Here it is, it’s finally here. Since February 28th, the long-awaited AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3d is available in stores (and definitely at OSHKO). Well, there was stock for 10 minutes for the first batch, but a few weeks later, it seems to be back in sufficient quantity to meet the demand.

It was about time because many of us had overlooked the non-3D version of this processor. Gamers, developers, artists, and system administrators were eagerly awaiting the 3D version benchmark results before deciding which of these processors they would go with.

Today, even though there are already several data available on the subject, at OSHKO, we insist on conducting our own internal performance tests rather than simply relying on test results provided by third-party entities.

Hence in this blog post, we are focusing precisely on the performance of the 7950x, 7950x3D, and the 5950x in productivity situations. In other words, instead of benchmarking the processors’ impact on the number of frames per second observed in a variety of games, we are comparing their power when they are used in various work situations that would be encountered in video game studios, for example (artists, developers, mapping, building, etc.).


To be able to evaluate the processors performance in a productivity setup, we have used the following benchmarks:

– Cinebench R23 Single Core
– Cinebench R23 Multicore
– Blender – BMW CPU
– PCMARK10 – Vidéo
– PCMARK10 – Audio
– PCMARK10 – Rendu
– 7Zip Compression
– 7Zip Décompression


We have run our benchmarks on two OSHKO Creator Pro 2 with the following configurations:

– NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4090 OC 24GB by ASUS TUF
– 64 Go (2×32 Go) Corsair Dominator 5600 MHz DDR5
– 2TB m.2 PCIe 4.0 SSD 980 PRO by Samsung
– Noctua NH-D15 Chromax
– ASUS Prime X570-PRO and ASUS Prime X670e-PRO
– 1000 Watts Platinum by Corsair
– Define 7 Black (with 3 x fans 140mm) by Fractal


At first glance, the 7950x and 7950x3D look very similar. In fact, they bear some resemblance to their predecessor, the 5950x, as well. However, when we delve deeper into comparing the technical specifications of each, we find some interesting details.

Let’s start with the similarities. All three processors are equipped with 16 cores and 32 threads. They also offer 1MB of L1 cache, which is the fastest cache in the processor. Although the maximum frequency of the 5950x is 4.9 GHz, both the 7950x and 7950x3D have had their frequencies raised to 5.7 GHz, resulting in a 16% increase. Therefore, we will pay particular attention to whether this elevation in maximum frequency will or will not translate into an equivalent increase in processor performance.

Click on the chart to enlarge

Now, let’s focus on the differences, specifically four of them that we want to highlight:

– Base Clock Frequency: The base clock frequency indicates the minimum frequency at which the processor should operate when receiving the appropriate power level while being supported by adequate cooling. By increasing the base frequency from 3.4 to 4.5 between the 5950x and the 7950x, we can expect a performance gain at the expense of a more power-hungry processor operating at higher temperatures. This is what the benchmark results will tell tus.

– L2 Cache: Both the 7950x and its 3D version have doubled their L2 cache compared to the 5950x, increasing from 8MB to 16GB. L2 cache can be seen as ultra-fast memory located close to the processor cores. This allows the cores to quickly access the information they need to perform their assigned tasks. A low amount of cache does not impact the speed at which an instruction is executed, but it can create a bottleneck by limiting the core’s access to the necessary information, forcing it to retrieve information from the slower memory (the RAM), which could slow down overall PC performance.

– L3 Cache: This is where the L3 cache comes into play. Although the level 3 cache is slower than the first two levels, it is still faster than RAM. By increasing the L3 cache to 128MB in the 7950x3D, AMD provides a processor that should excels in tasks that require a large volume of information to be easily and quickly accessible to the processor.

– TDP (Thermal Design Power): AMD has increased the TDP to 170W for the 7950x, which is significant. In comparison, the 5950x had a TDP of 105W, representing an increase of nearly 70%. We can ultimately expect much better performance from the 7950x, but at the same time, we need to ensure that it is provided with cooling capable of handling the heat output, something like Lake Joffre’s water in British Columbia.



It’s not very complicated; in this benchmark, we ask Cinebench R23 to render a scene as many times as possible within a 10-minute period. The amount of data used is not significatively large, which leads us to believe that this benchmark does not fully utilize the 128MB cache provided with the 7950x3D. As a result:

– Comparing it to the 5950x, the 7950x is 26% more performant in single-core tests and 39% more performant in multi-core tests. *

– Comparing it to the 7950x3D, the 7950x is 3% more performant in single-core tests and 5% more performant in multi-core tests. *

Click on the image to enlarge


Regarding the average frequencies obtained during our tests, the 7950x3D demonstrated that it offers the best single core performance compared to the 7950x and 5950x. With a frequency of 5.5 GHz, it is only 200 GHz below its theoretical maximum frequency, compared to the 7950x, which is at 5.3 GHz, 400 GHz below its theoretical maximum frequency. In a quick aside to gaming, which generally benefits more from per-core performance rather than multi-core performance, this could explain why the 7950x3D performs better than the non-3D version in terms of frames per second. However, these results are still surprising given that in theory, both processors have the same maximum frequency value. Even with a TDP of 170W, one would expect better performance from the 7950x.

However, in multi-core performance, the 7950x takes the lead by achieving the highest average frequencies. We managed to maintain the 16 cores of the 7950x at an average of 5.1 GHz, compared to 4.8 GHz with the 7950x and 3.8 GHz with the 5950x.

– Comparing it to the 5950x, the 7950x3D is 17% more performant in single-core tests and 26% more performant in multi-core tests.
– Comparing it to the 7950x, the 7950x3D is 4% more performant in single-core tests but 6% less performant in multi-core tests.

Click on the image to enlarge


We had been warned by reviewers, and AMD confirmed it. We should expect high temperatures with this new generation of Zen 4 processors. Looking at these test results, that’s indeed what we observed.

In single-core performance, each of the processors maintained a reasonable range between 66 degrees Celsius and 69 degrees Celsius. These are normal temperatures, and nothing seems to be out of the ordinary.

Nonetheless, when we switch to multi-core performance, it’s a whole different story. The temperature of the 5950x (lower than in single core) stayed around 60 degrees Celsius. On the other hand, the 7950x3D averaged at 87 degrees Celsius, which is already high enough to make us question whether we applied thermal paste correctly under the heatsink (and yes, we did apply it properly). And if that wasn’t enough, when testing the 7950x, we observed an average temperature of 93 degrees Celsius.

What this tells us is that with the 7950x and the 7950x3D, it is crucial to have a cooling system that allows the processor to reach its maximum potential. In an upcoming post, we tested the 7950x with over seven cooling solutions. In the best-case scenario, we were able to achieve 5.4 GHz in multi-core performance with this processor, while in the worst-case scenario, barely reaching 4.9 GHz. That’s a 10% difference in performance… imagine an entire studio experiencing a 10% loss in performance… it costs a lot of money and causes delays. 😉

Click on the image to enlarge


With Blender, we test how long* a given processor takes to render the famous BMW scene. The 7950x processor was the fastest, completing the rendering in a time of 01:01.46. With the 7950x3D, we obtained a time of 01:04.98, which is 3.5 seconds slower.  Finally, with the 5950x, the rendering was completed in a time of 01:31.91 vs the 7950x, which is 30.5 second slower.

This means that:

– The 7950x is 33% faster than the 5950x in this test.
– The 7950x is 5% faster than the 7950x3D in this test.

* Text is in ( Chart is in seconds to simplify the performance comparison.

Click on the image to enlarge

As for the temperatures, the BMW test, which lasts barely over 90 seconds in the longest case, seems too short to fully push our processors. However, we still share the obtained information for those who are curious.

Click on the image to enlarge


With PCMARK10, we can evaluate the processors’ performance realizing various tasks such as video production, photo editing, and 3D rendering.


– The 7950x comes out on top with a score of 42,572. The 7950x3D, on the other hand, obtains a score of 39,861, and finally, the 5950x achieves a score of 35,838.

– The 7950x is 7% more performant than the 7950x3D and 19% more performant than the 5950x.


– Once again, the 7950x takes the lead with a score of 23,986. The 7950x3D, on the other hand, achieves a score of 23,110, and finally, the 5950x obtains a score of 22,032.

– The 7950x is 4% more performant than the 7950x3D and 9% more performant than the 5950x.


– This time, the 7950x3D comes out on top with a score of 8,709. The 7950x, on the other hand, achieves a score of 8,446, and finally, the 5950x obtains a score of 7,924.

– The 7950x3D is 3% more performant than the 7950x and 10% more performant than the 5950x.

Click on the image to enlarge


The 7ZIP tests are useful for evaluating how many instructions per second our processors can complete. We conducted the tests with a 32MB library size.

In compression, the 5950x achieved 130,623 GIPS, while the 7950x performed 190,368 GIPS, and the best of the three for this test, the 7950x3D, completed 192,079 GIPS.

– In this mode, the 7950x3D is therefore nearly 1% more performant than the 7950x and 47% more performant than the 5950x.

In decompression, the 5950x achieved a score of 208,719 GIPS, the 7950x3D obtained 253,582 GIPS, and finally, the 7950x took the lead with a score of 258,147 GIPS.

– In this mode, the 7950x is 2% more performant than the 7950x3D and 24% more performant than the 5950x..

Click on the image to enlarge


The 7950x3D came out on top in only three aspects of the tests we’ve seen today. Its single-core frequency, video production tested in PCMARK10, and the number of instructions per second in 7ZIP compression. In comparison, the 7950x obtained the best scores in all other benchmarks we observed. So why on earth did the 7950x3D come into the market? Only to make nice video and files compression? Yes and no.

We can’t go into the details of how our customers are choosing to arrange their technologies, but let’s just say that in infrastructure, the 7950x3D can prove to be very useful. At this level, those who can assign specific tasks during the game design (or manufacturing ?) process can benefit from the advantages offered by this processor, which brings a maximum frequency of 5.7 GHz, 128 MB of level 3 cache, all with a TDP of 120W. But we admit that these can be extremely niche situations.

This post does not cover gaming benchmarks. However, from what we’ve heard from third-party reviewers, the 3D versions of these AMD Zen 4 generation processors are said to offer better performance than their non-3D counterparts. So, for someone who wants to both work and game (let’s be honest, that is most of us), the 3D version could be a good choice.

As soon as we talk about workstations for artists or programmers, the 7950x comes out ahead of the 7950x3D. It obtains scores on average 5% higher on Cinebench R23, takes 5% less time to render the BMW scene in Blender, is 4% faster in PCMARK10 rendering, and 7% faster in the PCMARK10 photo benchmark. Finally, in 7ZIP archiving, it is less than 1% slower than the 7950x3D and nearly 2% faster in decompression.

Certainly, the 170W TDP is nearly 50% higher than the 120W TDP of the 7950x3D, and the temperature of 95 degrees Celsius it reaches during full operation reminds us that it is essential to have it equipped with a powerful cooling system. Additionally, if you are in an environment where you believe you are limited by the number of electrical circuits available, and you plan to deploy multiple machines, it will be worth sitting down and doing some calculations.

In conclusion, we can rejoice because at a suggested retail price of $789, it is $150 cheaper than the 7950x3D ($939), representing a 16% savings.

The world of gaming is ever-evolving. Stay up to date. Sign-up for our newsletter.