Power Temperature and Frequency
On this page, we are going to investigate the AMD Ryzen 7 9700X power draw, temperature, and frequency. This is a stress test, which means we are pushing each CPU to its maximum potential in all-core load in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test for 10 minutes.
Power
We use HWiNFO64 sensor data to record the results. We report on the sensor data for “Package Power” in Wattage.
The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is a 170W TDP CPU, however, its PPT (socket power) is actually 200W. This is in contrast to the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X which has a TDP of 170W as well, but a higher PPT (socket power) of 230W. In our power testing, we see this power realized, with the Ryzen 9 7950X reaching 229.1W in our testing, and the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X reaching 200W. That means the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X uses 13% less power than the Ryzen 9 7950X while producing faster multi-thread and single-thread performance, and typically the same gaming performance. In this instance, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is more efficient than the Ryzen 9 7950X.
When compared to the Intel Core i9-14900K at the new Intel Defaults of 253W, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X uses 21% less power. When we compare the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X to the Ryzen 9 9900X the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X uses 23% more power. Compared to the Ryzen 9 7950X3D the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X uses 34% more power, but we clearly experienced the Ryzen 9 7950X3D performing faster in games. Note that this is all-core/full-load testing above, and not Wattage while gaming, which will be different, and overall less, but just wanted to note that power difference when all cores are maxed out in which case the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is much faster in multi-threading performance.
Temperature
We use HWiNFO64 sensor data to record the results. We report on the sensor data for “Tcidle” in Celsius.
Note that the same AIO was used for all temperature testing, an MSI MEG Coreliquid S360 360mm AIO. The new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X runs much cooler than the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X. The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 18% cooler at 78.2c compared to 95.2c on the Ryzen 9 7950X. This is a very big improvement, but also keep in mind there is a 13% power difference between them as well, with the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X drawing less power overall. Compared to the Intel Core i9-14900K the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is also 18% cooler. When compared to the Ryzen 9 9900X the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X is 9% warmer.
Frequency
The AMD Ryzen 9 9950X has a base clock of 4.3GHz and a boost clock of up to 5.7GHz. In our all-core/full-load testing in Cinebench R23, running for 10 minutes we experienced all the cores at the same time running at 4.7GHz-4.8GHz on all cores. We also noticed an interesting trend, most of the time half of the cores were at 4.7GHz while the other half were at 4.8GHz. If we compare this frequency to the previous generation Ryzen 9 7950X, we find that the new AMD Ryzen 9 9950X runs slower on all-core/full-load. The Ryzen 9 7950X was running at 5GHz-5.1GHz on all cores in this same test, using the same AIO. Perhaps that extra 30W of power and temperature allowance helps the 7950X to run at a higher clock speed at all times. The fact remains, on all cores the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X runs slower than the previous generation.
When it comes to the single-core performance, the AMD Ryzen 9 9950X did boost up to 5.7GHz in our testing as you can see above. Therefore, it is able to hit that maximum boost clock of 5.7GHz AMD has stated.
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! :)