DO NOT BUY: AMD Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 CPU Review & Benchmarks | 24 Charts in 24 Hours Transcript, AI Summary & Key Points

00:00 You shouldn't buy this $900 CPU. This is the 9950X3D II from AMD. It arrived uh 24 hours ago, and we have 24 charts to show you with some of them like 30 CPUs on them each. Really excited to get into this data. It was a long night. I'll tell you that much. All right, it's I'm looking forward to sleeping. But, there's one big problem with this specific CPU, which is that it's stuck in upside down mode.

00:24 That's because this CPU came from Steve from Hardware Unboxed in Australia. And if you're in the northern hemisphere, then it means your CPU will look a little different. This one's not fully aesthetically representative of what yours would look like because it's upside down. Um also, if you flush this down the toilet, it'll go the other direction. But other than that, should be pretty representative.

00:46 And of course, thanks, Steve. Thanks, Dave. Thanks, Steve. Thanks, Steve. All right, no But no other Let's get straight into the conclusion for you. We'll do something fun for this one. You all always ask us for a summary chart, so we'll one-up you and give you a summary chart before we even hit the ad. This is the review. Stick around for the details and the other 25 plus CPUs not shown here in the other charts.

01:05 In gaming, the 9950X3D II runs 0% to 6% better or so against the 9950X3D I. Against the 9950X non-3D, predictably, it's anywhere from 21% to 71% better. Against the 9800X3D, they're often about the same, sometimes slightly worse, sometimes slightly better. Against the 270K plus, it's variable but often 20% to 30% better for the 9950X3D II. Now, this so far is ignoring value, but we'll talk about that through the rest of the review.

01:29 In our scientific testing, which includes Spec Workstation OpenFOAM computational fluid dynamics analysis, large-scale atomic molecular massively parallel simulators for molecular dynamics modeling and material science, that is a mouthful, biomolecular modeling, and convolutional filters, we saw mostly similar result of 0 to 6% improvement for the 9950X3D II over the 9950X3D I.

01:49 There was one breakout exception, though, which was the OpenFOAM computational fluid dynamics test that had the 9950X3D at 34% improved over the 9950X3D. This test seems highly sensitive to cache, that maybe makes sense. That said, this is also an experimental test, which means it's more prone to error or issue. We'll talk about that in this review as well.

02:08 Finally, in the production test, the 9950X3D 2 is 0% to 9% better than the 9950X3D 1. Intel gets closer to it with the 270K plus as well versus the earlier tests, and that covers the first 21 or so charts, but we have some more scattered throughout here like frequency analysis. That's pretty much it though. That's That's the whole review. 0 to 6% a lot of cases.

02:27 It's just not worth $900, but we'll go over more detail and talk about the value throughout the rest of this. Honestly, we just wanted to respect everyone's time. So, if you liked it, please like and I don't know, check out the store or something if you want to support us. Hopefully, that helps get you the TLDR quickly though. With the conclusions out of the way in the first like, I don't know, 2 or 3 minutes of the video, it's time to show our work and get into the detail of the CPU that you shouldn't buy cuz it's

02:51 $900. Before that, this video is brought to you by Arctic and their MX-7 thermal paste. Arctic's new MX-7 is a higher viscosity paste with Arctic claiming that the increase in viscosity from filler content and the texture benefit improve its performance while reducing the risk of the pump out effect over time. MX-7 isn't intended for longer endurance applications and to be left in use for extended service life.

03:10 Arctic also now has a counterfeit paste checking website because, believe it or not, knockoff paste from non-first-party sources is actually relatively common for the big brands to experience, so they have a site to check the validity of it. Get a tube of MX-7 thermal paste at the link in the description below. All right, basics. So, $900 CPU, it's two CCDs, it has an IO die.

03:31 That's three total chiplets. The two CCD chiplets have stacked 3D cache both of them this time. That's the difference, which brings up to 192 MB of L3 cache in total, and that's really the key here. It simplifies the scheduling, it simplifies the core parking situation because instead of now worrying about you've got kind of like the faster CCD with less cash, and then you've got the CCD with more cash.

03:54 It's all It's all the same. Now, the problem with this is AMD was pretty hesitant to releasing such a solution for years now. We actually got to see, I think it was the 5950X version of this or something, many years ago in the lab. One of those didn't come out. And the reason for that is what you're going to see today. In most cases, not interesting.

04:13 There's one case where it was very interesting, but that's kind of what we're evaluating. Basically, it makes things simpler. It's just that the stuff it's simplifying is mostly automatic anyway, so it wouldn't really be on your side. AMD, as we said in our previous video, has not responded to us for actual queries about any of the stuff we're asking about for content for months now.

04:32 So, we are testing this as consumers, as end users. Technically, this processor launched today, the day I'm filming this, 22nd, and we're we're benchmarking it just like an end user would. We used all the public everything, and nothing from AMD because it doesn't seem to talk to us anymore. As soon as it arrived, we dropped the CPU into a bench and got it running.

04:53 So, 24 hours later, we've got a super dense review for you. I'd like to add even more charts like we normally do, but I'm pretty happy with it. Like, >> [laughter] >> you're producing one full chart per hour. Pretty good. Very proud of the team, and let's let's get into the specs, the basics, the prices, and then the numbers. The specs are simple on this.

05:12 The AMD 9950X 3D 2 is a 16-core 32-thread CPU on Zen 5 architecture and uses the AM5 socket, as you'd expect. The CPU has a maximum advertised boost of 5.6 GHz, which we'll validate shortly in testing, and a base clock of 4.3 GHz. Other specs include the 192 MB of L3 cache due to the V-cache stacking on both non-IO chiplets. So, there's of course a third chiplet for IO as well.

05:38 TDP is at 200 W claimed for this part. Comparing the 9950X 3D to the 9950X 3D 2, the The X3D 2 has a lower clock, down 100 MHz from 5.7 GHz, the same base clock, and of course the X3D2 has more cash at 192 versus 128 MB for the prior 9950 X3D non-2. TDP is also higher on the newer part at 200 W instead of 170 W, which gives the 9950 X3D2 more power budget that it'll need.

06:07 Those are the main differences. Time for a CPU market pricing update getting into this just to let us know what we're working with. The 9950 X3D2 is in fact a $900 CPU. It's out now technically, and that's the price it landed at. This is astronomical and the high end of the market. It's bordering where AGDT CPUs used to be sold. By comparison, the 9950 X3D with just one stack cash die is $657 right now, marked down for whatever that's worth on these retailers, from $700.

06:38 That means the 9950 X3D2 is 37% more expensive at least than this listing for the 9950 X3D, although we've seen some where they're closer to 30% apart. For gaming parts, the 9800 X3D is currently $464 on Newegg, with the 7800 X3D way down at $389. Actually worth considering, assuming you either have RAM already or are just fortunate enough to be able to afford it.

07:01 For gaming users broadly, the eight-core X3D parts are substantially cheaper than the 9950 X3D2 and 9950 X3D, and will provide better or the same performance. For workstation users who aren't on AGDT, the 9950X non-3D makes sense to consider at least at its $500 to $520 price point, as we've already seen that the 9950 X3D just doesn't gain much benefit in our production benchmarking.

07:25 Intel's 270K plus CPUs just launched as well, technically at $300, but they're already $350 on multiple retailers. That seems to be the new price, so Intel's competition in production workloads is a $350 part against AMD's $900 X3D 2 or more reasonably AMD's $500 9950X. Threadrippers are pretty cool, but they're priced out of direct competition for the 9950X3D 2 as alternatives with even the 24-core part at $1,400.

07:56 We didn't retest Threadripper for this round, but our review has data if you want it for that. Let's get into the benchmarks for the 9950X3D 2. Our first test is frequency validation, which checks the CPU's clocks against the advertised specs to ensure the processor can actually hit the claims. We zoomed in on the vertical axis intentionally because this makes it easier to see the actual numerical value of the spikes and dips.

08:17 In an all-core workload with Blender, the 9950X3D 2 average frequency during the test period bounced around between 5080 MHz and 5196 MHz. Compared to the 9950X3D non-2, this is an improvement. Our 9950X3D test in the same workload had a range of around 4850 to 5170 MHz with high variability in the clocks. The CPU is bouncing off of power limits as the cores balance the workload, so that mirrors behavior we've seen in the past for limited scenarios.

08:45 And the 9850X3D had a relatively flat frequency by comparison for another new CPU, although not as flat as we've seen elsewhere. For the eight-core CPU, the 9850X3D, we saw it typically around 5200 to 5270 MHz. Next is the single-threaded frequency validation test. This measured against the maximum advertised boost in AMD's marketing and spec materials, which list a 5.6 GHz clock.

09:06 The 9950X3D non-2 has a maximum advertised clock of 5.7 GHz, so the older of the two X3D 16-core CPUs should clock higher here. In our testing, the 9950X3D 2's maximum clock was typically around 5580 to 5625 MHz, mostly satisfying the requirement of hitting 5.6 GHz. It's not always there, but it hits the speed enough that AMD is meeting the bare minimum of not lying on the spec sheet.

09:32 We'll take the wins where we can get them these days. The 9950X3D non-2 clocks higher as the spec sheet suggests. It's at 5700 to 5725 MHz in most scenarios, technically over-performing on average. The 9850X3D is closer to the 5600 to 5625 MHz mark, which also aligns with its spec. Our production testing will start with our experimental SpecWorkstation charts.

09:55 We've published these in the past sparingly, like for our Threadripper reviews. When we publish experimental charts, that means that we have less experience working with the test, and therefore we have a higher chance of an erroneous number. However, we've still vetted these and overall have good confidence in them. We just like to maintain that transparency and distinguish between benchmarks we have a lot of experience with and we're very confident in versus those where we're still learning.

10:19 So, for us, the distinction is basing a purchase off of our non-experimental charts is what we encourage, and doing so on our experimental charts is one where we'd say you should get an additional source. LAMMPS is up first. Quoting SpecWorkstation, LAMMPS testing performs, quote, large scale atomic, molecular, massively parallel simulator, end quote, benchmarks.

10:38 SpecWorkstation says that LAMMPS simulates molecular dynamics, referencing atomic fluid, polymer chain, embedded atom methods, and other types of scientific tests. The 9950X3D 2 would be beaten by Threadripper, but we haven't rerun those since they're out of the price class. We do have those charts live in our ad-free article on the website and in our past videos, though, if you want them.

11:00 Here's the chart. In this test, the 9950X3D 2 lands at the top with a 2.09 score. That has it ahead of the 270K plus, which has a 2.04 result, and already performs admirably. And it's also ahead of the 285K's result. The 9950X3D scored 1.97, so the X3D 2 improves by 6%. The X3D non-2 improved on the 9950X base model by 5% previously. OpenFOAM is up now.

11:27 This one's really interesting. This is an open-source computational fluid dynamics utility. In this test, OpenFOAM via SPECworkstation has the 24% improved on the score for the 2700K plus, and a massive 34% improved on the 9950X3D. The 9950X3D itself improved over the 9950X non-3D by 21%, which is abnormal, but matches what we're seeing with the X3D II.

11:54 So, this is a pattern now. This is a breakout uplift almost entirely from cache on AMD. This does not repeat in any of the other tests we're talking about today. We also see this behavior with the 9800X3D versus the 9900X and 9700X. This test has the single largest gain we've seen out of any of the tests. We're not sure how representative this is for CFD utilities, or what the real-world implications and use cases are for OpenFOAM.

12:20 It's not our area of expertise. We can run the test, but we don't use the software. So, remember these are experimental charts, and they come from SPECworkstation. If you happen to be familiar with OpenFOAM, then we'd love to hear from you in the comments about sort of what it does, how you use it, and your understanding of the results, cuz that would help us better understand what it is we're testing for people, and if it's useful for you.

12:39 Up next, convolution testing. Per SPEC, this test, quote, "Performs a multi-threaded convolution filter pass on an image buffer, applying a 100 by 100 filter to a 20K by 20K image buffer," end quote. SPEC says that it's part of signal processing and image analysis, and it identifies edge detection, sharpening, and feature extraction as part of that.

12:58 In other words, zoom and enhance. Here's the chart. The 9950X3D II is the best here at 3.07 for the score. The next closest is the 9950X at 2.96 and 9950X3D at 2.92, which are only about 1 to 1.4% apart. So, these are the same. The X3D II part scores 5% better than the X3D non- II. Is that X3D I? And it produces one of the better results in our our compared to the gains elsewhere.

13:25 Intel's 270K Plus encroaches on these results, but is still distant. At 2.44, it looks great when compared to the $500 launch of the 285K. The 9950X3D 2 is 26% ahead of the 270K Plus, but given the price, it should be more than that. NAM D is next, which performs benchmarks to quote model large biomolecular systems with NAM D, a scalable molecular dynamics package designed for biological sciences, end quote, which specs says is used for a quote research in biochemistry, pharmacology, and molecular biology, end quote.

13:56 In this one, and remember we consider this an experimental chart, the Intel CPU seem to have a disproportionate advantage. This is likely for architectural reasons. The 270K Plus is the best here so far at 2.87 for the result. The 9950X3D 2 scored 2.4 in this test, trailed by the 2.28 result of the 9950X3D the one. The X3D 2 has another 5 to 5.3% uplift here over the X3D part, but Intel is beating it in price and performance and by kind of a lot with a 20% lead in the score.

14:26 This seems to be heavily scaled by core count on Intel, judging by where the 265K and 250K land. Moving on to production testing, we'll kind of start here today because this is where it makes more sense. We'll start with CPU rendering in Blender for tile-based timing. The 9950X3D 2 is technically the new best on this chart, but it's not by more than variance at a 0.1 minute advantage rounded, and it's also not due to the cache as this test doesn't really use that much of it.

14:53 The 9950X3D 2 completed the render in 5.8 minutes. The 9950X3D at 5.9 minutes, so they're the same, especially because the 9950X3D technically should have a slightly higher clock at times. So, in some scenarios it should do a little bit better. In this one, if we ran this again and again and again, they'd kind of keep lining up to be about the same.

15:15 Intel's far cheaper 270K Plus required 6.5 minutes to complete the render, which is close enough to AMD's $500 9950X that it'll need something competitive soon to deal with Intel's encroaching cheaper CPUs. The 9950X 3D 2 isn't providing any meaningful benefit in this test, unfortunately for AMD's production workloads, so let's move on. Chromium code compile is up next.

15:34 In this test, the 9950X 3D 2 does relatively well, requiring 88.1 minutes to complete the full code compile. That's one of the largest improvements we've seen so far for this specific CPU versus the 9950X 3D, the compile time reduction is 7.2% to the new X3D 2 from the 9950X 3D's 95-minute compile time. So, at least we're seeing some change here. The 9950X required 101 minutes, so the 9950X 3D 2 benefits from a 12.7% reduction in compile time required, with the 270K plus just behind the 9950X.

16:12 Really, despite the improvement from the 9950X 3D 2, the 270K plus is the impressive one here at $350 with the unfortunately new pricing. It's about the same performance as the $500-520 9950X. The biggest problem with these Intel CPUs is the dead-end socket, but hopefully they address that next time. Anyway, at least in this test, the 9950X 3D 2 shows some signs of life and uplift.

16:38 7-Zip file compression testing is next, measured in millions of instructions per second or MIPS. In this one, the 9950X 3D 2 completed almost 215,000 MIPS, which puts it squarely at the top of the chart. This is also one of the rare tests that actually shows an advantage for the additional cache. The 9950X 3D 2 ends up with a 9% improvement over the 9950X 3D non-2.

16:58 This is one of the only benchmarks where we've seen such an improvement as well. We still can't find the justification for $900, though. Threadripper, obviously, would far outstrip the performance of this and also give more PCIe lanes alongside other benefits, so high-end workstation builds have that option available, which lands this sort of in a weird middle ground with limited applications benefit in from it.

17:20 Intel did overall well here with its 270K plus at 183,000 MIPS, just behind the 14900K while dropping the price substantially. It's not Intel's best showing with the new CPUs, but this is a reminder that Intel saw a major uplift with its refresh. In 7-Zip file decompression, we went back through and pruned some of the excursions from standard deviation with our 9950X3D data and reran the numbers.

17:43 That pushed the 9950X3D technically ahead of the 9950X. In our previous data set, it was tied or slightly behind. This is because the 9950X3D and the 9950X3D2 both have higher run-to-run variance in 7-Zip decompression than we've seen in other CPUs for this test, meaning the performance is more variable for these two specific parts. It's not great, but when it runs stably, the X3D parts are at least at the top.

18:08 They just sometimes dip down and tie the 9950X instead. The 9950X3D2 doesn't see any advantage from its extra cache. The X3D CPU ran at 283,000 MIPS with the X3D2 part within rerun distance at 281,000 MIPS. The 9950X was at 275,000 MIPS, so overall, despite some movement, again, not really worth the $900. Intel's 14900K outpaces its newer 270K plus and 250K plus CPUs and is the closest to AMD's top performers from Intel right now.

18:38 The entire top of the chart, though, is given to AMD's 16-core parts. Adobe Photoshop testing is next. In this one, the 9950X3D2 scored 14,085 in aggregate from the Puget Suite, which technically puts it ahead of the 9950X3D and 9950X. The 9950X3D2 leads the 9950X by about 4%. The 9950X3D was within 0.5% of the 9950X when we last tested it in Photoshop, meaning it was within error of the 9950X.

19:07 The X3D2 at least moves up, if slightly. AMD holds the entire top of this chart with nearly the entire top third all going to AMD. This is a big change from many years ago when Intel held the entire top half of this chart back then. AMD is still doing well with a Photoshop testing in Puget these days, so they hold the top. Intel's 270K Plus put its top performer here, landing between the 7700 and 7800 X3D from the last generation of AMD CPUs.

19:35 DaVinci Resolve is next before we get to gaming. This test uses the Resolve software for video editing and production under the Puget Benchmark suite. We consider this test to be in our experimental charts phase, as we're still learning about how the CPUs behave with this benchmark, and our team for our editing uses Premiere, so we're less experienced with Resolve.

19:55 We're still learning this one. The 9950X3D2 is at the top of this chart, so at least it's where it should be, given that it's $900. The CPU is trailed closest by the 285K with DDR5 8000 memory, with the 270K Plus within striking distance of 9950X3D2. The X3D2's 14,604 result has it 2.6% ahead of the 270K Plus, yet it's 157% more expensive at $900 versus $350.

20:21 The 9950X3D, non-2, scored 13,976 here, giving the X3D2 a lead of 4 and 1/2%. That's roughly in line with other moderate gains we've seen. It's not exciting. Technically, it's an improvement, just it's not really worth that much money. I mean, it's just not. It's just not worth $900. Let's move on to the gaming tests. In Baldur's Gate 3 gaming testing, the 9950X3D2 ran at 178 FPS average, improved on the 9950X3D by just 5% while increasing the price by 33% at the high end.

20:54 The 9850X3D achieves 93% of the performance of the 9950X3D2 while costing 54% of the price. Intel's 270KP and 250KP aren't as impressive in this game as others in our suite, but the two CPUs gave AMD's 9950X a hard time in the production testing, so just kind of depends on the application. For gaming, AMD remains at the top of this chart, including the goated 5800X3D at 126 FPS average, and rounding out the top quarter entirely for AMD.

21:24 Even the 9850X3D with garbage tier RAM, which at this point is retirement tier RAM, is doing pretty well. The 9950X3D 2 just happens to predictably not be worth it. Outer Worlds 2 is up now with these settings. The 9950X3D 2 ran at 144 FPS average and held lows at 106 and 85. The 9850X3D functionally ties the score with both within error and run to run variance of each other.

21:49 The 9950X3D non-2 is around the same level as both of these results. There's no benefit to the 9950X3D 2 in this game. For around half the price, you can get the same performance with the 9800X3D and the 9850X3D CPUs. At 1440p, things don't change much. The 9950X3D 2 is technically in the second place spot, right behind the 9850X3D and ahead of the 9800X3D.

22:15 It's improvement on the 9950X3D is about 4%. The higher resolution doesn't trim the top of the results in this test, meaning that both at 1080p and 1440p, we're CPU bound. And that's the goal with these tests. We test the LARs using simulation time rather than frame rate, which actually for gaming is a great benchmark because this is something you immediately feel the difference of in the game, not just like frame rate, uh where you can see it sometimes, but sometimes you can't.

22:39 The fastest simulation time we've measured in this suite has been the 9850X3D at 29.3 seconds and leading the pack. The 9950X3D 2 is functionally tied at 29.8 seconds, a reduction in time required to simulate of about 2% versus the 9950X3D at 30.4 seconds. Again, there's no real benefit here. There's no reason to spend $900 on this part for gaming and these other own alternatives are far better value and that extra money could be better put towards another component or just your bank balance or something.

23:13 Kingdom Come: Deliverance II is next, also new to the suite this year. In this game, the outperformed the 9950X3D by about 8 FPS average or 2.6%. That's not much for hundreds of dollars, but worse when factored against the 9800X3D at the higher frame of 316 FPS average. The 9850X3D leads at 328 FPS average and impressive results overall. As for Intel's recent 2700K P or 2700K plus and 3700K, they do a far better job here than they did in Baldur's Gate, but are still behind AMD's leading X3D CPUs and Intel's own prior

23:47 14th gen CPUs. Once again, the 9950X3D II doesn't serve value in this game and use case. Tested now at 1440p instead, so we're putting more GPU load on this. The same game gives us the 9950X3D II at 291 FPS average or 1.6% ahead of the 9950X3D's 287 FPS average. The 9850X3D and 9800X3D both lead while costing significantly less than the 9950X3D II that just came out.

24:16 Let's move on. Dragon's Dogma II is up now. In this one, the 9950X3D II tops the chart at 138 FPS average, a lead over the 9950X3D of 4.8%. The 9950X3D and 9850X3D tied previously. So, this is about the most we could expect out of the 9950X3D II. As we come to expect, the CPU is obviously not worth the money when looking at these gaming tests. You're better off going with the 9800X3D and putting the extra money elsewhere.

24:43 Even the 7800X3D in these tests has remained one of the best in the charts. Intel's new CPUs trailed its last gen in this one with the 2700K plus behind the 14700K. Cyberpunk 2077 first at medium settings is held by the 9850X3D at 230 FPS average, followed by the DDR5 4800 test at 228 FPS average, then the 9950X3D at 227, and the 9950X3D2 is within 1% of the 9950X3D non-2 benchmark.

25:12 These are within error of each other and are functionally the same. AMD's X3D parts hold the entire top of the chart once again, this time spanning all the way down to the AM4 5700X3D and 5600X3D CPUs, both trailing the famed 5800X3D. Intel follows this impressive stack of CPUs from AMD with its 270K plus and 250K plus. But, as far as the 9950X3D2 that we're focusing on today, it's just a joke here.

25:40 This CPU is not worth even a fraction of its price in these types of workloads. Do not buy an 9950X3D2 expecting to have the best gaming CPU because that's not what this is. A lot of times it's technically not even there. It's close, or it's within error a lot of the time, but that's just not what it is. At high settings, the 9950X3D2 tied with the 9950X3D.

26:03 These were the same. There's no meaningful difference in the average, 1% lows, or 0.1% lows with these CPUs, and so the needle hasn't moved despite the dollar amount moving by a lot. Even the 5800X3D is achieving 86% of the performance of the 9950X3D2, and that's in spite of its age. Intel's 270K plus at least did better in this one comparatively speaking as it outpaces Intel's own prior 14th gen CPUs.

26:27 Still not better than a lot of the AMD options in gaming, but at least better than Intel's prior parts. The 270K plus ended up at 165 FPS average with good lows, trailing most of the X3D CPUs. In Starfield, the 9950X3D2 ran at the same performance level as the 9950X3D did, the non-2. Both held about 193 FPS average and are within error of each other, so there's was difference in the result.

26:51 The 9800 X3D and the 9850 X3D tactically lead both entries. Nothing exciting about this result, so let's move on. In F1 25, we measured the 9950 X3D 2 at 364 FPS average, which has it tied with the 363 FPS average of the 9950 X3D. Lows are the same or roughly the same for each. The 9850 X3D tactically leads these entries, but the top CPUs are all so close at such a high frame rate that they're functionally the same.

27:17 The 2700K P did okay in this one. Outperforming Intel's prior 285K and landing below the 14900K. Overall though, everything from the 7800 X3D and up from AMD holds the top of the chart. Finally, ran some quick power consumption testing with the 9950 X3D 2. For this, we're relying on an external hardware interposer to capture the power going into the motherboard for the CPU via the EPS 12-volt rails.

27:40 In a Blender all-core workload, which is the worst-case but likely scenario for 9950 X3D 2 in that you're probably loading it all the way to really use it, the CPU pulled about 294 watts peak and 285 watts nominal during the EPS 12-volt cable power testing. Just for reference for the 2700K P, which uses a PMD 2 to measure the EPS 12-volt cables and ATX 12-volt isolating away PCIe from ATX 12-volt, we end up around the same power draw.

28:07 However, this is factoring in miscellaneous ATX 12-volt power due to the motherboard's weird decision to route some of the 12-volt to the CPU from ATX, but we expect that to be 10 to 15 watts at most at any given time. Software readings via Hardware Info 64 are also present for both with the 9950 X3D 2 at around 250 watts, 2700K P at around 220 to 250 watts.

28:24 All right, so that wraps up the 24 plus charts in 24 hours for our 9950 X3D 2 review. Other than Open Foam, which is both an outlier and an experimental chart. That's critical cuz you know, like we've been making very clear, um the experimental charts for us, those are the ones where it's like, okay, we we think there's something here. We're feeling fairly confident about it, but we're not fully confident to say, yeah, you should base an entire purchase off of an experimental chart from us.

28:49 We put it out there like we think it's okay. Let's see what the community has to say about it. There'll be some experts in the audience with different software and you all can let us know what you think of it. It's been very helpful so far. I love this kind of development cadence where it's like we've got the the core stuff that we know is solid and then we can slowly iterate on other stuff and let the audience participate.

29:06 That's been great. So, that chart in particular is wild. I didn't see that anywhere else in our testing. So, truly an outlier. And other than that, you pretty much see 2 to 5% at best in some of the production workloads. Sometimes you'll get that in gaming, but basically it's like in gaming when there is a difference, it is not one you could actually observe with your eyes.

29:29 It's irrelevant. So, you know, it's not something you buy for a gaming system and really it's not something you buy for a production system either, which is why the title is probably do not buy. Because at $900, you're paying the 7800 X3D is like 390 or something right now. The 9800 X3D is in the 400s and both of those are better options than this for pure gaming.

29:51 For production, the 9950X gets you most of what you're going to get from any of these CPUs, but even if you want X3D, which is substantially cheaper than the X3D2, as you call it X3D1, even if you go with that, that's I mean it gets you the vast majority of the performance. Again, with one exception as an outlier, everything else basically identical or literally identical in a lot of cases.

30:18 Now, the 270K plus is worth considering as well right now. It's very competitive with AMD's 9950X and in non-gaming tasks, there's a lot of places where it's punching real close to AMD's 16-core $500 to $520 CPU. Yet, it's $350, which still sucks cuz it was $300 like 4 weeks ago or whatever. But, anyway, those are the kind of ones to look at. We don't think you should buy the 9950X3D2, 2, which is simply just the numbers just don't work out.

30:44 It just doesn't make a lot of sense. But hey, it was cool to find that open foam thing and you know, hopefully we get some additional context from people who use that CFD solution in the audience cuz that would be great to know. But 900 bucks for almost 0% gain, sometimes 5% is not worth it. Cuz you could spend like half the money and get effectively the same performance.

31:07 So, that's it. Thanks for watching. It's a lot of fun. We really enjoyed working on this. I mean, this is the kind of stuff I love doing where can't do it all the time. It's pretty hard. But it is really fun to just be like, "Yo, Steve from Hardware Box shipped this definitely within a time period he would have been permitted to and it arrived on the day that embargo lifted."

31:28 Actually, I'm not be that's that's real. I have another one. But that's real and you know, it's just fun. It's cool. Like pick it up. Someone's gotten a bench by 5:00 p.m. We start running it and then work overnight on the script and here we go. Subscribe for more. You go to store.gamersnexus.net to support us directly. Let us know about some of the the spec workstation test if you have any thoughts on that I mean, biomolecular stuff.

31:56 I'm not an expert. I'm not afraid to say I know all about like the the biochemical and biomolecular industry. So, if any of that stuff is useful to you, please let us know cuz it tells us like, "Hey, maybe we should keep this in the charts more permanently." And likewise, if you know that it's not representative, that's good to know too so we can filter it for something else. So, that's it. We'll see you all next time.