AMD Ryzen 7 5800X

[W1zzard]

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

Show full review

 

[mahoney]

So it's not the gaming king?

 

[phill]

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

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

 

[B-Real]

So it's not the gaming king?

 

[mahoney]

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

 

[Charcharo]

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

 

[xenocide]

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

 

[W1zzard]

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

Are we looking at the same chart?

Similar temps as last generation, much more perf

 

[dyonoctis]

Meanwhile in europe:

 

[birdie]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mahoney]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[havox]

What's new, however, is that certain Ryzen 5000 series processor models can support DDR4-4000 with 1:1 fclk:mclk ratio, without having to engage a 1:2 divider.

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

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

 

[EatingDirt]

So it's not the gaming king?

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

 

[Mussels]

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

 

[xkm1948]

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

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

Still impressive though

 

[RedelZaVedno]

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

 

[mahoney]

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

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

Still impressive though

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

 

[Xuper]

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

 

[l)e3j4y]

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

 

[Dux]

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

 

[W1zzard]

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

Coming next week

 

[B-Real]

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

Not really: 11 game average on 1080p

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

 

[mahoney]

Not really: 11 game average on 1080p

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

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

 

[SaLaDiN666]

Shameful display.

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

 

[EatingDirt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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