AMD Ryzen 9 4950X details leak - a potential gaming king?

midian182

Posts: 6,021   +50
Staff member
Highly anticipated: Every day that passes is another day closer to Zen 3's launch. Now, what could be the first details on AMD's flagship consumer part have leaked, and if true, it could finally give team red's chips the edge against rival Intel when it comes to gaming.

According to Igor's Lab, the Ryzen 9 4950X will be a 16-core/32-thread CPU like its 3950X predecessor, but its boost frequency has been upped to 4.8 GHz.

The information comes from an OPN code that Igor obtained, which reads: "100-000000059-52_48/35_Y." Breaking that down, the 35 at the end of the string represents a 3.5 GHz base clock, while the 4.8 the precedes it is a boost clock of 4.8 GHz.

While that's only 100 MHz faster than the Ryzen 9 3950X, this is reportedly an engineering sample, so the final product could see a further boost to the clock speed, potentially putting it closer to Intel's 5GHz chips. While AMD's processors have long boasted more cores than its rival, Chipzilla's higher frequencies have helped it claim the gaming crown. With the Vermeer processors, that could all change, especially as they use the new 7nm+ Zen 3 architecture.

We also don't know if the upcoming chips are going to be called the 4000-series, seeing as AMD already uses that name for its Zen 2-based APUs, including the Ryzen 9 4900HS and Ryzen 5 4500U. It's possible that AMD will go for the 5000 nomenclature. If so, the chip here will be called the Ryzen 5950X.

While AMD's roadmaps show its Zen 3-based Milan data center chips slated for release this year, the company had been quiet when it came to the consumer Vermeer CPUs. Thankfully, it recently confirmed that they too would arrive in 2020, probably soon after Intel launches its 10nm Tiger Lake CPUs in September.

Permalink to story.

 

R00sT3R

Posts: 281   +634
AMD chips don't have a boost timer, they boost for however long they stay cool, so if the cooler keeps up, the chip maintains its boost speed.
I know, It was a 'for example' argument, I didn't think anyone would take '5 second turbo boost' literally!
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosminmcm

Ben1978

Posts: 80   +62
All core sustainable clock speed is the only Ghz metric that matters, not a 5 second turbo boost to 4.8Ghz then quickly dropping down to an all core 4.3-4.4Ghz, when under full load.
My 3800x boosts to 4.55, mostly when in Windows and moving the cursor around. In game it rarely boosts beyond 4.475.

I would have held out for these new CPUs though if they hadn't said that b450 wouldn't support them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: max0x7ba

y6Tq2RGXEejb

Posts: 6   +13
My 3800x boosts to 4.55, mostly when in Windows and moving the cursor around. In game it rarely boosts beyond 4.475.

I would have held out for these new CPUs though if they hadn't said that b450 wouldn't support them.
But they then corrected themselves and said it would? B350 won't, but 450 and 470 will, while losing support for all Zen 1 CPUs
 

Adi6293

Posts: 567   +668
All core sustainable clock speed is the only Ghz metric that matters, not a 5 second turbo boost to 4.8Ghz then quickly dropping down to an all core 4.3-4.4Ghz, when under full load.
If the IPC goes up by solid 15% clocks won't have to go up to beat Intel, they already do it in everything but few programs and games which already run in excess of 100fps anyway
 

Morphine Child

Posts: 72   +80
My 3800x boosts to 4.55, mostly when in Windows and moving the cursor around. In game it rarely boosts beyond 4.475.

I would have held out for these new CPUs though if they hadn't said that b450 wouldn't support them.
It will be up to MOBO maker in the end, but I reckon most of them will. And like someone said, you will lose some older CPU support in the process, but that's completely irrelevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cosminmcm

yRaz

Posts: 3,380   +2,914
It will be up to MOBO maker in the end, but I reckon most of them will. And like someone said, you will lose some older CPU support in the process, but that's completely irrelevant.
I agree. While it's nice to have the option, very few people actually do it. If you're the budget gamer you're probably not getting a new highend CPU for the feature set and if you are buying a highend CPU you likely are doing a complete, or mostly complete, new build anyway. At worst people have to go with a a ryzen 7 instead of a ryzen 9. I really don't see a point for the ryzen 9 over the 7 anyway. Ryzen 9 is more for people who can't afford a threadripper instead of gamers.

I'm getting away from the point, though. Either way, it's a minority of people who actually need the backwards compatibility, AMD wasn't going to be able to keep it up forever. I'm sure they'll have to release a new socket soon, they can't keep using the same pin layout anyway.
 

Irata

Posts: 813   +1,150
TechSpot Elite
Igor‘s lab came across a 3.7 base / 4.9 boost ES, or at least its OPN.

I still feel AMD should offer a binned (best silicon) 8C Ryzen 3. Not with a minimum boost like the current XT CPU but with a worthwhile one. With the 8C CCX, this should scream.
 

Thanthan

Posts: 47   +97
All core sustainable clock speed is the only Ghz metric that matters, not a 5 second turbo boost to 4.8Ghz then quickly dropping down to an all core 4.3-4.4Ghz, when under full load.
No. Just No. Most applications dont leverage utilized threads equally, and most do not leverage All threads on modern cpus. Core boosting when done right results in better performance in gaming than going for an All core. Thats why it makes No sense to All core OC Ryzen 3000 parts for the task. It reduces performance. Unless you can get the All core to within 100mhz of your boost clck you Will probably see same or lower performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lipe123

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,563   +1,560
TechSpot Elite
I know, It was a 'for example' argument, I didn't think anyone would take '5 second turbo boost' literally!
Actually 6 and 8-core CPUs turbo for around 5 seconds max (@80-100W!) in thin and light laptops before quickly cranking down to 3-4 GHz all-core as CPU temps rocket to 100C. Fatter laptops with better cooling manage this power and heat load much better.
 
AMD hasn't long had more cores. Intel matches core count across most of the range up to the i9 which has 10 compared to 12.
It will be interesting, as consoles move to Ryzen 2 8 core 3.8Ghz chips how developers utilise those and we are already now seeing some PC games perform better with more cores. But Intel match cores and still have better single core speed so to beat that gaming performance won't be easy. Be nice if AMD do though and sell those cpus at a cheaper price than Intel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowboxer

urbanman2004

Posts: 150   +51
AMD has been using the same sequential numerical nomenclature for its previous series APUs so it would be meaningless for them to change Zen 3 to Ryzen 5000.
 

zamroni111

Posts: 95   +41
Amd should name zen3 using 5000 series. Using 4000 series naming is confusing as it has been used by mobile zen2.
How stupid is the product management team if they can't figure this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SinEaterr

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,563   +1,560
TechSpot Elite
Amd should name zen3 using 5000 series. Using 4000 series naming is confusing as it has been used by mobile zen2.
How stupid is the product management team if they can't figure this.
Have you been following AMD's Ryzen naming scheme for the past 3 years? This is consistent with that scheme. Not saying the scheme makes sense, as it certainly doesn't.

AMD's desktop CPUs use the first number to define which Zen revision they are on. However AMD's APUs (laptop and desktop CPUs) use the next number up. Why? Because stupid.

Zen
Desktop: Ryzen 1xxx
HEDT: Threadripper 1xxx
Desktop APU: Ryzen 2xxx
Laptop APU: Ryzen 2xxx

Zen+
Desktop: Ryzen 2xxx
HEDT: Threadripper 2xxx
Desktop APU: Ryzen 3xxx
Laptop APU: Ryzen 3xxx

Zen2
Desktop: Ryzen 3xxx
HEDT: Threadripper 3xxx
Desktop APU: Ryzen 4xxx
Laptop APU: Ryzen 4xxx

I assume Zen3 will follow suit.

Did I mention STUPID yet? No, I'm not even going into the AF models... more stoopid...
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 379   +197
I’m expecting something like 200 MHz in boost and much improved latency... But to call the “4950X” a gaming CPU is a little too much IMHO.
Surely the 4800X and maybe even the 4900X... but you definitely don’t need 16C/32T for gaming.
 

MaxSmarties

Posts: 379   +197
AMD has been using the same sequential numerical nomenclature for its previous series APUs so it would be meaningless for them to change Zen 3 to Ryzen 5000.
Unless they don’t want to highlight a radical improvement in the architecture...
BTW I think they will use the usual nomenclature and we will see 4600X/4700X/4800X and so on...
 
  • Like
Reactions: urbanman2004

MaxSmarties

Posts: 379   +197
AMD hasn't long had more cores. Intel matches core count across most of the range up to the i9 which has 10 compared to 12.
It will be interesting, as consoles move to Ryzen 2 8 core 3.8Ghz chips how developers utilise those and we are already now seeing some PC games perform better with more cores. But Intel match cores and still have better simngle core speed so to beat that gaming performance won't be easy. Be nice if AMD do though and sell those cpus at a cheaper price than Intel.
Exactly when Intel “match cores” ?
The 10900K (if you can find one) is 10 cores, less than 3900X and not to speak about 3950X. And it costs more.
And according to anandtech analysis, adding the 2 cores worsened latency, one of the Intel’s strong points.
Everything else in Intel ‘s lineup is 8 cores or below, and for Rocket Lake rumors are that they will return to an 8 core top configuration
 
  • Like
Reactions: OptimumSlinky

grumblguts

Posts: 346   +297
Peak clock speed is what matters not sustained.
all that happens with sustained clocks is % usage drops.
this is why gaming is so much smoother on ryzen