AMD Ryzen 9 5950X CPU Review & Benchmarks (Workstation, Gaming, Overclocking)

I applaud the AMD for taking the "at least" instead of "up to" route. Impressive showing today. Well done!
Yeah when you destroy the competition so bad you can play it conservative and let the results speak for themselves and everyone will be even more surprised/impressed
 
Red Gaming said they had samples for 5950X dies that clocked 5GHz.

Still holding out hope for a 6000-series refresh based on 5000-series architecture with higher clocks, DDR5, and Socket AM5 for 2021.
 
This is what most impressed me...I have a Ryzen 5 3600, have thought of going to 5900x. Granted I dno't play at low but I do play at 1440p.

1604614621806.png


34% increase in a single generation! It's not like FC5 uses > 6c/12t either...
 
Who cares if you can't buy the product. B&H told me they won't have any stock for 3 WEEKS ! Seriously F'k these Tech companies!


Remember when it took 3 months to get reliable stock in fir the 3900x?

I would expect the same wait this time around.

I'm also surprised that AMD is launching the 5950x with the rest of the lineup (guess 8-core yields are higheh enough?)
 
That 5800X result seems out of place... that the 5600X slightly beats it :/
/running 2700X+X470 and thinking about a 2021 upgrade
 
Remember when it took 3 months to get reliable stock in fir the 3900x?

I would expect the same wait this time around.

I'm also surprised that AMD is launching the 5950x with the rest of the lineup (guess 8-core yields are higheh enough?)
I think it will be alot soon with B&H's Pre-order than 3 months. Will probably have it by the end of the month.
 
That 5800X result seems out of place... that the 5600X slightly beats it :/
/running 2700X+X470 and thinking about a 2021 upgrade
mhz/ipc, threads are maxed on the 5600 for games. Similar to the 3600, target chip for gamers only at the current moment.
 
hmmm still undecided - I currently have a 3950x and only play games (actually just Warzone), would moving to a 5900x be a worthwhile upgrade?
 
hmmm still undecided - I currently have a 3950x and only play games (actually just Warzone), would moving to a 5900x be a worthwhile upgrade?
If that's absolutely all you do: Do you play Warzone at high refresh rates? Do you have trouble maintaining a constant high refresh? Which GPU do you have?
 
hmmm still undecided - I currently have a 3950x and only play games (actually just Warzone), would moving to a 5900x be a worthwhile upgrade?
I would probably save my money for Zen4. Maybe if this stuff was actually in stock you could maybe flip it for a 5950X with out too much cost to upgrade?
 
I'm really split on what to pick, I've got a 8600K currently and my Adobe After Effects rendering needs could use a couple more threads and I also see 9900K has dropped A LOT in price, about 150€ or so here from like maybe 2 months ago (which is unheard of from Intel) but a new AMD upgrade would be much expensier with a new motherboard and a fancy new 32GB DDR4-3600 CL16 kit and this sort of end of the road series before DDR5 comes around etc. Both are tempting though :D Everyone wins by this fantastic AMD launch.
 
Thanks fellas, understand I'm aware of why testing at 1080p is done.........my issue was the fact that all of the "known news sources" for this release kinda wasted our collective time by including "WOW OMG!" thumbnails and then telling us shit we expected......"Ryzen is finally beating Intel at gaming.......".

But gaming at 1080p is the only thing they focused on (I KNOW)...to stress the impact of the CPU. Thing is you've been able to game....at 1080p...for a decade or so on chips you can buy for $50 bucks.

While true, there is a select group of gamers that prefer gaming at 240Hz or whatever. 360Hz monitors are starting to appear. Granted, I think the opinion of competitive gamers is utterly worthless, its still a valid metric. Also keep in mind that there is some scaling in the sense that a CPU that sucks at 1080P is also not as good at 4K gaming. While averages may appear similar, I've tested this many times and found worse frame times and much worse minimum frame rates. Even in traditionally GPU bound scenarios there is value to having a better CPU.

R.I.P Intel.

Yeah, everyone wants to say this but the reality is that Intel is considerably larger than AMD and still sells a lot of product. While enthusiasts perceive this as some sort of death knell for Intel, it isn't. Intel is certainly in a bad place in terms of product perception but Intel has been in a similar position before and worked their way out of it. You can never count Intel out. They are paying for their decade of complacency, yes. But, Intel has also made bad gambles and lived with those consequences only to pull a Core 2 out of the hat which similarly put AMD behind for a solid decade.
This makes me feel better. :) They are undoubtedly better known than we are at TheFPSReview and it also confirms what I thought. Availability of samples wasn't that great and we aren't the only ones who didn't get sampled in a timely manner. Unfortunately, bad availability will significantly delay any review of the 5900X and 5950X CPU's. That makes me sad.
 
If that's absolutely all you do: Do you play Warzone at high refresh rates? Do you have trouble maintaining a constant high refresh? Which GPU do you have?
Yup - it's literally the only thing I use my computer for. I have mini itx setup running nvlink 2080tis. 3090 will be here tomorrow though! Gaming on 1440p at 144 maxed out. no issues with refresh at all.
 
While true, there is a select group of gamers that prefer gaming at 240Hz or whatever. 360Hz monitors are starting to appear. Granted, I think the opinion of competitive gamers is utterly worthless, its still a valid metric. Also keep in mind that there is some scaling in the sense that a CPU that sucks at 1080P is also not as good at 4K gaming. While averages may appear similar, I've tested this many times and found worse frame times and much worse minimum frame rates. Even in traditionally GPU bound scenarios there is value to having a better CPU.



Yeah, everyone wants to say this but the reality is that Intel is considerably larger than AMD and still sells a lot of product. While enthusiasts perceive this as some sort of death knell for Intel, it isn't. Intel is certainly in a bad place in terms of product perception but Intel has been in a similar position before and worked their way out of it. You can never count Intel out. They are paying for their decade of complacency, yes. But, Intel has also made bad gambles and lived with those consequences only to pull a Core 2 out of the hat which similarly put AMD behind for a solid decade.

This makes me feel better. :) They are undoubtedly better known than we are at TheFPSReview and it also confirms what I thought. Availability of samples wasn't that great and we aren't the only ones who didn't get sampled in a timely manner. Unfortunately, bad availability will significantly delay any review of the 5900X and 5950X CPU's. That makes me sad.
It's going to take Intel 2 maybe 3 years to catch up to AMD with their own chiplet design as that seems to be way things are going. That being said the 10900K is in stock and the 5900x or 5950x is not and is still comparable in gaming performance while being cheaper. Not having available stock is killing AMD and Nvidia !
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dan_D
like this
Anyone know how a 5950X will operate for a game that utilizes 8 cores? Will it stick to using 1 CCX (8 cores) with 32MB of cache or will it operate using both CCX with 4+4 cores so that it has access to 2x32MB of cache? I’m thinking it would prioritize the latter for the larger cache over whatever reduced latency there is in sticking to a single CCX.
 
Yup - it's literally the only thing I use my computer for. I have mini itx setup running nvlink 2080tis. 3090 will be here tomorrow though! Gaming on 1440p at 144 maxed out. no issues with refresh at all.
well then I don't see a point in further upgrades!
 
Excited as I am for these chips, I'll hold where I'm at. I picked up a new 3950X a few months back for $550 w/o box. That combined with the fact that my steadfast X370 is now on its last leg of support, I'll revisit my tech lust for AM5.

I can only imagine what Ryzen is gonna be able to do with even more architecture refinements + access to DDR5. :D
 
Anyone know how a 5950X will operate for a game that utilizes 8 cores? Will it stick to using 1 CCX (8 cores) with 32MB of cache or will it operate using both CCX with 4+4 cores so that it has access to 2x32MB of cache? I’m thinking it would prioritize the latter for the larger cache over whatever reduced latency there is in sticking to a single CCX.

You need a hardware-level tweak to decide which CCX to use. That means disabling it in tweaking tools, or BIOS.

You can'r expect Windows to be able to figure out CCX-levels for scheduling.
 
Has anyone tested games with different speed memory? Both higher frequency and some with lower timings?

I read somewhere the new sweetspot for memory for ryzen 5000 was ddr4 4000. Also, would the higher speed memory, or lower timing memory make a bigger impact in SAM mode when coupled with big navi?
 
Yeah, everyone wants to say this but the reality is that Intel is considerably larger than AMD and still sells a lot of product. While enthusiasts perceive this as some sort of death knell for Intel, it isn't. Intel is certainly in a bad place in terms of product perception but Intel has been in a similar position before and worked their way out of it. You can never count Intel out. They are paying for their decade of complacency, yes. But, Intel has also made bad gambles and lived with those consequences only to pull a Core 2 out of the hat which similarly put AMD behind for a solid decade.
Intel will always find a way to pull a rabbit, but maybe the rabbit needs more time to grow.

You have to ask yourself, if Intel is so big, why aren't they powering the next generation consoles? That's where the money is. Answer is, they aren't innovating fast enough, unlike AMD. Zen 3 I think will be AMD's "Core 2 Duo/Quad".
 
You have to ask yourself, if Intel is so big, why aren't they powering the next generation consoles? That's where the money is. Answer is, they aren't innovating fast enough, unlike AMD. Zen 3 I think will be AMD's "Core 2 Duo/Quad".
The answer to this is quite simple, AMD bought ATI before Intel had a chance to.
 
I can see that. Much like Nvidia's purchase of 3DFX which paved the way for Geforce & T&L.
Not really the same, Nvidia already had fundamental GPU tech AMD didn't. AMD gets a whole lot of crap for over paying for ATI, yes they did but long term it was a great acquisition. IIRC Intel paid more for McAfee than AMD did for ATI.
 
You have to ask yourself, if Intel is so big, why aren't they powering the next generation consoles? That's where the money is. Answer is, they aren't innovating fast enough, unlike AMD. Zen 3 I think will be AMD's "Core 2 Duo/Quad".
I would thought that was very low margin than the server-datacenter / laptop market where if not most of the money is, that would be where the profit would be.
 
While true, there is a select group of gamers that prefer gaming at 240Hz or whatever. 360Hz monitors are starting to appear. Granted, I think the opinion of competitive gamers is utterly worthless, its still a valid metric. Also keep in mind that there is some scaling in the sense that a CPU that sucks at 1080P is also not as good at 4K gaming. While averages may appear similar, I've tested this many times and found worse frame times and much worse minimum frame rates. Even in traditionally GPU bound scenarios there is value to having a better CPU.



Yeah, everyone wants to say this but the reality is that Intel is considerably larger than AMD and still sells a lot of product. While enthusiasts perceive this as some sort of death knell for Intel, it isn't. Intel is certainly in a bad place in terms of product perception but Intel has been in a similar position before and worked their way out of it. You can never count Intel out. They are paying for their decade of complacency, yes. But, Intel has also made bad gambles and lived with those consequences only to pull a Core 2 out of the hat which similarly put AMD behind for a solid decade.

This makes me feel better. :) They are undoubtedly better known than we are at TheFPSReview and it also confirms what I thought. Availability of samples wasn't that great and we aren't the only ones who didn't get sampled in a timely manner. Unfortunately, bad availability will significantly delay any review of the 5900X and 5950X CPU's. That makes me sad.

Didn't Intel work their way out of it the last time by engaging in a massive amount of anti-competitive behavior and market abuse to hamstring AMD back in the mid-2000's until they managed to bring out their "Core" architecture that lasted them until Sandy Bridge (which they've been milking/ stuck with ever since) and AMD nearly buried itself in the grave that Intel dug with the awfulness of Bulldozer?
 
Intel will always find a way to pull a rabbit, but maybe the rabbit needs more time to grow.

You have to ask yourself, if Intel is so big, why aren't they powering the next generation consoles? That's where the money is. Answer is, they aren't innovating fast enough, unlike AMD. Zen 3 I think will be AMD's "Core 2 Duo/Quad".
My guess is the profit margins on consoles is too little for Intel to care about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Epos7
like this
"Ryzen 5000 isn’t bad"
Is this the understatement of the decade?

Well its not like they had one anyways to actually review..

"Unfortunately, due to a lack of supply, we were not able to secure any Ryzen 5000 CPU"
 
Well its not like they had one anyways to actually review..

"Unfortunately, due to a lack of supply, we were not able to secure any Ryzen 5000 CPU"
Well that didn't stop them from ranting about how it didn't meet their expectations.
 
Back
Top