# AMD Ryzen 7 5800X



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

The AMD Ryzen 7 5800X is built using just one CCD, which eliminates a lot of latencies and bottlencks in the multi-core topology. We also saw it boost close to 5 GHz regularly, out of the box, without any overclocking. This one-two-punch combination helped it beat the 5900X in gaming and several other tests.

*Show full review*


----------



## mahoney (Nov 5, 2020)

So it's not the gaming king?


----------



## phill (Nov 5, 2020)

Awesome work there @W1zzard !!    Loving these new AMD CPUs...  Now I just need to find a couple 5950X's and I'll be happy!!  

Been waiting for these reviews for a while, it was sure worth the wait!!


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

mahoney said:


> So it's not the gaming king?


----------



## mahoney (Nov 5, 2020)

B-Real said:


>


I mean cherry picking? I can do the same with Intel.
Su said in the launch vid tha this is the new gaming king yet they did the same schtick as with the 3000 series launch where they optimized their cpu's for certain games. I wanted to see it being faster/same as Intel yet Intel still leads in some games even by more than 5%


----------



## Charcharo (Nov 5, 2020)

There were games where Zen 2 was faster than Intel too. There never was a gaming King guys, at least not since Zen+ released (which had some id Tech 2-4 and mod wins). 
Different games are different in the end.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 5, 2020)

What's going on with that Temp chart? Possible issue with the CPU they sent you, or the Ryzen 7/9 seem to run shockingly hot?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

xenocide said:


> What's going on with that Temp chart? Possible issue with the CPU they sent you, or the Ryzen 7/9 seem to run shockingly hot?


Are we looking at the same chart?






Similar temps as last generation, much more perf


----------



## dyonoctis (Nov 5, 2020)

Meanwhile in europe:


----------



## birdie (Nov 5, 2020)

Everything as expected however I am not a fan that AMD has OC'ed their CPUs to the absolute limit this time around in order to beat Intel at 1080p by a few percent and by doing so worsened their  thermals quite a lot. It would be nice to see all these CPUs with TDP being lowered by 5-20% - that could make them a lot more power efficient and cooler.

https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/images/cpu-temperature.png (75C under load FFS).

Also, and I know I've repeated it a dozen times already but I don't understand why AMD has the right (and not only that people somehow find a justification for that) to increase their prices so much. Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.

People keep saying that $50 is practically nothing, only AMD has decided to start the lineup with the 5600X which costs $300, vs the 3600 which costs $200. It's not a $50 price hike, it's a $100/50%(!) price hike. Intel would have been decimated by the internet mob if they had ever attempted to be sneaky like this. I don't give a damn about the X suffix because it doesn't change anything and it's just a marketing differentiation. There's no 5600 CPU for $250.

Lastly, AMD is playing a monopoly card and it's just ugly. They force people to buy the 5900X/5950X CPUs because both the 3600/3700X were the most popular models for the Ryzen 3000 series, while for this generation, the 5800X is the worst (!) investment in terms of the bang for the buck. Margins decide everything not only for Intel and NVIDIA, as AMD has happily joined the "we'll rip you off because we are the fastest" club. I'm quite appalled by all of this.


----------



## mahoney (Nov 5, 2020)

birdie said:


> Everything as expected however I am not a fan that AMD has OC'ed their CPUs to the absolute limit this time around in order to beat Intel at 1080p by a few percent and by doing so worsened their  thermals quite a lot. It would be nice to see all these CPUs with TDP being lowered by 5-20% - that could make them a lot more power efficient and colder.
> 
> https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/images/cpu-temperature.png (75C under load FFS).
> 
> ...


If ryzen 1st gen was competitive in gaming the prices would have been much higher aswell.


----------



## havox (Nov 5, 2020)

> What's new, however, is that certain Ryzen 5000 series processor models can support DDR4-4000 with 1:1 fclk:mclk ratio, without having to engage a 1:2 divider.
> 
> Memory:2x 8 GB G.SKILL Flare X DDR4
> DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34​


Could this be why it performs underwhelming? What is IF running at, would it help with a faster memory?


----------



## EatingDirt (Nov 5, 2020)

mahoney said:


> So it's not the gaming king?


Does... it need to be? It's within 2% of the 10900k @720p. Some games it will be faster, some games it will be slower. Civ 6, Rage 2, Sekiro & Wolfenstien 2 for example, the 5800x is faster than the 10900k @720p. It's also $100 less than the 10900k.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 5, 2020)

I look forward to faster ram speed results, I bet DDR3 4000 would make a difference at 1080p gaming


----------



## xkm1948 (Nov 5, 2020)

Still not as good as Athlon64 versus Pentium4 days. Those days it was actually beating Intel in every single gaming benchmark by a wide margin.

This, feels just like finally something something same gaming performance.

Still impressive though


----------



## RedelZaVedno (Nov 5, 2020)

Guys calm down... Zen 3 prices will come down to Earth once 11th Gen Rocket Lake desktop CPU firmly retakes gaming crown back in Q1 2021. It's AMD's DIY desktop milking period and who can blame them? Zen 3 has  on pair gaming performance and obliterates Intel in productivity benchmarks. They have every right to cash on FOMO consumers for a few months but milking won't last long. Intel has become very aggressive on pricing lately (to my big surprise).


----------



## mahoney (Nov 5, 2020)

xkm1948 said:


> Still not as good as Athlon64 versus Pentium4 days. Those days it was actually beating Intel in every single gaming benchmark by a wide margin.
> 
> This, feels just like finally something something same gaming performance.
> 
> Still impressive though


And that's what I was expecting when Su was going all giddy in the launch vid


----------



## Xuper (Nov 5, 2020)

Thanks for review.@W1zzard  
Can you do memory timing test ?


----------



## l)e3j4y (Nov 5, 2020)

It might be better to update the test setup. In the reviews of other sites, the 5900x is winning over intel processors. They are cooler and winning up to 5% on average in games. Is using "Taichi" against "Maximus XII Extreme" a good idea?


----------



## DuxCro (Nov 5, 2020)

I think Lisa should marry Jensen. Because they're both full of shit when talking about performance of their upcoming products.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

Xuper said:


> Thanks for review.@W1zzard
> Can you do memory timing test ?


Coming next week


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

mahoney said:


> I mean cherry picking? I can do the same with Intel.
> Su said in the launch vid tha this is the new gaming king yet they did the same schtick as with the 3000 series launch where they optimized their cpu's for certain games. I wanted to see it being faster/same as Intel yet Intel still leads in some games even by more than 5%


Not really: 11 game average on 1080p





And check all the other reviews: it is winning in nearly every review.


----------



## mahoney (Nov 5, 2020)

B-Real said:


> Not really: 11 game average on 1080p
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Erm...  Having the same fps on average as a cpu that costs 300€ less doesn't mean winning. The way Lisa was bragging a few weeks ago i was expecting complete domination. This aint it.


----------



## SaLaDiN666 (Nov 5, 2020)

Shameful display.

7nm vs 14nm in gaming if having core parity 0 : 2


----------



## EatingDirt (Nov 5, 2020)

birdie said:


> Everything as expected however I am not a fan that AMD has OC'ed their CPUs to the absolute limit this time around in order to beat Intel at 1080p by a few percent and by doing so worsened their  thermals quite a lot. It would be nice to see all these CPUs with TDP being lowered by 5-20% - that could make them a lot more power efficient and cooler.
> 
> https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/images/cpu-temperature.png (75C under load FFS).
> 
> ...


1. 5800X uses less power than the 10900k in gaming. It isn't "OC'd", it's just an efficient architecture with a good boost algorithm. The stock 5800X uses less power than even the 6/12 10600k in most power tests on TPU.
2. AMD can price their CPU's however they want to.
2(a). You're joking about Intel's 'a lot faster' generations since Sandy Bridge, right? It was around *5-7%* every generation. It was not significant, and certainly not as significant as any AMD Zen generation leap.
2(b). 5600X is not a replacement for the 3600(non-x). The 5600(non-x) will be a replacement for the 3600. It is not out yet.
4. No one is forced to buy the 5950X/5900X/5600X. If you want a CPU under the 5600X's price, you can buy an Intel CPU, a last-gen AMD CPU, or wait for the 5600(non-x).

You can be *disappointed* that there is no 5600(non-x) currently, I imagine many of us are, but being *appalled* that there's not a low end release is a bit ridiculous.


----------



## Anymal (Nov 5, 2020)

Why not 3080 in test setup?


----------



## Alduin (Nov 5, 2020)

Anymal said:


> Why not 3080 in test setup?


Because all other CPUs were tested with 2080 ti
I believe the zen 3 will be more powerful when all the CPUs are tested with the 3080/3090 and faster ram


----------



## Whitestar (Nov 5, 2020)

Alduin said:


> Because all other CPUs were tested with 2080 ti
> I believe the zen 3 will be more powerful when all the CPUs are tested with the 3080/3090 and faster ram


Hardware Unboxed tested with a 3090, so that could be an indication that the 5000 series will perform better on newer graphics cards.
Maybe. Perhaps.


----------



## kapone32 (Nov 5, 2020)

Excellent review Wizz (as usual) this is a very compelling CPU for existing AM4 users. My question is there are some new X570 boards that have been released around and a little before the 5000 series launch like the Asus X570 Prime Pro and the new As Rock X570 Velocita. Do these boards have the full 16 lanes from the chipset available? I see that they seem to PCIe 4 x8 across 2 x16 slots and have several NVME x4 as well. The As Rock board even has 8 SATA ports. I want an X570 board that uses all 40 lanes without having a U2 or some other dead connector. My TR4 build is great for coding and video production but my X570 build walks all over it in Gaming. I want a board that gives me the Gaming performance of X570 and the PCIe bandwidth close to TR4.


----------



## dyonoctis (Nov 5, 2020)

mahoney said:


> Erm...  Having the same fps on average as a cpu that costs 300€ less doesn't mean winning. The way Lisa was bragging a few weeks ago i was expecting complete domination. This aint it.


The issue with that techspot benchmark is that it's only showing the top cpu, but the few other people who bothered to bench the 5600x on launch shows that it can beat the i9 . Tpu seems to be the only english website that didn't jumped on the 5950x and the 5900x and let the 5800x and 5600x rot for a while.





Even GN don't have time for the smaller CPUs


----------



## Lomskij (Nov 5, 2020)

So 10700k is a better buy from bang per buck perspective - didn't expect that from AMD...


----------



## InVasMani (Nov 5, 2020)

mahoney said:


> So it's not the gaming king?


 This was tested with a 2080Ti a relevant question is if RTX 3090 or RNDA2 GPU starts to shift performance a little the other direction. Pairing a stronger GPU with a multi-core CPU that has more additional combined cache from additional physical cores is a fairly relevant consideration. Game engine and OS level improvements could improve overall multi-cores performance there are obviously limitations in area's, but there are also gains in area's as well.  I general would agree with what's said and implied. There are interesting aspects here on the 5800X performance in different regions and lines of thinking. The Ryzen 3900X and 3900XT are $10's and $20's more while offering 4 additional cores. In some scenario's they win relative to the Ryzen 5800X in other area's they lose. I'd actually argue some of those area's have implications about the overall future gaming and where things are headed as well in regard to that. 

Take blender for example with path tracing the 3900X/3900XT appear to have real benefits over the Ryzen 5800X and how that shakes out in regard to future GPU innovations is a bit up in the air if GPU's can utilize that edge for RTRT performance in scenario's where that matters perhaps there performance for gaming pulls out ahead or narrows the gap. Another interesting scenario is the compression and/or decompression results and it's a split with WinRAR Ryzen 5800X wins while in 7-Zip the 3900X/3900XT wins. I don't know how NTFS compression plays into things with both nor LZX or XPRESS 4K/8K/16K, but it's all actually fairly relevant information potentially to know about those differences. I'm curious how things will shake out as GPU's get closer and closer to more RTRT performance that more closely correlates with path tracing. I know path tracing and the way RTRT is being handled have distinctive differences for now anyway, but the real question is how they intertwine and how it relates to GPU innovation moving forward as well and in regard to multi-core performance as well and yes even compression/decompression that can impact things. If you're using a NVME drive as a fast storage device and it's not for the OS itself with write logging for example and rarely write the device and rely primarily on read performance I'd absolutely recommend enabling NTFS compression on the device and/or using LZX or XPRESS 4K/8K/16K compression on it for both the storage density gains from compacting the contents within the device as well as the bandwidth gains by shrinking them down in size.
The Ryzen 5800X show definite advantages to the Ryzen 3900X and 3900XT at lower cost though when more latency sensitive use cases came into play on the other hand so it's quite a mixed bag as to which is optimal and why and where some of the results could shift and morph over time to skew results and exaggerate things in favor of one direction versus the other. I forget now if the Zen 2 CPU's have support for infinity cache or not.

I'm curious of the Blender path tracing results times drop if you compress the test data files involved in the benchmark test with various compression methods or if it actually doesn't impact those results. I think that has real solid implications of where RTRT performance could head as GPU innovation improves in regard to multi-core performance. If the compression aspect becomes more critical to performance and favors more heavily leaning multi-core hardware rather than a slight frequency or IPC edge that's a consideration as well which offers me the best long term performance as opposed to what's best here and now. Intended use cases as well as projected future use cases aspects of consideration. I think most all of us agree path tracing is fantastic and we all wish that performance could be achieved in real time ray tracing at 60FPS + with resolutions we are able to play at. That would be quite amazing. I think the future of ray tracing and what allows us to transition that direction most efficiently holds a lot of weight in today's purchasing decisions.

To summarize if I could pay $10's/$20's more for Ryzen 3900X/3900XT over a Ryzen 5800X and upgrade my GPU down the road 2 or 3 GPU generations later and end up better RTRT results that's pretty important to consider because that's where graphics are headed and where the most concerning performance bottleneck will be in a lot of future games as time marches on. I guess what I'm getting at is if I had to buy one CPU and keep it for a decade, but still had the option to swap out the GPU for improvements which will end up more beneficial if I'm looking at ray tracing performance in regard to gaming and especially if gleaning more heavily at real time path tracing which obviously has it's work cutout, but keep inching closer at the same time.


----------



## mahoney (Nov 5, 2020)

InVasMani said:


> *This was tested with a 2080Ti a relevant question* is if RTX 3090 or RNDA2 GPU starts to shift performance a little the other direction. Pairing a stronger GPU with a multi-core CPU that has more additional combined cache from additional physical cores is a fairly relevant consideration. Game engine and OS level improvements could improve overall multi-cores performance there are obviously limitations in area's, but there are also gains in area's as well.  I general would agree with what's said and implied. There are interesting aspects here on the 5800X performance in different regions and lines of thinking. The Ryzen 3900X and 3900XT are $10's and $20's more while offering 4 additional cores. In some scenario's they win relative to the Ryzen 5800X in other area's they lose. I'd actually argue some of those area's have implications about the overall future gaming and where things are headed as well in regard to that.
> 
> Take blender for example with path tracing the 3900X/3900XT appear to have real benefits over the Ryzen 5800X and how that shakes out in regard to future GPU innovations is a bit up in the air if GPU's can utilize that edge for RTRT performance in scenario's where that matters perhaps there performance for gaming pulls out ahead or narrows the gap. Another interesting scenario is the compression and/or decompression results and it's a split with WinRAR Ryzen 5800X wins while in 7-Zip the 3900X/3900XT wins. I don't know how NTFS compression plays into things with both nor LZX or XPRESS 4K/8K/16K, but it's all actually fairly relevant information potentially to know about those differences. I'm curious how things will shake out as GPU's get closer and closer to more RTRT performance that more closely correlates with path tracing. I know path tracing and the way RTRT is being handled have distinctive differences for now anyway, but the real question is how they intertwine and how it relates to GPU innovation moving forward as well and in regard to multi-core performance as well and yes even compression/decompression that can impact things. If you're using a NVME drive as a fast storage device and it's not for the OS itself with write logging for example and rarely write the device and rely primarily on read performance I'd absolutely recommend enabling NTFS compression on the device and/or using LZX or XPRESS 4K/8K/16K compression on it for both the storage density gains from compacting the contents within the device as well as the bandwidth gains by shrinking them down in size.
> The Ryzen 5800X show definite advantages to the Ryzen 3900X and 3900XT at lower cost though when more latency sensitive use cases came into play on the other hand so it's quite a mixed bag as to which is optimal and why and where some of the results could shift and morph over time to skew results and exaggerate things in favor of one direction versus the other. I forget now if the Zen 2 CPU's have support for infinity cache or not.
> ...



Yes and 720p benchmarks are there just for the fun of it?


----------



## dyonoctis (Nov 5, 2020)

mahoney said:


> Yes and 720p benchmarks are there just for the fun of it?


Or like it's been hinted before, Tpu results are a bit odd. It's not the gpu, and it's not coming from the memory, CDH, used 3200mhz dimms with the same timings, but got better results...


----------



## mahoney (Nov 5, 2020)

dyonoctis said:


> Or like it's been hinted before, Tpu results are a bit odd. It's not the gpu, and it's not coming from the memory, CDH, used 3200mhz dimms with the same timings, but got better results...
> 
> View attachment 174521


Games tested?


----------



## Fleurious (Nov 5, 2020)

Was actually expecting a bit better on the gaming side based on the marketing slides.  I guess my next system will come down to value between the 10700k and 5800x.


----------



## dyonoctis (Nov 5, 2020)

mahoney said:


> Games tested?


Here's the list.


----------



## kane nas (Nov 5, 2020)

Remember ryzen cpu always love tight timmings
and 5000 series supports 4000Ghz ram (2000 IF) let the tweaks start


----------



## Lomskij (Nov 5, 2020)

Fleurious said:


> Was actually expecting a bit better on the gaming side based on the marketing slides.  I guess my next system will come down to value between the 10700k and 5800x.



Looks like that current value king remains power unlocked 10700 (non k)


----------



## efikkan (Nov 5, 2020)

Nice.
Any word on the new chipsets?



Alduin said:


> I believe the zen 3 will be more powerful when all the CPUs are tested with the 3080/3090 and faster ram


3200 MHz is the highest memory speed supported in stock configuration. A comparison between products should be stock, unless you compare overclocked vs. overclocked.


----------



## ok amd (Nov 5, 2020)




----------



## Alduin (Nov 5, 2020)

efikkan said:


> Nice.
> Any word on the new chipsets?
> 
> 
> 3200 MHz is the highest memory speed supported in stock configuration. A comparison between products should be stock, unless you compare overclocked vs. overclocked.


You are right
But using faster RAM overall tends to have a better effect on zen 3
It seems that zen 3 bandwidth starved


----------



## HenrySomeone (Nov 5, 2020)

EatingDirt said:


> Does... it need to be? It's within 2% of the 10900k @720p. Some games it will be faster, some games it will be slower. Civ 6, Rage 2, Sekiro & Wolfenstien 2 for example, the 5800x is faster than the 10900k @720p. It's also $100 less than the 10900k.


It does when you claim so just a couple weeks before release, yes...


----------



## TheDeeGee (Nov 5, 2020)

havox said:


> Could this be why it performs underwhelming? What is IF running at, would it help with a faster memory?


Seems so, every other reviewer is using 3600 CL16.


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

mahoney said:


> Erm...  Having the same fps on average as a cpu that costs 300€ less doesn't mean winning. The way Lisa was bragging a few weeks ago i was expecting complete domination. This aint it.







Gamers Nexus




Hardware Canucks

I won't link any more reviews for you. If you are interested, you check it, if you are not, there you go.



SaLaDiN666 said:


> Shameful display.
> 
> 7nm vs 14nm in gaming if having core parity 0 : 2



The only shameful thing here is your comment. :/



dyonoctis said:


> The issue with that techspot benchmark is that it's only showing the top cpu.


To their defense: Steven says that they will release all other CPUs reviews in a day and say that all perform nearly the same as the 5950X.


----------



## mahoney (Nov 5, 2020)

Yeah i'm gonna wait for a 20+ benchmark from HUB


----------



## efikkan (Nov 5, 2020)

TheDeeGee said:


> Seems so, every other reviewer is using 3600 CL16.


The impact on performance is irrelevant. A reference comparison should be stock.
Far too many buyers are lured into buying memory for overclocking and get unstable machines as a result, unstable either initially or gradually over time. Those of you who are not buying a computer for the purpose of overclocking, should run the memory at stock speeds, which is 3200 MHz at 1.2 V for Zen 3 (there are kits from both Kingston and Corsair capable of 3200 MHz with a JEDEC profile). Doing so will not only save you $50-100, but also save you a lot of headache, well worth it for a painless memory setup and long term stability, while sacrificing only a few percent performance. Memory overclocking is overclocking, and should be a conscious choice, and only done by those wanting to take that risk.


----------



## gravel (Nov 5, 2020)

news ryzen is good


----------



## Blue4130 (Nov 5, 2020)

birdie said:


> Also, and I know I've repeated it a dozen times already but I don't understand why AMD has the right (and not only that people somehow find a justification for that) to increase their prices so much.
> 
> They force people to buy the 5900X/5950X CPUs


You don't understand why a company has the right to set prices where they want? What's not to understand? It's a free market. They are well within their rights to set a price of their choice. If you think they are out of line, vote with your wallet. Don't buy it. 

Nobody is forcing anyone to buy something.


----------



## Athlonite (Nov 5, 2020)

Yeah not really happy about the price of the 5800X  ($779.00NZD) here it's rather a steep increase from what my 3700X cost me (547.00NZD) for what is essentially a hotter more power hungry chip and not that large of perf boost either


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Nov 5, 2020)

Good going IMHO, last year the Intel fans were talking up 1080p performance, now it's 720p, or price.
Oh the Comedy.

And of course it's a hard ask to jump from 3Xxx to 5Xxx, in price, 3Xxx are still on the shelf , should they sell em for nowt, pass em out?!, Good business.

But choose with your wallet , I am, As Ever.


----------



## bug (Nov 5, 2020)

I take it we should wait for a separate article about overclocking? You know, running IF 1:1 and all that.


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 5, 2020)

The veracrypt numbers are still very low on your test bench which I pointed out awhile ago.



efikkan said:


> Nice.
> Any word on the new chipsets?
> 
> 
> 3200 MHz is the highest memory speed supported in stock configuration. A comparison between products should be stock, unless you compare overclocked vs. overclocked.



What new chipsets?



Athlonite said:


> Yeah not really happy about the price of the 5800X  ($779.00NZD) here it's rather a steep increase from what my 3700X cost me (547.00NZD) for what is essentially a hotter more power hungry chip and not that large of perf boost either



There is certainly a performance difference from a 3700X vs a 5800X I suggest you read more reviews.

However your local pricing is quite the difference.


----------



## bug (Nov 5, 2020)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Good going IMHO, last year the Intel fans were talking up 1080p performance, now it's 720p, or price.
> Oh the Comedy.
> 
> And of course it's a hard ask to jump from 3Xxx to 5Xxx, in price, 3Xxx are still on the shelf , should they sell em for nowt, pass em out?!, Good business.
> ...


Well, price is something to talk about. Many were hoping AMD would take the fight to Intel while still selling at the price points it was forced to sell before Zen. That was foolish and we see that now.
As for low-res gaming, I guess there's always e-sports. And probably a few other fringe cases where Intel may still hold its own. But you have to be blind not to see that Ryzen is the default choice for pretty much everything these days.

One thing that I have noticed, Intel was still doing better in various desktop applications (Office, browsers). Zen3 took care of that and that I think is the biggest win here.


----------



## efikkan (Nov 5, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> What new chipsets?


I was thinking of the 600 series chipsets, but that may be due next year.

I find the "business"/prosumer selection of boards is still fairly sparse compared to Intel's counterparts. I wish there were more boards with Intel networking. I guess there will be a refresh of new AMD boards when Rocket Lake arrives with 2.5 G Ethernet as standard(?).


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 5, 2020)

efikkan said:


> I was thinking of the 600 series chipsets, but that may be due next year.
> 
> I find the "business"/prosumer selection of boards is still fairly sparse compared to Intel's counterparts. I wish there were more boards with Intel networking. I guess there will be a refresh of new AMD boards when Rocket Lake arrives with 2.5 G Ethernet as standard(?).



There will not be any new chipset for the AM4 platform.

If there is a X670 chipset it will be on AM5 and DDR5 with possibly PCIe 5.0


----------



## Caring1 (Nov 6, 2020)

Mussels said:


> I look forward to faster ram speed results, I bet DDR3 4000 would make a difference at 1080p gaming


DDR4 would be even better


----------



## tygrus (Nov 6, 2020)

Dear TechPowerUp,
The media encoding tests don't mention the time length of the source. How long is the video(s) used during encoding?
Is there an article explaining the various tests which would include more information regarding the workloads & sources (can we replicate them or compare with elsewhere)?
These test results should have a "For more information click here" so we can find the information you don't want to repeat every single review.
Thanks,


----------



## Mussels (Nov 6, 2020)

dyonoctis said:


> Or like it's been hinted before, Tpu results are a bit odd. It's not the gpu, and it's not coming from the memory, CDH, used 3200mhz dimms with the same timings, but got better results...
> 
> View attachment 174521



TPU doesnt use in-game benchmarks, results are apples and oranges


----------



## xSneak (Nov 6, 2020)

is the 5800x comparable to the 10900k with gaming while streaming performance? 
Honestly, I'm disappointed in this release; there's not much reason to upgrade if you have intel 8th-10th gen cpus outside of getting 16 cores on a mainstream platform.


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 6, 2020)

xSneak said:


> is the 5800x comparable to the 10900k with gaming while streaming performance?
> Honestly, I'm disappointed in this release; there's not much reason to upgrade if you have intel 8th-10th gen cpus outside of getting 16 cores on a mainstream platform.



You have 4 post in almost 7 years I'm disappointed also


----------



## Flinchy (Nov 6, 2020)

efikkan said:


> The impact on performance is irrelevant. A reference comparison should be stock.
> Far too many buyers are lured into buying memory for overclocking and get unstable machines as a result, unstable either initially or gradually over time. Those of you who are not buying a computer for the purpose of overclocking, should run the memory at stock speeds, which is 3200 MHz at 1.2 V for Zen 3 (there are kits from both Kingston and Corsair capable of 3200 MHz with a JEDEC profile). Doing so will not only save you $50-100, but also save you a lot of headache, well worth it for a painless memory setup and long term stability, while sacrificing only a few percent performance. Memory overclocking is overclocking, and should be a conscious choice, and only done by those wanting to take that risk.


It's about a 10% impact on performance lol. It impacts ryzen more than intel and puts zen3 firmly on top, without any other changes.

Zero headache, 100% of chips will run 3600c16 out of the box. There will never be any instability.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 6, 2020)

Athlonite said:


> Yeah not really happy about the price of the 5800X  ($779.00NZD) here it's rather a steep increase from what my 3700X cost me (547.00NZD) for what is essentially a hotter more power hungry chip and not that large of perf boost either


What is the price of a 3800X on your local market? Because 5800X is replacing 3800X and not 3700X. Just like the 5600X to 3600X and not 3600.


----------



## Caring1 (Nov 6, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> What is the price of a 3800X on your local market? Because 5800X is replacing 3800X and not 3700X. Just like the 5600X to 3600X and not 3600.


In Australia the 5800X is $699, for $30 more I can get a 3900X or for $609 a 3800XT.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

tygrus said:


> The media encoding tests don't mention the time length of the source. How long is the video(s) used during encoding?


The video is 47 seconds, 51 MB. The audio file is 2:35:06, 1.6 GB


----------



## Charcharo (Nov 6, 2020)

mahoney said:


> Yes and 720p benchmarks are there just for the fun of it?



Ampere's hardware scheduler is not the same as Turing's. More changes in a GPU generation per generation, not just "moar gamez fasterx XD games". 
Plus PCIE4. I dont expect a massive difference though. Pascal had real issues with Zen 1 and Zen +, especially on old games, but Turing fixed almost all of them.


----------



## dyonoctis (Nov 6, 2020)

Mussels said:


> TPU doesnt use in-game benchmarks, results are apples and oranges


That's fair enough,for some games, although The witcher 3 doesn't have an in game benchmark, but did better on CDH. Now that I look closely at the result of the other shared games, with the exception of farcry, the perf difference between intel and amd is about the same on both site. But then the other games benched are different


----------



## shmuck (Nov 6, 2020)

I don't get the last 3 cons. In fact, I'd call some of them a plus...


----------



## Charcharo (Nov 6, 2020)

dyonoctis said:


> That's fair enough,for some games, although The witcher 3 doesn't have an in game benchmark, but did better on CDH. Now that I look closely at the result of the other shared games, with the exception of farcry, the perf difference between intel and amd is about the same on both site. But then the other games benched are different



Witcher 3 is a game whose CPU performance varies by where you test.

TechPowerUp tests in White Orchard, the tutorial area of the game. That is why CPU FPS results are so insanely high there, it is a very light CPU load.
Other sites may test in different areas. Novigrad South-Eastern entrance till the city center, then north-west towards the Religious sector is much, much heavier on CPUs. It will produce different results. 

Where you test is just as important as how you test


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

shmuck said:


> I don't get the last 3 cons. In fact, I'd call some of them a plus...


Excellent. That's why I'm listing them. 

So YOU and everyone else of various tech knowledge levels can think about them, say "ah fuck w1zz, this doesn't matter to me". As opposed to: go to store, buy CPU and mobo, setup up everything, umm where is the heatsink? Back to store to buy cooler and install it. But now where do I plug in my monitor cable? Back to store for a 3080


----------



## xSneak (Nov 6, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> You have 4 post in almost 7 years I'm disappointed also


I don't have that strong of a motivation to post here when the for sale/trade section in the forums is so stagnant.


----------



## Athlonite (Nov 6, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> What is the price of a 3800X on your local market? Because 5800X is replacing 3800X and not 3700X. Just like the 5600X to 3600X and not 3600.



The 3800X is $689.00 so the 5800X is still quite a more expensive than that



W1zzard said:


> Excellent. That's why I'm listing them.
> 
> So YOU and everyone else of various tech knowledge levels can think about them, say "ah fuck w1zz, this doesn't matter to me". As opposed to: go to store, buy CPU and mobo, setup up everything, umm where is the heatsink? Back to store to buy cooler and install it. But now where do I plug in my monitor cable? Back to store for a 6800XT



fixed that for you W1zz


----------



## shmuck (Nov 6, 2020)

Athlonite said:


> fixed that for you W1zz



If you're going down that road, "where's the motherboard"? My point is, with 3700X a cooler was forced upon me and many (I assume?) others who chose to go with a 3rd party one. Why not sell it separately at least for a high-end CPU like this and shave $10-$20 off the price? Mine has been sitting in a box for a year because I don't want to throw it away and the amount of money I'd get by selling it is not worth my time. It's just so wasteful.

A high price tag is a con however rich you are. The lack of a cooler means some will need to make an extra purchase, but others won't be left with a useless hunk of metal. That's why I think this should be listed as an advantage (or at least a neutral fact) over the last generation rather than a con, even just from an environmental standpoint.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

shmuck said:


> and shave $10-$20 off the price?


But that's not what's happening. We're getting no cooler and paying more


----------



## shmuck (Nov 6, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> But that's not what's happening. We're getting no cooler and paying more



Right, but how do you know the price wouldn't have been higher by 20 bucks had they included the cooler?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

shmuck said:


> Right, but how do you know the price wouldn't have been higher by 20 bucks had they included the cooler?


Fair point, maybe I'm just looking at it from the wrong side


----------



## Charcharo (Nov 6, 2020)

Lol where I live we sell the Wraith Prisms for 25-30 EUR. This is like 2-3 newish games on a discount or many old games. 

Its added value. People on lower-end chips buy them up since the Wraith series coolers are downdraft and help cool the motherboard's VRMs very well too. Obviously, even better such coolers exist but I am personally not happy that the Prism is no longer included in the CPUs.


----------



## shmuck (Nov 6, 2020)

Charcharo said:


> Lol where I live we sell the Wraith Prisms for 25-30 EUR. This is like 2-3 newish games on a discount or many old games.
> 
> Its added value. People on lower-end chips buy them up since the Wraith series coolers are downdraft and help cool the motherboard's VRMs very well too. Obviously, even better such coolers exist but I am personally not happy that the Prism is no longer included in the CPUs.



I understand that for some people it might be well worth it, but I can't be arsed to spend the time to package a cooler and go to the post office for a one-time gain for 25 euros.

>Its added value
No, we don't know that, not if they increased the price of 3700X because of it. If you buy a pre-built PC for 1k, you aren't buying a case for 1k with the added value of extra components .

>I am personally not happy that the Prism is no longer included in the CPUs 
Buy it separately, no biggie. Now you can't counter with not wanting to spend extra money, because then what you're not happy about in actuality is the price of the CPU itself (if it was cheap in the first place, this wouldn't matter).


----------



## Charcharo (Nov 6, 2020)

shmuck said:


> I understand that for some people it might be well worth it, but I can't be arsed to spend the time to package a cooler and go to the post office for a one-time gain for 25 euros.
> 
> >Its added value
> No, we don't know that, not if they increased the price of 3700X because of it. If you buy a pre-built PC for 1k, you aren't buying a case for 1k with the added value of extra components .
> ...



It is different for me since my second "job" (hobby with benefits) in a sense is reselling stuff and fixing small devices / goods. I package things every single day anyway so the Prism's 1-2 minute packaging timeis very quick for me. But I did give my last one for my girlfriend's 3600-based PC. Its good on a Ryzen 3600.

For me it is added value for sure. 

As for the 3700X - you know what is interesting? The 3700X is basically the 3700 non-X, the successor to the 2700 and 1700. AMD bumped its price by 30 USD and gave it the Prism just to increase their margin without gamers protesting. The 3800X is actually the 2700X successor, weirdly enough.


----------



## Hossein Almet (Nov 6, 2020)

Something is wrong with TechPowerUP,  every other websites I come across like Tom's Hardware, Guru3D, Kitguru, the 5900X and the 5950X occupy top spot in games benchmarks, here they are 'nowhere to be seen'.


----------



## Jism (Nov 6, 2020)

@Wizzard,

Anything on the max 24/7 voltage for these CPU's? 1.4 is'nt really recommended as degradation is real on these things.


----------



## bug (Nov 6, 2020)

Jism said:


> @Wizzard,
> 
> Anything on the max 24/7 voltage for these CPU's? 1.4 is'nt really recommended as degradation is real on these things.


What do you expect when these are only 2 days on the market?


----------



## Jism (Nov 6, 2020)

bug said:


> What do you expect when these are only 2 days on the market?



Well i suspect just as the 2x and 3x00 series its proberly around 1.34 ~ 1.38V all-core 24/7. We've seen various CPU's degrade once running on 24/7 1.4v and above. No joke. 

So it should always be said, in any review that OC'ing beyond the 1.4V is not a bright thing todo if you want to keep your CPU alive.


----------



## bug (Nov 6, 2020)

Jism said:


> Well i suspect just as the 2x and 3x00 series its proberly around 1.34 ~ 1.38V all-core 24/7. We've seen various CPU's degrade once running on 24/7 1.4v and above. No joke.
> 
> So it should always be said, in any review that OC'ing beyond the 1.4V is not a bright thing todo if you want to keep your CPU alive.


Ok, but how do you determine whether it's safe or not _after just two days_? Or a week, or however long @W1zzard had these?
What you're asking for needs both time and a sizable sample.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Nov 6, 2020)

Hossein Almet said:


> Something is wrong with TechPowerUP,  every other websites I come across like Tom's Hardware, Guru3D, Kitguru, the 5900X and the 5950X occupy top spot in games benchmarks, here they are 'nowhere to be seen'.


He only used 3200MHz RAM.  Check out GN review.  They crown the 5600X best overall gaming CPU period, matches or beats the 10900K is just about everything and uses less than half the power, and costs $250 less.

__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/jp2uab

Also, keep an eye out for 1usmus' CTR tool.  Currently it only works with Zen2 CPU's.  When it's ready for Zen3, things are going to get interesting.


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 6, 2020)

The LTT review also uses DDR4 3600 CL 14 memory and shows the 5600X and up also leading.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Nov 6, 2020)

See Robert's point #2.  If 4000 RAM can run 1:1 with infinity fabric, the gaming lead is going to skyrocket

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1324561815104356352


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 6, 2020)

jayjr1105 said:


> See Robert's point #2.  If 4000 RAM can run 1:1 with infinity fabric, the gaming lead is going to skyrocket
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1324561815104356352


Nice find.

i've seen a report that the current AGESA based on 1.1.0.0 is having some difficulty hitting IF at 2000 and a upcoming version will fix that.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Nov 6, 2020)

Makaveli said:


> Nice find.
> 
> i've seen a report that the current AGESA based on 1.1.0.0 is having some difficulty hitting IF at 2000 and a upcoming version will fix that.


Even hitting somewhere between 1800 and 2000 consistently will be a win.  I doubt everyone's will hit 2000 stable but we'll see.


----------



## bug (Nov 6, 2020)

jayjr1105 said:


> Even hitting somewhere between 1800 and 2000 consistently will be a win.  I doubt everyone's will hit 2000 stable but we'll see.


How cheap/expensive is good DDR4-4000?
(And yes, I totally expected this, I asked about it above.)


----------



## Makaveli (Nov 6, 2020)

jayjr1105 said:


> Even hitting somewhere between 1800 and 2000 consistently will be a win.  I doubt everyone's will hit 2000 stable but we'll see.



Agreed it will be the same as 3800 on Zen 2. 

You will need the combination of good cpu, motherboard and ram with abit of luck mixed in.


----------



## Fasola (Nov 6, 2020)

jayjr1105 said:


> He only used 3200MHz RAM.  Check out GN review.  They crown the 5600X best overall gaming CPU period, matches or beats the 10900K is just about everything and uses less than half the power, and costs $250 less.
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/jp2uab
> ...



GN also used 3200 CL14 memory although it was 4 DIMMs. I'm really curious what W1zzard's investigation will turn up.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Nov 6, 2020)

Fasola said:


> GN also used 3200 CL14 memory although it was 4 DIMMs. I'm really curious what W1zzard's investigation will turn up.
> 
> View attachment 174686


RDR2 was the exception to all the AMD beatdowns on the GN 5600X review.
Nvm, Yeah wth


----------



## Ripcord (Nov 7, 2020)

ill stick with my 1600


----------



## tfdsaf (Nov 7, 2020)

Every review I saw elsewhere had the 5000 series beating Intel counterparts by a big margin in both games and productivity applications! 

Well games was a tie essentially in many games, but Zen 3 won significantly in several games like SOTTR, HZD, Death Stranding, Hitman 2, etc...


----------



## Mtom (Nov 7, 2020)

Something is very wrong with these tests.

All other reviews show 15-35% uplift compared to Zen2 CPUs in 1080p and your review shows 1-2%


----------



## gravel (Nov 7, 2020)

This is test are wrong, techpowerup loses all credibility for me . !!!


----------



## Whitestar (Nov 7, 2020)

gravel said:


> This is test are wrong, techpowerup loses all credibility for me . !!!


The tester says he's looking into it. You're not willing to give him the benefit of doubt?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 8, 2020)

its w1zz, if he finds a flaw he'll fix it.

The difference will be in one of three places:

1. the tests themselves (in game benches vs how w1zz does it)
2. the math he uses to average out the differences (does he ignore outliers? does he use more 'fair' titles?)
3. the sheer number of tested games (the bigger the number, the more average the results)

The reason for the low RAM speed vs other reviewers is consistency so it can be compared to previous systems - wizz may need to go to some extra effort for high speed DDR4 testing on ryzen, as well as timing testing that he mentioned doing somewhere.


----------



## bug (Nov 8, 2020)

gravel said:


> This is test are wrong, techpowerup loses all credibility for me . !!!


The whole world isn't quite right, does it also lose credibility in your eyes?


----------



## efikkan (Nov 8, 2020)

Mussels said:


> The reason for the low RAM speed vs other reviewers is consistency so it can be compared to previous systems - wizz may need to go to some extra effort for high speed DDR4 testing on ryzen, as well as timing testing that he mentioned doing somewhere.


A reference comparison should put each contender in the best possible light, while remaining within specs.
That would mean stock memory speed (3200 MHz for Zen2/3, 2933 MHz for Comet Lake, preferably with JEDEC timings too), power limits enabled, etc.
Whether Ryzen supports 3200 MHz and others support something less is irrelevant. How would you otherwise compare between architectures supporting different types of memory, like e.g. Haswell(DDR3 1600 MHz) or upcoming DDR5 based CPUs?

Any faster memory than the official spec is overclocking, and it's not a problem to include both stock and overclocked results, as long as they are clearly marked as so.
But overclocking raises another concern, how far do you push it when OC is varying between each sample? Also there is also no telling how long you can sustain an OC over time, if you're buying based on that expectation.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 8, 2020)

efikkan said:


> A reference comparison should put each contender in the best possible light, while remaining within specs.
> That would mean stock memory speed (3200 MHz for Zen2/3, 2933 MHz for Comet Lake, preferably with JEDEC timings too), power limits enabled, etc.
> Whether Ryzen supports 3200 MHz and others support something less is irrelevant. How would you otherwise compare between architectures supporting different types of memory, like e.g. Haswell(DDR3 1600 MHz) or upcoming DDR5 based CPUs?
> 
> ...



That's just it, where do you stop? Does w1zz need overclocked CPU and RAM results for everything in the charts?

It gets too much, so it was totally reasonable to standardise things... but in these CPU reviews, it seems there may be a need for 4x high speed sticks of ram as i've seen claims of upto 10% boosts


----------



## mainlate (Nov 8, 2020)

Maybe it´s OK for AMD that 5800x, 450-500€ processor is slower in memory write than Athlon 200GE, 50€ processor, but it´s not OK for me.


----------



## efikkan (Nov 8, 2020)

Mussels said:


> That's just it, where do you stop? Does w1zz need overclocked CPU and RAM results for everything in the charts?


And due to sample variance he should probably test about 100 samples per CPU model too 



Mussels said:


> It gets too much, so it was totally reasonable to standardise things... but in these CPU reviews, it seems there may be a need for 4x high speed sticks of ram as i've seen claims of upto 10% boosts


Yes, it does. The basis for most reviews should be stock configuration. And then perhaps for select relevant models there can be a separate overclocking focused test.

But since samples can vary so much in quality, overclocking results shouldn't be a basis for people's purchasing choices. And be aware that high memory speeds are not always achieveable. I've seen Kaby Lake CPUs struggle to achieve 3000-3200 MHz (with the "right" memory and motherboards), and unable to retain anything close over time, even though >3200 MHz were "expected" at the time.
You can also look across the forums and see the majority of issues with Zen(1)/Zen 2 builds are related to overclocked memory, and so many struggling with their first PC build due to XMP. If they had stuck to the fastest JEDEC speed of their CPU, it would have just worked.


----------



## Octopuss (Nov 8, 2020)

Why are the temperatures so high?


----------



## bug (Nov 8, 2020)

efikkan said:


> A reference comparison should put each contender in the best possible light, while remaining within specs.
> That would mean stock memory speed (3200 MHz for Zen2/3, 2933 MHz for Comet Lake, preferably with JEDEC timings too), power limits enabled, etc.
> Whether Ryzen supports 3200 MHz and others support something less is irrelevant. How would you otherwise compare between architectures supporting different types of memory, like e.g. Haswell(DDR3 1600 MHz) or upcoming DDR5 based CPUs?
> 
> ...





Mussels said:


> That's just it, where do you stop? Does w1zz need overclocked CPU and RAM results for everything in the charts?
> 
> It gets too much, so it was totally reasonable to standardise things... but in these CPU reviews, it seems there may be a need for 4x high speed sticks of ram as i've seen claims of upto 10% boosts


Yes, the line should be drawn somewhere.
But instead of understanding where the line has been drawn and judge results starting from there, it is much easier for people to simply complain the line hasn't been drawn where they think it should have been drawn. Or even that it has been drawn at all.


----------



## Xuper (Nov 9, 2020)

efikkan said:


> A reference comparison should put each contender in the best possible light, while remaining within specs.
> That would mean stock memory speed (3200 MHz for Zen2/3, 2933 MHz for Comet Lake, preferably with JEDEC timings too), power limits enabled, etc.
> Whether Ryzen supports 3200 MHz and others support something less is irrelevant. How would you otherwise compare between architectures supporting different types of memory, like e.g. Haswell(DDR3 1600 MHz) or upcoming DDR5 based CPUs?
> 
> ...



and 3200Mhz can be either DK or SK.TPU tested with 2x8GB which is Single rank.while 2x16GB is dual rank ( according to buildzoid)


----------



## xenocide (Nov 10, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Are we looking at the same chart?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry for the late response, yea I misread it. I was comparing it to the review of the R5 part which runs notably cooler, and the fact that the OC barely runs hotter, but given the way Boost works, that actually makes sense. You're right, entirely within expected limits.



Octopuss said:


> Why are the temperatures so high?


As W1zz pointed out when I thought that, compare it to models of the past gen, not lower core count models within the same line. It's actually running about even (within 2c) of the 3800XT, meaning it's running barely hotter for substantially higher performance.


----------



## Octopuss (Nov 10, 2020)

Why does it run 20°C hotter than 10900K, wich eats like 100W more though?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 10, 2020)

Octopuss said:


> Why does it run 20°C hotter than 10900K, wich eats like 100W more though?



1. heat density
2. different location of the chip


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 10, 2020)

Octopuss said:


> Why does it run 20°C hotter than 10900K, wich eats like 100W more though?


What @Mussels said, and 10900K runs into its power limit


----------



## Emboldi (Nov 18, 2020)

gravel said:


> This is test are wrong, techpowerup loses all credibility for me . !!!


I think they did adress this right. Also, W1zz is about the most credible source out there in my experience.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 18, 2020)

just got mine today






no real benchies etc yet, got some air bubbles in the AIO that need to work themselves out before i get any real testing done

chips fast as hell with 64GB 3600 behind it

Wish i knew how w1zz got his temps down so low, mine pretty much boosts to max and sits at 90C, on a 240mm AIO :/


----------



## xenocide (Nov 25, 2020)

Mussels said:


> just got mine today
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How is your AIO configured?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 25, 2020)

xenocide said:


> How is your AIO configured?



pump at max speed, top mounted 240mm at 1200rpm - doesnt matter what i set, the chip just turbos higher and higher til it maxes at 90c


----------



## xenocide (Nov 25, 2020)

Mussels said:


> pump at max speed, top mounted 240mm at 1200rpm - doesnt matter what i set, the chip just turbos higher and higher til it maxes at 90c


Hmm. As long as the hoses aren't twisted too much you should be getting optimal flow. I know a lot of people have bad results with AIO's when they have the radiators mounted in front or back with the hose outlets at the highest point due to air building up. Maybe run it for a bit and try new thermal paste down the line. Could just be unlucky.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 25, 2020)

xenocide said:


> Hmm. As long as the hoses aren't twisted too much you should be getting optimal flow. I know a lot of people have bad results with AIO's when they have the radiators mounted in front or back with the hose outlets at the highest point due to air building up. Maybe run it for a bit and try new thermal paste down the line. Could just be unlucky.



reddit has dozens of people like me, regardless of cooler seeing flatline 90C in multi threaded load. there is talk about a BIOS issue being behind it, which is very possible.

Ahah! i had to rotate my EK AIO around so the hoses are on the same side as the RAM.

This should make no difference, but on the 5800x it does for some reason,now seeing 80-85C load instead of instant 90C


----------



## harm9963 (Nov 26, 2020)

Having fun with my new 5800x , just using PBO MAX 5050 !  and DOCP MAX 5050 !


----------



## Mussels (Nov 26, 2020)

Happy times here too, she reads hot but damn... breaking 5GHz with this level of IPC is nuts


----------



## magixx (Nov 26, 2020)

Is there a review covering memory timings somewhere? I searched this thread and @W1zzard mentioned there would be a post coming soon.
I'm curious between the difference of 3200 CL14, 3600 CL16, 4000 CL18.


----------



## bug (Nov 26, 2020)

magixx said:


> Is there a review covering memory timings somewhere? I searched this thread and @W1zzard mentioned there would be a post coming soon.
> I'm curious between the difference of 3200 CL14, 3600 CL16, 4000 CL18.











						AMD Zen 2 Memory Performance Scaling with Ryzen 9 3900X
					

We take a close look at memory scaling on AMD's new Zen 2 Ryzen 3900X, testing both application and gaming performance at seven different memory speed and timing combinations ranging from 2400 MHz all the way up to 4000 MHz.




					www.techpowerup.com
				




Edit: oops, you were looking for Zen3 scaling, my bad.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 26, 2020)

magixx said:


> Is there a review covering memory timings somewhere? I searched this thread and @W1zzard mentioned there would be a post coming soon.
> I'm curious between the difference of 3200 CL14, 3600 CL16, 4000 CL18.


i got pwned by all the gpu reviews, hopefully i can do this testing around xmas time


----------



## bug (Nov 26, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> i got pwned by all the gpu reviews, hopefully i can do this testing around xmas time


If you were nice this year, you could have simply asked Santa to give you the benchmark results.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 26, 2020)

bug said:


> If you were nice this year, you could have simply asked Santa to give you the benchmark results.


I was really nice this year, so he gave me a ton of graphics cards


----------



## Mussels (Nov 27, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> I was really nice this year, so he gave me a ton of graphics cards



You shouldn't have wished for global warming to end, if you didnt want the entire planets stock of modern graphics cards


----------



## Fleurious (Nov 27, 2020)

This is the CPU I want, max cores on a single CCD.  Those temps are a bit concerning when compared to the 5600x but I doubt what I'll be using it for will fully load it for very long.  Will be pairing it with a Noctua NH-D15s so I should be fine.  I'll have to see how it plays out since I have lots of time before stock becomes readily available.


----------



## AleksBedini (Feb 9, 2021)

Hello all,

This is my first post here in TPU and I hope everyone is good and safe!

I do not understand why lets say 3200Mhz memory is considered stock while 3600Mhz memory modules are considered overclocked ?

1. From a configuration perspective you only have to enable the respective DOCP setting in the BIOS, it does not matter if it is 3200 CL14 or 3600 CL16, the effort to set this up is identical!
2. For as long as IF in best case scenarios supports up to 2000 MHz 1:1 it means that either 1600(3200MHz) or 1800(3600MHz) Frequencies can be considered stock!

Also the higher the Frequency and the lower the timings the better 5000 series will work thus I just can not understand why RAM setup should be held back by that of previous gen CPU benchmarks

I do not claim to be an expert so please correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## kapone32 (Feb 9, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> Hello all,
> 
> This is my first post here in TPU and I hope everyone is good and safe!
> 
> ...


The 3200 spec is a guarantee sort of. As there are a plethora of MBs, RAM and CPUs the RAM spec has to cover all of the CPUs but then the MB must (sort of) have the RAM listed on the QVL for approval of that specification.


----------



## bug (Feb 9, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> Hello all,
> 
> This is my first post here in TPU and I hope everyone is good and safe!
> 
> ...


3200 is the best JEDEC has standardized. Anything above that, being not standard may or may not work, depending on your motherboard+RAM combo. Being non-standard, you can't guarantee it works unless testing each motherboard and RAM module. That's why makers publish QVL lists. They're always a subset of what actually works, since nobody can test everything, but you step outside of that at your own risk.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Feb 9, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> Hello all,
> 
> This is my first post here in TPU and I hope everyone is good and safe!
> 
> ...


You should also consider that the integrated memory controller and infinity fabric are on the CPU die, so are also a bit of a lottery as to how high they will clock without issues, they obviously set stock speeds at levels they(AMD) are confident every chip can do.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 10, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> Hello all,
> 
> This is my first post here in TPU and I hope everyone is good and safe!
> 
> ...



Every modern CPU has an integrated memory controller, that has a default verified speed it must run at, or you can warranty it.
the 5800x has that speed at 3200Mhz - anything beyond that is possible with overclocking via your motherboard, but if it doesnt work you cannot claim warranty or get technical support to help with the issue.
Anything above 1600 IF and 3200 RAM is overclocking, because AMD say so. Simple as that.

Overclockers have discovered that 3800Mhz is the best most people can achieve with 3600 being something 99% of people can achieve, and thats how we have a "stock" value that everyone can get, and goals that people try and overclock to reach with no guarantee of success (3600-3800)

DOCP is an asus only feature, that enables XMP on the RAM (think automatic settings, but includes voltage control)


As far as benchmarks go, if you don't use the same module of ram and settings between every platform then you arent even benchmarking, you're just competing with meaningless overclocks because every single stick of ram will overclock different, on every single CPU... so what use is benchmarks at settings that none of the people reading it can achieve?
If 3200Mhz is the officially stated clocks AMD supports, then 3200 should be benchmarked - and anything faster should be thrown into an overclocking section as a "with effort, you MAY get this" option


----------



## AleksBedini (Feb 10, 2021)

Hi all,

Thank you for the prompt response.

I understand what you are saying and that 3200 is standardized by AMD compared to 3600 but if we refer to lets say my motherboard's official site both 3200 and 3600 are mentioned with an (OC) as the image shows below






At the same time in AMD's official site the memory speed is stated as "up to 3200MHz"









Please keep in mind that according to AMD's official page the maximum CPU Clock speed is 4.7 GHz

While benchmarking my PBO configured 5800x reaches 5.01 GHz on 7 cores and 4.9 on 1 core, from this review I can see the clock speed exceeding what AMD states but when it comes to RAM speed we should not exceed what AMD states.
I can not understand the double standard applied in this case especially considering the QVL list of an X motherboard contains Memory speeds higher than that of 3600 MHz.

Correct me if I am wrong, In my opinion the AMD stated memory speed should be seen as a minimum value while the reviewers should contribute on finding out the highest stable memory clock and then proceed with the benchmark procedure.


----------



## AleksBedini (Feb 10, 2021)

Mussels said:


> Every modern CPU has an integrated memory controller, that has a default verified speed it must run at, or you can warranty it.
> the 5800x has that speed at 3200Mhz - anything beyond that is possible with overclocking via your motherboard, but if it doesn't work you cannot claim warranty or get technical support to help with the issue.
> Anything above 1600 IF and 3200 RAM is overclocking, because AMD say so. Simple as that.
> 
> ...


Allow me to disagree on the last part where you are forced to benchmark with stock memory speeds, like I said above the contribute of reviewers would be to find out the highest stable Memory speeds and benchmark with the best possible in order for us to know the potential of a specific CPU RAM speed combination. Let me put it this way, if you believe we should stick to the stock speed stated by AMD why are all the reviewers allowing their CPU speeds to surpass 4.7 MHz, they should stick to safe speeds publicized by AMD official site ! 

_*if you don't use the same module of ram and settings between every platform then you arent even benchmarking, you're just competing with meaningless overclocks*_
If what I suggest is applied to every CPU generation/platform then the benchmarks will indicate the maximum potential for each generation/platform while using the actual principle the benchmarks will reflect just stock performance without revealing the full potential of a platform!


----------



## bug (Feb 10, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Thank you for the prompt response.
> 
> ...


I don't think you actually understand, since you mentioned the one wrong answer. AMD does not standardize DDR4 speeds.

To answer your question, that board is based on X470. X470 was released with support for DDR4-2933. That is probably what was the maximum standardized by _JEDEC_ at the time. Anything above 2933, not being standard back then, is thus supported in overclocking mode.


----------



## AleksBedini (Feb 10, 2021)

bug said:


> I don't think you actually understand, since you mentioned the one wrong answer. AMD does not standardize DDR4 speeds.
> 
> To answer your question, that board is based on X470. X470 was released with support for DDR4-2933. That is probably what was the maximum standardized by _JEDEC_ at the time. Anything above 2933, not being standard back then, is thus supported in overclocking mode.


You shred some light there, thank you bug, what I should keep from this is that only the motherboard vendor can determine what are the stock and what are the oc speeds right?


----------



## bug (Feb 10, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> You shred some light there, thank you bug, what I should keep from this is that only the motherboard vendor can determine what are the stock and what are the oc speeds right?


Nope.
The gist is there's an organization that standardizes DDR speeds, timings and such. When a memory controller* comes out, it can only offer official support for whatever JEDEC has already standardized.
Motherboard builders will test faster DDR sticks and offer support for then in overclocked mode; the maximum DDR speed that's guaranteed to work is still dictated by the memory controller. But since RAM settings aren't random, if you test a bunch of sticks, chances are more sticks will also work (and that's what happens in practice), but the motherboard maker cannot list support for those.
Even shorter: what's standardized is guaranteed to work. Anything above that, you need to your homework.

*memory controller is in the CPU these days, but the motherboard also matters. If you stick a newer CPU in an older mobo that doesn't deliver clean enough power, it's possible you won't be able to run the memory at the maximum speeds the memory controller supports.


----------



## AleksBedini (Feb 10, 2021)

bug said:


> Nope.
> The gist is there's an organization that standardizes DDR speeds, timings and such. When a memory controller* comes out, it can only offer official support for whatever JEDEC has already standardized.
> Motherboard builders will test faster DDR sticks and offer support for then in overclocked mode; the maximum DDR speed that's guaranteed to work is still dictated by the memory controller. But since RAM settings aren't random, if you test a bunch of sticks, chances are more sticks will also work (and that's what happens in practice), but the motherboard maker cannot list support for those.
> Even shorter: what's standardized is guaranteed to work. Anything above that, you need to your homework.
> ...


Got it, I wonder if the fact that almost all 5800x processors are super stable with 3600MHz memory speeds indicates JEDEC poor job?


----------



## bug (Feb 10, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> Got it, I wonder if the fact that almost all 5800x processors are super stable with 3600MHz memory speeds indicates JEDEC poor job?


JEDEC standards (or standards in general) are supposed to cater to multiple parties. As such, they have to be conservative.

And actually Ryzen isn't that stable at 3600. There's plenty of threads just on TPU from people being unable to reach those speeds. Corsair memory in particular in known to cause trouble. I'd say 80-90% can reach those speeds, no problem, especially if using memory kits geared towards AMD. Whether that's stable enough for you, I wouldn't know.

Intel has worked around this by devising XMP. That's like a spec for faster memory, but only for Intel CPUs. Memory kits have no trouble running above JEDEC standards, if they implement XMP. AMD, sadly, has no equivalent, so users are taking a bigger gamble.


----------



## Athlonite (Feb 10, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> At the same time in AMD's official site the memory speed is stated as "up to 3200MHz"



That's because of the silicon lottery (in an ideal world all cpu's would be equal in quality but they're not) AMD pretty much guarantees that each CPU can atleast reach 3200MHz (1600MHz) and anything over that is a hit n miss affair to get running stable depending on the class or quality of the CPU ie: Gold, Silver, Bronze. The better the quality the better able to reach higher speeds with the IMC without having to resort to higher Voltage levels to maintain stability like this a Gold quality CPU may only require 1.35V to reach 3600MHz (1800MHz) stable but a Bronze class may require 1.4V oe 1.45V to do the same


----------



## Mussels (Feb 10, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Thank you for the prompt response.
> 
> ...



Your CPU's max supported and your motherboards max supported dont have to match, simple as that.


A B450 board can run zen, zen+, zen 2, zen 3, and their APU variants - and probably a bunch of the athlon flavours as well.
All their max memory speeds vary

I'm not sure where or how you're getting confused
Lets use my system as an example

CPU: max rated speed of 3200
mobo: QLV ram upto 4600 (not at 1:1 IF)
Ram: 3600

*So with my overclock to 3800, the CPU and RAM are out of spec so I have no ability to claim warranty or tech support on those items at this speed*
The motherboard, if i had that insane DDR4 4600 RAM in the support list, they'd have to provide me tech support and potentially a warranty if it didnt work.


----------



## Zach_01 (Feb 10, 2021)

FYI, DRAM speed capability is not determined directly from CPU cores quality (bronze, silver, gold, platinum). The memory controller is on a separate die the I/ODie (or SoC) and thats on a Global Foundries 14nm process node. Totally different from the core 7nm dies. Yes there's the IF interconnection that goes into the cores but that is more of a CPU substrate matter and not much a core die quality one.
My CPU is bronze rated and I can run 3600+(1800+)MHz on 1:1:1 relation with no issues. Its a matter of CPU substrate/RAM/SoC/board memory traces and of course board BIOS combination. You cant really pinpoint it to CPU quality alone, if not at all.


----------



## bug (Feb 10, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> FYI, DRAM speed capability is not determined directly from CPU cores quality (bronze, silver, gold, platinum). The memory controller is on a separate die the I/ODie (or SoC) and thats on a Global Foundries 14nm process node. Totally different from the core 7nm dies. Yes there's the IF interconnection that goes into the cores but that is more of a CPU substrate matter and not much a core die quality one.
> My CPU is bronze rated and I can run 3600+(1800+)MHz on 1:1:1 relation with no issues. Its a matter of CPU substrate/RAM/SoC/board memory traces and of course board BIOS combination. You cant really pinpoint it to CPU quality alone, if not at all.


Well, if the rest of the CPU can't run with IF 1:1, it doesn't help you much that the memory controller can.
What you're getting in practice is a sort of least common denominator.


----------



## AleksBedini (Feb 11, 2021)

Athlonite said:


> That's because of the silicon lottery (in an ideal world all cpu's would be equal in quality but they're not) AMD pretty much guarantees that each CPU can atleast reach 3200MHz (1600MHz) and anything over that is a hit n miss affair to get running stable depending on the class or quality of the CPU ie: Gold, Silver, Bronze. The better the quality the better able to reach higher speeds with the IMC without having to resort to higher Voltage levels to maintain stability like this a Gold quality CPU may only require 1.35V to reach 3600MHz (1800MHz) stable but a Bronze class may require 1.4V oe 1.45V to do the same


That is what I also said in my comment #132 quote:
"_Correct me if I am wrong, In my opinion the AMD stated memory speed should be seen as a minimum value while the reviewers should contribute on finding out the highest stable memory clock and then proceed with the benchmark procedure."_

I took it even further by saying that if AMD states a minimum memory speed which should work in every single processor it does not mean the reviewer community should stick on that stock speed on the contrary it would be great if the Reviewers community does the benchmarks with the highest memory speeds supported by the silicon they got!


----------



## AleksBedini (Feb 11, 2021)

Mussels said:


> Your CPU's max supported and your motherboards max supported dont have to match, simple as that.
> 
> 
> A B450 board can run zen, zen+, zen 2, zen 3, and their APU variants - and probably a bunch of the athlon flavours as well.
> ...


Thanks to your explanation I am not confused anymore : yet not much changed regarding my point.

My point is that the reviewer community might be lucky enough to receive a gold class sample of a CPU but not taking advantage of it simply by sticking to stock memory clocks. The results will be held back from what potentially that sample could have achieved. Also being able to reach higher memory speeds is an improvement of a specific generation compared to the previous one which in my humble opinion also needs to be exposed on the benchmark results while at the moment if we see this review one of the reasons the RAM speed is 3200 is to be on pair with the previous generations.

As for the example you presented you have a memory rated at 3600 MHz and trying to achieve speeds higher than that something that is not what I am talking about. I am just saying that the reviewer community should not focus that much on the JEDEC or AMD stated memory speeds and benchmark lets say a 5800x with 3200MHz rated modules while the 5800x sample they got can be pretty stable on 3600 MHz.


----------



## AleksBedini (Feb 11, 2021)

Zach_01 said:


> FYI, DRAM speed capability is not determined directly from CPU cores quality (bronze, silver, gold, platinum). The memory controller is on a separate die the I/ODie (or SoC) and thats on a Global Foundries 14nm process node. Totally different from the core 7nm dies. Yes there's the IF interconnection that goes into the cores but that is more of a CPU substrate matter and not much a core die quality one.
> My CPU is bronze rated and I can run 3600+(1800+)MHz on 1:1:1 relation with no issues. Its a matter of CPU substrate/RAM/SoC/board memory traces and of course board BIOS combination. You cant really pinpoint it to CPU quality alone, if not at all.


I see, in fact I am afraid I have not yet achieved that 1:1:1 ratio with my C7H as the BIOS menu is a mess.
Any idea where I can find an OC guide for C7H and 5800x ?


----------



## bug (Feb 11, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> Thanks to your explanation I am not confused anymore : yet not much changed regarding my point.
> 
> My point is that the reviewer community might be lucky enough to receive a gold class sample of a CPU but not taking advantage of it simply by sticking to stock memory clocks. The results will be held back from what potentially that sample could have achieved. Also being able to reach higher memory speeds is an improvement of a specific generation compared to the previous one which in my humble opinion also needs to be exposed on the benchmark results while at the moment if we see this review one of the reasons the RAM speed is 3200 is to be on pair with the previous generations.
> 
> As for the example you presented you have a memory rated at 3600 MHz and trying to achieve speeds higher than that something that is not what I am talking about. I am just saying that the reviewer community should not focus that much on the JEDEC or AMD stated memory speeds and benchmark lets say a 5800x with 3200MHz rated modules while the 5800x sample they got can be pretty stable on 3600 MHz.


Stock is everything that's guaranteed to work, so it's very important reviewers concentrate on that. Reviews also look at overclocking, but always stipulate that ymmv in that regard.
Only the larger community can decide whether an overclock is a safe bet or a rare occurrence. Because you need a large sample to determine that and review sites don't have that.


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2021)

All you're saying is "i want the reviews overclocked!"

and the response is: thats useless to absolutely everyone, because every review will have different results and different opinions on the hardware

Wanna compare an RTX 3090 to an RTX 3080? Oh nevermind results are useless because the reviews didnt use the same hardware, sorry.


----------



## AleksBedini (Feb 11, 2021)

bug said:


> Stock is everything that's guaranteed to work, so it's very important reviewers concentrate on that. Reviews also look at overclocking, but always stipulate that ymmv in that regard.
> Only the larger community can decide whether an overclock is a safe bet or a rare occurrence. Because you need a large sample to determine that and review sites don't have that.


So lets say I purchase a 3600MHz rated RAM kit and mount it in my C7H with a 5800x, enter BIOS and set the default DOCP settings, would that be considered an overclock?


----------



## AleksBedini (Feb 11, 2021)

Mussels said:


> All you're saying is "i want the reviews overclocked!"
> 
> and the response is: thats useless to absolutely everyone, because every review will have different results and different opinions on the hardware


Yes I understand the result between reviewers might differ but that will be due to silicon lottery right? But even in that case I do not believe the results will be that randomly different neither that they will be useless to us the viewers, on the contrary we will have a much more clear picture of a specific generation's potential


----------



## Mussels (Feb 11, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> So lets say I purchase a 3600MHz rated RAM kit and mount it in my C7H with a 5800x, enter BIOS and set the default DOCP settings, would that be considered an overclock?


For the RAM, no. For the CPU and motherboard, yes. From that mobos page. Do you understand that the different parts have different rated speeds, so for one it may be an overclock yet for another withing stock limits?

Buying DDR 2133 ram and overclocking to 3200 on your theoretical system is stock for the CPU, but overclocking for the mobo and RAM.





You're after overclocking results, not a review. I don't understand why you can't see those are two entirely different things.


----------



## bug (Feb 11, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> So lets say I purchase a 3600MHz rated RAM kit and mount it in my C7H with a 5800x, enter BIOS and set the default DOCP settings, would that be considered an overclock?


Yes, it would.
Only when both your CPU and your motherboard list 3600MHz as non-overclock can you considered the frequency standard/guaranteed.


----------



## AleksBedini (Feb 11, 2021)

So 3600MHz is rightfully classified as an OC based on spreadsheet data. Meanwhile from a practical perspective we follow the exact same steps we would follow with a 3200MHz rated kit, which are:
1. Plug in the modules
2. Set the DOCP to default settings and F10 save
3. Enjoy

So from a practical perspective there is nothing that distinguishes a 3200MHz rated memory kit from a 3600Mhz one which would not be the case if we wanted to do some real overclocking



Mussels said:


> For the RAM, no. For the CPU and motherboard, yes. From that mobos page. Do you understand that the different parts have different rated speeds, so for one it may be an overclock yet for another withing stock limits?
> 
> Buying DDR 2133 ram and overclocking to 3200 on your theoretical system is stock for the CPU, but overclocking for the mobo and RAM.
> 
> ...


I can see the difference between overclocked and stock clocks it is just when it comes to 5000 series CPUs I can not see any differences between 3200MHz and 3600MHz rated kits except from paper classification (i.e. the above screenshot) and improved performance of course!

Out of curiosity have you ever found a single complain online about 5800x not supporting 3600MHz rated kit?


----------



## bug (Feb 11, 2021)

AleksBedini said:


> So 3600MHz is rightfully classified as an OC based on spreadsheet data. Meanwhile from a practical perspective we follow the exact same steps we would follow with a 3200MHz rated kit, which are:
> 1. Plug in the modules
> 2. Set the DOCP to default settings and F10 save
> 3. Enjoy
> ...


If it works, yes, it's the same.
If it doesn't work, you can still get it to work if you fiddle with timings and voltages a bit. But then it's not exactly the same anymore 
Worst case scenario, you can't get it to work at 3600MHz no matter what and then it's completely different


----------



## firemachine69 (Feb 24, 2021)

mahoney said:


> I mean cherry picking? I can do the same with Intel.
> Su said in the launch vid tha this is the new gaming king yet they did the same schtick as with the 3000 series launch where they optimized their cpu's for certain games. I wanted to see it being faster/same as Intel yet Intel still leads in some games even by more than 5%




It's not just the CPUs. They claimed the 6xxx series of video cards were the 'kings of rasterization'. Yeah, only if the drivers are optimized. Otherwise their $1299 cad GPU can only beat the $799 cad Nvidia card.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 10, 2021)

Question about some people complaining that the AMD Ryzen 7 5800X runs as hot as 95C or has high Temperature issues?
Not everyone is reporting this, but if you go onto Newegg or Amazon you will read some posters complaining about this.

Those that have the 5800X are you having this weird high temp issue? Did they not seat the processor cooler on properly perhaps?
Perhaps W1zzard can conduct an investigation by temperature testing multiple 5800X's if he can get hands on some of course. 
Thank You,


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 10, 2021)

Uhm, this horse has been beaten like a million times.
ALL of them are hot under load.


----------



## Super XP (Mar 10, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> Uhm, this horse has been beaten like a million times.
> ALL of them are hot under load.


When you say Hot, what temps are we speaking about and what's the normal load temps AMD officially stats?


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 10, 2021)

I don't know, google it up yourself maybe? I don't think AMD ever said anything about that and for a good reason.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 10, 2021)

They bluntly and outright said 80-90C is normal for a 5800x and above depending on the type of load

Above 90C i'd investigate the cooling, 80's is totally within the norm (I get mid 80's, but with +200 PBO and 5050MHz boost clocks i accept thats inevitable)


----------



## Super XP (Mar 11, 2021)

Mussels said:


> They bluntly and outright said 80-90C is normal for a 5800x and above depending on the type of load
> 
> Above 90C i'd investigate the cooling, 80's is totally within the norm (I get mid 80's, but with +200 PBO and 5050MHz boost clocks i accept thats inevitable)


Just the answer I was looking for. 
Though, I did do research about this topic online. Just didn't find the answer I was looking for.


----------



## Octopuss (Mar 11, 2021)

From my extremely limited experiences thus far, the 90° or even above temperatures are most likely only related to stress testing-like load, like Prime95.

While gaming (although BF4 is not very relevant anymore), I saw about 70° max.


----------



## Mussels (Mar 11, 2021)

Octopuss said:


> From my extremely limited experiences thus far, the 90° or even above temperatures are most likely only related to stress testing-like load, like Prime95.
> 
> While gaming (although BF4 is not very relevant anymore), I saw about 70° max.


same, those 80C+ temps were only with all core, all thread synthetic load - gaming is lower


----------



## Oasis (Jun 1, 2021)

@W1zzard

Did you use the Noctua NH-U1*4*S or the NH-U1*2*S in "CPU Temperature"? ( https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/20.html )


----------



## VulkanBros (Sep 10, 2021)

Oasis said:


> View attachment 202343
> 
> @W1zzard
> 
> Did you use the Noctua NH-U1*4*S or the NH-U1*2*S in "CPU Temperature"? ( https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/20.html )



Noctua NH-U14S -> Test System


----------

