Along with the third-gen Threadripper lineup and TRX40 motherboard lineup, AMD also introduced the flagship processor of mainstream Ryzen lineup. The AMD Ryzen 9 3950X is the last processor to be released under the Ryzen 3000 family. It is also the most expensive mainstream processor from AMD since it costs $749. It will be available on the shelves on 25th November.
Much like anything else in today’s tech world, the Ryzen 9 3950X was leaked heavily. We have already known what the processor would feature, but its finally here for good. The processor directly competes against the Intel Core i9 9900K and 9920X at a lower cost. If we look at mere specifications, we see that AMD’s offering may actually be better in terms of both price and performance.
Let’s get the specifications of the processor out of the way first. The Ryzen 9 3950X, like every other processor in the Ryzen 3000 series, is based on 7nm Zen 2.0 architecture. It contains three chiplets on a single die, two of these are Zen 2 dies, and the last one is the I/O die, which is based on the 14nm process node. We are seeing this kind of configuration for the first time in the mainstream market. It makes high core CPUs more accessible with an inherent disadvantage of added latency. The I/O die is present to limit the latency gap; it functionality is the same as the infinity thread that we see in the HEDT lineup.
It allows AMD to put 16 cores and 32 threads in a single processor. The base clock speed is 3.5GHz, and the boost clock speed is 4.7GHz, which is highest among the 3000s. It is the direct advantage of process node maturity. The processor supports a total of 72 MB cache and a TDP of 105W, which is consistent with the other Ryzen 9 processors. The processor will be unlocked for overclocking, and AMD opted for a soldered design, which helps in keeping the temperatures in check. Lastly, AMD recommends a liquid cooler for the best performance.
Initial benchmarks provided by AMD show good gains against Intel’s processors in the creator workloads. We see a performance gap of 79%, which is insane at this range. We have seen that AMD has covered a lot of the performance gap or even surpassed Intel in creator specific applications; however, the gaming industry still favors Intel. In the gaming benchmarks that AMD provided, we can see that many games still prefer Intel hardware, but AMD is very close. A little help in optimizing games for higher core counts might minimize the difference here too.