AMD's new Zen 5 chip up to 55% faster than Intel's Core i9-13900K in leaked benchmark — AMD's Ryzen 9 9950X purportedly shines in AVX workloads
Ryzen 9000 'Granite Ridge' processors are scheduled to launch in July.
An engineering sample of the upcoming 16-core Zen 5 AMD Ryzen 9 9950X 'Granite Ridge' processor appears to have been benchmarked in AIDA64. The results were shared by Anandtech Forum user igor_kavinsky, who cites another user as the owner of the CPU, and credited himself as simply sharing the info in his original Zen 5 speculation thread.
In the original AIDA64 interface screenshots, the test notes the score of "16x Granite Ridge HT" came just under "32x Ryzen Threadripper" in both FP32 and FP64 results. The engineering sample was also tested with a Dual-Channel DDR5 RAM configuration running at 8,000 MT/s, with timings given of 34-45-40-42.
AMD Ryzen 9 9950X Leaked AIDA64 Benchmark Scores
| Benchmark Test | Ryzen 9 9950X ES Benchmark Result | Compared To Ryzen 9 7950X | Compared to Core i9-13900K | Compared To Threadripper 7975WX |
| AES (Encryption) | 746991 MB/s | 45% faster | 55% faster | 11% faster |
| FP32 (Floating Point 32-Bit) | 110444 KRay/s | 39% faster | 60% faster | 13% slower |
| FP64 (Floating Point 64-Bit) | 59582 KRay/s | 39% faster | 60% faster | 16% slower |
In the original thread posting, these results are noted as being a 39-45% improvement over Ryzen 9 7950X, a 55-60% improvement over Intel Core i9-13900K, and a mixed improvement over the Ryzen Threadripper 7975WX. The mainstream results are a straightforward victory for AMD's upcoming Ryzen 9 9950X if they prove accurate, but some other factors come into play when compared to core-dense HEDT rivals.
Ryzen 9 7950X's sole win over Threadripper in this set of tests is in AES encryption scores, which are boosted by 11% over the 32-core Threadripper 7975WX, but FP32 performance drops by 13% and FP64 by 16%. The FP16 and FP32 results are marking some loss in floating point performance, but we are still seeing a mainstream Ryzen 9 CPU compared to a platform-rich (PCIe lanes, RAM, etc) Threadripper.
Another interesting discussion about these benchmark results in the original thread is that the testing used AVX-512, which could be attributed to these ~40% range gains. AVX-512 is something of a miracle performance solution when it can be properly applied to a workload. For example, AVX512 is noted by RPCS3 developer Whatcookie as one of many factors making extreme Sony PlayStation 3 emulation optimizations possible on modern PCs, after its original Cell processor co-developed by IBM was compared to supercomputers of the time.
For more recent Ryzen 9000 benchmark leaks, please check out our Ryzen 5 9600X CPU-Z test score leak analysis. We will see the first of AMD's new generation Ryzens become official in July.
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.
-
TerryLaze ReplyAdmin said:Benchmark scores leak for AMD Ryzen 9 9950X.
AMD's new Zen 5 chip up to 55% faster than Intel's Core i9-13900K in leaked benchmark — AMD's Ryzen 9 9950X purportedly shines in AVX workloads : Read moreAnother interesting discussion about these benchmark results in the original thread is that the testing used AVX-512,
Next up quicksync against ryzen CPU transcoding....
Like what's the point in comparing AVX512 when it's disabled on the intel chip. -
But the actual performance of the Zen 5 chip may not showcase similar gains since apps and workloads aren't based entirely on such instructions, and use multiple different parts of the chip.Reply
These are also the floating point figures, so it is going to be a different story with the integer performance tests. -
Makaveli Reply
Agreed we have to wait for a full benchmark suite covering different apps and games.Metal Messiah. said:Actual performance of the chip may not showcase similar gains since apps and workloads aren't based entirely on such instructions, and use multiple different parts of the chip.
These are also the floating point figures, so it is going to be a different story with the integer performance tests.
So everyone seeing these results need to contain their excitement as this is mostly AVX 512 workloads which we were expecting big gains. -
usertests Reply
It was Intel's poor decision making that led them to disable AVX-512 in Alder Lake and beyond, even though they were trying to get it to work at the last minute, and later cook up AVX10. AVX-512 support clearly helps in some programs that people use, like RPCS3.TerryLaze said:Next up quicksync against ryzen CPU transcoding....
Like what's the point in comparing AVX512 when it's disabled on the intel chip. -
ReplyMakaveli said:Agreed we have to wait for a full benchmark suite covering different apps and games.
So everyone seeing these results need to contain their excitement as this is mostly AVX 512 workloads which we were expecting big gains.
Yup, the above benchmark scores/gains are pretty much not helpful at least for the average gamer. We need to wait for proper third-party benchmarks when this Zen 5 chip hits retail next month.
Although, those high points scored by the new ZEN 5 entrant CPU do showcase the chip's masses raw processing power, but this doesn't mean that the same would also translate to gaming performance as well.
So basically, these tests aren’t necessarily representative of the chip's actual gaming performance, as they could be hammering all the cores of the CPUs at 100% load as well, in specific processing use cases. But this isn't how gaming workloads run though. -
OneMoreUser Reply
Surely what is interesting is how much performance a CPU brings, not if it uses magic AVX512 or 10.000 cores for that matter. It is not AMD's fault that Intel isn't delivering.TerryLaze said:Next up quicksync against ryzen CPU transcoding....
Like what's the point in comparing AVX512 when it's disabled on the intel chip.
Of course more benchmarks needs to be run, just as we must of course see how the performance is in real world scenarios, but provided the reported numbers are legit then clearly AMD has the upper hand big time in some circumstances. That Intel disabled AVX512 was not done to bring more value for their customers, it was marketing in order to protect their more expensive offerings. -
For gaming Emulators, AVX-512 has been pretty much helpful though, for boosting the performance.Reply
https://whatcookie.github.io/posts/why-is-avx-512-useful-for-rpcs3/ -
NinoPino Reply
It is an Intel problem. If Intel removed the FPU the competitors must avoid floating point math in comparisions ?TerryLaze said:...
Like what's the point in comparing AVX512 when it's disabled on the intel chip. -
NinoPino Reply
Imho a 32 threads CPU was never a gaming CPU (same consideration for 13900, 14900 and so on).Metal Messiah. said:Yup, the above benchmark scores/gains are pretty much not helpful at least for the average gamer. We need to wait for proper third-party benchmarks when this Zen 5 chip hits retail next month.
Although, those high points scored by the new ZEN 5 entrant CPU do showcase the chip's masses raw processing power, but this doesn't mean that the same would also translate to gaming performance as well.
So basically, these tests aren’t necessarily representative of the chip's actual gaming performance, as they could be hammering all the cores of the CPUs at 100% load as well, in specific processing use cases. But this isn't how gaming workloads run though. -
NinoPino Reply
"Actual performance" are what is shown, you meant to say "average performance".Metal Messiah. said:But the actual performance of the Zen 5 chip may not showcase similar gains since apps ...