Read more.Quote:
Comparison site CPU Monkey has 'pre-sample' scores for the Ryzen 9 5950X, 5900X, etc.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
Comparison site CPU Monkey has 'pre-sample' scores for the Ryzen 9 5950X, 5900X, etc.
Whilst you say the multicore aren't as good I feel they're perfectly acceptable
5950X - 10,360
5900X 8168
Compared to Intel 10900 which scores 6399
Assuming this is all true (and all things equal) I wouldn't say an increase from 9166 (found in review online) to 10360 is bad for multithreaded performance when the 5950x 16c/32t actually has a slower base clock (weird...) than the old 3950x (3.4 versus 3.5).
By my maths that's a 13% performance increase on multithreading with a slower clock speed, clearly there has been some base improvements with the core and the single threaded is being helped by the higher boost clocks...
Enough to justify the price bump people are moaning about?
I actually believe so - throw in lower tdp and general power useage and still usually a cheaper motherboard and I think it's a better platform. Each to their own of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by jimbouk
Thats not a bad jump for me on my 1600AF, however I'm stuck on a B450M, so unless ASRock actually drop a BIOS for me next year then I'll be sticking with my 1600AF for now and just getting a GPU to replace the RX580-8Gb and see how much I'm actually held back by the CPU..
The lower end 6 core $50 increase is VERY BAD. People why buy 6 core cpus are extremely on a budget. For designers and creatives adding $50 to save 20% time on renderings is enough to justify coz they buy +8 core cpus.
50/50 in all honesty.... it's not as bad for my preference in the 16c/32t as it's 'only' £50 over the 3950x but lower down does seem a little worse value overall imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbouk
Still would pick AMD over current intel offerings though.
If you take into account that people who already have m4 MOBOS like B450 and newer ones, you end up spending even LESS money because you'd just upgrade the CPU (not the whole system).Quote:
Originally Posted by 3dcandyI actually believe so - throw in lower tdp and general power useage and still usually a cheaper motherboard and I think it's a better platform. Each to their own of courseQuote:
Originally Posted by jimbouk
With Intel, you usually don't get that option (you usually need to replace the whole system).
Multicore scores 5000 series compared to 3000 series
5950X - 10360
3950X - 9148
5900X - 8168
3900XT- 7244
3900X - 7178
5800X - 5724
3800XT- 5122
3800X - 4960
3700X - 4834
5600X - 4312
3600XT- 3855
3600X - 3751
A few intel CPUs for comparison
i9-9960X - 6671 - fastest 16 core non-Xeon
i9-10900K- 6399 - fastest 10 core
i7-10700K- 5292 - fastest 8 core non-Xeon
i5-10600K- 3629 - fastest 6 core
Quote:
Originally Posted by nwmark
I wonder why the multi-core scores didn't gain more.
You'd think that an increase in IPC of 19% would have a more profound effect on multi-core performance.
I realize the 5xxx series has a 100MhZ lower base clock, but that's a difference of mere 3% (and the loss in performance wouldn't be that much).
Because heat output boosted clocks mean that multicore simply cannot boost the clock for as long...Quote:
Originally Posted by deksman2
For example the i5-10600K is around £250 currently. Ryzen 3600X is currently around £175-£180. Even $50 or £40 on top the Ryzen is still cheaper. The i5 is also a 125w part v 65w for the 3600X and 5600X and is probably in real life useage twice the tdp if you apply a smallish overclockQuote:
Originally Posted by nwmark
Prices are likely high for the following:
- Clear out old 3xxx stock.
- Maximise first adopter premium.
- Compensate for / mask lack of supply.
If you release a better product at a similar or better price, you end up in a situation like Tesla. Where they undercut themselves and as a result had / have a load of stock they can't shift and so is basically a write off. You must clear old inventory out and for that, people must have a reason to buy it, especially when you're releasing a decent improvement on the next product.
AMD are making the decent business move.
Now, if you'll excuse me, my 12 core monster is not even making it onto that chart so I'm going to break out the special "buyer's remorse" hanky and weep.
Could be as simple as these 'pre-sample' cpu's not actually running at full release speeds or even the bios not fully supporting the cpu. Like all things probably best for reviews of released cpu's for an 'honest' score.Quote:
Originally Posted by deksman2
It's always been the way with Ryzen. Can't see it changing, the cpu cannot boost as high with multiple cores being used especially with a synthetic test like cinebenchQuote:
Originally Posted by LSG501