AMD Ryzen 9 9950X

[W1zzard]

With 16 cores and 32 threads, the Ryzen 9 9950X, powered by AMD’s Zen 5 architecture, is the fastest desktop processor we've ever tested. In our review, it breezed through application workloads and delivered high FPS rates in gaming. But at $650, it doesn’t come cheap.

Show full review

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Unimpressive again....

I wonder how high idle power HWinfo reports, is it something like 35W? I believe it is a peak power of one chihuahua. Whole chihuahua wasted for nothing...

 

[Chaitanya]

So for users already invested in AM4(Ryzen 5000), still no reason to upgrade.

 

[Arkz]

Unimpressive again....

"fastest desktop processor we've ever tested"

 

[Dammeron]

So for users already invested in AM4(Ryzen 5000), still no reason to upgrade.

If they matched the price of 14900k (~550$) it would be a much better deal, but for 650... Meh.

I guess we have to wait for X3D versions and then wonder if it's the right time to upgrade from 5xxx series.

 

[Daven]

I don't think I'm going to listen to claims of IPC increase anymore. It's not some intrinsic new feature that lifts performance across all apps by a certain amount. It's just the performance geometric average of select apps. So unless TPU picks the same apps as AMD used to compute IPC and only picked those select apps, then they will not get the same percent increase.

Now after reviews are in, we see that the same clocks, cores and cache means that the 9000 series is the same as the 7000 series unless an app is rewritten to take advantage of new features added to the CPU. There is no intrinsic new feature that boosts all app performance. You really have to look at each app and see if the performance is there for your specific usage case.

I'm a bit disappointed this is how things are playing out after waiting two years from the launch of the 7000 series.

So for users already invested in AM4(Ryzen 5000), still no reason to upgrade.

Uh no. the 7950X is 30% faster on average than the 5950X. That's what you should expect when upgrading a computer component. So for AM4 and older AMD users and Alder Lake and older Intel users, this is a good upgrade.

Edit: It is nice though that performance went up at least a little and power went down at least a little. That's something I guess.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Multithread efficiency WORSE THAN PREVIOUS GEN?! I wonder how they managed that...

 

[mahoney]

Duds absolute duds.

 

[ncrs]

Hmm... focusing on application performance under Linux, as seen on Phoronix, paints a slightly different picture.
The performance increases from this generation are more pronounced, and in benchmarks utilizing AVX-512 the new full-width backend shows its strength by the 12c 9900X sometimes beating the 16c 7950X. All that while taking less power than Zen 4.

 

[ARF]

"fastest desktop processor we've ever tested"

That's extremely subjective. Because this CPU trades blows with the former 7950X, and the performance difference is in the range of the statistical error, and the natural system-to-system performance deviation.

So, extremely pathetic. Maybe it needs faster than DDR5-6000?

 

[rv8000]

@W1zzard

Any specific reason why such a loose memory kit is being used on the DDR5 platforms? C36 is kind of… slow

 

[mahoney]

Wizzard what was in the fine print from AMD?
Generous praise? Because if Intel did something like this I very much doubt anyone would praise it like some of the reviewers have been doing with these 9000 cpu's.

 

[phanbuey]

@W1zzard

Any specific reason why such a loose memory kit is being used on the DDR5 platforms? C36 is kind of… slow

HWUB used C30 and it still got wrecked.

 

[BoggledBeagle]

Australian Steve mentioned in his video that 7950X was 52% faster in a few selected applications than 5950X.
9950X is 3% faster than 7950X.

FIFTY-TWO (52)
vs.
THREE (3)

This is not only unimpressive, this is an utter embarassment.

 

[Carillon]

@W1zzard

Any specific reason why such a loose memory kit is being used on the DDR5 platforms? C36 is kind of… slow

That's the maximum he could get with the other zen5. Even if these could go to c30 it would complicate the comparisons.

Anyway it's much better than I expected, I thought dual channel would cripple it a lot, but it's not the case.

 

[mahoney]

Australian Steve mentioned in his video that 7950X was 52% faster in a few selected applications than 5950X.
9950X is 3% faster than 7950X.

FIFTY-TWO (52)
vs.
THREE (3)

This is not only unimpressive, this is an utter embarassment.

But, but it wasn't tested in Lunux...
We truly gone full circle with the AMD fanboys for years crying about Intel barely doing any performance uplifts each new gen only for AMD to come and do the same. All the mental gymnastics on full display.

 

[Suspecto]

What a turd, at least I saved money, not even the 3D versions gonna save it and perform much better. So 2 more years till the upgrade.

 

[oZ65]

Nothing unexpected in the end. Zen 5 has extremely selective improvements and is largely castrated by the memory bandwidth

 

[dirtyferret]

Needs more RGB for better performance

 

[borny21]

We truly gone full circle with the AMD fanboys for years crying about Intel barely doing any performance uplifts each new gen only for AMD to come and do the same.

 

[W1zzard]

Any specific reason why such a loose memory kit is being used on the DDR5 platforms? C36 is kind of… slow

To play it a bit safe with compatibility, because if I can run CL30 only on Intel and not on all AMD I'm fucked because you will crucify me for running mismatched settings.

It is not slow, but I'll play along .. future reviews will use DDR5-6000 CL30 memory anyway

 

[oZ65]

But, but it wasn't tested in Lunux...
We truly gone full circle with the AMD fanboys for years crying about Intel barely doing any performance uplifts each new gen only for AMD to come and do the same. All the mental gymnastics on full display.

To be honest, Intel's improvements were even worse than these

 

[rv8000]

That's the maximum he could get with the other zen5. Even if these could go to c30 it would complicate the comparisons.

Anyway it's much better than I expected, I thought dual channel would cripple it a lot, but it's not the case.

Where does he state this? DDR5 6000 c32 is cheap and shouldn’t have any issues running on z790 or b650/x670.

 

[oZ65]

What a turd, at least I saved money, not even the 3D versions gonna save it and perform much better. So 2 more years till the upgrade.

If I could bet 2 cents, I think the 3D version will do much better

 

[Daven]

That's extremely subjective. Because this CPU trades blows with the former 7950X, and the performance difference is in the range of the statistical error, and the natural system-to-system performance deviation.

So, extremely pathetic. Maybe it needs faster than DDR5-6000?

View attachment 358916
View attachment 358917

View attachment 358918

View attachment 358919

View attachment 358920

View attachment 358921

View attachment 358923

It's not subjective. It's called cherry picking. You selected to show all the benchmarks with the least performance relative to the 7950X. How cunning of you but I'm not sure why you took so much time to copy and paste the worst data into your comment. Here is the chart for the rest of us not looking for the worst performance but performance across all apps. Take what you like from it but this is at least ALL the data versus the 7950X.