Rendering Performance
We will now take a look at how rendering performance compares.
Cinebench R23
We are using Cinebench R23 to look at multi-core and single-core performance, which is shown in separate graphs below.
In Cinebench R23’s Multi Core testing the new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 9% faster than the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X. It is 17% faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X3D. Compared to the competition, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 10% faster. When we compare it to the Ryzen 9 9900X the higher core count AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 27% faster with more cores.
Once again we find that the new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X has a good single-core performance uplift at 12% over the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X. However, in Cinebench R23, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X does come in under the Intel Core i9-14900K by 1% on single-core performance, they are actually very close here. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is within 2% of the Ryzen 9 9900X.
Blender Open Data Benchmark
We are using the latest Blender Benchmark with Blender 4.2.0 downloaded, results are in samples per minute, with the highest being the best.
Core and thread count does matter for Blender rendering, therefore the 16 core parts will do better than the 12 core parts. The notable thing is that the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is faster than the Ryzen 9 7950X in all rendered scenes. In “monster” the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 10% faster, in “junkshop” the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 11% faster, and in “classroom” the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 9% faster. It is also notably faster than the Intel Core i9-14900K at its best, in “monster” by 16%, and in “junkshop” it is faster by 19%, and in “classroom” it is faster by 21%. If we compare the higher core count AMD Ryzen 9 9950X to the Ryzen 9 9900X, it is faster in “monster” by 31% and faster in “junkshop” by 30%, and faster in “classroom” by 28%.
V-Ray 6 Benchmark
In the V-Ray 6 Benchmark, AMD Ryzen 9 9950X experiences a rather large performance improvement of 20% over the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X and 24% over the 7950X3D. This puts it 29% ahead of the Intel Core i9-14900K. Compared to the 9900X the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 30% faster.
HandBrake
In HandBrake, we transcode a 10-minute video file to the Creator 2160p60 4K H.264 profile preset, rendering on the CPU only. The time in minutes is reported, and lower is better.
Doing video transcoding on the CPU we find that the new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is faster than the AMD Ryzen 9 7950X by 2%. It isn’t large, with an overall time savings of 15 seconds. It’s slightly more noticeable compared to the 7950X3D by 5%. It’s definitely a nice improvement over the Intel Core i9-14900K though by 11% and almost a whole minute faster. Compared to the Ryzen 9 9900X the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X improves upon the time to render by 16%.
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! :)