AMD’s Ryzen 9 5950X is the newer Zen 3 based version of their 16 core 3950X processor,
so which should you pick, or is it worth upgrading?
I’ve compared both in games and applications to show you the differences.
There doesn’t appear to be that much difference between these two processors based on the
specs.
Both have 16 cores and 32 threads, the same TDP and same amount of cache, though the 5950X
has a 200MHz higher boost clock, so most of the differences are going to be due to IPC
improvements present with Zen 3.
Both processors were tested in the same system.
I’ve tested with 32gb of DDR4-3200 memory running in dual channel at CL14 and with MSI’s
GeForce RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio graphics card to minimize bottlenecks.
Neither processor comes with a cooler, so I’ve done all testing with my Fractal S36
AIO with Noctua NT-H2 thermal paste for comparable results.
I’ve tested both CPUs at stock, and with the following all core overclocks applied,
so I was able to push the 5950X up to 4.7GHz, while I couldn’t get my 3950X above 4.3GHz,
but this will vary based on silicon lottery and cooling.
With that in mind we’ll first check out the differences in various applications, as
well as power draw and thermals, followed by gaming tests afterwards, then finish up
by comparing some performance per dollar metrics.
Starting out with Cinebench R20 we can see the 5950X offering some nice improvements.
At stock, its single core performance was almost 19% faster than the 3950X, a pretty
great improvement in just one generation.
With all 16 cores loaded up in the multicore test though, the 5950X was scoring around
9% higher than the 3950X at stock.
The single core scores actually lower with the overclocks in place because locking all
cores at these speeds together prevents the higher single core boost speeds that happen
at stock.
The 5950X was now 20% higher in multicore score with both overclocked, compared to the
just 9% boost at stock.
I’ve also tested the older Cinebench R15 as a lot of people still use it so you can
compare my results, the margins weren’t too different to R20 so let’s move on.
I’ve tested Blender with the BMW and Classroom benchmarks.
This is another multicore workload.
With both at stock speeds, the BMW test was only 2% faster on the 5950x, while the longer
classroom test was nearly 6% faster, so not that much difference.
With both overclocked though, the 5950X pulls out further in front again, with a 12% lead
in the BMW test, and a 16% lead in the Classroom test, so it really seems that the 5950X is
getting better gains with the overclocks in place.
The V-Ray benchmark is another core heavy rendering workload, and unlike blender which
had below average differences, this test had some of the biggest multicore differences
out of all applications tested.
At stock, the 5950X was scoring 19% higher than the 3950X, and then with both overclocked
the 5950X is now almost 29% ahead.
The Corona benchmark also uses the processor to render out a scene, and the differences
were also larger here compared to most other tests.
At stock the 5950X was almost 15% faster than the 3950X, then with both overclocked the
5950X is now completing the task 27% faster.
Handbrake was used to convert one of my 4K laptop review videos to 1080p.
Not quite as much of an improvement with the 5950X here, but still a reasonable 9% quicker
time at stock, or 14% faster with the overclocks.
Adobe Premiere was used to export one of my laptop review videos at 4K.
I’ve tested with both VBR 1 and 2 pass.
In both of these, at stock the 5950X was completing the export around 11% faster.
And then a little faster with both overclocked.
I’ve also tested Adobe Premiere but with the Puget Systems benchmark tool, as this
tests for more things like live playback rather than just raw export times.
There was less of a difference between the two chips here, with the 5950X scoring just
4% higher whether at stock or overclocked.
Adobe Photoshop was also tested with the Puget Systems benchmark tool.
This test tends to favour single core performance, and as we’ve seen Zen 3 is certainly delivering
in that regard, so it’s no surprise that the differences are much larger in this test.
At stock the 5950X was scoring 18% higher than the 3950X, and 24% higher with both overclocked.
I’ve used 7-Zip to test compression and decompression speeds, and Ryzen chips typically
do quite well here, especially compared to Intel processors.
Zen 3 was still able to offer nice improvements over Zen 2 though, 11% higher in compression
and 15% higher for decompression at stock.
VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds, though both processors
were scoring lower with the overclocks in place, something I’ve noticed with other
tests too.
Microsoft Excel was tested using the Hardware Unboxed large number crunch test, and this
test had one of the biggest differences out of all apps tested.
At stock the 5950X was completing the task 23% faster than the 3950X, and then a massive
44% faster with both overclocked, so if you’re after a hardcore spread sheet machine Zen
3 could be the way to go.
Geekbench was seeing excellent single core improvements, the 5950X was 21% faster here
at stock, and 23% faster when overclocked.
The multicore difference was still nice, but not as large.
The 5950X was 9% faster at stock, and 15% faster with the overclocks.
Here’s how the 5950X compares against the older 3950X from prior generation with both
processors running at stock in all of the applications just tested.
The 5950X was faster in all instances, as expected, though I found it interesting that
the top of the graph is littered with single core tests, it really appears that this is
an area where Zen 3 shines compared to Zen 2.
Once both chips are overclocked, the margins in most of the tests increase as the 5950X
pulls further ahead of the 3950X, and this is because it’s able to overclock better.
This will of course come down to the silicon lottery, and some tests like Veracrypt don’t
seem to interact with the overclocks well.
When we look at the total system power draw from the wall with the blender test running,
the 5950X was actually using less power at stock, good stuff considering it was also
completing this specific task 6% faster too.
With both overclocked though, the 5950X starts using more power, as this is needed to support
higher clockspeeds.
Higher power draw typically results in more heat, and for the most part the temperatures
align with what we just saw in the power draw graph.
The 5950X was a little cooler at stock, but then with the overclocks and higher power
draw the 5950X was a little warmer.
These are the average clockspeeds being reached during these same tests, so at stock both
were actually averaging the same speed, again despite the 5950X using less power and performing
better.
We can see that by overclocking both though, the 3950X only gets a 400MHz boost, while
the 5950X on the other hand is now around 800MHz higher than itself at stock, and this
is where the higher power draw and temps come from.
Let’s get into the gaming results next, I’ve tested 10 games at 1080p, 1440p and
4K resolutions.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the games benchmark tool.
No difference between the two processors at 4K as it’s just less of a factor at such
high resolutions.
At 1440p though, the 5950X was reaching 15% higher average FPS over the 3950X, and then
a larger 36% higher average FPS at 1080p.
Microsoft Flight Simulator was tested in the Sydney landing challenge.
Again no real difference at 4K here either, then at the other resolutions even the 1%
low from the 5950X was ahead of the average FPS from the 3950X.
In terms of average frame rate though, the 5950X was 22% faster at 1080p and 20% at 1440p.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested with the games benchmark, and this game has one
of the smallest differences between the two processors at all resolutions.
The 5950X was just 4% ahead at 1080p, and 3% at 1440p.
Death Stranding on the other hand is a game that I’ve found to generally see big increases
with Zen 3.
The 5950X was 22% faster than the 3950X in average FPS at 1080p, but then just 5% ahead
at 1440p, and like the other games no real differences once we get to the highest 4K
resolution.
Battlefield V was tested in campaign mode, and this was another game where no major differences
were recorded regardless of resolution, however this may be because the game has a 200 FPS
cap, which both processors were reaching at 1080p.
I had to put CS:GO to the test as AMD were claiming some big gains with Zen 3, and I
was seeing this too.
This game had the largest improvement with the 5950X at 1080p out of all 10 games tested,
with a 42% higher average FPS.
This game also had the biggest difference in average FPS at 4K too, despite the higher
resolution the processor still has an important role in this test.
Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested with the games benchmark, and unlike CS:GO, we’re
back to seeing no major changes at 4K between the two CPUs.
The 5950X was 13% faster at 1440p though, and 23% faster at 1080p when compared to the
older 3950X.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested using the games benchmark with Vulkan.
Only small differences here, and even at 1080p the 5950X was just 2% ahead in average FPS,
and honestly probably not a difference you’re actually going to notice when playing given
both are near 500 FPS anyway.
Far Cry New Dawn was also tested with the games benchmark, and as a game I’ve found
to depend more on the CPU, it wasn’t too surprising to see a similar improvement with
the 5950X even at 4K, where it was still reaching 8% higher average FPS compared to the 3950X.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare was another with no major differences, at least in terms of
average FPS.
At 1080p the 5950X had a larger boost to the 1% low.
Over all 10 games tested, at 1080p the 5950X was around 19% faster than the 3950X in average
FPS, though this may be held back a little by the 200 FPS frame cap of battlefield V,
which is why it’s down the bottom.
In any case, there are some nice gains on offer here with Zen 3 compared to what was
available just last year.
Stepping up to 1440p, the 5950X was now 10% faster than the 3950X, so still some nice
gains, but at higher resolutions the processor starts to matter less and less when compared
to the choice of graphics card.
This is further illustrated at 4K, where the 5950X was now just 2% faster than the 3950X
on average out of these 10 games tested.
Only CS:GO and Far Cry New Dawn are really seeing a benefit from Zen 3 here, which makes
sense given both are titles I’ve found to be primarily dependent on processor performance.
4K doesn’t really make sense to test in a CPU comparison, I just did it to illustrate
that if you plan on gaming at higher resolutions then it might not be worth spending more on
the 5950X, and this is why the cost per frame differences at 4K actually see the 5950X as
worse value.
It costs more, but wasn’t performing too much better.
Things go the other way at 1080p though, even though the 5950X costs more, the higher levels
of performance on offer at this lower resolution result in a lower cost per frame value.
Honestly at this higher price point, if you’re buying today I don’t think it’s too much
extra money to fork out for the improvements on offer with the 5950X.
I’d be willing to pay the almost 10% more money for those single core boosts alone.
That said, the 3950X still does well in multi core workloads, especially compared to what
Intel’s offering.
If you already have a 3950X, upgrading could be worth it especially if time is money and
you do a lot of rendering work for example, it’s really going to depend as the Zen 2
based 3950X still has a lot to offer.
Upgrading might even be a simple process with just a BIOS update needed depending on your
motherboard.
Anyway let me know which you’d pick down in the comments, and make sure you’re subscribed
for future processor comparisons like this one.