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

Mega6 said:
at 4k your video card is the bottleneck and the 9800x is able to feed the 3090 fine.
Click to expand...
I figured. Just didn't know if there were maybe a few frames to be had in trying for above 60hz and closer to 120hz. I guess the CPU still wouldn't matter even at higher refresh rates right?
 
rinaldo00 said:
Sure, because they didn't care enough. They preferred to concentrate on higher margin stuff like server-datacenter.
Click to expand...
I know, hard to imagine anyone at Intel caring at all about anything sometimes nowadays.
 
justin_43 said:
Would there be any benefit to moving to 5800X from 9800X@4.8GHz if the GPU is a 3090 and it's a pure gaming system running 4k120?
Click to expand...

It will be sufficient. A 10900K would be slightly faster, but it wouldn't be worth the expense to change anything out for the returns you would get. You are mostly GPU bound at 4K. Having said that, different CPU's do alter the results at 4K, albeit by smaller amounts than you see at 1920x1080.
 
justin_43 said:
I figured. Just didn't know if there were maybe a few frames to be had in trying for above 60hz and closer to 120hz. I guess the CPU still wouldn't matter even at higher refresh rates right?
Click to expand...
You can jack your refresh rate to the sky, it's not going to change the fact that your video card puts out "x" FPS @ 4k. You're not going to get past 60Hz FPS in 4k with an acceptable "quality" video mode setting.
 
Last edited:
Dan_D said:
It will be sufficient. A 10900K would be slightly faster, but it wouldn't be worth the expense to change anything out for the returns you would get. You are mostly GPU bound at 4K. Having said that, different CPU's do alter the results at 4K, albeit by smaller amounts than you see at 1920x1080.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reassurance. Probably not worth the money for little to no impact.
 
Mega6 said:
You can jack your refresh rate to the sky, it's not going to change the fact that your video card puts out "x" FPS @ 4k.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean changing the refresh rate I meant would the FPS output be effected more by the CPU at a higher refresh rate than below 60 but I guess not. Thanks
 
§kynet said:
The answer to this is quite simple, AMD bought ATI before Intel had a chance to.
Click to expand...
Just imagine the world we would live in if AMD got the graphics company they wanted to buy first.... Nvidia.
 
ChadD said:
Just imagine the world we would live in if AMD got the graphics company they wanted to buy first.... Nvidia.
Click to expand...
That's a tough one. Jensen would not accept anything but being top dog so he'd be running the company. Is he better than Lisa Su? I say no.
 
justin_43 said:
I didn't mean changing the refresh rate I meant would the FPS output be effected more by the CPU at a higher refresh rate than below 60 but I guess not. Thanks
Click to expand...
Not sure I understand the question. A GPU Bottleneck means that changing the CPU has little effect on the FPS. At 4k you have a GPU bottleneck. So as Dan and I have stated, incremental changes in your CPU will have little effect on your FPS @ 4K.
 
§kynet said:
That's a tough one. Jensen would not accept anything but being top dog so he'd be running the company. Is he better than Lisa Su? I say no.
Click to expand...
Ya if they agreed had they agreed and gave him control of the merged company I have a feeling we would all be running 14nm++++++ Core 2 Duos right now cause AMD stopped making CPUS.... with AMvidia Riva TNT 2020s in our PCI slots :) lol
 
justin_43 said:
I figured. Just didn't know if there were maybe a few frames to be had in trying for above 60hz and closer to 120hz. I guess the CPU still wouldn't matter even at higher refresh rates right?
Click to expand...
Has generals rules of thumb yes at higher FPS the more important the CPU become, so if you would want to play with lower graphic/DSSL trying to reach a solid locked 120 FPS it is more likely that the CPU would start to matter than if you just want a comfortably above 60 FPS to never go below it.

I think you have the good impression CPU importance is more a question of target FPS than target resolution.

One possibly thing to do is to like at some video that compare with your video card for the type of games you play there is a chance than anything above a 2700x does not change much at 4K for some title and for some other if you want 120 fps maybe it does.

You can look here for some example:
https://techgage.com/article/amd-ryzen-5950x-in-gaming/

Death stranding see no change to go from a 3950x to a 5950x at 4K, on that list not one game seem to gain at that resolution (for that kind of FPS game that do are in the over 200 fps range anyway) but they are not all trying to achieve 120 fps.
 
Last edited:
Given how fast the CPU’s sold out, how long do you think the GPU’s are going to last?
 
Lakados said:
Given how fast the CPU’s sold out, how long do you think the GPU’s are going to last?
Click to expand...
They’ll sell out instantly.

The better question is how quickly and often will they be restocked.
 
exlink said:
They’ll sell out instantly.

The better question is how quickly and often will they be restocked.
Click to expand...
Every couple of months I fear. Between the CPU’s, GPU’s, their massive push for their 4000 series, the PS & XBox units then the new EPYC’s and Threadrippers they are going to keep TSMC very busy.
 
I’ll probably get a 5800 just to upgrade but I’m ultimately not convinced it’ll be totally worth it seeing as on max settings your still GPU bound. Maybe I’ll wait for their cards to release.

not like I won’t have time seeing as there’s nothing in stock.
 
Krenum said:
I can see that. Much like Nvidia's purchase of 3DFX which paved the way for Geforce & T&L.
Click to expand...

No, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The Geforce 256 was released just before Quake 3 back in 1999., the first game that could make use of T&L was in fact Quake 3!


NVIDIA didn't purchase 3dfx until a year ]after the GeForce 3 was released!

https://www.cnet.com/news/nvidia-buys-out-3dfx-graphics-chip-business/

The reason AMD took Intel seriously and paid too much for ATI is because they released their first Programmaable shader integrated graphics chip back in 2004:

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1413

They took Intel seriously, so while Intel kept tripping over themselves for the next decade,AMD quickly release superior APUs

Only today has Tiger Lake finally solidly reversed that gap
 
Last edited:
whateverer said:
No, you have no idea what you are talking about.

The Geforce 256 was released just before Quake 3 back in 1999., the first game that could make use of T&L was in fact Quake 3!
Click to expand...

In fact T&L was one of a number of things that finally did 3dfx in. Their VSA-100 chips that were much delayed had no T&L features, nor could they easily be added in the multi-chip configurations they were designed to run in. They were effectively a generation behind when they launched and that was a real problem. Not the only reason they died, but it was a contributing factor.
 
justin_43 said:
Would there be any benefit to moving to 5800X from 9800X@4.8GHz if the GPU is a 3090 and it's a pure gaming system running 4k120?
Click to expand...
Some, but probably not worth it. I would appreciate less heat more than the performance gain.
 
Sycraft said:
In fact T&L was one of a number of things that finally did 3dfx in. Their VSA-100 chips that were much delayed had no T&L features, nor could they easily be added in the multi-chip configurations they were designed to run in. They were effectively a generation behind when they launched and that was a real problem. Not the only reason they died, but it was a contributing factor.
Click to expand...
Doesn't help that in 3dfx's panic over their delayed launches they overpaid for GigaPixel, and when that still didn't help, 3dfx's creditors declared bankruptcy on 3dfx. Once that happened NVidia gobbled them up mostly for their IP rights for a song and a dance, which let them get access to SLI tech and a few other things that they otherwise would have run into legal licensing problems from either whoever purchased 3dfx, or the small handful of patent trolls that existed at the time.
 
Impressive.

I don't need to upgrade my CPU yet. My 3900X should carry me a bit longer, but damn, what an improvement for a single generation.
If I didn't upgrade to the 3900X and was still on my 1700, i'd be looking at a complete system rebuild right now. (Funny enough, might have saved money doing so.)

I'll probably talk myself into it by the end of next year or the year after that - but first I need a new GPU.
 
whateverer said:
No, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...
I think maybe you took what I said out of context just to prove a point. I was trying to convey the message of competition in regards to Intel vs AMD, I'm not interested in giving fake history lessons.
 
Last edited:
Lakados said:
which let them get access to SLI tech and a few other things that they otherwise would have run into legal licensing problems from either whoever purchased 3dfx, or the small handful of patent trolls that existed at the time.
Click to expand...

The only mainstream company to use scan line interleave was 3dfx, and it died with them. Nvidia never bothered with the technology because it was extremely inefficient. The only thing Nvidia used was the moniker for a vastly different set of technologies years later. It wasn't until 2004, three years after 3dfx went bankrupt that they brought out the scalable link interface to connect multiple video cards.

Even if patent trolls somehow acquired 3dfx's patents, they'd have a hard time convincing anyone that multiple video chips were a thing they had control over. ATI had the Rage Fury MAXX in 1999, and historically, there have been many multi-chip video solutions dating back decades from that point. Nvidia could have called their SLI anything else to avoid patent trolls.
 
The first 5600X review is out.


Spoilers, right now this is the best gaming only CPU to get that absolutely murders 10600K and often outpaces even 10900K despite the latter having 4 more cores. What a time to be a PC enthusiast!
 
I did the math for ONE game (borderlands 3) price to performance and posted it elsewhere in the AMD forums but mind as well paste it here. I'm sure there will be much better floating around soon but just a taste of analysis...

cpupriceFPS$ per fps
5950x80098$8.16
5900x55097$5.67
10850k46594.4$4.93
10900k48894.3$5.17
5600x29993$3.22
5800x44993.4$4.81
10700k38792.1$4.20
10600k26285.6$3.06
3900x49983.7$5.96
3950x74983.7$8.95
3700x32983.6$3.94
3600x19968.1$2.92
2700x32968.1$4.83
398096_119213.png
 
MaZa said:
The first 5600X review is out.


Spoilers, right now this is the best gaming only CPU to get that absolutely murders 10600K and often outpaces even 10900K despite the latter having 4 more cores. What a time to be a PC enthusiast!
Click to expand...

It’s not really murdering anything in gaming. There are a couple games where it’s on top and a couple where it isn’t. Also for some reason the 1% lows are quite often quite a bit behind Intel.
 
Not very fond of youtubers, but this guy usually does some good reviews, straight to the point and not trying to be funny or edgy

 
  • Like
Reactions: Mylex
like this
Lakados said:
Doesn't help that in 3dfx's panic over their delayed launches they overpaid for GigaPixel, and when that still didn't help, 3dfx's creditors declared bankruptcy on 3dfx. Once that happened NVidia gobbled them up mostly for their IP rights for a song and a dance, which let them get access to SLI tech and a few other things that they otherwise would have run into legal licensing problems from either whoever purchased 3dfx, or the small handful of patent trolls that existed at the time.
Click to expand...

It was an interesting time for sure. I still miss 3DFX like most of us. From my understanding, nvidia didn't get much out of the acquisition of 3dfx. It was a bit of a gamble and turned out what tech they had was mostly obsolete compared to what nvidia was working on. SLI branding as mentioned and some AA tech. It wasn't until the GeForce FX that nvidia put any of the 3dfx tech into their cards....and we all know how those went.
 
THRESHIN said:
It was an interesting time for sure. I still miss 3DFX like most of us. From my understanding, nvidia didn't get much out of the acquisition of 3dfx. It was a bit of a gamble and turned out what tech they had was mostly obsolete compared to what nvidia was working on. SLI branding as mentioned and some AA tech. It wasn't until the GeForce FX that nvidia put any of the 3dfx tech into their cards....and we all know how those went.
Click to expand...
Yeah they didn’t get much but they didn’t pay much either. 71 million when all was done, and up until the sale NVidia and 3dfx had been in a legal battles for a few years as they sued and counter sued each other over patents and tech. This ended that and if somebody else had bought them they could have continued the headache.
 


TL;DW The 5800X is poorly positioned at its current price of $450. The 5600X and 5900X are better values depending on your use case of gaming, production, or a mixture of the two.
 
Which of the new 5000 amd cpu's is at the $500-$599 price range?

Good to see nice IPC improvements.
 
After watching all the videos, I'm pretty sure the 5950x is for me.

Not in a huge rush to upgrade, maybe for the holidays or early next year I'll see how the situation looks.

Also, I got bit by the Ryzen SEGFAULT problem in Linux on Zen 1, so not sure I want the first batch this time.
 
exlink said:


TL;DW The 5800X is poorly positioned at its current price of $450. The 5600X and 5900X are better values depending on your use case of gaming, production, or a mixture of the two.
Click to expand...

I agree. But the back of my mind says 8 core or bust. The consoles and resell. AMD knows this. There will be no 3700X or whatever mid chip until they need to do so from competition or advanced binning makes it a reality.
 
funkydmunky said:
I agree. But the back of my mind says 8 core or bust. The consoles and resell. AMD knows this. There will be no 3700X or whatever mid chip until they need to do so from competition or advanced binning makes it a reality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but on the other hand 12 threads is plenty. Games still function with one main thread and several lesser ones and I do not see this changing any time soon. And it is unlikely that all of consoles 8 cores are available to gaming. At least on older gen one core was always reserved for the OS functions.
 
MaZa said:
Yeah, but on the other hand 12 threads is plenty. Games still function with one main thread and several lesser ones and I do not see this changing any time soon. And it is unlikely that all of consoles 8 cores are available to gaming. At least on older gen one core was always reserved for the OS functions.
Click to expand...


Yeah, as tempting as it is to pick up a 5800X, it's not going to get utilized for the next 8 years of console ports. The only other thing I use that many cores for is emulation/video encoding

Zen 3 has 40% higher performance per-core versus the Xbox APU (combine IPC + higher clocks plus 4x the cache per-core); that will more than make up that 7 core console gaming difference. It also has 30-40% higher single/double the multi-threaded performance of my 4790k. I just cant afford an upgrade until the en d of next year.

But that gives them a year to tempt me with a $300 5700x.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top