Test of AMD Ryzen 9 5950X processor: 32 threads on AM4

Numerical computing

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Last time we tested two high performance Intel Core i9 processors (11900K and 10900K) and one from AMD (5900X), which was a meaningful comparison. But now we will test the Ryzen 9 5950X separately. There is no adequate equivalent of Intel to it, so we can note that this Ryzen processor is a “lone wolf”.

Tasks in which it will make sense to compare the Ryzen 9 5950X with the Core i9-11900K can certainly be found. In terms of raw performance, however, the R9 5950X will have an overwhelming advantage just because it has twice the core and thread count. The trend of intergenerational core count increase also on mainstream platforms was started by the Ryzen 9 3900X, which at that time also came up with unprecedented twelve cores.

The R9 5950X moves the bar even higher – to sixteen cores. Rather than comparing it to mainstream processors, a comparison with Threadrippers or HEDT Intel is more suitable here. Although the Ryzen 9 5950X has a few worse predispositions, which mainly include only a dual-channel memory controller (Threadripper CPUs have at least quad-channel, the WX variants up to octa-channel), which results in lower memory bandwidth and lower performance in certain applications.

Significantly more PCI Express 4.0 lanes are available on the TRX40 and WRX80 platforms (72 and 128, respectively), but it should also be noted that their current processors are still based on the Zen 2 architecture. The Ryzen 5950X (Vermeer) is already a Zen 3 based with a higher IPC and also achieves significantly higher clock speed, both single-core boost and all-core boost.

Threadripper processors are basically a generation behind in this regard, and Zen 3 models are likely to be released in September. At least until then, the Ryzen 9 5950X seems to be an attractive choice for higher performance workstations (on some motherboards ECC memory is even unofficially supported) for the user, who eventually turns into a demanding gamer. And this will likely be possible even after the release of the new Threadrippers. A motherboard for a setup with an AM4 processor will be significantly cheaper than a high-end one with the TRX4 socket. This naturally increases the price for the platform as a whole and the price/performance ratio decreases. For higher models with 24, 32 or 64 cores, this naturally does not play an important role, but the successor to the 16-core TR 3955WX will be significantly disadvantaged by a more expensive motherboard compared to the R9 5950X to some extent.

Well, in the end some of you may opt for the Ryzen 9 5900X? It also depends on what you expect from the processor. In some applications, the benefit of four cores (eight threads) is quite noticeable.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Gaming tests

We test performance in games in four resolutions with different graphics settings. To warm up, there is more or less a theoretical resolution of 1280 × 720 px. We had been tweaking graphics settings for this resolution for a long time. We finally decided to go for the lowest possible (Low, Lowest, Ultra Low, …) settings that a game allows.

One could argue that a processor does not calculate how many objects are drawn in such settings (so-called draw calls). However, with high detail at this very low resolution, there was not much difference in performance compared to FHD (which we also test). On the contrary, the GPU load was clearly higher, and this impractical setting should demonstrate the performance of a processor with the lowest possible participation of a graphics card.

At higher resolutions, high settings (for FHD and QHD) and highest (for UHD) are used. In Full HD it’s usually with Anti-Aliasing turned off, but overall, these are relatively practical settings that are commonly used.

The selection of games was made considering the diversity of genres, player popularity and processor performance requirements. For a complete list, see Chapters 7–16. A built-in benchmark is used when a game has one, otherwise we have created our own scenes, which we always repeat with each processor in the same way. We use OCAT to record fps, or the times of individual frames, from which fps are then calculated, and FLAT to analyze CSV. Both were developed by the author of articles (and videos) from GPUreport.cz. For the highest possible accuracy, all runs are repeated three times and the average values of average and minimum fps are drawn in the graphs. These multiple repetitions also apply to non-gaming tests.

Computing tests

Let’s start lightly with PCMark 10, which tests more than sixty sub-tasks in various applications as part of a complete set of “benchmarks for a modern office”. It then sorts them into fewer thematic categories and for the best possible overview we include the gained points from them in the graphs. We then have the total score for single and multithreaded performance from Geekbench 5. Lighter test tasks are also represented by tests in a web browser – Speedometer and Octane. Other tests usually represent higher load or are aimed at advanced users.

We test the 3D rendering performance in Cinebench. In R20, where the results are more widespread, but mainly in R23. Rendering in this version takes longer with each processor, cycles of at least ten minutes. We also test 3D rendering in Blender, with the Cycles render in the BMW and Classroom projects. You can also compare the latter with the test results of graphics cards (contains the same number of tiles).

We test how processors perform in video editing in Adobe Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve Studio 17. We use a PugetBench plugin, which deals with all the tasks you may encounter when editing videos. We also use PugetBench services in Adobe After Effects, where the performance of creating graphic effects is tested. Some subtasks use GPU acceleration, but we never turn it off, as no one will do it in practice. Some things don’t even work without GPU acceleration, but on the contrary, it’s interesting to see that the performance in the tasks accelerated by the graphics card also varies as some operations are still serviced by the CPU.

We test video encoding in HandBrake and benchmarks (x264 HD and HWBot x265). x264 HD benchmark works in 32-bit mode (we did not manage to run 64-bit consistently on W10 and in general on newer OS’s it may be unstable and show errors in video). In HandBrake we use the x264 processor encoder for AVC and x265 for HEVC. Detailed settings of individual profiles can be found in the corresponding chapter 25. In addition to video, we also encode audio, where all the details are also stated in the chapter of these tests. Gamers who record their gameplay on video can also have to do with the performance of processor encoders. Therefore, we also test the performance of “processor broadcasting” in two popular applications OBS Studio and Xsplit.

We also have two chapters dedicated to photo editing performance. Adobe has a separate one, where we test Photoshop via PugetBench. However, we do not use PugetBench in Lightroom, because it requires various OS modifications for stable operation, and overall we rather avoided it (due to the higher risk of complications) and create our own test scenes. Both are CPU intensive, whether it’s exporting RAW files to 16-bit TIFF with ProPhotoRGB color space or generating 1:1 thumbnails of 42 lossless CR2 photos.

However, we also have several alternative photo editing applications in which we test CPU performance. These include Affinity Photo, in which we use a built-in benchmark, or XnViewMP for batch photo editing or ZPS X. Of the truly modern ones, there are three Topaz Labz applications that use AI algorithms. DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI. Topaz Labs often and happily compares its results with Adobe applications (Photoshop and Lightroom) and boasts of better results. So we’ll see, maybe we’ll get into it from the image point of view sometime. In processor tests, however, we are primarily focused on performance.

We test compression and decompression performance in WinRAR, 7-Zip and Aida64 (Zlib) benchmarks, decryption in TrueCrypt and Aida64, where in addition to AES there are also SHA3 tests. In Aida64, we also test FPU in the chapter of mathematical calculations. From this category you may also be interested in the results of Stockfish 13 and the number of chess combinations achieved per unit time. We perform many tests that can be included in the category of mathematics in SPECworkstation 3.1. It is a set of professional applications extending to various simulations, such as LAMMPS or NAMD, which are molecular simulators. A detailed description of the tests from SPECworkstation 3.1 can be found at spec.org. We do not test 7-zip, Blender and HandBrake from the list for redundancy, because we test performance in them separately in applications. A detailed listing of SPECWS results usually represents times or fps, but we graph “SPEC ratio”, which represents gained points—higher means better.

Processor settings…

We test processors in the default settings, without active PBO2 (AMD) or ABT (Intel) technologies, but naturally with active XMP 2.0.

… and app updates

The tests should also take into account that, over time, individual updates may affect performance comparisons. Some applications are used in portable versions, which are not updated or can be kept on a stable version, but this is not the case for some others. Typically, games update over time. On the other hand, even intentional obsolescence (and testing something out of date that already behaves differently) would not be entirely the way to go.

In short, just take into account that the accuracy of the results you are comparing decreases a bit over time. To make this analysis easier for you, we indicate when each processor was tested. You can find this in the dialog box, where there is information about the test date of each processor. This dialog box appears in interactive graphs, just hover the mouse cursor over any bar.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Methodology: how we measure power draw

Measuring CPU power consumption is relatively simple, much easier than with graphics cards. All power goes through one or two EPS cables. We also use two to increase the cross-section, which is suitable for high performance AMD processors up to sTR(X)4 or for Intel HEDT, and in fact almost for mainstream processors as well. We have Prova 15 current probes to measure current directly on the wires. This is a much more accurate and reliable way of measuring than relying on internal sensors.

The only limitation of our current probes may be when testing the most powerful processors. These already exceed the maximum range of 30 A, at which high accuracy is guaranteed. For most processors, the range is optimal (even for measuring a lower load, when the probes can be switched to a lower and more accurate range of 4 A), but we will test models with power consumption over 360 W on our own device, a prototype of which we have already built. Its measuring range will no longer be limiting, but for the time being we will be using the Prova probes in the near future.

The probes are properly set to zero and connected to a UNI-T UT71E multimeter before each measurement. It records samples of current values during the tests via the IR-USB interface and writes them in a table at one-second intervals. We can then create bar graphs with power consumption patterns. But we always write average values in bar graphs. Measurements take place in various load modes. The lowest represents an idle Windows 10 desktop. This measurement takes place on a system that had been idle for quite some time.

Audio encoding (FLAC) represents a higher load, but processors use only one core or one thread for this. Higher loads, where more cores are involved, are games. We test power consumption in F1 2020, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Total War Saga: Troy in 1920 × 1080 px. In this resolution, the power consumption is usually the highest or at least similar to that in lower or higher resolutions, where in most cases the CPU power draw rather decreases due to its lower utilization.

Power draw limits are disabled for both Intel and AMD processors, unlocked to the PL2/PPT level. As is the case with most motherboards, this is also set in the default settings. This means that the “Tau” timeout after 56 seconds does not reduce power draw and frequencies even under higher load, and performance is stable. We considered whether or not to accept the more economical settings. In the end, we won’t, on the grounds that the vast majority of users don’t do it either and thus the results and comparisons would be rather uninteresting. The solution would indeed be to test with and without power limit, but this is impossible from a time point of view in the context of processor tests. However, we won’t ignore this issue and it will be getting space in motherboard tests where it makes more sense to us.

We always use motherboards with extremely robust, efficient VRM, so that the losses on MOSFETs distort the measured results as little as possible and the test setups are powered by a high-end 1200 W BeQuiet! Dark Power Pro 12 power supply. It is strong enough to supply every processor, even with a fully loaded GeForce RTX 3080, and at the same time achieves above-standard efficiency even at lower load. For a complete overview of test setup components, see Chapter 5 of this article.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Methodology: temperature and clock speed tests

When choosing a cooler, we eventually opted for Noctua NH-U14S. It has a high performance and at the same time there is also the TR4-SP3 variant designed for Threadripper processors. It differs only by the base, the radiator is otherwise the same, so it will be possible to test and compare all processors under the same conditions. The fan on the NH-U14S cooler is set to a maximum speed of 1,500 rpm during all tests.

Measurements always take place on a bench-wall in a wind tunnel which simulates a computer case, with the difference that we have more control over it.

System cooling consists of four Noctua NF-S12A PWM fans, which are in an equilibrium ratio of two at the inlet and two at the outlet. Their speed is set at a fixed 550 rpm, which is a relatively practical speed that is not needed to be exceeded. In short, this should be the optimal configuration based on our tests of various system cooling settings.

It is also important to maintain the same air temperature around the processors. Of course, this also changes with regard to how much heat a particular processor produces, but at the inlet of the tunnel it must always be the same for accurate comparisons. In our air-conditioned test lab, it is currently in the range of 21–21.3 °C.

Maintaining a constant inlet temperature is necessary not only for a proper comparison of processor temperatures, but especially for unbiased performance comparisons. Trend of clock speed and especially single-core boost depends on the temperature. In the summer at higher temperatures, processors may be slower in living spaces than in the winter.

For Intel processors, we register the maximum core temperature for each test, usually of all cores. These maximum values are then averaged and the result is represented by the final value in the graph. From the outputs of single-threaded load, we only pick the registered values from active cores (these are usually two and alternate during the test). It’s a little different with AMD processors. They don’t have temperature sensors for every core. In order for the procedure to be as methodically as possible similar to that applied on Intel processors, the average temperature of all cores is defined by the highest value reported by the CPU Tdie sensor (average). For single-threaded load, however, we already use a CPU sensor (Tctl/Tdie), which usually reports a slightly higher value, which better corresponds to the hotspots of one or two cores. But these values as well as the values from all internal sensors must be taken with a grain of salt, the accuracy of the sensors varies across processors.

Clock speed evaluation is more accurate, each core has its own sensor even on AMD processors. Unlike temperatures, we plot average clock speed values during tests in graphs. We monitor the temperature and clock speed of the processor cores in the same tests, in which we also measure the power consumption. And thus, gradually from the lowest load level on the desktop of idle Windows 10, through audio encoding (single-threaded load), gaming load in three games (F1 2020, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Total War Saga: Troy), to a 10-minute load in Cinebench R23 and the most demanding video encoding with the x264 encoder in HandBrake.

To record the temperatures and clock speed of the processor cores, we use HWiNFO, in which sampling is set to two seconds. With the exception of audio encoding, the graphs always show the averages of all processor cores in terms of temperatures and clock speed. During audio encoding, the values from the loaded core are given.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Test setup

*Following motherboard BIOS versions are used: v1.14 on MSI MEG Z590 Ace, v1E on MSI MEG X570 and v17 on MSI MEG Z490.

Note.: Graphics drivers used at the time of testing: Nvidia GeForce 466.77 and OS Windows 10 build 19043.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

3DMark

We use 3DMark Professional for the tests and the following tests: Night Raid (DirectX 12), Fire Strike (DirectX 11) and Time Spy (DirectX 12). In the graphs you will find partial CPU scores, combined scores, but also graphics scores. You can find out to what extent the given processor limits the graphics card.

---

---

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: low; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Borderlands 3

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Very Low; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: None; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Counter-Strike: GO

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; lowest graphics settings with no Anti-Aliasing, API: DirectX 9; test platform: script with Dust 2 map tour.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; high graphics settings with no Anti-Aliasing, API: DirectX 9; test platform: script with Dust 2 map tour.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; high graphics settings; 4× MSAA, API: DirectX 9; test platform: script with Dust 2 map tour.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; very high graphics settings; 4× MSAA, API: DirectX 9; test platform: script with Dust 2 map tour.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Cyberpunk 2077

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

DOOM Eternal

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: Vulkan; extra settings: Present From Compute: off, Motion Blur: Low, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: Vulkan; extra settings: Present From Compute: on, Motion Blur: High, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: Vulkan; extra settings: Present From Compute: on, Motion Blur: High, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: on; test scene: custom.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra Nightmare; API: Vulkan; extra settings: Present From Compute: on, Motion Blur: High, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: on; test scene: custom.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

F1 2020

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra Low; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off, Anisotropic Filtering: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off, Skidmarks Blending: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA, Skidmarks Blending: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA, Skidmarks Blending: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Metro Exodus

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Extreme; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 11; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14 9:00am) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 11; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00am) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 11; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00am) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra; API: DirectX 11; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00am) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Lowest; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Highest; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: built-in benchmark.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Total War Saga: Troy

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra; API: DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Overall gaming performance

---

---

---

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Gaming performance per euro

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

PCMark

Geekbench

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Speedometer (2.0) and Octane (2.0)

Test environment: We’re using a portable version of Google Chrome (91.0.472.101) 64-bit so that real-time results are not affected by browser updates. GPU hardware acceleration is enabled as each user has in the default settings.

---

Note: The values in the graphs represent the average of the points obtained in the subtasks, which are grouped according to their nature into seven categories (Core language features, Memory and GC, Strings and arrays, Virtual machine and GC, Loading and Parsing, Bit and Math operations and Compiler and GC latency).

---

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Cinebench R20

Cinebench R23

---

Blender@Cycles

Test environment: We use well-known projects BMW (510 tiles) and Classroom (2,040 tiles) and renderer Cycles. Render settings are set to None, with which all the work falls on the CPU.

---

LuxRender (SPECworkstation 3.1)

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Adobe Premiere Pro (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe Premiere Pro is 15.2.

---

---

---

---

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

DaVinci Resolve Studio (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests, test type: standard. App version of DaVinci Resolve Studio is 17.2.1 (build 12).

---

---

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Graphic effects: Adobe After Effects

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe After Effects is 18.2.1.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

HandBrake

Test environment: For video conversion we’re using a 4K video LG Demo Snowboard with a 43.9 Mb/s bitrate. AVC (x264) and HEVC (x265) profiles are set for high quality and enoder profiles are “slow”. HandBrake version is 1.3.3 (2020061300).

x264 and x265 benchmarks

---

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Audio encoding

Test environment: Audio encoding is done using command line encoders, we measure the time it takes for the conversion to finish. The same 42-minute long 16-bit WAV file (stereo) with 44.1 kHz is always used (Love Over Gold by Dire Straits album rip in a single audio file).

Encoder settings are selected to achieve maximum or near maximum compression. The bitrate is relatively high, with the exception of lossless FLAC of about 200 200 kb/s.

Note: These tests measure single-thread performance.

FLAC: reference encoder 1.3.2, 64-bit build. Launch options: flac.exe -s -8 -m -e -p -f

MP3: encoder lame3.100.1, 64-bit build (Intel 19 Compiler) from RareWares. Launch options: lame.exe -S -V 0 -q 0

AAC: uses Apple QuickTime libraries, invoked through the application from the command line, QAAC 2.72, 64-bit build, Intel 19 Compiler (does not require installation of the whole Apple package). Launch options: qaac64.exe -V 100 -s -q 2

Opus: reference encoder 1.3.1, Launch options: opusenc.exe –comp 10 –quiet –vbr –bitrate 192

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Broadcasting

Test environment: Applications OBS Studio and Xsplit. We’re using the built-in benchmark (scene Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle) in F1 2020, in a resolution of 2560 × 1440 px and the same graphics settings, as with standard game performance tests. Thanks to this, we can measure the performance decrease if you record your gameplay with the x264 software encoder while playing. The output is 2560 × 1440 px at 60 fps.

---

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Adobe Photoshop (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe Photoshop is 22.4.2.

---

---

---

Adobe Lightroom Classic

Test environment: With the settings above, we export 42 uncompressed .CR2 (RAW Canon) photos with a size of 20 Mpx. Then we create 1:1 previews from them, which also represent one of the most processor intensive tasks in Lightroom. The version of Adobe Lightroom Classic is 10.3.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Affinity Photo (benchmark)

Test environment: built-in benchmark.

---

Topaz Labs AI apps

Topaz DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI. These single-purpose applications are used for restoration of low-quality photos. Whether it is high noise (caused by higher ISO), raster level (typically after cropping) or when something needs extra focus. The AI performance is always used.

Test environment: As part of batch editing, 42 photos with a lower resolution of 1920 × 1280 px are processed, with the settings from the images above. DeNoise AI is in version 3.1.2, Gigapixel in 5.5.2 and Sharpen AI in 3.1.2.

XnViewMP

Test environment: XnViewMP is finally a photo-editor for which you don’t have to pay. At the same time, it uses hardware very efficiently. In order to achieve more reasonable comparison times, we had to create an archive of up to 1024 photos, where we we reduce the original resolution of 5472 × 3648 px to 1980 × 1280 px and filters with automatic contrast enhancement and noise reduction are also being applied during this process. We use 64-bit portable version 0.98.4.

Zoner Photo Studio X

Test environment: In Zoner Photo Studio X, we convert 42 .CR2 (RAW Canon) photos to JPEG while keeping the original resolution (5472 × 3648 px) at the lowest possible compression, with the ZPS X profile ”high quality for archival”.

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

WinRAR 6.01

7-Zip 19.00

---

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

TrueCrypt 7.1a

Aida64 (AES, SHA3)

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Y-cruncher

---

Stockfish 13

Test environment: Host for the Stockfish 13 engine is a chess app Arena 2.0.1, build 2399.

Aida64, FPU tests

---

FSI (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Kirchhoff migration (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Python36 (SPECworkstation 3.1)

SRMP (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Octave (SPECworkstation 3.1)

FFTW (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Convolution (SPECworkstation 3.1)

CalculiX (SPECworkstation 3.1)

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

RodiniaLifeSci (SPECworkstation 3.1)

WPCcfd (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Poisson (SPECworkstation 3.1)

LAMMPS (SPECworkstation 3.1)

NAMD (SPECworkstation 3.1)

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Memory tests…

…and cache (L1, L2, L3)

---

---

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Processor power draw trend

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Average processor power draw

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Performance per watt

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Achieved CPU clock speed

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

CPU temperature

The Ryzen 9 5950X is the highest performance processor designed for the “small” AMD AM4 socket. At the same time, it is a rarity that has essentially no competition (Intel has nothing against it) and is roughly halfway to high-end Threadrippers. Compared to those, however, it has a higher gaming performance and a cheap motherboard will also suffice. This processor is even sometimes more power-efficient than the slower 5900X.

Conclusion

It would be quite boring to analyze in detail and evaluate the gaming performance of the R9 5950X after the R9 5900X. Although there are games and settings where this processor performs slightly better compared to the Ryzen 9 5900X (biggest difference from the tested games is in F1 2020), but also vice versa, where it loses negligibly. On average, however, both Vermeer Ryzen 9 processors are exceptionally balanced, in QHD resolution they even have exactly the same point gain (2100.5 points). Compared to the Core i9-11900K, the R9 5950X is faster at lower resolutions (1080p) and with very low settings, such as 720p@low, which doesn’t speak much for real use and is rather about “synthetics”.

In more practical resolutions for high-priced setups, the Ryzen 5950X negligibly loses to the most powerful Rocket Lake. However, the fight is extremely balanced, so that at the level of average performance of all games, the analysis loses its meaning, because the difference is less than 1%.

Due to its high price, the Ryzen 9 5950X is a relatively disadvantageous processor for a primarily gaming PC. Even if you want to capture image with the x264 encoder while playing. In OBS, the performance drop with the 5950X is a bit lower, but in the alternative application Xsplit, it is ironically the opposite way. So, these processors are balanced even in this respect. If the primary focus is gaming, then the price-performance ratio is clearly on the side of the 12-core 5900X model. The high surcharge for the higher performance Ryzen 9 5950X is only justified if most of the time the processor is used for business purposes, and where particular applications benefit from four extra cores. That is typically 3D rendering and video encoding. These tasks usually scale well with multi-core processors, such as the Ryzen 9 5950X.

The R9 5950X is also interesting for Adobe Premiere Pro users who work with ProRes or RED formats, where the performance gain is at the level of the average increase in application performance compared to the 5900X, which is 20%. Such a performance increase also corresponds to multithreaded tasks in Affinity Photo or in modern AI Topaz Labs applications for photo enhancing. The most significant performance increase is in encryption and decryption. However, when inspecting the graphs, you will also come across results where the Ryzen 9 5950X is weaker than the 5900X. This is due to the inefficient management of so many cores. In practice, however, it is a relatively rare phenomenon to see the R9 5950X slower.

An attractive finding in this non-competitive environment (comparing the R9 5950X to the R9 5900X) is that the 16-core Ryzen 9 typically consumes less energy than its four-core leaner sibling in a proper multithreaded load. And this is despite the higher performance of the R9 5950X. The slower Ryzen 9 5900X in this comparison achieves lower efficiency (performance per watt) because it pushes the clock speed more aggressively. The Ryzen 5950X achieves about 300 MHz less in all-core boost, but it does not weigh as much as the smaller core (and thread) count of the 5900X. In games, however, the power consumption of the R9 5950X is already higher. This is because multiple cores are active under a relatively low load. For this reason, the 5950X has higher power consumption even when idle. But it’s never dramatic, and the difference is always a few watts (5–10 W), give or take.

It is noteworthy that despite the higher power consumption in games, the temperatures are lower. Of course, different per piece quality of the TIM (solder) may also be responsible for the small distortion, but this is also because the active cores operate over a larger area and there is a greater distance between them.

TL;DR: The Ryzen 5950X can hardly be criticized, although it is designed for specific users. You can also have very high multithreaded performance on a cheap motherboard (literally, a simple VRM is enough for those 140 W), which is also seconded by top gaming performance. Therefore, we haven’t hesitated for long to give it our “Top-notch” award.

We’ve got the games for our tests from Jama levova

Special thanks to Blackmagic Design (for a license to DaVinci Resolve Studio), Topaz Labs (for licenses to DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI) and Zoner (for a license to Photo Studio X)

• Contents
• AMD Ryzen 9 5950X in detail
• Methodology: performance tests
• Methodology: how we measure power draw
• Methodology: temperature and clock speed tests
• Test setup
• 3DMark
• Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla
• Borderlands 3
• Counter-Strike: GO
• Cyberpunk 2077
• DOOM Eternal
• F1 2020
• Metro Exodus
• Microsoft Flight Simulator
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Total War Saga: Troy
• Overall gaming performance
• Gaming performance per euro
• PCMark and Geekbench
• Web performance
• 3D rendering: Cinebench, Blender, …
• Video 1/2: Adobe Premiere Pro
• Video 2/2: DaVinci Resolve Studio
• Grafické efekty: Adobe After Effects
• Video encoding
• Audio encoding
• Broadcasting (OBS and Xsplit)
• Photos 2/2: Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom
• Photos 2/2: Affinity Photo, Topaz Labs AI apps, ZPS X, …
• (De)compression
• (De)cryption
• Numerical computing
• Simulations
• Memory and cache tests
• Processor power draw trend
• Average processor power draw
• Performance per watt
• Achieved CPU clock speed
• CPU temperature
• Conclusion