AMD Ryzen 9 9950X Engineering Sample gets a full suite of Blender benchmarks at various TDPs, showcasing major efficiency improvements
We've also compared these results to the last-gen Ryzen 9 7950X
Starting on July 7, AnandTech forum member Igor_Kavinski began posting Ryzen 9 9950X engineering sample Blender benchmark results courtesy of an unnamed source — starting at a super-slim 60W TDP. Over the course of the following week, 90W TDP, 120W TDP, 160W TDP, and finally, max-capacity 230W TDP results were also posted. The results give us a comprehensive idea of how power efficiency will improve with next-gen Zen 5 AMD CPUs.
Before proceeding, it's evident that the newer Ryzen 9 9950X would outperform the older chip when given a more generous power budget. We didn't test our Ryzen 9 7950X at 230W TDP, but reports from other users in the thread point toward a ~20% performance improvement still present in that scenario. The interesting results here start at 170W and below.
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X vs Ryzen 9 7950X Blender Benchmarks
Row 0 - Cell 0 | Ryzen 9 9950X 230W TDP | Ryzen 9 9950X 160W TDP | Ryzen 9 7950X 170W TDP | Ryzen 9 9950X 120W TDP | Ryzen 9 9950X 90W TDP | Ryzen 9 9950X 60W TDP |
Blender "Monster" Benchmark Score | 353.4 | 319.7 | 289.7 | 268.7 | 227.5 | 153.2 |
Blender "Junkshop" Benchmark Score | 226.1 | 205.8 | 172.8 | 177.5 | 150.6 | 101.8 |
Blender "Classroom" Benchmark Score | 171.3 | 152.5 | 136.7 | 129.8 | 108.8 | 72.7 |
Blender Overall Benchmark Score | 750.8 | 678 | 599.2 | 576 | 486.9 | 327.7 |
*Note: All benchmark results listed above use AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive for a small performance boost. Additionally, the Ryzen 9 9950X ES is liquid-cooled.
At 170W, the Ryzen 9 7950X achieves a cumulative Blender score of 599.2. The Ryzen 9 9950X scores 678 at 160W, which outperforms its predecessor by about ~11% when both operate at more standard CPU TDPs.
The performance differentials between Ryzen 9 9950X and Ryzen 9 7950X start to narrow down when the newer chip is put at 120W. It is still within about ~5% of its predecessor's performance despite running with a 50W deficit in comparison.
These engineering sample benchmarks aren't the only insight we've received into AMD's upcoming Ryzen 9000 Series of CPUs. Earlier this week, Ryzen 9 9900X Geekbench results appeared that seem to have the new architecture pinned to take the crown in single-core performance, far outstripping the last-gen Ryzen 9 7950X3D and even the Intel Core i9-14900K.
Overall, we have to say that these emerging benchmarks are looking quite favorable for the future of AMD desktop platform users. However, some salt is required with pre-release benchmarks like these. Beyond raw performance gains, the power efficiency gains here also bode well for the eventual arrival of Zen 5 laptop chips, and should generally be nice for anyone trying to limit their power consumption. Even the 60W TDP results make this CPU look pretty usable since those scores align with an Intel Core i9-10980XE, per Blender's benchmark database.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Christopher Harper has been a successful freelance tech writer specializing in PC hardware and gaming since 2015, and ghostwrote for various B2B clients in High School before that. Outside of work, Christopher is best known to friends and rivals as an active competitive player in various eSports (particularly fighting games and arena shooters) and a purveyor of music ranging from Jimi Hendrix to Killer Mike to the Sonic Adventure 2 soundtrack.
-
One good thing worth mentioning about this early engineering Zen 5 sample test is that apart from the stellar efficiency, the CPU TEMP values were also pretty much decent.Reply
Never exceeded 62 C. Here is the breakdown anyway.
Ryzen 9 9950X (230W PPT) - 5620 MHz Peak Clock / 62C Temps
Ryzen 9 9900X (160W PPT) - 5555 MHz Peak Clock / 58C Temps
Ryzen 9 9950X (120W PPT) - 5220 MHz Peak Clock / 55C Temps
Ryzen 9 9950X (90W PPT) - 5050 MHz Peak Clock / 49C Temps
Ryzen 9 9950X (60W PPT) - 4084 MHz Peak Clock / 41C Temps -
usertests The PPTs are labelled as TDPs in the table.Reply
It could have the best cooling money can buy, but it all looks promising.Metal Messiah. said:One good thing worth mentioning about this early engineering Zen 5 sample test is that apart from the stellar efficiency, the CPU TEMP values were also pretty much decent. -
OLDKnerd My threadripper idle on windows desktop at 170 - 180 watts. :sneaky:Reply
You might find 1 place in the world that pay a tiny little bit more for 1 KWh than we do here on my little pink cloud with a rainbow below. -
vinay2070
Ya, AMD idling power consumption is pathetic. Thier laptops on battery wont last long compared to Intel or Snapdragon. All the benefits they see in the reviews saying efficiency moster etc are lost at the end of the day with mixed workloads. And no reviewer wants to cover this in depth for some reason.OLDKnerd said:My threadripper idle on windows desktop at 170 - 180 watts. :sneaky:
You might find 1 place in the world that pay a tiny little bit more for 1 KWh than we do here on my little pink cloud with a rainbow below. -
OLDKnerd Well mine is a GEN 1 threadripper 12 / 24 cores, i think things got a bit better later on.Reply
Contemplating falling back to 8 / 16 cores on next upgrade
Really what i do these days a dual core could handle, but i still want to be ready to game, even if that ship have sailed and for 2 decades now games have gone to poop, well at least the FPS games i care for. -
Simon_78
While I agree that earlier generations of Zen certainly had an idle power consumption issue and Intel was vastly superior, this is a thing of the past.vinay2070 said:Ya, AMD idling power consumption is pathetic. Thier laptops on battery wont last long compared to Intel or Snapdragon. All the benefits they see in the reviews saying efficiency moster etc are lost at the end of the day with mixed workloads. And no reviewer wants to cover this in depth for some reason.
OC3D.net total system idle power consumption data:
https://oc3dmedia.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/2023/07/amd-ryzen-9-7950x3d-and-7900x3d-review_64b94dc5aa70f.jpeg
7950X3D = 96W
13900K = 98W
Then there's Guru3D which also still runs total system idle power consumption test for their reviews:
https://www.guru3d.com/data/publish/221/17ed1429c2d65837ceca4fefabe1b99ec5486d/untitled_1.webp
7950X3D = 78W
14900K = 81W
Conclusion: While there was a difference a few years ago in idle total system power draw between AMD and Intel in favor of Intel. Nowadays it's a definitive tie.
Same experience with a 7800X3D, it idles at around 12W on HWinfo64.
It's good to keep oneself updated on such matters, lest one be relegated to unwilling ignorance due to outdated information.
Same thing as some people who think Noctua's coolers are still the best, when coolers 2, 3 and sometimes even 4 times cheaper are just as good or better in noise normalized testing. To labor on outdated information is an issue best avoided. -
Amdlova Yo my idle 46w :) 225w maxReply
Amd cpus have low power on cores but intel can make cpu idles about 1 to 2 watts
I use the intel igpu for video wallpaper and bring down the rtx 4060ti to 10w on idle.
On the amd card can't use proper the intel igpu have lots of bug, amd driver crashes and other defects.
46 watts with with four ssds on system, four dimms and a atx motherboard it's a dream. -
Vanderlindemedia OLDKnerd said:My threadripper idle on windows desktop at 170 - 180 watts. :sneaky:
You might find 1 place in the world that pay a tiny little bit more for 1 KWh than we do here on my little pink cloud with a rainbow below.
I'd replace it with a new generation Ryzen or so. TR's are getting old. And the idle consumption is purely due to the large cache that needs to be powered on constant.
Anyway: numbers look good. -
dalauder
There's a lot reviewers that ignore tons of things. For example, nobody ever benchmarks Intel and AMD chips at the same TDP. You can see a 50% performance increase in the 9950X going from stock 90W to 230W. But I've the last several years, flagship Intel chips regularly draw 250W+ at stock and are compared to AMD flagships drawing 125W.vinay2070 said:Ya, AMD idling power consumption is pathetic. Thier laptops on battery wont last long compared to Intel or Snapdragon. All the benefits they see in the reviews saying efficiency moster etc are lost at the end of the day with mixed workloads. And no reviewer wants to cover this in depth for some reason.
I'd really prefer to see a 230W and 120W normalized comparison. From what I've heard, Intel builds from OEMs like Alienware throttle in the real world and lose 12% off of benchmark scores.
Intel laptops actually did terribly with batteries from 2016-2020, until they got past that 14nm node. So you're referring to a small window. -
abufrejoval
Servers aren't designed to save power on idle, because they aren't supposed to run idle: 100% idle means 100% of original invest and operating cost are financial loss.OLDKnerd said:My threadripper idle on windows desktop at 170 - 180 watts. :sneaky:
You might find 1 place in the world that pay a tiny little bit more for 1 KWh than we do here on my little pink cloud with a rainbow below.
Their design is to get the most compute out of the least amount of Wattage near 99% utilization.
And since my home lab is mostly about functional testing, most of the hardware is actually idle and the main reason I've like the Ryzens 16-cores so much is because their desktop design is notebook driven and allows me to run server workloads functionally at nearer notebook heat and noise.
On my earlier Xeons it was actually the RAM that consumed most of the power, 18-22 core CPUs would go down to around 10 Watts on idle, but the RAM is around 50 Watts on idle and 120 Watts when used.
And then the other server components aren't typically designed for minimal noise and heat on idle, but for running near full load for years without fail. The last quad socket Intel Xeons I remember measuring were 400 Watt idle and 800 Watt at max load: that was long before they started putting GPUs into them and might have been more than 100 Watts for the fans alone.