# AMD Ryzen 5 5600X



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

Six Zen 3 cores beating eight Zen 2 Cores? That's exactly what's happening with the Ryzen 5 5600X. AMD's massive IPC gain helped it overcome a two-core deficitm, even in productivity tests. The Ryzen 5 5600X redefines what you really need for a high-end gaming PC.

*Show full review*


----------



## kruk (Nov 5, 2020)

Wow, this CPU looks tasty. The starting price is kind of high for a 6 core, but as the production ramps up and Zen 2 stocks get reduced, it will definitely normalize. Not bad, not bad at all.


----------



## Fourstaff (Nov 5, 2020)

A bit too pricey to be the king of bang for buck gaming. Maybe 5600 non-X would be the new sweet spot.


----------



## pky (Nov 5, 2020)

> Unlike other Zen 3 processors launched today, the Ryzen 5 5600X includes a heatsink in the box. The Wraith Stealth cooling solution is suitable for the 65 W TDP of the Ryzen 5 5600X.





> The retail Ryzen 5 5600X box does not include a cooler. Luckily, it can be paired with a fairly big selection of AM4-compatible coolers that have been released since 2017. Just make sure the cooler can handle thermal loads of around 65 W.



Which one is it?


----------



## Raendor (Nov 5, 2020)

For the asking price, it's easier to get 10700 (non-K), which has 8 cores and apparently is still better at games if you look at those charts.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

pky said:


> Which one is it?


Lol fail, fixed


----------



## RainingTacco (Nov 5, 2020)

Too pricy for the amount of cores, and no iGPU is also a big no go for this price.


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

Raendor said:


> For the asking price, it's easier to get 10700 (non-K), which has 8 cores and apparently is still better at games if you look at those charts.


----------



## RedelZaVedno (Nov 5, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Six Zen 3 cores beating eight Zen 2 Cores? That's exactly what's happening with the Ryzen 5 5600X. AMD's massive IPC gain helped it overcome a two-core deficit, even in productivity tests. The Ryzen 5 5600X redefines what you really need for a high-end gaming PC.


Can you please, please include *MS Flight simulator 2020 benchmarks (or just write it down here in the forum)*? FS 2020 has been very pro Intel CPU game compared to Zen 1/2 and I'd really love to see if that has changed. That's the only question mark I have left when deciding between 5600X and I7 10700F, being the fact that they're priced equally. I'd appreciate it soooo much. btw. your test was brilliant, as always, thank you


----------



## NDown (Nov 5, 2020)

B-Real said:


>



yeah keep posting that graph into every thread, maybe you will convince someone that the 5000 series lineup is indeed a geyming king


----------



## Raendor (Nov 5, 2020)

B-Real said:


>



And how exactly is this relevant in 5600x vs 10700 discussion?


----------



## Julhes (Nov 5, 2020)

Vous voulez de vrais tests : CdH 
Je savais que vous étiez un site pro Intel mais à ce niveau c'est juste une parodie.


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 5, 2020)

Not enough to make anyone really need to get this over their current i7-8700+ or Ryzen 3600+ but makes me want to see what AMD can cook up at the $200 price point.


----------



## neatfeatguy (Nov 5, 2020)

Value and Conclusion page, 3rd paragraph:

",_ by simply addressing improving the inner workings on the CPU cores. _"

When I read that, it doesn't sound right. I don't think you need both "addressing" and "improving". I suppose the sentence would work with just one or the other....

Suggested changes:
", by simply addressing the inner workings on the CPU cores. "
*Or*
", by simply improving the inner workings on the CPU cores. "
*Or maybe by adding the word "and"*
", by simply addressing and improving the inner workings on the CPU cores."

Otherwise very nice review, the 5600X is pretty impressive. If the 5800X wasn't $500 I'd go that route, so right now it's looking like I'll be picking up a 5600X when I do a new build here soon.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 5, 2020)

Fourstaff said:


> A bit too pricey to be the king of bang for buck gaming. Maybe 5600 non-X would be the new sweet spot.


switzerland pricing (in order) 303chf .... that's a mere 3chf more than what did cost my 6600K at launch ...

also for those who are "intel still beat them!!!!" ... yeah ... again ... 1 to 7fps gape is abyssal and define the gaming king



Raendor said:


> And how exactly is this relevant in 5600x vs 10700 discussion?


and how a 10700 is relevant versus a 5600X (for me the 10700 is 100chf more ... ok ok .... situational  )



dirtyferret said:


> Not enough to make anyone really need to get this over their current i7-8700+ or Ryzen 3600+ but makes me want to see what AMD can cook up at the $200 price point.


i will gladly take that over my 6600K that's a given, if i had a 3600X? mmhhh maybe not, indeed ... 




Julhes said:


> Vous voulez de vrais tests : CdH
> Je savais que vous étiez un site pro Intel mais à ce niveau c'est juste une parodie.
> 
> View attachment 174491


la meme chose en anglais please  

although hilarious but the reviews on TPU are showing AMD as being on top ... if you mean the conclusion? ... i never read the conclusion pro and cons from most reviewer are subjective in many case

example :
the no igp cons is not really a cons for me (the one in my 6600k is a deadweight since the day i got it )
the OC cons is not really a cons when we look at certain games in the chart, although again situational 

the price increase cons is a correct one a 3600XT is 60chf cheaper and might be a better option for me indeed (but no 10XXX are options ... their price is still overinflated where i live ... ) since the differences in performance is minor (although still better than versus Intel similar performance offering ... ) a 10600K? mmhhh ... probably no... i do not want to "rent an OC" again  (joking but my 6600k got the famous "no more OC possible" microcode update from Intel via WU ... )


----------



## InVasMani (Nov 5, 2020)

RNDA2 with infinity cache is going to skew the game benchmark testing a bit that'll need to re-evaluated at some stage. That's a little bit of a mixed bag scenario too for both CPU/GPU sides of testing. In the situations where you've got the appropriate hardware to take advantage of it then it will certainly show some positive perks and value though. I think overall the 5600X is a good chip, but the value for dollar isn't exactly where it needs to be. On the really positive side the multi-thread power consumption results for the chip is remarkably good very nearly half of the TDP of the i9-10900K. The end result is extremely great class leading multi-threaded energy usage. The cost barrier is the biggest issue with it at least while not factoring in the infinity cache role and impact that we'll see more on and know about later the shifts the value narrative a bit "if" utilized with proper hardware.


----------



## sutyi (Nov 5, 2020)

Fourstaff said:


> A bit too pricey to be the king of bang for buck gaming. Maybe 5600 non-X would be the new sweet spot.



Would have loved to get one to replace my 1600AE, but that 299USD MSRP makes it 333EUR over at my end.
70% price bump over the regular 3600 I ordered.  Yeah no...


----------



## EatingDirt (Nov 5, 2020)

Raendor said:


> For the asking price, it's easier to get 10700 (non-K), which has 8 cores and apparently is still better at games if you look at those charts.


±3% is about as good as nothing within the games tested by TPU, verses all games in general. You will see some games where the 5600X is faster, and some where the 10700(non-k) is faster. Productivity gives the 5800X a fairly clear 7% win over the 10700. It's an easy choice if you do any sort of productivity work.

Now that both Intel & AMD are at the EOL for their respective sockets, platform is the only real differentiating factor for gaming between the two at this point, and the only real differentiating factor between Z390 & B550/X570 is PCIe 4.0, which currently doesn't really make any difference in gaming(or most storage uses for that matter) currently.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

neatfeatguy said:


> When I read that, it doesn't sound right


Fixed, I replaced one word with the other and forgot to remove one


----------



## Diverge (Nov 5, 2020)

I was looking forward to upgrading and going with AMD for the first time since Athlon days... but I don't see the point if you have an Intel CPU from the last 2 generations... A couple % gains here and there doesn't seem worth the trouble of buying a whole new system.


----------



## redeye (Nov 5, 2020)

yes, expensive... but it is priceless to not be in the “dark side” intel lol


----------



## Vecix6 (Nov 5, 2020)

Waiting for DDR4 speed comparison on these Ryzen 5000.

Also test done with not the best BIOS with AGESA 1.0.8.0. MSI got v1.1.0.0 non-beta from yesterday lests see...


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

Vecix6 said:


> Waiting for DDR4 speed comparison on these Ryzen 5000.
> 
> Also test done with not the best BIOS with AGESA 1.0.8.0. MSI got v1.1.0.0 non-beta from yesterday lests see...


I had a typo on the test setup page, the AGESA version is 1.1.0.0. This is corrected now









						Cumulative Ryzen 5000 series TPU review discussion thread
					

I don't know if I should do this but seeing discussion regarding the reviews spread out in 3 different threads, I don't want my message to be lost. If it breaks any rules I'm sorry.  TPU's reviews are causing a lot of confusion among the masses. So far I've only checked r/hardware subreddit...




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## NHS2008 (Nov 5, 2020)

Wow! Insane gains..AMD is really wiping the floor with Intel! I am glad how well my 3600x is doing still.


----------



## Raendor (Nov 5, 2020)

GreiverBlade said:


> switzerland pricing (in order) 303chf .... that's a mere 3chf more than what did cost my 6600K at launch ...
> 
> also for those who are "intel still beat them!!!!" ... yeah ... again ... 1 to 7fps gape is abyssal and define the gaming king
> 
> ...



Because 5600x = 10700 msrp in US and most EU countries. So it draws direct comparison.


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

NDown said:


> yeah keep posting that graph into every thread, maybe you will convince someone that the 5000 series lineup is indeed a geyming king


Will a 11 game average convince you?






However, given your very unbiased avatar, it won't.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

B-Real said:


> Will a 11 game average convince you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



My old eyes may be messing with me, but I only see the 5950X on that chart.  I think it's clear that the 5900X/5800X are top dog performers now, but at the more normal price points the 10700K and 10700 seem to be the best bang for buck by a wide margin at the 5600X price point.  And this particular thread is about the 5600X.


----------



## kardeon (Nov 5, 2020)

Raendor said:


> For the asking price, it's easier to get 10700 (non-K), which has 8 cores and apparently is still better at games if you look at those charts.


In almost all competitives games, zen 3 destroy the 10900k.  If i am not wrong the biggest advantage of  intel was competive games, right ? 
So you should read or watch others reviews, because some results are insanely impressive. 
For instance at 1080p  CSGO +180fps with zen3 - valorant +130fps.  Pugb, rocket league and so on ..zen 3 is also way faster


----------



## sepheronx (Nov 5, 2020)

Thank you TPU for these reviews.  I am very impressed with these processors.  I am looking forward to see how well Infinity Fabric will work with the RX 6000 series GPU's and these CPU's.


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Nov 5, 2020)

Nice review as always.  It is a nice CPU but still not a generational leap.  At 1440p it is only 2% faster than my 3 year 8700k and they both cost about the same.  Would be nice to see how it runs on a 3080 or 3090 to see backing the bottleneck back some would show a difference in fps with the CPU.

But at this rate, I will be holding on to my 8700k until I can get some actual tangible improvements by upgrading my platform.


----------



## EzioAs (Nov 5, 2020)

FeelinFroggy said:


> Nice review as always.  It is a nice CPU but still not a generational leap.  At 1440p it is only 2% faster than my 3 year 8700k and they both cost about the same.  Would be nice to see how it runs on a 3080 or 3090 to see backing the bottleneck back some would show a difference in fps with the CPU.
> 
> But at this rate, I will be holding on to my 8700k until I can get some actual tangible improvements by upgrading my platform.



If your PC primary purpose is gaming, you should know by now you're not gonna get much benefit by upgrading from a Core i7-8700K.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Nov 5, 2020)

Raendor said:


> Because 5600x = 10700 msrp in US and most EU countries. So it draws direct comparison.


yeah, but no ... 100chf more =/= same price ... but you are right if it is a 10600K comparison in my country (for other EU country alright ... too)  .... although if i had the same price for a 5600X and a 10700 ... i'd still take the 5600X  performance wise it's close enough and keep the OC possibility ... (or in the case of a 6600K fail like mine ... "rental OC"  ) direct comparison for my country invalidate yours, right?

nonetheless :
keyword in my post was "situational"


now the argument/cons of price is kind of "hypocritical" ... i still remember when Intel did increase price between gen with no relevant IPC gain to justify it ... and peoples followed in, now that it is AMD that has the right (and they earned it, the IPC gain is there nonetheless) to do so ... "OOOOOOHHHH OUTRAGE!"





FeelinFroggy said:


> At 1440p it is only 2% faster than my 3 year 8700k and they both cost about the same.


1440p is not much CPU bound indeed ...

well for me it's not only gaming that would gain from it  (now if i can get a new GPU too ... preferably a 6800XT once they are benched officially and if the price is adequate, heck, even if the price is around the equivalent performance 30XX )



EzioAs said:


> If your PC primary purpose is gaming, you should know by now you're not gonna get much benefit by upgrading from a Core i7-8700K.


exactly!  

(most YT reviews are pointing :for value, gaming and content creation AMD nailed it and is the new top dog )


----------



## acethinjo (Nov 5, 2020)

Woah, just registered here and my god. What's the point of making a CPU benchmark list if you're gonna bottleneck the CPUs with high settings and a last gen GPU. What I get from this graph is that there is no difference between a 10400 and 10900k.. There are no 1% lows or anything which could indicate if there is any stutter and what not. My first and last post. Best of luck!


----------



## Keemzay (Nov 5, 2020)

I you compared it to the 10400F, the new 5600x is not value for money in terms of gaming


----------



## wheresmycar (Nov 5, 2020)

Educational purposes only: How is the 10700 beating the 10900K and 10700K is a number of 1080p titles? I've always been lead to believe the K-series CPU's are marginally faster out of the box and then the OC opportunity. My kaby lake 7700K sees pretty wide single threaded perf gains over the non-K 7700.. (vat da hell goin on)

......is that some type of SUPER OVERCLOCKED 10700 on a premium Z-series board and expensive lower latency RAM config?


----------



## Legacy-ZA (Nov 5, 2020)

sutyi said:


> Would have loved to get one to replace my 1600AE, but that 299USD MSRP makes it 333EUR over at my end.
> 70% price bump over the regular 3600 I ordered.  Yeah no...



Yep, I feel your pain, it's nowhere near $300 here in South-Africa, more like $395, these people have no shame.


----------



## Diverge (Nov 5, 2020)

EzioAs said:


> If your PC primary purpose is gaming, you should know by now you're not gonna get much benefit by upgrading from a Core i7-8700K.



Even if you're a SFF itx guy, it's not worth it for the power draw or temperatures. The only reason to upgrade is if you haven't done so in 5 years, or you just want to spend money to have the latest and greatest toys.


----------



## NDown (Nov 5, 2020)

B-Real said:


> Will a 11 game average convince you?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



boohoo yeah an ad hominem to my profile pic and a 1-3 fps difference, convincin me real good boy, RIP all Intel users i guess

also my avatar was referencing to the Rad VII release which was a bit underwhelming until you put it under water and clock it past 2Ghz.

Nothin to do with Ryzens as a whole, you can even see the Radeon Graphics logo XD


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Nov 5, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> My old eyes may be messing with me, but I only see the 5950X on that chart.  I think it's clear that the 5900X/5800X are top dog performers now, but at the more normal price points the 10700K and 10700 seem to be the best bang for buck by a wide margin at the 5600X price point.  And this particular thread is about the 5600X.


Not to mention the OC headroom on the 10700 and 10700k. 5ghz easy on the K, and a simple unlock of power in bios pushes the 10700 up a good chunk.


----------



## Raendor (Nov 5, 2020)

kardeon said:


> In almost all competitives games, zen 3 destroy the 10900k.  If i am not wrong the biggest advantage of  intel was competive games, right ?
> So you should read or watch others reviews, because some results are insanely impressive.
> For instance at 1080p  CSGO +180fps with zen3 - valorant +130fps.  Pugb, rocket league and so on ..zen 3 is also way faster



You should read this review and look at the graphs here before writing BS. This is the 5600x (which doesn't destroy neither 10900, nor the 10700 I'm comparing it to based on direct price) related topic. We're not talking about the general zen 3 top dog vs current intel top dog.


----------



## HenrySomeone (Nov 5, 2020)

Raendor said:


> For the asking price, it's easier to get 10700 (non-K), which has 8 cores and apparently is still better at games if you look at those charts.


Bingo! And perhaps even more ironically, Intel now has a better upgrade path with 11th gen almost certainly completely blowing Zen 3 out of the water as far as gaming is concerned. My, how the tables have turned!


----------



## kings (Nov 5, 2020)

Performance wise, nothing to say, but it is a little disappointing that the 5600X has less performance per dollar than the previous generation 3600X.


----------



## FeelinFroggy (Nov 5, 2020)

EzioAs said:


> If your PC primary purpose is gaming, you should know by now you're not gonna get much benefit by upgrading from a Core i7-8700K.



That is the problem, there has been little to no performance improvement in gaming since 2015 (5years).  In the vast majority of games the 6700k will do just the same as the 5600x.  Then compare the performance jump from the 5 years before 2015.  The 875k from 2010 is not even in the same league as the 6700k.


----------



## gravel (Nov 5, 2020)

A problem with your techpowerup tests


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

Going to try to be real here.

If you look at Zen 3 purely from an architecture / engineer standpoint, it's a great product.  AMD has a 6C/12T part (5600X) that matches up directly with an Intel 8C/12T (10700/10700K) part pretty well - though it still loses in heavily / easily threaded apps.  It also matches or wins single thread performance despite a 10% clock disadvantage.  It has finally overcome its memory cache latency issues on a part with more than 4 cores ( the 3300X also overcame those, by having half the cache, but only for 4 core/8 thread).

However in the real world where price matters, the 5600X only matches or slightly bests its direct competitor the 10700 / 10700K in some scenarios that are lightly threaded, and in fact loses (a lot) in more threaded benchmarks - including encoding, compression, encryption, and most scientific benchmarks.  In games it's a tie.  

I think the 5800X and 5900X are winners vs Intel even taking price into account, meaning Intel's top dogs are basically obsolete now.  But the 5600X just doesn't do it at its current price point.  If it were $250 it would be a significant part but at $300 it's not worth it, the 10700 / 10700K are better choices, and the Intel platform has a high probability to turn out to be a much better choice when RL comes out given that Zen 3 is barely able to 'tie' Intel in games now.


----------



## sepheronx (Nov 5, 2020)

I think the direct competition for the 5600X is the 10600 cause its a 6c/12t cpu. 10700 is 8c/16t cpu.


----------



## Raendor (Nov 5, 2020)

sepheronx said:


> I think the direct competition for the 5600X is the 10600 cause its a 6c/12t cpu. 10700 is 8c/16t cpu.


Then it loses it right off the bat being $50+ more expensive without a huge performance increase.


----------



## Searing (Nov 5, 2020)

Raendor said:


> Then it loses it right off the bat being $50+ more expensive without a huge performance increase.



Um, the 10600k is the same price as the Ryzen 5600X in Canada, and you'd be absolutely silly to pick the 10600K over the Ryzen. I'm disappointed at the high prices, but the CPU is rock solid. The 10600k uses 40W more for the same game frame rates, and much much slower productivity results. The 10600 is just bad, expensive and locked.

For sure a lot of people are holding out hope for the 5600 non X. The 5600x is weak compared to the incredible value of the 5900x.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 5, 2020)

sepheronx said:


> Thank you TPU for these reviews.  I am very impressed with these processors.  *I am looking forward to see how well Infinity Fabric will work with the RX 6000 series GPU's and these CPU's.*


You want to say: _“...how well SmartAccessMemory will work with the RX6000 series...”_

Because InfinityCache has nothing to do with the alleged gains of the 5000/500/6000 combo. InfinityCache is part of the GPU/VRAM communication on RX6000 that enhance bandwidth between them. Nothing to do with SmartAccessMemory that is a CPU full access to the entire VRAM.


----------



## Raendor (Nov 5, 2020)

Searing said:


> Um, the 10600k is the same price as the Ryzen 5600X in Canada, and you'd be absolutely silly to pick the 10600K over the Ryzen. I'm disappointed at the high prices, but the CPU is rock solid. The 10600k uses 40W more for the same game frame rates, and much much slower productivity results. The 10600 is just bad, expensive and locked.
> 
> For sure a lot of people are holding out hope for the 5600 non X. The 5600x is weak compared to the incredible value of the 5900x.


Interesting. In EU 5600x costs like 10700 and €100 more than 10600k. And if you compare it to 10400f going for mere €150, it’s a terrible value proposition.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Nov 5, 2020)

kings said:


> Performance wise, nothing to say, but it is a little disappointing that the 5600X has less performance per dollar than the previous generation 3600X.



There's less money in performance per dollar than in PERFORMANCE!!!  Just ask Intel (historically) or Nvidia.  Not disagreeing with you, though; I say this as a perf/$ junkie.


----------



## sepheronx (Nov 5, 2020)

Zach_01 said:


> You want to say: _“...how well SmartAccessMemory will work with the RX6000 series...”_
> 
> Because InfinityCache has nothing to do with the alleged gains of the 5000/500/6000 combo. InfinityCache is part of the GPU/VRAM communication on RX6000 that enhance bandwidth between them. Nothing to do with SmartAccessMemory that is a CPU full access to the entire VRAM.



thank you for the correction.


----------



## acethinjo (Nov 5, 2020)

Thanks TechPowerUP for deleting my post after pointing out the flaws in your testing methodology. Can't take a critic, can you?


----------



## defaultluser (Nov 5, 2020)

I would have appreciate the 3300x  being included in all the individual tests -  this is a baseline for how much other performance improvement Zen 3 brings  (besides single CCX).

When all you get is summary graphs, you can't really compare single-threaded performance tests;  why include them at all, if your cutoff for testing is 6 cores?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

sepheronx said:


> I think the direct competition for the 5600X is the 10600 cause its a 6c/12t cpu. 10700 is 8c/16t cpu.



If 5600X were $250, AMD would have a clean sweep.  It's not $250, it's not available yet, and I'd bet when it is available it'll be closer to $350 than $300 for several months.  

That makes it compete with the $300 10700 and $350 10700K.  Factor in a 10-20% IPC jump with Rocket Lake in March, along with a 10700K being able to get 5%+ via easy overclocking (the Zen 3 doesn't OC any better than a non-K Intel chip can via BCLK), and this being the last AM4 processor so there's no Zen 4 upgrade path.   I think the 5600X only viable for someone who plans to upgrade to a 5900X / 5950X later.


----------



## sepheronx (Nov 5, 2020)

this is a store a lot use now in Canada as they can be found from Western Canada to Eastern Canada - Memoryexpress.

5600X - $420 CAD





						AMD Ryzen™ 5 5600X Processor, 3.7GHz w/ 6 Cores / 12 Threads  - AMD AM4 CPUs - Memory Express Inc.
					






					www.memoryexpress.com
				




vs

10600K - $380 CAD (on sale for $20 CAD off so its $400 Normal price)





						Intel Core™ i5-10600K Processor, 4.1GHz w/ 6 Cores / 12 Threads - Intel 1200 CPUs - Memory Express Inc.
					






					www.memoryexpress.com
				




Now when you move to 8 core / 16 T, the price difference is a bit:

10700 - $500 CAD





						Intel Core™ i7-10700 Processor, 2.9 GHz w/ 8 Cores / 16 Threads  - Intel 1200 CPUs - Memory Express Inc.
					






					www.memoryexpress.com
				




vs

5800X - $630 CAD





						AMD Ryzen™ 7 5800X Processor, 3.8GHz w/ 8 Cores / 16 Threads  - AMD AM4 CPUs - Memory Express Inc.
					






					www.memoryexpress.com
				




So if I was gonna go with a 6C/12T then the obvious choice would be the 5600X.  But when you climb up to the 8C/16T options then it is a bit harder to choose.  Mind you, the benefit of 5800X is that PCIE 4.0 on the NVME is working while you can get PCIE 4.0 on Z490, it doesn't work cause you need Rocket Lake which isn't out till next year anyway.  And I am not 100% sure they will actually use it and if its available on all Z490 boards (rumor has it ASUS does not but the rest do).


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

sepheronx said:


> this is a store a lot use now in Canada as they can be found from Western Canada to Eastern Canada - Memoryexpress.
> 
> 5600X - $420 CAD
> 
> ...




Meh, Canada is always a problem when it comes to price comparisons, I see it in completely unrelated forums like motorcycling too.

I went to that site and their 10700 and 10700K are way overpriced.    I see that in Canada, the 10700 is about 20% higher than the 5600X, while the 10700K is a whopping $9 CN more than a 10700.  Here the difference is about $30-$50 US between a 10700 and 10700K with the 10700 recently going on sale multiple times for $300.  So your pricing logic probably works, for Canadians.

Edit:  However, you have access to the somewhat rare 10700*K*F at $479 CN. There's your comparison point.


----------



## ODOGG26 (Nov 5, 2020)

defaultluser said:


> I would have appreciate the 3300x  being included in all the individual tests -  this is a baseline for how much other performance improvement Zen 3 brings  (besides single CCX).
> 
> When all you get is summary graphs, you can't really compare single-threaded performance tests;  why include them at all, if your cutoff for testing is 6 cores?


Just take it as good data to look at. If you want a deep dive full out explanation/comparisons then Anandtech is usually the best for CPU reviews. Among most reviews out there, it seems the new ryzen cpus are the best. Overall good review and thanks for the hard work.


----------



## EatingDirt (Nov 5, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Going to try to be real here.
> 
> If you look at Zen 3 purely from an architecture / engineer standpoint, it's a great product.  AMD has a 6C/12T part (5600X) that matches up directly with an Intel 8C/12T (10700/10700K) part pretty well - though it still loses in heavily / easily threaded apps.  It also matches or wins single thread performance despite a 10% clock disadvantage.  It has finally overcome its memory cache latency issues on a part with more than 4 cores ( the 3300X also overcame those, by having half the cache, but only for 4 core/8 thread).
> 
> ...


I'm not sure why you are comparing a $300 CPU to a $375 one.

Clearly the 5600X's competition is the $275 10600k. The 5600X is faster in the cumulative CPU(11%) & Gaming tests(3.8% @720p) than the 10600k. The 5600X is around 10% more expensive. The price is somewhat justified then, is it not? Extra bonus of the 5600x coming with a cooler & 10600k does not, which for some people will make up the price you would need to pay for the 10600k's cooler.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

EatingDirt said:


> I'm not sure why you are comparing a $300 CPU to a $375 one.
> 
> Clearly the 5600X's competition is the $275 10600k. The 5600X is faster in the cumulative CPU(11%) & Gaming tests(3.8% @720p) than the 10600k. The 5600X is around 10% more expensive. The price is somewhat justified then, is it not? Extra bonus of the 5600x coming with a cooler & 10600k does not, which for some people will make up the price you would need to pay for the 10600k's cooler.




You can buy a 10700 right now at Best Buy for $325.  You can also get it through some non-traditional channels (which I admittedly would not use) like Bonanza for $280, right now.    I haven't said much about the 10600K but I can find it for $246 on Google.

Edit: My main point in the 10600K comment is that I'm not drawing that comparison, I don't think the 10600K is a good value at its current price points, I was only comparing to the 10700 / 10700K which outperform the 5600X.

How much and where can you buy a 5600X?  I'll bet that it will be over $300 for the next 3-6 months.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

acethinjo said:


> Thanks TechPowerUP for deleting my post after pointing out the flaws in your testing methodology. Can't take a critic, can you?


You mean this post here? It's not deleted









						AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
					

yeah keep posting that graph into every thread, maybe you will convince someone that the 5000 series lineup is indeed a geyming king  Will a 11 game average convince you?   However, given your very unbiased avatar, it won't. :)




					www.techpowerup.com
				






defaultluser said:


> if your cutoff for testing is 6 cores?


The cutoff is around 75% average perf, except for some important SKUs. 3300X is at 71%, which is close enough, I'll remake the charts for you

@defaultluser: new charts are up. does that help?


----------



## InVasMani (Nov 5, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> You mean this post here? It's not deleted


 Sorcery...


----------



## docnorth (Nov 5, 2020)

Nice and enlightening review as usual. Maybe you could also use Cinebench as stress test, because some AMD CPUs continue to draw more power during Cinebench compared to stress tests. [Cinebench optimized? Other explanation?]. 
Anyway big performance increase, this time for all users, including everyday - office use and gaming. About multicore performance there wasn't much competition already.


----------



## tussinman (Nov 5, 2020)

Good performance but iffy on price. Microcenter by my house usually slashes the previous gen 6 core variants to 150 dollars or less so that's a much better buy, especially if your mostly doing 1440 or 4k gaming


----------



## EatingDirt (Nov 5, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> You can buy a 10700 right now at Best Buy for $325.  You can also get it through some non-traditional channels (which I admittedly would not use) like Bonanza for $280, right now.    I haven't said much about the 10600K but I can find it for $246 on Google.
> 
> Edit: My main point in the 10600K comment is that I'm not drawing that comparison, I don't think the 10600K is a good value at its current price points, I was only comparing to the 10700 / 10700K which outperform the 5600X.
> 
> How much and where can you buy a 5600X?  I'll bet that it will be over $300 for the next 3-6 months.


10700 non-K, because of it's low base clock, is slower in the majority of CPU(-7%) and ±3% in gaming tests on the review itself, and it's more expensive than the 5600X. Great?

The 5600X slots in-between the 10600k & 10700 non-k really quite well. It's faster in almost every case than the 10700 non-k, but quite a bit faster in CPU tests than the 10600k, and gaming is again, ±3%. I'm not sure, and I don't think you are either, on where you're going with any of your comparisons. In overall CPU Performance per $, the 5600X beats both the 10600k, 10700(non-k) & 10700k on TPU's own chart. https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/images/performance-per-dollar.png


----------



## InVasMani (Nov 5, 2020)

docnorth said:


> Nice and enlightening review as usual. Maybe you could also use Cinebench as stress test, because some AMD CPUs continue to draw more power during Cinebench compared to stress tests. [Cinebench optimized? Other explanation?].
> Anyway big performance increase, this time for all users, including everyday - office use and gaming. About multi-core performance there wasn't much competition already.


 Quake 2 RTX and Minecraft RTX at 480p/720p/1080p would be really good to see. I really want to see how a Ryzen 5800X and 3900X/3900XT compares in those titles the Zen 2 chips with 4 more cores seem to do better in multi-core rendering workloads involving path tracing so if that follows through with them that bodes well for multi-core performance in relation to path tracing as a whole for real time games that will only continue to become more available and playable. It also complicates which CPU to purchase because it's another aspect of consideration for a very minor $10 to $20 cost difference.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 5, 2020)

Here in local market:

10600k - 245€
10700 - 310€
10700k - 347€

Im expecting the 5600X to start around ~330+€. No listings yet... except 1 retailer that has it at 399€...


----------



## medi01 (Nov 5, 2020)

So:

*Civilization* TPU shows that Intel beats everyone || Anandtech, Hexus, Linus, GamerNexus shows Intel being beaten
*Tom Raider* TPU shows that Intel beats everyone || Linus, GamerNexus shows Intel being being beaten, Hexus has them tied
*AC *TP shows that Intel beats everyone || Nobody uses that game as a benchmark (makes me wonder why TPU is using it)
*Battlefield* TP shows that Intel beats everyone || Linus shows a good lead for AMD, the rest of the reviews don't use it
*Far Cry* TP shows that Intel beats everyone || Only Anandtech has that game (there's a new one...), again AMD leading Intel

A pattern? No conspiracy theories, but this needs to be analyzed and addressed.


----------



## Hattu (Nov 5, 2020)

At least one shop still has the 5600X on shelf, 325€. Too lazy to check others....

I'm sure prizes go down later, but i don't think they're overprized. New is almost always more expensive than older models.


----------



## tancabean (Nov 5, 2020)

As a Haswell user it would be really helpful to see how those chips are holding up today. It's ancient hardware at this point but I have the sneaky feeling that it's still not much slower than the latest and greatest CPUs at normal settings (1080p, 1440p).

Maybe toss a 4790k in there next time? It's probably a hassle but figured I would ask anyway!


----------



## Megas (Nov 5, 2020)

So on Amazon Prime Day us Canadians were finally thrown a price bone (For example a 3600 will cost you $250ish for reference). I was able to pick up a 3800X for less than a 3700x. It cost me $391 and I haven't opened it since I've been waiting on benchmarks to come out for the 5000 series (turns out I am definitely not the only one).

I thought it would be an easy decision and it was starting to be until the techpowerup reviews came out. Ironically my fav place for reviews but I've never looked at the forums before. If you look at other review sites it seems like there is a much larger spread especially in games but here it's a 1-23fps difference. So question is 3800X @ $391 vs. 5600X @ 399-420 (what I'm seeing for pricing). I'm really not sure what to do. It seems like the 5600X would be the smarter decision but then I wonder about those extra cores... Pointless ultimate? I use this rig for 80% gaming and I also don't plan on buying an aftermarket cooler either so I'm not going to chase some ultra OC or anything.

Do I keep the 3800X or return and get the 5600X? For reference my 3800X is unopened I'm not one of those dicks who returns something perfectly good. Urghghhh

Hey *W1zzard *any chance you are going to see how far you can push a 5600X on the stock cooler?


----------



## TechLurker (Nov 5, 2020)

medi01 said:


> So:
> 
> *Civilization* TPU shows that Intel beats everyone || Anandtech, Hexus, Linus, GamerNexus shows Intel being beaten
> *Tom Raider* TPU shows that Intel beats everyone || Linus, GamerNexus shows Intel being being beaten, Hexus has them tied
> ...


There's some minor differences between the other reviews as well. Seems to be mostly memory speed related. Some ran at 3200, others at 3600, and one or two at 4000. Also not all of them ran them at 720 or 4K, and all of them had different settings turned on/off. It'll be interesting to see more in-depth reviews in the near-future, as various groups tighten up timings and upping memory speeds to see how much "free" performance was left on the table before OC'ing.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

medi01 said:


> but this needs to be analyzed and addressed.


Yup, already working on trying to figure out what's going on


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

EatingDirt said:


> 10700 non-K, because of it's low base clock, is slower in the majority of CPU(-7%) and ±3% in gaming tests on the review itself, and it's more expensive than the 5600X. Great?
> 
> The 5600X slots in-between the 10600k & 10700 non-k really quite well. It's faster in almost every case than the 10700 non-k, but quite a bit faster in CPU tests than the 10600k, and gaming is again, ±3%. I'm not sure, and I don't think you are either, on where you're going with any of your comparisons. In overall CPU Performance per $, the 5600X beats both the 10600k, 10700(non-k) & 10700k on TPU's own chart. https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-5-5600x/images/performance-per-dollar.png




The 10700 and 10700K both beat the 5600X in games at 1080p by about 3%.   If you OC the K, which is trivial, you can win by 5 to 8 %. 

On productivity the 10700K beats the 5600X by 3.9%.   The 10700K can be had for about $50 more than the 5600X @ $299, assuming you can actually find one for $299.  The next up slot in AMDs lineup is the $450 5800X, which would compete with the 10850K and 10900 in price.

The 10700 non K wins at games by ~3%, and loses in productivity by ~7%.  However,  you can power unlock the 10700 nonK - again trivial to do - and win on both games and productivity.  There's nothing you can do to the 5600X to counter that.

So yeah at this particular price point AMD failed.  I never said anything about the 10600K, and I won't argue a point I didn't make.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 5, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Yup, already working on trying to figure out what's going on



Will you do a retest when you figure it out W1z?


----------



## SIGSEGV (Nov 5, 2020)

Sorry, the review result is somewhat weird.
LOL, intel fans seem infuriated.


----------



## Sir Alex Ice (Nov 6, 2020)

So basically a 4K gamer would be quite stupid to get this CPU as a 2600X costing less than half will have 99.5% of the performance. Before overclocking it.


----------



## Searing (Nov 6, 2020)

SIGSEGV said:


> Sorry, the review result is somewhat weird.
> LOL, intel fans seem infuriated.



I just read another review, and Anandtech's numbers seem quite different. At 720p they are claiming massive wins for the new Ryzen CPUs, so it will be interesting to find out why. Also 2080 ti.


----------



## Caring1 (Nov 6, 2020)

acethinjo said:


> Thanks TechPowerUP ..........
> Can't take a critic, can you?


It's critique, not critic.


----------



## Searing (Nov 6, 2020)

Sir Alex Ice said:


> So basically a 4K gamer would be quite stupid to get this CPU as a 2600X costing less than half will have 99.5% of the performance. Before overclocking it.



you can get almost double the frame rate today in some games, Ryzen 5000 vs the 2600, go do more research, and there will be more cases as GPUs get faster over the next few years



			http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph16220/119174.png
		


the borderlands 3 numbers for 1 percent low frame rate are also insane, a MASSIVE improvement


----------



## Icon Charlie (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> If 5600X were $250, AMD would have a clean sweep.  It's not $250, it's not available yet, and I'd bet when it is available it'll be closer to $350 than $300 for several months.
> 
> That makes it compete with the $300 10700 and $350 10700K.  Factor in a 10-20% IPC jump with Rocket Lake in March, along with a 10700K being able to get 5%+ via easy overclocking (the Zen 3 doesn't OC any better than a non-K Intel chip can via BCLK), and this being the last AM4 processor so there's no Zen 4 upgrade path.   I think the 5600X only viable for someone who plans to upgrade to a 5900X / 5950X later.



That's because AMD has applied their $50+ idiot tax on everything. This idiot Tax started on their X570 mother boards in 2019 and then spread to every where else.   At $250 this would be a real mover of.  At $300, they can shove it slow... they can shove it hard.

But gerbils will buy anything.

AND REMEMBER... you are going to add tax to this so the price will be a lot more... just saying.

If you are a gamer and you bought your CPU back 2 generations (3 if you count the 1700 and 1800X) you do not need this CPU.
If you are just a main stream person, the same comment applies from above. 

The only case that I would buy this CPU is if my computer is broken or its over 4 years old.   Well it looks like I'm going to avoid buying any product from AMD until the prices go down.

Good review though.


----------



## Caring1 (Nov 6, 2020)

Icon Charlie said:


> That's because AMD has applied their $50+ idiot tax on everything. This idiot Tax started on their X570 mother boards in 2019 and then spread to every where else.   At $250 this would be a real mover of.  At $300, they can shove it slow... they can shove it hard.
> 
> But gerbils will buy anything.


They usually buy Intel, and if bringing their price close to Intel's makes their buyers idiots, that's not saying much for those that have been paying much more for Intel for years.


----------



## sutyi (Nov 6, 2020)

Legacy-ZA said:


> Yep, I feel your pain, it's nowhere near $300 here in South-Africa, more like $395, these people have no shame.



Well... launch day pricing over here is pretty much US MSRP + VAT (27% in Hungary), which equates to about 333EUR here or 379USD.

Putting that 5600X in a terrible spot as value for money goes. 

3600 nonX - 70000HUF
10600K - 91000HUF
3700X - 107000HUF
10700 nonK - 115000HUF
5600X - 120000HUF
10700K - 131000HUF


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 6, 2020)

Think i will wait for zen4/intel Rocket Lake. still fine with my peasant 9600k@5ghz for now.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 6, 2020)

Mmmmmm 65W goodness

I wonder what the 5700x will bring, if it has higher boost clocks then it'd be a clear winner for gamers within the 65W envelope

I'm still salty theres only a 2% gain from my 3700x to this at 1440p, so i cant justify the upgrade.


----------



## Lateshow (Nov 6, 2020)

Fourstaff said:


> A bit too pricey to be the king of bang for buck gaming. Maybe 5600 non-X would be the new sweet spot.



Depends on where you are at. The king is currently the $200 9700k at Microcenter if you are lucky enough to live by one.  Holds it's own next to the 5600x @stock speeds, and can be oc'd.  It also has 2 more cores if needed.  Total savings is over $100 due to you only need 2666mhz ram, and that could be a better GPU.  It's not even close.  

If this were $200 like it's predecessor, it would have been interesting decision as the efficiency, and slight gaming lead could come into play.


----------



## InVasMani (Nov 6, 2020)

AMD's profit margins on Epyc are razor thin!


----------



## EatingDirt (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> The 10700 and 10700K both beat the 5600X in games at 1080p by about 3%.   If you OC the K, which is trivial, you can win by 5 to 8 %.
> 
> On productivity the 10700K beats the 5600X by 3.9%.   The 10700K can be had for about $50 more than the 5600X @ $299, assuming you can actually find one for $299.  The next up slot in AMDs lineup is the $450 5800X, which would compete with the 10850K and 10900 in price.
> 
> ...


1. Yes, two CPU's that cost more than the 5600X are sometimes faster than the 5600X. Again, the 5600X is slotted between the 10600k & 10700.
2. *The 10700k is not a competitor to the 5600X*. How many times do we have to go over this? The 10700k is $375 on B&H, Amazon, Newegg & Best Buy as the time of me writing this. Let's say we just go with your "sale" 10700k at $350. That makes the 10700k* 18%* more expensive than the 5600X. At its current regular price of $375, it's *25%* more expensive. Additionally the 5600X doesn't need a cooler, so as a value proposition, you need to add at least another $20, making the full cost of a standard priced $375 10700k, $395 which is a full* 31%* more expensive than the 5600X. *31%* more expensive for ±4% productivity & ±3% 1080p gaming.
3. On the 10700 non-K:* 3% is not a win.* It's within margin of error between the wide swath of PC games that exist. The TPU 10700 non-K review shows that the gains in games of a power unlocked 10700 is *0.2%*. The 5600X is clearly faster when CPU limited @720p in some games than the 10700. See Sekiro, Civ6 & Wolfenstein 2.
3(a). Power unlocking is overclocking. 5600X doesn't need an OC. Overclocking the 10700 non-K will also add at least a $20 additional cost for the CPU cooler, reducing it's value. Related to power unlocking: power consumption stuff that the 5600X doesn't need to worry about.

You say at the price point the 5600X is, it failed, but you refuse to talk about the 10600k, its more relevant competitor. The 5600X is slotted *between *the 10600k & the 10700, and it splits the difference in performance. It also splits the difference in price. *It's exactly where it should be. *In fact, if you take the cooler cost for the 10600k that you'll need to buy, the price of the 10600k & 5600X are *exactly the same(±$5). *


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 6, 2020)

FeelinFroggy said:


> Nice review as always. It is a nice CPU but still not a generational leap. At *1440p it is only 2% faster than my 3 year 8700k* and they both cost about the same. Would be nice to see how it runs on a 3080 or 3090 to see backing the bottleneck back some would show a difference in fps with the CPU.


It is a generational leap, except over AMD themselves in gaming. Not only have they achieved nearly 20% higher IPC across the board, more in games, on the same node but also done it with minimal changes to zen2 heck even Conroe was on a much better node wrt *P4* & had 2x as many cores. Now granted this isn't the same 100% more performance but that was nearly 1.5 decades back & back then such gains were not unheard of.

Yeah you're not getting that with any CPU this gen or the next, at 1440p you're highly GPU bound & you'll need to get 4x Ampere Titans (with perfect scaling) to remove GPU bottlenecks & then see what the best CPU can do. I'm sure you know that's not gonna happen.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

tigger said:


> Will you do a retest when you figure it out W1z?


Of course


----------



## jiwidi (Nov 6, 2020)

is quite weird the difference between power usage here and another reviews. Here the 5600X  goes up to 130W  while MANY other pages claims a top of 70~75W, what's the cause for this discrepancy ?


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

jiwidi said:


> is quite weird the difference between power usage here and another reviews. Here it goes up to 130W MANY while many other claims a top of 70~75W, what's the cause for this discrepancy ?


Are they reporting CPU only power or full system power? Hard to imagine a full system, with 65 W CPU pulling 70-75 W only


----------



## jiwidi (Nov 6, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Are they reporting CPU only power or full system power? Hard to imagine a full system, with 65 W CPU pulling 70-75 W only


Only cpu power I believe. A graph that takes the data quite nicely is here https://www.anandtech.com/show/1621...e-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/8

5600X


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

jiwidi said:


> Only cpu power I believe.


That uses the sensors inside the CPU to get the power data. The processor uses this sensor to control its power throttling.

I'm physically measuring power at the 220 V wall plug


----------



## djuice (Nov 6, 2020)

Here another CPU Powerdraw from AIDA64 stability test .





Heres one from Legit Reviews measured from the wall for System Power draw.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

djuice said:


> Heres one from Legit Reviews measured from the wall for System Power draw.


Seems to match my results pretty closely


----------



## djuice (Nov 6, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Seems to match my results pretty closely




Yup, from all the reviews I've seen the power draw from CPU and Full System Draw seems to be similar, 75w~ for CPU, and 135-150~w for system. So don't know what Jiwidi was getting at.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

djuice said:


> Yup, from all the reviews I've seen the power draw from CPU and Full System Draw seems to be similar, 75w~ for CPU, and 135-150~w for system. So don't know what Jiwidi was getting at.


I think he was just surprised by the high difference between full system wall power and chip only


----------



## 1d10t (Nov 6, 2020)

Though in 1440p game it only give 2-3% performance uplift, in general use we sees between 20% increase. Price is a bit sting, but I'm still tempted to "side grade",  for a farewell to AM4 platform


----------



## TheUn4seen (Nov 6, 2020)

It's a good CPU, but some people want to see it as a be-all-end-all of CPUs. For games it's fine, but whatever. Any CPU from 8600k upwards will suffice, and if you play at 1440/2160 it really doesn't matter, 6700k will get you within 3% of the performance, so spend your money on a GPU. For me personally. the lack of any iGPU is a show stopper - in a gaming PC I rarely need it, but when I do, i REALLY do, and in a work PC I don't want a dedicated GPU, I much prefer a low power, slim and silent machine.

Where this generation really shines seems to be the productivity oriented high end with the 5900X/5950X.


----------



## TechLurker (Nov 6, 2020)

Gamers Nexus posted his in-depth review of the 5600X, and is pretty overall impressive. Some highlights based on his video:

Defeated the 10900K in most games at roughly half the price and with fewer cores
Lost to 10900K in Assassin's Creed and RDR2

More power-efficient than the previous gen 3300X (at stock for both CPUs)
Equals and sometimes even surpasses, the 5950X, beyond 1080P
Acceptable workstation performance
Straight up gives it the "Overall Best Gaming CPU"
For his results; he tested a 4.8 OC on the 5600X, and a 5.2 OC on the Intel 10900K in addition to stock/out-of-the-box performance.

It's looking to be a solid value based on those results; at least until Intel comes out with Rocket Lake, and AMD then maybe fires back with a refined XT version of their Ryzen 5000 series; as the node matures.


----------



## Zach_01 (Nov 6, 2020)

djuice said:


> Yup, from all the reviews I've seen the power draw from CPU and Full System Draw seems to be similar, 75w~ for CPU, and 135-150~w for system. So don't know what Jiwidi was getting at.


He probably thought that the 136W is CPU package and not from whole system including PSU power losses.


----------



## Mouth of Sauron (Nov 6, 2020)

Why is 'No IGP' amongst CONS?

I am personally very happy knowing I'm not paying for extra silicon that I won't be using (and also it's development and possibly flawed silicon). 

For those who need integrated graphics (companies, budget system builders), AMD has a different product line, same for laptops - this is a desktop chip.

Each time I had (it's the correct expression - last time I *had* to buy it for laptop, because AMD was struggling at that point) to buy Intel, I cursed myself for being forced to buy 129th gen. piece-of-crap that has one feature 'can display picture on a screen'.

iGP being optional is actually nice - Intel does the opposite only to extort some more money for lacking its own discrete GPU... If Intel become a viable choice for discrete GPUs, I bet a non-IGP line op CPU will miraculously appear...


----------



## seth1911 (Nov 6, 2020)

(Prices today)

AMD want for the 6 core 300 Euro
10600KF 229 Euro

But i dont want OC, then i can get a 10400F for about 140 Euro, a 3600 cost 185 Euro.

Interessting that Intel is cheaper than AMD


----------



## tussinman (Nov 6, 2020)

seth1911 said:


> (Prices today)
> 
> AMD want for the 6 core 300 Euro
> 10600KF 229 Euro
> ...


 Good thing about AMD raising there game is cheaper intel prices. My local microcenter has the 10400 for only $150 and offers basically the same 1440p game performance as the 5600X for literally half the price.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 6, 2020)

EatingDirt said:


> 1. Yes, two CPU's that cost more than the 5600X are sometimes faster than the 5600X. Again, the 5600X is slotted between the 10600k & 10700.
> 2. *The 10700k is not a competitor to the 5600X*. How many times do we have to go over this? The 10700k is $375 on B&H, Amazon, Newegg & Best Buy as the time of me writing this. Let's say we just go with your "sale" 10700k at $350. That makes the 10700k* 18%* more expensive than the 5600X. At its current regular price of $375, it's *25%* more expensive. Additionally the 5600X doesn't need a cooler, so as a value proposition, you need to add at least another $20, making the full cost of a standard priced $375 10700k, $395 which is a full* 31%* more expensive than the 5600X. *31%* more expensive for ±4% productivity & ±3% 1080p gaming.
> 3. On the 10700 non-K:* 3% is not a win.* It's within margin of error between the wide swath of PC games that exist. The TPU 10700 non-K review shows that the gains in games of a power unlocked 10700 is *0.2%*. The 5600X is clearly faster when CPU limited @720p in some games than the 10700. See Sekiro, Civ6 & Wolfenstein 2.
> 3(a). Power unlocking is overclocking. 5600X doesn't need an OC. Overclocking the 10700 non-K will also add at least a $20 additional cost for the CPU cooler, reducing it's value. Related to power unlocking: power consumption stuff that the 5600X doesn't need to worry about.
> ...



Proof that most of what you say is wrong, even your B&H  number is inflated :











And then there's this:


----------



## Searing (Nov 6, 2020)

TheUn4seen said:


> It's a good CPU, but some people want to see it as a be-all-end-all of CPUs. For games it's fine, but whatever. Any CPU from 8600k upwards will suffice, and if you play at 1440/2160 it really doesn't matter, 6700k will get you within 3% of the performance, so spend your money on a GPU. For me personally. the lack of any iGPU is a show stopper - in a gaming PC I rarely need it, but when I do, i REALLY do, and in a work PC I don't want a dedicated GPU, I much prefer a low power, slim and silent machine.
> 
> Where this generation really shines seems to be the productivity oriented high end with the 5900X/5950X.



That's just not true. We can see some huge massive increases all over the place. Horizon and Death Stranding, Counter Strike, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Hitman, Star Wars Squadrons, Serious Sam. Also the best power draw comparison ever. 67W beating Intel's 218W OC in gaming performance.

Check out the massive wins on Gamer's Nexus's reviews. Civ 6 for example. I'm not happy with the price of course, but AMD is in the lead, and the lead grows at 720p showing good future scaling.


----------



## RainingTacco (Nov 6, 2020)

Mouth of Sauron said:


> Why is 'No IGP' amongst CONS?
> 
> I am personally very happy knowing I'm not paying for extra silicon that I won't be using (and also it's development and possibly flawed silicon).
> 
> ...



IGPU is extremely useful when you want to sell your old GPU and wait that month for a new one.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 6, 2020)

Fourstaff said:


> A bit too pricey to be the king of bang for buck gaming. Maybe 5600 non-X would be the new sweet spot.




the non-x will be king when it comes out. but can't blame AMD for making some money in the mean time. 

on that note, i'd rather pay a little extra now to just have it.  my 5600x arrived today!!!! now i just need a 6800 or 6800 xt... or a 3080... but i doubt im lucky enough to get any. bleh


----------



## jayjr1105 (Nov 6, 2020)

Searing said:


> That's just not true. We can see some huge massive increases all over the place. Horizon and Death Stranding, Counter Strike, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Hitman, Star Wars Squadrons, Serious Sam. Also the best power draw comparison ever. 67W beating Intel's 218W OC in gaming performance.
> 
> Check out the massive wins on Gamer's Nexus's reviews. Civ 6 for example. I'm not happy with the price of course, but AMD is in the lead, and the lead grows at 720p showing good future scaling.


LOL, people actually considering an i5 @ 218W over a 67W 10900K killer.  Just wait until some reviews come out with tweaked 3800 or higher RAM.  That 5600X with tuned RAM and a bumped infinity fabric is going to roar.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 6, 2020)

jayjr1105 said:


> LOL, people actually considering an i5 @ 218W over a 67W 10900K killer.  Just wait until some reviews come out with tweaked 3800 or higher RAM.  That 5600X with tuned RAM and a bumped infinity fabric is going to roar.



yep exactly.  its not just about speed, its about tightened timings, and we have to wait for @1usmus to update his calculator.


----------



## seth1911 (Nov 6, 2020)

AMD have no turn against me, i dont buy a 6 Core for about 300 Euros.
My first HEDT Machine was with an 3930K alias Socket 2011 for 349 Euros, it was 6 years before


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 6, 2020)

seth1911 said:


> AMD have no turn against me, i dont buy a 6 Core for about 300 Euros.
> My first HEDT Machine was with an 3930K alias Socket 2011 for 349 Euros, it was 6 years before




don't let the door hit ya on the way out


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 6, 2020)

seth1911 said:


> AMD have no turn against me, i dont buy a 6 Core for about 300 Euros.
> My first HEDT Machine was with an 3930K alias Socket 2011 for 349 Euros, it was 6 years before



People treat a 6/12 like its a 12 and it is not. Hyper cores are not real cores. Essentially the 5600x is a 6 core chip


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 6, 2020)

tigger said:


> People treat a 6/12 like its a 12 and it is not. Hyper cores are not real cores. Essentially the 5600x is a 6 core chip



its going to beat a 10900k in every single game before im done with it.  tightened timings 4000 1:1  bdie  incoming   and smart access memory enabled.


----------



## Searing (Nov 6, 2020)

seth1911 said:


> AMD have no turn against me, i dont buy a 6 Core for about 300 Euros.
> My first HEDT Machine was with an 3930K alias Socket 2011 for 349 Euros, it was 6 years before



You love passive computers based on your profile ("I5 4590s @ 2,2 GHz Passive")? Well excellent, you can replace your quad core i5 passive with a new twice/thrice as fast 5600x passive. The 5600X is the most efficient CPU ever.


----------



## dragontamer5788 (Nov 6, 2020)

medi01 said:


> A pattern? No conspiracy theories, but this needs to be analyzed and addressed.



A lack of replication is a good thing.

If everyone replicated each other too much, then that almost proves a conspiracy. The fact that there are differences is almost proof that the testing is real. There really can't be a "conspiracy" when your results are different from everyone else's !!

With that being said: Yeah, I'll await the explanation. Maybe its RAM speeds, maybe its boost clocks and temperature. Who knows, but its good to see differences. That's how you learn new things.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 7, 2020)

Mouth of Sauron said:


> Why is 'No IGP' amongst CONS?
> 
> I am personally very happy knowing I'm not paying for extra silicon that I won't be using (and also it's development and possibly flawed silicon).
> 
> ...



the one big oddity about AM4, is that the mobos waste money and space on all these video out connectors that a large portion of users simply cant use. It causes confusion for the uneducated as to why the ports dont work, and then for the high end users we could at least use an APU's hardware encoding for streaming purposes. That said, i see it as more of a neutral fact, than a negative for the CPU review.


----------



## max007 (Nov 7, 2020)

I think you guys need to re visit your testing. Its nothing like Gamer Nexus or other benchmarks. Or mine for that matter. Something is wrong with your test set up.



TechLurker said:


> Gamers Nexus posted his in-depth review of the 5600X, and is pretty overall impressive. Some highlights based on his video:
> 
> Defeated the 10900K in most games at roughly half the price and with fewer cores
> Lost to 10900K in Assassin's Creed and RDR2
> ...


I dont know what happened in these tests but its wrong


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Nov 7, 2020)

EatingDirt said:


> 1. Yes, two CPU's that cost more than the 5600X are sometimes faster than the 5600X. Again, the 5600X is slotted between the 10600k & 10700.
> 2. *The 10700k is not a competitor to the 5600X*. How many times do we have to go over this? The 10700k is $375 on B&H, Amazon, Newegg & Best Buy as the time of me writing this. Let's say we just go with your "sale" 10700k at $350. That makes the 10700k* 18%* more expensive than the 5600X. At its current regular price of $375, it's *25%* more expensive. Additionally the 5600X doesn't need a cooler, so as a value proposition, you need to add at least another $20, making the full cost of a standard priced $375 10700k, $395 which is a full* 31%* more expensive than the 5600X. *31%* more expensive for ±4% productivity & ±3% 1080p gaming.
> 3. On the 10700 non-K:* 3% is not a win.* It's within margin of error between the wide swath of PC games that exist. The TPU 10700 non-K review shows that the gains in games of a power unlocked 10700 is *0.2%*. The 5600X is clearly faster when CPU limited @720p in some games than the 10700. See Sekiro, Civ6 & Wolfenstein 2.
> 3(a). Power unlocking is overclocking. 5600X doesn't need an OC. Overclocking the 10700 non-K will also add at least a $20 additional cost for the CPU cooler, reducing it's value. Related to power unlocking: power consumption stuff that the 5600X doesn't need to worry about.
> ...





RandallFlagg said:


> Proof that most of what you say is wrong, even your B&H  number is inflated :
> 
> 
> View attachment 174690
> ...



Where is EatingDirt wrong?  I've read the quoted post three times and can't find any untrue statements.  But good on you for finding a 10700KA at a slight discount.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 7, 2020)

Mussels said:


> the one big oddity about AM4, is that the mobos waste money and space on all these video out connectors that a large portion of users simply cant use. It causes confusion for the uneducated as to why the ports dont work, and then for the high end users we could at least use an APU's hardware encoding for streaming purposes. That said, i see it as more of a neutral fact, than a negative for the CPU review.



I think a IGP is a bonus, when i destroyed my gtx 1080 i am glad my CPU had a IGP or i would not have been able to use my PC till i got the RX5700xt RD. I think i will probably end up getting a 5600x but i will wait till early next year till the rush to buy has subsided a bit, and maybe the price will have dropped a tad.


----------



## Metroid (Nov 7, 2020)

tigger said:


> People treat a 6/12 like its a 12 and it is not. Hyper cores are not real cores. Essentially the 5600x is a 6 core chip



Yeah is not but ht helps a lot to offload lots of tasks. Yeah ht is not good for single threads tasks, it was proven time and time again that many games work better with ht off in the past but with time devs worked to optimize games with ht on and right now only few games still works best with ht off, most work pretty good with ht on.

I'm trying to see the benefit on replacing a 3600x with a 5600x and so far the only benefit is emulators because direct windows steam games, I always play on 4k and on 4k you really need a powerful gpu, not a cpu and for that a 3600 is just enough. I might hold on the 3600 for a year or 2 till dddr5 comes and then purchase a new system. I have a b450 motherboard and was looking for a x570 if i had decided to buy a 5600, not sure if is worth anymore. A GPU will be lot more useful than a cpu, 3600 is good enough for the time being. I'm a minimalist person ehhe, I hate buying things that I end up not using them as much to be worthy the purchase.


----------



## kmetek (Nov 7, 2020)

299$ USA

around 400€ here.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 7, 2020)

Metroid said:


> Yeah is not but ht helps a lot to offload lots of tasks. Yeah ht is not good for single threads tasks, it was proven time and time again that many games work better with ht off in the past but with time devs worked to optimize games with ht on and right now only few games still works best with ht off, most work pretty good with ht on.
> 
> I'm trying to see the benefit on replacing a 3600x with a 5600x and so far the only benefit is emulators because direct windows steam games, I always play on 4k and on 4k you really need a powerful gpu, not a cpu and for that a 3600 is just enough. I might hold on the 3600 for a year or 2 till dddr5 comes and then purchase a new system. I have a b450 motherboard and was looking for a x570 if i had decided to buy a 5600, not sure if is worth anymore. A GPU will be lot more useful than a cpu, 3600 is good enough for the time being. I'm a minimalist person ehhe, I hate buying things that I end up not using them as much to be worthy the purchase.




at 4k i don't think a cpu upgrade would benefit you much at all right now.  i agree wait for AM5 and ddr5 platform next year!


----------



## KarymidoN (Nov 8, 2020)

@W1zzard  can u bench again but now with 4 sticks of the same RAM?


----------



## Mussels (Nov 8, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> @W1zzard  can u bench again but now with 4 sticks of the same RAM?



that's... new


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Nov 8, 2020)

Mussels said:


> the one big oddity about AM4, is that the mobos waste money and space on all these video out connectors that a large portion of users simply cant use. It causes confusion for the uneducated as to why the ports dont work, and then for the high end users we could at least use an APU's hardware encoding for streaming purposes. That said, i see it as more of a neutral fact, than a negative for the CPU review.



Do we know what proportion of AM4 boards get APUs installed (in aggregate, not just X*70)?  In any event, as a manufacturer, I can understand hedging that bet, even on high-end models.  It's likely that every review of a board without any video output headers would ding it for the lack thereof.


----------



## TheUn4seen (Nov 8, 2020)

Searing said:


> That's just not true. We can see some huge massive increases all over the place. Horizon and Death Stranding, Counter Strike, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Hitman, Star Wars Squadrons, Serious Sam. Also the best power draw comparison ever. 67W beating Intel's 218W OC in gaming performance.
> 
> Check out the massive wins on Gamer's Nexus's reviews. Civ 6 for example. I'm not happy with the price of course, but AMD is in the lead, and the lead grows at 720p showing good future scaling.



Well, yes, but really no. In games it trades blows with 10700 non-K, with fairly similar power draw. It's better than some older CPUs, but not really worth the hassle and cost of changing the whole platform.
So yes, AMD is in the lead, I'm not disputing that, but the difference is not earth shattering and certainly not worth changing the platform for anyone who has a modern or even a semi-modern CPU.
The CPU matters mostly at 1080p and below. I don't remember when was the last time I played a game at such lousy resolution.
Yes, I know there are people still using Sandy Bridge and 768p screens. But even for them investing in a better GPU would bring a bigger performance increase.


----------



## Metroid (Nov 8, 2020)

There is this video on gamernexus saying 4 stickies give almost 10% performance on zen 3, maybe wizard tested with 2 stickies?

Yes, his memory setup was,

Memory:2x 8 GB G.SKILL Flare X DDR4
DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34​










@*W1zzard*, anyway to rerun with 4 stickies?


----------



## ixi (Nov 8, 2020)

Metroid said:


> There is this video on gamernexus saying 4 stickies give almost 10% performance on zen 3, maybe wizard tested with 2 stickies?
> 
> Yes, his memory setup was,
> 
> ...



It would be great if tpu would re-check but now with quad channel if it was done with dual.

 Anyway, that is almost nothing new when single channel performance is worse than dual channel, and dual is worse than quad.


----------



## Metroid (Nov 8, 2020)

ixi said:


> It would be great if tpu would re-check but now with quad channel if it was done with dual.
> 
> Anyway, that is almost nothing new when single channel performance is worse than dual channel, and dual is worse than quad.



It's not quad channel, b450 and x570 does not support quad channel, all dual channel, quad channel are for systems with threadripper.


----------



## ixi (Nov 8, 2020)

Metroid said:


> It's not quad channel, b450 and x570 does not support quad channel, all dual channel, quad channel are for systems with threadripper.



Haven't really checked amd mobos if on dying costumers there are quad-channel mobos. If no, then yea 2 vs 4 sticks on dual channel.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 8, 2020)

ixi said:


> Haven't really checked amd mobos if on dying costumers there are quad-channel mobos. If no, then yea 2 vs 4 sticks on dual channel.



its ranks, that need to be tested. Most of the time we had single rank ram because it let us OC higher, but this time around the extra ranks might give more performance.

2/4 sticks can be 2/4/8 ranks... and this is gunna take up a lot of poor w1zzys time, but he probably will test it.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 8, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> @W1zzard  can u bench again but now with 4 sticks of the same RAM?




well crap... now i have to buy two more sticks of ram lmao



Mussels said:


> its ranks, that need to be tested. Most of the time we had single rank ram because it let us OC higher, but this time around the extra ranks might give more performance.
> 
> 2/4 sticks can be 2/4/8 ranks... and this is gunna take up a lot of poor w1zzys time, but he probably will test it.




so would my 32gb 2x16gb already be considered 4 ranks? so i dont need 2 extra sticks for this performance bump?


----------



## InVasMani (Nov 8, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> well crap... now i have to buy two more sticks of ram lmao
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 2 to 4 ranks total from either 2x16GB (due to the higher capacity it's virtually all dual rank or was when DDR4 DIMM's that size launched with Skylake) or 4x8GB (depends on dual rank) the other aspect is bank groups has a impact on performance. Basically you reduce latency and increase bandwidth. DDR5 doubles the bank groups over DDR4 and DDR3 didn't have bank groups that was one of the new features implemented.

When DDR4 came out with Skylake frequency and latency of 16GB DIMM sticks were different and not as comparable to 8GB DIMM sticks. That one part of the matter perhaps that could explain some of the difference outside of the first two things. If the latency/frequency of higher capacity chips have caught up in performance parity despite the density that's going to obviously positively impact performance. The bigger issues of course is the ranks and bank groups of course.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 8, 2020)

InVasMani said:


> 4 ranks total I think from 2x16GB (I believe they are all dual rank if I'm not mistaken in order to get 16GB on a single DIMM you need dual rank or did at least when those DIMM's came on the market for Skylake that could've changed though if the chip density has increase and thus half as many chips are required to fill that capacity) or 4x8GB (depends on double sided with dual rank), but outside of that you've also got 8 bank groups per DIMM which helps with prefetch performance. I think what people are missing is the prefetch performance from using 4-DIMM's because of the bank groups though the rank interleaving helps as well though it's the combination of both things. You can switch between 4  DIMM's with 8 banks per DIMM and get a bit more bandwidth by avoiding the refresh period which if you extend the refresh on a DDR DIMM you achieve more bandwidth, but at the expense of potential instability of course.



steve in that gn video says single rank 2x16gb performs best of all. video below i timestamped it for you
edit timestamp didnt work - its at 23:53


----------



## InVasMani (Nov 8, 2020)

Wendell did actually if I'm not mistaken. Also I think he implies that it is or rather it's best compromise. I believe what Wendell was suggesting is that the bang for buck is with a 2x16 kit as opposed to 4x8GB while a 4x16GB won't net you much additional performance over a 2x16GB kit though didn't explicitly say it that way. I can flat out tell you when I tested 2x16GB and 4x16GB in the past 4x16GB performed better at the same settings and ran several tests of it. I don't think Wendell is the kind of guy that's going to blindly recommend 4x16GB as the "sweet spot" over 2x16GB. The keyword is "sweet spot" it's not that that 4x16GB might not have a tiny fraction of a advantage it's just that it isn't at all worth the extra price consideration unless you need the extra capacity itself instead focus more on a 2x16GB that's higher frequency with tighter timings hence once again the "sweet spot" he mentions. That's my take on his words, but you can interpret it any which way you like. I mean "sweet spot" or not I got better performance with 4x16GB at the same settings. Feel free to ask Wendell what he meant by it though doesn't phase me a bit. The OS itself will actually make use of more memory if you install more memory for the record which is another consideration. The other part of the equation is 2x16GB could have better stability than 4x16GB so that's a factor in the "sweet spot" consideration and perticularly true depending on the motherboard and I suppose CPU in question.


----------



## Space Lynx (Nov 8, 2020)

InVasMani said:


> Wendell did actually if I'm not mistaken. Also I think he implies that it is or rather it's best compromise. I believe what Wendell was suggesting is that the bang for buck is with a 2x16 kit as opposed to 4x8GB while a 4x16GB won't net you much additional performance over a 2x16GB kit though didn't explicitly say it that way. I can flat out tell you when I tested 2x16GB and 4x16GB in the past 4x16GB performed better at the same settings and ran several tests of it. I don't think Wendell is the kind of guy that's going to blindly recommend 4x16GB as the "sweet spot" over 2x16GB. The keyword is "sweet spot" it's not that that 4x16GB might not have a tiny fraction of a advantage it's just that it isn't at all worth the extra price consideration unless you need the extra capacity itself instead focus more on a 2x16GB that's higher frequency with tighter timings hence once again the "sweet spot" he mentions. That's my take on his words, but you can interpret it any which way you like. I mean "sweet spot" or not I got better performance with 4x16GB at the same settings. Feel free to ask Wendell what he meant by it though doesn't phase me a bit. The OS itself will actually make use of more memory if you install more memory for the record which is another consideration. The other part of the equation is 2x16GB could have better stability than 4x16GB so that's a factor in the "sweet spot" consideration and perticularly true depending on the motherboard and I suppose CPU in question.




yeah in the video steve says wendell will have more tests up next week.  so we will see


----------



## Mussels (Nov 8, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> well crap... now i have to buy two more sticks of ram lmao
> 
> so would my 32gb 2x16gb already be considered 4 ranks? so i dont need 2 extra sticks for this performance bump?



Use CPU-Z to find out




This is why we need the 2/4/8 ranks comparison to know what gives best performance... this is new hardware, so we dont know yet


----------



## InVasMani (Nov 8, 2020)

lynx29 said:


> yeah in the video steve says wendell will have more tests up next week.  so we will see


 Can't speak for how it works with Ryzen, but I'd expect fairly similar if I had to wager a guess especially given Skylake is quite old relative to Zen 3.


----------



## Megas (Nov 8, 2020)

The games used in the benchmarks, which are CPU vs. GPU dependent games?


----------



## Searing (Nov 9, 2020)

TheUn4seen said:


> Well, yes, but really no. In games it trades blows with 10700 non-K, with fairly similar power draw. It's better than some older CPUs, but not really worth the hassle and cost of changing the whole platform.
> So yes, AMD is in the lead, I'm not disputing that, but the difference is not earth shattering and certainly not worth changing the platform for anyone who has a modern or even a semi-modern CPU.
> The CPU matters mostly at 1080p and below. I don't remember when was the last time I played a game at such lousy resolution.
> Yes, I know there are people still using Sandy Bridge and 768p screens. But even for them investing in a better GPU would bring a bigger performance increase.



No, Techspot has it beating the 10700k. The 5900X is beating the 10900k.

"For testing the AMD CPUs we're using the MSI X570 Godlike with four 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 CL14 memory modules for a 32GB capacity and then cooling all test systems is the Corsair iCUE H150i Elite Capellix AIO." ................   so 4 sticks of ram might be the difference.

Also the power draw shown in Gamer's Nexus's review is the opposite of what you said. "with fairly similar power draw" is a load of nonsense. Confirmation bias here? Go watch Hardware Unboxed and Gamer's Nexus's reviews and then come back here. No one is asking you to change your platform. Do what you want. Intel buyers have been spending 100's of dollars and changing their platforms for 5 percent performance. Gamer's Nexus called the 5000 series the "largest generational improvement ever seen".

You pretended to respond to my comment and didn't respond to my comment, so I'll just repeat it: "We can see some huge massive increases all over the place. Horizon and Death Stranding, Counter Strike, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Hitman, Star Wars Squadrons, Serious Sam. Also the best power draw comparison ever. 67W beating Intel's 218W OC in gaming performance."


----------



## sepheronx (Nov 9, 2020)

just to use as reference, here is the techspot article.









						AMD Ryzen 7 5800X Review
					

Having reviewed Ryzen 5000 12-core and 16-core models, today we're testing the Ryzen 7 5800X, AMD's latest 8-core CPU. So far we've been impressed by the Ryzen...




					www.techspot.com
				






> Now, if we average the gaming performance seen across all our game sample, we find that the 5800X is roughly on par with the 10900K and for the most part isn’t much slower than the 5900X and 5950X. It also comes out 6% ahead of the Core i7-10700K and 23% ahead of the older 3700X.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Nov 9, 2020)

TheUn4seen said:


> It's a good CPU, but some people want to see it as a be-all-end-all of CPUs. For games it's fine, but whatever. Any CPU from 8600k upwards will suffice, and if you play at 1440/2160 it really doesn't matter, 6700k will get you within 3% of the performance, so spend your money on a GPU. For me personally. the lack of any iGPU is a show stopper - in a gaming PC I rarely need it, but when I do, i REALLY do, and in a work PC I don't want a dedicated GPU, I much prefer a low power, slim and silent machine.
> 
> Where this generation really shines seems to be the productivity oriented high end with the 5900X/5950X.





Searing said:


> That's just not true. We can see some huge massive increases all over the place. Horizon and Death Stranding, Counter Strike, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Hitman, Star Wars Squadrons, Serious Sam. Also the best power draw comparison ever. 67W beating Intel's 218W OC in gaming performance.
> 
> Check out the massive wins on Gamer's Nexus's reviews. Civ 6 for example. I'm not happy with the price of course, but AMD is in the lead, and the lead grows at 720p showing good future scaling.





TheUn4seen said:


> Well, yes, but really no. In games it trades blows with 10700 non-K, with fairly similar power draw. It's better than some older CPUs, but not really worth the hassle and cost of changing the whole platform.
> So yes, AMD is in the lead, I'm not disputing that, but the difference is not earth shattering and certainly not worth changing the platform for anyone who has a modern or even a semi-modern CPU.
> The CPU matters mostly at 1080p and below. I don't remember when was the last time I played a game at such lousy resolution.
> Yes, I know there are people still using Sandy Bridge and 768p screens. But even for them investing in a better GPU would bring a bigger performance increase.





Searing said:


> No, Techspot has it beating the 10700k. The 5900X is beating the 10900k.
> 
> "For testing the AMD CPUs we're using the MSI X570 Godlike with four 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 CL14 memory modules for a 32GB capacity and then cooling all test systems is the Corsair iCUE H150i Elite Capellix AIO." ................   so 4 sticks of ram might be the difference.
> 
> ...



If you're going to call someone out for not responding in kind, make sure you're not doing the same thing yourself.  Here at TPU, the 10700 is ahead of the 5600X in games at 1080p and above, while the 5600X wins in the non-gaming benchmark aggregate.  Techspot doesn't list the 10700 in it's 5600X review charts, though you're correct that the 5600X consistently comes out on top there.  _Just._  All of that is at stock clocks.  TPU's power consumption charts put the 5600X and 10700 within 11W of each other in all tests.

SO:  There _are _massive increases in performance relative to AMD's previous generations of processors.  The 5600X is an excellent value at its MSRP and 15-25% faster than its predecessors (an unheard of leap in probably a decade or more), and competes with more expensive Intel parts at lower power draw.  TheUn4seen may have constructed a straw man, but they also tore him down successfully:  A 5600X _won't_ be a meaningful upgrade to a 6-core+ Coffee Lake or later chip in gaming terms.  But yeah, if I were shopping for a ~$300 CPU, I'd absolutely go with the 5600X.  Of course, none of this matters when the 5600X is out of stock or listing for $100-200 over MSRP (at time of post).


----------



## Megas (Nov 9, 2020)

Do you guys play a lot of CPU dependent games cause in GPU dependent games the 3600+ really doesn't make a lot of difference. This fellow has some benchmarks that aren't just Death Stranding and Tomb Raider, etc.  







 Games like Apex, MW, etc.


----------



## sepheronx (Nov 9, 2020)

Games are mostly GPU dependent.  In 1440p and higher, the difference diminishes greatly.  If one has a Ryzen 2000 series or Intel 8000 series and higher, I don't see the need to upgrade yet.

All that depends though on the whole PCIe 4.0 and the NVME.  Future games may take advantage of NVME pcie 4.0 with how consoles plan to stream textures via the nvme.

But that is a wait and see.


----------



## seth1911 (Nov 9, 2020)

kmetek said:


> 299$ USA
> 
> around 400€ here.


the funny Thing is , if i wanna buy a PC with an APU:
3000G, 3200G, 3400G, or Renoir, arent on Stock here for max. MSRP

Same with the new 5600X, 5800X, 5900X, 5950X


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 9, 2020)

Here's why the 10700 vs 5600X comparison is a tough one - this shows a power unlocked and a power unlocked + BCLK 10700 on the right, and 5600X on the left, average of the CPU tests. 

Look deeper into the CPU tests and you'll find the 5600X mostly wins on web browser and MS Office tasks.  It's losing to the 10700 on other productivity benchmarks - due entirely to the additional cores on the 10700.  I'm not sure what I think of that, those (web/office) used to be Intel strongholds but its undeniable Zen 3 has much higher single thread IPC. 

Nevertheless, the 10700 can and does win at both games and productivity overall - *if* you power unlock it so that it doesn't turbo down :


----------



## mahoney (Nov 10, 2020)

Mussels said:


> that's... new


Nope has been a thing for a long time
if you populate 4 ram slots for example 4x4gb vs 2x8gb -> 4x4gb will always be faster








Sadly Steve only just discovered hot water


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 10, 2020)

mahoney said:


> Nope has been a thing for a long time
> if you populate 4 ram slots for example 4x4gb vs 2x8gb -> 4x4gb will always be faster



Can't you do 2x double rank DIMMS as well, I thought this was why a lot of AMD folks favored Corsair LPX (If I recall correctly, haven't looked it up)?


----------



## TheUn4seen (Nov 10, 2020)

Searing said:


> No, Techspot has it beating the 10700k. The 5900X is beating the 10900k.
> 
> "For testing the AMD CPUs we're using the MSI X570 Godlike with four 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 CL14 memory modules for a 32GB capacity and then cooling all test systems is the Corsair iCUE H150i Elite Capellix AIO." ................   so 4 sticks of ram might be the difference.
> 
> ...


I'm referring to the TPU results, I honestly have better things to do with my time than browsing dozens of reviews on the Internet merely for a CPU.
And here we go: Power draw of the 10700 is just 8W higher (for the whole system), while the relative performance in all tests is 7% lower for productivity and about 3% higher for gaming in 1440p and above. I would call those CPUs essentially the same for any home user.
Yes, this is a great generational improvement, but certainly not the best CPU for gaming. Also, where I live, shops list availability as "probably January", while the 10700 is available right now for just 7% more money. As a sidenote, my "old and useless" 9700k is 0.5% slower in games on stock. Which goes to show how little do CPUs mean for gaming nowadays.
Also, because of the "2 DIMM vs 4 DIMM performance hit", mini-ITX platforms are far less appealing, which makes AMD useless for me personally.


----------



## EzioAs (Nov 10, 2020)

TheUn4seen said:


> As a sidenote, my "old and useless" 9700k is 0.5% slower in games on stock.



Who in their right mind would call the 9700K old and useless (at the time of this post)?


----------



## Caring1 (Nov 10, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Can't you do 2x double rank DIMMS as well, I thought this was why a lot of AMD folks favored Corsair LPX (If I recall correctly, haven't looked it up)?


You're trolling right?
AMD Newbies might buy them because they are cheap, but there has been multiple threads asking for help due to that Ram.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 10, 2020)

Half the trouble i know of with ryzen and ram was with LPX, it was known to cause a lot of issues
The newer stuff isnt so bad, but the early stuff was a guaranteed waste of money


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 10, 2020)

Dual rank vs single rank seems like affects any system, but only in specific scenarios.    I couldn't recall about the Corsair, turns out it is (mostly) single rank.


__
		https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/7vy2zs

And from this article which was done on a Z370 Intel test system :









						Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4-4600 Review
					

Performance enthusiast are always looking for a way to go faster, and Corsair obliges with its CMK16GX4M2F4600C19 dual-channel memory kit. We test it!




					www.tomshardware.com
				




"Get ready for a big surprise! Our analysis of dual-rank DIMMs showed that Intel’s mainstream platforms work best with at least four ranks employed, and that getting there required either four single-rank or two dual-rank DIMMs. "


----------



## Mussels (Nov 10, 2020)

oh damnit now i have a reason to buy new RAM...


----------



## Whitestar (Nov 10, 2020)

Steven from Hardware Unboxed said something very interesting regarding 8-core vs 6-core for gaming:
"_AMD’s really competing with themselves: if you want maximum value, get the R5 3600, if you want maximum performance, get the 5600X and that leaves no room for Intel’s Core i5-10600K.
[...]
Speaking of gaming performance, you’re no doubt going to hear nonsense such as "the Ryzen 5 5600X is a poor choice for gamers as it only has 6 cores," and they’ll probably try and prove that by pointing to the new consoles which feature eight Zen 2 cores.
[...]
Some people also like to confuse how games and cores work. Making statements like games will require 8 cores or something to that effect. Games don’t require a certain number of cores, they never have and they never will. Games require a certain level of CPU performance, it’s really that simple.
[...]
But what about the 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 5600X, how will it age? Our guess is extremely well as the massive IPC increase offered by the new Zen 3 architecture means the 5600X is comparable to previous generation 8-core processors such as the 3700X and 10700K, or the Zen 2 parts used in the next gen consoles, and no one expects those processors to become obsolete any time soon._"



TheUn4seen said:


> I'm referring to the TPU results, I honestly have better things to do with my time than browsing dozens of reviews on the Internet merely for a CPU.


Sure, but then you're confining yourself to this bubble, as a number of other major sites (including Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus, Linus and AnandTech) are reporting very different results.


----------



## Megas (Nov 10, 2020)

Whitestar said:


> Sure, but then you're confining yourself to this bubble, as a number of other major sites (including Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus, Linus and AnandTech) are reporting very different results.



What do you want CPU benchmarks that actually feature GPU dependent games so that this gives you a much better sense of reality? Isn't everyone is playing SOTR?


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 10, 2020)

Whitestar said:


> Steven from Hardware Unboxed said something very interesting regarding 8-core vs 6-core for gaming:
> "_AMD’s really competing with themselves: if you want maximum value, get the R5 3600, if you want maximum performance, get the 5600X and that leaves no room for Intel’s Core i5-10600K.
> [...]
> Speaking of gaming performance, you’re no doubt going to hear nonsense such as "the Ryzen 5 5600X is a poor choice for gamers as it only has 6 cores," and they’ll probably try and prove that by pointing to the new consoles which feature eight Zen 2 cores.
> ...



6c12t will be relevant for a loong time. The 5600X is now the gaming perf/dollar champion. Not the bang/buck champion. But there is simply no reason to go bigger for a gaming CPU. It is however easily possible to go a bit smaller to cheaper 6c12t alternatives. Depends on what you're targeting really...

Much like the i7 quads with HT of yesteryear, these will last a while.
I just read the review on Anandtech and they had to drop to 480p or 600p to highlight the performance gap in gaming loads.
But, as CPU loads increase, and they will with a new console gen (Zen based...), you will be seeing that back on higher resolution as well. You will also be seeing it in real-life scenarios that have peak CPU loads, and don't readily show up in benchmarks or canned runs.

Core count is not relevant for the foreseeable future. 12 threads is enough and recent games use SMT. Its an exact copy of the quad core Intel era: a major IPC uplift can carry gaming forward for years. For gaming loads, diminishing returns kick in bigtime for every CPU that trades clockspeed for core count - so pretty much all of them.



Megas said:


> What do you want CPU benchmarks that actually feature GPU dependent games so that this gives you a much better sense of reality? Isn't everyone is playing SOTR?



What you want is CPU benchmarks that provide maximum _perspective _but also _insight._ Those low res tests are a sneak peek into the near future of a CPU for gaming loads, as you can go through multiple GPU upgrades on the same CPU. Todays' scientific result is tomorrow's reality.


----------



## heflys20 (Nov 11, 2020)

Likely pick one these up when things settle down a bit.


----------



## Solid State Soul ( SSS ) (Nov 12, 2020)

At 180$, the 10400 is a better value for gaming imo.


----------



## tancabean (Nov 12, 2020)

Vayra86 said:


> For gaming loads, diminishing returns kick in bigtime for every CPU that trades clockspeed for core count - so pretty much all of them.



Is that true though? Both AMD’s and Intel’s flagships have more cores and higher peak boost clocks on lightly threaded workloads.


----------



## Vayra86 (Nov 12, 2020)

tancabean said:


> Is that true though? Both AMD’s and Intel’s flagships have more cores and higher peak boost clocks on *lightly threaded workloads*.



The latter is key. CPU clocking is moving forward too, but they still cannot beat physics. The bottom line is power budget. Higher core count CPUs tend to also be better bins, we see that with Ryzen now for example and its how they get around that issue, utilizing smart boost algorithms to extract maximum performance at all times. But they're still power limited, so the closer a game gets to maximum load on multiple threads, those clocks will drop.

Its just that, as it is now, the entire top half of the CPU stack is capable of blazing through everything, the bottleneck is nearly always on the GPU if you have a sufficient core count.


----------



## Harbear (Nov 13, 2020)

Hi guys, I am deciding between 3600 vs. 5600x for my new system (coming from Laptops and I just couldn't take the slowness and throttling issues anymore...).

The results from Techpowerup looks really different than many of the reviewers I saw. Just looking at 1080p gaming perform ace, there is only 8% differences between the 3600 vs. 5600x. This is significantly lower compared to other reviewers, which typically sees 20% difference. 

In particular, for Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 1080p, the performance is exactly the same between the two chips here, but on other sites/YouTube, I am seeing much bigger difference.












						AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Review: 6-Core Gaming Beast
					

It's time we finally check out the Ryzen 5 5600X, the most affordable Ryzen 5000 series processor announced to date. Positioned as a mainstream part, it's coming...




					www.techspot.com
				





Could someone please let me know what I am missing?


Also, it would be really great in the future to do benchmarking on eSports titles as well (e.g. CSGO and Valorant) with in-game plays. I know it's harder to control but for it's quite important in FPS games to chase higher FPS, and we are seeing Ryzen 5000s delivering very interesting results!


----------



## HTC (Nov 13, 2020)

Harbear said:


> The results from Techpowerup looks really different than many of the reviewers I saw. Just looking at 1080p gaming perform ace, there is only 8% differences between the 3600 vs. 5600x. This is significantly lower compared to other reviewers, which typically sees 20% difference.
> 
> *Could someone please let me know what I am missing?*
> 
> ...



Have a look here: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/how-is-intel-beating-amd-zen-3-ryzen-in-gaming.274406


----------



## Mussels (Nov 13, 2020)

new testing, turns out the 2080ti favours intel for some reason


----------



## PooPipeBoy (Nov 13, 2020)

Harbear said:


> Hi guys, I am deciding between 3600 vs. 5600x for my new system (coming from Laptops and I just couldn't take the slowness and throttling issues anymore...).
> 
> The results from Techpowerup looks really different than many of the reviewers I saw. Just looking at 1080p gaming perform ace, there is only 8% differences between the 3600 vs. 5600x. This is significantly lower compared to other reviewers, which typically sees 20% difference.
> 
> ...



If ten sources show a 20% gain and one source shows 8%, then you can reasonably expect a 20% difference in most cases. Pretty straightforward.

I always recommend aiming for the best possible processor you can afford. You get more performance right now and delay the next upgrade for an extra year or two. I will always vote 5600X instead of 3600, but I'm not you and so it's just my suggestion.


----------



## Harbear (Nov 13, 2020)

Thanks very much for the reply everyone @HTC ,@Mussels , @PooPipeBoy .

I did see the new article on the Intel vs Ryzen but they didn't explicitly compare with the older Ryzen so I wasn't sure if that is the root cause. It definitely is something I did not expected and would love to see how this develops.

@PooPipeBoy I think I trust Wizz's reviews over a lot of other ones, but given the significant differences I wanted to make sure it is not anything obvious I was missing.

To be honest, if it's only 10% difference I would go for the 3600 given its availability and price; but if it's 20% uplift + eSports title improvements I am seeing (which I am honestly a little bit skeptical) + Memory Sharing tech. with RX 6000s, then I am seriously considering the 5600x.

It is just annoying that supply won't ramp up for a few weeks so there are uncertainties.


----------



## 80-watt Hamster (Nov 13, 2020)

Harbear said:


> Thanks very much for the reply everyone @HTC ,@Mussels , @PooPipeBoy .
> 
> I did see the new article on the Intel vs Ryzen but they didn't explicitly compare with the older Ryzen so I wasn't sure if that is the root cause. It definitely is something I did not expected and would love to see how this develops.
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that CPU benchmarking is typically performed with some of the fastest graphics cards available, typically RTX 3090 for 5600X testing.  Those 20% deltas won't be nearly as large with lower-performing cards.  If you're pairing it with a mid-range GPU, you may not see the gains.

It's pretty academic, though, in regard to the 3600 at the moment.  You can't get that (in the US), either.  3600X and -XT are available @ ~240USD, and grabbing a 5600X vs. those at $300 would be almost a no-brainer.  Against a 3600 for $200 (if you could get either @ MSRP)?  That's a tougher call to make.


----------



## Harbear (Nov 13, 2020)

80-watt Hamster said:


> Keep in mind that CPU benchmarking is typically performed with some of the fastest graphics cards available, typically RTX 3090 for 5600X testing.  Those 20% deltas won't be nearly as large with lower-performing cards.  If you're pairing it with a mid-range GPU, you may not see the gains.
> 
> It's pretty academic, though, in regard to the 3600 at the moment.  You can't get that (in the US), either.  3600X and -XT are available @ ~240USD, and grabbing a 5600X vs. those at $300 would be almost a no-brainer.  Against a 3600 for $200 (if you could get either @ MSRP)?  That's a tougher call to make.



I am in the UK at the moment so I can get the 3600. So yeah, it's $200 vs $300 basically XD


----------



## Footman (Nov 27, 2020)

Interesting.  Microcenter has the 5800x in stock today at $299. But they also have the 3700k at $269. With additional $20 off if you buy motherboard.  $249 for 3700k sounds like a sweet deal.


----------



## seth1911 (Nov 27, 2020)

Yesterday a Shop in Austria had the 4750G for 220 Euro


----------



## tussinman (Nov 28, 2020)

Solid State Soul ( SSS ) said:


> At 180$, the 10400 is a better value for gaming imo.


 Microcenter down the street from me sells it for $150. For 1440/4k gaming it's a damn good chip, especially for the price. My 3770k sells for over 100 dollars used so i'm kinda tempted to just sell it and switch


----------



## Techguy89 (Nov 29, 2020)

tussinman said:


> Microcenter down the street from me sells it for $150. For 1440/4k gaming it's a damn good chip, especially for the price. My 3770k sells for over 100 dollars used so i'm kinda tempted to just sell it and switch


Yeah that actually seems like a very logical thing to do in your situation. Might even be beneficial to get a budget z490 motherboard that is PCIe 4.0 ready (I know the MSI z490 boards are) so if we see a large performance increase in Rocket lake s, you’ll be more future proofed.


----------



## Sunny and 75 (Dec 19, 2020)

CPU of the year!


----------



## Splinterdog (Feb 17, 2021)

My next upgrade


----------



## HD64G (Feb 17, 2021)




----------



## dirtyferret (Feb 17, 2021)

HD64G said:


>


yes techspot has the written version of his tests, very interesting although hardly shocking results


----------



## HD64G (Feb 17, 2021)

Point is, whoever upgrades now and will go for top of the line GPU in the next 1-2 years will better buy Zen3 if he won't game on a 4K monitor. For anyone else, Zen2 is more than enough.


----------

