10700 vs 5600X

[Zach_01]

@X71200
@Max(IT)

Come one guys... Don’t do that to the thread...

The Stealth cooler is just to work and nothing more. On typical (and most) cases it will manage to keep the 88W parts around 85C. Everything else above or below that is not the usual.
And 95+C is not possible without disabling power management of the chip(like OC). 95C is the throttling point of ZEN2.

The 5600X with its 76W draw will probably be around 80 maybe a little less. Under most cases.

When a Fan shroud is thicker that the cooler heatsink... something is not right!

Please now... cease fire...

 

[X71200]

Intel "K" chips are easily overclocked 10% and many are getting 15-20% OC. I haven't heard of a non-K chip that won't take a 3% BCLK out of the box, I'm sure one exists.

AMD Zen 2 and apparently Zen 3 struggle to get 100Mhz i.e. about the 2-3% you get with a non-K chip on the Intel side. They are at their limits from the factory.

Intel chips are known to run with much higher speed RAM. DDR4-4200 is easy on Intel Z490 platforms. It is not uncommon to get DDR4-4800 on Intel. AMD struggles with speeds over DDR4-3800, some get DDR4-4133.

What this means is that Intel chips / chipsets have a significant engineering margin of error built in. AMD chips by contrast do not.


When you put a system, any system, near its limits it will not be a stable as a system that is far from its limits.

Intel also sets many standards outside of the CPU, for example Thunderbolt. If you have an AMD board, it's quite likely that board is using an Intel chip somewhere.

It's not like this is news to anyone, these things have been noted by AMD fans many times. But like I said the AMD fanboi mob would be here if anyone pointed it out in contrast to Intel, or as a plus for Intel. The emotional nonsense mob aside, what I've presented above are self-evident facts.

Don't make me laugh, the reason of that is in the inherited voltage / clock walls of Zen itself. This doesn't mean it's worse when it performs very good at LOWER clocks.

Then you talk about the "Thunderbolt". Hilarious. A standard dumped by Apple for many years, only to be resurrected on Windows setups with expensive boards and cards first. Still haven't managed to settle down properly. My board uses a Realtek 2.5g ethernet and it works flawlessly. Just like my 10gbit Intel X550 ethernet card which I bought mostly for kicks and giggles. Intel still makes a lot of stuff on worse nanometers and most of their stuff is outdated. My 980 Pro kicks my Optane in the nuts when it comes to 4k write even at a much lower size. You know you're posting Intel sided material in these threads and you should stop.

 

[sepheronx]

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X Review

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

www.techspot.com

As one can see, the 5800X is also a solid choice CPU. Its performance is overall on par or exceeds the 10700K. In some cases only 3% and in some others, by a larger margins.

Got to respect AMD for this.

Now I am looking forward to Intel's Rocket Lake to see how well it performs. But I may make the switch to AMD by then. Daughter needs a new PC and I will get her to build one using the Z490 motherboard and the 10500ES chip I got.

 

[RandallFlagg]

No doubt... but also the top 100 spots for the most power hogs of PCs...
And what about the cooling requirements for a 250~300W power draw of a chip alone?

Lots of sites / videos using various ~$80 to $150 AIO 240mm coolers have the 10700K hitting 5.3Ghz all core. The boost in multi-core can be close to +30%, and about +10% in single core. This can be done on $200 motherboards as well. The power draw of the chip is closer to 200W than 250W.

Paired up with some DDR4-4200 RAM, that combo is giving a score ~13,000 on Time Spy CPU. That is a tie with the top performing 5800X right now on those charts. It destroys the top performing 5600X by about 35%. <- Note this is for max 5.3Ghz overclock. The more extreme overclocks are another 10% faster, but they are getting up to 5.4 / 5.5 and will likely have the really extreme cooling solutions.

I'm just saying you can do good out of the box AIO cooling and pop off +20 - 30% performance on a 10700K without too much trouble. Going beyond an all core 5.2 / 5.3 turbo does indeed take a lot more effort though.

 

[Zach_01]

Too much for bragging rights. And I was/am talking about the 5.6GHz and the top 100 benchmark lists you mentioned. That can’t happen with 200W. Not on this earth.

 

[Max(IT)]

@X71200
@Max(IT)

Come one guys... Don’t do that to the thread...

The Stealth cooler is just to work and nothing more. On typical (and most) cases it will manage to keep the 88W parts around 85C. Everything else above or below that is not the usual.
And 95+C is not possible without disabling power management of the chip(like OC). 95C is the throttling point of ZEN2.

The 5600X with its 76W draw will probably be around 80 maybe a little less. Under most cases.

When a Fan shroud is thicker that the cooler heatsink... something is not right!

Please now... cease fire...

As you surely know operating at temperature around 85° is not desirable on a Ryzen, because even if you are well below the maximum 95°, PB2 won't allow the CPU to boost to the maximum theoretical clock. So you are hampering performance using a garbage cooler like the Stealth.
Even a modest 30/40€ cooler could keep a 3600/5600X at least 10° cooler, giving better performance.

But with him is always the same: he is right, even when he is wrong

 

[RandallFlagg]

Too much for bragging rights. And I was/am talking about the 5.6GHz and the top 100 benchmark lists you mentioned. That can’t happen with 200W. Not on this earth.

I don't look at the very top 100 much. Limit the max frequency to 5.3 on the selector, and sort by CPU score. 5.3 is very achievable, using off the shelf components. I agree the ones that have like 5.6+ Ghz are not likely to be achieved by a normal user, but that is a red herring. The K series are meant to be overclocked and most can be overclocked by the average user.

Case in point, this is my lowly 10400 with all core 4.2Ghz. Stock it's 3.9Ghz. ATM I just have Intel's stock cooler, and a cheap $150 Asus Prime Plus Z490. I'm basically getting a +7 - 8% multi-core performance boost for nothing.

Like this - note they are using 10700K stock as baseline 0% :

 

[X71200]

How about you look at these?

https://img.techpowerup.org/201107/untitled3.jpg

https://img.techpowerup.org/201107/untitled2.jpg

https://img.techpowerup.org/201107/untitled037.jpg

Done with 3600 B-Die Trident worth 80 bucks today, at 16-16. Have been testing left to right, no crashes (just updated BIOS).

Of course when things only look good on blue on pouvre on red, the CPU sucks. Now you're here telling me, this older chip performing similarly to yours with 4200 RAM, on a cheap AIO config it can do... then your CPU somehow is able to crush chips that are much better than mine? Like the 5600X on single? What about 5800X and 5900X multiple? Single is also not all that relevant today. I have more CPU usage left when multiple cores are used.

As for the other guy, I could install a setup with the absolute garbage cooler and get some results, but I'm not going to bother since that's more work and he can't understand that 1+ hour of Blender does not equal to gaming.

 

[RandallFlagg]

How about you look at these?

https://img.techpowerup.org/201107/untitled3.jpg

https://img.techpowerup.org/201107/untitled2.jpg

https://img.techpowerup.org/201107/untitled037.jpg

Done with 3600 B-Die Trident worth 80 bucks today, at 16-16. Have been testing left to right, no crashes (just updated BIOS).

Of course when things only look good on blue on pouvre on red, the CPU sucks. Now you're here telling me, this older chip performing similarly to yours with 4200 RAM, on a cheap AIO config it can do... then your CPU somehow is able to crush chips that are much better than mine? Like the 5600X on single? What about 5800X and 5900X multiple? Single is also not all that relevant today. I have more CPU usage left when multiple cores are used.

As for the other guy, I could install a setup with the absolute garbage cooler and get some results, but I'm not going to bother since that's more work and he can't understand that 1+ hour of Blender does not equal to gaming.

Your 12C / 24T 3900X with dual 240mm AIO coolers gets whipped in Time Spy CPU by a 8C / 16T 10700K with a 4.9Ghz all core turbo and DDR4-4400 (which you probably can't do on a Ryzen, since it's not stable with those kind of speeds). In fact, it only barely beats the power unlocked 10700 non-K systems on those charts. That's really not very interesting at all given you have 50% more cores and a huge cooling system. You really should have bought an K Intel chip for what you're trying to do with that rig. Edit: you also don't have a valid score, which is questionable.

 

[X71200]

Your 12C / 24T 3900X with dual 240mm AIO coolers gets whipped in Time Spy CPU by a 8C / 16T 10700K with a 4.9Ghz all core turbo and DDR4-4400 (which you probably can't do on a Ryzen, since it's not stable with those kind of speeds). In fact, it only barely beats the power unlocked 10700 non-K systems on those charts. That's really not very interesting at all given you have 50% more cores and a huge cooling system. You really should have bought an K Intel chip for what you're trying to do with that rig.

I don't need any of that cooling, I have it just because I can. You can keep the Intel CPUs to yourself. Gets whipped? By 100 points right? I can bring Cinebench into argument and tell you that I've gotten over 7900 pts there in past. When I buy a 5900X, you can be ensured you'll be even more laughing stock. It's not about doing the 4400, this RAM can do around 3800 easily. It's about the price you pay for 4400 RAM and the Infinity Fabric link speed. Move on.

 

[sepheronx]

You guys are fighting over nothing.

AMD new processors are great, they surpass Intel's processors at modest ranges. Cool. That doesn't stop the Intel processor being good too at the job.

Get the best in price and performance.

 

[RandallFlagg]

The only laughing stock is you.

I don't need any of that cooling, I have it just because I can. You can keep the Intel CPUs to yourself. Gets whipped? By 100 points right? I can bring Cinebench into argument and tell you that I've gotten over 7900 pts there in past. When I buy a 5900X, you can be ensured you'll be even more laughing stock. It's not about doing the 4400, this RAM can do around 3800 easily. It's about the price you pay for 4400 RAM and the Infinity Fabric link speed. Move on.

Why don't you try running Time Spy CPU with normal settings, instead of "Time Spy Custom", and try getting a valid score instead of that invalid one. There are a lot of power unlocked 8c 10700 Non-K chips which cannot be overclocked more than 3% on the CPU, scoring over 12,000 on those charts. And that benchmark is thread sensitive, but it looks like you can't get it up even with 12 cores on that 3900X. It's not my fault that you spent a bunch of money on cooling for a chip you can't OC for crap.

As far as Cinebench, well that's the one that AMD used to 'prove' that the FX series was 'faster' than Sandy Bridge and so on, now isn't it?

 

[X71200]

The only laughing stock is your dera


Why don't you try running Time Spy CPU with normal settings, instead of "Time Spy Custom", and try getting a valid score instead of that invalid one. There are a lot of power unlocked 8c 10700 Non-K chips which cannot be overclocked more than 3% on the CPU, scoring over 12,000 on those charts. And that benchmark is thread sensitive, but it looks like you can't get it up even with 12 cores on that 3900X. It's not my fault that you spent a bunch of money on cooling for a chip you can't OC for crap.

As far as Cinebench, well that's the one that AMD used to 'prove' that the FX series was 'faster' than Sandy Bridge and so on, now isn't it?

I'm going to do this more simple for you.

1) You have no right to personally insult me as your sided information is all over the place with, like your Thunderbolt example.
2) God forbid using your benchmark which names itself after Zalu or some crap in the task manager, goes by a thumbs up Recommended and finishes some badly designed particles in 15 seconds. No wonder why 3DM is so horrid.
3) I ran custom settings because I only ran the CPU bench, I changed nothing. The bench was inconsistent as heck with me getting 12k once, then almost 13k on another. You don't even understand your own benchmark. What a pity that you're using that junk.
4) To repeat, I do not need that cooling. I can pull it off with my crappy Deepcool. You do not understand this, either.
5) FX has nothing to do with this and there are other tests this CPU shreks yours on.
6) Your suggested SKU costs $360, requires more cooling and so on.
7) Last but not the least, you need to move along. You are wrong.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I'm going to do this more simple for you.

1) You have no right to personally insult me as your sided information is all over the place with, like your Thunderbolt example.
2) God forbid using your benchmark which names itself after Zalu or some crap in the task manager, goes by a thumbs up Recommended and finishes some badly designed particles in 15 seconds. No wonder why 3DM is so horrid.
3) I ran custom settings because I only ran the CPU bench, I changed nothing. The bench was inconsistent as heck with me getting 12k once, then almost 13k on another. You don't even understand your own benchmark. What a pity that you're using that junk.
4) To repeat, I do not need that cooling. I can pull it off with my crappy Deepcool. You do not understand this, either.
5) FX has nothing to do with this and there are other tests this CPU shreks yours on.
6) Your suggested SKU costs $360, requires more cooling and so on.
7) Last but not the least, you need to move along. You are wrong, and you are fanboying.

I tried to ignore your juvenile posts, but you kept on trolling, talking to me in 3rd person while I was ignoring your posts, so you now get what you give. This Intel fanboy suggested a 5950X earlier in this thread, and even noted the 5600X is better at Java / Web that someone asked about. You on the other hand look to me like a frothing at the mouth partisan with not a lick of common sense and no critical thinking skills whatsoever.

 

[95Viper]

Stay on topic.
Stop the name calling and inciting discontent.
This is a technical discussion... not a discussion about each other.

Thank You.
And, Have A Nice Day