AMD Ryzen 9 3950X CineBench R15 OC Performance Posted

I think we're all getting a bit spoiled with unrealistic expectations if we think 5GHz can be easily achieved on all 16 cores using a typical liquid cooling solution... I don't think Zen2 is going to hit that sudden wall of 3.9-4.2 GHz that the first 2 generations did, but assuming any amount of Zen2 cores can reach 5GHz with sufficient stability at a reasonable voltage, 16 cores at 5GHz will be hard to achieve simply because of the sheer amount of heat and power draw. I'm sure if you had 3x extra large radiators and 2x 8-pin power connectors, you could reach 5GHz, but I personally don't think that's worth it.

 

Regardless of the amusing units (millibytes?), the numbers are wrong. The 3950X has 64MB L3 and 8MB L2 cache. Those numbers add up to 72MB but it does not have 72MB of L3.

 

Considering the consoles generally have 1 core dedicated to the operating system and 1 core possibly dedicated to something else, and considering the fact that the console CPUs are almost always lower frequency parts, i really don't see a 6-core processor being an issue simply because of consoles. Other advancements in game engines, sure, but because of the new consoles? No.

Xbox one and PS4 are already 8-core systems. Sure, they are low performing 8-core systems CPU wise, but that's the whole point, they don't need a high-end CPU for most of their tasks, especially as they go 4K.

I know some other companies think differently, but my expectation for the PS4 and Xbox scarlett are:

CPU 2.3Ghz base, maybe up to 2.6Ghz base, 3.0Ghz boost, maybe up to 3.8Ghz boost

Why?

Because as stated above, they don't NEED really high frequency processors and higher frequency processors will only really serve to make the console hotter and more power hungry, two things they need to watch out for.

Remember, xbox one x, which is for the most part doing fine performance wise and definitely isn't having an issue in 4K with its processor, runs a bulldozer-based architecture, at 2.3Ghz.

So even the 2.3Ghz bulldozer-based performance to Zen 2 2.3Ghz would be a pretty massive performance increase.

 

It's mebibytes; usually what we refer to MB is actually MiB.
Mb=10^6
MB=1000^2
MiB=1024^2
I think there's also a Mib but you're kinda annoying if you choose to use it lol.
Software almost always uses MiB, even if it is written as MB. As you can imagine, this gets to be pretty confusing, especially since (to my understanding) HDD manufacturers use MB. This is one of the key reasons why you don't get the amount of storage "as advertised". I put that in quotes because the manufacturers aren't lying, but actually the OS that is wrong.

Anyway to your point, yes, it doesn't have 72MB or 72MiB of L3.

 

I have never actually understood the fascination with doing this! "Suicide run" is right--5.4GHz + @ 1.77v = syonara CPU...

 

1 whole core might be dedicated to the OS. Not sure what you meant by this "something else"...it could need a whole core? Heh I doubt it) I am assuming PS5 will have 8/16, and not just 8 cores.

Relatively, these consoles are set to receive "beefy" CPUs. 8/16 @ what looks to be 3.2GHz isn't too shabby, relatively.

Like I'm guessing you meant - consoles "can do more" with same hardware. It is a locked system.

So, it is looking like highly optimised 7 cores @ 3.2Ghz vs "the usual" 6 cores @ ~4.5GHz.

 

Yes, I know that it's an ES. But still, usually the differences aren't that big and ES have varying degrees of quality, in some cases they can be even better than final product, due to specs not being finalized and golden chips.

Like some of the people already explained here in the topic, console CPUs are (most recently) being fine tuned for smaller power consumption, so generally they run at slower speeds than their full desktop counterparts.

Also, parallelism seems to still be difficult to some game studios/devs, so I wouldn't rule out the fact that some of these cores will simply not be used or will be used poorly.

So, unless you intent to play the biggest AAA games with the most cutting edge technology at the highest settings, I seriously doubt a ryzen 3600 will be a problem. Your video card will be sweating way before that.

 

I never said it wouldn't have 16 threads. With the way that AMD does their CPUs it wouldn't make sense for them to not be multi-threaded.

As to the 2 core thing: Xbox one has 8 cores but only 6 cores are accessible to the games. At the very least, this is/was true when the xbox one originally released, i do not know if they change anything in the xbox one x, or in firmware updates.

The PS4: When originally released, 2 of the 8 cores were reserved for the PS4 software, this has since changed i believe in both the PS4 and PS4 Pro to utilize 7 of the 8 cores in games.

As to the frequency:

Time will tell, but i really feel your idea that it'll go to 3.2Ghz is pure nonsense. And i don't mean that in a negative way, i'm not trying to insult you, it just doesn't make sense. Will that be what happens? Possibly, but the only reason i could imagine that would happen would be if both companies (microsoft/sony) believe the other will do it and therefore make their frequencies higher then necessary.

There's no reason for consoles to run at 3.2Ghz, if there were, then the xbox one and PS4 would be.

The PS4 and xbox one run on bulldozer technology, and we KNOW that bulldozer technology, non-overclocked, can go to 4.7Ghz/5Ghz boost, because of the FX-9590 processor. (Albeit with really high temps and power consumption, that being said, the FX-9590 is run on the 32nm node, whereas the xbox one x, PS4 pro, xbox one s and ps4 slim are run on the 16nm node and the PS4 and Xbox one are run on the 28nm node, both of which would obviously bring down power consumption and heat. No, i'm not suggesting that they would have ever run the consoles at 4.7Ghz/5Ghz boost even on 16nm, only that the frequency capability is there)

So the question becomes: If bulldozer architecture can go so high, why did the PS4/Xbox one originally start with 1.6Ghz systems, and then later on with the X and Pro go to 2.1Ghz and 2.3Ghz?

Answer: Because they don't NEED 3.0-4.0Ghz processors, even with the very outdated and slow performing bulldozer system.

So to expect that they will put 3.2Ghz processors in the new systems that'll be coming out, even though the IPC compared to bulldozer will likely be 60% higher just per core on Zen 2, PLUS the fact that they'll have hyperthreading, and a CPU with 2.3Ghz (same as xbox one x) on a Zen 2 system with hyperthreading would likely be double the performance of the Xbox one X and PS4 Pro CPU....it just doesn't make sense. It'd be a whole lot extra performance that they don't need with higher power usage and much higher temperatures....for no benefit to the console user.

So i will very firmly stick with what i said. Given the fact that Zen 2 @ 2.3Ghz would be almost double the performance of the xbox one X CPU, given the lack of need of a faster CPU, especially with 4K content, given the extra power that would be required, given the extra heat created, and given the fact that they didn't go to unneeded high frequencies with the xbox one and PS4 even though they could have, there is absolutely 0 reasons to expect they will have high frequency (3.2Ghz or higher base speed) processors in the new playstation or xbox.

But, only time will tell.

 

3.2GHz is much slower, yes. However, again, it is a 8/7 core chip(can see OS taking one whole core, again). It is also a console.
I specifically mentioned the heavier titles(all cores used, well). Sure, maybe most of the PC games will run great on 6 cores.

 

No offense taken, of course - straight and respectful should be fine for normal people)

I don't get your "don't NEED" thing). Developers like more power to play with. Consoles are restricted by power envelopes, heat output and price. I am aware. They couldn't use those PC frequencies if they wanted to, I'd guess.

Didn't see an argument from you regarding them being 16 thread parts...)

I didn't make up that 3.2GHz - I've been seeing articles saying so.

Yes, time will reveal all.

 

I'm sorry, but your reasoning does not make any sense, both APUs based on Bobcat were the fastest AMD could push. You can't bring the FX 9590 to the discussion or any FX processor.
is not the same thing, not the same power envelope, not the same area, etc...

 

Because they don't need it. Only reason to need a faster processors is if it would actually benefit their games that they make. Considering the consoles are leaving behind 1080p and moving to 4K, and considering even at 1080p on a PC it only gets bottlenecked by very high end GPUs and lower settings, there will be no performance benefit and therefore no "need", as the processors at 2.3Ghz would be more then enough.

I know, and that's their expectations based off of irrelevant information.

They are making those assumptions because the lowest-end non-mobile ryzen based CPU is 3.1Ghz with 4 cores, there is a 2700e 2.7Ghz 8/16 core processor as well.

But then Zen 2 has only announced the lowest end is 3.6Ghz and 6/12 core.

The issue is, you can't compare these to consoles. Consoles use mobile chips, or half way inbetween mobile chips (meaning not fully mobile but not even remotely desktop)

The xbox one and ps4 use jaguar (bulldozer) chips at 1.6Ghz-2.3Ghz, compare that to laptop parts, which is a bit hard given the fact that they all have 4 cores while the consoles have 8...and there are no 16nm bulldozer based laptop/desktop processors they are exclusive to the consoles.....lets just try and keep it simple

an A4-5100(jaguarm, 28nm) 1.55Ghz has a TDP of 15 watts, has 4 cores, double that to 8, and it looks like the original PS4 and Xbox one had a CPU that uses 30ish watts

an Athlon 5370(jaguar, 28nm) 2.2Ghz has a TDP of 25 watts, has 4 cores, double that to 8, and it looks like the the PS4 pro and Xbox one X use 50-ish watts, except, that's not true at all. PS4 Pro and Xbox one X use 16nm, and lowered power consumption quite a bit. I'd be willing to bet that both systems still only, potentially, use 30ish watts.

So, now Zen 2

8 core, 16 thread, 3.2Ghz processor....we don't actually have a good idea of what wattage that would use, reviews aren't out, but the reality is:

3600, 3.6Ghz, 6 cores, 12 threads, has a TDP of 65 watts. This is already above and beyond what they are trying to stay within with the current generations of CPUs.

So lets say the mythical 3.2Ghz CPU in the next-gen consoles uses 50 watts....still above what they want to use.

Again, it just doesn't make sense, and yes, i understand, many other people, news articles, "predict" this will be true, but it simply doesn't follow any realistic line of reasoning.

2.3Ghz-2.6Ghz 8 core, 16 thread, Zen 2 CPU is what makes sense given past history with consoles and given the fact that they don't need faster processors then that, and given the fact that HEAT is always an issue.

So if anyone wants to do their own research and find a reason as to why 3.2Ghz actually does make sense, then by all means do it, otherwise those articles that expect 3.2Ghz are simply talking without any actual reasoning behind it.

The only reason you didn't see high frequency processors after the FX line is because AMD didn't make high-end processors out of them, they knew it was a failure and pretty much went to OEM and laptop/console only. It didn't change their max frequencies.

The literal entire point is that microsoft/sony had options, they did not have to choose jaguar, which you're calling bobcat, both of which are low-power architectures. They could have gone with Piledriver.

As well as the idea that the idea that microsoft/sony couldn't have created a custom CPU from AMD based off of jaguar...oh wait, they did, as there's no 8-core CPUs based on jaguar anywhere else in the first place. Nor are there 16nm jaguar processors anywhere other then the consoles as well. It's safe to say that the jaguar CPUs in the consoles are unique to them (xbox one x even claims theirs is customized) and assumptions about their power envelopes and etc. can't be made.

The Athlon 5350, for instance, has been overclocked to around 3.0-3.2Ghz, and that's with the power limitations of the CPU as well as, pretty dang importantly, the power limitations of the motherboard of the AM1 platform. You try finding an AM1 motherboard that actually has the VRMs and power capability to run anything respectably high, since they aren't design for it....you're just not going to find it.

But again, the main point is, they didn't, they went with a low-power alternative to the "big boys" that could have done much high frequencies and use a lot more power. And there's no point to expect that'll change with this generation of consoles, there's literally not one single reason to expect that microsoft/sony will decide to use high wattage, high frequency processors based off the desktop processors.

 

The CPU is responsible for handling the things that the GPU isn't - things like physics. Of course you can take advantage of faster CPUs - whether it is in a console or a PC.

The Ryzen 3600 speed you provided is the base speed, correct? The BOOST is far higher. Well, the "supposed" 3.2GHz speed is the BOOST. So, the wattage goes below 65w. See it?)

 

Don't see a single article stating that information.

When an article talks about a CPUs speed, it talks about its base speed, and if they want to talk about its boost speed, they talk about the boost speed. Both information can be in there, but never have i ever seen a single article for any situation talk about a CPUs speed, without mentioning anything else, as though they are talking about the boost speed.

So unless you have an article that is specifically stating boost, then i don't know what information you are talking about.

Heck, there may not even be boost speeds when it comes to the console, there haven't been before to my knowledge, with either the CPUs or the GPUs. And it makes sense too as boost speeds technically make the environment unpredictable. If the thermals don't agree with the boost, they don't happen. If some other process is taking the boost speed, the overall game could slow down. It'd make more sense to make a solid system without boost and let all the game developers know exactly what resources they'll have rather then what might or might not get boosted depending on circumstances and heat.

I don't disagree with this, but again, xbox one and ps4 already have a powerful enough processor for these affects, let alone a guaranteed twice as powerful processor if it's a minimum of 2.3Ghz.

We're talking about console here, not PC.

2004 we had tons of physics in Half-Life 2, single-core PCs, dual-core if you could afford one. We've gone backwards on this pretty much because of design choices within developers and publishers. To make a lot of physics created variables within the game creates scenarios and situations that most developers do not want "ruining" their game. It's one of the reasons why CS:S, 2004, had a lot of physics, moving barrels, etc. that they pretty much removed from CS:GO, 2012, 8 years later, because it changed the gameplay in ways not even the players wanted (i was not among those players, i want my physics back)

So please don't sit here and say that even the jaguar 8-core CPUs in the current generation consoles can't do tons of physics when a single core or dual-core CPU that is far, far less powerful, could. Your problem there is with developers/publishers, not the hardwares capabilities.

 

Don't think I said that 3.2GHz is confirmed) Going by "leaks", that's what it is at currently.
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...r-xbox-next-and-ps5-tiptoes-toward-production

You may be a great game designer, but many games struggle on current consoles and with weaker CPUs on PC. That's a fact. Is it a conspiracy?)

Stronger CPUs help - in consoles and PCs.



https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-why-cant-destiny-run-at-60fps-on-ps4-pro

 

Interesting article, i had not seen that one, though i still doubt pretty much all of it. It shows much lower base speeds then i'd expect out of Zen 2 on consoles, and as i said before, boost speeds seems to me it'd just muck things up.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

Probably points scale a bit differently at these extreme frequencies compared to water/air cooling results but the 7960X@5.4 scores anywhere from 4679 to 4785 with the TR 2950X scoring around 4663 points at the same frequency as the 3950X.

Also the previous leaked score was using 1.608v@5.275 scoring 5434 points. So these results look really promising so far. Can't wait to see what this chip is capable using "normal" water cooling! Same goes for the 3900X.

 

when can be preorder theses cpus i want a ryzen 3700x???

 

You need to wait until the 7th when they're officially released.