**A Closer Look at AMD's Ryzen 7000 Series: The 7950X Review**

In our previous review, we had the pleasure of testing the Intel Core i9-7980X, a powerful processor that offers exceptional performance and efficiency. However, with the launch of AMD's Ryzen 7000 series, including the 7950X, we wanted to see how it stacks up against its Intel counterpart. In this article, we'll dive into our experience with the 7950X, exploring its performance, features, and value proposition.

**Single Core Frequency**

One of the standout features of the 7950X is its single core frequency, which reached an impressive 4,800 MHz in our testing. This is significantly higher than our previous review, where the 7980X was clocked at around 4,500 MHz for a similar workload. The 7950X's ability to maintain a high single core frequency is a testament to its robust architecture and efficient design.

**All Core Frequency**

The 7950X also boasts an all-core frequency of 4600-4700 MHz, which is within 0-5% of the maximum power limit (PBT Max) setting. This translates to an incredible level of performance, especially when compared to our previous review, where the 7980X was clocked at around 3.9-4 GHz. The 7950X's higher all-core frequency is a significant advantage, making it an attractive option for users who require high-performance processing in multiple cores.

**Performance Comparison**

In some applications, we saw significant performance uplift with the 7950X compared to the Intel Core i9-7980X. For instance, in financial services benchmarks from Spec Workstation, the 7950X delivered better results, thanks to its improved multi-threading capabilities. However, it's essential to note that this is not a one-size-fits-all scenario, and performance differences may vary depending on specific workloads.

**Subjective Experience**

One of the most significant challenges in evaluating the 7950X is assessing its subjective experience. As users who frequently test video editing software like Adobe Premiere, we can attest to the importance of reliability and stability. While the 7950X has shown promise in this regard, our experience with Quicksync, a feature designed for Intel processors, has been inconsistent. The issue seems to stem from Windows updates and other system configurations, which occasionally disrupt the feature's functionality.

**Gaming Performance**

While the 7950X is an excellent processor for general computing and content creation tasks, its performance in gaming applications may not be as impressive. However, our testing revealed that it can handle demanding games without any major issues or game-breaking problems. If you plan to use your system for both work and gaming, the 7950X should suffice.

**Conclusion**

The AMD Ryzen 7000 series, including the 7950X, offers an attractive alternative to Intel's Core i9 processors. With its impressive single core frequency, all-core frequency, and performance capabilities, it's clear that the 7950X is a force to be reckoned with in the world of high-performance computing.

**Further Reading**

If you'd like to learn more about our experience with the 7950X or explore other topics related to CPU performance and gaming, we recommend checking out our live stream archive. In this exclusive content, two AMD engineers joined us to discuss the engineering aspects of the Silicon, including overclocking techniques and the latest innovations in processor design.

**Support Us**

At Gamers Nexus, we're dedicated to providing you with high-quality content, product reviews, and expert analysis. To support our efforts, please consider visiting our website or contributing to our Patreon page. Your support enables us to continue creating engaging content for gaming enthusiasts and tech-savvy individuals alike.

**Subscribe Now**

Stay up-to-date with the latest news, reviews, and tutorials by subscribing to our YouTube channel. Follow us on social media platforms like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram to get the latest updates, behind-the-scenes insights, and expert opinions from industry professionals.

"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enAMD didn't send these ones out to reviewers this is the AMD threader 7960x we already reviewed the 7980x and 70x this is the cheaper version It's $1,500 we just bought it for review this is a 24 core 48 thread part that sockets into the new HDT motherboards in socket st5 the CPU claims a boost clock up to 5.3 GHz single core which would make it fast for a threader per CPU by HDT standards today 15 $0000 for a threader for CPU is cheap it's economical in a sense it's still a lot more expensive than a mainstream desktop part like 750x where you're talking maybe 5 or $600 versus 1500 uh and that's a big jump in price for an extra full eight cores but it's not just the core count that you're paying for a lot of it is the io and you'll pay extra for the motherboard too we've seen a lot of the new thread her boards are like $1,000 plus but more so than that core count increase the significant increase is the io capabilities even on the 7960x it's an interesting balance of a higher frequency a still relatively High Core count and having the Fuller IO options as compared to a desktop part like a 7950 X or 14900 K before that this video is brought to you by Squarespace and visiting squarespace.com Gamers Nexus will give you 10% off your first purchase with them we've built a number of our own websites with Squarespace including our recently launched gamers. Nexus site where we list catastrophic PC Hardware failures to inform subscribers of those failures I built this site personally in a couple of hours by using squarespace's fluid engine to move blocks around visually until I liked it we also built our store website with Squarespace using its built-in e-commerce tools and of course we built a website for our CEO snowflake because she demanded our audience know who really runs the show get to the core of your idea and spend less time on web design by signing up at squarespace.com gam Nexis or click the link below the 24 core HDT threader for part almost seems like the boring option maybe that's why it wasn't sent out because in comparison to a 64 core or 32 core part 24 just seems like almost too close to normal but it's still a really potentially useful part because there are some cost reductions now whether or not that's savings depends on if you're actually going to leverage the CPU but uh for People Like Us in the past we've used the 24 core parts for example we had one in one of our old editing machines instead of the 32 core because for Premiere it just it worked almost exactly as well and it gave us all the io options we wanted for drives and uh network cards and things like that expansion devices and it was still a little bit cheaper and preserved the 32 core for the testing that we needed and for a lot of people probably you'll fall in a similar class uh but it's still more expensive than we're used to from older HDT Parts the prices have all climbed we talked about that in the 7980x review where now the flagship version HDT the nonpr variant is five grand the next up down is 2500 bucks but let's go over some specs so the 760x we bought it's 24 core 48 thread as we've said it has 1.5 megabytes of L1 cache 24 megabytes of L2 and 128 megabytes of L3 the PBT Max is still 350 Watts default anyway uh which is alongside TDP and it's fully unlocked for overclock CPU also has four memory channels and for Io options the tx50 HDT platform offers a total of 92 PCI Lanes or 88 usable maximally 48 of those can be pcie Gen 5 the platform also has options like ECC for memory if you haven't been following the thread of for news basically these are targeted at sort of professional users maybe not quite in the area of pro they've got the wx9 platform for that where a pro user might want the highest core count CPU like the 7995 5wx which we overclocked and it was a ton of fun working on not the intended use case though or might just prefer the extra memory channels but for HDT you're still in that sort of Enthusiast class entering workstation territory uh and that's what we're going to be looking at today so for this we'll be going into benchmarks for respect workstation we have all of our standard production benchmarks like chromium code compile we have some frequency tests at the end to validate the frequency claims and then we'll also be looking at power consumption and efficiency since efficiency was such a big part of the 7980x review we'll start with power consumption in an all core workload with blender the 7960x pulled 337 Watts at the EPS 12 volt rails which had it lower than the 7980x is 352 and the 770x is 360 as an aside though we measured the 7960x at 360 watts in cinebench R23 a different test so it can still stretch up to that number and it's still hitting the 350 wat PBT but it's plus or minus a little bit depending on the workload for reference the 7950 X mainstream CPU pulls 251 watts in the same work with the 14900 K providing some variety in the suffix lerine we're moving from X's to K's which is worth more nobody knows but that one's at 287 watts in this workload even though the power consumption is high in an absolute sense For Thread Ripper what the CPU does with that power is the important aspect because it will definitely affect your cooler choice and your power supply choice but the efficiency is what we want to look at so let's do that in an all core fully threaded workload that hits the CPU at 100% the 7980x really impressed us here it did phenomenally with the best results on the chart other than the 7950 X eco mode results previously which aren't plotted here the 12.9 wat result was so impressive that we spent a few minutes explaining the per cor power consumption and looking at some additional voltage numbers in our original review that you'll probably find interesting and that's linked below the 70x X was still good but not as impressive as the 80 it runs at a less efficient part of the volt frequency curve and that extends to the 60x as well the 7960x also did fine at 25.9 wat hours ranking it ahead of most of the mainstream CPUs but the 5950 X and the 7800x 3D represent the mainstream with some extremely efficient chips Intel has a lot of ground to gain here this is where we're going to be watching them the most over the next couple of generations now we're going to move to spec workstation benchmarking these are excellent benchmarking tools that help represent biomedical Financial Industries and services computational fluid dynamics Life Sciences things like heart and Medical Imaging so a lot of these tests we know how to run the tests but we don't necessarily understand what they are representing because we're not doctors or medical researchers but our viewers told us in the comments last time that these were apparently very helpful so we're happy to provide them again and make them a more permanent part of our testing Suite first up for spec is the product development category of testing which includes computational fluid dynamics benchmarks at least this aspect we have some exposure to but the medical stuff's coming up in this one the 7960x performed impressively in some tests even in spite of the heavily reduced core count WPC cfd is based on open foam's combustion cfd solver and the 7960x scored 13.65 points here so it's an aggregate points scoring that puts it close in performance to the 79 70x and the 80x in a relative sense and the scaling isn't that favorable for higher cork out thread rer parts for that one but it's favorable enough to establish a large golf between the 60x and the mainstream desktop Parts the rinia cfd solver test scales cleanly here with the 7980x leading the 70x by 62% which itself leads the 60x by 33% but the 60x and the 79 70x were outperformed by the Intel 14900 can in this test with the 7960x also outperformed by AMD 7950 50x so as usual cores aren't everything the calculu testing had the 7960x at 5.12 leading the mainstream Intel part by 34% for that one next up the spec life sciences and biomedical tests these tests look at lamps which spc.org says is quote a molecular Dynamic simulator that consists of five tests simulating a variety of molecular properties it also tests namd which a viewer of ours taught us how to pronounce in the last one so thank you that runs a molecular Interactive it test and then rodinia life science does heartwall medical imaging among other tests that they list on their website in this Suite the 7980x leads the 79 70x by 30% which itself leads the 60x by 16% the 7960x holds a significant advantage over the mainstream desktop parts and prior thread rep per CPUs alike for lamps at least at 71% improved over the, 14900 K in Tel part for an MD we observed limited scaling against the 7970 X but still a significant gain against the 14900 K the 3970x did particularly well in this test previously and ND also posted significant scaling favoring the 7980x as compared to the lamps and rodinia tests here now for the financial services and probability tests where spec workstation runs Monte Carlo simulations black sches pricing binomial options pricing tests we're really waiting for them to add that Wall Street bets Benchmark where it processes how many really really ill advised comments you can calculate at one time while we don't necessarily understand the real world applications for some of these Financial workloads Beyond running the test again this is one that a lot of you really seem to appreciate in the last review so we'll keep it in the scaling is excitingly clean overall from a number standpoint the 7980x gaps everything holding a 60% lead over the 70x and the 79 7x's lead over the 60x is 27% which itself rests closer to the 3970x in some of the prior tests the 14900 K is at the bottom of this particular chart now for the spec energy testing the application tests for seismic data processing with srmp algorithms a convolutional filter with a 100x 100 random filter applied to a 20K X 20K pixel image and some more here the 7960x ranked third by convolution again although its convolution results is only barely ahead of the 3970x it's interesting though to see them at about parity despite the core difference because we have an architecture difference that's maybe surfacing here and frequency too the fftw result had the 8X massively ahead so course scaling a strong there the 60x was relatively close to the 70x but far ahead of the 3970x the poison result had it behind the 3970x and 3960x now we're moving to our standard Suite of production test starting with blender we have some fun stats to add the 7995 WX came through our lab for an extreme overclocking live stream which you should absolutely check out on the channel because it was huge hugely educational we got to work with two AMD Engineers we learned a ton and we did some fun liquid nitrogen OC but the 7995 WX with liquid nitrogen and an extreme overclock set the mark for the best performance we've ever seen in this test at 1.2 minutes is it realistic no but it's really fun the stock result was about 2.1 to 2.2 minutes but it wasn't 100% comparable due to some differences in the test setup as was amd's engineering team with their own Hardware on site but but it gives you an idea and besides it'd be realistic if you had someone to pour liquid nitrogen for you while you ran the render back down to earth though the 7960x required 4.6 minutes to run blender so it allows the 7 970x an improvement by the way of 1 minute or 22% time reduced we always do our chart calculations in the direction of improvement so in this instance Improvement is a percent time reduction we don't flip the axis and invert it to a rate or like renders per unit of time but instead use the base metric of time the 7980x required 2.2 minutes to complete the render and Improvement of 52% time reduced from the 60x it's a big jump even for those using Eevee with Cuda it's still impressive to see how much can be done with CPU cores these days the relevant desktop Parts would be the 750x marked at 6.4 minutes and the 14900 k at 7.3 minutes respectively these allow the 7960x an advantage of 28% and 37% time reduced the 7960x manages to offer benefits over the mainstream desktop Parts Beyond IO and several of these tests for those who can make use of its capabilities chromium code compile is next this is like blender smaller bars are better and we don't invert the access to a rate but we use the base metric of time without abstractions away from it the 7980x is 31.4 minute result has it running at 27% time reduced against the 7 97X which itself reduces the time requirement to complete the compile by 16% over the 79 60x the 14900 K it required 71 minutes to complete this compile with the 7950 X basically the same the result of the HDT 7960x against these parts assuming about 71 minutes or so for them is 28% time reduction the 3970x is still hanging in there at about 60 Minutes sticking close to the 7960x and still establishing a gap against the 750x and the 14900 K 7zip is up now these tests are measured in millions of instructions per second or mips for decompression the 7 6X ran 388,000 mips allowing the 70x a lead of about 29% with the 80x in a similar spot we're Limited in headro when we're this high up though the 7960x performed similarly to the 3970x but had a more drastic lead of 41% over the desktop 795x part or 66% over the 14900 K in compression the 7980x sets the ceiling at 393,000 mips followed closely by the 7an 7x at 352,000 mips and then the 7960x at 288,000 mips the 79 70x leads the 60x by about 22% here with the 7960x leading the 750x non 3D by about 50% which is near the 14900 K as well it's a big gap between this lower end HDT part and the best desktop Parts in Adobe Premiere looking first at aggregate score with Puget bench the 7960x scored 913 points just behind the 7 97X and functionally tied that as it ahead of the 750x the 1400k and everything else igps can help in some aspects of premiere for Intel but there's still value in brute for CPUs looking at the raw subscore for raw footage processing the 7960x retains its second place rank here the lead over the 14900 K the next CPU is about 9% so thread Ripper does pretty well with raw footage processing but the cost efficiency still rests with desktop Parts looking at the intraframe video score the Satan 60x does exceptionally well here and ties with the 77x again the cost efficiency will still in dramatic ways be with the desktop parts for Premiere but both CPUs establish a clear lead over the next CPUs at least which themselves are led by the 7 950x unfortunately as we saw last time Photoshop isn't really a great test case for threader it doesn't do particularly well in the comparative sense for it it's not bad but purely against Alternatives it's an expensive and vastly underutilized CPU and it doesn't chart Photoshop just isn't threaded this way the 7960x is ahead of the 7980x behind the 770x this chart is Led more by the mainstream CPUs like the 7700x or the 3900 K now we're getting into the gaming benchmarks as a quick reminder gaming is not the intended use case for these so when we run the gaming benchmarks what we're really looking for is just does it cause massive problems that makes the games unplayable so rather than looking for Peak Performance which you as a reminder again you shouldn't be buying these for maximum gaming performance you're not going to get it you you'll get that somewhere else uh but we just want to make sure it still works now one interesting additional use case here is that with the sufficient core count especially if you're willing to do some manual thread assignment or prioritization through say process lasso task manager any of the various options for that you could have some cool use cases of say running your code compile or your Premier render or whatever on half of the threads over here and then allocating the other half to your game in the foreground so there's some interesting uh places you could you could extrapolate to with this data uh there but we're just going to look at pure gaming make sure it all works okay in cyberpunk Phantom Liberty at 1080p the 7960x ran at 135 FPS average that has it just between the 7980x and 770x the lows are timed almost exactly with other new threader CPUs if you're planning to use a 7960x CPU for work at least so far it doesn't appear that it would be a buggy mess for gaming at least in scheduling but that's going to change a lot depending on the game at 1440p in Phantom Liberty the 7960x is 135 FPS average keeps it again about tied with the other new threader for CPUs and more than capable of at least running the game well despite not being a top performer in Stellaris for CPU simulation time the 7960x required 44 seconds to complete the simulation that had it about tied with the 5600x the 7980x and 79 70x did better on a technicality But ultimately these CPUs aren't able to leverage their cores in a meaningful way here they're still acceptable performers if gaming is a secondary use case but definitely not for a primary and balers Gate 3 at 1080p the 7960x ran at 90 FPS average and again had good frame time pacing the CPU was just behind the 77x and 7980x but realistically all three of these are roughly tied and from a practical standpoint you'd never notice a difference you might notice a difference with the high-end desktop Parts though especially in games like Rainbow 6 Rainbow Six Siege was buggy and couldn't launch with our 7980x previously we're not sure if they fixed that we haven't gone back to check it but we ran the 7960x through it successfully this time the frame rate is overall impressive it's still managing 547 FPS average it's obviously way behind the top performers here but that's still pretty damn good the 1% lows are worse than a 13600 K but not in a way that anyone would realistically care about if they are the target audience for the 7960x if you're a competitive gamer and you do care about these things and you think it actually matters to your performance then you need to buy a different CPU but that's something everyone knows already now we'll look briefly at frequency AMD advertises a maximum single core frequency of 5.3 GHz on its website in our chart with a single threaded C bench round we measured this frequency for the 7960x at about 5340 MHz so it did pass that requirement it's technically slightly above spec we didn't have any issues maintaining the single core frequency in our testing our previous review had the 7980x at about 4,800 MHz single core so this is actually a lot higher for lower threaded applications on the 60x for all core frequency the 7960x ran in the 4600 to 4700 MHz range we were between 0 and 5% away from PBT Max so this was a fully loaded test frequency dropping from the high numbers in single core is expected the 7980x for reference was closer to 3.9 to 4 GHz all core in our previous review and again that makes the 7960x much higher in frequency which is a trade for its position on the volt frequency curve for efficiency and also it's just lower core count all right so this is basically something that someone might buy for again giant air quotes here but a cheap or an economical workstation prices have gone up we've talked about that and covered it already um from a performance standpoint in some of these applications we looked at today we're still getting most of the performance of the 32 core part for a bit less money so that's an upside now in applications where it scales closer to linearly then obviously that jump widens going up to 32 cor but for someone who's maybe a premier user like we are there's still a lot of advantages to Quicks sync and igps and things like that um this is getting into sort of subjective territory but our experience with threader in the past for an editing workstation was that it was generally one of the most reliable systems we've ever used for video editing it had a limit so we found it worked best at the time with the 3960 X in terms of a balance of frequency and core count things like that uh but the subjective aspect is this anyone who uses aob Premiere knows how much of a nightmare it can be where it's like almost dayto day your experience changes and so the subjectivity is we don't have a good way to measure sort of how it feels as a user and there's things you could do like you can try and Benchmark the frame rate the playback speed when scrubbing and things like that but so wildly inconsistent this is a software proc not a CPU problem uh that it's hard to put numbers to it and so we've recently switched back to Intel mainstream desktop Parts the high end uh to use the igps for Quicks sync but the problem with Quicks sync for us is that it doesn't seem to consistently work there's some problems with Windows update things like that that'll break it every now and then whereas just going for raw core count up to a limit again uh that seems to work better for us so there's use cases for a 24 core especially for people like us but if you can get more scaling in the applications you use like we showed with spec workstation stuff then something like 32 core or 64 depending on what you're doing might be worth considering carefully so uh some instances where we saw uplift were in those financial services benchmarks from spec workstation where it scales pretty cleanly it's not perfect scaling but you do get extra performance for the extra uh the the more expensive HDT parts and meanwhile again in Premier here the 7980x uh there's fixes being made to work with 64 core CPUs but it's just it's really not the best fit for how we test it anyway and then in Photoshop mainstream parts are still killing it there and are performing better and as expected if your primary use case is gaming you should buy a different part these still fun to look at uh the place these make more sense for gaming would be if you are planning to run heavily multi-threaded stuff sort of in the side ground basically where you don't need all the threads for it and you can reserve some for gaming it'll slow down the work if it's heavily paralleled to pull some of those cores away but that would be the main place that gaming steps in uh it does play the games we tested without any major issues or game breaking problems though but we haven't tested all the games so that's it for this one thanks for watching go to the 7980x review for more detail we looked at some of the interesting facts with voltages and per core power consumption there that includes the 79 70x as well and you can check out our live stream archive go to the channel and click on live it's in a SE tab on YouTube and you can see two of amd's Engineers working with us to overclock the 7995 WX and talk about some of the engineering aspects of the Silicon so that's it for this one thanks for watching as always subscribe for more go to store. Gamers nexus.net to support us directly or patreon.com Gamers Nexus and we'll see you all next timeAMD didn't send these ones out to reviewers this is the AMD threader 7960x we already reviewed the 7980x and 70x this is the cheaper version It's $1,500 we just bought it for review this is a 24 core 48 thread part that sockets into the new HDT motherboards in socket st5 the CPU claims a boost clock up to 5.3 GHz single core which would make it fast for a threader per CPU by HDT standards today 15 $0000 for a threader for CPU is cheap it's economical in a sense it's still a lot more expensive than a mainstream desktop part like 750x where you're talking maybe 5 or $600 versus 1500 uh and that's a big jump in price for an extra full eight cores but it's not just the core count that you're paying for a lot of it is the io and you'll pay extra for the motherboard too we've seen a lot of the new thread her boards are like $1,000 plus but more so than that core count increase the significant increase is the io capabilities even on the 7960x it's an interesting balance of a higher frequency a still relatively High Core count and having the Fuller IO options as compared to a desktop part like a 7950 X or 14900 K before that this video is brought to you by Squarespace and visiting squarespace.com Gamers Nexus will give you 10% off your first purchase with them we've built a number of our own websites with Squarespace including our recently launched gamers. Nexus site where we list catastrophic PC Hardware failures to inform subscribers of those failures I built this site personally in a couple of hours by using squarespace's fluid engine to move blocks around visually until I liked it we also built our store website with Squarespace using its built-in e-commerce tools and of course we built a website for our CEO snowflake because she demanded our audience know who really runs the show get to the core of your idea and spend less time on web design by signing up at squarespace.com gam Nexis or click the link below the 24 core HDT threader for part almost seems like the boring option maybe that's why it wasn't sent out because in comparison to a 64 core or 32 core part 24 just seems like almost too close to normal but it's still a really potentially useful part because there are some cost reductions now whether or not that's savings depends on if you're actually going to leverage the CPU but uh for People Like Us in the past we've used the 24 core parts for example we had one in one of our old editing machines instead of the 32 core because for Premiere it just it worked almost exactly as well and it gave us all the io options we wanted for drives and uh network cards and things like that expansion devices and it was still a little bit cheaper and preserved the 32 core for the testing that we needed and for a lot of people probably you'll fall in a similar class uh but it's still more expensive than we're used to from older HDT Parts the prices have all climbed we talked about that in the 7980x review where now the flagship version HDT the nonpr variant is five grand the next up down is 2500 bucks but let's go over some specs so the 760x we bought it's 24 core 48 thread as we've said it has 1.5 megabytes of L1 cache 24 megabytes of L2 and 128 megabytes of L3 the PBT Max is still 350 Watts default anyway uh which is alongside TDP and it's fully unlocked for overclock CPU also has four memory channels and for Io options the tx50 HDT platform offers a total of 92 PCI Lanes or 88 usable maximally 48 of those can be pcie Gen 5 the platform also has options like ECC for memory if you haven't been following the thread of for news basically these are targeted at sort of professional users maybe not quite in the area of pro they've got the wx9 platform for that where a pro user might want the highest core count CPU like the 7995 5wx which we overclocked and it was a ton of fun working on not the intended use case though or might just prefer the extra memory channels but for HDT you're still in that sort of Enthusiast class entering workstation territory uh and that's what we're going to be looking at today so for this we'll be going into benchmarks for respect workstation we have all of our standard production benchmarks like chromium code compile we have some frequency tests at the end to validate the frequency claims and then we'll also be looking at power consumption and efficiency since efficiency was such a big part of the 7980x review we'll start with power consumption in an all core workload with blender the 7960x pulled 337 Watts at the EPS 12 volt rails which had it lower than the 7980x is 352 and the 770x is 360 as an aside though we measured the 7960x at 360 watts in cinebench R23 a different test so it can still stretch up to that number and it's still hitting the 350 wat PBT but it's plus or minus a little bit depending on the workload for reference the 7950 X mainstream CPU pulls 251 watts in the same work with the 14900 K providing some variety in the suffix lerine we're moving from X's to K's which is worth more nobody knows but that one's at 287 watts in this workload even though the power consumption is high in an absolute sense For Thread Ripper what the CPU does with that power is the important aspect because it will definitely affect your cooler choice and your power supply choice but the efficiency is what we want to look at so let's do that in an all core fully threaded workload that hits the CPU at 100% the 7980x really impressed us here it did phenomenally with the best results on the chart other than the 7950 X eco mode results previously which aren't plotted here the 12.9 wat result was so impressive that we spent a few minutes explaining the per cor power consumption and looking at some additional voltage numbers in our original review that you'll probably find interesting and that's linked below the 70x X was still good but not as impressive as the 80 it runs at a less efficient part of the volt frequency curve and that extends to the 60x as well the 7960x also did fine at 25.9 wat hours ranking it ahead of most of the mainstream CPUs but the 5950 X and the 7800x 3D represent the mainstream with some extremely efficient chips Intel has a lot of ground to gain here this is where we're going to be watching them the most over the next couple of generations now we're going to move to spec workstation benchmarking these are excellent benchmarking tools that help represent biomedical Financial Industries and services computational fluid dynamics Life Sciences things like heart and Medical Imaging so a lot of these tests we know how to run the tests but we don't necessarily understand what they are representing because we're not doctors or medical researchers but our viewers told us in the comments last time that these were apparently very helpful so we're happy to provide them again and make them a more permanent part of our testing Suite first up for spec is the product development category of testing which includes computational fluid dynamics benchmarks at least this aspect we have some exposure to but the medical stuff's coming up in this one the 7960x performed impressively in some tests even in spite of the heavily reduced core count WPC cfd is based on open foam's combustion cfd solver and the 7960x scored 13.65 points here so it's an aggregate points scoring that puts it close in performance to the 79 70x and the 80x in a relative sense and the scaling isn't that favorable for higher cork out thread rer parts for that one but it's favorable enough to establish a large golf between the 60x and the mainstream desktop Parts the rinia cfd solver test scales cleanly here with the 7980x leading the 70x by 62% which itself leads the 60x by 33% but the 60x and the 79 70x were outperformed by the Intel 14900 can in this test with the 7960x also outperformed by AMD 7950 50x so as usual cores aren't everything the calculu testing had the 7960x at 5.12 leading the mainstream Intel part by 34% for that one next up the spec life sciences and biomedical tests these tests look at lamps which spc.org says is quote a molecular Dynamic simulator that consists of five tests simulating a variety of molecular properties it also tests namd which a viewer of ours taught us how to pronounce in the last one so thank you that runs a molecular Interactive it test and then rodinia life science does heartwall medical imaging among other tests that they list on their website in this Suite the 7980x leads the 79 70x by 30% which itself leads the 60x by 16% the 7960x holds a significant advantage over the mainstream desktop parts and prior thread rep per CPUs alike for lamps at least at 71% improved over the, 14900 K in Tel part for an MD we observed limited scaling against the 7970 X but still a significant gain against the 14900 K the 3970x did particularly well in this test previously and ND also posted significant scaling favoring the 7980x as compared to the lamps and rodinia tests here now for the financial services and probability tests where spec workstation runs Monte Carlo simulations black sches pricing binomial options pricing tests we're really waiting for them to add that Wall Street bets Benchmark where it processes how many really really ill advised comments you can calculate at one time while we don't necessarily understand the real world applications for some of these Financial workloads Beyond running the test again this is one that a lot of you really seem to appreciate in the last review so we'll keep it in the scaling is excitingly clean overall from a number standpoint the 7980x gaps everything holding a 60% lead over the 70x and the 79 7x's lead over the 60x is 27% which itself rests closer to the 3970x in some of the prior tests the 14900 K is at the bottom of this particular chart now for the spec energy testing the application tests for seismic data processing with srmp algorithms a convolutional filter with a 100x 100 random filter applied to a 20K X 20K pixel image and some more here the 7960x ranked third by convolution again although its convolution results is only barely ahead of the 3970x it's interesting though to see them at about parity despite the core difference because we have an architecture difference that's maybe surfacing here and frequency too the fftw result had the 8X massively ahead so course scaling a strong there the 60x was relatively close to the 70x but far ahead of the 3970x the poison result had it behind the 3970x and 3960x now we're moving to our standard Suite of production test starting with blender we have some fun stats to add the 7995 WX came through our lab for an extreme overclocking live stream which you should absolutely check out on the channel because it was huge hugely educational we got to work with two AMD Engineers we learned a ton and we did some fun liquid nitrogen OC but the 7995 WX with liquid nitrogen and an extreme overclock set the mark for the best performance we've ever seen in this test at 1.2 minutes is it realistic no but it's really fun the stock result was about 2.1 to 2.2 minutes but it wasn't 100% comparable due to some differences in the test setup as was amd's engineering team with their own Hardware on site but but it gives you an idea and besides it'd be realistic if you had someone to pour liquid nitrogen for you while you ran the render back down to earth though the 7960x required 4.6 minutes to run blender so it allows the 7 970x an improvement by the way of 1 minute or 22% time reduced we always do our chart calculations in the direction of improvement so in this instance Improvement is a percent time reduction we don't flip the axis and invert it to a rate or like renders per unit of time but instead use the base metric of time the 7980x required 2.2 minutes to complete the render and Improvement of 52% time reduced from the 60x it's a big jump even for those using Eevee with Cuda it's still impressive to see how much can be done with CPU cores these days the relevant desktop Parts would be the 750x marked at 6.4 minutes and the 14900 k at 7.3 minutes respectively these allow the 7960x an advantage of 28% and 37% time reduced the 7960x manages to offer benefits over the mainstream desktop Parts Beyond IO and several of these tests for those who can make use of its capabilities chromium code compile is next this is like blender smaller bars are better and we don't invert the access to a rate but we use the base metric of time without abstractions away from it the 7980x is 31.4 minute result has it running at 27% time reduced against the 7 97X which itself reduces the time requirement to complete the compile by 16% over the 79 60x the 14900 K it required 71 minutes to complete this compile with the 7950 X basically the same the result of the HDT 7960x against these parts assuming about 71 minutes or so for them is 28% time reduction the 3970x is still hanging in there at about 60 Minutes sticking close to the 7960x and still establishing a gap against the 750x and the 14900 K 7zip is up now these tests are measured in millions of instructions per second or mips for decompression the 7 6X ran 388,000 mips allowing the 70x a lead of about 29% with the 80x in a similar spot we're Limited in headro when we're this high up though the 7960x performed similarly to the 3970x but had a more drastic lead of 41% over the desktop 795x part or 66% over the 14900 K in compression the 7980x sets the ceiling at 393,000 mips followed closely by the 7an 7x at 352,000 mips and then the 7960x at 288,000 mips the 79 70x leads the 60x by about 22% here with the 7960x leading the 750x non 3D by about 50% which is near the 14900 K as well it's a big gap between this lower end HDT part and the best desktop Parts in Adobe Premiere looking first at aggregate score with Puget bench the 7960x scored 913 points just behind the 7 97X and functionally tied that as it ahead of the 750x the 1400k and everything else igps can help in some aspects of premiere for Intel but there's still value in brute for CPUs looking at the raw subscore for raw footage processing the 7960x retains its second place rank here the lead over the 14900 K the next CPU is about 9% so thread Ripper does pretty well with raw footage processing but the cost efficiency still rests with desktop Parts looking at the intraframe video score the Satan 60x does exceptionally well here and ties with the 77x again the cost efficiency will still in dramatic ways be with the desktop parts for Premiere but both CPUs establish a clear lead over the next CPUs at least which themselves are led by the 7 950x unfortunately as we saw last time Photoshop isn't really a great test case for threader it doesn't do particularly well in the comparative sense for it it's not bad but purely against Alternatives it's an expensive and vastly underutilized CPU and it doesn't chart Photoshop just isn't threaded this way the 7960x is ahead of the 7980x behind the 770x this chart is Led more by the mainstream CPUs like the 7700x or the 3900 K now we're getting into the gaming benchmarks as a quick reminder gaming is not the intended use case for these so when we run the gaming benchmarks what we're really looking for is just does it cause massive problems that makes the games unplayable so rather than looking for Peak Performance which you as a reminder again you shouldn't be buying these for maximum gaming performance you're not going to get it you you'll get that somewhere else uh but we just want to make sure it still works now one interesting additional use case here is that with the sufficient core count especially if you're willing to do some manual thread assignment or prioritization through say process lasso task manager any of the various options for that you could have some cool use cases of say running your code compile or your Premier render or whatever on half of the threads over here and then allocating the other half to your game in the foreground so there's some interesting uh places you could you could extrapolate to with this data uh there but we're just going to look at pure gaming make sure it all works okay in cyberpunk Phantom Liberty at 1080p the 7960x ran at 135 FPS average that has it just between the 7980x and 770x the lows are timed almost exactly with other new threader CPUs if you're planning to use a 7960x CPU for work at least so far it doesn't appear that it would be a buggy mess for gaming at least in scheduling but that's going to change a lot depending on the game at 1440p in Phantom Liberty the 7960x is 135 FPS average keeps it again about tied with the other new threader for CPUs and more than capable of at least running the game well despite not being a top performer in Stellaris for CPU simulation time the 7960x required 44 seconds to complete the simulation that had it about tied with the 5600x the 7980x and 79 70x did better on a technicality But ultimately these CPUs aren't able to leverage their cores in a meaningful way here they're still acceptable performers if gaming is a secondary use case but definitely not for a primary and balers Gate 3 at 1080p the 7960x ran at 90 FPS average and again had good frame time pacing the CPU was just behind the 77x and 7980x but realistically all three of these are roughly tied and from a practical standpoint you'd never notice a difference you might notice a difference with the high-end desktop Parts though especially in games like Rainbow 6 Rainbow Six Siege was buggy and couldn't launch with our 7980x previously we're not sure if they fixed that we haven't gone back to check it but we ran the 7960x through it successfully this time the frame rate is overall impressive it's still managing 547 FPS average it's obviously way behind the top performers here but that's still pretty damn good the 1% lows are worse than a 13600 K but not in a way that anyone would realistically care about if they are the target audience for the 7960x if you're a competitive gamer and you do care about these things and you think it actually matters to your performance then you need to buy a different CPU but that's something everyone knows already now we'll look briefly at frequency AMD advertises a maximum single core frequency of 5.3 GHz on its website in our chart with a single threaded C bench round we measured this frequency for the 7960x at about 5340 MHz so it did pass that requirement it's technically slightly above spec we didn't have any issues maintaining the single core frequency in our testing our previous review had the 7980x at about 4,800 MHz single core so this is actually a lot higher for lower threaded applications on the 60x for all core frequency the 7960x ran in the 4600 to 4700 MHz range we were between 0 and 5% away from PBT Max so this was a fully loaded test frequency dropping from the high numbers in single core is expected the 7980x for reference was closer to 3.9 to 4 GHz all core in our previous review and again that makes the 7960x much higher in frequency which is a trade for its position on the volt frequency curve for efficiency and also it's just lower core count all right so this is basically something that someone might buy for again giant air quotes here but a cheap or an economical workstation prices have gone up we've talked about that and covered it already um from a performance standpoint in some of these applications we looked at today we're still getting most of the performance of the 32 core part for a bit less money so that's an upside now in applications where it scales closer to linearly then obviously that jump widens going up to 32 cor but for someone who's maybe a premier user like we are there's still a lot of advantages to Quicks sync and igps and things like that um this is getting into sort of subjective territory but our experience with threader in the past for an editing workstation was that it was generally one of the most reliable systems we've ever used for video editing it had a limit so we found it worked best at the time with the 3960 X in terms of a balance of frequency and core count things like that uh but the subjective aspect is this anyone who uses aob Premiere knows how much of a nightmare it can be where it's like almost dayto day your experience changes and so the subjectivity is we don't have a good way to measure sort of how it feels as a user and there's things you could do like you can try and Benchmark the frame rate the playback speed when scrubbing and things like that but so wildly inconsistent this is a software proc not a CPU problem uh that it's hard to put numbers to it and so we've recently switched back to Intel mainstream desktop Parts the high end uh to use the igps for Quicks sync but the problem with Quicks sync for us is that it doesn't seem to consistently work there's some problems with Windows update things like that that'll break it every now and then whereas just going for raw core count up to a limit again uh that seems to work better for us so there's use cases for a 24 core especially for people like us but if you can get more scaling in the applications you use like we showed with spec workstation stuff then something like 32 core or 64 depending on what you're doing might be worth considering carefully so uh some instances where we saw uplift were in those financial services benchmarks from spec workstation where it scales pretty cleanly it's not perfect scaling but you do get extra performance for the extra uh the the more expensive HDT parts and meanwhile again in Premier here the 7980x uh there's fixes being made to work with 64 core CPUs but it's just it's really not the best fit for how we test it anyway and then in Photoshop mainstream parts are still killing it there and are performing better and as expected if your primary use case is gaming you should buy a different part these still fun to look at uh the place these make more sense for gaming would be if you are planning to run heavily multi-threaded stuff sort of in the side ground basically where you don't need all the threads for it and you can reserve some for gaming it'll slow down the work if it's heavily paralleled to pull some of those cores away but that would be the main place that gaming steps in uh it does play the games we tested without any major issues or game breaking problems though but we haven't tested all the games so that's it for this one thanks for watching go to the 7980x review for more detail we looked at some of the interesting facts with voltages and per core power consumption there that includes the 79 70x as well and you can check out our live stream archive go to the channel and click on live it's in a SE tab on YouTube and you can see two of amd's Engineers working with us to overclock the 7995 WX and talk about some of the engineering aspects of the Silicon so that's it for this one thanks for watching as always subscribe for more go to store. Gamers nexus.net to support us directly or patreon.com Gamers Nexus and we'll see you all next time\n"