AMD Ryzen 9 9950X and 9900X: A New Era of Desktop Computing

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X review: not for gamers | Digital Trends

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X MSRP $649.00 Score Details "Despite some performance gains, the Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X are tough to justify at launch." Pros Compatible with existing AM5 motherboards Steals Intel's performance crown in productivity apps More efficient than Zen 4 Dedicated 512-bit data path for AVX-512 Cons Little to no performance gains Last-gen Zen 4 options are much cheaper AMD claims its new Ryzen 9 9950X is the best processor the world has ever seen, and by some metrics, that's accurate. It's the flagship of AMD's new Zen 5 range, promising performance on a level we've never seen before. Unfortunately, a lot of AMD's promises don't hold up in practice. Contents AMD Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X specsTest setupProductivity performanceGaming performanceNot built for gaming The gen-on-gen improvements are here, and AMD claimed some victories it lost to Intel last year. But between lower pricing on last-gen Zen 4 CPUs and AMD's 3D V-Cache tech running away with gaming performance, the Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X are caught in an awkward spot. It's hard to recommend them right now. Get your weekly teardown of the tech behind PC gaming ReSpec Subscribe Check your inbox! Privacy Policy That will change. These new CPUs will drop in price as Zen 4 models disappear from shelves, and they'll become the default AMD options. Unlike the previous generation where you felt the generational jump in every application, Zen 5 feels more tame. They'll eventually be the de facto options for AMD, but we're not there today. AMD Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X specs Not much has changed with the Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X compared to their last-gen counterparts. AMD stuck with the same core configuration, cache amount, and even maximum boost clock speed. The only major difference in the specs is power, and that's just for the Ryzen 9 9900X. It comes with a TDP of 120 watts, while the Ryzen 9 7900X went up to 170W. Pricing is what stands out most, however. For both Ryzen 9 models, AMD shaved $50 off the recommended price. That sounds a lot more impressive than it actually is, however. As we saw with Zen 4, AMD will quickly slash the price on new CPUs just weeks after they launch. These new recommended prices set better expectations for what you'll actually spend on a CPU. Ryzen 9 9950X Ryzen 9 7950X Ryzen 9 9900X Ryzen 9 7900X Cores/Threads 16/32 16/32 12/24 12/24 L3/L2 Cache 64MB / 16MB 64MB / 16MB 64MB / 12MB 64MB / 12MB Max turbo frequency 5.7GHz 5.7GHz 5.6GHz 5.6GHz TDP 170W 170W 120W 170W Recommended price (at launch) $649 $699 $499 $549 Even more important, AMD's Ryzen 7000 CPUs are dirt cheap right now. At the time of writing, the Ryzen 9 7950X is around $520 and the Ryzen 9 7900X is around $360. Prices on last-gen products always drop when there's a new generation hitting the store shelves, but I'd keep those prices in mind during the course of this review. The margins for Zen 5 aren't always that big, despite the fact that the CPUs will be much more expensive at retailers. The specs are mostly the same, but AMD made changes in the architecture. Zen 5 brings a dedicated 512-bit data path for AVX-512 instructions, as well as a clear focus on single-core performance. In the areas where those performance details matter, Zen 5 runs away. Everywhere else, the gains aren't as significant. Test setup As usual, I put together two nearly identical test benches for my results you'll see below. The vast majority of the data below is fresh, which I collected within the last week. There are some older models I brought in for a few benchmarks, such as the Core i9-12900K in Cinebench and Ryzen 9 5950X in Handbrake that I didn't retest, though those results still followed the same process that I applied to all of the CPUs I retested here. Tech media as a whole is still working out the Zen 5 architecture, and there's been plenty of debate just within the past week about how to get the best performance out of the chips. There's some testing that suggests turning off simultaneous multi-threading can give a big gaming boost, for example. For the purposes of this review, I didn't mess around in the BIOS to squeeze out extra performance. Short of turning on Resizable BAR and enabling the memory overclocking profile, I left everything at its default setting and kept AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive set to Auto. AMD Intel GPU Nvidia RTX 4080 Founders Edition Nvidia RTX 4080 Founders Edition RAM 32GB Gigabyte Aorus DDR5-6000 32GB Gigabyte Aorus DDR5-6000 Motherboard Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master MSI Z690 Carbon Wi-Fi CPU cooler NZXT Kraken 360 NZXT Kraken 360 Power supply Gigabyte Aorus P1200W Gigabyte Aorus P1200W Storage Boot: Corsair MP400 1TB / Tests: MSI M450 1TB Boot: Corsair MP400 1TB / Tests: MSI M450 1TB On the point of the BIOS, I didn't test Intel's new microcode update that's supposed to fix a wave of instability on 13th-gen and 14th-gen CPUs. I only had the Z690 motherboard listed above to test with, and the microcode update isn't available for that board yet. Thankfully, that shouldn't affect performance much. Some early impressions suggest the performance loss is 2% at most. Productivity performance AMD is back on top with these new Zen 5 CPUs, and sometimes in a big way. Setting the stage is Cinebench R23 and its multi-core test. Given that AMD kept the core counts the same, I didn't expect much movement in Cinebench, but I was wrong. The Ryzen 9 9950X is 12% faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X and 10% faster than the Core i9-14900K, while the Ryzen 9 9900X outpaces its last-gen counterpart by a massive 16%. That's a critical number to keep in mind. AMD claims Zen 5 brings a 16% increase in Instructions Per Clock (IPC) compared to Zen 4, which should show up in single-core performance. The chips fall a little short of expectations in Cinebench's single-core test. Both CPUs were 12% faster than their last-gen counterparts. That's nothing to sneeze at, but it's still not quite the 16% AMD suggested. AMD definitely gets closer in real applications. In Blender, the Ryzen 9 9950X was 11% faster than its last-gen version, but the Ryzen 9 9900X was close to 15% faster. Similarly, in Handbrake, the Ryzen 9 9950X completed the transcode 14% faster than its last-gen counterpart, while the Ryzen 9 9900X matched the Ryzen 9 7950X and outclassed its last-gen version by 10%. The Ryzen 9 5950X provides some important context here, though. The jump between Zen 3 and Zen 4 was significantly bigger than the jump from Zen 4 to Zen 5. AMD leads in other benchmarks, too, but the margins aren't much to take note of. As you can see in both Photoshop and 7-Zip, the new Zen 5 CPUs were just a hair faster than their Zen 4 versions. Faster is faster, sure, but it's important to keep in mind that the Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 9 7900X are significantly cheaper now. One test where there was a massive difference was Y-Cruncher. This app calculates 500 million digits of Pi, and the Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X are in a completely different league when it comes to single-core performance. There isn't much to talk about with multi-core performance, however. Finally, there's Jetstream 2, which is a browser-based benchmark that tests a load of browser applications. We're dealing with flagships here, so browser performance isn't a top concern. Still, AMD is back on top after losing some ground to the Core i9-14900K last year. Overall, we're dealing with an uplift of around 10% to 15%. That's not bad, but it's important to keep AMD's performance claims in mind. The company originally said the Ryzen 9 9950X would lead the Core i9-14900K by up to 56% in Blender and 55% in Handbrake, and that's not even close to the results I saw. These two CPUs aren't bad, but AMD really didn't set the right expectations for Zen 5. What was billed as a new foundation for AMD moving forward feels more like a minor refresh of the Zen 4 models we had before. Gaming performance On average, the Ryzen 9 9950X is 5% faster than its last-gen counterpart and 2% faster than the Core i9-14900K. If you take a quick look at my average above, you'll realize that's not my claim. That's AMD's claim. Even according to AMD's own internal benchmarks, which it shared with reviewers for validation purposes, these new Zen 5 CPUs provide a performance uplift in the low single digits compared to the competition from Intel and AMD's own (much cheaper) last-gen options. My average is a bit different -- AMD is around 5% faster than its last-gen options and 3% slower than Intel's Core i9 options. It's important to set the stage here with both averages because swapping out a couple of games could completely change the standings when you're dealing with low single-digit performance differences. Adding Starfield would make the margin more narrow, while adding League of Legends would widen the gap. Even between different CPUs of the same model, you can see about a 1% to 2% difference in performance. Those narrow margins become less important when you're dealing with big jumps in performance like we saw with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. If the CPU is 15% faster than some competitors on average, that could show up as 13% or 17% -- either way, you're arriving at a similar conclusion. The CPU isn't as sensitive to the suite of games tested because it has such a large performance uplift. That's not the case with Zen 5. Starting with the most clear win is Ashes of the Singularity. Both the Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X provided an identical result, bypassing every other CPU I tested. This is more of a glorified CPU benchmark than a game that's widely played, but it's a good gut check to make sure that something isn't wildly off with the test bench. My results aren't all that simple, though. If you look at Final Fantasy 14: Dawntrail, there's technically a generational improvement, but it's so minor that it might as well not even exist. Meanwhile AMD's own Ryzen 7 7800X3D and Intel's latest Core i9 CPUs break through the barrier that AMD's Ryzen 9 models ran up against. The Ryzen 7 7800X3D is really the elephant in the room when it comes to gaming. Why in the world would you buy a $650 CPU when a last-gen chip that's $350 is often faster in games? Hitman 3 and Far Cry 6 put that on full display. Sure, there's a good uplift with the new Ryzen 9 parts compared to their last-gen counterparts, but it really doesn't matter. In both cases, you'd go with the Ryzen 7 7800X3D every time if your concern is gaming. I also tested Red Dead Redemption 2 and Tiny Tina's Wonderlands, which are included in the average at the top of this section. I won't belabor the point, though. In both games, I saw a minor -- almost negligible -- uplift gen-on-gen, but the Ryzen 7 7800X3D still wins every time. The other game I tested, which wasn't included in the average, was F1 2022. You can see the chart above, but I wouldn't take it at face value. AMD suggests the data is wrong, but I still haven't gotten an explanation why. What's strange is that I saw the same regression with the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X, suggesting this is a larger Zen 5 issue. And even after doing a clean install of Windows between CPUs, keeping everything consistent from the memory to the motherboard, and averaging out multiple runs into a single number, the performance decrease remained. For every game I benchmarked, I ran three passes and averaged the result you see in the charts above. That's an attempt to get as close as possible to some objective truth about how these CPUs perform, but it really doesn't help in this case. The margins are so narrow gen-on-gen that cherry-picking one high result for a Zen 5 CPU and one low result for a Zen 4 CPU would suggest a wider gap than there actually is. It's clear now after testing the Ryzen 9 parts that Zen 5 isn't built for gamers. That's actually not a terrible thing, though. Prices on Zen 4 CPUs are extremely low right now, and if your primary focus is gaming, you can get a bargain since you don't have to shell out for the latest and greatest. Even the Ryzen 9 7950X3D, AMD's previous crown jewel of both gaming and productivity, is $125 cheaper than the Ryzen 9 9950X is launching at. I need to show one final chart before moving onto some conclusions, and that's LeelaChessZero. This is an AI chess engine that uses AVX-512 instructions, and unsurprisingly, the Zen 5 parts are way faster than everything else. That doesn't really change the conclusion on gaming performance, but it's good to know the 512-bit data path is working well if you really want to emulate PlayStation 3 games or something. Not built for gaming AMD is in a tough spot. The Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X provide decent gen-on-gen gains, and they throw the ball back in Intel's court in productivity, but they fall completely flat when it comes to gaming. AMD's 3D V-Cache tech is fantastic, but it's led to a level of segmentation within AMD's CPU lineup that's tough to navigate. Maybe that explains why we saw such poor Zen 4 sales out of the gate in the previously generation. Even without the X3D factor, AMD is really its own worst enemy with Ryzen 9000. I only saw big performance leaps in a few applications, and considering how cheap Ryzen 7000 CPUs are, giving up a bit of performance to save a lot of money is the way to go for most buyers. The Intel comparison is even more concerning. AMD is picking up victories with its new CPUs, and some of them are quite large. However, Intel's Arrow Lake chips are expected to arrive before the end of the year. Considering the narrow margins between the Ryzen 9 9950X and Core i9-14900K in many applications, AMD might not hold onto the performance crown for long.

The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X Review: Flagship Zen 5 Soars - and Stalls

Earlier this month, AMD launched the first two desktop CPUs using their latest Zen 5 microarchitecture: the Ryzen 7 9700X and the Ryzen 5 9600X. As part of the new Ryzen 9000 family, it gave us their latest Zen 5 cores to the desktop market, as AMD actually launched Zen 5 through their mobile platform last month, the Ryzen AI 300 series (which we reviewed). Today, AMD is launching the remaining two Ryzen 9000 SKUs first announced at Computex 2024, completing the current Ryzen 9000 product stack. Both chips hail from the premium Ryzen 9 series, which includes the flagship Ryzen 9 9950X, which has 16 Zen 5 cores and can boost as high as 5.7 GHz, while the Ryzen 9 9900X has 12 Zen 5 cores and offers boost clock speeds of up to 5.6 GHz. Although they took slightly longer than expected to launch, as there was a delay from the initial launch date of July 31st, the full quartet of Ryzen 9000 X series processors armed with the latest Zen 5 cores are available. All of the Ryzen 9000 series processors use the same AM5 socket as the previous Ryzen 7000 (Zen 4) series, which means users can use current X670E and X670 motherboards with the new chips. Unfortunately, as we highlighted in our Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X review, the X870E/X870 motherboards, which were meant to launch alongside the Ryzen 9000 series, won't be available until sometime in September. We've seen how the entry-level Ryzen 5 9600X and the mid-range Ryzen 7 9700X perform against the competition, but it's time to see how far and fast the flagship Ryzen 9 pairing competes. The Ryzen 9 9950X (16C/32T) and the Ryzen 9 9900X (12C/24T) both have a higher TDP (170 W/120 W respectively) than the Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 (65 W), but there are more cores, and Ryzen 9 is clocked faster at both base and turbo frequencies. With this in mind, it's time to see how AMD's Zen 5 flagship Ryzen 9 series for desktops performs with more firepower, with our review of the Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900 processors. From a product launch perspective, AMD typically launches its Ryzen portfolio as follows: we get the desktop processors first, then the mobile chips, and usually, the workstation and server parts come a bit later. For the launch of its latest Zen 5 microarchitecture, AMD threw a curveball instead. Last month, AMD opted to first bring their mobile Ryzen AI 300 series to market, combining the full Zen 5 cores and compact Zen 5c cores. We did review the Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 mobile SoC, which gave us our first glimpse of how Zen 5 performs. Fast-forward just over a week, and AMD dropped two of the four Zen 5-based desktop chips they announced at Computex 2024. AMD launched the Ryzen 7 9700X, an 8C/16T chip targeting the mid-range, and the Ryzen 5 9600X, a 6C/12T variant representing the entry-level; we also reviewed both of these. It also gave us our first look at how Zen 5 compares with the previous Zen 4 architecture and Intel's current 14th Gen Core series family. Die shot of a Ryzen 9 (Zen 5) processor with 2 x CCDs We have published a number of reviews and articles prior to today, including an in-depth look at the Zen 5 microarchitecture itself: Focusing on the Ryzen 9 9950X and the Ryzen 9 9900X, aside from core count, core clock speeds, and price, the main difference between the Ryzen 9 pairing and the Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X is the number of active Core Complex Dies (CCDs) on each chip, which AMD has codenamed Eldora. For the Ryzen 9000 series, each CCD can support up to eight Zen 5 cores, with each CCD as standard (not X3D) coming with a 32 MB pool of L3 cache. Touching briefly on cache with Zen 5, AMD has doubled the amount of L2 cache per core on Zen 5 to 1 MB, which is up from 512KB per Zen 4 core. AMD's latest Zen 5 core is built on TSMC's 4nm N4P node, which is a modest step up from Zen 4. Though outside of CPU cores/CCDs, AMD has opted to use the same I/O Die (IOD) as Ryzen 7000, which is manufactured on TSMC's 6 nm node. The Ryzen 9 9950X uses two CCDs for a total of 16 cores (32 threads), with a base frequency of 4.3 GHz and a turbo frequency of up to 5.7 GHz; this is similar to the previous Zen 4 based Ryzen 9 7950X, which also has a max boost clock of up to 5.7 GHz. The Ryzen 9 9950X also has 64 MB of L3 cache (32 MB per CCD), with a 170 Watt TDP. AMD Ryzen 9 9950X in CPU-Z For the Ryzen 9 9900X, AMD has actually lowered the TDP down to 120 W for their 12C/24T SKU compared to the previous generations' Ryzen 9 7900X, which has a 170 W TDP. Benefiting from Zen 5 cores, the Ryzen 9 9900X has a base frequency of 4.4 GHz and a turbo frequency of up to 5.6 GHz. The Ryzen 9 9900X also uses two CCDs on the die, which gives it 64 MB (2 x 32 MB) of L3 cache. Specifically relating to the Ryzen 9 9950X and the Ryzen 9 9900X, AMD has brought back their PPM Provisioning driver. The last time we saw the PPM driver was back in our Ryzen 9 7950X3D review, when AMD first introduced it alongside their first multi-CCD X3D processor. This chip was special because one (and just one) CCD came packaged with AMD's 3D V-Cache, which essentially adds a large slice of L3 cache (64 MB) on top of the existing 32 MB of L3 cache on that CCD. The PPM driver is a fundamental element that works to ensure that the 3D V-Cache is fully utilized within games, which otherwise may inadvertently bypass the CCD with the extra cache. It works by parking the 'vanilla' CCD, so that the game is running solely on the cores from the CCD with the 3D V-Cache. For the Ryzen 7000 generation, the PPM driver was only required on the X3D chips with multiple CCDs, such as the Ryzen 9 7950X3D. But that's not the case anymore, it seems, as AMD is deploying it for all multi-CCD Ryzen 9000 processors. The AMD 3D V-Cache Performance Optimizer process running in the background (PPM provisioning) The PPM Provisioning driver is bundled within the AMD chipset drivers (ver 6.0.6.28.910), along with the typical Promontory motherboard chipset drivers for AM5 motherboards. In tandem with Microsoft's Game Bar and Game Mode, the PPM driver operates when Game Mode is enabled. Once a game is detected to be running, the PPM driver parks up one of the CCDs, so this essentially means when gaming, the chip is running at half capacity unless a game intentionally spins up enough threads to require the second CCD. Microsoft has a comprehensive guide to its Provisioning packages, which details many of the benefits and scenarios where it can benefit performance. AMD is leveraging this in cooperation with Game Mode, which is enabled with the Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X. AMD Ryzen 9 9950X in Task Manager with one CCD fired up while playing Company of Heroes 3 AMD has yet to firmly document why it is using the PPM Provisioning/3D V-Cache Optimizer with non-X3D chips from the Ryzen 9000 series. We have reached out to AMD for an answer, and they responded by stating that the core parking feature contains critical game processes in a single cache domain for the best gaming performance. While this is a technically accurate description of what the PPM driver is doing, it doesn't really answer the question of why multi-CCD Ryzen 9000 chips have been deemed to need this kind of help when the 7950X/7900X did not. Our interpretation is that AMD has run into enough issues on the Ryzen 7000 series with games inadvertently straddling multiple CCDs, that they have decided it's better to bite the bullet and use the PPM driver here as well, even with the extra complexity it entails. PPM core parking on the Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X CPUs enables AMD to more forcefully consolidate all gaming demands within a single cache domain (single CCD), which would avoid the latency-induced performance penalty of threads messaging each other from opposing CCDs or trying to access the L3 cache from outside their own local CCD. In essence, it would be all the same rationale for why AMD implemented the PPM driver for the Ryzen 7000X3D chips in the first place: due to the poor die-to-die latency, having game threads spread out over multiple CCDs is bad for performance. Though it does awkwardly suggest that the existing Ryzen 9 7900X/7950X processors are under-performing due to their loosely managed thread allocations, which in turn may be why AMD doesn't want to talk about the issue in any detail. The other idea in flight is that because AMD is reusing their IOD and Infinity Fabric from the Ryzen 7000 series (just the CCDs are new), increased resource contention has forced AMDs hand. In other words, that Ryzen 7000 was fine, but the faster CPU cores on Ryzen 9000 are just fast enough to make for a significant problem that needs addressed. Either way the outcome for the Ryzen 9000 series is the same, but it paints Ryzen 7000 in a better light. Game performance aside, the core parking feature also lowers the power draw and helps with thermal dissipation. So AMD will be seeing some fringe benefits besides just keeping games from accidentally strangling themselves by working across the CCDs. As we highlighted in our Ryzen 7 9700X and Ryzen 5 9600X review, the Ryzen 9000 series uses the AM5 socket, much like the Ryzen 7000 series does. While there's a wave of new motherboards based on the X870E and X870 chipsets coming to market, these aren't expected until September. All the current AM5 socket motherboards on the market, such as X670E and X670 models, are compatible with Ryzen 9000, so users don't need to wait. The incoming X870E/X870 motherboards and the current X670E/X670 use the same ASMedia Promontory 21 chipset, so the only difference is in the feature set. The newer boards utilize new controllers such as Wi-Fi 7, not to mention that X870E/X870 also includes USB 4.0 support, which will be ubiquitous on all X870(E) boards, where it was previously only optional for X670(E) series boards. There will also be a requirement to feature at least one PCIe 5.0 NVMe slot, which will continue to be a mandatory inclusion. AMD also notes that motherboards based on both platforms "feature 44 total PCIe lanes," which would break down to 24 lanes from the CPU and another 20 lanes from the chipset. Regarding pricing, the entire Ryzen 9000 series line-up is launching at a cheaper price than the counterpart from the Ryzen 7000 series it is replacing. The flagship Ryzen 9 9950X has an MSRP of $649, which is $50 cheaper than the Ryzen 9 7950X when launched back in 2022. The Ryzen 9 9900X is also $50 cheaper at launch than the Ryzen 9 7900X came at, with the 9900X having an MSRP of $499. Even going back to when AMD launched Zen 3 with the Ryzen 5000 series in 2020, AMD is consistently bringing prices down on each subsequent SKU, which shows AMD is even more competitive in pricing with each generation we've seen. Now that AMD has launched the flagship Ryzen 9 chips, we can finally see how AMD's best Zen 5 desktop chips stack up against the competition.

AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and 9950X review: Cool, fast, and powerful

As part of AMD's Ryzen 9000 launch, the new AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and Ryzen 9 9950X are the two top-performing processors. Joining the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X, there are four Zen 5 processors available for existing AM5 motherboards, offering a wide range of SKUs at various price points. The Ryzen 9 7900X has a 120W TDP and the Ryzen 9 9950X is the highest of all 9000 chips at 170W. Like the two other processors, these chips have an identical number of cores and threads as previous generation CPUs. Performance and efficiency are key with this generation of chips and after some extensive testing with 9900X and 9950X, I'm pleased to report that AMD has accomplished what it set out to do. These processors are cheaper, more powerful, suck less power, and don't pump out as much heat. They may not be the massive upgrade many were hopeful from earlier leaks and being a new architecture but I would argue modern processors are good enough for what they will be used for inside desktop PCs. About this review: AMD provided samples to XDA for this review but had no input to its contents. AMD Ryzen 9 9900X 9/ 10 The AMD Ryzen 9 9900X is positioned as an entry-point into the most powerful AM5 processors. 12 cores make it a solid choice for gaming, content creation, and working with big data. ProsExcellent efficiency with a 120W TDPImpressive single and multi-core performanceCheaper than AMD Ryzen 9 7900X ConsStill beaten by Intel Core i9 processors AMD Ryzen 9 9950X 8/ 10 AMD's Ryzen 9 9950X is the all-new flagship from Team Red. Offering 16 cores and 32 threads of performance, this efficient 170W TDP CPU is great for creators. ProsLower power draw with 170W TDPExcellent single and multi-core performanceCheaper MSRP than AMD Ryzen 9 7950X ConsStill beaten by Intel Core i9 processorsNeeds an AIO to keep temperatures downGaming performance isn't breathtaking Price, specs, and availability Compared to previous-gen processors, the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and Ryzen 9 9950X are available at a discount, costing $499 and $649, respectively. Cores and threads are identical and clock speeds have been altered slightly. PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 RAM make a return with full support for all features on AM5 motherboards. New 800 series motherboards will be coming out with better RAM overclocking and connectivity, but any existing AM5 motherboard will do just fine. 77 MB of cache is present on the 9900X for storing everything locally and the 9950X bumps this up to 81 MB. AMD uses TSMC's 4nm and 5nm manufacturing process for AMD Ryzen 9000 Zen 5 CPUs and two Radeon cores are available for providing video output. It could be difficult for the average Joe to notice a difference comparing these chips against older Ryzen processors. AMD Ryzen 9 9900XAMD Ryzen 9 9950XCores1216Threads2432Base Clock Speed4.4 GHz4.3 GHzBoost Clock Speed5.6 GHz5.7 GHzPCIe5.05.0Cache77 MB81 MBRAM supportDDR5-5600DDR5-5600GraphicsAMD Radeon Graphics (2 cores)AMD Radeon Graphics (2 cores)ArchitectureZen 5Zen 5ProcessTSMC 4nm, 6nmTSMC 4nm, 6nmTDP120 W170 WPower Draw~162 W~200 W Latest Zen 5 CPUs If you're unfamiliar with Zen 5, AMD is promoting more efficient processors with the latest TSMC manufacturing processes. Coupled with some notable architectural improvements, AMD has been able to produce new processors that draw less power and produce less heat, all without sacrificing performance. Although AMD didn't push these chips harder and faster like previous-gen CPUs to get as much out of them as possible, they're the better choice for anyone not wanting a CPU that regularly hits TJ Max (95 Celcius). Intel's current line-up of 14th-gen processors is seriously power-hungry with the 14900K (as impressive as its performance is) capable of drawing more than 300W alone. Zen 5 is a massive undertaking by AMD with AVX-512 and VNNI computational capabilities implemented for machine learning and artificial intelligence. With everything factored in, AMD promises an instruction-per-clock (IPC) gain of 16% over previous-generation processors, which is excellent. Incredibly, AMD has measured an average of 22% performance-per-watt improvement across its 9000 series of chips. From our in-depth 9600X, 9700X, 9900X, and 9950X testing, I can confirm such claims. As part of the Ryzen 9000 launch, AMD is pushing older motherboards to showcase lasting socket and platform support. Original AM5 motherboards launching with 7000 series chips will work with the new 9000 series without a BIOS flash. However, to get the most out of the new platform, new BIOS updates will be available with AGESA 1.2.0.0a, which includes tweaks and optimizations for newer CPUs. Support for faster memory will be available on 870-series motherboards, allowing the new 9000 CPUs to go to DDR5-8000 and beyond. Related Best CPUs in 2024 Trying to build your next PC for gaming or work? Here are the best CPUs you can buy for a new machine or if you're looking for an upgrade. Performance and thermals Close We'll be using the same test benches as our 9600X and 9700X reviews for putting both processors to the test. The first round of tests used a NZXT N7 B650E motherboard, running the latest BIOS (AGESA 1.2.0.0) available. 64GB of G.Skill's DDR5-7200 Trident Z5 Royal was installed with an Asus GeForce RTX 4060 Ti ProArt graphics card. This allowed us to collect data on a sub-optimal BIOS which put both chips just barely above their predecessors in the synthetic benchmark rankings. Our second text bench with the Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master has AGESA 1.2.0.0a, which is optimized for the new 9000 series. Test bench 1 Test bench 2 Motherboard NZXT N7 B650E Gigabyte X670E Aorus Master RAM G.Skill Trident Z5 Royal 48GB DDR5-7200 XPG Caster RGB 32GB DDR5-6400 (set to 6000MT/s) SSD Crucial MX200 SATA 250GB Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus NVMe 1TB GPU Asus GeForce RTX 4060 Ti ProArt Asus GeForce RTX 4060 Ti ProArt Following on from the AMD Ryzen 9 7900X and Ryzne 9 7950X, it shouldn't be surprising to learn that the AMD Ryzen 9 9900X and Ryzen 9 9950X are two powerful processors. Running the two processors through our benchmark suite, we saw impressive numbers against AMD's own chips, as well as competitor SKUs from Intel. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X trades blows with the Intel Core i9-13900K, 14900K, and 14900KS in scores across the board. AMD does trail behind Intel with direct comparisons and the same was the case with the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X. Close This is by design. AMD's processors have fewer cores and threads. They also don't clock as high as Intel processors with default settings. That said, AMD's Ryzen 9000 is seriously capable and comes up close to the established Intel processors. Efficiency is particularly noteworthy because who wants to rave about slower components? The Ryzen 9 990X is a 120W TDP processor and the Ryzen 9 9950X is just 170W. The two processors will draw up to around 160W and 200W, respectively. factor this in with the recorded results and you have two processors with higher performance per watt. AMD's processors have fewer cores and threads. They also don't clock as high as Intel processors with default settings. That said, AMD's Ryzen 9000 is seriously capable and comes up close to the established Intel processors. Looking at the obtained results, the 9950X has slightly more performance than the 7950X by between 5% and 10% but draws 50W less power. Because the 7000 and 9000 series share the same platform, the newer chips are the better choice, but those with older AM5 processors may not feel the immediate need to upgrade unless migrating between families. For gaming, even with the best graphics cards, I didn't find a notable improvement over the 7000 series. I recommend the Ryzen 5 9600X, Ryzen 7 9700X, or any AMD X3D processor for playing PC games unless you make use of the additional headroom. Close This also affects temperatures, recorded at 77 Celcius and 87 Celcius for the Ryzne 9 9900X and 9950X during a multi-core Cinebench 2024 run. These readings include a room ambient temperature of 21 Celcius and both chips were running with a be quiet! Dark Rock 5 cooler. This is outside of spec for what AMD recommends for both Ryzen 9 processors. Install an AIO and you can find a further reduction in temperatures with the 9950X matching the 77 Celcius average of the air-cooled Ryzen 9 9900X. That's impressive for a 200W processor running a heavier load than typical. Related Best AM5 motherboards in 2024 With cutting-edge PCIe 5.0 and DDR5 support, AM5 motherboards can power high-performance PCs. But with so many choices, which should you get? Should you buy the AMD Ryzen 9 9990X and Ryzen 9 9950X? You should buy the AMD Ryzen 9 9990X and Ryzen 9 9950X if: You have an AM5 motherboard and want a valid upgrade over 7000 series CPUs. You want some of the most efficient AMD processors available on the AM5 platform. You plan on upgrading from AM4 hardware and want to build a gaming PC. You shouldn't buy the AMD Ryzen 9 9990X and Ryzen 9 9950X if: You want the best gaming CPU. You don't care for lower temperatures and power draw. You don't need the most powerful AMD processors. You own a 14th-gen Intel chip and only care for performance. Whether you're into video editing, gaming, or simply browsing some websites, there's an AMD Ryzen 9000 series chip for you. I'm impressed by how efficient the 9000 series from AMD is shaping up to be and it's great to see a move to draw less power and produce less heat. Although it's the current flagship, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X doesn't draw anywhere near as much power as the Intel Core i914900KS, yet manages to trade blows with the processor in select tests. For real-world usage, it's not quite as positive with the 9900X being the better of the two. I'm impressed by how efficient the 9000 series from AMD is shaping up to be and it's great to see a move to draw less power and produce less heat. The 9900X is a great choice for anyone building a new AM5 system and requires one of the best AMD has to offer. Four fewer cores and a slightly lower max boost than the 9950X do mean you lose out when running heavier software, but for general computing, gaming, and other lighter tasks, it's a solid workhorse. For everyone else, the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X are two great value choices. These two chips won't please everyone, including those expecting higher improvements, but they're worth considering for your next build. We still have some time to pass before Intel showcases what the company has to answer AMD's new chips. But one thing's for sure, the 15th-gen series cannot get any hotter or draw more power. AMD Ryzen 9 9900X AMD's Ryzne 9 9900X is a strong contender for creator systems and gaming rigs. 12 physical cores make this a powerful processor and the low 120W TDP ensures you won't need the most expensive CPU coolers to keep it from melting. AMD Ryzen 9 9950X With the same cores and threads as its predecessor, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is a powerful processor built on the new Zen 5 architecture. It's cheaper, doesn't run as hot, and sucks less power from the motherboard, resulting in an efficient flagship CPU.

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X vs. Intel Core i9-14900K | Digital Trends

Digital Trends may earn a commission when you buy through links on our site. Why trust us? AMD said its new Ryzen 9 9950X would be the best processor the world has ever seen, but it's not off to a great start. As you can read in our Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 9900X review, AMD's latest flagship provides a few key advantages, but barely moves the needle in several other benchmarks. Intel's competing Core i9-14900K is proving itself surprisingly relevant in the face of new Zen 5 CPUs, especially considering its lower price. Both of these CPUs are monsters when it comes to gaming and productivity, there's no doubt about that. But contrary to the past few years of CPUs releases, Intel actually has the upper hand in this battle. Recommended Videos Specs Comparing the specs of an AMD and Intel CPU directly is a fool's errand. With entirely different architectures, aspects like clock speed and cache amount don't mean much when they're directly compared to one another. Still, there are a couple of important notes when looking at the specs of these two CPUs. Get your weekly teardown of the tech behind PC gaming ReSpec Subscribe Check your inbox! Privacy Policy First is packaging. Intel uses a hybrid architecture that combines performance (P) cores with efficient (E) cores. AMD, on the other hand, uses one core design across the entire CPU. The advantage for Intel is that it's able to offer a far greater number of threads to applications that can take advantage of all of the cores it offers. The Ryzen 9 9950X with its 16 cores and 32 threads still has plenty of multi-threaded grunt, but Intel offers more. Ryzen 9 9950X Core i9-14900K Cores/Threads 16/32 24 (8 P + 16 E)/32 L3/L2 Cache 64MB / 16MB 32MB / 32MB Max turbo frequency 5.7GHz 6GHz TDP 170W PL1: 125W / PL2: 253W The drawback of Intel's approach is that not all of those threads are created equally. They can step in to help in some applications, but it's really the eight P-cores that are pulling most of the weight. In addition, Intel doesn't support hyperthreading on its E-cores. Because of that setup, the Core i9-14900K has more cores than the Ryzen 9 9950X, but both CPUs offer the same number of threads. Which is better really depends on what you're doing, but AMD's more traditional approach is generally the better option for a desktop flagship. With the mix of cores Intel offers, it's very important that the operating system schedules tasks on threads appropriately. Intel has done a good job of that with Thread Director, but there are still applications -- like some games -- that don't schedule threads correctly, leading to a performance loss. Outside of packaging, the other important note is power. AMD and Intel use slightly different numbers for power, but the Core i9-14900K still sucks down more watts. The Ryzen 9 9950X tops out at 170 watts, while the Core i9-14900K can climb up to 253W. In the chart above, which shows how many frames I achieved per watt spent in the games I tested, you can see how much less efficient the Core i9-14900K is compared to the Ryzen 9 9950X. Pricing Both the Ryzen 9 9950X and Core i9-14900K have the same list price of $650, but the actual price at retailers is much different. At the time of writing, the Ryzen 9 9950X just released, so it's holding at its launch price of $650. Over time, it will drop, but that could take several months. Even the last-gen Ryzen 9 7950X is still selling for $520. The Core i9-14900K has been on the market for nearly a year, and it's much cheaper as a result. At the time of publishing, it's available for $546. In addition, the last-gen Core i9-13900K -- which offers very similar performance across the board -- is $458. You should expect the Core i9-14900K to be about $100 cheaper than the Ryzen 9 9950X, at least for several months following the release of AMD's latest CPU. In addition to a lower price, Intel also has more versions of the Core i9-14900K available, most of which are cheaper. For instance, the Core i9-14900KF shaves the integrated graphics, but offers identical performance, and it's available for $536. Similarly, the Core i9-14900F lacks integrated graphics and overclocking capabilities, but you can pick it up for $528. I recommend checking up on pricing before making a buying decision. Over time, the Ryzen 9 9950X will drop in price and AMD will release cheaper variants similar to what we've seen with the Core i9-14900K. For now, and at least for several months, the Core i9-14900K is clearly ahead when it comes to pricing. Productivity performance The Core i9-14900K is a monster CPU, make no mistake. But the Ryzen 9 9950X is more of a monster. Starting with Cinebench R23, you can see that the two chips are competitive when it comes to single-core performance, despite the Core i9-14900K's higher boost clock speed. In multi-core performance, however, the Ryzen 9 9950X dominates, despite the advantage Intel has with its hybrid approach to architecture and packaging. AMD leads by about 10% in multi-core performance in Cinebench, but in real applications, the gap is sometimes even larger. In 7-Zip, for example, the Ryzen 9 9950X is about 12% ahead of the Core i9-14900K overall. While 7-Zip is traditionally an application that favors AMD CPUs, the Core i9-14900K closed that gap when it released last year. Now, AMD is back on top. The most dominant showing for the Ryzen 9 9950X, however, was Blender. In this app, the Ryzen 9 9950X is over 20% ahead of the Core i9-14900K. Blender is an interesting workload to look at when it comes to CPUs, as it shows off the rendering capabilities of a chip. However, most modern rendering apps are GPU-accelerated, which offers exponentially higher performance than any CPU can currently muster. Without a doubt, the Ryzen 9 9950X is faster than the Core i9-14900K when it comes to productivity applications. The gains aren't always as stark, however. In Photoshop, for example, you can see above that the Ryzen 9 9950X was just 8% faster than the Core i9-14900K. Similarly, in Handbrake, the two CPUs are nearly identical. The Ryzen 9 9950X technically completed the transcode 3% faster, and if you stretch that out over a longer transcoding time, it could add up to a more meaningful difference. Still, both of these CPUs are very similar in Handbrake. Outside of raw performance, the Ryzen 9 9950X has the advantage of AVX-512 instruction support and a dedicated 512-bit data path. That is a huge boost for AI applications, in particular. Overall, the Ryzen 9 9950X is about 15% faster than the Core i9-14900K and 18% more expensive, which is a good balance. If productivity is your main concern, I recommend picking up the Ryzen 9 9950X now, and especially once it starts dropping in price. The Core i9-14900K is by no means a weak CPU, though. It still puts up a good fight, and depending on the applications you're using, it's awfully close to the Ryzen 9 9950X. Gaming performance There isn't much to talk about when it comes to gaming performance. The chart above tells the full story, with the Core i9-14900K consistently winning in tests. The only victory the Ryzen 9 9950X claimed was in Ashes of the Singularity, and even then, the lead is negligible at best. You don't buy a flagship CPU specifically for gaming, but the performance of the Ryzen 9 9950X is disappointing. The Core i9-14900K is nearly a year old, and it comfortably runs away with gaming performance. Given that Intel is already leading, it's hard to imagine AMD will be able to fight back once Arrow Lake CPUs are here. If gaming performance is your primary concern, however, neither of these CPUs are the best option. I still recommend gamers pick up the Ryzen 7 7800X3D. It's the best processor for gaming, full stop, and it's cheaper than both the Core i9-14900K and Ryzen 9 9950X. Although the Core i9-14900K is ahead in gaming, there's one area where the Ryzen 9 9950X has a lead. AMD's latest CPU has a 512-bit data path for AVX-512 instructions, which offers a big boost in some gaming scenarios. In particular, AVX-512 instructions are very important for PS3 emulation. A note on stability Intel has seen some issues with stability on its 13th-gen and 14th-gen CPUs, particularly when it comes to high-end unlocked models like the Core i9-14900K. According to Intel, improper voltage delivery to the CPU can lead to rapid degradation. Over time, the processor will become less and less stable. That usually starts with a few odd game crashes and eventually moves onto full system lockups and Blue Screens of Death. After months, Intel has released a microcode update that apparently addresses these issues. The company says it's a preventative measure, and that CPUs that aren't experiencing instability shouldn't fall victim with the microcode update. In addition, Intel has extended the warranty on all of its 13th-gen and 14th-gen CPUs from three years to five years, and that applies to new CPUs purchased. Only time will tell if Intel's microcode update really solves the instability problem. If you're buying a CPU now, it's something to keep in mind. A bloodbath The Core i9-14900K shouldn't really be competitive with the Ryzen 9 9950X, but it is. AMD's latest definitely runs away with productivity, but it loses plenty of ground in gaming and comes in at a much higher price. More importantly, the Core i9-14900K is nearly a year old. With AMD only providing performance advantages in some areas, it's hard to imagine the Ryzen 9 9950X will be able to keep up when Intel's Arrow Lake CPUs release. At the moment, the Ryzen 9 9950X is the fastest CPU you can buy, at least when it comes to non-gaming workloads. It's also the most expensive at $650. If you don't mind trading a bit of productivity performance for more gaming grunt, the Core i9-14900K is the way to go given how much cheaper it is -- just make sure to keep your warranty information handy.

AMD Ryzen 9000 review: Impressive efficiency, with bugs and so-so speed boosts

High prices on an already-expensive AM5 platform make them a hard sell, though. Nearly two years after the release of the first Ryzen 7000 CPUs, AMD has returned with a full-fledged follow-up. The new Ryzen 9000 chips -- the 6-core 9600X, 8-core 9700X, 12-core 9900X, and 16-core 9950X -- bring AMD's new Zen 5 architecture to the desktop a couple of weeks after it launched in the Ryzen AI chips for laptops. Further Reading We came away from the cumbersomely named Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 impressed by both its performance and its power efficiency, and AMD is also leaning into power efficiency as a key selling point of the Ryzen 9000 series. Three of the chips have seen their power limits dropped significantly compared to last-gen chips while still bragging of low-double-digit performance increases. That's rare at a time when Intel has been pushing its chips to the edge to squeeze every last bit of performance out of high-end Core i9 and Core i7 chips. The focus on power efficiency will give many users -- particularly those who don't touch the default settings -- less-power-hungry chips that run a bit cooler. And for people who want to tinker and trade in some of that efficiency for a performance boost, many of these chips (particularly the 9700X and 9900X) have a lot of additional performance headroom. It's also nice that all existing AM5 motherboards on the market should be compatible with the 9000 series once a BIOS update is installed, and the AM5 platform's mandatory BIOS Flashback support means you don't need to use weird, kludgy hacks like the "boot kit" CPU loaner program for updating the BIOS when you buy a board with an older BIOS installed. But it's not all smooth sailing. Motherboard and RAM costs remain an issue across the entire AM5 platform nearly two years after launch, especially for budget buyers. Launch pricing is high, especially compared to current street prices for the 7000 and 7000X3D series CPUs. And we ran into a few bugs during testing that may also bite other early adopters while we wait on AMD and the motherboard makers to straighten things out. Meet Zen 5 Compared to the Ryzen 7000 launch, when AMD was putting out new CPUs, a new architecture, a new I/O die (IOD), new chipsets, a new integrated GPU, (mandatory) DDR5 support, and a brand-new processor socket all at once, the Ryzen 9000 launch is downright placid. The IOD is the same. The integrated RDNA2-based GPU is the same (and, it's worth reiterating, not at all intended to play games). The AM5 socket is the same. Officially supported DDR5 speeds are up a bit, from DDR5-5200 to DDR5-5600. But the widespread availability of and support for factory-overclocked RAM in desktop motherboards means that a modest bump to officially supported RAM speed doesn't mean all that much; AMD still recommends DDR5-6000 for optimal performance. There are new 800-series chipsets, but they're so incrementally improved over the old 600-series chipsets that AMD didn't even send along a new motherboard with the new processors. We were directed to install a new BIOS update on existing X670E boards from the Ryzen 7000 launch instead (this almost never happens, even when forward compatibility is a selling point). This seems like a subtle signal from AMD -- don't feel like you need to wait for or pay extra money for a newer motherboard, something that would only increase the AM5 platform's stubbornly high base price. CPU Street price Cores/threads Clocks (Base/Boost) Total cache (L2+L3) TDP Ryzen 5 9600X $279 (MSRP) 6c/12t 3.9/5.4 GHz 38MB (6+32) 65 W Ryzen 7 9700X $359 (MSRP) 8c/16t 3.8/5.5 GHz 40MB (8+32) 65 W Ryzen 9 9900X $499 (MSRP) 12c/24t 4.4/5.6 GHz 76MB (12+64) 120 W Ryzen 9 9950X $649 (MSRP) 16c/32t 4.3/5.7 GHz 80MB (16+64) 170 W Ryzen 5 7600X $195 6c/12t 4.7/5.3 GHz 38MB (6+32) 105 W Ryzen 7 7700X $286 8c/16t 4.5/5.4 GHz 40MB (8+32) 105 W Ryzen 9 7900X $359 12c/24t 4.7/5.6 GHz 76MB (12+64) 170 W Ryzen 9 7950X $516 16c/32t 4.5/5.7 GHz 80MB (16+64) 170 W Ryzen 7 7800X3D $367 8c/16t 4.2/5.0 GHz 104MB (8+96) 120 W Ryzen 9 7900X3D $396 12c/24t 4.4/5.6 GHz 140MB (12+128) 120 W Ryzen 9 7950X3D $525 16c/32t 4.2/5.7 GHz 144MB (16+128) 120 W This leaves us with only two new things of note: the Zen 5 architecture itself and the new core chiplet die (CCD) that combines up to eight Zen 5 cores together. Ryzen 9000's Zen 5 CCD is built using TSMC's N4P process, an upgrade from the 5 nm process used for the Ryzen 7000 series. TSMC says that N4P is 22 percent more power efficient than the 5 nm process, which is part of what is enabling AMD to use a lower TDP for most of the Ryzen 9000X CPUs while still providing faster performance. It also probably has at least a bit to do with the lower operating temperatures of Ryzen 9000, which AMD has said should be about 7° Celsius lower than equivalent Ryzen 7000 CPUs at the same power levels. Ryzen 7000X chips running at their default TDPs ran a bit hot, and while AMD said this was normal and safe behavior, a cooler chip will usually offer better consistency and longevity. A major architectural change from Zen 4 relates to support for AVX512 extensions, which Intel introduced (infamously, in some circles) in 2017 with some of the higher-end Skylake variants but hasn't enabled on recent consumer CPUs because Intel's E-cores don't support them. Zen 4 brought AVX512 instructions to Ryzen CPUs for the first time, but it did so by combining two 256-bit data paths. Zen 5 has a full 512-bit data path for AVX512 instructions, and for the (still rare-ish) tasks that actually use AVX512, it gives Zen 5 a disproportionately high performance boost.