5900x vs 5950x Question

1Wolf

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
363
Almost all of the gaming benchmarks I've seen show the 5950x just slightly ahead in FPS for most games. There are a few it comes in about the same, and a few it even lags behind by a little. Overall though, in most benchmark testing I've seen the 5950x is ahead just slightly.

However, in chat and on various forums I've seen people tell me that the 5900x is actually faster...especially if its single core boost. This doesn't seem to jive with the benchmarks I've seen though.

Which is correct?

Please bear in mind that I'm not debating the "value" (or lack thereof) of a given CPU if only used for gaming, or content creation, or what not. All of the reviews have pretty much covered that. I'm not trying to select a CPU for just gaming, or content creation, or what not. I'm just curious about the statement above.

Hypothetically, if both the 5900x and 5950x were the same price, and had the same power draw - Which would you choose?
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
At stock the 5950X is supposed to boost up to 100Mhz higher. In reality, and when you overclock, they both boost basically identically. For gaming they should be the same.

You could hypothesize that 5950X's are binned better than 5900X's, but there's no reason to think that's done for single-core quality. 5950X needs all 16 cores functional in spec ranges.
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
10,008
There are a number of factors that will come into play, mostly based on those additional 4 cores, the power that they use, and the heat that they generate. Your boost speed is at least partially determined by your temperatures. It's harder to keep a 16 core chip cool vs a 12 core chip. For that reason alone, you could see higher boost clocks with the 5900x, unless you have really good cooling. The 5900x and 5950x also both have a 105w TDP, so in order to stay within that same TDP with 4 additional cores, there has to be a compromise somewhere. This would be true when comparing the 5950x or 5900x against the 5800x also, since the 5800x also has the same TDP, but in that case you also have other factors such as the heat being spread over two CCDs and double the L3 cache when using the 5900x or 5950x.

It's already hard enough to justify 12 cores, and it's even harder to justify 16 cores unless you are doing almost nothing but content creation. 12 cores already puts you 4 cores ahead of the CPUs in the latest consoles, and is a good spot to be at IMO. That said, in your hypothetical scenario where they are the same price, I'd go with the 5950x if for no other reason than that would be one heck of a deal on a part that is already difficult to find.

I'm not sure which benchmarks you are looking at, but most of the ones I've seen actually have the 5900x ahead. I'm also curious if you are looking at benchmarks with PBO enabled or disabled. The 5900X seems to have more potential for improvement when using PBO.
 

1Wolf

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Messages
363
Thanks for the help and info :)

There are a number of factors that will come into play, mostly based on those additional 4 cores, the power that they use, and the heat that they generate. Your boost speed is at least partially determined by your temperatures. It's harder to keep a 16 core chip cool vs a 12 core chip. For that reason alone, you could see higher boost clocks with the 5900x, unless you have really good cooling. The 5900x and 5950x also both have a 105w TDP, so in order to stay within that same TDP with 4 additional cores, there has to be a compromise somewhere. This would be true when comparing the 5950x or 5900x against the 5800x also, since the 5800x also has the same TDP, but in that case you also have other factors such as the heat being spread over two CCDs and double the L3 cache when using the 5900x or 5950x.

It's already hard enough to justify 12 cores, and it's even harder to justify 16 cores unless you are doing almost nothing but content creation. 12 cores already puts you 4 cores ahead of the CPUs in the latest consoles, and is a good spot to be at IMO. That said, in your hypothetical scenario where they are the same price, I'd go with the 5950x if for no other reason than that would be one heck of a deal on a part that is already difficult to find.

I'm not sure which benchmarks you are looking at, but most of the ones I've seen actually have the 5900x ahead. I'm also curious if you are looking at benchmarks with PBO enabled or disabled. The 5900X seems to have more potential for improvement when using PBO.

That helps alot. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Its been a long time since I've built a system, and I've never built an AMD system before so I'm still trying to wrap my mind around alot of this. For my own needs my PC gets alot of work for everything from development work, to rendering, to VR flight sim gaming (DCS, MSFS 20200) that are hungry for all the horsepower I can get.

You mentioned that you were curious which benchmarks I was looking at and whether they were PBO enabled. The benchmarks I was looking at were the Gamers Nexus benchmarks in their 5900x/5950x. I'm new to AMD so I'm new to PBO but I don't think they were using it in their benchmarks as they ran each of them stock or at 4.7.


and also the review over on Jayz2Cents


To me, the game reviews were very close with the 5900x ahead a smidge on some, and the 5950x ahead on others. Maybe I'm misunderstanding but it seemed that the 5950x was just a tad ahead a little more often.
 

KickAssCop

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
6,881
For gaming there is no real difference. You can achieve exact same performance from a 5900X. Sometimes 5950X might be slower because it might not boost as high.
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,258
For gaming there is no real difference. You can achieve exact same performance from a 5900X. Sometimes 5950X might be slower because it might not boost as high.

the 5950 actually has higher single / 2 core boost clocks, the all-core boost is lower though.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
Well, not necessarily. The 5950X is the top dog but it's also the only 16 core CPU so it's only definitely binned for 16 cores functioning within spec. It isn't binned for the best-performing single cores, which is what matters for lightly-threaded workloads.
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,258
Well, not necessarily. The 5950X is the top dog but it's also the only 16 core CPU so it's only definitely binned for 16 cores functioning within spec. It isn't binned for the best-performing single cores, which is what matters for lightly-threaded workloads.

You sure? It has the highest advertised speed as well ;)
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
Yes, that's its spec. It has to meet that, but no more.

And really from Zen 2, it doesn't even really need to meet spec, but they got a lot of deserved flak for that.
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,258
Yes, that's its spec. It has to meet that, but no more.

And really from Zen 2, it doesn't even really need to meet spec, but they got a lot of deserved flak for that.

seems it has no problem meeting the spec now

but I would also assume better binning because the amount of power / heat the chip can handle.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
Maybe, we don't really know. It's easy when there's a 5900 available at the same time as a 5900X, for example, running at lower clocks. Then you know it's binned. Unless it's a mobile/lower-power part at which point it comes back to a big question mark.
 

CyberJunk

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
4,096
Well the 5950x is Amd's top silicon because it requires 2 8 core CCX's while the 5900x is 2 6 core CCX's which are lesser. That being said it's really which ever you find in stock. I have a 5950x and i feel like i probably would have gotten similar performance in games with a 5900x. I have not actually able to test the 5900x it's just my opinion.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
Exactly the same situation here. I wanted to buy a 5900X but found a 5950X first so I bought it.
 

zandor

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
3,461
Exactly the same situation here. I wanted to buy a 5900X but found a 5950X first so I bought it.
Sounds like my video card hunt. First I was looking for a 3080, then a 3080 or a 6800XT, then a 3080, 6800XT or 6900XT... ended up with a 3090 because I could actually buy one. Ordered it for pickup at Best Buy on 6900XT launch day after amd.com sold out.

Aside from the availability problems with these chips the other thing that strikes me as being a bit messy is the 5800X. Lots of reports of them running hot, plus they have the highest price per core. 5600X - $50/core, 5800X - $56.25/core, 5900X - $45.83/core, 5950X - $50/core. I'd think the 5600X and 5800X would be the top choices for a straight up gaming rig, but with the 5800X being roasty and the 5900X only being $100 more I think I'd much rather have the 5900X. I don't tend to upgrade often and by the time I do my board is always obsolete, so I am a bit of a fan of mild future proofing. Like buying an 8-core when all the benches say I only need 6. I'll want 8 before I do another rebuild.

As for the original question, 5950X hands down if it was the same price. With current pricing I'd have to think about it. I need a certain number of cores for my programming stuff, but 12 would be enough. A few extras would be nice though, and if they're the same price I'll take more cores. I don't pick a proc based on gaming aside from making sure it's good enough. I game, but mostly RPGs and strategy games at 4k and I like the bling, so I'm always GPU limited.
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,819
At stock, the 5950x at any given n-core load will boost higher than the 5900 given n is 12 or below. If the workload scales over 12 the 5900 will boost higher at a certain point (~14 cores loaded on the 5950X) but as the 5950x will have 2-4 more active cores in those loads, it will be way faster at completing the workload. In games the 5950x will boost a little higher, maybe 50-100mhz. It will not be noticeable to your eye, and in most games you'll be gpu limited so it won't matter at all. Imo, don't buy either for gaming, a 5800X will be the better purchase.

PBO plus CO gives very large gains and levels the playing field on non highly threaded loads to a degree to where it'll totally depend on silicon quality. Generally 5950X has the highest quality silicon as it has to be to get 16 cores over 4ghz at 142W. This might be worth 25mhz when tuned compared to a 5900X, not worth it at all for games. It'll barely be measurable let alone noticeable. The ryzen 9s are only worth it if you're also doing something other than gaming on the machine. That's where they really kick ass. Or if you want bragging rights I guess.
 

evhvis

n00b
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
23
The 5950x should have an advantage when you are at or below 8 threads. At least my 5900x loads the first 6 threads onto on CCD before it starts to load the second so with an 5950x I would expect the first 8 threads to run on the same CCD which should be faster than 6 on one and 2 on the next. It takes around 5 threads to reach watt limit on my 5900x and the boost clocks are higher on the 5950x which would inidicate higher quality silicone (most likely defective CCDs go in the 5900x). The "inactive" cores will most likely stay well below 2 watts so they shouldn't influence boost clocks much. My guess is that in loads up to 4 threads the 5950 has a minor advantage. At 5 and 6 threads they would be about the same and 7-8 the 5950x has a small advantage, if you manage to keep it below throttling. Temps get a lot lower when going from 6 to 8 threads on my 5900x.

For games, the 5950x will have a massive advantage once games fully load 16 threads as thread switching doesn't double performance, but I doubt it will happen in the lifespan of the 5000 series due to this generation of consoles having 8 cores and MT so developers will mostly limit themselves to that. The 5950x would have some advantages in some of my use cases (non-gaming tasks) but IMO the price difference was to large compared to the gains.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
Yep. You really don't need a 5900X for gaming, much less a 5950X. Even the 5800X is debatable.

I'm typing this on a 5950X right now, so I don't practice what I preach. I wanted one. /shrug
 

Nasty_Savage

Fully [H]
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
19,156
My new 5900x Dark Hero combo is boosting to 4900 and change, sometimes ticks past 5 wothout touching the BIOs. Completely stock plus whatever Asus software. I monkeyed around with the software today and its staying at 4200 plus bouncing over the 5 mark regularly. Didn’t put a lot of effort into it yet.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,633
You're hitting 5Ghz with PBO off? That's incredible.

I have a feeling that the stock setting in the bios might actually enable PBO. I've had to do that before. Go in and turn it OFF after resetting bios.
 

Nasty_Savage

Fully [H]
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
19,156
I havent even looked at the Bios yet. Do I want pbo on or off? I have the Kraken z73 and gskill 3600 sticks too if that helps. My last computer was a Sandy E with a few laptops in between so I am out of the loop with this stuff lol
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,633
I havent even looked at the Bios yet. Do I want pbo on or off? I have the Kraken z73 and gskill 3600 sticks too if that helps. My last computer was a Sandy E with a few laptops in between so I am out of the loop with this stuff lol

I think you'd probably want it on with cooling like that. I was running a 5950x in a mITX case and with PBO on I was running out of cooling capacity with the 240mm AIO I shoehorned in. Unless you're running heavy 24/7/365 type of loads on it, you probably want higher boosting for the times it needs more power.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
Actually increasing power limits isn't necessary for single-threaded use as you won't hit power limits on that stuff anyway. Even the 5950X won't boost to 5Ghz on a single core without the +200Mhz clock boost in PBO settings. My 5950X would hit ~4.8Ghz at stock everything no problem, at a mere 64C cooled on air, but wouldn't go any higher.

Increasing PBO power limits really is necessary for multi-core workloads though.

My guess is either his motherboard or the Asus software has some sort of auto-overclocking stuff running. If so, it's doing a pretty good job, on single-cores anyway.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
27,633
Actually boosting power isn't really necessary for single-threaded use as you won't hit power limits on that stuff anyway. Thing is, even the 5950X won't boost to 5Ghz on a single core without the +200Mhz clock boost in PBO settings. My 5950X would hit ~4.8Ghz at stock everything no problem, at a mere 64C cooled on air, but wouldn't go any higher. PBO really is necessary for multi-core workloads though.

My guess is either his motherboard or the Asus software has some sort of auto-overclocking stuff running. If so, it's doing a pretty good job, on single-core anyway.

I meant power in a more generic processing power type of meaning. Not necessarily an actual extra voltage type of power. But I understand what you are saying.
 

evhvis

n00b
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
23
Actually increasing power limits isn't necessary for single-threaded use as you won't hit power limits on that stuff anyway. Even the 5950X won't boost to 5Ghz on a single core without the +200Mhz clock boost in PBO settings. My 5950X would hit ~4.8Ghz at stock everything no problem, at a mere 64C cooled on air, but wouldn't go any higher.

Increasing PBO power limits really is necessary for multi-core workloads though.

My guess is either his motherboard or the Asus software has some sort of auto-overclocking stuff running. If so, it's doing a pretty good job, on single-cores anyway.
I think the max boost is very sample, cooling and motherboard dependant. Mine is supposed to be a silver sample according to ryzen clock tuner. It takes 5 threads for me to reach 142 watts (most I have seen is 22 watts and change per core) on my 5900x. Singlethreaded my 5900x will boost to 4.9ghz and do meaningfull work, but it will occasionally register 4.95ghz but never stay there for meaningful work with all stock except D.O.C.P profile applied. most of the time it stays between 4.85 and 4.9ghz single threaded.
 

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
Yes, GN tested it, better cooling improves clocks. It's fairly easy to hit 4.8-4.9Ghz single-core even on high-end air, challenging to hit 5.0Ghz relying on cooling and silicon lottery, and nigh-impossible to go over that unless you go sub-ambient.
 

Nasty_Savage

Fully [H]
Joined
Mar 19, 2001
Messages
19,156
I think you'd probably want it on with cooling like that. I was running a 5950x in a mITX case and with PBO on I was running out of cooling capacity with the 240mm AIO I shoehorned in. Unless you're running heavy 24/7/365 type of loads on it, you probably want higher boosting for the times it needs more power.
Thus far i don’t think the processor has gone over 65 temp wise yet. The 3090 i think hit 80...i don’t usually keep it on unless i’m using it. Its not bad in the winter but summer time usually make the office like a sauna. My parrot doesn’t like it that hot hehe
 
Last edited:

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,819
I have a feeling that the stock setting in the bios might actually enable PBO. I've had to do that before. Go in and turn it OFF after resetting bios.

My 5950X did the same at stock, but the sustained single core clocks were 4800-4850. It would only hit 4950-5000 very briefly and not under any kind of constant load (like cb or cpu-z sc tests). With pbo + co and +125, I now get sustained 4950 and the occasional spike to 5150, and I've seen 5175 in hwinfo64 once or twice, but it's meaningless really, the sustained (ie more than a second) boost is what matters. In games I'm seeing 4800, all core loads around 4600. At stock it was topping out at 4150 all core, so a substantial 10% boost in all core and 2-3% single core. With the 240 aio, I'm hitting 85C max in sustained all core loads. With the 3090 I'm still cpu limited in photogrammetry, where with my previous 1080+3950X I was gpu limited.
 

the_real_7

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
1,279
Under stock settings amd uses it own version of the stock pbo , I'm hitting on my 5900x 4950 on most cores constantly with bios auto , just fan curves in place with a t sensor for my water cooling and fans , and docp for memory. I get a score for single core at 628
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,819
Under stock settings amd uses it own version of the stock pbo , I'm hitting on my 5900x 4950 on most cores constantly with bios auto , just fan curves in place with a t sensor for my water cooling and fans , and docp for memory. I get a score for single core at 628
Yeah, it's pb minus the o :) precision boost, just no overdrive. Mine did not sustain 4.95 but would hit it (and higher) occasionally.
 

the_real_7

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
1,279
Yeah, it's pb minus the o :) precision boost, just no overdrive. Mine did not sustain 4.95 but would hit it (and higher) occasionally.
well no amd system holds 4.95 consistently , it passes like magical chairs to maintain temps. one drive hit 4.95 passes the burden on temps
 

Spartacus

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
2,122
Almost all of the gaming benchmarks I've seen show the 5950x just slightly ahead in FPS for most games. There are a few it comes in about the same, and a few it even lags behind by a little. Overall though, in most benchmark testing I've seen the 5950x is ahead just slightly.

However, in chat and on various forums I've seen people tell me that the 5900x is actually faster...especially if its single core boost. This doesn't seem to jive with the benchmarks I've seen though.

Which is correct?

Please bear in mind that I'm not debating the "value" (or lack thereof) of a given CPU if only used for gaming, or content creation, or what not. All of the reviews have pretty much covered that. I'm not trying to select a CPU for just gaming, or content creation, or what not. I'm just curious about the statement above.

Hypothetically, if both the 5900x and 5950x were the same price, and had the same power draw - Which would you choose?

>>Hypothetically, if both the 5900x and 5950x were the same price, and had the same power draw - Which would you choose?

5900X.

My admittedly simple reasoning was based on the heat issues with the 5800X.

The question came down to, "Do I want dual 5800X cpus or dual 5600X cpus?".

I'm very happy with the 5900X, it's way overkill for what I need anyway.

.
 

the_real_7

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
1,279
>>Hypothetically, if both the 5900x and 5950x were the same price, and had the same power draw - Which would you choose?

5900X.

My admittedly simple reasoning was based on the heat issues with the 5800X.

The question came down to, "Do I want dual 5800X cpus or dual 5600X cpus?".

I'm very happy with the 5900X, it's way overkill for what I need anyway.

.
is the 5950x hotter than the 5900x , being its a binned cpu , I had 9900KS and it was way cooler than my regulars 9900k binning helped alot with temps
 

skiddy

2[H]4U
Joined
May 31, 2003
Messages
2,646
I think most of the benchmarks I've seen had the 5900x running better on average boosts. My 5950x gets a R20 single score of ~615, and boosts between 4.8 - 4.9 during the benchmark, but regularly sits at 4.9 - 5.05 during gaming/normal usage. I'm also running ambient temps about 10F higher than normal right now because I live in Texas, so there's a chance it could be a bit better.
 

CyberJunk

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
4,096
Almost all of the gaming benchmarks I've seen show the 5950x just slightly ahead in FPS for most games. There are a few it comes in about the same, and a few it even lags behind by a little. Overall though, in most benchmark testing I've seen the 5950x is ahead just slightly.

However, in chat and on various forums I've seen people tell me that the 5900x is actually faster...especially if its single core boost. This doesn't seem to jive with the benchmarks I've seen though.

Which is correct?

Please bear in mind that I'm not debating the "value" (or lack thereof) of a given CPU if only used for gaming, or content creation, or what not. All of the reviews have pretty much covered that. I'm not trying to select a CPU for just gaming, or content creation, or what not. I'm just curious about the statement above.

Hypothetically, if both the 5900x and 5950x were the same price, and had the same power draw - Which would you choose?
I own the 5950x. Unless you "absolutely" need 16 cores 32 threads. I would save the $250 and get the 5900x.
 
Top