk with RT / PT as he mentioned

RT runs also on the Radeons. AMD supports DXR.