• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X

W1zzard

W1zzard

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2004
Messages
28,757 (3.74/day)
System Specs
Processor Ryzen 7 5700X
Memory 48 GB
Video Card(s) RTX 4080
Storage 2x HDD RAID 1, 3x M.2 NVMe
Display(s) 30" 2560x1600 + 19" 1280x1024
Software Windows 10 64-bit
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
 
Video summary of the review:

 
Chaitanya said:
So for users already invested in AM4(Ryzen 5000), still no reason to upgrade.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

Chaitanya said:
So for users already invested in AM4(Ryzen 5000), still no reason to upgrade.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Arkz said:
"fastest desktop processor we've ever tested"
Click to expand...

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?

1723641644723.png

1723641694965.png


1723641733523.png


1723641768657.png


1723641803528.png


1723641836322.png


1723641869961.png
 
rv8000 said:
@W1zzard

Any specific reason why such a loose memory kit is being used on the DDR5 platforms? C36 is kind of… slow :)
Click to expand...
HWUB used C30 and it still got wrecked.
 
rv8000 said:
@W1zzard

Any specific reason why such a loose memory kit is being used on the DDR5 platforms? C36 is kind of… slow :)
Click to expand...
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.
 
BoggledBeagle said:
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.
Click to expand...
But, but it wasn't tested in Lunux... :roll:
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.
 
Nothing unexpected in the end. Zen 5 has extremely selective improvements and is largely castrated by the memory bandwidth
 
Needs more RGB for better performance
 
rv8000 said:
Any specific reason why such a loose memory kit is being used on the DDR5 platforms? C36 is kind of… slow :)
Click to expand...
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
 
mahoney said:
But, but it wasn't tested in Lunux... :roll:
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.
Click to expand...
To be honest, Intel's improvements were even worse than these
 
Carillon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where does he state this? DDR5 6000 c32 is cheap and shouldn’t have any issues running on z790 or b650/x670.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top