News AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and 5900X Review: Zen 3 Breaks the 5 GHz Barrier

[MasterMadBones]

I'd also like to see Userbenchmark BS their way out of this one,

They did it. Don't ask me how, but they did it.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X-vs-Intel-Core-i9-10900K/4086vs4071

At "AMD only guarantees its boost frequencies on a single core", the surprising (annoying) point is that AMD only guarantees its boost frequencies on a single PARTICULAR core. (not just any single-core operation).

This doesn't appear to be the case anymore. AMD has been conservative conservative with the single core boost spec and in reality, nearly all cores will be able to match or exceed it. I've seen instances where multiple cores on a 5950X hit 5050 MHz. AMD is not advertising 5 GHz because of what happened with Zen 2 and a number of marketing-related reasons.

 

[Phaaze88]

They did it. Don't ask me how, but they did it.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-9-5950X-vs-Intel-Core-i9-10900K/4086vs4071

I meant in their own words. I expected their benchmark to do that.

 

[rgd1101]

just saw this on youtube. zen 3 might work better with 4 stick

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UkGu6A-6sQ&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=GamersNexus

 

[jeremyj_83]

just saw this on youtube. zen 3 might work better with 4 stick

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UkGu6A-6sQ&feature=youtu.be&ab_channel=GamersNexus

This is not surprising at all. Last year Tom's had a review about RAM speed and latency with Ryzen. They also looked at numbers of sticks and found that with 4x8GB sticks the performance was better than 2x8GB. This is due to the number of ranks used 2 vs 4. On older DDR4 you had 4Gbit chips so you could get 4 ranks from 16GB, where as now they are 8Gbit chips so you only get 2 ranks. Instead of using 4x8GB you can also use 2x16GB to get the additional performance from 4 vs 2 ranks.
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3000-best-memory-timings,6310-2.html

 

[rgd1101]

then, we should have use 4x8GB on this test and not 2x8GB

 

[mitch074]

then, we should have use 4x8GB on this test and not 2x8GB

It's becoming useful to know if used RAM is single rank or dual rank, is all. My 2700X didn't get much faster when I added 2x8Gb on everyday use, but synthetic benchmarks did show a few more points.

 

[MasterMadBones]

I meant in their own words. I expected their benchmark to do that.

"The 16-core, 32-thread Ryzen 9 5950X is an impressive workhorse. It sits at the top of AMD’s latest Zen 3 based, 5000 series of CPUs and sends a clear message that AMD can beat Intel in terms of raw performance and core count. The 5950X has a boost clock speed of up to 4.9 GHz, a massive 72 MB cache and a TDP rating of 105W. Despite the clear “gaming” focus of AMD’s 5000 series launch marketing, the 5950X does not efficiently leverage all its 16 cores in gaming (as demonstrated by similar Effective Speed scores compared to the 12-core 5900X, 8-core 5800X and 6-core 5600X. 16 cores are only suitable for professional use cases that have CPU processing needs which cannot be more efficiently met by a GPU or other dedicated hardware. There is no Intel equivalent with this number of cores, and the 5950X’s uniqueness is reflected in its $799 USD price tag, 45% more than the 5900X. Gamers will get far higher FPS per dollar by allocating a higher proportion of their budget towards a better GPU rather than blowing $799 USD on the 5950X. [Nov '20 CPUPro] "

That is surprisingly reasonable for UBM.

 

[Phaaze88]

"The 16-core, 32-thread Ryzen 9 5950X is an impressive workhorse. It sits at the top of AMD’s latest Zen 3 based, 5000 series of CPUs and sends a clear message that AMD can beat Intel in terms of raw performance and core count. The 5950X has a boost clock speed of up to 4.9 GHz, a massive 72 MB cache and a TDP rating of 105W. Despite the clear “gaming” focus of AMD’s 5000 series launch marketing, the 5950X does not efficiently leverage all its 16 cores in gaming (as demonstrated by similar Effective Speed scores compared to the 12-core 5900X, 8-core 5800X and 6-core 5600X. 16 cores are only suitable for professional use cases that have CPU processing needs which cannot be more efficiently met by a GPU or other dedicated hardware. There is no Intel equivalent with this number of cores, and the 5950X’s uniqueness is reflected in its $799 USD price tag, 45% more than the 5900X. Gamers will get far higher FPS per dollar by allocating a higher proportion of their budget towards a better GPU rather than blowing $799 USD on the 5950X. [Nov '20 CPUPro] "

That is surprisingly reasonable for UBM.

Just, ~UGH...


Thanks for the links though!