Tuesday, October 20th 2020

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, 5950X Also Benchmarked in Geekbench 5

by
Raevenlord
 Discuss (38 Comments)
It would seem that a number of players have received their Zen 3 samples, considering the amount of performance leaks that have surfaced just in the past two days. The new AMD Zen 3 processors carry a huge weight on their shoulders - demonstrating AMD's touted leadership in CPU performance in all metrics, whilst justifying their increased pricing against Zen 2 offerings. Many rivers of ink (and some tears) have flown in regards to pricing of the new AMD processors, so it all pertains to performance considerations on whether that pricing is justified or not.

Leaker extraordinaire TUM_APISAK has leaked some benchmarks on AMD's upcoming Ryzen 9 5900X and 5950X CPUs - namely, in Geekbench 5. In this round of leaks - which are, admittedly, originating from two different systems), the 12-core, 24-thread AMD Ryzen 9 5900X scores 1605 points in single-core and 12869 in the Multi-core benchmarks. The 16-core, 32-thread Ryzen 9 5950X, on the other hand, scores 1575 points in single and 13605 points in Multi-core workloads. The Ryzen 9 5900X's higher base clocks may be responsible for the higher single-core score; however, the Ryzen 9 5959X pulls ahead - expectedly - in the Multi-core portion of the benchmark. Comparing scores between the Zen 3 5950X and the Zen-based 3950X (via AnandTech), which carry the same amount of cores, the 5950X offers a 18% and 12% advantage, respectively, in the single and multi-threaded tests - not a far cry from AMD's touted 19% IPC uplift.
Sources: TUM_APISAK @ Twitter, AnandTech, via Videocardz

Related News

Add your own comment

38 Comments on AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, 5950X Also Benchmarked in Geekbench 5

#26
thesmokingman
lynx29how do you play games that were never meant to read 12 cores? i read that tomb raider trilogy the new one, the first one in that trilogy was programmed for only 8 cores max, so you get issues if you run a 12 core cpu.

any advice on how to fix this if i do get a 5900x?
Use Ryzen master to limit reduce the core count on the fly.
Posted on Reply
#27
Space Lynx
Astronaut
thesmokingmanUse Ryzen master to limit reduce the core count on the fly.
is there a list of games I can use as reference that need this done? or will I simply be able to tell if there are performance issues in game caused specifically by the core count?
Posted on Reply
#28
thesmokingman
lynx29is there a list of games I can use as reference that need this done? or will I simply be able to tell if there are performance issues in game caused specifically by the core count?
No list that I know of but I'm not into old games or games in general these days.
Posted on Reply
#29
theeldest
lynx29how do you play games that were never meant to read 12 cores? i read that tomb raider trilogy the new one, the first one in that trilogy was programmed for only 8 cores max, so you get issues if you run a 12 core cpu.

any advice on how to fix this if i do get a 5900x?
I did a quick search and didn't find any games that have problems running with too many cores (the closest I can come is a problem with windows and more than 64 cores where things get weird).

Is this a real problem you ran into? Because I'm pretty sure it's not a real issue just some "what ifs" people have raised for no reason.
Posted on Reply
#30
Space Lynx
Astronaut
theeldestI did a quick search and didn't find any games that have problems running with too many cores (the closest I can come is a problem with windows and more than 64 cores where things get weird).

Is this a real problem you ran into? Because I'm pretty sure it's not a real issue just some "what ifs" people have raised for no reason.
I own no 12 core cpu, I just heard Tomb Raider and other older games can't handle it and you get low frames with 12 core cpu's cause they were only designed for 8 max. I have no idea if its true or not just heard it in multiple places.
Posted on Reply
#31
Valantar
lynx29I own no 12 core cpu, I just heard Tomb Raider and other older games can't handle it and you get low frames with 12 core cpu's cause they were only designed for 8 max. I have no idea if its true or not just heard it in multiple places.
That's not how things work. Some games might scale weirdly, but mostly these "issues" are down to higher core count CPUs being clocked lower than their lower core count counterparts. The game will spawn however many threads it wants/needs and will be entirely oblivious to whether there are cores left over beyond this.
OberonWith Rocket Lake engineering samples only achieving about 1500 points in Geekbench single threaded tests and around 610 points in CB R20 when running at 5 GHz, I think Intel may have a hard time topping or even matching Zen 3 until Alder Lake comes out.
Isn't Alder Lake just supposed to be Tiger Lake cores coupled with some sort of Atom cores for low power? If it's on 10nm for desktop that is of course an improvement at least in power draw, but I doubt it'll clock higher than 14nm.

Edit: damn autocorrect
Posted on Reply
#32
Oberon
ValantarIsn't Alder Lie just supposed to be Tiger Lake cores coupled with some sort of Atom cores for low power? If it's on 10nm for desktop that is of course an improvement at least in power draw, but I doubt it'll clock higher than 14nm.
Yes, but there are some performance improvements in Willow Cove (Tiger Lake) relative to Cypress Cove (14 nm Willow Cove backport for Rocket Lake with Sunny Cove cache layout), they should be able to increase core counts, and it should help tame the power consumption a bit.
Posted on Reply
#33
pantherx12
lynx29I own no 12 core cpu, I just heard Tomb Raider and other older games can't handle it and you get low frames with 12 core cpu's cause they were only designed for 8 max. I have no idea if its true or not just heard it in multiple places.
I run some very old games with no issues on 12 cores.

The game requests a thread or threads and windows allocates the threads. It may of been a problem before windows updated it's scheduler.

If you do run into issues ryzen master has an option called "game mode" which will reboot the system with half the cores disabled but the same tdp limit so the base clock speed gets a bump. For example on my 65w part in game mode it will get to 3.9-4.0 GHz all core Vs 3.6ghz when running 12 cores.

I'm hoping this generation will be able to disable cores without a reboot .
Posted on Reply
#34
Zach_01
lynx29I own no 12 core cpu, I just heard Tomb Raider and other older games can't handle it and you get low frames with 12 core cpu's cause they were only designed for 8 max. I have no idea if its true or not just heard it in multiple places.
6core/12 thread CPU

Game: FarCry NewDawn
Avg CPU usage: 32%, Max CPU usage: 55%
Avg thread usage: 76%, Max thread usage: 100%

Game: Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice
Avg CPU usage: 25%, Max CPU usage: 45%
Avg thread usage: 66%, Max thread usage: 88%

Both games 1920x1200 max settings (+FarCry at x1.2 render)
GPU unristricted (FPS cap) with default power settings.

FPS
NewDawn: 70~130
Hellblade: 90~140
Posted on Reply
#35
Valantar
OberonYes, but there are some performance improvements in Willow Cove (Tiger Lake) relative to Cypress Cove (14 nm Willow Cove backport for Rocket Lake with Sunny Cove cache layout), they should be able to increase core counts, and it should help tame the power consumption a bit.
Ah, I didn't know the cache layout was different, though judging by the difference between Ice Lake and Tiger Lake the resulting IPC increase is tiny at best. It's also an open question whether increased core counts will actually improve performance - rumors say Alder Lake is an 8+8 core layout (16c24t to be precise), which is of course a step down in the number of fast cores from the 10900k. We don't know whether the Windows scheduler will treat the cores like equals or as a set of either/or core clusters (the latter seems more likely if power savings is a goal), though there is of course the possibility for some advanced scheduling system that puts low performance threads on the low power cores etc. That would free up the 8 fast cores for heavier tasks, but it remains to be seen just how much that will improve overall performance. It's definitely an interesting arch, but more for mobile than desktop IMO.
Posted on Reply
#36
MikeSnow
Old LadiesWell if this is true the 5900x will be significantly faster than the 10900k. I can hardly wait. I have been slowly getting new parts for my new build. It is going to be the first time in a long time since I have gone AMD. I believe the last time was Phenom ii.
For me it would be the first time since the K6-2, so over 20 years. Not being able to upgrade to a better CPU in the future, without also changing the motherboard, is the only thing that's a bit annoying about the 5900X.

I'm currently on the i7-7700K, and I have the same problem, there is no better CPU for my motherboard.

On the other hand, I don't think I can wait another year for the AM5 CPUs and motherboards, so most likely I'll end up with a 5900x system in the next few months, unless Intel pulls some rabbit from their hat.
Posted on Reply
#37
thesmokingman
MikeSnowFor me it would be the first time since the K6-2, so over 20 years. Not being able to upgrade to a better CPU in the future, without also changing the motherboard, is the only thing that's a bit annoying about the 5900X.
To be fair that's not on AMD and more your personal timing. These chips are the last in the lineup on AM4 socket and they gave us a homerun. It's a great service to those who were already on AM4 (except those on x370). Judging from how long you stay on the chip you run, I wouldn't think it's an actual problem. In any case you might consider the 5800x instead. That cpu will already be generational leaps ahead of that 7700K. That'll leave a used/new 5950x down the road as a possibility.
Posted on Reply
#38
WeeRab
PowerPCI believe they could still be compatible even though the platform is not here yet. The DDR5 spec has been finished for a long time. I just don't see myself upgrading to one of these, if they are likely the last CPU that will not be compatible with DDR5.

I'm not asking for AM4..... I'm asking for future platforms that these CPUs will more than likely be compatible with. Don't act smart before you even read the question properly.

And do you actually think I'm using PowerPC right now, or what...? o_O
No. The last CPU that will be incompatible with DDR5 will likely be the upcoming 14nm Rocket Lake from Intel. Slated for release sometime in early/mid 2021.
It will also likely support PCIE 4.0. AT LAST!!
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Aug 17th, 2024 15:36 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts