Monday, July 21st 2025

AMD Threadripper PRO 9995WX Made to Run at 5.00 GHz All-Core, Scores 186K CB Multithreaded at 947W

by
btarunr
 Discuss (39 Comments)
The 96-core/192-thread AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 9995WX was made to run at 5.00 GHz all-core, which no small feat considering its enormous core-count. This was pulled off by American overclocker SkywalkerAMD. The processor set a huge Cinebench R23 multithreaded score of 186800 points, but here's where it gets interesting—the processor was measured to draw a whopping 948 W. Cooling the beast is an SP5-compatible all in one liquid CPU cooler, but when faced with a thermal load of nearly 1 kW, the chip nears its T-junction max value, measuring 98 °C. The 186k points score is interestingly not the highest ever score for a 1P machine, that distinction goes to a workstation powered by a previous-generation Threadripper PRO 7995WX cooled by liquid nitrogen. Find more details in the HWBOT link below.
Sources: HWBOT, VideoCardz

Related News

Add your own comment

39 Comments on AMD Threadripper PRO 9995WX Made to Run at 5.00 GHz All-Core, Scores 186K CB Multithreaded at 947W

#26
Chomiq
RaceT3chI mean, it is a datacentre CPU or an AI chip. One of the highest ones I might add.
Yeah I'm just reminding us regular Joe's that this isn't for us.
Posted on Reply
#27
Gigaherz
lexluthermiesterCooling this beast is likely going to require beastly cooling! We're likely talking car or truck radiator volume cooling.
The big heatspreader of a threadripper helps to keep it relatively humane. My 2970Wx draws 450W under load and is fine with a 420mm Aio.
We have GPUs pulling 600W+ on aircooling.
Posted on Reply
#28
LittleBro
lexluthermiesterI saved this for last because I'm curious: How is this insanely efficient? A 16core 170W CPU is, by the numbers, more efficient. If we multiply x6, we get 96cores at 1020w. Just doing the quick numbers, 96cores at 947W doesn't seem all that more efficient by comparison.. Sure, it's better, but insanely better?
Well, 9950X draws 200W+ during CB2024. So, the watt/core ratio is actually really in favor of this 96 core monster (needs 20% less watt per core).
Posted on Reply
#29
lexluthermiester
ARFLiquid nitrogen.
DeathtoGnomesThey would have said if it was LN2
That would make as much sense as a screen door on a submarine.. My guess is some form of highend liquid cooling with a giant radiator or larger rad array, likely with multiple pumps and a large tank.
GigaherzThe big heatspreader of a threadripper helps to keep it relatively humane. My 2970Wx draws 450W under load and is fine with a 420mm Aio.
Fair enough. 420 is not small though.
Posted on Reply
#30
Grimling
LittleBroMaybe take a look at 9900X or 9950X or even 9800X3D. They consume far more per core, specifically 9950X draws 200W+ in CB2024 with default voltage.
I tested it it on my 9800x3d and in cinebench r23 the cores are all around 12 watt @ 5.25 ghz.
so down clocking to 5ghz and i would be @ 10 watt.
Posted on Reply
#31
lexluthermiester
NhonhoI have a theory that, during the Ryzen/EPYC chiplet testing phase, the cores that require less power to operate are allocated to the EPYC CPUs. Then, those that require a little more power are allocated to the Threadripper and laptop CPUs. And finally, those that require more power to operate are allocated to the desktop CPUs.

I wanted to see exactly which cooler was used.
That's not a theory. It's called binning. Chip makers have been doing it for decades.
Posted on Reply
#32
A Computer Guy
GigaherzThe big heatspreader of a threadripper helps to keep it relatively humane. My 2970Wx draws 450W under load and is fine with a 420mm Aio.
We have GPUs pulling 600W+ on aircooling.
Big heat spreader confirmed. I use the the Noctua NH-U14S air cooler (2 x 140mm fans) with my 5975wx and quite surprised how cool it runs. Running CB 2024 for 10 minutes it hovers just under 69c (my ambient is about 26c) pulling 280w PPT, about 5.1w per core, 500-watt total system power.
Posted on Reply
#33
sram
So they started appearing with overclockers. They should already be in the hands of reviewers. We should see reviews very soon.
Posted on Reply
#34
Draconis
ARFLiquid nitrogen.
It's in the article, this was cooled by liquid cooler. The Threadripper PRO 7995WX that holds the record was cooled with liquid nitrogen.
Posted on Reply
#35
igormp
A Computer GuyBig heat spreader confirmed. I use the the Noctua NH-U14S air cooler (2 x 140mm fans) with my 5975wx and quite surprised how cool it runs. Running CB 2024 for 10 minutes it hovers just under 69c (my ambient is about 26c) pulling 280w PPT, about 5.1w per core, 500-watt total system power.
Threadrippers/Epyc are easier to cool than the Ryzen counterparts because they offer way less thermal density. Using a 9950x as an example, at ~230W full blast you'd have like 100W for each CCD + 30W for the IOD (just some example, round numbers to make our lives easier).

With a 9995WX at almost 1000W as in the OP, we have 12x CCDs and a beefier IOD. Let's assume the IOD eats up 50W, which leaves 950W for the rest of the chip, so that equates to less than 80W per CCD, which is way lower than a 9950x, and allows heat to be more evenly distributed on that larger heatsink.

At the 280W you mentioned with your 4 CCDs, that'd be less than 70W per CCD, so 30% less heat per CCD with twice the area to distribute the heat over.
Posted on Reply
#36
JustBenching
LittleBroWell, 9950X draws 200W+ during CB2024. So, the watt/core ratio is actually really in favor of this 96 core monster (needs 20% less watt per core).
Nothing is stopping you from capping the 9950x to 50 watts and then having 2 watts per core. This is a completely meaningless comparison. CPUs don't need any specific amount of power, theyll take whatever you give them.
Posted on Reply
#37
LittleBro
JustBenchingNothing is stopping you from capping the 9950x to 50 watts and then having 2 watts per core. This is a completely meaningless comparison. CPUs don't need any specific amount of power, theyll take whatever you give them.
9950X draws more watts per core when having all core boost at around 5 GHz. 96 core Threadripper draws 20% less watt per core with same clock. How is this completely meaningless?
Posted on Reply
#38
JustBenching
LittleBro9950X draws more watts per core when having all core boost at around 5 GHz. 96 core Threadripper draws 20% less watt per core with same clock. How is this completely meaningless?
You are comparing a 9950x running stock vs a manually tuned one. You can manually tune the 9950x, undervolting it will result in lower power draw.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 14th, 2026 19:15 CST change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

TPU on YouTube

Controversial News Posts