# AMD Ryzen 5950X vs 5900X: A Comprehensive Comparison
## Introduction
In this article, we’ll compare AMD’s two top Zen 3 processors, the Ryzen 5950X and Ryzen 5900X, across various applications and gaming scenarios to help you decide which one is right for your needs. The main differences between these CPUs lie in their core and thread counts, with the 5950X offering four additional cores, slightly more cache, and a marginally higher max boost clock speed.
## Specifications Overview
The Ryzen 5950X features 16 cores (8 performance cores + 8 efficiency cores) and 32 threads, while the Ryzen 5900X has 12 cores (8P+4E) and 24 threads. The 5950X also boasts 68MB of L3 cache compared to the 5900X’s 64MB, and a slightly higher max boost clock speed of 4.9GHz versus 4.7GHz for the 5900X.
## Testing Setup
Both processors were tested in the same system using:
- **Motherboard**: Asrock X570 Taichi
- **Memory**: 32GB DDR4-3200 CL14 (dual-channel)
- **GPU**: MSI GeForce RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio
- **Cooling**: Fractal S36 AIO with Noctua NT-H2 thermal paste
The CPUs were tested both at stock settings and manually overclocked to 4.7GHz for the 5950X and slightly lower for the 5900X.
## Application Performance
### Cinebench R20
- **Stock Performance**: Single-core performance was nearly identical, with a slight edge going to the 5900X. Multicore scores improved significantly with overclocking, particularly for the 5950X, which saw a 22% increase in its score when pushed to 4.7GHz.
- **Cinebench R15**: Similar trends were observed, with the 5950X pulling ahead when overclocked.
### Blender Open Data BMW and Classroom Benchmarks
The 5950X outperformed the 5900X by around 20% at stock settings. With overclocking, this gap widened further, making it clear that higher core counts deliver better results in tasks requiring parallel processing.
### V-Ray Benchmark
The 5950X led by 21% at stock and by a larger margin (33%) when both were overclocked. This test highlights the importance of thread count in rendering workloads.
### Corona Benchmark
Similar to other rendering tests, the 5950X excelled, completing tasks 19-34% faster depending on whether it was overclocked.
### Handbrake and Adobe Premiere Pro
The differences here were less pronounced compared to rendering workloads. The 5950X was only marginally faster in video conversion and export tasks, with gains around 6-8%.
### Adobe Photoshop and Puget Systems Benchmark
The 5950X showed minimal advantage over the 5900X in these tests, often within a 1-4% range, suggesting that single-core performance isn’t where these CPUs shine.
### 7-Zip and VeraCrypt
Compression and encryption tasks favored the 5950X by up to 25%, but these gains were less significant than those seen in rendering workloads.
### Microsoft Excel and Geekbench
The 5950X consistently outperformed the 5900X, especially when overclocked, with improvements ranging from 15-32%. Multicore tasks saw larger gains compared to single-core ones.
## Power Draw and Thermal Performance
At stock settings, the 5950X consumed less power than the 5900X while running cooler despite having more cores. Overclocking, however, reversed this trend, with the 5950X drawing significantly more power and generating more heat.
## Gaming Performance
Both CPUs performed similarly in gaming scenarios across 1080p, 1440p, and 4K resolutions. The 5950X showed slight advantages (3-5%) in some titles but generally, the performance difference was negligible. At 1080p, the average frame rate advantage for the 5950X was around 1.8%.
## Cost-Per-Frame Analysis
For gaming, the 5900X offers better value given its lower price and minimal performance differences in most titles. The 5950X’s extra cores provide tangible benefits only in core-heavy workloads like rendering and compression.
## Conclusion
If your workload involves heavy multitasking or tasks that benefit from more cores, the Ryzen 5950X is worth considering despite its higher cost. However, if gaming or general productivity is your primary concern, the Ryzen 5900X provides excellent performance at a lower price point.
"WEBVTTKind: captionsLanguage: enI’ve compared AMD’s two best Zen 3 processorsin games and applications to help you decidewhich to pick.The main differences in specs are seen inthe core and thread counts, the 5950X has4 additional cores.It’s also got a little more cache and aslightly higher max boost clock speed, soreally just minor changes outside of the coredifferences.I’m comparing these two CPUs because the5950X is the next step up after the 5900X,but the 5950X costs $250 USD extra, or 45%more money, so let’s find out if it’sworth it.Both processors were tested in the same system.I’m using the Asrock X570 Taichi motherboardwith 32gb of DDR4-3200 CL14 memory in dualchannel and MSI’s GeForce RTX 3090 GamingX Trio to minimize GPU bottlenecks.Both processors were cooled with my FractalS36 AIO using Noctua NT-H2 thermal paste,as neither come with a stock cooler.Links for everything I’m using are linkedbelow.I’ve tested both CPUs at stock and manuallyoverclocked.With both at 1.375 volts I was able to runthe 5950X stable at 4.7GHz while the 5900Xwas just a little behind.It’s worth noting last generation I couldn’tget my 3950X above 4.3GHz, so Zen3 appearsto be offering more overclocking headroom.With that in mind we’ll first check outthe differences in various applications, aswell as power draw and thermals, followedby gaming tests afterwards, then finish upby comparing some performance per dollar metrics.Let’s start out with Cinebench R20.I’ve got the stock results from both processorstowards the bottom, then the results withboth of them overclocked above.At stock the single core performance is almostthe same, and single core performance actuallylowers with the static overclocks in place,as these all core overclocks prevent the higherless threaded boost speeds from being reached.The multicore scores are seeing nice improvementsfrom the overclocks though, particularly forthe 5950X, which is beating its stock scoreby 22% once overclocked.Although Cinebench R15 has been replaced bythe newer R20 just covered, I wanted to alsoinclude the results of this one too as manyothers still use it, that way I’ve got morenumbers for you to compare with, similar resultshere in any case.I’ve tested the Blender Opendata BMW andClassroom benchmarks, and as another workloadthat loves higher core count it’s a winfor the 5950X, which was completing the testaround 20% faster than the 5900X at stock.Again as a multicore workload, the all coreoverclocks are beneficial here.Once the 5950X is overclocked for instance,it’s able to complete the task about 19%faster than stock.The V-Ray benchmark is another workload thatheavily favours higher thread counts, whichis why at stock the 5950X was scoring 21%higher than the 5900X, the second largestimprovement out of all workloads tested.Once both are overclocked though the 5950Xis now 33% ahead, as that all core overclockmatters more in tests where all cores areutilized.The Corona benchmark also uses the processorto render out a scene, and again it was oneof the bigger differences out of the appstested.At stock the 5950X was completing the task19% faster, but then 34% faster once overclocked,so again nice gains from overclocking.Handbrake was used to convert one of my 4Klaptop review videos to 1080p.I was honestly expecting a larger differencehere due to the core count differences, butthe 5950X was only able to export the videofile 6.6% faster than the 5900X at stock.Overclocking helped, but didn’t make asmuch of an improvement when compared to thoseprevious rendering workloads.The 5950X was 8% faster with the overclockapplied compared to running stock, while the5900X had a 5.5% boost when overclocked.Adobe Premiere was used to export one of mylaptop review videos at 4K.I’ve tested this with both VBR 1 and 2 passsettings.2 pass isn’t able to make use of hardwareacceleration, so it takes longer.The 5950X is 15% faster with 2 pass comparedto 9% faster in the 1 pass test.Either way though, like Handbrake the differenceshere aren’t as much compared to those renderingworkloads.I’ve also tested Adobe Premiere but withthe Puget Systems benchmark tool, as thistests for more things like live playback andmore rather than just raw video export times.The differences were even closer togetherhere though, with the 5950X scoring just 4%higher than the 5900X at stock, and this margindoesn’t change once overclocked, as bothchips only improve a little there.Adobe Photoshop was also tested with the PugetSystems benchmark tool, and the scores areeven closer together here.The 5950X was just 1% ahead of the 5900X atstock, so margin of error stuff and probablynot something you’re likely to notice inpractice.I’ve used 7-Zip to test compression anddecompression speeds, and the difference indecompression was the largest out of all workloadstested at stock with the 5950X 25% fasterhere, otherwise it was 15% faster when itcame to compression.VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryptionand decryption.I might stop testing this soon as the resultscan be pretty different, even after takingthe averages of 10 tests.Generally I’ve found overclocking to hurtthis test, perhaps due to weaker single coreperformance.Microsoft Excel was tested using the HardwareUnboxed large number crunch test, and whileI’m sure either of these processors wouldmake a nice spreadsheet machine, the 5950Xwas completing the task 15% faster at stock,then 32% faster once both are overclocked.Like Cinebench, Geekbench wasn’t seeingany big differences in single core performanceat stock, and as expected lower single coreresults are present with both chips overclocked.In multicore score though, the 5950X was 10%faster than the 5900X, increasing to a 17%higher score when both chips are overclocked.These are the differences between the 5950Xand 5900X CPUs in all of these applications,as we can see it really depends on the specificworkload.The single core results are all closer tothe bottom of the graph, as there really isn’tmuch difference between them there.The bigger differences depend on whether ornot we’re actually able to run tasks thatbenefit from more than 12 cores, and in generalthis is rendering type workloads like V-Ray,Blender, Corona, and even Cinebench.These are the differences once both processorsare overclocked.There’s a nice improvement observed in thetasks that do better with more cores, againmostly those rendering workloads just mentioned,which are all now 30% plus better comparedto 20% or lower at stock.I was able to overclock the 5950X 50MHz higheron all cores, and although that will affectresults I think this graph puts things intoperspective.These are the clockspeeds both chips wererunning at with the blender test running.At stock the 5900X was able to reach higherclock speeds than the 5950X, so once bothare overclocked the 5950X sees a larger change,and this is why the gap between the two widenswith the overclocks in place.It goes from being behind to being in frontin terms of clock speed.These results also map to the total systempower draw measured at the wall.At stock the 5950X is actually using lesspower than the 5900X, which is kind of impressivewhen you remember that it’s also completingthe blender render almost 20% faster too.Once overclocked though the 5950X is suckingdown 22% more power than the overclocked 5900X.More power generally equals more heat, sowith both overclocked it’s no surprise thatthe 5950X is running warmer than the 5900X.At stock though the 5950X was actually coolerthan the 5900X, and this seems to be becauseit was drawing less power and running at lowerclock speeds, despite it actually having morecores.This exact same behaviour was also noted inmy 3900X vs 3950X comparison too.Next let’s get into the gaming results,I’ve tested games at 1080p, 1440p and 4Kresolutions.Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested usingthe games built in benchmark tool, I’vegot the 1080p results down the bottom, 1440pin the middle, and 4K up the top.The 5950X was ahead of the 5900X in all cases,though not by a large margin.At 1080p the 5950X was 5% faster in averageframe rate, then only around 1% faster at1440p and 4K.It’s not all gains though, I’ve testedMicrosoft Flight Simulator in the Sydney landingchallenge and there was basically no differenceat all.The 5950X was slightly ahead, but it’s marginof error stuff and definitely not a differenceyou’re going to notice when playing.Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested using thegame’s benchmark.The 5950X was around 3% faster at 1080p, thenthe differences are more minor at higher resolutions,so again not a huge difference, but stilla win over the 5900X, but for 45% more moneyprobably not one that’s worthwhile.Shadow of the Tomb Raider was also testedwith the games benchmark, this isn’t a greatCPU test but if you caught my 5950X vs 10900Kcomparison these AMD chips are definitelyoffering a nice improvement compared to Intel,there’s just far less of a difference betweenthese two.Battlefield 5 was tested by running throughthe same campaign.Both were able to hit the 200 FPS frame capat 1080p, then results are very close togetherat the higher resolutions as processor differencesstart to matter less and less.Call of Duty Modern Warfare was tested inthe same manner, and again no real differencesbetween the two chips so let’s move on.CS:GO had a little more difference at 1080p,where the 5950X was 4% faster in average framerate, then even less of a difference at higherresolutions once more.Rainbow Six Siege was tested with Vulkan andthe game’s benchmark tool.Again no real differences here, however atall resolutions the 1% low from the 5950Xwas slightly lower.Each bar on the graph is an average of 5 testruns, and the 5950X 1% lows were much moreinconsistent for some reason, perhaps 16 coresis just too much for it.Far Cry New Dawn also had some inconsistentresults despite averaging 5 test runs, buteither way we’re looking at a couple ofFPS difference best case which isn’t anythingamazing.Death stranding was tested by walking throughthe same part of the game, because that’swhat the game is all about right?The 5950X was down a little in 1% low performance,however the average FPS was always ahead ofthe 5900X regardless of resolution.Over all 10 games tested we’re only lookingat a 1.8% higher average frame rate with the5950X at 1080p, so there aren’t any hugedifferences with these titles.Best case, Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was5% better than the 5900X.When we step up to 1440p they’re basicallythe same once we average things out.This is expected as higher resolutions willbetter utilize the 3090 graphics, making theprocessor differences matter less.Again at 4K there aren’t any major differencesbetween these two chips, basically most gamesaren’t going to care too much about thejump from 12 to 16 cores, 12 is already plentyif we’re being realistic.At stock the 5950X has a 100MHz higher boostclock and a bit more cache, and I think it’sthese differences that are responsible forthe small differences in games that we’veseen rather than the core count.When we look at cost per frame, the 5900Xis clearly better value for gaming.In most cases the frame rates aren’t allthat different in the games I’ve tested,and the 5950X costs 45% more money than the5900X.Basically for gaming, the 5950X isn’t reallyworth considering over the 5900X, considerit instead if you’re running core heavyworkloads that can utilize the extra cores,as that’s where the gains are.Gaming as a secondary task will only be slightlybetter than the 5900X.Although the 5950X does perform better incore heavy workloads, if we consider how muchmore money we’ve got to pay to achieve theCinebench R20 scores I got, the 5900X is offeringbetter value.The values of this graph are basically Cinebenchscores divided by processor price, I choseCinebench as the performance difference wascloser to the middle of the pack out of theapplications I’ve tested.Sure the 5950X performs better in core heavyworkloads like this, but you’ve got to paymore to get those results.If time is money then the 5950X is probablyworth considering, otherwise you’ll needto decide if you want to pay the extra costfor the performance differences covered here.It’s also worth considering that these pricedifferences are for the CPU only, the percentagedifferences become less in the context ofa new $2000 system for instance.I’ve got a lot more CPU comparisons on theway, so if you’re new to the channel thenyou’ll definitely want to get subscribedfor those, and let me know in the commentswhich comparisons you want to see.\n"
