5900x vs 5950x Question

LGabrielPhoto

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 5, 2006
Messages
3,099
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
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.
That is boosting low for single. Maybe temperature related add you mentioned. I have mine tweaked to get me a good balance of single and multi.
 

Attachments

  • CTR_CB644.JPG
    CTR_CB644.JPG
    63.9 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:

schizo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
1,654
4.9-5.0 is low? That's as high as Zen3 ever gets without sub-ambient cooling.

I'd say 4.6/4.7 is low, 4.8 is normal without tweaking, and 4.9/5.0 you did good. There isn't a ton of headroom in these chips, they boost pretty close to their limits at stock.
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,819
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

It's actually not hot at all - at stock at least. I was only hitting a little over 60C at stock with 240AIO, where 5800X's seem to hit 15C higher at stock during all core stress testing. That's the product of spreading 142W over 16 cores vs. 125W over 8. 5900X will be similar, you're spreading 142W over 12 cores instead of 16, so it'll run a little hotter. Cranked up it can get hot, sure, but I'm at board limits (190A EDC) hitting around 215W and still topping out at 85C. Performance is nuts, though. I can crank through photogrammetry builds in 30-40% less time than the 3950X, a function of PBO doing almost nothing on that chip (so I ran it stock), the 5950X being 15-20% faster at stock, and then getting another 10-15% running PBO+CO. For games it just doesn't matter, any of the r9's are overkill and most games stop scaling at 6 cores, so even a 5800X won't be running flat out and PBO+CO seems to let it get similar single core speeds.

A 5900X with pbo+CO will be a decent amount faster than a 3950X with PBO, which is a pretty amazing generational jump. The 5950 is another level altogether. Zen 3 threadripper is going to be fucking nuts.
 

sonofson

n00b
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
3
Guys, I'll say right away I'm new to this, so don't kick me if I say something wrong. Why are you only comparing 5950x and 5900x? After all, you can also compare it with the Core i9-10900K. The parameters in the benchmark are about the same, but the i9 is half the price.
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,258
Guys, I'll say right away I'm new to this, so don't kick me if I say something wrong. Why are you only comparing 5950x and 5900x? After all, you can also compare it with the Core i9-10900K. The parameters in the benchmark are about the same, but the i9 is half the price.

the 10900k is not half the price of a 5950x, though it is cheaper, and really they don't compare, that is why people are not comparing it. 10 core intel chip vs a 16 core AMD chip where AMD is already faster core for core. 5900x Already beats out the 10900k.
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,819
Guys, I'll say right away I'm new to this, so don't kick me if I say something wrong. Why are you only comparing 5950x and 5900x? After all, you can also compare it with the Core i9-10900K. The parameters in the benchmark are about the same, but the i9 is half the price.

A lot of the debate is around boost clocks in the chiplet architecture, which is completely different to the monolithic design of intel. 10900k is also overkill for gaming.
 

SpeedMan88

n00b
Joined
Apr 27, 2019
Messages
3
I just got a 5950x in my machine. After lots of tweaking the PBO + CO settings, LLC, and voltage offsets, I've got it boosting to 5025mhz consistently in single threaded benchmarks and about 4500mhz +/- 25 in all core benchmarks. CB20 scores are 640 single and 11400 multi. The multi core benchmark maxes out at about 73C on my 240 AIO cooler. I have seen a boost clock recorded at 5200mhz in hwinfo64 a few times, but it never sustains this.

One thing I haven't figured out yet that is bugging me is how the Infinity Fabric plays into things. Currently I'm running 1900 IF with my ram at 3800 CL16. My chip is also stable at 1967 IF with the exact same ram timings at 3933 CL16. Yet, my CB20 multi score is over 1000 points lower when I do this (and CB23 multi is 3000 points lower). Anyone have any thoughts on why I'd be seeing lower benchmark scores with a faster IF given everything else is kept the same? AIDA64 reports better memory speeds (61GB/s vs 59 GB/s) and latency (56.8ns vs 57.8ns) with the higher IF, so I know it's at least improving the memory performance. Anyone else with these chips notice something similar?
 
Top