# AMD Ryzen 9 5900X



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

The Ryzen 9 5900X dominates Intel's Core i9-10900K in our testing because of AMD's massive IPC improvements. At $550, this processor is certainly not cheap, but it offers so much more performance, especially single-threaded, that AMD has a clear winner on their hands.

*Show full review*


----------



## LocutusH (Nov 5, 2020)

Didnt they say, that it will outperform 10900K in games too?

This seems like just another AMD launch, where the reality is completely different than the promises.


----------



## boomheadshot8 (Nov 5, 2020)

Outperform,  yes but not in all game ; and benchmark differ if you try 10x or 100x or 1000x


----------



## Patuga (Nov 5, 2020)

Thank you for the review @W1zzard 
yup... still not as fast as intel in games


----------



## phill (Nov 5, 2020)

What a review, massive thanks @W1zzard for the work put into this...  I'm seriously excited to see what the 5950X is like....


----------



## THANATOS (Nov 5, 2020)

Thanks for the review.


----------



## Dobermann (Nov 5, 2020)

Thanks for so detailed review!


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

https://www.kitguru.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Game-SotTR-1080p.png


----------



## Frick (Nov 5, 2020)

Patuga said:


> Thank you for the review @W1zzard
> yup... still not as fast as intel in games



Dunno, others have reached the conclusion that AMD is now top dog.


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)




----------



## Nkd (Nov 5, 2020)

Pro Huge IPC Gains.

con:

Multi-CCD design costs some performance

Its like you didn't have enough Cons so had to make one up haha.


----------



## KarymidoN (Nov 5, 2020)

the performance seems kinda low... other reviwers reached better numbers, maybe worst samples were sent to germany?


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 5, 2020)

i see the ryzen 5600 offering 10700k (stock) performance in your review as well.  Fairly impressive


----------



## Rus4kova (Nov 5, 2020)

How come your gaming scores are so much lower than everyone else ?


----------



## dicktracy (Nov 5, 2020)

It's not an upgrade to Intel users lol.


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

*If someone wants to order CPUs but ran into out of stock problems: I have no idea if you can order it outside of Hungary, but all 4 models are shippable tomorrow at Alza. All have 5+ in stock


All 4 are offering Far Cry 6 with the purchase. Even the 5600X.*



dicktracy said:


> It's not an upgrade to Intel users lol.


Really funny guy you are.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

Rus4kova said:


> How come your gaming scores are so much lower than everyone else ?


I wish I knew, mentioned in the conclusion


----------



## Frick (Nov 5, 2020)

BTW, can we please get a single thread for these releases?


----------



## Camm (Nov 5, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> the performance seems kinda low



Yeah I'm not sure but other reviewers seem to be getting better numbers. I did see mentioned that 3200 rather than 3600 memory was used, but I'm not going to hold it against TPU since its officially rated for 3200. Still, best platform in X570, more power efficient, better in pretty well much everything outside of gaming, and mostly equal in gaming. Can't get much better than that.


----------



## KarymidoN (Nov 5, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> I wish I knew, mentioned in the conclusion




__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1324351004989640706
impressive


----------



## kardeon (Nov 5, 2020)

CS-GO and valorant 130/180 more fps for ryzen at 1080p and so on...

you have choosen the right games to keep intel on top. Nice try. you are in total control damage


----------



## SystemMechanic (Nov 5, 2020)

Why use 2080Ti .. common.,..


----------



## spnidel (Nov 5, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> It's not an upgrade to Intel users lol.


every time amd wins anywhere you shill like crazy and move goalposts
how much are you paid per post? do you do it for free?


----------



## SLK (Nov 5, 2020)

Wizzard are u using a 2080Ti for this review?



W1zzard said:


> I wish I knew, mentioned in the conclusion



You should use a 3090 to eliminate any GPU bottleneck if it does exists. Perhaps that's why yr scores are different.


----------



## ahenriquedsj (Nov 5, 2020)

In competitive games it is a massacre.


----------



## KarymidoN (Nov 5, 2020)

SLK said:


> Wizzard are u using a 2080Ti for this review?
> 
> 
> 
> You should use a 3090 to eliminate any GPU bottleneck if it does exists. Perhaps that's why yr scores are different.






Page 5.


----------



## X71200 (Nov 5, 2020)

Well well... what can we sum up here? Crushing, absolutely demolishing for Windows usage. Gaming reaching there of Intel too. Price might not be as much to write home about.

5/5 sick CPU. LOL.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 5, 2020)

Perhaps 3600 memory or faster would improve the last few percent of gaming scores. Plus another feature has yet to be tried, where the CPU can use the Vmem....


But I know 3 of these will be used in builds I have ready to be ordered today.


----------



## Selaya (Nov 5, 2020)

Memory/FCLK scaling bottleneck.
At a modest 1,600 FCLK these results are to be expected. AMD benched at 1,800 for their previews, and rumors suggest Vermeers can run FCLK up to 2,000 - with 4000 Memory and FCLK at 2,000 on 1:1 mode the Vermeer's dominance at gaming should probably be ... comprehensive.


----------



## ViperXTR (Nov 5, 2020)




----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

kardeon said:


> CS-GO and valorant 130/180 more fps for ryzen at 1080p and so on...
> 
> you have choosen the right games to keep intel on top. Nice try. you are in total control damage


I used the same games I have used for years in CPU reviews. I'm not cherry picking any games



Selaya said:


> Memory/FCLK scaling bottleneck.
> At a modest 1,600 FCLK these results are to be expected. AMD benched at 1,800 for their previews, and rumors suggest Vermeers can run FCLK up to 2,000 - with 4000 Memory and FCLK at 2,000 on 1:1 mode the Vermeer's dominance at gaming should probably be ... comprehensive.


Will test memory scaling and IF scaling next week, then we'll know more


----------



## okbuddy (Nov 5, 2020)

why you guys skipped the 5950x like skipped the 3950x, no enough cooler?


----------



## dirtyferret (Nov 5, 2020)

he's not the only one using the 2080ti, I see it on a number of sites including toms, anandtech, pcgamer, and techspot _"Finally, please note for all the productivity testing we’re using the GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, but for the gaming benchmarks we’ve gone back and updated all our numbers with the RTX 3090 and added some new games in the process"_

@W1zzard did you get these Ryzen CPUs prior to the RTX 3090 or was there driver issues AMD wanted to avoid?


----------



## sergionography (Nov 5, 2020)

With AMD highly recommending using higher end memory I suggest testing higher clocked dimms and see what that does to performance, especially gaming. Zen in general is very memory sensitive so low latency high speed ram will go a long way


----------



## 天下无糖 (Nov 5, 2020)

All review place,but only techpowerup is showing Zen3 weaker than INTEL. HOW MUCH INTEL PAID YOU TO GET THIS RESULT??


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

okbuddy said:


> why you guys skipped the 5950x like skipped the 3950x, no enough cooler?


AMD sent the 5950X so that it arrived today



dirtyferret said:


> did you get these Ryzen CPUs prior to the RTX 3090 or was there driver issues AMD wanted to avoid?


After 3090, but not enough time to retest all comparison CPUs



sergionography said:


> With AMD highly recommending using higher end memory I suggest


Don't really care about what AMD recommends. I feel like 3200 CL14 is a great compromise between cost, performance and what's realistic for actual people who go out and buy hardware. I don't bench Intel with Power Limit removed, just because Intel wants it. Working on a memory scaling article for next week already


----------



## dicktracy (Nov 5, 2020)

On some sites it is slightly faster than Skylake, and how did AMD celebrate this? By charging $450 for 8 cores and $300 for 6 cores in 2020. The irony is very real.


----------



## erek (Nov 5, 2020)

That 4K gaming vs Intel isn't very promising.  First thing i noticed!


----------



## cueman (Nov 5, 2020)

well well
i cant really.. see anything update zen2.

still behind 10900 gaming..and  i dont even check cinbench or so theory score.

alot hype and ,but must say, results is level zero.

lets wait now intel rocket lake-s,intel answer,coming march 2021...few month.

but, big bang is intel 1st 10nm cpu,also 1st of kind and,its hybrid cpu, adler lake, june/2021

new age cpu performance!


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 5, 2020)

Wow, this CPU is a beast. I am quite disappointed in the gaming performance. If IPC is that much better and clocks are in the ball park... I figured it would be faster than Intel not trading punches.



Frick said:


> BTW, can we please get a single thread for these releases?


That wouldn't draw as many hits. Hits > organization. 

Please stop testing 720p for CPUs and magnifying the performance difference that doesn't scale past that resolution. If you're rocking a 720p monitor, you aren't buying the latest gen CPU either.


----------



## Krzych (Nov 5, 2020)

Nothing surprising for anyone with realistic expectations, but this is another release that brings nothing significant to gaming. It is really getting annoying, for how many years can performance be stagnant... Hopefully Alder Lake is significantly ahead of Rocket Lake, it is the only thing left that looks promising.


----------



## X71200 (Nov 5, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> On some sites it is slightly faster than Skylake, and how did AMD celebrate this? By charging $450 for 8 cores and $300 for 6 cores in 2020. The irony is very real.



While higher memory and running Infinity Fabric to at least 1800+ does help significantly, there is also an irony here with people thinking 2 more or less FPS changes their whole gaming experience compared to a much inferior CPU in every other way. This was already for the most part true with Matisse, and has become better with Vermeer.

AMD are already celebrating because they completely realize people do not want 350W 10 core space heaters. The stocks are being scalped and AMD Robert is, well... probably soloing his harmonica. Let's go Robert..!


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

KarymidoN said:


> View attachment 174497
> Page 5.



The problem of course is going to be comparable performance vs already benched chips like the Intel 10th Gen and Zen 2, so it would be a lot of work.  Basically have to re-bench most of what was released in the last 18 months, so like 5x more work than just benching the Zen 3 using the standard test bed.   I do agree it would be more relevant.

Having said that, the 720P benchmarks with a 2080Ti are probably representative of max performance with little or no GPU limiting factors.  

Compared to the 10700K  -  the results aren't much different with only 1% fps gain from a 5800X or 5900X and essentially a tie with a 5600X in games.  The 10700K actually beats the 5600X on CPU tests (moar cores, higher freq).   
I thought the 5600X would be a winner here, but IMO the 10700K is a much better deal as it generally outperforms it and has much more OC headroom (you can easily get another 5% out of the 10700K, widening that gap).  It can also benefit from higher speed memory, as most Intel chips can.  

That said, the 5800X / 5900X are clear winners in overall performance at the high end.  If one is looking for a $500ish CPU right now for a new build, these two seem to be the clear front runners.  The 10850K and 10900K just can't compete at their current prices.

Final statement:  Rocket Lake is probably going to destroy this, Zen 3 is too close to Gen 10 performance.


----------



## RMX (Nov 5, 2020)

Awesome showing from AMD!
Wasn't AGESA 1.1.0.0 released for optimal performance on Ryzen 5000 Series? Noticed other sites, which are showing higher scores, that they are using different BIOS versions for the boards they tested with.


----------



## medi01 (Nov 5, 2020)

TPU results contrast with conclusions by computerbase.de (ran on 3080 not 2080Ti... cause why not use the fastest GPU you have to test your CPU, cough):


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 5, 2020)

medi01 said:


> TPU results contrast with conclusions by computerbase.de :


You don't say? Do you realize that it is a different set of games between the two? 

Also, a link would be helpful... the image without any context and in a different language doesn't do much for most people.


----------



## okbuddy (Nov 5, 2020)

red beats blue

but in real life blue beats red, the guy lost


----------



## medi01 (Nov 5, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> On some sites it is slightly faster than Skylake



Yeah.


----------



## dicktracy (Nov 5, 2020)

X71200 said:


> While higher memory and running Infinity Fabric to at least 1800+ does help significantly, there is also an irony here with people thinking 2 more or less FPS changes their whole gaming experience compared to a much inferior CPU in every other way. This was already for the most part true with Matisse, and has become better with Vermeer.
> 
> AMD are already celebrating because they completely realize people do not want 350W 10 core space heaters. The stocks are being scalped and AMD Robert is, well... probably soloing his harmonica. Let's go Robert..!


Thing is, AMD is practically acting like Intel and Nvidia with their new prices. $450 for 8 cores, $300 for 6 cores, $4000 for HEDT, $1000 for flagship GPU, all of which their loyal foot soldiers were rioting about. The tables have turned. RIP AMD fans.


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

To everyone saying "Gaming king?" or "Intel is still better", check the Zen 3 launch video. *Stephen Burke **(and others who analyzed the launch stream) said that it was tested across all platforms with 3600 MHz memories.*




dicktracy said:


> It's not an upgrade to Intel users lol.





okbuddy said:


> why you guys skipped the 5950x like skipped the 3950x, no enough cooler?


Maybe Wizzard is doing it later.


----------



## X71200 (Nov 5, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> Thing is, AMD is practically acting like Intel and Nvidia with their new prices. $450 for 8 cores, $300 for 6 cores, $4000 for HEDT, $1000 for flagship GPU, all of which their loyal foot soldiers were rioting about. The tables have turned. RIP AMD fans.



It's not just with AMD though, most things are more expensive nowadays. Like PSUs, etc. Yes, they have increased their price a noticeable amount, but the product has also improved in other ways. Intel? I had a 7800X, 7820X and a 7900X. They were mostly hot and expensive. The new CPUs are still hot and expensive. The architecture has moved in baby steps on that front. You could meme about this all day honestly.


----------



## RedelZaVedno (Nov 5, 2020)

There's something wrong with gaming benchmarks:









Tested on DDR4 3200Mhz 14CL, so no difference in ram specs. Maybe MB/bios difference?


----------



## robert3892 (Nov 5, 2020)

A great processor....that you can't buy as there is no stock


----------



## birdie (Nov 5, 2020)

X71200 said:


> It's not just with AMD though, most things are more expensive nowadays. Like PSUs, etc. Yes, they have increased their price a noticeable amount, but the product has also improved in other ways. Intel? I had a 7800X, 7820X and a 7900X. They were mostly hot and expensive. The new CPUs are still hot and expensive. The architecture has moved in baby steps on that front. You could meme about this all day honestly.



Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.

What's bad for Intel (charging top dollar) is absolutely OK for AMD because ... because AMD. We get it. Let's see if AMD keeps raising prices for the next Ryzen series (Zen 4/DDR5) and what new crappy excuses AMD fans will come up with.


----------



## Frick (Nov 5, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> That wouldn't draw as many hits. Hits > organization.



No I mean that the thread/comments would be merged, not the actual review articles. Dunno of possible.


----------



## TheDeeGee (Nov 5, 2020)

LocutusH said:


> Didnt they say, that it will outperform 10900K in games too?
> 
> This seems like just another AMD launch, where the reality is completely different than the promises.


It does in the tests on Guru3D.


----------



## X71200 (Nov 5, 2020)

birdie said:


> Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.
> 
> What's bad for Intel (charging top dollar) is absolutely OK for AMD because ... because AMD. We get it. Let's see if AMD keeps raising prices for the next Ryzen series (Zen 4/DDR5) and what new crappy excuses AMD fans will come up with.



You have to look at it from global market prices of PC components. The argument that the old CPUs cost less, looks less irrelevant in that case because old GPUs also costed less. They are charging you more, you can not change this fact. It is with regardless of which camp you support.

Maybe go back in time and look at Athlon based AMD products and how better they were compared to some Intel CPUs. Pretty sure you could find similar things there... and this is not a pro-AMD based comment at all.


----------



## Frick (Nov 5, 2020)

birdie said:


> Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.
> 
> What's bad for Intel (charging top dollar) is absolutely OK for AMD because ... because AMD. We get it. Let's see if AMD keeps raising prices for the next Ryzen series (Zen 4/DDR5) and what new crappy excuses AMD fans will come up with.



I don't think anyone has said that Intel overcharged their lower tier CPUs (or if they have, whatever) but that suddenly they could release what used to be $1000 parts at half price or whatever it is.


----------



## btarunr (Nov 5, 2020)

okbuddy said:


> why you guys skipped the 5950x like skipped the 3950x, no enough cooler?


If you bothered to read the conclusion, our 5950X review is hours away.


----------



## Alduin (Nov 5, 2020)

erek said:


> That 4K gaming vs Intel isn't very promising.  First thing i noticed!


Because it's GPU limited


----------



## SaLaDiN666 (Nov 5, 2020)

medi01 said:


> TPU results contrast with conclusions by computerbase.de (ran on 3080 not 2080Ti... cause why not use the fastest GPU you have to test your CPU, cough):
> 
> View attachment 174504



That site was testing Intel with 2666/2933mhz and AMD with 3600mhz or even higher, especially 3900x in their reviews in the past. Their reviews are pointless.


----------



## BorisDG (Nov 5, 2020)

Intel still king?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

SaLaDiN666 said:


> That site was testing Intel with 2666/2933mhz and AMD with 3600mhz or even higher, especially 3900x in their reviews in the past. Their reviews are pointless.



Honestly the way TPU does it is the only way.  The max JDEC standard for DDR4 is 3200, anything above that it out of standard for DDR.   You can use out of spec RAM on any system, and it would indeed be interesting, but 99% of PCs sold - mostly OEMs - will at most use DDR4-3200 because they will not want to go out of the standard and have to pay for the support involved.   

It's like a car dealer trying to sell a new Toyota but flashes the car ECU (computer) that hops its performance up another 10%.   Your engine blows and the dealer is on the hook for it 100%.  Don't do that and the manufacturer is the one who pays.  Nobody compares cars that way and no one should be comparing PCs that way without it being an article specifically on the effects of using OC RAM.


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

BorisDG said:


> Intel still king?


Not really.

"*Even the Ryzen 5600X, a CPU that costs $300 beat every single one of Intel CPUs more often than it lost, and where it did lose, it was within a few percentage points. These are all games that are traditionally CPU bound.*"


----------



## Selaya (Nov 5, 2020)

3200-C14 isn't JEDEC.
3200-C20/22/24 are.


----------



## X71200 (Nov 5, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> It's like a car dealer trying to sell a new Toyota but flashes the car ECU (computer) that hops its performance up another 10%.   Your engine blows and the dealer is on the hook for it 100%.  Don't do that and the manufacturer is the one who pays.  Nobody compares cars that way and no one should be comparing PCs that way without it being an article specifically on the effects of using OC RAM.



Not the best example as there are cars that are sold with this practice done on out of the factory today. Such as ABT tuned Audis. The engine isn't going to blow with a simple tune, in fact Toyota engines can take a ton of beating mostly. You can however say that, it impacts the turbocharger. Sometimes when they do that, they also toy with other things to compensate for it.

Moreover, OC'ing RAM has nowhere of a similar impact as a chip or tune has on a turbo. RAM has lifetime warranty, good RAM is mostly very reliable. They last a pretty long time without issues. The ICs in the "OC RAM" you spoke about, are already tuned to work at a specific frequency. That can be anything ranging from a high frequency such as 3800 to 4133. In that case, you're not running no JEDEC, but XMP or manual clocks. Custom builders mostly do not buy that kind of very cheap RAM, because faster RAM is only like 15 bucks more expensive. What you said is mostly just applicable for OEM companies such as Maingear, Dell, etc.


----------



## r9 (Nov 5, 2020)

I guess we'll have to keep waiting for the day where AMD will have the fastest gaming CPU.
I thought that gonna happen today but no dice. 
AMD does funny perf math.
Things like previous gen is only 5% slower than Intel in games and we are brining 25% improvement and we are still somehow 2% behind.


----------



## windwhirl (Nov 5, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Please stop testing 720p for CPUs and magnifying the performance difference that doesn't scale past that resolution. If you're rocking a 720p monitor, you aren't buying the latest gen CPU either.


Though it would be rare or more likely impossible to find an actual user of such high end CPU/GPU combination with a lowly 720p monitor, it is still interesting for the "academic" side of it, so to speak.


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

r9 said:


> I guess we'll have to keep waiting for the day where AMD will have the fastest gaming CPU.
> I thought that gonna happen today but no dice.
> AMD does funny perf math.
> Things like previous gen is only 5% slower than Intel in games and we are brining 25% improvement and we are still somehow 2% behind.


Just a quick tip: check other sites and YT channels too. 
"*Even the Ryzen 5600X, a CPU that costs $300 beat every single one of Intel CPUs more often than it lost, and where it did lose, it was within a few percentage points. These are all games that are traditionally CPU bound.*"


----------



## repman244 (Nov 5, 2020)

birdie said:


> Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.



They were not really "a lot faster" and most people who bought SB/Haswell didn't bother to upgrade for a long time due to low performance gain.

Of course the 2500k cost less than 920 - you're comparing two very different platforms - the comparison should be socket 1156 to socket 1155. The i7-920 can only be compared to 3820k on socket 2011.


----------



## laszlo (Nov 5, 2020)

just read this elsewhere and made my day ... ""AMD is gaming king!!! Intel is for poor people who can't afford AMD!!"


----------



## HenrySomeone (Nov 5, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> It's not an upgrade to Intel users lol.


Yup, just like those of us with realistic expectations were predicting - it still doesn't beat Intel in gaming; in the most popular resolution (and the one that makes most sense for benchmarks - 1080p), even the "lowly" 10700(f) which you can occasionally get for under 300$, is nearly 4% faster on average, which is honestly embarrassing considering their claims. I mean yeah, the performance is now finally close enough for most people, but the fact that you could get the same level at least three years back with 8700k (an to a certain extent or in other words, in games that don't use all that many threads, which are actually *still *the majority, even more than 5 years back with 6700k) combined with Ryzen now being more expensive (in some cases significantly so) does not bode well for a desktop launch at all...


----------



## hurakura (Nov 5, 2020)

Intel is dead in the water. They were doing fine when they were on Bridge, but once they dipped down to Lake they drowned.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 5, 2020)

windwhirl said:


> Though it would be rare or more likely impossible to find an actual user of such high end CPU/GPU combination with a lowly 720p monitor, it is still interesting for the "academic" side of it, so to speak.


AS a random data set, sure. As something that matters to anyone, not at all. It's blowing up a difference... but to what end? What does it really show us if it isn't applicable anywhere else?


----------



## BorisDG (Nov 5, 2020)

B-Real said:


> Not really.
> 
> "*Even the Ryzen 5600X, a CPU that costs $300 beat every single one of Intel CPUs more often than it lost, and where it did lose, it was within a few percentage points. These are all games that are traditionally CPU bound.*"


Looking at the gaming tests, 10900K is still in lead.


----------



## TheDeeGee (Nov 5, 2020)

Seems TPU has something going on with gaming tests.

I've watched 5 reviews so far and in all those AMD beats Intel.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

X71200 said:


> Not the best example as there are cars that are sold with this practice done on out of the factory today. Such as ABT tuned Audis. The engine isn't going to blow with a simple tune, in fact Toyota engines can take a ton of beating mostly. You can however say that, it impacts the turbocharger. Sometimes when they do that, they also toy with other things to compensate for it.



This by definition makes it 'tuned by the factory', not 'tuned by the dealer'.   The factory would be Intel, the dealer would be HP. There are specialty shops who sell systems OC'd, but you pay for it.  Intel will also sell you a heavily OC'd CPU (XE edition), but you also pay for that.  Like triple normal cost for that 10% gain.

You buy a specialty car, you also pay for that. 

But we're not talking about that, we're talking about normal CPUs at normal price points.  i.e. for a car it's the shadetree mechanic modder doing bolt-ons.  That's not at all the same thing as buying a say Shelby with a factory warranty.


----------



## Stimer111 (Nov 5, 2020)

Dear All,

Slow memory, please retest with 3600MHZ Trident Z memory for ryzen.
+2 percent in FPS will mena Intel is beaten and it is a big Thing.
With this 3200 memory it looks like bit old PC setup. and just 16GB ....even more
G.SKILL 32GB KIT DDR4 3600 MHz CL16 Trident Z RGB Neo for Ryzen 3000








						F4-3600C16D-32GTZNC - G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd.
					

Trident Z Neo DDR4-3600 CL16-19-19-39 1.35V 32GB (2x16GB) Engineered and optimized for full compatibility on the latest AMD Ryzen platforms, Trident Z Neo brings unparalleled DRAM memory performance and vibrant RGB lighting to any gaming PC or workstation with latest AMD Ryzen CPUs and AMD DDR4...




					www.gskill.com
				



thanks

Used drivers are super Old,
23. 4. 2019 —
Version: 430.39 WHQL
File Size: 537.48 MB
Release Date: 2019.4.23

GPU is old too, please test with new  3070,3080

A leaked slide allegedly from AMD suggests 4,000MHz RAM is the sweet spot for low latency and high performance.








						AMD Ryzen 5000 CPUs may run best with faster DDR4-4000 memory
					

A leaked slide allegedly from AMD suggests 4,000MHz RAM is the sweet spot for low latency and high performance.




					www.pcgamer.com
				






			https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hG8VMMHoY7Rw5vvFMB38Cf-970-80.png
		



G.SKILL International Enterprise Co., Ltd., is announcing new DDR4 memory specifications under the Trident Z Neo series, optimized for the new AMD Ryzen 5000 processors. Featuring ultra-high speeds of up to DDR4-4000 CL16-19-19-39 32 GB (16GBx2), extreme low latency at DDR4-3800 CL14-16-16-36 32 GB (16GBx2), and high-capacity kit at DDR4-4000 CL18-22-22-42 64 GB (32GBx2),  


Jan


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

BorisDG said:


> Looking at the gaming tests, 10900K is still in lead.


Really? In which gaming tests?


HenrySomeone said:


> Yup, just like those of us with realistic expectations were predicting - it still doesn't beat Intel in gaming; in the most popular resolution (and the one that makes most sense for benchmarks - 1080p), even the "lowly" 10700(f) which you can occasionally get for under 300$, is nearly 4% faster on average, which is honestly embarrassing considering their claims. I mean yeah, the performance is now finally close enough for most people, but the fact that you could get the same level at least three years back with 8700k (an to a certain extent or in other words, in games that don't use all that many threads, which are actually *still *the majority, even more than 5 years back with 6700k) combined with Ryzen now being more expensive (in some cases significantly so) does not bode well for a desktop launch at all...


Just for a quick tip: please check at least half a dozen reviews and then draw a conclusion.


----------



## r9 (Nov 5, 2020)

B-Real said:


> Just a quick tip: check other sites and YT channels too.
> "*Even the Ryzen 5600X, a CPU that costs $300 beat every single one of Intel CPUs more often than it lost, and where it did lose, it was within a few percentage points. These are all games that are traditionally CPU bound.*"


I can't be bothered with facts!


----------



## pantherx12 (Nov 5, 2020)

That's a lot of voltage on the over clocked tests. Yikes.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 5, 2020)

Now to decide if I want a 5800x or 5900x for my new build I am planning for Q1 2021


----------



## X71200 (Nov 5, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> This by definition makes it 'tuned by the factory', not 'tuned by the dealer'.   The factory would be Intel, the dealer would be HP. There are specialty shops who sell systems OC'd, but you pay for it.  Intel will also sell you a heavily OC'd CPU (XE edition), but you also pay for that.  Like triple normal cost for that 10% gain.
> 
> You buy a specialty car, you also pay for that.
> 
> But we're not talking about that, we're talking about normal CPUs at normal price points.  i.e. for a car it's the shadetree mechanic modder doing bolt-ons.  That's not at all the same thing as buying a say Shelby with a factory warranty.



Um what? Those XE HEDT chips you spoke about, come with WORSE clocks than the lower end counterparts due to how many cores they have. They overclock worse.

Your point was RAM, and you made a poor example of blowing up car engines by tuning them. You tune turbochargers, not naturally aspirated engines thinking sensibly. I'd expect you to understand this and make an example regarding hurting turbos because that's far more common than blowing up the engine itself when "ECU tuned".

You changed the topic from RAM to CPUs and you made more poor examples regarding old school CPUs I presume. Those were the XEs that overclocked better, but those chips are well beyond old now. I'd suggest getting back on track.


----------



## b1k3rdude (Nov 5, 2020)

@W1zzard , What am I missing here. Yes on some of those graphs the 5900 is amazing, but I'm not seeing those promised gains across the board. In most games, while its faster than my 3700x its only matches the 10600/10700 most of the time. It dosen't help that you look like your GPU-bottlenecked at 1440 and above on that old 2080ti.


----------



## BorisDG (Nov 5, 2020)

B-Real said:


> Really? In which gaming tests?
> 
> Just for a quick tip: please check at least half a dozen reviews and then draw a conclusion.











						AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Review
					

The Ryzen 9 5900X dominates Intel's Core i9-10900K in our testing because of AMD's massive IPC improvements. At $550, this processor is certainly not cheap, but it offers so much more performance, especially single-threaded, that AMD has a clear winner on their hands.




					www.techpowerup.com
				











						AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Review
					

The Ryzen 9 5900X dominates Intel's Core i9-10900K in our testing because of AMD's massive IPC improvements. At $550, this processor is certainly not cheap, but it offers so much more performance, especially single-threaded, that AMD has a clear winner on their hands.




					www.techpowerup.com
				











						AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Review
					

The Ryzen 9 5900X dominates Intel's Core i9-10900K in our testing because of AMD's massive IPC improvements. At $550, this processor is certainly not cheap, but it offers so much more performance, especially single-threaded, that AMD has a clear winner on their hands.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

B-Real said:


> Really? In which gaming tests?
> 
> Just for a quick tip: please check at least half a dozen reviews and then draw a conclusion.



You mean like Guru3D, that did an avg of a whopping 4 games? 

Or LTT, that toutes its review on CS:GO at 600FPS, then fails to do any comparisons with other titles?  They are really getting laughed at for that stupid stuff in the comments on youtube.

TPU does its average from 10 games, from multiple genres, and doesn't include really old garbage like cs:go which will go over 150fps on a 5 year old GPU and an 8 year old CPU.


----------



## sergionography (Nov 5, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Don't really care about what AMD recommends. I feel like 3200 CL14 is a great compromise between cost, performance and what's realistic for actual people who go out and buy hardware. I don't bench Intel with Power Limit removed, just because Intel wants it. Working on a memory scaling article for next week already



Well you do have a section for overclocking so how is memory any different especially when the platform is pretty memory agnostic. Glad to see you are working on a memory scaling article though.

As for what is realistic for people buying; that heavily relies on recommendations from experts like you. If you demonstrate that high frequency ram brings considerable benefits, then I as a consumer will consider it to be the reasonable option to go. 

TLDR: you are W1ZZARD! you define what is realistic!


----------



## medi01 (Nov 5, 2020)

SaLaDiN666 said:


> That site was testing Intel with 2666/2933mhz and AMD with 3600mhz or even higher, especially 3900x in their reviews in the past. Their reviews are pointless.



I've never seen outlier results on computerbase.
On TPU we are in the very thread about review that notably contrasts with others.


----------



## B-Real (Nov 5, 2020)

BorisDG said:


> AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Review
> 
> 
> The Ryzen 9 5900X dominates Intel's Core i9-10900K in our testing because of AMD's massive IPC improvements. At $550, this processor is certainly not cheap, but it offers so much more performance, especially single-threaded, that AMD has a clear winner on their hands.
> ...


So you can only link TPU where Intel is winning? What about the dozens of others? I'm embarassed.



RandallFlagg said:


> You mean like Guru3D, that did an avg of a whopping 4 games?
> 
> Or LTT, that toutes its review on CS:GO at 600FPS, then fails to do any comparisons with other titles?  They are really getting laughed at for that stupid stuff in the comments on youtube.
> 
> TPU does its average from 10 games, from multiple genres, and doesn't include really old garbage like cs:go which will go over 150fps on a 5 year old GPU and an 8 year old CPU.



You are simply LYING, Linus has many more game reviews (6 to be exact). Fun fact: in every other reviews, Shadow of the Tomb Raider has a significant lead for AMD, and it loses to Intel only in this review. But keep on with the pathetic mantra. I love it!


----------



## puma99dk| (Nov 5, 2020)

Great review @W1zzard and the Ryzen 9 5900X look to be a good CPU but not sure if I should go X570 and Ryzen 9 5900X because Zen 3 is the last CPU line to use B550 and X570 if I remember correct.

But still a good review even scores are lower then others if you have the memory maybe try 3600MHz memory to see if it does improve more


----------



## r9 (Nov 5, 2020)

I don't know why but this thread sounds a lot like the presidential elections going on in US.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

sergionography said:


> Well you do have a section for overclocking so how is memory any different especially when the platform is pretty memory agnostic. Glad to see you are working on a memory scaling article though.


Yeah, the memory scaling testing is too much work for regular reviews, which is why I'm splitting it out into a separate article



> As for what is realistic for people buying; that heavily relies on recommendations from experts like you. If you demonstrate that high frequency ram brings considerable benefits, then I as a consumer will consider it to be the reasonable option to go.
> 
> TLDR: you are W1ZZARD! you define what is realistic!


3200 CL14 is somewhat arbitrary of course. Personally I would not spend more for memory. It's not cost efficient at all, the money is better spent on other hardware. 

AMD has been pushing reviewers for higher memory speeds, because their product scales better with memory than their competitor's. Good for them, I'll still not use crazy fast memory in my reviews that nobody actually buys.


----------



## X71200 (Nov 5, 2020)

r9 said:


> I don't now why but this thread sound a lot like the presidential elections going on in US.



Except you have... less headroom with the AMD CPU, it seems. For Max Headroom in games, you need Intel from what I heard. My sources are a bit shaky, though.


----------



## r9 (Nov 5, 2020)

X71200 said:


> Except you have... less headroom with the AMD CPU, it seems. For Max Headroom in games, you need Intel from what I heard. My sources are a bit shaky, though.


Fake news!


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> ...
> AMD has been pushing reviewers for higher memory speeds, because their product scales better with memory than their competitor's. Good for them, I'll still not use crazy fast memory in my reviews that nobody actually buys.



You could always do a balls to the wall test, say between the 10700K, 10900K, 5600X, 5800X.  Max OC, max cooling, highest performing RAM possible for each platform, solid OC motherboards, liquid cooling, using a 3080 or 3090.   Seems like that is what people want to see.  Maybe they only want to see it on one platform, and not the other though


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> You could always do a balls to the wall test, say between the 10700K, 10900K, 5600X, 5800X.  Max OC, max cooling, highest performing RAM possible for each platform, solid OC motherboards, liquid cooling, using a 3080 or 3090.   Seems like that is what people want to see.  Maybe they only want to see it on one platform, and not the other though


Yeah I'm getting a feeling that is indeed what some people want to see in testing. But where does it stop? Should I haul in LN2, just to push each platform to the limits? Dunno, would definitely get some clicks on YouTube, but kinda not the kind of testing I do


----------



## hurakura (Nov 5, 2020)

No one cares about the apps and productivity benchmarks? Everyone just went straight to the gaming results? AMD is destroying Intel in every benchmark.


----------



## r9 (Nov 5, 2020)

This sums it up. Check at 3:16.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Yeah I'm getting a feeling that is indeed what some people want to see in testing. But where does it stop? Should I haul in LN2, just to push each platform to the limits? Dunno, would definitely get some clicks on YouTube, but kinda not the kind of testing I do



Meh, I wouldn't do LN2.  Needs to be something a slightly skilled layman can put in, maybe limit it to AIO cooling solutions.  

Computerbase.de did a memory / OC scaling test about 7 or 8 months ago, Zen 2 vs Gen 9 Intel.   Both platforms improved gaming performance significantly with the memory OC, but Intel of course overclocked much better.  That's clearly the case with Zen 3 not OC'ing much too.  Anyway, this type of comparison now with a K series Gen 10 vs Zen 3 would be very interesting even for those of us who have no intention of laying down $300 for 16GB of some silly speed RAM.









						Core i9-9900K vs. Ryzen 9 3900X mit RAM-OC in Spielen
					

Wie hoch ist die Spieleleistung wirklich? Core i9-9900K und Ryzen 9 3900X treten mit übertakteten Samsung-B-Dies im CPU-Limit in Spielen an.




					www.computerbase.de


----------



## Cheeseball (Nov 5, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Yeah I'm getting a feeling that is indeed what some people want to see in testing. But where does it stop? Should I haul in LN2, just to push each platform to the limits? Dunno, would definitely get some clicks on YouTube, but kinda not the kind of testing I do



While 3200C16 is most common and affordable now, I believe it would be fair to go with 3600C16 for Ryzens since that would be the best balance between cost and performance that is recommended for AMD systems. 3200C14 definitely has low latency, albeit it does limit the top end performance.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

hurakura said:


> No one cares about the apps and productivity benchmarks? Everyone just went straight to the gaming results? AMD is destroying Intel in every benchmark.



At the very top end yes.  The 5800X and 5900X are winners if you're in the market for a $450+ CPU.  I don't think anyone is disputing that.  At least I haven't seen anyone disputing it.  Most contention revolves around the much more mainstream 5600X.


----------



## X71200 (Nov 5, 2020)

hurakura said:


> No one cares about the apps and productivity benchmarks? Everyone just went straight to the gaming results? AMD is destroying Intel in every benchmark.



There are cases in games even where the heavy core amounts come into usage. Even in that poor Counter-Strike configuration, when you're loading bot routes to a map for the first time, a HCC CPU makes you and your players wait less. Honestly you get almost nothing over a specific framerate. Like if this CPU gives you 150 FPS in your *name any generic looter shooter*, you will not really get gains by getting the Intel that does 155 FPS. As for apps, definitely. The architecture is superior especially now for most.



RandallFlagg said:


> Meh, I wouldn't do LN2.  Needs to be something a slightly skilled layman can put in, maybe limit it to AIO cooling solutions.



There are frequency "walls" in the Ryzen architecture. Beyond a specific point, it just doesn't scale as well as Intel. If you go for extreme methods of non-everyday cooling, Intel might reach a higher frequency - that however is irrelevant since your normal PC won't do it. You also have to keep in mind that these CPUs increased the bar against clock walls. You can reach higher frequencies now.



RandallFlagg said:


> At the very top end yes.  The 5800X and 5900X are winners if you're in the market for a $450+ CPU.  I don't think anyone is disputing that.  At least I haven't seen anyone disputing it.  Most contention revolves around the much more mainstream 5600X.



You're free to post that to the review of that CPU here.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

Cheeseball said:


> While 3200C16 is most common and affordable now, I believe it would be fair to go with 3600C16 for Ryzens since that would be the best balance between cost and performance that is recommended for AMD systems. 3200C14 definitely has low latency, albeit it does limit the top end performance.











						AMD Zen 2 Memory Performance Scaling with Ryzen 9 3900X
					

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




					www.techpowerup.com
				




The difference between 3200CL14 and 3600CL16 will be very small I think


----------



## X71200 (Nov 5, 2020)

They're pointing to the fact of Infinity Fabric clocks, not just RAM, you probably already know this but heads up. The price difference between 3200 and 3600 RAM is also pretty much insignificant money.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

This is what happened with Zen 2 vs 9900K, overclocking RAM, CPU.   Intel will get a big boost as well and if you're going to OC the RAM, it should be on both platforms.  I've seen a lot of sites with false comparisons in this Zen 3 release.  Look at the 9900K with DDR4-4133 CL 17 OC'd.  

Anyway, this with a 10700K 10900K and the 5600X/5800X/5900X would be a good comparison.


----------



## Cheeseball (Nov 5, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> AMD Zen 2 Memory Performance Scaling with Ryzen 9 3900X
> 
> 
> We take a close look at memory scaling on AMD's new Zen 2 Ryzen 3900X, testing both application and gaming performance at seven different memory speed and timing combinations ranging from 2400 MHz all the way up to 4000 MHz.
> ...



Looks like it does depend on the game still. SOTR likes less latency, yet Wolfenstein II/Youngblood favors more bandwidth.

Will be looking forward to your RAM latency/bandwidth tests!



X71200 said:


> They're pointing to the fact of Infinity Fabric clocks, not just RAM, you probably already know this but heads up. The price difference between 3200 and 3600 RAM is also pretty much insignificant money.



Sometimes the difference can be $50 to $75 depending on the timing. The pricing between 3200CL16 and 3600CL18 may be minimal, but overclockable RAM (Samsung b-die or Micron e-die) costs more.


----------



## X71200 (Nov 5, 2020)

Cheeseball said:


> Sometimes the difference can be $50 to $75 depending on the timing. The pricing between 3200CL16 and 3200CL18 may be minimal, but overclockable RAM (Samsung b-die or Micron e-die) costs more.



I mean $25 is not big money compared to what you're shelling out for the CPU, and you can get cheap B-Die and E-Die. They're not as expensive as you might think. I can get relatively good results out of my now cheaper 3600 B-Die. Like 3800 or 3600 at CL16 non-issue.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

Cheeseball said:


> Sometimes the difference can be $50 to $75 depending on the timing. The pricing between 3200CL16 and 3600CL18 may be minimal, but overclockable RAM (Samsung b-die or Micron e-die) costs more.


That, and I rather spend that money on a faster GPU, or bigger SSD, or more 32 GB instead of 16 GB


----------



## X71200 (Nov 5, 2020)

That's your own choice though. You can get higher quality SSD by paying $25 more, or alternatively you can get still good quality SSD + slightly faster RAM to run Infinity Fabric faster. I wouldn't disagree that fast RAM doesn't do miracles, but saying what you would do in this case seems to mostly represent your choice and not everyone else's.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 5, 2020)

X71200 said:


> seems to mostly represent your choice and not everyone else's.


Absolutely. Every reviewer has his own preferences and ways of doing things, and that's good, because it gives you more data to base your buying decision on


----------



## Cheeseball (Nov 5, 2020)

X71200 said:


> I mean $25 is not big money compared to what you're shelling out for the CPU, and you can get cheap B-Die and E-Die. They're not as expensive as you might think. I can get relatively good results out of my now cheaper 3600 B-Die. Like 3800 or 3600 at CL16 non-issue.



I don't have pricing for the 16 GB kits anymore, but here are the ones I was looking at:

G.SKILL Trident Z Neo - DDR4 3200 - *14-14-14-34* (Samsung B-die) - $224.99

G.SKILL Trident Z Neo - DDR4 3600 - *16-19-19-39* (Hynix CJR/CFR) - $173.98

While not a big $50 gap, it is still a significant cost. This is taking into fact just sticking with stock/XMP/DOCP settings (for the average consumer). Obviously if one is experienced, it would be best to go with the 3200CL14 and overclock it.

Also there is the fact that those who would be upgrading to any of the Ryzen gen. 4 CPUs (like from Coffee Lake or Zen 1/1.5) would most likely be using their previous RAM, which could be similar to the ones I mentioned above.


----------



## zlobby (Nov 5, 2020)

We need the memory subsystem numbers, e.g. cache latencies!


----------



## tsillis7 (Nov 5, 2020)

wtf is going on with you techpowerup,all the grafs shows that intel w

ins in all game benchmark??????this is a joke!hardware unboxed,and gamers nexus shows that 5900x is better than 10900k!


----------



## N3M3515 (Nov 5, 2020)

hurakura said:


> No one cares about the apps and productivity benchmarks? Everyone just went straight to the gaming results? AMD is destroying Intel in every benchmark.



They only care about de 1% lead in games from intel (that's only on this site by the way...)


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

tsillis7 said:


> wtf is going on with you techpowerup,all the grafs shows that intel wView attachment 174541ins in all game benchmark??????this is a joke!hardware unboxed,and gamers nexus shows that 5900x is better than 10900k!





Even at Tom's, it's by no means a clean sweep.   Not even in productivity.  If that's what you think happened, you might want to look at the charts again.  It's good, better than Intel even, but there's no clean sweep.

Also, Toms' tested with a 3090, while TPU / Guru3d and some others tested with a 2080Ti which is their standard platform.  Related to that comment, Tom's has a habit of re-using their benchmarks.   Meaning their tests may be with updated drivers and such.


----------



## tsillis7 (Nov 5, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Even at Tom's, it's by no means a clean sweep.   Not even in productivity.  If that's what you think happened, you might want to look at the charts again.  It's good, better than Intel even, but there's no clean sweep.
> 
> Also, Toms' tested with a 3090, while TPU / Guru3d and some others tested with a 2080Ti which is their standard platform.  Related to that comment, Tom's has a habit of re-using their benchmarks.   Meaning their tests may be with updated drivers and such.
> 
> ...



my problem is that this site shows that 5000 cpus loosing in every game and making amd look bad!only in this site i saw that!
(We gave it away already in the very first lines of this review; the original ZEN design was bronze, ZEN2 silver, and ZEN3 truly is gold. The release of Ryzen 5000 probably will make a whole bunch of people at Intel nauseous as from every and any angle AMD now is faster. So that last bit you could nag about with a Ryzen proc is gone] !!!!!!!!!<this words are from guru3d site nothing else!!!


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

tsillis7 said:


> my problem is that this site shows that 5000 cpus loosing in every game and making amd look bad!only in this site i saw that!
> (We gave it away already in the very first lines of this review; the original ZEN design was bronze, ZEN2 silver, and ZEN3 truly is gold. The release of Ryzen 5000 probably will make a whole bunch of people at Intel nauseous as from every and any angle AMD now is faster. So that last bit you could nag about with a Ryzen proc is gone] !!!!!!!!!<this words are from guru3d site nothing else!!!



Guru3d only tested with 4 games, a pathetically small sample set, for one.  For another, they tested with DDR4-3600.  They also re-used prior benchmarks for Intel and Zen 2, so there are probably differences in driver versions since they only state 'Latest drivers' and their 10900K review for example was done back in May.  TPU actually used the same video drivers as their May review of the 10900K, according to the test system setup.   

Last but not least, on the game benchmarks at Guru3d, in one game at least the 10900K is missing and in another the 10700K is missing.  Then you've got these 1fps differences @ 180fps+.   At 1440p, the 10900K (except where it is missing) basically ties it up with a 5900X and a 5950X which are much more expensive chips.  Look at the graphs.


----------



## Dante Uchiha (Nov 5, 2020)

tsillis7 said:


> my problem is that this site shows that 5000 cpus loosing in every game and making amd look bad!only in this site i saw that!
> (We gave it away already in the very first lines of this review; the original ZEN design was bronze, ZEN2 silver, and ZEN3 truly is gold. The release of Ryzen 5000 probably will make a whole bunch of people at Intel nauseous as from every and any angle AMD now is faster. So that last bit you could nag about with a Ryzen proc is gone] !!!!!!!!!<this words are from guru3d site nothing else!!!



That's literally the only review I've read that shows intel Comet lake on par with Zen3 or a bit ahead in games. 

There's something really wrong with this review, and it's not just a matter of memory, I've seen reviewers using the same frequency(3200Mhz) and getting better results. Maybe the problem is the OS version ? Only the Zen 3 platform is using the updated version of windows ? 

Even the OC results are worst than in others sites... most reviewers are achieving 4.7~4.8Ghz @ 1.4v.


----------



## SIGSEGV (Nov 5, 2020)

AMD Ryzen 5000 Vermeer (Zen3) Review Roundup | VideoCardz.com
					

AMD Ryzen 5000, Featured, Review Roundup Today AMD launches its Ryzen 5000 series processors. AMD makes Ryzen 5000 series official Zen3 is here. AMD today lifts the embargo on Ryzen 5000 series




					videocardz.com
				




sorry, seems only TPU that has an anomaly.


----------



## tsillis7 (Nov 5, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Guru3d only tested with 4 games, a pathetically small sample set, for one.  For another, they tested with DDR4-3600.  They also re-used prior benchmarks for Intel and Zen 2, so there are probably differences in driver versions since they only state 'Latest drivers' and their 10900K review for example was done back in May.  TPU actually used the same video drivers as their May review of the 10900K, according to the test system setup.
> 
> Last but not least, on the game benchmarks at Guru3d, in one game at least the 10900K is missing and in another the 10700K is missing.  Then you've got these 1fps differences @ 180fps+.   At 1440p, the 10900K (except where it is missing) basically ties it up with a 5900X and a 5950X which are much more expensive chips.  Look at the graphs.
> i can post 1000 more grafs in this forum from other sites and big youtubers showing amd cpus even 5600x  that is faster in few games than 10900k but in this site i dont see not even one graf  amd in front of intel that is pathetic!and why he dont test it with the latest gpus?3080 or 3090  ?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 5, 2020)

tsillis7 said:


> View attachment 174555View attachment 174556View attachment 174557




Be careful that you aren't seeing only what you want to see.


----------



## AnarchoPrimitiv (Nov 6, 2020)

Paul's hardware on YouTube used 3600Mhz Memory and an RTX 3080 and shows the 5900x beating the 10900k in basically everything


----------



## mrthanhnguyen (Nov 6, 2020)

I have seen hardware unboxed, Jokerproduction has similar gaming benchmark result as TPU. Tech Jesus has kinda similar too. Im eager to see if someone has 5900x and 3090 so I can compare with my pc.


----------



## Dante Uchiha (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Be careful that you aren't seeing only what you want to see.
> 
> View attachment 174558
> 
> ...



So we can get random results at different resolutions to try to justify the grotesque flaw in this review ? Okay then...


----------



## tsillis7 (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Be careful that you aren't seeing only what you want to see.
> 
> View attachment 174558
> 
> ...


you still dont get it man i dont care ho is faster for 1or2% better cpu!my problem are the grafs and test methodology is miseleading!not even 1 game that amd wins omg techpowerup!!!!!!!!!!!!!and is for sure that in some games amd is faster ,why he dont pick 1 only ?????for fan!!!!


----------



## ahenriquedsj (Nov 6, 2020)

What happened at CS GO? LOL


----------



## ViperXTR (Nov 6, 2020)

i had a good deal with a 3600Mhz CL18, i wonder if it's still fine, i can put it on CL16 still i guess


----------



## SystemMechanic (Nov 6, 2020)

Theree's Many things wrong with this review, really disappointing to see this from TPU.. TPU disappointment strikes yet again. I dont believe your 65c load temps on 10900k Its fake for sure.


----------



## Bruno_O (Nov 6, 2020)

I love TPU for the design / graphics presentation, but this review really dropped the ball. Sorry, 3600C16 memory is dirty cheap now (we're at DDR4 peak, DDR5 next year), and AMD said that this platform could go to 4000 Mhz 1:1 mem/flck, so this piece really feels biased / tuned to protect Intel, even if undesired. Buying a ~550 CPU and saving $10 bucks on memory - for a staggering performance loss - makes no sense.


----------



## SystemMechanic (Nov 6, 2020)

Bruno_O said:


> I love TPU for the design / graphics presentation, but this review really dropped the ball. Sorry, 3600C16 memory is dirty cheap now (we're at DDR4 peak, DDR5 next year), and AMD said that this platform could go to 4000 Mhz 1:1 mem/flck, so this piece really feels biased / tuned to protect Intel, even if undesired. Buying a ~550 CPU and saving $10 bucks on memory - for a staggering performance loss - makes no sense.



They also used a 2080Ti and their CPU load temps just seem so wrong..


----------



## Turmania (Nov 6, 2020)

I'm very disappointed with some people coming on here, trying to accuse, mislead, and throw a mud at integrity of these tests and testers themselves. If you dont like it, bugget off! Now what I noticed is this time around AMD played safe with boost clocks, in most cases boost actually exceeded their advertised numbers. Remember last year? They could not even get close to those numbers ands on top of that no issues on bios/software. This was the biggest question mark for AMD, and I think today they passed it. Well done AMD.


----------



## Yosar (Nov 6, 2020)

I call bullshit on these tests. Witcher 3 is especially bullshit.









						Test AMD Ryzen 9 5900X i 5950X vs Intel Core i9-10900K - najlepszy procesor do gier (i nie tylko)
					

AMD ponownie miesza na rynku procesorów dla komputerów stacjonarnych. Nowe układy z rodziny Vermeer, oparte na mikroarchitektura Zen 3, oferują ogromny wzrost wydajności, zarówno w codziennych zastosowaniach, jak i w profesjonalnych aplikacjach. A jak wypadają w grach? Czy procesory Intela...




					www.komputerswiat.pl
				











						AMD Ryzen 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X: performance analysis
					

We continue our analysis of half of the new Ryzen 5000 processors with four more titles, none of which are canned bench…




					www.eurogamer.net
				











						Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 5900X - Premiera architektury Zen 3 | PurePC.pl
					

Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 5900X - Premiera architektury Zen 3 (strona 25) Test wydajności procesora AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (Zen 3 Vermeer) vs Intel Core i9-10900K (Comet Lake) w grach komputerowych i programach. Który procesor jest szybszy?




					www.purepc.pl
				





			https://d1sxg8jua9jde6.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/amd-ryzen-5900x-5800x-5600x-gaming-benchmarks-pichau-14.jpg
		


In every test 5900X beats 10900K easily in this game. Not even close to be considered equal.
All those sites are wrong and only TechpowerUp is right? Sorry, but this revierw is so much dishonest that I stoped belive in any review from this site.
Reviewer fake those tests or doesn't know what he does. And I don't know what is worse, dishonesty or incompetence.
Oh, and any multiplayer or strategic game totally ignored.  Worthless review by all means.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 6, 2020)

Anands used 2933 on their 10900K, and 3200 on their Zen 3 CPUs.  No sane person with a 10700K or above is going to run DDR4-2933.

So they basically crippled the Intel systems. 







This is the effect of using higher speed RAM with Intel chips.  It's like 5% going to DDR4-3200, and 8% using DDR4-3600 :


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Anands used 2933 on their 10900K, and 3200 on their Zen 3 CPUs. No sane person with a 10700K or above is going to run DDR4-2933.
> 
> So they basically crippled the Intel systems.


This is a like vs like situation. Both values are the maximum rated for the cpu. Anything above that is considered overclocking (the imc). To be fair (imo) they should be tested at the same speeds. 3600 for example, is overclocking both imcs and lets each cpu stretch its legs. 

You also need to understand the majority don't overclock in the first place.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 6, 2020)

Yosar said:


> I call bullshit on these tests. Witcher 3 is especially bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Another one who can't read a graph. 

Tell us, which chips from that eurogamer link won this.  I'll give you a hint, it starts with a 10 :





Or this :





Or this :


----------



## SIGSEGV (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Another one who can't read a graph.
> 
> Tell us, which chips from that eurogamer link won this.  I'll give you a hint, it starts with a 10 :
> 
> ...



LMAO, wtf is this.
only 3? come on man. give me more....


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 6, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> This is a like vs like situation. Both values are the maximum rated for the cpu. Anything above that is considered overclocking (the imc). To be fair (imo) they should be tested at the same speeds. 3600 for example, is overclocking both imcs and lets each cpu stretch its legs.
> 
> You also need to understand the majority don't overclock in the first place.



I think it's valid either way, as long as the viewer knows it .  Out here in enthusiast space though, almost no-one buys anything slower than DDR4-3200, in fact almost everyone has DDR4-3200 if you peruse system specs.  If you are talking about OEM systems, then they should probably test with DDR4-2666 on both platforms, because that is by a wide margin the predominant speed of RAM that will be put on OEM boxes.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> I think it's valid either way, as long as the viewer knows it .  Out here in enthusiast space though, almost no-one buys anything slower than DDR4-3200, in fact almost everyone has DDR4-3200 if you peruse system specs.  If you are talking about OEM systems, then they should probably test with DDR4-2666 on both platforms, because that is by a wide margin the predominant speed of RAM that will be put on OEM boxes.


Enthusiast land is but a drop in the bucket my friend. Not much would have changed if they ran intel at 2933 compared to 3200 (their lax rated). Again, most aren't overclocking. Overclocking is a variable metric depending on how far users want to push things.

In short, let it go... that isn't a great argument you brought up with that anand review.


----------



## Minus Infinity (Nov 6, 2020)

Wow how bad does the 1800X look nowadays. I only have a lowly 1700X and it's amazing to see how even the 5600X beats out the 8 cores designs in a lot of tests. I have two PCs and one is a dinosaur running Intel 3570K and 1070 and other is 1700X + 1080 Ti. I was just going to update the old one, make that my powerhouse and the 1700X machine becomes the secondary PC, but now I will even update that one. One build will be full on, 5900X + 6800XT, the other I'll just do cpu, MB, memory and GPU, probably 5600X + either keep the 1080Ti or get 6800.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 6, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Enthusiast land is but a drop in the bucket my friend. Not much would have changed if they ran intel at 2933 compared to 3200 (their lax rated). Again, most aren't overclocking. Overclocking is a variable metric depending on how far users want to push things.
> 
> In short, let it go... that isn't a great argument you brought up with that anand review.




But it is where the difference came from.  People are talking about 0-5% difference in the reviews.  Look at the 9900K at 2666 vs 3200, that's 14.4% to be precise.  3200->3600 is 1%.  Those margins are more than enough for memory to explain this if AT ran their Intel chips at 2933 and AMD chips at 3200.

As far as OEM arguments, if it's an OEM type setup config they should be running at typical OEM speeds which would be 2133 - 2933 at best.  For enthusiast / custom builds, it's almost all 3200.  If they want to max out the performance, use the fastest you can get stable.

Honestly for anyone thinking about an OEM system (Dell, HP, etc), *all* of these enthusiast review sites are garbage information.

Edit: added the chart showing effects of RAM on 9900K vs 3900X I was referring to.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> But it is where the difference came from. People are talking about 0-5% difference in the reviews. Look at the 9900K at 2666 vs 3200, that's 14.4% to be precise. 3200->3600 is 1%. Those margins are more than enough for memory to explain this if AT ran their Intel chips at 2933 and AMD chips at 3200.
> 
> As far as OEM arguments, if it's an OEM type setup config they should be running at typical OEM speeds which would be 2133 - 2933 at best. For enthusiast / custom builds, it's almost all 3200. If they want to max out the performance, use the fastest you can get stable.
> 
> ...



Brotha... we can't help how they spec their systems out. 2933 is the max for intel, 3200 for AMD. I have no idea what foreign language site you're quoting, but you should provide a link so we can see exactly what game that is and have some context for this image you keep posting. Also note that 2666 JEDEC is below the max... and JEDEC timings are extremely high... nothing of which Anandtech did, note. Their 2933 was with more appropriate than JEDEC timings. Same with the AMD.

Here are some links for you to chew on... notice here there isn't much of a difference in games.








						AMD Zen 2 Memory Performance Scaling with Ryzen 9 3900X
					

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




					www.techpowerup.com
				



...and intel








						Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake Memory Benchmark Analysis
					

We take a close look at memory speeds, latencies, and command rate on Intel's latest Core i7-8700K with Z370. Scenarios tested include fail-safe 2133 MHz, the platform default of 2666 MHz, and overclocked memory speeds ranging from 3000 MHz to 4000 MHz - at various timings.




					www.techpowerup.com
				




I'm sure there are some results like this that show huge gains, but those are anomolous for the most part. Memory speeds, generally yield a couple % gains. AMD tends to benefit more, especially with lower latency. Again, give it up... whatever you're arguing here.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 6, 2020)

It's computerbase.de - a very active site.   I posted the link the first time I put up that image.  Most of the recent 'revelation' that in fact Intel does scale with RAM speed - better  than Ryzen in fact - started from this review.  









						Core i9-9900K vs. Ryzen 9 3900X mit RAM-OC in Spielen
					

Wie hoch ist die Spieleleistung wirklich? Core i9-9900K und Ryzen 9 3900X treten mit übertakteten Samsung-B-Dies im CPU-Limit in Spielen an.




					www.computerbase.de
				






EarthDog said:


> Brotha... we can't help how they spec their systems out. 2933 is the max for intel, 3200 for AMD. I have no idea what foreign language site you're quoting, but you should provide a link so we can see exactly what game that is and have some context for this image you keep posting. Also note that 2666 JEDEC is below the max... and JEDEC timings are extremely high... nothing of which Anandtech did, note. Their 2933 was with more appropriate than JEDEC timings. Same with the AMD.
> 
> Here are some links for you to chew on... notice here there isn't much of a difference in games.
> 
> ...



#1 Their test is with a 9900K, which was Intel Spec'd for 2666.

If you truly mean what you say about not using out of spec RAM, then they should be using DDR4-3200 CL22.  Anything else, is overclocked.  <-- This is a fact.   That is why computerbase did the test with DDR4-3,200 MHz, 22-22-22-42-2T, 1.2V (R9 3900X) 

So basically everyone who is testing with DDR-3200 that is not CL22 is overclocking.

Which is pretty much everyone.  

Which makes the whole DDR4-2933 thing for Intel quite hypocritical.   Everyone's ok with OC the CL, but not the speed, eh?


----------



## arbiter (Nov 6, 2020)

Reading some these comments, amazing how dumb some people are. "Why don't you use xxxx memory" or "why don't you use RTX3090". There is A REASON for hardware they use when testing cause they have RESULTS using that same hardware to compare it to. The second you change memory or gpu you have nothing to compare it against cause every other test is using that hardware you just threw out. The results you get with different hardware now question's well was the gain cause the cpu is better or was it the faster memory you put in or was it the faster gpu you just dropped it.

Just as RandallFlagg said above https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-ryzen-9-5900x.274036/page-6#post-4386276


----------



## mkppo (Nov 6, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> AMD sent the 5950X so that it arrived today
> 
> 
> After 3090, but not enough time to retest all comparison CPUs
> ...



When doing the memory scaling article, kindly consider doing a test for 2x8GB vs 4x8GB as well. I believe it should marginally impact performance and would be very interesting to watch.

Awesome CPU launch. Amazing that there's 20%+ more performance at the same power draw on the same node. Kudos AMD.


----------



## Rob94hawk (Nov 6, 2020)

I'm guessing there's not much to gain with regards to gaming with the 5950X? Was hoping for a review of that as well.


----------



## mkppo (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> But it is where the difference came from.  People are talking about 0-5% difference in the reviews.  Look at the 9900K at 2666 vs 3200, that's 14.4% to be precise.  3200->3600 is 1%.  Those margins are more than enough for memory to explain this if AT ran their Intel chips at 2933 and AMD chips at 3200.
> 
> View attachment 174584



Many other websites tested at similar RAM speeds , including gamer nexus, and the 5900X seems to be slightly faster than 10900k.

Also, regarding this graph you repeatedly keep posting, keep in mind that Ryzen benefits massively from subtiming optimization as well. That, coupled with faster memory should increase FPS another 10%+ for Zen 3 as well. Have a look here (It's an older article for Zen 2):









						Testing 3rd-Gen Ryzen DDR4 Memory Performance and Scaling
					

When we reviewed Ryzen's latest iteration we briefly checked out different DDR4 memory speeds but now that things have settled we were put on a mission to...




					www.techspot.com
				




It's generally known, and W1zzard himself mentions that Ryzen benefits more from faster RAM. But the main performance is obtained from subtiming optimization. My 3950x got atleast 10% more gaming performance at low res benchmarks, not that I care as I use it for rendering etc.


----------



## Minus Infinity (Nov 6, 2020)

Rob94hawk said:


> I'm guessing there's not much to gain with regards to gaming with the 5950X? Was hoping for a review of that as well.



Well Techspot tested the 5950X and it's the gaming champ for most part.  They called it total domination!








						AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Review
					

Here's our first look at Ryzen 5000, starting with a full review of the Ryzen 9 5950X flagship. This new chip packs 16 cores with SMT support...




					www.techspot.com


----------



## Rob94hawk (Nov 6, 2020)

Minus Infinity said:


> Well Techspot tested the 5950X and it's the gaming champ for most part.  They called it total domination!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Appreciate the link!

Edit: Uh, they used a top of the line new cpu and a 3090 and only benched games in 1080p!? Disappointing.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> If you truly mean what you say about not using out of spec RAM
> 
> Which makes the whole DDR4-2933 thing for Intel quite hypocritical. Everyone's ok with OC the CL, but not the speed, eh?


I didn't say anything about that. The spec just lists the speed. JEDEC has to do with the memory itself. I'm talking about overclocking the IMC. It is not overclocking the RAM using the XMP profiles/what it's rated for on the box. 

It isn't hypocritical at all. Now you're assigning a specific JEDEC specification from memory to something that doesn't have one. They just list speed, not specific timings. That is on the RAM itself. And again, if I buy a set of sticks rated to run DDR4 4000, they aren't overclocked. That is their specification. JEDEC profiles are on the sticks for compatibility reasons. Don't get your head twisted assigning meaning to things that aren't there.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

SystemMechanic said:


> Theree's Many things wrong with this review, really disappointing to see this from TPU.. TPU disappointment strikes yet again. I dont believe your 65c load temps on 10900k Its fake for sure.


Just gotta wait for the CPU to run into its power limit. For temps we're reporting the long term stable state, not the single highest temp. Does that make sense?


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Anands used 2933 on their 10900K, and 3200 on their Zen 3 CPUs. No sane person with a 10700K or above is going to run DDR4-2933.


They use the highest supported official memory, it is what we call stock vs stock. Not to mention tuned memory results would show better scaling & gains for AMD. They are just as valid as *TPU *numbers or any other reputable source out there.


----------



## Selaya (Nov 6, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Just gotta wait for the CPU to run into its power limit. For temps we're reporting the long term stable state, not the single highest temp. Does that make sense?


Are the Intel temps with PLs enforced? Would be interesting to have numbers with PLs on and off, because especially for the 10900 and 10850 theres a lot of difference both in thermals and performance.

Something akin to this:








						Don't Run Z490 Motherboards with Default Settings: Thermals, Power, Boosting, & MCE for 10th Gen CPUs
					

It’s difficult to differentiate motherboards, at least from a marketing perspective. There are definitely better and worse boards, and you can check any of the roundups or reviews Buildzoid has produced for this channel for explanations as to why, but “better” doesn’t mean “higher FPS in games”...




					www.gamersnexus.net


----------



## Anvirol (Nov 6, 2020)

Biggest hardware site (io-tech) in the Nordic region tested with 3600 memory on all platforms and 10900k got beaten easily. RTX 3090 GPU was used for gaming benchmarks.

Article is in finnish, but you can check out the graphs. There's also very interesting memory and IF scaling results.








						Testissä AMD Ryzen 9 5900X & 5950X (Zen 3) - io-tech.fi
					

Testissä AMD:n uudet 12- ja 16-ytimiset Zen 3 -arkkitehtuuriin perustuvat Ryzen 5000 -sarjan prosessorit.




					www.io-tech.fi
				




Game results for e.g. SoTR and W3 should be wildly in favor of new Ryzen CPU's so something is definitely wrong with TPU's testing setup. Might be good idea to verify results with another motherboard for each system. Also please try RTX 3080/3090 GPU's if that turns the tables..

Btw. is TPU planning to add 1% lows or minimum fps at some point to benchmarks?
Shouldn't be too much extra work as pretty much any benchmarking tool will give you also that data.


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 6, 2020)

Anvirol said:


> Biggest hardware site (io-tech) in the Nordic region tested with 3600 memory on all platforms and 10900k got beaten easily.


Well people forget that faster memory on Intel will net them minimal to no gains beyong 3200MHz, except perhaps with much tighter timings. On AMD you get near perfect scaling with appropriate latency paired with higher (memory) clocks, basically going from 2933MHz (max rated officially for Intel) to DDR4 3600 or DDR4 4000 may net you 5~10% more performance but on AMD it can easily do 10~20% depending on games or application.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

Selaya said:


> Are the Intel temps with PLs enforced?


Yes of course. Also for all other data in the Ryzen reviews.









						Intel Core i9-10900K Review - World's Fastest Gaming Processor
					

Intel's Core i9-10900K achieves highly impressive gaming performance thanks to its 10-core/20-thread design with up to 5.3 GHz. We compare three configurations in our 10900K review: all stock, boost limits removed, and a manual 5.1 GHz all-core overclock.




					www.techpowerup.com
				



Like this?



Anvirol said:


> Btw. is TPU planning to add 1% lows or minimum fps at some point to benchmarks?


Next round of rebench, early 2021, as soon as I have two or three weeks without launches, so I can figure out new tests, games, methodology, set up everything and retest 20 or 30 CPUs


----------



## cueman (Nov 6, 2020)

naaah..
5000 ryzen might be good cpu,yes...hmm, but it cant offer anything better performance for gaming than 10900  ..(and another way i dont care ) like we seen test.
10900 is still lead over FHD result gaming.
also, i wonder alot, temperature is almost same with amd 7nm brand new ryzen cpu when verify 14nm intel 10900k cpus....i repeat 7nm ryzen, 14nm intel

we must remembe, amd 5000 series is 7nm tech maded,just release amd latest cpu, intel 10900 'old' 14nm tech maded

i mean, its so tricky to compare totally different tech cpus, aka amd 7nm cpu for intels 14nm cpu...handicap advance is so massive.
i should seen much more clear bigger difference...but no.


shortly more, if intel have even 10nm cpu against ryzen 7nm ,then we seen something for that question, is it ryzen  7nm cpus good.
we cant say it yet....well, sure 7nm ryzen get better scores for 14nm cpu,it shouls do, but.. i really not hurray it much.

well, incoming ,still 14nm cpu intel roclet lake is is direct answer amd 5000 series ryzen,and what for rumors leaks shows, not look good amd way.


finaly.
i think we get answer for question at least next year, june/2021,when intel 1st 10nm cpu coming,(sure now, btw),bcoz then we can compare little bit that question of amd ryzen quality.

so next target will be:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14nm intel rocket lake-s  VS  7nm amd ryzen 5000 series, march(2021
10nm intel adler lake hybrid cpu VS  7nm  amd ryzen 5000 series, june/2021 <-- this is it, total battle!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so, i say and im very very confident, we see it finaly next summer.


intel 7nm meteor lake-s is going 2022 or so...but truth is that after that we seen real test, which one make better cpus...
but,i think intel 10nm hydrib cpu must do it clear...and rocket lake-s start it.

d-day is for cpu world peformance and efficiency is clear next summer,and if ryzen can offer better performance and efficiency than adler lake-s, its 100% clear. not yet


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Nov 6, 2020)

Your gaming numbers are very different to all the other reviews I have seen out there i.e you have Ryzen 5000 slower than elsewhere. I think there may be an error in your testing akin to Anandtech's when they were blasted for their incorrect Ryzen 2000 benches.


----------



## R0H1T (Nov 6, 2020)

cueman said:


> we must remembe, amd 5000 series is 7nm tech maded,just release amd latest cpu, intel 10900 'old' 14nm tech maded


We must also remember it's 14nm++ not 14nm & TSMC's 7nm < Intel 10 nm, at least that's what Intel fans & executives tell us 

Beyond that an OCed 10900k @5.5GHz will obviously lead in gaming possibly even crushing 8c RKL, it also crushes everything else in power consumption though


----------



## gridracedriver (Nov 6, 2020)

LocutusH said:


> Didnt they say, that it will outperform 10900K in games too?
> 
> This seems like just another AMD launch, where the reality is completely different than the promises.


Only on this Site AMD not outperforme Intel in average gaming... 
*W1zzard* if i were you i would ask myself 2 questions ...


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

gridracedriver said:


> if i were you i would ask myself 2 questions ...


Not only 2 questions


----------



## Mike2Fr (Nov 6, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Absolutely. Every reviewer has his own preferences and ways of doing things, and that's good, because it gives you more data to base your buying decision on


I don't think there is anything wrong in your review man. 

To understand why you have differences with other reviews especially in gaming, I would try to compare your Max clock on the first core on different cpus (if you have the luxury to have more than one) I have seen some reviewers reaching 5ghz+ where you are at 4.85 ish. 

Memory obviously, this is an enthusiast market. I understand your choice of memory (that is far from being as bad as some people reported here) but I want to know the top perf not what the average dude will produce. it is like willing to know the 0 to 60 mph of cars even though nobody drives like that all the time. (and I am not talking about LN2 here... It is meaningful for a handful of people on this planet. But I am pretty sure you got my point.) I think you are already working on memory scaling so thank you for that. 

The bios version Cpu/Mb combo. Most of the test I read are based on Asus/Msi top Motherboard. There might be a small issue here as well. 


Thank you for the hard work. I was a little bit surprised by your results but I am sure they are 100% honest. I am sure we will have a better understanding in few weeks.


----------



## smatzis (Nov 6, 2020)

Hello everyone! Can anyone confirm if 5000 series Ryzen support ECC RAM (combined with a compatible Motherboard) ? i have seen mixed info on that...
Thank you in advance!


----------



## Selaya (Nov 6, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Yes of course. Also for all other data in the Ryzen reviews.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes!
Must've missed/forgot about that for some reason, probably because you only link the stock values otherwise.



smatzis said:


> Hello everyone! Can anyone confirm if 5000 series Ryzen support ECC RAM (combined with a compatible Motherboard) ? i have seen mixed info on that...
> Thank you in advance!


Since Matisse supports ECC and Vermeer is recycling the same old I/O die, I'd assume so ...


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

Selaya said:


> because you only link the stock values otherwise.


It would be way too much data and clutter the charts


----------



## X71200 (Nov 6, 2020)

Cheeseball said:


> I don't have pricing for the 16 GB kits anymore, but here are the ones I was looking at:
> 
> G.SKILL Trident Z Neo - DDR4 3200 - *14-14-14-34* (Samsung B-die) - $224.99
> 
> ...



Why don't you have pricing for the 16 GB kits no more? It's not like 32 GB is a MUST with the CPU. It works completely fine and even gets to high loads easily with 16. I'm just going to PCPP for a bit because you definitely picked overpriced RAM.






						Crucial Ballistix Elite 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-4000 CL18 Memory
					






					pcpartpicker.com
				









						G.Skill Trident Z RGB 32 GB (2 x 16 GB) DDR4-3600 CL16 Memory
					






					pcpartpicker.com
				




4000 E-Die and 3600 B-Die, both better specced than yours, both give you better price / performance.


----------



## Selaya (Nov 6, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> It would be way too much data and clutter the charts


Oh, absolutely. It just must've slipped my mind because of it.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 6, 2020)

Selaya said:


> Oh, absolutely. It just must've slipped my mind because of it.


No worries, often some nice improvements come out of feedback like this


----------



## Berfs1 (Nov 6, 2020)

My questions:
Rendering
*CB20 1T*: How does the 8700K beat the 9900K? The 9900K has faster turbo speeds...

Software & Game Dev
*UE4*: How does a Ryzen 5 3600 beat both the X and XT versions?

Web Browser
*WebXPRT*: A 9900KS beats a 10900K??

Office & Productivity
*Excel*: Please tell me how the 10900 beats the 10900K. The whole benchmark takes less than a second, TDP cannot be an issue here.
*Adobe Premiere*: 9900KS beats a 10900K, even though it has 2 less cores and has lower frequencies?

Server & Workstation
*VMWare*: You are telling me that, a 5600X will about the same performance with the 5900X? The 5600X has half the cores and threads... why would that match a CPU that has the same architecture, and double the cores and threads?

Compression & Encryption
*WinRAR 1.5GB*: A 3700X beats a 3800XT?
*VeraCrypt*: 10900 beats the 10900K again..? And um, an 1800X beats a 3700X (not to mention also the 2700X and 5800X)... ok. There are so many anomalies in this one.

Media Encoding
*H.265*: 10600K beats an i7-10700, even though cores actually matter for this kind of benchmark... And how does a 9700K match a 10900? The 10900 has more than double the thread count..
*MP3*: I kind of expected the 9700K to beat the 8700K if it is a single threaded workload, as the 9700K doesn't have HT (having this enabled will result in slightly lower performance/thread), and it has 200 MHz higher 1c turbo, which cannot be considered "margin of error".

720p
*AC Odyssey*: 10700 beats 10700K? 10900 beats 10900K? 10600K beats 9900K? 3600X beats 3600XT? 2700X beats 3600? 3700X beats 3800XT? 3900XT beats 5900X? 5600X beats 5800X? 
*Battlefield V*: 10600K beats 9900K?
*Far Cry 5*: 3900X beats 3900XT? 10700 beats 10700K?
*Metro Exodus*: 3600 beats 3900X and 3900XT? 10600K beats 10900 and 9900KS?
*Rage 2*: 10600K beats 10900K? 3600XT loses to both 3600 and 3600X? 2700X beats 3700X? 3900X beats 3900XT?
*Sekiro*: 10700 beats 9900K?
*The Witcher 3*: 1800X beats 2700X? 3600X beats 3600XT? 3900X beats 3900XT? 10600K beats 9900K?
*Wolfenstein II*: 3900X beats 3900XT?

1080p
*AC Odyssey*: 3800XT loses to 3600, 2700X, and 3700X? 3900X beats 3900XT? 3600X beats 5600X and 5800X? 10900K loses to 8700K, 9900KS, 10900, 9900K, 10700K, and 10700?? 10700 beats 10700K?
*Battlefield V*: 3600 beats 3600X? 3700X beats 3800XT? 5600X beats 5800X? 10700 and 10600K both beat 10700K, 10900K, 9900K, and 9900KS??
*Civilization 6*: 10700 beats 10700K and 10900K? 10900 beats 10900K?
*Far Cry 5*: 3900X beats 3900XT? 10700 beats 10700K?
*Metro Exodus*: 3600XT beats 3800XT? 8700K beats 9900K and 9900KS? 10600K beats 10900, 9900KS, and 9900K? 10700 beats 10700K,10900, 9900KS, and 9900K?
*Rage 2*: 3600X beats 3600XT? 3600 beats 3600X and 3600XT? 10600K beats 10700K and 9900K? 8700K beats 9900K? 10700 beats 10700K, 10900, 9900KS, and 9900K? 5600X beats 5800X? 3800XT beats 5800X?
*Sekiro*: 10600K beats 9900K?
*Shadow of the Tomb Raider*: 10700 and 10600K both beat 10700K, 10900K, 9900K, and 9900KS? 3600 and 3600X both beat 3700X and 3800XT? 3600XT beats 5600X and 5800X?
*The Witcher 3*: 3700X and 3800XT both lose to 3600, 3600X, and 3600XT? 5600X beats 5800X? 10700 and 10600K both beat 10900, 10700K, 9900K, and 9900KS?
*Wolfenstein II*: 3600 beats 3600X? 3700X and 3600XT both beat 3800XT? 5600X beats 5800X? 10700 beats 10600K, 10700K, 9900K, and 9900KS?

1440p
*AC Odyssey*: 1800X beats 2700X? 3600 beats 3600X and 3600XT? 3600X beats 3600XT? 3800XT and 5600X both beat 5800X? 8700K beats 10900, 10600K, and 10700K? 9900KS beats 10900K? 10700 beats 10700, 10700K, and 9900K?
*Battlefield V*: 3600 beats 3600X? 3900X beats 3900XT? 10700 beats 9900K, 9900KS, 10700K and 10900K? 8700K beats 9900K, 9900KS, 10900K?? 9900K beats 10900K and 9900KS?

ok im getting a bit tired after typing this out for over 2 hours, you get the point.

TLDR, I guarantee you your testing methodology is flawed. Did you force the GPU to be at a constant frequency in all tests? That alone could fix the disparities between most of the tests and get rid of the "margin of error" argument that I always get in response. Why did I spend 2+ hours typing this up? Because y'all spent days, if not weeks testing all of these processors, and it would not be very fair of me to just say "these results don't make sense" without any explanation, so I have shown a lot of instances where there are anomalies. Clock speed is performance, and a CPU on the same architecture with a higher clock speed _should_ outperform a lower clocked CPU from the same generation, as long as core counts are the same. It makes zero sense for a 6c12t CPU at 3.5 GHz to beat a 6c12t CPU at 4.5 GHz provided they are the same chip. But yes, we do get the point, Ryzen 5000 doesn't actually live up to the hype.

Enough about the negatives, here are some things I like about these reviews:

You don't just compare power consumption, you also compare the total amount of energy consumed for a benchmark, which I think is EXTREMELY practical.
You actually show us the results in an easy to read (and organized) format.
The relative performance is included
You tested 720p, 1080p, 1440p, AND 4K. Not a lot of [well-known] reviewers do more than 2 resolutions.
Also, instead of putting the charts as images and showing the data that way, is it possible to embed the data in the post? I am asking this because I want to press ctrl+f and find a CPU that way, but I cannot do that since it is an image, and you can't "grab text" from an image like that.

Anyways, thank you for taking the time to make this review, I appreciate all the time and effort y'all put into making these reviews!


----------



## Turmania (Nov 6, 2020)

So at the end what is the optimum memory speed and timings for ryzen 5xxx series? not asking for the best but optimum with price in mind.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 6, 2020)

Turmania said:


> So at the end what is the optimum memory speed and timings for ryzen 5xxx series? not asking for the best but optimum with price in mind.


Nothing has changed it seems... same IO die, so 3600/3733.


----------



## mkppo (Nov 6, 2020)

R0H1T said:


> Well people forget that faster memory on Intel will net them minimal to no gains beyong 3200MHz, except perhaps with much tighter timings. On AMD you get near perfect scaling with appropriate latency paired with higher (memory) clocks, basically going from 2933MHz (max rated officially for Intel) to DDR4 3600 or DDR4 4000 may net you 5~10% more performance but on AMD it can easily do 10~20% depending on games or application.



And tuning via DRAM calculator yields massive gains as well.



EarthDog said:


> Nothing has changed it seems... same IO die, so 3600/3733.



Most reports are that 4000 is doable 1:1 with the new ryzens. Same I/O die but due to other changes the IF seems to scale 1:1 much better. Would be interesting to see tuned 4000 1:1 performance.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 6, 2020)

mkppo said:


> Most reports are that 4000 is doable 1:1 with the new ryzens. Same I/O die but due to other changes the IF seems to scale 1:1 much better. Would be interesting to see tuned 4000 1:1 performance.


Right... but the dude asked about optimum speed and timings with price in mind.


----------



## X71200 (Nov 6, 2020)

If you're buying 16, 4000 to 3600 is not all that big of a problem since the 3600 Elites cost 80 and 100 for the 4000 ones. Things look worse on the 32 end though.


----------



## saikamaldoss (Nov 6, 2020)

AnandTech data is not matching Tec powerup.. any idea why ?


----------



## John Naylor (Nov 6, 2020)

For ya next Gaming Build what's the value proposition ?   ......  the $174 10400F .... or ...... $550 5900 XT


----------



## jayjr1105 (Nov 6, 2020)

5600X is nuts.  Whipping a 10900K in most games while using HALF the power and nearly half the cost.


----------



## hurakura (Nov 6, 2020)

The most logical explanation is that techpowerup labs are possessed by higher entities.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 6, 2020)

@W1zzard : 

FWIW I think I found the reason for discrepancies in multiple review sites, which exist not only here but on other reviews as well.   It's multi-faceted but it basically comes down to memory speeds.  See #3 for the quick take.

#1 - Obvious one, if someone is using a 3080 or 3090 on the test bed.  This doesn't really seem to be the main driver of what chip 'wins' but it does create bigger gaps between winners and losers.

#2 - Some sites are using much slower RAM on Intel platforms.  Example AnandTech, who used DDR4-2933 on the 10900K but 3200 on AMD platforms.  A more egreigious example is Cowcotland, who used DDR4-2666 on their 10600K and 2933 on the 10900K.   This really only makes any sense if you are buying an OEM system, and if they are trying to 'simulate' an OEM buy they should probably be using all DDR4-2666 on all platforms.  That would be irrelevant to 90% of the types of people who visit these sites though (as they don't buy OEM).

#3 - The big one.  What I'm finding is that Zen 3 scales very well with higher speed RAM, and if it has high enough speed does indeed make a cleaner sweep in the benchmarks (even with a level playing field where Intel has the high speed RAM too).  At sites like Guru3D where they used DDR4-3600 on both platforms, comparing to other reviews, it is apparent that Zen 3 *needs* fast RAM and will outperform Gen 10 in most tests if it has it.   This is where you start to see the 5600X beat the 10700K and 10900K (@ stock clocks) in a lot of benchmarks even when both platforms are running DDR4-3600.

So, Zen 3 scales better with high speed RAM and 3600 seems to be the magic line.

Will be looking forward to the memory scaling article.  Please do include something from Gen 10.

Edit: PCWorld also used DDR4-3600 on all platforms.  In this case, Intel 10900K vs 5900X and 5950X in 5 games only won in one, Metro Exodus.









						Ryzen 5000 Review: The best consumer CPU we've ever seen
					

AMD's historically good Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 9 5950X desktop CPUs have trounced Intel's Core i9.




					www.pcworld.com
				








saikamaldoss said:


> AnandTech data is not matching Tec powerup.. any idea why ?



Because Anand ran their Intel chips at DDR4-2933, and their Zen 3 at DDR4-3200.

TPU ran them both at DDR4-3200.


----------



## mkppo (Nov 6, 2020)

jayjr1105 said:


> 5600X is nuts.  Whipping a 10900K in most games while using HALF the power and nearly half the cost.



It's bonkers. I bet it'll fly with a set of tuned 3800 RAM. It's looking like the CPU to have for gaming atm, and 3900 for gaming + productivity.


----------



## jayjr1105 (Nov 6, 2020)

mkppo said:


> It's bonkers. I bet it'll fly with a set of tuned 3800 RAM. It's looking like the CPU to have for gaming atm, and 3900 for gaming + productivity.


With upcoming AGESA update, 4000 might even be possible.  Tuned 3800 with FCLK to 1900 will be a monster.


----------



## Fasola (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> @W1zzard :
> 
> FWIW I think I found the reason for discrepancies in multiple review sites, which exist not only here but on other reviews as well.   It's multi-faceted but it basically comes down to memory speeds.  See #3 for the quick take.
> 
> ...


GN also used 3200CL14 although 4 instead of 2 DIMMs and Zen 3 won everything they tested except RDR2 and AC: Origins.


----------



## r9 (Nov 6, 2020)

@W1zzard please fix the review so my world can make sense again.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 6, 2020)

Fasola said:


> GN also used 3200CL14 although 4 instead of 2 DIMMs and Zen 3 won everything they tested except RDR2 and AC: Origins.



What \ where are GN's test configurations?


----------



## Fasola (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> What \ where are GN's test configurations?


You can see it under the header and they also have a linked article with more in-depth details about their testing: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3577-cpu-test-methodology-unveil-for-2020-compile-gaming-more


----------



## HD64G (Nov 6, 2020)

No matter what (reviews' result variation), in a few weeks the best PC for gaming will have a Zen3 CPU with a Navi21 GPU (smart memory access anyone?). And that is why AMD launched their CPUs first. Great marketing tactics this time imho. And Zen3 CPUs reach higher single-threaded clocks than advertised (up to 5050Hz for 5950X).


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 6, 2020)

Fasola said:


> You can see it under the header and they also have a linked article with more in-depth details about their testing: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3577-cpu-test-methodology-unveil-for-2020-compile-gaming-more
> 
> View attachment 174714



OK that works. 

That from GN actually validates my 3rd point from the post you responded to.

Compare that from GN where Intel won when both platforms used DDR4-3200 CL14 / RTX 3080 to this from PCWorld.    PCWorld used DDR4-3600 on both platforms vs GN DDR4-3200.   I'm seeing this same trend on benchmarks posted for 3dMark's site.  There's a big jump in performance on Zen 3 with DDR4-3600 vs 3200.  Not as much on Intel.

Something else to note, and you can really see this on Anandtech's review, GN used High / Custom settings while PCWorld used Ultra.  Changing these settings often re-arranges who won - that's what you'll see at Anands if you look at the charts.  I don't know why, maybe something to do with memory bandwidth to the PCI bus.


----------



## agentnathan009 (Nov 6, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> On some sites it is slightly faster than Skylake, and how did AMD celebrate this? By charging $450 for 8 cores and $300 for 6 cores in 2020. The irony is very real.



Did you miss the part where the 5600X is nearly as fast as the 10900 and cheaper?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 6, 2020)

Someone with a 5950X just took #1 spot on 3D Mark Firestrike Physics - results limited to dual channel DDR4 to eliminate HEDT systems.   Zen 3 still hasn't made it to top 100 on Time Spy CPU scores though. 

Edit: There's a 5950X at #44 on Timespy CPU now, running DDR4-3800.   The 10900K just above it is running DDR4-4700 OC to 5.6Ghz


----------



## Fasola (Nov 6, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> OK that works.
> 
> That from GN actually validates my 3rd point from the post you responded to.
> 
> ...


It's pretty common knowledge that Zen gets more with faster memory. I was merely implying that there's more to TPUs outlier results than the lower frequency memory. We'll know once W1zzard finishes investigating and testing.


----------



## dicktracy (Nov 6, 2020)

agentnathan009 said:


> Did you miss the part where the 5600X is nearly as fast as the 10900 and cheaper? You guys are something else with your whining...


"AMD, please save us from Intel and Nvidia's expensive pricetags."
Yeah. The same guys that were once screaming that line in previous years are now fine with AMD's new prices. Things sure as hell didn't get cheaper with AMD, and in fact they're matching the competition in prices and sometimes even more so: $1000 GPU, $4000 HEDT CPU, and now almost $1000 for a mainstream CPU. Hypocrisy at its finest.


----------



## ryzen5000 (Nov 6, 2020)

I've been reading multiple reviews about Ryzen 5000 series, in most reputable websites Ryzen 5900X is proven to have a better overall fps result in gaming than i9-10900K.
I hope that when 5950X is reviewed here that you use a proper setup without so many bottlenecks (RAM, GPU, SSD...). to be able to stretch the potential of this CPU and get a fair test result.
Otherwise please don't test it, it would be spreading misinformation...
Ryzen 5000 is such big news for the PC market that I've registered on your forum today just to post this, taking it as my username.


----------



## X71200 (Nov 6, 2020)

3DM CPU scores... really relevant I mean for normal games when you have all cores loaded to the max getting 30-40 FPS.

Then comparing car part prices to cars, of course cars are more expensive, what else did you expect? You can compare pianos too you know. Gets more expensive easily. What even is your point?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 6, 2020)

Fasola said:


> It's pretty common knowledge that Zen gets more with faster memory. I was merely implying that there's more to TPUs outlier results than the lower frequency memory. We'll know once W1zzard finishes investigating and testing.



All platforms do, but Intel Gen 9 and Gen 10 got *a lot* more than Zen 2 from faster memory.  15% to be exact vs 8.2% on Zen 2 when you use DDR4-3200 CL 14 like TPU did.  

It looks to me like that is entirely the source of the discrepancy.  Look at the numbers below from the link I posted - note the 9900K is pretty close to a 10700K.

Starting from each platforms rated JEDEC standard RAM :

3900X : Going from JEDEC 3200 to 3200 CL14 gets *8.2%*
3900X : Going from 3200 CL14 to 3600 CL16 gets 3%
3900X : Going from 3600 CL16 to (max stable) 3733 CL17 gets 2%

*9900K : Going from JEDEC 2666 to 3200 CL14 gets 15%*
9900K : Going from 3200 CL14 to 3600 CL16 gets 1%
9900K : Going from 3600 CL16 to (max stable) 4133 CL 17 gets *13%*









						Core i9-9900K vs. Ryzen 9 3900X mit RAM-OC in Spielen
					

Wie hoch ist die Spieleleistung wirklich? Core i9-9900K und Ryzen 9 3900X treten mit übertakteten Samsung-B-Dies im CPU-Limit in Spielen an.




					www.computerbase.de


----------



## Caring1 (Nov 7, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> I think I found the reason for discrepancies in multiple review sites, which exist not only here but on other reviews as well.   It's multi-faceted but it basically comes down to memory speeds.



The points you made have been mentioned multiple times already on TPU,which the W1zz is already aware of.


----------



## evernessince (Nov 7, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> AMD has been pushing reviewers for higher memory speeds, because their product scales better with memory than their competitor's. Good for them, I'll still not use crazy fast memory in my reviews that nobody actually buys.



I'm pretty sure you are vastly under-estimating the number of people pairing their Zen CPUs with faster memory. 3600 can be had for barely anymore money than 3200 and for Zen.  It's easily worth the performance bump.


----------



## PooPipeBoy (Nov 7, 2020)

ryzen5000 said:


> I've been reading multiple reviews about Ryzen 5000 series, in most reputable websites Ryzen 5900X is proven to have a better overall fps result in gaming than i9-10900K.
> I hope that when 5950X is reviewed here that you use a proper setup without so many bottlenecks (RAM, GPU, SSD...). to be able to stretch the potential of this CPU and get a fair test result.
> Otherwise please don't test it, it would be spreading misinformation...
> Ryzen 5000 is such big news for the PC market that I've registered on your forum today just to post this, taking it as my username.



Now that the reviews are out, I've been wondering why AMD are saying the 5900X is the ultimate gaming CPU when the cheaper SKUs are just as good for gaming. I guess they make a tidy profit on it even though it's not overpriced from a per-core perspective.


----------



## Mike2Fr (Nov 7, 2020)

PooPipeBoy said:


> Now that the reviews are out, I've been wondering why AMD are saying the 5900X is the ultimate gaming CPU when the cheaper SKUs are just as good for gaming. I guess they make a tidy profit on it even though it's not overpriced from a per-core perspective.


The extra cache compared to the 5800x and under might be useful with the 6000 series graphic cards. We will find out pretty soon.


----------



## Xuper (Nov 7, 2020)

> Multi-threaded energy efficiency of the Ryzen 9 5900X is now twice as good as the Core i9-10900K.



Holy Molly !


----------



## Spanners (Nov 7, 2020)

birdie said:


> Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.
> 
> What's bad for Intel (charging top dollar) is absolutely OK for AMD because ... because AMD. We get it. Let's see if AMD keeps raising prices for the next Ryzen series (Zen 4/DDR5) and what new crappy excuses AMD fans will come up with.



Your comment fails to acknowledge that Intel already has been forced to change strategy and pricing due to competition from AMD. Zen Gen1 offered worse IPC but previously unheard of core-counts for it's mainstream platform and price. It's not impossible that Intel would still be selling a 4/8 CPU as an i7 at the top of their range like the 7700K if AMD had gone bankrupt and wasn't actively competing. Now that AMD has the IPC advantage and a massive efficiency lead (I'm not hearing much talk about space heaters and power bills anymore) you expect them to continue to offer this at a discount to Intel? That's just completely ludicrous.

Of course Intel could offer a faster product at a discount and still make a larger profit. They were using process node advancements to make smaller dies but not increase core counts. They could get away with this due to AMDs lack of competitive products. The i7 920 was a 263 mm² die but the 2500k was 216 mm². AMD is using the same node here as the previous generation. They also used more artificial product segmentation (overclocking, hyper-threading, memory speeds) which is not so prevalent with current AMD lineups. In the end this is a business so maybe the people who were making those arguments about Intel previously were naive but that doesn't make your argument any more rational.

P.S. Please don't infer that people who don't agree with you are "fans" of AMD. I'm too old for that kind of malarkey and I'm a long term Intel shareholder. Thanks for the review btw W1zz, long term reader first time commenter.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 7, 2020)

Spanners said:


> Your comment fails to acknowledge that Intel already has been forced to change strategy and pricing due to competition from AMD. Zen Gen1 offered worse IPC but previously unheard of core-counts for it's mainstream platform and price. It's not impossible that Intel would still be selling a 4/8 CPU as an i7 at the top of their range like the 7700K if AMD had gone bankrupt and wasn't actively competing. Now that AMD has the IPC advantage and a massive efficiency lead (I'm not hearing much talk about space heaters and power bills anymore) you expect them to continue to offer this at a discount to Intel? That's just completely ludicrous.
> 
> Of course Intel could offer a faster product at a discount and still make a larger profit. They were using process node advancements to make smaller dies but not increase core counts. They could get away with this due to AMDs lack of competitive products. The i7 920 was 263 mm² die but the 2500k was 216 mm². AMD is using the same node here as the previous generation. They also used more artificial product segmentation (overclocking, hyper-threading, memory speeds) which is not so prevalent with current AMD lineups. In the end this is a business so maybe the people who were making those arguments about Intel previously were naive but that doesn't make your argument any more rational.
> 
> P.S. Please don't infer that people who don't agree with you are "fans" of AMD. I'm too old for that kind of malarkey and I'm a long term Intel shareholder. Thanks for the review btw W1zz, long term reader first time commenter.



The point is though, AMD may have raised core counts, but for mainly gaming, they are irrelevant. Imo games still do not need more than a 6/8 core cpu at most. Everyone raved when Ryzen came out, oo ooo but it has 12 cores(well 6 with hyper) but games didn't use them anyway. Imo the one advantage of ryzen coming out was the big kick up the behind it gave Intel. They may have been caught with their pants down, but do not write them off(as every Ryzen fan seems to be doing) they have the budget, and experience to recover from this, even though it may take them a while after been caught snoozing.


----------



## Spanners (Nov 7, 2020)

tigger said:


> The point is though, AMD may have raised core counts, but for mainly gaming, they are irrelevant. Imo games still do not need more than a 6/8 core cpu at most. Everyone raved when Ryzen came out, oo ooo but it has 12 cores(well 6 with hyper) but games didn't use them anyway. Imo the one advantage of ryzen coming out was the big kick up the behind it gave Intel. They may have been caught with their pants down, but do not write them off(as every Ryzen fan seems to be doing) they have the budget, and experience to recover from this, even though it may take them a while after been caught snoozing.



Sure I agree, beside some fringe cases 6/6 or 6/12 is still fine. In fact with a mid-range GPU that's not bleeding-edge something like a i5 4570 still means you're not missing out on much in the majority of titles (that you can play with a 2-4 year old mid-range GPU). There are some newer games however that use 8+ cores and you could make an argument that 8 cores is a smart move due to next gen consoles if you're planning on a 3-4 year upgrade cycle. That may turn out to be something that seems to makes sense but isn't actually the case but it's not crazy to infer.

This isn't just about gaming though. I personally don't game and care about DaVinci Resolve performance more than anything else at the moment and this seems to be a great CPU for me. Although compared to a 3950X it would not be much of an upgrade.

Not writing Intel off by any means whatsoever, I'll be very much looking forward to their response. Give AMD some huge credit here though. I would have laughed in your face if you'd told me this was the current state of the CPU market during the Bulldozer era.


----------



## springs113 (Nov 7, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> "AMD, please save us from Intel and Nvidia's expensive pricetags."
> Yeah. The same guys that were once screaming that line in previous years are now fine with AMD's new prices. Things sure as hell didn't get cheaper with AMD, and in fact they're matching the competition in prices and sometimes even more so: $1000 GPU, $4000 HEDT CPU, and now almost $1000 for a mainstream CPU. Hypocrisy at its finest.


So I guess a 6core intel part didn't cost $520?  Or a 10 core part for $1730?  My how we forget.  A 1800x launched at $500 and that was a steal, these processors make that processor look like childs play yet you complain? SMDH


----------



## agentnathan009 (Nov 7, 2020)

dicktracy said:


> "AMD, please save us from Intel and Nvidia's expensive pricetags."
> Yeah. The same guys that were once screaming that line in previous years are now fine with AMD's new prices. Things sure as hell didn't get cheaper with AMD, and in fact they're matching the competition in prices and sometimes even more so: $1000 GPU, $4000 HEDT CPU, and now almost $1000 for a mainstream CPU. Hypocrisy at its finest.



So a possible $999 competitor to a $1,500 nVidia 3090 blows your argument out of the water. A 6 core CPU that gets within striking distance of Intel's highest end consumer part and is significantly cheaper blows you argument out of the water. Last, but not least, the computational power of that $4,000 HEDT CPU demolishes Intel's best 18 core HEDT part so badly that I cannot fathom why you would even complain about the price given how much less it costs and how much more performance you are getting. There is no hypocrisy, AMD is giving us more for less than Intel, and still giving us more for less.

I'm sorry that you can't buy a Ferrari for $10,000 brand new off the showroom floor because you think it shouldn't cost any more than that. How dare Ferrari charge $200,000 for a high performance sports car!

AMD, still providing better bang for you buck


----------



## RMX (Nov 7, 2020)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, to all those wondering/arguing over TPU scores being lower vs. other reviewers: TPU tested with an older BIOS using AGESA 1.0.8.0, while others used the intended BIOS for Ryzen 5000, with AGESA 1.1.0.0 on their boards (AMD mentioned this in their videos).
Based on this, I tested it myself and it became clear there is a substantial difference between the two when running Cinebench R20 1T or games like SOTR.


----------



## Fasola (Nov 7, 2020)

RMX said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again, to all those wondering/arguing over TPU scores being lower vs. other reviewers: TPU tested with an older BIOS using AGESA 1.0.8.0, while others used the intended BIOS for Ryzen 5000, with AGESA 1.1.0.0 on their boards (AMD mentioned this in their videos).
> Based on this, I tested it myself and it became clear there is a substantial difference between the two when running Cinebench R20 1T or games like SOTR.


W1zzard said that it was an initial typo and that 1.1.0.0 was used in one of these Zen 3 review topics somewhere (reviews were updated as well). I expect a certain degree of copy paste is used in order to keep the review format.
At this point, we should just wait for the results of his investigation as all this pointless speculation is doing nobody any favours.


----------



## Dave65 (Nov 7, 2020)

Patuga said:


> Thank you for the review @W1zzard
> yup... still not as fast as intel in games



Funny, most of the other tech tubers I watch has it ahead of the 10900k or even.


----------



## arbiter (Nov 7, 2020)

A Con i think could added is outta box support. What i mean in that is if i buy a 5000 series and new board right now, there is a problem of will it work or am i boned if i don't have a pervious gen to drop in to the board for bios update. As much as i want a 5900x, i got a problem of if board was made recently enough to have new enough bios installed to support it when i don't have 1xxx/2xxx/3xxx to update bios if board doesn't have a way to do it without cpu as I would expect most cheaper boards don't.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 8, 2020)

RMX said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again, to all those wondering/arguing over TPU scores being lower vs. other reviewers: TPU tested with an older BIOS using AGESA 1.0.8.0, while others used the intended BIOS for Ryzen 5000, with AGESA 1.1.0.0 on their boards (AMD mentioned this in their videos).
> Based on this, I tested it myself and it became clear there is a substantial difference between the two when running Cinebench R20 1T or games like SOTR.


Not true. I used the AMD recommended BIOS, which is AGESA 1.1.0.0. When I wrote 1.0.8.0 I didn't look up the actual value in the BIOS and just wrote what I thought it was.

More details here: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...0-series-tpu-review-discussion-thread.274274/

I'm making good progress with my investigation btw and will soon have surprising details for you.


----------



## HTC (Nov 8, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> I'm making good progress with my investigation btw and will soon have surprising details for you.



According to Gamers Nexus, 5600X get a boost in performance when using 4 sticks of RAM VS 2: the difference is between 2.5% to over 8% and is consistent.

Unsure if this also translates to other Zen3 CPUs.


----------



## metalkhor (Nov 8, 2020)

Using RTX 2080 Ti that is out dated and lacks some key next gen features such as PCI-E Gen 4 makes this reviews as a whole irrelevant and misleading.
This is a big disappointment to see that TPU as a once leading publisher in tech world now become a weak and unreliable source of information.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 8, 2020)

metalkhor said:


> TPU as a once leading publisher in tech world now become a weak and unreliable source of information.



Says someone with 7 posts


----------



## mainlate (Nov 8, 2020)

X570 needs more refreshed boards. 3900x soon below 300€, very good.


----------



## avatar_raq (Nov 8, 2020)

I second what other people said, @W1zzard please reexamine the new CPUs with 4 sticks of RAM and see if you can reproduce the results of Steve from GamerNexus.


----------



## puma99dk| (Nov 8, 2020)

avatar_raq said:


> I second what other people said, @W1zzard please reexamine the new CPUs with 4 sticks of RAM and see if you can reproduce the results of Steve from GamerNexus.



You mean the video Gamers Nexus released yesterday? It could be the reason why @W1zzard's Ryzen 5000 series scores ain't as high as others.









@avatar_raq but there are people who learned to use 2xsticks instead of 4xsticks because it's a dual-channel platform so it should be 2xsticks not 4xsticks since 4 sticks makes the mem controller run harder and can cause problems with stability even I haven't personally seen this for years but still can happen.


----------



## bmacsys (Nov 8, 2020)

LocutusH said:


> Didnt they say, that it will outperform 10900K in games too?
> 
> This seems like just another AMD launch, where the reality is completely different than the promises.


Oh my. Another weak attempt at trolling.



dicktracy said:


> It's not an upgrade to Intel users lol.


You are too funny. I guess Covid-19 is fake too.



birdie said:


> Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.
> 
> What's bad for Intel (charging top dollar) is absolutely OK for AMD because ... because AMD. We get it. Let's see if AMD keeps raising prices for the next Ryzen series (Zen 4/DDR5) and what new crappy excuses AMD fans will come up with.


Birdie/Yeshua the troll is everywhere. Copying and pasting the same bogus posts on dozens of different forums.


----------



## Selaya (Nov 8, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> No worries, often some nice improvements come out of feedback like this


Speaking of improvements, maybe mention that you're running custom instead of built-in game benchmarks? That seems to be the cause of some of the deviations between your and others' testing, and a custom benchmark would perform differently from a built-in one (and may be closer to the real world).


----------



## okbuddy (Nov 8, 2020)

HTC said:


> According to Gamers Nexus, 5600X get a boost in performance when using 4 sticks of RAM VS 2: the difference is between 2.5% to over 8% and is consistent.
> 
> Unsure if this also translates to other Zen3 CPUs.



hey, 4 sticks always better  (zen 2 example)







source https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3000-best-memory-timings,6310-2.html


----------



## mkppo (Nov 8, 2020)

This is exactly what I asked W1zzard, I knew there were performance gains to be had from 4 sticks (or dual rank 2 sticks). Zen 3 gains a lot more performance from quad ranks. Add in memory tuning and there's SO much more performance to be had from the configuration TPU used.

5600X looks faster than 10900K when 4 ranks are populated and 3600 mhz memory is used for both. 5800x is faster still. All reviews confirm this. 3600 sticks are close to 3200 prices, and 4 sticks of 3600 really allow Zen 3 to shine. You can still save a ton of cash compared to 10900K and simply get faster gaming performance.


----------



## Calmmo (Nov 8, 2020)

W1zzard said:


> Not true. I used the AMD recommended BIOS, which is AGESA 1.1.0.0. When I wrote 1.0.8.0 I didn't look up the actual value in the BIOS and just wrote what I thought it was.
> 
> More details here: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...0-series-tpu-review-discussion-thread.274274/
> 
> I'm making good progress with my investigation btw and will soon have surprising details for you.



But will you last enough to withstand the attack of the fanboys? is the real question  The true phantom menace


----------



## arbiter (Nov 8, 2020)

metalkhor said:


> Using RTX 2080 Ti that is out dated and lacks some key next gen features such as PCI-E Gen 4 makes this reviews as a whole irrelevant and misleading.
> This is a big disappointment to see that TPU as a once leading publisher in tech world now become a weak and unreliable source of information.


.... lacking pci4 doesn't make it irrelevant as they tested scaling and show that can use even pci2 16x and lose very little performance. Reason to use that card is cause they have a WHOLE HOST of results performance data to compare it to then just change it. They tested pci scaling using a 3080 and between 3.0 and 4.0 there was only around 1% loss.








						NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3080 PCI-Express Scaling
					

NVIDIA Ampere finally brings PCI-Express 4.0 support to the high-end graphics market. The new interface promises twice the bandwidth of PCI-Express 3.0. We've setup an AMD Ryzen 3900XT system to test how various PCIe generations and lane widths affect gaming performance.




					www.techpowerup.com


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Nov 8, 2020)

It would be advisable if the whole set of reviews were re-done as this episode has been really damaging to TechPowerUp's reputation, and for my faith in their work unfortunately.


----------



## arbiter (Nov 9, 2020)

Shatun_Bear said:


> It would be advisable if the whole set of reviews were re-done as this episode has been really damaging to TechPowerUp's reputation, and for my faith in their work unfortunately.


Testing is done in a way to make it apples to apples, when you use different memory which can be identical on bother sides now that makes question of is cpu faster or is memory unfairly bottlenecking 1 or the other. Both using as much of same hardware as possible removes that question of hardware like memory or gpu being the one doing it.


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Nov 9, 2020)

arbiter said:


> Testing is done in a way to make it apples to apples, when you use different memory which can be identical on bother sides now that makes question of is cpu faster or is memory unfairly bottlenecking 1 or the other. Both using as much of same hardware as possible removes that question of hardware like memory or gpu being the one doing it.



I dont think it's just the memory that was the problem. The difference with other reviews is significant.


----------



## puma99dk| (Nov 9, 2020)

What about 2x16GB kits?

In theory all 16GB sticks have memory chips on both sides of the PCB while almost if not all 8GB stick only have on one side of the PCB.


----------



## okbuddy (Nov 9, 2020)

rumor: 6800xt samples already arrived, but the tech sites can't post anything


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 9, 2020)

bmacsys said:


> Copying and pasting the same bogus posts on dozens of different forums.


haha... he is wow... 


okbuddy said:


> rumor: 6800xt samples already arrived, but the tech sites can't post anything


In other news, water is wet. 

Being serious, that is how it always works. Reviewers get the cards early and have NDA's to sign, correct.


----------



## adrians (Nov 10, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> @W1zzard :
> 
> FWIW I think I found the reason for discrepancies in multiple review sites, which exist not only here but on other reviews as well.   It's multi-faceted but it basically comes down to memory speeds.  See #3 for the quick take.
> 
> ...



I don't think memory makes a difference here. See below results from test platform using the same 3200 memory for Intel & AMD. I think it's methodology in general as you'll see in various games results are pretty much flat with negligible difference between CPUs (see eg. TPU Tomb Raider where there's 1 FPS difference for 5900X vs 3900X; 10600K beats 10900K etc.). Maybe it's related to the test place itself as it has been proven that it makes a real difference in proper CPU place vs GPU place (also attached 2nd screenshot to prove that the test place where GPU is bottleneck doesn't show too much difference between CPUs & configs that in general makes a difference)


----------



## Air (Nov 10, 2020)

Damn so much intel vs amd wars in this thread.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 10, 2020)

Air said:


> Damn so much intel vs amd wars in this thread.


This is the bed that was allowed to be made. It doesn't need to be like this.......


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 10, 2020)

5600X still not cutting the mustard on Time Spy CPU, getting whacked by a 10700 non-K by 20.4%, against overclocked K's it's like 30-40%  :


----------



## HTC (Nov 10, 2020)

@W1zzard : how's the investigation going?


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 10, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> This is the bed that was allowed to be made. It doesn't need to be like this.......




This is the result of AMD engaging the enthusiast community for the past decade.  It's marketing / communication / outreach.  Intel never did that.  It is paying big dividends to AMD as they lost mind share a long time ago.

Forget Zen 3 for a moment.  How exactly is it that all these sites "recommended" AMD Zen 2 for gaming PCs for the past 12-18 months?  At this point, Zen 2 is completely without legs in the higher end gaming arena.  It never had much in that way to start with, but its shortcomings are really really clear when paired with 3XXX Nvidia cards.  

Pretty much all these sites say what they need to say to get clicks.  I miss the time (25 years ago) when the enthusiast sites were hobbyist sites, not advertising billboards.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 10, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> How exactly is it that all these sites "recommended" AMD Zen 2 for gaming PCs for the past 12-18 months?


Because price to performance ratios mean something to people......regardless if the other team performs better in gaming.

That said, I was referring to the toxic environment that is TPU, not click bait news.


----------



## Deleted member 24505 (Nov 10, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Because price to performance ratios mean something to people......regardless if the other team performs better in gaming.
> 
> That said, I was referring to the toxic environment that is TPU, not click bait news.



Because everyone says/thinks more cores/threads are better, but only if you use programs that use/need them. Amd might be cheaper for more threads but Imo Intel still win for a pure gaming rig with a modern 10xxx CPU and 3xxx or 6xxx series GPU.
There will always be Amd vs Intel wars/discussions as long as both brands exist, it will never stop.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 10, 2020)

tigger said:


> Because everyone says/thinks more cores/threads are better, but only if you use programs that use/need them. Amd might be cheaper for more threads but Imo Intel still win for a pure gaming rig with a modern 10xxx CPU and 3xxx or 6xxx series GPU.


Indeed. Though they have caught up in gaming now it seems (?)...


tigger said:


> There will always be Amd vs Intel wars/discussions as long as both brands exist, it will never stop.


Of course. There are (better) ways for people and forums to handle it, is the thing. The people here, don't.


----------



## W1zzard (Nov 10, 2020)

HTC said:


> @W1zzard : how's the investigation going?


Very good, hope to have an article for you today or tomrorow


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 10, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> Because price to performance ratios mean something to people......regardless if the other team performs better in gaming.
> 
> That said, I was referring to the toxic environment that is TPU, not click bait news.



Price / Performance *in games* has been and continues to be won (for any paying attention to results) by the 10400 / 10400F.  Faster than 3600 / 3600X in games, and cheaper.  It actually ties it up in the 1080p aggregate with a 3700X, even with the 10400 running gimp DDR4-2666.   Run DDR4-3200 and you start trading blows with far more expensive processors.


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 10, 2020)

RandallFlagg said:


> Price / Performance *in games* has been and continues to be won (for any paying attention to results) by the 10400 / 10400F.  Faster than 3600 / 3600X in games, and cheaper.  It actually ties it up in the 1080p aggregate with a 3700X, even with the 10400 running gimp DDR4-2666.   Run DDR4-3200 and you start trading blows with far more expensive processors.


5000 series big guy... this thread and what I said is about the 5000 series.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Nov 10, 2020)

EarthDog said:


> 5000 series big guy... this thread and what I said is about the 5000 series.



Ya but I was questioning how Zen 2 was the recommended for gaming chip for the past 12-18 months.  It's not Zen 3 that made me question the veracity of many of these sites, it was watching "best cpu for gaming" lists that would have like top 5 or 6 CPUs in benchmarks be Intel and then conclude "AMD best for games".   That's a result of AMD catering to the enthusiast community so much the past 10 years, along with monetization of these sites, has nothing to do with results. 

Maybe something unrelated to AMD vs Intel to illustrate.  Memory reviews.  So I find, dual-rank DIMMs seem to greatly outperform single rank DIMMs.  But single rank DIMMs are generally more dense, cheaper to make, and can clock higher - so without any knowledge of dual rank vs single rank they look better on paper.   Try to find anyone in the past 2 years who even mentions dual rank dimms?  Or compares single rank to dual rank? 

So now what we got - put 4x single rank DIMMs to get a performance increase?   But 4 years ago, we knew that you could put in 2x dual rank.

Consider this chart. 

What you are looking at is some relatively cheap dual rank DDR4-3000 from a 2nd tier manufacturer who doesn't advertise much, whip some very expensive single rank DDR4-4600 in a game, to the tune of 25% fps difference.  This is today somehow a new discovery :


----------



## EarthDog (Nov 10, 2020)

You're preaching to the choir. I didn't post the news about 4 sticks performing better, lol....


----------



## N3M3515 (Nov 10, 2020)

Very interesting video, Intel processors also benefit from 4 sticks and dual rank ram, not just AMD.
Ryzen 5000 DDR4 Memory Performance, XMP vs Manual Timings, Single vs Dual Rank


----------



## Amite (Nov 10, 2020)

Pre Ordered at B&H opening day - just got a Email said it would be Jan. to March time frame.


----------



## Spanners (Nov 11, 2020)

Hmm... they are in stock here in NZ. Pretty wide timeframe.


----------



## Mike2Fr (Nov 11, 2020)

Probably because NZ is a country with reasonable and kind people and you have way less scalpers than in many countries...."it is not because you could that you should." I've read many testimony on this forum and elsewhere that if they could make some profit by scalping, they would definitely do it. We are the problem and the solution....


----------



## Spanners (Nov 11, 2020)

Mike2Fr said:


> Probably because NZ is a country with reasonable and kind people and you have way less scalpers than in many countries...."it is not because you could that you should." I've read many testimony on this forum and elsewhere that if they could make some profit by scalping, they would definitely do it. We are the problem and the solution....



I wouldn't go that far! We have the usual share of scalpers and the like. Most of the retailers I see have a one per customer limit though. We are out of stock of the 12 and 16 core models in most places.


----------



## Mike2Fr (Nov 11, 2020)

Spanners said:


> I wouldn't go that far! We have the usual share of scalpers and the like. Most of the retailers I see have a one per customer limit though. We are out of stock of the 12 and 16 core models in most places.


Most retailers in the US were out of stock in 2 min. Every single 5000 series. Microcenter had some 5600x and 5800x available for in store traffic until early afternoon.


----------



## cueman (Nov 14, 2020)

well, 7nm zen3,amd brand new vermeer, new 5000 series cpu doing good job for gaming,better than 7nm zen2,
but intel answer for that is incoming with rocket lake-s cpu,incoming march/2021.
im sure rocket lake is fast,and just target is gaming.

but,still, 10900 is top gaming cpu...and looks little cheaper...lol,and will be alot cheaper soon.

but, real,final battle is coming june/2021, wen intel Adler lake-s is here,its 10nm tech and hydrib cpu...

...and what i read and heard internet and sources, amd is bad trouble,..new age start cpu performace and efficiency..and zen4 and 5nm tech might not help...


but almost same time when zen4 coming,coming intel meteor lake-s, 7nm hydrib cpu step out..
and thouse categories, i mean between 5nm to 7nm process tech,different is much smaller than now, amd 7nm, intel 14nm process tech.

so,shortly, 2021 show quite clear where cpu battle goes and i say, stay too,bcoz if intel loose with its adler lake and meteor lake cpus for amd zen cpus(3.4), its final loose..
intel know it,so dont except anything slow thouse 2 cpus. i dont.

well, must say this.

zen1 to2 and zen 2 to 3, performance differents go all of time smaller...example zen2 was much faster than zen1, but zen3 performance upgrade from ze2, much smaller.....
so amd trust again that 7nm to 5nm process tech help it....hmm

well,we see Q2/2021,we see it

amd 7nm zen3 vs intel 14nm rocket lake = winner? march/2021
amd 7nm zen3 vs intel 10nm hydrib adler lake = winner  june/2021
amd 5nm zen4 vs intel 7nm hydrib meteor lake = winner? 2022/2023

lets see....


----------



## Shatun_Bear (Nov 14, 2020)

GamersNexus just uploaded an interesting video of a heavily tuned 5600X vs 10600K (both with tuned memory and overclocked) and the 5600X still trounces the Intel in gaming:












Mike2Fr said:


> Most retailers in the US were out of stock in 2 min. Every single 5000 series. Microcenter had some 5600x and 5800x available for in store traffic until early afternoon.



SCAN (a large UK component retailer) said Ryzen 5000 saw the fastest CPU sales they have ever seen. Yeh, made me do a double take as well but the fervour for these is real:









						AMD Ryzen 5000 smashes processor sales records
					

Lots of people buying them, apparently




					www.techradar.com


----------



## mkppo (Nov 14, 2020)

That's a slam dunk victory right there


----------



## N3M3515 (Nov 15, 2020)

Shatun_Bear said:


> SCAN (a large UK component retailer) said Ryzen 5000 saw the fastest CPU sales they have ever seen. Yeh, made me do a double take as well but the fervour for these is real:



Didn't see any news like those about rtx 3080, so their "ultra high demand" wasn't real after all. Just poor availability.


----------



## cueman (Nov 23, 2020)

i wonder, why 10850k not included test,its faster than 10900k,like techpowerup review show.

but,still, 10900k and 10850k are faster for games than brandnew amd vermeer cpus.

intel answer for amd vermeer coming march 2021, intel rocket lake, then we see levle 1-1 battle,both have newest cpus.


what i read and get info, intel rocket lake beat easily amd vermeer, and i mean gaming performance.


rest of job doing intel adler lake,intel 1st 10nm cpu and hydrib one.

2021 is it year that intel rasing and for good, i say, yes.


let see..


----------

