AMD Ryzen 5 5600X

[TheUn4seen]

No, Techspot has it beating the 10700k. The 5900X is beating the 10900k.

"For testing the AMD CPUs we're using the MSI X570 Godlike with four 8GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 CL14 memory modules for a 32GB capacity and then cooling all test systems is the Corsair iCUE H150i Elite Capellix AIO." ................ so 4 sticks of ram might be the difference.

Also the power draw shown in Gamer's Nexus's review is the opposite of what you said. "with fairly similar power draw" is a load of nonsense. Confirmation bias here? Go watch Hardware Unboxed and Gamer's Nexus's reviews and then come back here. No one is asking you to change your platform. Do what you want. Intel buyers have been spending 100's of dollars and changing their platforms for 5 percent performance. Gamer's Nexus called the 5000 series the "largest generational improvement ever seen".

You pretended to respond to my comment and didn't respond to my comment, so I'll just repeat it: "We can see some huge massive increases all over the place. Horizon and Death Stranding, Counter Strike, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Hitman, Star Wars Squadrons, Serious Sam. Also the best power draw comparison ever. 67W beating Intel's 218W OC in gaming performance."

I'm referring to the TPU results, I honestly have better things to do with my time than browsing dozens of reviews on the Internet merely for a CPU.
And here we go: Power draw of the 10700 is just 8W higher (for the whole system), while the relative performance in all tests is 7% lower for productivity and about 3% higher for gaming in 1440p and above. I would call those CPUs essentially the same for any home user.
Yes, this is a great generational improvement, but certainly not the best CPU for gaming. Also, where I live, shops list availability as "probably January", while the 10700 is available right now for just 7% more money. As a sidenote, my "old and useless" 9700k is 0.5% slower in games on stock. Which goes to show how little do CPUs mean for gaming nowadays.
Also, because of the "2 DIMM vs 4 DIMM performance hit", mini-ITX platforms are far less appealing, which makes AMD useless for me personally.

 

[EzioAs]

As a sidenote, my "old and useless" 9700k is 0.5% slower in games on stock.

Who in their right mind would call the 9700K old and useless (at the time of this post)?

 

[Caring1]

Can't you do 2x double rank DIMMS as well, I thought this was why a lot of AMD folks favored Corsair LPX (If I recall correctly, haven't looked it up)?

You're trolling right?
AMD Newbies might buy them because they are cheap, but there has been multiple threads asking for help due to that Ram.

 

[Mussels]

Half the trouble i know of with ryzen and ram was with LPX, it was known to cause a lot of issues
The newer stuff isnt so bad, but the early stuff was a guaranteed waste of money

 

[RandallFlagg]

Dual rank vs single rank seems like affects any system, but only in specific scenarios. I couldn't recall about the Corsair, turns out it is (mostly) single rank.

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/7vy2zs
And from this article which was done on a Z370 Intel test system :

Corsair Vengeance LPX 16GB DDR4-4600 Review

Performance enthusiast are always looking for a way to go faster, and Corsair obliges with its CMK16GX4M2F4600C19 dual-channel memory kit. We test it!

www.tomshardware.com

"Get ready for a big surprise! Our analysis of dual-rank DIMMs showed that Intel’s mainstream platforms work best with at least four ranks employed, and that getting there required either four single-rank or two dual-rank DIMMs. "

 

[Mussels]

oh damnit now i have a reason to buy new RAM...

 

[Whitestar]

Steven from Hardware Unboxed said something very interesting regarding 8-core vs 6-core for gaming:
"AMD’s really competing with themselves: if you want maximum value, get the R5 3600, if you want maximum performance, get the 5600X and that leaves no room for Intel’s Core i5-10600K.
[...]
Speaking of gaming performance, you’re no doubt going to hear nonsense such as "the Ryzen 5 5600X is a poor choice for gamers as it only has 6 cores," and they’ll probably try and prove that by pointing to the new consoles which feature eight Zen 2 cores.
[...]
Some people also like to confuse how games and cores work. Making statements like games will require 8 cores or something to that effect. Games don’t require a certain number of cores, they never have and they never will. Games require a certain level of CPU performance, it’s really that simple.
[...]
But what about the 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 5600X, how will it age? Our guess is extremely well as the massive IPC increase offered by the new Zen 3 architecture means the 5600X is comparable to previous generation 8-core processors such as the 3700X and 10700K, or the Zen 2 parts used in the next gen consoles, and no one expects those processors to become obsolete any time soon."

I'm referring to the TPU results, I honestly have better things to do with my time than browsing dozens of reviews on the Internet merely for a CPU.

Sure, but then you're confining yourself to this bubble, as a number of other major sites (including Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus, Linus and AnandTech) are reporting very different results.

 

[Megas]

Sure, but then you're confining yourself to this bubble, as a number of other major sites (including Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus, Linus and AnandTech) are reporting very different results.

What do you want CPU benchmarks that actually feature GPU dependent games so that this gives you a much better sense of reality? Isn't everyone is playing SOTR?

 

[Vayra86]

Steven from Hardware Unboxed said something very interesting regarding 8-core vs 6-core for gaming:
"AMD’s really competing with themselves: if you want maximum value, get the R5 3600, if you want maximum performance, get the 5600X and that leaves no room for Intel’s Core i5-10600K.
[...]
Speaking of gaming performance, you’re no doubt going to hear nonsense such as "the Ryzen 5 5600X is a poor choice for gamers as it only has 6 cores," and they’ll probably try and prove that by pointing to the new consoles which feature eight Zen 2 cores.
[...]
Some people also like to confuse how games and cores work. Making statements like games will require 8 cores or something to that effect. Games don’t require a certain number of cores, they never have and they never will. Games require a certain level of CPU performance, it’s really that simple.
[...]
But what about the 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 5600X, how will it age? Our guess is extremely well as the massive IPC increase offered by the new Zen 3 architecture means the 5600X is comparable to previous generation 8-core processors such as the 3700X and 10700K, or the Zen 2 parts used in the next gen consoles, and no one expects those processors to become obsolete any time soon."

Sure, but then you're confining yourself to this bubble, as a number of other major sites (including Hardware Unboxed, Gamers Nexus, Linus and AnandTech) are reporting very different results.

6c12t will be relevant for a loong time. The 5600X is now the gaming perf/dollar champion. Not the bang/buck champion. But there is simply no reason to go bigger for a gaming CPU. It is however easily possible to go a bit smaller to cheaper 6c12t alternatives. Depends on what you're targeting really...

Much like the i7 quads with HT of yesteryear, these will last a while.
I just read the review on Anandtech and they had to drop to 480p or 600p to highlight the performance gap in gaming loads.
But, as CPU loads increase, and they will with a new console gen (Zen based...), you will be seeing that back on higher resolution as well. You will also be seeing it in real-life scenarios that have peak CPU loads, and don't readily show up in benchmarks or canned runs.

Core count is not relevant for the foreseeable future. 12 threads is enough and recent games use SMT. Its an exact copy of the quad core Intel era: a major IPC uplift can carry gaming forward for years. For gaming loads, diminishing returns kick in bigtime for every CPU that trades clockspeed for core count - so pretty much all of them.

What do you want CPU benchmarks that actually feature GPU dependent games so that this gives you a much better sense of reality? Isn't everyone is playing SOTR?

What you want is CPU benchmarks that provide maximum perspective but also insight. Those low res tests are a sneak peek into the near future of a CPU for gaming loads, as you can go through multiple GPU upgrades on the same CPU. Todays' scientific result is tomorrow's reality.

 

[heflys20]

Likely pick one these up when things settle down a bit.

 

[Solid State Soul ( SSS )]

At 180$, the 10400 is a better value for gaming imo.

 

[tancabean]

For gaming loads, diminishing returns kick in bigtime for every CPU that trades clockspeed for core count - so pretty much all of them.

Is that true though? Both AMD’s and Intel’s flagships have more cores and higher peak boost clocks on lightly threaded workloads.

 

[Vayra86]

Is that true though? Both AMD’s and Intel’s flagships have more cores and higher peak boost clocks on lightly threaded workloads.

The latter is key. CPU clocking is moving forward too, but they still cannot beat physics. The bottom line is power budget. Higher core count CPUs tend to also be better bins, we see that with Ryzen now for example and its how they get around that issue, utilizing smart boost algorithms to extract maximum performance at all times. But they're still power limited, so the closer a game gets to maximum load on multiple threads, those clocks will drop.

Its just that, as it is now, the entire top half of the CPU stack is capable of blazing through everything, the bottleneck is nearly always on the GPU if you have a sufficient core count.

 

[Harbear]

Hi guys, I am deciding between 3600 vs. 5600x for my new system (coming from Laptops and I just couldn't take the slowness and throttling issues anymore...).

The results from Techpowerup looks really different than many of the reviewers I saw. Just looking at 1080p gaming perform ace, there is only 8% differences between the 3600 vs. 5600x. This is significantly lower compared to other reviewers, which typically sees 20% difference.

In particular, for Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 1080p, the performance is exactly the same between the two chips here, but on other sites/YouTube, I am seeing much bigger difference.

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Review: 6-Core Gaming Beast

It's time we finally check out the Ryzen 5 5600X, the most affordable Ryzen 5000 series processor announced to date. Positioned as a mainstream part, it's coming...

www.techspot.com

Could someone please let me know what I am missing?


Also, it would be really great in the future to do benchmarking on eSports titles as well (e.g. CSGO and Valorant) with in-game plays. I know it's harder to control but for it's quite important in FPS games to chase higher FPS, and we are seeing Ryzen 5000s delivering very interesting results!

 

[HTC]

The results from Techpowerup looks really different than many of the reviewers I saw. Just looking at 1080p gaming perform ace, there is only 8% differences between the 3600 vs. 5600x. This is significantly lower compared to other reviewers, which typically sees 20% difference.

Could someone please let me know what I am missing?


Also, it would be really great in the future to do benchmarking on eSports titles as well (e.g. CSGO and Valorant) with in-game plays. I know it's harder to control but for it's quite important in FPS games to chase higher FPS, and we are seeing Ryzen 5000s delivering very interesting results!

Have a look here: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/how-is-intel-beating-amd-zen-3-ryzen-in-gaming.274406

 

[Mussels]

new testing, turns out the 2080ti favours intel for some reason

 

[8BitZ80]

Hi guys, I am deciding between 3600 vs. 5600x for my new system (coming from Laptops and I just couldn't take the slowness and throttling issues anymore...).

The results from Techpowerup looks really different than many of the reviewers I saw. Just looking at 1080p gaming perform ace, there is only 8% differences between the 3600 vs. 5600x. This is significantly lower compared to other reviewers, which typically sees 20% difference.

In particular, for Shadow of the Tomb Raider at 1080p, the performance is exactly the same between the two chips here, but on other sites/YouTube, I am seeing much bigger difference.

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Review: 6-Core Gaming Beast

It's time we finally check out the Ryzen 5 5600X, the most affordable Ryzen 5000 series processor announced to date. Positioned as a mainstream part, it's coming...

www.techspot.com

Could someone please let me know what I am missing?


Also, it would be really great in the future to do benchmarking on eSports titles as well (e.g. CSGO and Valorant) with in-game plays. I know it's harder to control but for it's quite important in FPS games to chase higher FPS, and we are seeing Ryzen 5000s delivering very interesting results!

If ten sources show a 20% gain and one source shows 8%, then you can reasonably expect a 20% difference in most cases. Pretty straightforward.

I always recommend aiming for the best possible processor you can afford. You get more performance right now and delay the next upgrade for an extra year or two. I will always vote 5600X instead of 3600, but I'm not you and so it's just my suggestion.

 

[Harbear]

Thanks very much for the reply everyone @HTC ,@Mussels , @PooPipeBoy .

I did see the new article on the Intel vs Ryzen but they didn't explicitly compare with the older Ryzen so I wasn't sure if that is the root cause. It definitely is something I did not expected and would love to see how this develops.

@PooPipeBoy I think I trust Wizz's reviews over a lot of other ones, but given the significant differences I wanted to make sure it is not anything obvious I was missing.

To be honest, if it's only 10% difference I would go for the 3600 given its availability and price; but if it's 20% uplift + eSports title improvements I am seeing (which I am honestly a little bit skeptical) + Memory Sharing tech. with RX 6000s, then I am seriously considering the 5600x.

It is just annoying that supply won't ramp up for a few weeks so there are uncertainties.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Thanks very much for the reply everyone @HTC ,@Mussels , @PooPipeBoy .

I did see the new article on the Intel vs Ryzen but they didn't explicitly compare with the older Ryzen so I wasn't sure if that is the root cause. It definitely is something I did not expected and would love to see how this develops.

@PooPipeBoy I think I trust Wizz's reviews over a lot of other ones, but given the significant differences I wanted to make sure it is not anything obvious I was missing.

To be honest, if it's only 10% difference I would go for the 3600 given its availability and price; but if it's 20% uplift + eSports title improvements I am seeing (which I am honestly a little bit skeptical) + Memory Sharing tech. with RX 6000s, then I am seriously considering the 5600x.

It is just annoying that supply won't ramp up for a few weeks so there are uncertainties.

Keep in mind that CPU benchmarking is typically performed with some of the fastest graphics cards available, typically RTX 3090 for 5600X testing. Those 20% deltas won't be nearly as large with lower-performing cards. If you're pairing it with a mid-range GPU, you may not see the gains.

It's pretty academic, though, in regard to the 3600 at the moment. You can't get that (in the US), either. 3600X and -XT are available @ ~240USD, and grabbing a 5600X vs. those at $300 would be almost a no-brainer. Against a 3600 for $200 (if you could get either @ MSRP)? That's a tougher call to make.

 

[Harbear]

Keep in mind that CPU benchmarking is typically performed with some of the fastest graphics cards available, typically RTX 3090 for 5600X testing. Those 20% deltas won't be nearly as large with lower-performing cards. If you're pairing it with a mid-range GPU, you may not see the gains.

It's pretty academic, though, in regard to the 3600 at the moment. You can't get that (in the US), either. 3600X and -XT are available @ ~240USD, and grabbing a 5600X vs. those at $300 would be almost a no-brainer. Against a 3600 for $200 (if you could get either @ MSRP)? That's a tougher call to make.

I am in the UK at the moment so I can get the 3600. So yeah, it's $200 vs $300 basically XD

 

[Footman]

Interesting. Microcenter has the 5800x in stock today at $299. But they also have the 3700k at $269. With additional $20 off if you buy motherboard. $249 for 3700k sounds like a sweet deal.

 

[seth1911]

Yesterday a Shop in Austria had the 4750G for 220 Euro

 

[tussinman]

At 180$, the 10400 is a better value for gaming imo.

Microcenter down the street from me sells it for $150. For 1440/4k gaming it's a damn good chip, especially for the price. My 3770k sells for over 100 dollars used so i'm kinda tempted to just sell it and switch

 

[Techguy89]

Microcenter down the street from me sells it for $150. For 1440/4k gaming it's a damn good chip, especially for the price. My 3770k sells for over 100 dollars used so i'm kinda tempted to just sell it and switch

Yeah that actually seems like a very logical thing to do in your situation. Might even be beneficial to get a budget z490 motherboard that is PCIe 4.0 ready (I know the MSI z490 boards are) so if we see a large performance increase in Rocket lake s, you’ll be more future proofed.

 

[Sunny and 75]

CPU of the year!