• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

AMD Ryzen 9 3950X Overclocked To 5 GHz Across All 16 Cores On LN2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thunderdolt said:
They're claiming a win against the i9-7960X, which came out in 2017.
Click to expand...

True, if you ignore the R15 score.
Also the 9960X wasn't tested on R20 since its still a pretty new benchmark.
You needed a little more context to your reply.
There are 3 "wins".

Cinebench R15 against 9960X
Cinebench R20 against 7960X
Geekbench against 7960X

I figured more people would look at the R15 bench since that comparison is more valid/fair/interesting
 
Last edited:
drescherjm said:
To me this is very terrible news for people expecting to get anywhere near 5GHz on air / water with Zen2. If you need LN2 to get 5GHz there is no overclock headroom.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone was expecting 5GHz on 16 cores...
I wonder if the 8 core can OC.
Also, don't forget the IPC difference. I'd rather have 15% more IPC than 15% more clock...
 
drescherjm said:
To me this is very terrible news for people expecting to get anywhere near 5GHz on air / water with Zen2. If you need LN2 to get 5GHz there is no overclock headroom.
Click to expand...
Yeah this was the first thing I thought. Looks like all core boost clock may be a pipe dream. But I was very impressed with the ram speed which I believe was achieved on air.
 
No wonder AMD is pimpin the 16C. If the clocks were high on Zen2 you'd see reviews of the 8C at 5+GHz and lots of ecstatic enthusiasts, including me.
 
Going to such lengths to overclock seems like a pointless endeavour these days. Once upon a time, overclocking provided tangible real world benefits; nowadays it's akin to squeezing a couple of more horsepower out of a sports car I guess enthusiasts get something out of it, but meh. It's why I think [H] is a dinosaur in this day and age—there just isn't a reason to be [H]ard now.
 
drescherjm said:
I expect from the L2N the answer is no. An 8C should not be so different from a 16C because its one chiplet versus 2.
Click to expand...
True, but it is still 8 fewer cores, so while higher than 5ghz might not be possible, it may still be easier. I still don't expect many to be able without ln2, however.
 
drescherjm said:
I expect from the L2N the answer is no. An 8C should not be so different from a 16C because its one chiplet versus 2.
Click to expand...

That is only true if you believe the chiplet is the only factor. But it's not. You have to consider the IO chip as well, which controls both chiplets. Just adding a second chiplet effects the IO chip before you even factor in what overclocking does to it. There is also twice as much heat being produced in the same cooling radius when you are comparing one chiplet vs 2, even when testing with LN2. Then you have to also factor in MB limitations, which is also sporting a beta bios. And then there is also the question: is this a retail chip or an ES?
 
Last edited:
Smashing Young Man said:
Going to such lengths to overclock seems like a pointless endeavour these days. Once upon a time, overclocking provided tangible real world benefits; nowadays it's akin to squeezing a couple of more horsepower out of a sports car I guess enthusiasts get something out of it, but meh. It's why I think [H] is a dinosaur in this day and age—there just isn't a reason to be [H]ard now.
Click to expand...
Going to have to revoke your [H]Card, sorry. ;)

That said, my 8600K at 5.2GHz and 2080 Ti at 2GHz gives me some pretty healthy results over stock clocks in games.
 
drescherjm said:
To me this is very terrible news for people expecting to get anywhere near 5GHz on air / water with Zen2. If you need LN2 to get 5GHz there is no overclock headroom.
Click to expand...

The only thing that was suggested in AdoredTV speculation was single core turbo to 5ghz.
I still do not understand what the whole 5 ghz thing is about exactly?

The other thing is that in all releases there is nearly no head room to overclock on premium AMD cpu every generation of Zen.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
Going to such lengths to overclock seems like a pointless endeavour these days. Once upon a time, overclocking provided tangible real world benefits; nowadays it's akin to squeezing a couple of more horsepower out of a sports car I guess enthusiasts get something out of it, but meh. It's why I think [H] is a dinosaur in this day and age—there just isn't a reason to be [H]ard now.
Click to expand...

It’s a hobby. People do it for fun because they enjoy it. Is there a problem with that?
 
drescherjm said:
To me this is very terrible news for people expecting to get anywhere near 5GHz on air / water with Zen2. If you need LN2 to get 5GHz there is no overclock headroom.
Click to expand...

People were expecting 5ghz from a rumor. Once the actual specs were released everybody should have realized 5ghz on air wasn't going to happen.

Zen had 4.1ghz boost, max overclocks were around 4.1ghz.
Zen+ had 4.3ghz boost, max overclocks were around 4.3ghz.
Zen2 has 4.7ghz boost, I would expect max overclocks to be around 4.7ghz.

A lot of people won't push their chips that hard and will setting for 1-200mhz below that for 24/7 use.
 
Ryzen CPUs generally only hit 4.1GHz to 4.2GHz on all cores which was the boost clock on some of them. This was pretty much the limit on almost all Ryzen and Threadripper CPU's, regardless of core count. The Ryzen 3000 series is still based on the Zen core. Zen 2 is certainly improved and it features a die shrink, but I think anyone hoping for the models with lower core counts to overclock to 5GHz are likely going to be in for some disappointment. AMD is still running at a clock speed deficit compared to Intel with similar, if not trailing IPC. I'd bet like previous chips, AMD chosen boost clocks are pretty close to the maximum these things can handle. Again, I think we'll see all core overclocks at the boost clock or close to it, but we aren't going to see 5GHz on water cooling. It took LN2 to crack 5GHz, and I don't think that bodes well for trying to push past the boost clocks on all cores.

FrgMstr said:
Going to have to revoke your [H]Card, sorry. ;)

That said, my 8600K at 5.2GHz and 2080 Ti at 2GHz gives me some pretty healthy results over stock clocks in games.
Click to expand...

People seem to forget that clock speed, assuming reasonably similar IPC is still king. When Intel drops that 9900KS, I think that will be the world's fastest gaming CPU. We are talking about similar, if not slightly higher IPC and a substantial clock speed advantage combined with having 8c/16t. That's enough for game engines at present. Even those rare engines that can reach beyond 4 threads probably aren't going to see any real benefit to going to 8c/16t. As AMD showed in its live stream, the only place where the 16c/32t 3950X will make sense over other models as a gaming CPU is if your into streaming your games.

Pieter3dnow said:
The only thing that was suggested in AdoredTV speculation was single core turbo to 5ghz.
I still do not understand what the whole 5 ghz thing is about exactly?

The other thing is that in all releases there is nearly no head room to overclock on premium AMD cpu every generation of Zen.
Click to expand...

Well, higher clock speeds equal more performance. That would also eliminate Intel's clock speed advantage as well. As for the second part, that's exactly my point.
 
Dan_D said:
Well, higher clock speeds equal more performance. That would also eliminate Intel's clock speed advantage as well. As for the second part, that's exactly my point.
Click to expand...
That part I get but doesn't the whole platform get a good boost from X570 features as well like the improved memory speed, you can't force your way past a certain cpu core frequency.
Even on that 2nd generation TSMC 7+nm process is AMD going to break gigahertz barriers? My guesstimate would be no.
 
Smashing Young Man said:
Going to such lengths to overclock seems like a pointless endeavour these days. Once upon a time, overclocking provided tangible real world benefits; nowadays it's akin to squeezing a couple of more horsepower out of a sports car I guess enthusiasts get something out of it, but meh. It's why I think [H] is a dinosaur in this day and age—there just isn't a reason to be [H]ard now.
Click to expand...

For CPUs you are basically right on. The real world benefits of overclocking are minimal to nonexistent. There are a few specific workloads where someone could get tangible benefits, like encoding video, but in those cases there's usually the better option of adding cores if they want more speed. CPU overclocking in this era is all about benchmarking and just tinkering for a hobby.

Now if we're talking about memory, GPU or vram overclocking then the story is different. While hardly anything is CPU bound to the point that processor overclocking matters, there are plenty of cases where overclocking those other things does provide tangible benefits. A good GPU overclock can make the difference between barely playable framerates and a smooth experience.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
That part I get but doesn't the whole platform get a good boost from X570 features as well like the improved memory speed, you can't force your way past a certain cpu core frequency.
Even on that 2nd generation TSMC 7+nm process is AMD going to break gigahertz barriers? My guesstimate would be no.
Click to expand...

AMD even stated that performance between Zen 2 on X470 and X570 would be identical. However, we do know that Ryzen 3000 series CPU's will clock memory higher than earlier CPU's did. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll see any actual performance benefit as a result of that in the real world. In synthetic benchmarks I'm sure we'll see it, but probably not so much in most tests. Games really haven't shown a whole lot if any improvement beyond 3200MHz, and the same has generally held true of Intel CPU's as well. Of course Ryzen is more sensitive to memory frequency and latencies than Intel chips are, but I wouldn't expect those increased memory clocks to make much of a difference.

It will be interesting to see what happens with Zen 2 using RAM at 3733MHz for a 1:1 ratio with the Infinity Fabric. It will also be interesting to see what happens when you exceed those clocks.
 
Thunderdolt said:
They're claiming a win against the i9-7960X, which came out in 2017.
Click to expand...
They're claiming the title from the WR, which was different CPU depending on the benchmark/record holder:
  • [*]Cinebench R15: Ryzen 9 3950X @ 5434 points (Previous WR: Core i9-9960X @ 5320 points)
    [*]Cinebench R20: Ryzen 9 3950X @ 12167 points (Previous WR: Core i9-7960X @ 10895 points)
    [*]Geekbench 4: Ryzen 9 3950X @ 65499 points (Previous WR: Core i9-7960X @ 60991points)
    Click to expand...
 
Pieter3dnow said:
The only thing that was suggested in AdoredTV speculation was single core turbo to 5ghz.
I still do not understand what the whole 5 ghz thing is about exactly?

The other thing is that in all releases there is nearly no head room to overclock on premium AMD cpu every generation of Zen.
Click to expand...

People like whole numbers...

If most of the lower end parts can OC to 4.5GHz all core I will be happy (because that is what I will buy).
 
Because it's a sweet spot for 3D performance. You can have your cake and eat it too. There are many times a single thread "does too much" or rather more than we wish it would in an ideal multi-threaded world. 5Ghz is kind of the "limit" number for current CPUs. If you've got 8-16 cores and can hit 5Ghz on all of them full time you have what amounts to a perfect processor. There's nowhere to go from there right now. You can't do any better at keeping 2080 Ti cards or whatever you have fed than that. Because inevitably there is some thread in the program you are running that just needs as much brute force as possible.

4.5GHz vs 5.0 or 5.2 can be a pretty big difference in performance when you are trying to get a few more fps out of a 2080 Ti at 4k. If you're already spending that kind of money, you want the last 2-3 fps, that 5%. Otherwise there wasn't much point in the cost.
 
Advil said:
Because it's a sweet spot for 3D performance. You can have your cake and eat it too. There are many times a single thread "does too much" or rather more than we wish it would in an ideal multi-threaded world. 5Ghz is kind of the "limit" number for current CPUs. If you've got 8-16 cores and can hit 5Ghz on all of them full time you have what amounts to a perfect processor. There's nowhere to go from there right now. You can't do any better at keeping 2080 Ti cards or whatever you have fed than that. Because inevitably there is some thread in the program you are running that just needs as much brute force as possible.

4.5GHz vs 5.0 or 5.2 can be a pretty big difference in performance when you are trying to get a few more fps out of a 2080 Ti at 4k. If you're already spending that kind of money, you want the last 2-3 fps, that 5%. Otherwise there wasn't much point in the cost.
Click to expand...

you had me until 4k...........
 
FrgMstr said:
Going to have to revoke your [H]Card, sorry. ;)

That said, my 8600K at 5.2GHz and 2080 Ti at 2GHz gives me some pretty healthy results over stock clocks in games.
Click to expand...
Its got its merits....but dam just running the division 2 with that cpu and nothing else running probably keeps that cpu pegged at 100% usage lol forget multitasking?
 
Dan_D said:
Like it or not, he's not wrong. 4K is much more demanding than 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 and a few FPS makes the difference between a smooth experience and a choppy one.
Click to expand...
But for CPUs? Really?
GPUs make so much more difference than CPUs.
Are there any benchmarks that show this?
 
I haven't played any games yet that my 4790k @ 4.7gz can't still hold over 60fps so I'm not sure what games we're talking @ 4k. It's always my gpu htting 100% and tweaking graphics settings down to get the frames up to 60..

144fps is where my cpu is the problem...
 
primetime said:
Its got its merits....but dam just running the division 2 with that cpu and nothing else running probably keeps that cpu pegged at 100% usage lol forget multitasking?
Click to expand...
Dunno. I have never played Division 2, and I don't general multitask while I play games. In fact, I am one of those people that go out of the way to make sure I have every system resource available to me while I game.

That said, I play a lot of Hunt Showdown and it is fairly thread intensive. It is not uncommon to see it reaching into the 90% usage range while gaming. Same engine as Kingdom Come that we did a bunch of testing with and found places in that game where CPU limitations were coming into question.

I don't edit or render video any more so I had no need for the Threadripper in this box. Had the 8600K that I had delidded on the test bench and figured I would put it to use!
 
primetime said:
Its got its merits....but dam just running the division 2 with that cpu and nothing else running probably keeps that cpu pegged at 100% usage lol forget multitasking?
Click to expand...

I'm running a 7700k @ 4.8Ghz and while CPU usage is high it doesn't cause any issues with multitasking. No, I don't stream or encode videos nor would I if I had the extra cores but I also don't close running applications and I keep Firefox with multiple tabs + youtube up on a second monitor with no slowdowns or performance issues.
 
FrgMstr said:
Dunno. I have never played Division 2, and I don't general multitask while I play games. In fact, I am one of those people that go out of the way to make sure I have every system resource available to me while I game.

That said, I play a lot of Hunt Showdown and it is fairly thread intensive. It is not uncommon to see it reaching into the 90% usage range while gaming. Same engine as Kingdom Come that we did a bunch of testing with and found places in that game where CPU limitations were coming into question.

I don't edit or render video any more so I had no need for the Threadripper in this box. Had the 8600K that I had delidded on the test bench and figured I would put it to use!
Click to expand...
I have 10 additional threads compared to your 6 core (5+GHZ cpu) and i usual average around 30% usage and see it spike to 80% or more when loading new levels...lol no way i could go back to only having 6 threads:)
 
FrgMstr said:
Dunno. I have never played Division 2, and I don't general multitask while I play games. In fact, I am one of those people that go out of the way to make sure I have every system resource available to me while I game.
Click to expand...

I'm the same way. That said, I have had VM's running off this machine and the extra cores and memory allowed me to game without the hit that comes with having all that crap running.
 
I think for a desktop gaming rig, 6C is the sweet spot right now for strictly a budget gaming box in terms of money spent on a CPU. But with that said, you probably do not want to be "multitasking" very much while gaming. Of course memory footprint is probably going to come more into play there than CPU while actually gaming. It is really hard to argue not spending the money to put at least 8C/16T CPU in your box if you are building/buying new today. When I put this 6C/6T in this box, I really wanted to see just how it would work out for daily usage, as my previous employer had specifically asked me some questions about that. No better way to figure it out for yourself.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top