News Ryzen 9 7900X Is 30% Faster Than 5900X in New Benchmark

Flyfisherman

Distinguished
May 29, 2012
1,126
6
19,965
239
I just benchmarked my AMD Ryzen 9 3950X with Geekbench 5 free trial and got these results:
Single-Core: 1327 and Multi-Core: 12457
Results: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/17321277

The Ryzen 9 7900X is 63 % faster in Singel-Core and 48 % faster in Multi-Core than my 16-Core Ryzen 9 3950X.
That is impressive to say the least. :p
I wonder how Ryzen 9 7950X will score later on...

Best regards from Sweden
 
Last edited:

warezme

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2006
2,440
41
19,840
20
I have been going along with my 3900X and 2080Ti for years now and skipped all of the previous generation mostly because the GPU price grab really left a bad taste in my mouth so I had no desire to upgrade anything. Now is the time to begin the upgrade journey to a 7900X and 4090. This should hold me for a few more years to come.
 
Reactions: drivinfast247

Alvar "Miles" Udell

Respectable
Apr 1, 2020
712
418
2,260
0
Still not one bit interested, not with X670E motherboards -required- for full PCIe 5.0 functionality and DDR5 -required-, and reputable X670E motherboards costing north of $500.

Also after that bait and switch they pulled with the X370 series "No Zen 3 support EVER even though we said it was...Oh wait, we lied, now you get support!" -after- I bought a X570 motherboard for my 5950X, my next system -will- be Intel, full stop.
 
Reactions: KyaraM and Bikki

Nighthawk117

Respectable
When I finally decide to upgrade to a new and shiny 5900X, AMD decides to make the biggest generational leap of Ryzen history... :(

(I like it, but it's still sad)
Not really true, it's a 13% increase in IPC which is similar to Zen + to Zen 2. The rest is made up by clock speed increases which come at the expense of power consumption. Plus Zen 2 introduced the 12 and 16 core models.

If it makes you feel better, I wanted a 5900X, waited for months after release but just couldn't get hold of one. I eventually gave up and got the 10850K instead, it was beaten by the i5 several months later :)

It's nice to have the latest but I doubt you will find it wanting in the performance department any time soon.
 

Bikki

Commendable
Jun 23, 2020
12
1
1,510
0
Still not one bit interested, not with X670E motherboards -required- for full PCIe 5.0 functionality and DDR5 -required-, and reputable X670E motherboards costing north of $500.

Also after that bait and switch they pulled with the X370 series "No Zen 3 support EVER even though we said it was...Oh wait, we lied, now you get support!" -after- I bought a X570 motherboard for my 5950X, my next system -will- be Intel, full stop.
I belive any AMD exec who reads your story will give you a x670 for free as an apology.
 

jp7189

Distinguished
Feb 21, 2012
167
61
18,660
0
considering the 7900x at stock is pushed to the limits, 5900x should be PBO


here's my 5900x and 4000cl16 bdie
https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/17344685

1781 single 17% weaker vs 7900x
16695 multi 9.5% weaker vs 7900x

Also have 4x8 sticks; I can remove 2 stick and do async 4600+ which will boost scores

30% faster.... :ROFLMAO:
I don't think anyone knows what 7000 series overclocking will be like. Plus count on stability updates for months post introduction before they reach the same maturity as the 5000 series.
 

tamalero

Distinguished
Oct 25, 2006
932
17
18,995
1
Still not one bit interested, not with X670E motherboards -required- for full PCIe 5.0 functionality and DDR5 -required-, and reputable X670E motherboards costing north of $500.

Also after that bait and switch they pulled with the X370 series "No Zen 3 support EVER even though we said it was...Oh wait, we lied, now you get support!" -after- I bought a X570 motherboard for my 5950X, my next system -will- be Intel, full stop.
I'd love to get what you're smoking. There are lower priced motherboards.
Also unlike intel, where you have to sink a new motherboard every 1-2 gens. AMD said the AM5 will be long lived so you only have to buy that board ONCE.
 

Alvar "Miles" Udell

Respectable
Apr 1, 2020
712
418
2,260
0
I belive any AMD exec who reads your story will give you a x670 for free as an apology.
I wouldn't take it, not even if it were the MSI GODLIKE insanity and came with a free 7900X.

Also unlike intel, where you have to sink a new motherboard every 1-2 gens. AMD said the AM5 will be long lived so you only have to buy that board ONCE.
That's what I thought as well with the ASUS Crosshair VI Extreme, then AMD said NO RYZEN 5000 SERIES SUPPORT ON 300 SERIES MOTHERBOARDS!!!!!! for over a year and actively blocked AIBs from adding it, so I bought an X570S only for them to then stick up their middle fingers and change their mind, cost me an extra $370, on top of the $30 or so RMA shipping for my defective 1800X and $120 for another Windows 10 license because that replacement invalidated my existing license. Oh, and on top of all this, my 5950X doesn't even hit AMD's rated max turbo speed under single threaded workloads nor does it hit the same speeds that TomsHardware and other reviewers saw in their reviews.

So no, for the first time -ever-, I will not be using AMD in my next build. And I say this as someone who stuck with them through the Phenom II and Bulldozer era when their CPUs were far inferior.
 

TheOtherOne

Distinguished
Oct 19, 2013
143
31
18,620
1
When I finally decide to upgrade to a new and shiny 5900X, AMD decides to make the biggest generational leap of Ryzen history... :(

(I like it, but it's still sad)
Hate to break it to you but 5900X is anything but "new and shiny" since it was released almost two years ago and we have newer versions coming out now too. If you want to upgrade to "new and shiny", that would be 7900X. Or you can upgrade to the last gen ;)
 

gggplaya

Distinguished
Still not one bit interested, not with X670E motherboards -required- for full PCIe 5.0 functionality and DDR5 -required-, and reputable X670E motherboards costing north of $500.

Also after that bait and switch they pulled with the X370 series "No Zen 3 support EVER even though we said it was...Oh wait, we lied, now you get support!" -after- I bought a X570 motherboard for my 5950X, my next system -will- be Intel, full stop.
DDR5 6000 is the new sweet spot for Infinity Fabric. The Default FLCK is now 1733mhz so you would need a minimum of DDR4-3466 to match that. For many people, that would require buying new ram anyways because alot of people were on DDR4-3200 with Ryzen Zen1-3, myself included.

DDR5 RAM kits have come down in price and about double the price but you get almost double the speed for that extra cost. 16GB DDR5-6000 is now $165 and 32GB kits are now $220.
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
801
182
19,170
4
Still not one bit interested, not with X670E motherboards -required- for full PCIe 5.0 functionality and DDR5 -required-, and reputable X670E motherboards costing north of $500.

Also after that bait and switch they pulled with the X370 series "No Zen 3 support EVER even though we said it was...Oh wait, we lied, now you get support!" -after- I bought a X570 motherboard for my 5950X, my next system -will- be Intel, full stop.
You're saying motherboards below $500 are not reputable? Crap? Or you just mean the top motherboards are above $500?

PCIe 5.0 is a brand new tech, of course it will be expensive. Also DDR5. And if you want the top of the line stuff (like you mention), you're not going for DDR4, are you? I think you are an early adopter, don't mind most of what you said, and are just mad at the second part of your post.

Which was a very bad move from AMD, I get that. People should be angry with them because of all the mess and financial loss they caused. But are you going to switch to the other side which forces customers to change motherboards every second generation? There was still some hope with AMD (and they flopped), but Intel is a sure way: you buy today, tomorrow you buy everything again.

What I mean is: want to buy Intel next? Go ahead. Just make sure you're buying for the right reasons, not just because of a bad past experience.
 

salgado18

Distinguished
Feb 12, 2007
801
182
19,170
4
Not really true, it's a 13% increase in IPC which is similar to Zen + to Zen 2. The rest is made up by clock speed increases which come at the expense of power consumption. Plus Zen 2 introduced the 12 and 16 core models.

If it makes you feel better, I wanted a 5900X, waited for months after release but just couldn't get hold of one. I eventually gave up and got the 10850K instead, it was beaten by the i5 several months later :)

It's nice to have the latest but I doubt you will find it wanting in the performance department any time soon.
Actually true, I didn't mean just IPC but performance as a whole. And I bought the 5900X last year, Zen 4 was still a rumour then. The point is I bought it to skip the AM5 cycle, and upgrade to AM6 when the 5900X will probably not be performing well. Then AMD shows me they might push the benchmark further up, and make the 5900X obsolete earlier. But well, that's tech life, right?
 

Nighthawk117

Respectable
Actually true, I didn't mean just IPC but performance as a whole. And I bought the 5900X last year, Zen 4 was still a rumour then. The point is I bought it to skip the AM5 cycle, and upgrade to AM6 when the 5900X will probably not be performing well. Then AMD shows me they might push the benchmark further up, and make the 5900X obsolete earlier. But well, that's tech life, right?
Well if you wanted to hold onto it for a while you did right buying the 12 core. There's always something better coming but I would have said you still have a good chance of skipping AM5.
 
Reactions: salgado18

KyaraM

Notable
Mar 11, 2022
988
351
890
42
What I mean is: want to buy Intel next? Go ahead. Just make sure you're buying for the right reasons, not just because of a bad past experience.
I mean... I find "bad past experiences" a quite valid reason not to buy a product from a company anymore. Actually more so than hearsay. Besides, official tests etc are just concerned about performance in the moment. None of those consider long-term use and degradation from such use, or how often a certain model fail, for example. So they can only give a very incomplete picture. That is the case with all products, no matter who made it, and there is never a guarantee that it won't happen again. People were burned once, it's natural and right to be cautious the second time around. In that light, what are the right reasons in your eyes? How to gauge that?

In this case, AMD went back on promises they made, then doubled down on it and did it after all (at least in part, afaik not all old boards are able to run with newer Ryzens even today) after they could be sure that most people who wanted to upgrade already got new boards. Intel gets roasted constantly for less, but it's okay when AMD does it somehow. People are rightfully annoyed at things like this. Please don't try to deny that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS