First up is Battlefield V using the DX12 API. Back in the FX era, that was all AMD really had on the CPU side, but now that AMD has competitive and even performance leading parts, prices are going up. This resulted in smooth performance, though the higher-end Intel processors were also very smooth.Stock the 3950X peaked at just 64 C after an hour long Blender stress test in a 21c room. As part of the motherboard firmware, AMD has a package of logic functionality called AGESA (AMD Generic Encapsulated Software Architecture). We also cross referenced the results with the folks over at Gamers Nexus and they found very similar power consumption figures, so we’re confident in the accuracy of these numbers.If you’re after maximum performance at the cost of everything else, then overclocking the 3950X makes sense, but if you care at all about efficiency, then it really doesn’t.For comparison, the 3900X peaked at 68 C under the same conditions, meaning the 3950X actually ran a tad cooler. Here it matches the 9900KS, though it was no faster than the 3900X. What about the $70 Asrock B450m Pro4? Gamers Nexus Ryzen 3800X vs 3700X Review: Don't Waste the Money. As a side note though, if you match the 3900X and 3950X’s clock speeds and voltage, the 16-core model does consume around 30-40% more power as you’d expect as it packs 33% more cores.We’ve triple checked these results just to make sure, the 3950X and 3900X along with the other Ryzen processors were tested on the same board, with the same BIOS using the same settings and cooling. That's all a preface to the charts that show the 3950X trailing the other third generation Ryzen parts.Why not just retest everything? When compared to the 3900X, the 3950X was just 3% faster which is surprising given they operated at similar clock speeds in this test and CPU utilization was over 90% with both parts.In other words, any cooler capable of tackling the 3900X, will have no issue with the 3950X.The 3950X also didn’t appear to improve upon the 3900X which is interesting, though we saw a similar thing with the Threadripper 2920X and 2950X, just to a slightly lesser degree.But when we measured power consumption, that’s when we discovered just how impressive the 3950X is. At stock, I saw all-core clockspeeds hover in the 3900-4000 MHz range, depending on the workload, and games would routinely run at 4200-4300 MHz. It was almost 30% faster than Intel’s Core i9-9920X, as well as the 12-core 3900X. Tech & Gaming Dead On Arrival: Intel i9-10900X CPU Review & Benchmarks vs. 3900X, 3950X, 9900K – Gamers Nexus It’s an exceptionally good option for anyone after a powerful 16-core processor.Another difference between these two CPUs is packaging: the 3900X comes bundled with the Wraith Prism RGB cooler, while the 3950X doesn’t come with a cooler at all, so you will need to factor in the added cost of a quality cooler.Here’s a quick look at overclocking performance, using 1.325v the 3950X ran 100% stable at an all-core of 4.3 GHz. We’re still blown away by the fact that it offers almost 30% more performance, yet consumes a few watts less than the 3900X. But is their new 16-core/32-thread monster worth the asking price? View discussions … Given what we’ve seen from the 3900X, you’d think it would be if you can put all those cores to work, but of course we’ll run a few tests and get to the bottom of it.The 3950X is just 2% faster than the 3900X in 7-Zip’s compression test and that meant while it was 8% faster than the 2950X, it was still 5% slower than the Core i9-9920X.Something unusual about the Ryzen 9 3950X and something that makes it special is just how efficient it is.
Season Finale Riverdale, Lake Havasu City Weather History, How To Cancel Netflix, Hip Hop Essentials Reddit, Napoli Pizza Meriden, Cognex Product Guide, Roz Abrams Husband,