AIDA64 CPU Benchmarks
Now we will look at some specific AIDA64 CPU Benchmarks that test specific parts of the CPUs. The AIDA64 Zlib test is an integer benchmark that measures combined CPU and memory subsystem performance through the public ZLib compression library. The AIDA64 AES benchmark measures CPU performance using AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) data encryption. In cryptography, AES is a symmetric-key encryption standard. AES is used in several compression tools today, like 7z, RAR, and WinZip, and also in disk encryption solutions like BitLocker.
Memory Bandwidth
In the graph above, we are testing straight-up memory bandwidth of read and write performance. The first thing we will get out of the way is that yes, Intel has much higher memory bandwidth on read and write performance, this is not new, but on the LGA1700 platform with DDR5 at 7200MT/s nothing touches the raw bandwidth they provide. Now, let’s focus on the AMD results.
You will notice that all Ryzen CPUs here with dual-CCDs, perform exactly the same on memory read and write performance. Whether it is the Ryzen 7000 series or the new Ryzen 9000 series, we are getting about 78GB/s of read memory bandwidth and about 79GB/s of write memory bandwidth. There is nothing shocking, or new about this performance from the last generation to this generation.
CPU Zlib
Zlib test is an integer-based test, and here we see that the new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 10% faster than the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X, so that’s a decent uplift in integer performance. Compared to the 7950X3D the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 16% faster. Compared to the Intel Core i9-14900K the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 11% faster. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9900X the higher core count AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 29% faster, showing what more cores can do for you in integer performance.
CPU AES
Similar to our previous Zen 5 testing, Zen 5’s claim to fame is its AVX performance uplifts, and here we see the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is a whopping and shocking 78% performance uplift from the previous generation 7950X. Compared to the 7950X3D it is 90% faster. We even see that it beats the snot out of the Intel Core i9-14900K at 134% faster! Compared to the lower core count 9900X the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 30% faster with more cores.
Discussion (14 replies)
Join Discussion →@Brent_Justice
Thank you again for a good review worth reading.
But....
Did you realize that picture at the top of the article looks like a bandaid?
Damn you - now I can't unsee this.
Would be better if it were a 90 yr old stripper with a boob job.
ps - I finally found a good use for AI
Damn it totally does...and I kinda want those for the Datacenter for the inevitable nicks and scratches people get handling computers. CPU themed bandaids.
Great review!
Could you delve a little further on this? I find myself not really familiar with what this is, and why one would disable it.
It sounds like it might be an important security feature?
Also....
Memory appears to behave rather interestingly with this release.
If you guys get around to it at some point I'd love to see your breakdown on memory settings and performance.
The settings you used seem like they would be the best easily achievable RAM settings for this platform, and a good choice for the initial review, but I am curious about other settings as well.
How do they - for instance - compare to DDR5-6400 with fabric at 2133 in a 1:1:1 configuration? Is this stable?
And how does the performance of this compare to - say - DDR5-8000 in a non 1:1:1 configuration? Is it better to go for that perfect 1:1:1 or to shoot for higher clock speed?
Also, I understand CL is less important than it once was, but how important are timings?
I think this could make for an interesting follow-up test.
Wendell over at level1techs also has some really interesting remarks in his Zen5 reviews (both on the main channel and the level1techs Linux channel) about how he thinks the current Windows 11 scheduler might be wonky with Zen5 and is holing it back. Unlike with other CPU's he is seeing much better performance under Linux with this architecture. I'll be looking forward to further investigation into this.
Also,
One more thought,
Your review does not have this data, but in other reviews I've seen, the 9950x - while it does well in average frame rate, it has been very impressive in 1% and 0.1% lows compared to other CPU's even beating the 14900k in many benchmarks.
I find this to be very interesting and I can't help but wonder why. What about this CPU specifically makes it so good at minimum frame rates?
I suspect some of it may have to do with Intel's E-cores getting in the way, and Intel's much higher memory bandwidth allowing the CPU to run away with it in some cases, pulling up the average, but keeping the minimums where they are. Not sure though
I've been a long time believer that 1% and 0.1% lows are of much greater importance than average frame-rates. That's what I determine my "playability" on. I want minimums/lows to be 60fps or greater. IN reality this tends to result in averages at or about 90fps, but some CPU/GPU's have a smaller difference between averages and lows than others.
I'm glad I'm at the age where I can truly forget things because I need to forget this. @Dan_D , I think you mentioned something like this in another thread recently.
Yes I did.
Nice my CPU holds up for gaming at least.
Yea that's a solid CPU and I wouldn't go with a 9000 series just yet.
I don't think she'd take no for an answer.
I should probably go to the gym more often.
Ummm.... what?
The 90 year old with a boob job.
Ahhhh ook
Hi guys ! I have a 9950x. BTW, I used to me a moderator for 17 years on Anandtech forums. The main site is dead as of today, so I may be here a lot more.
Sorry to hear about the final shutdown of Anandtech. I used to read the site a lot from founding in the late 90's until 2014 when Anand left and sold the site, and I felt that the quality of the content started to go downhill.
I still miss Anandtechs excellent SSD reviews (from ~2010-2014). They were some of the best.
The more the merrier. Good to have more people in these forums! :)