Review on 16-Core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor - AMD Ryzen 9 5950X by Micha Mitrut ᠌

Name: 16-Core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor - AMD Ryzen 9 5950X
Item: 16-Core, 32-Thread Unlocked Desktop Processor - AMD Ryzen 9 5950X
Rating: 4

May 03, 2023

I like everything, the quality is good, the price is acceptable.

Since AMD has firmly established itself in the top of the processor market, especially in any synthetics, and also because all software is moving towards development for many threads, I decided to upgrade the X99 platform and bought the 5950X along with the Asus X570-E Gaming motherboard. AMD is not a big specialist on AMD platforms, I chose a board based on reviews and not the cheapest, but it seems that I chose unsuccessfully - some meager overclocking options, very few SATA ports (8 in total, although I already need 9, I had to DVD- turn off the drive - I think it won’t be needed anymore. Well, then I fooled myself, I didn’t think that there would be such nonsense with the amount of SATA for a top-end chipset), and without dancing with a tambourine it didn’t work at all. At first I didn’t want to start up - the pc-speaker squealed about the malfunction of the video card, then the same video card was stuck only in pcie 3.0 8x mode, after several times I “plugged it in and plugged it in” and cleaned all the connectors (on the new board) and the video card (1080 Ti) finally - it worked as expected in 16x mode. At the same time, there were no problems with this on the old system at all, I stuck it in and out a lot of times. Well, at least they started, and the next trouble is the lack of an image in Bios and during OS boot, although it appears in the OS itself. The image is not always missing. Usually, after a "cold" start or reboot, it is not there, but if you blindly go into Bios and reboot, it usually appears again. In general, some kind of game is unpleasant. At the same time, I tried different monitors - the trouble is really that the card stupidly does not give out a signal for some reason. Still, AMD remained AMD - I don’t remember this from Intel over the past 15 years.

Ok, I randomly set overclocking to 4.5 GHz in Bios and started to drive in Sandra (for the sake of comparison with the old system, there are a lot of results on it). Well, although the performance is many times higher, of course, than on the X99, it turned out to be unpleasant that this percentage did not get above 4.5. And at this frequency, the temperature rises to 95 degrees. Cooling - Kraken X53 (I still had to take X73 for it)

Pros

- Performance I thought for a long time what else to indicate, but it looks like there is only one plus really :) At the same time, I am quite satisfied with the process

Cons

- The platform, after all, AMD is far from Intel in terms of plug-and-play, a lot of crap with the setting - Few PCIE lanes - Gets hot - Overclocking - average, hardly takes 4.5 GHz Do not believe the fairy tales here according to the comments about some 4.9 - 5 GHz (in the mode of individual cores - m / b), but just setting the desired frequency (perhaps the Asus X570 does not know how to separate the cores, and in general somehow very little overclocker settings, strange), I didn’t get more than 4.5, and even at this frequency, the CPU heats up very much (see below).