AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

[B-Real]

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

Will a 11 game average convince you?

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

 

[RandallFlagg]

Will a 11 game average convince you?

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

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

 

[kardeon]

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

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

 

[sepheronx]

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

 

[FeelinFroggy]

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

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

 

[EzioAs]

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

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

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

 

[GreiverBlade]

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

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

nonetheless :
keyword in my post was "situational"


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

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

1440p is not much CPU bound indeed ...

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

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

exactly!

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

 

[acethinjo]

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

 

[Keemzay]

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

 

[wheresmycar]

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

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

 

[Legacy-ZA]

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

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

 

[Diverge]

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

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

 

[NDown]

Will a 11 game average convince you?

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

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

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

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

 

[ZenZimZaliben]

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

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

 

[Raendor]

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

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

 

[HenrySomeone]

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

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

 

[kings]

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

 

[FeelinFroggy]

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

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

 

[gravel]

A problem with your techpowerup tests

 

[RandallFlagg]

Going to try to be real here.

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

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

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

 

[sepheronx]

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

 

[Raendor]

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

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

 

[Searing]

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

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

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

 

[Zach_01]

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

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

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

 

[Raendor]

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

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

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