AMD Ryzen 9 9950X

[Launcestonian]

Zen 5 shares the EXACT same IMC as Zen 4, it's the same physical piece of silicon. There's some software changes though that have only a minor effect.

I couldn't even get 6000 stable at stock on my 9900X. What do you suggest how to proceed with the review if 6400 is the comparison baseline? I suspect that at least half my AM5 CPUs will not run 6400 1:1

This is from the AMD Ryzen 9000 reviewer's guide
View attachment 359106


Inded, I'm planning to switch to Zelda for the next rebench. Will probably hve to play a substantial part of the game though, to find a decent scene

Your definition of Exact is different to mine then, if you claim software changes have had minor effects, then they are by definition not exact.

I just ran prime 95 blend yesterday for over 6 hrs with 1:1 & 6000MT/S with my old Hynix M die kit, stable no problems. The chip you tested with must be a poor sample thanks to the silicon lottery perhaps?
PBO is enabled & tuned without the new curve shaper mechanism, I leave that on auto for time being hence why the power consumption is approx doubled from 65w TDP - Asrock's implementation of the current agesa.

But I can't be bothered arguing anymore, just going to leave this here & move on to testing at 6200MT/S, maybe post results in another thread.

 

[sdedalus83]

It is just not clocking well because too thick IHS and tight Wattage.

I doubt the IHS is limiting maximum clock speed, though it might be limiting in heavily threaded loads. Zen 5 has a much wider execution pipeline and higher density than you would expect from the node change, both of which can reduce the safe operating voltage. The maximum automatic VID decreased from 1.475v to 1.4v.

I just ran prime 95 blend yesterday for over 6 hrs with 1:1 & 6000MT/S with my old Hynix M die kit, stable no problems. The chip you tested with must be a poor sample thanks to the silicon lottery perhaps?

P95 blend isn’t a useful stability test. I can run it indefinitely on my 5800X3D at -30 all core, 3800MT/s, CL16, Cmd 1T, and GDM off. At those settings OCCT memtest fails in less than a second and the system crashes when idle.

 

[efikkan]

People probably have very different standards for what they regard as "stable". There is a big difference in what you can achieve on a brand new chip running well enough to complete some batches of benchmarks vs. during years of actual usage. So if the purpose is a theoretical exercise to see the potential and locate any sweetspots, then running overclocked memory is fine. But if the purpose is to showcase the real world performance the buyer can expect to achieve throughout the product's lifespan, then better stick with the speeds and voltage the memory controller is designed and certified for.

When I regard a system as stable, I don't expect a single system crash during at least 3 months of uptime. What I've seen in development environments, system crashes are extremely rare even with heavily used workstations, especially if they're running Linux. That kind of stability would not be achievable with overclocked memory, not only due to system crashes, but also file corruption.

But validating this level of system stability isn't trivial either. You generally need many different types of tests, and for a prolonged time to draw final conclusions. I've seen for instance what overclocked memory can do to code compilation with gcc and llvm, with just occasional absurd behavior, while passing memory tests and various CPU tests (removing the OC obviously resolved the issue). It was in fact gcc and llvm which were the most reliable workloads to pinpoint the stability issues with Zen 1, and not with a particularly "stressful" load either, which goes to show that hardware issues can absolutely cause problems during light to medium load too.

 

[friocasa]

The "Zen 5%" joke is accurate

 

[HD64G]

Software is the only problem with Zen5. Linux review on the topic of Linux VS Windows performance (https://www.phoronix.com/review/ryzen-9950x-windows11-ubuntu/8) proved that definately. 14% difference between the OSes on average of +70 tests doesn't need any more words. So, the Zen5 arch is clearly a progress over Zen4, the software (win11 updates, chipset drivers) and maybe the AGESA code needs more work. AMD's fault? For sure! But the letter had good news, the post office sent it earlier and couldn't be comprehended properly due to circumstances.

 

[mb194dc]

How about benchmarks on Windows 10 Enterprise?