Read more.It is nearly 10 per cent faster than the nearest Intel challenger in this single thread test.
Read more.It is nearly 10 per cent faster than the nearest Intel challenger in this single thread test.
really tempted to go Zen 3 myself with this cpu and the ASUS ROG Strix B550-E mobo. Should be a bit of a boost over my current Ryzen 5 1600
Really glad I waited now, seen as I mostly game on my PC, I'm hoping this line up really kicks Intel in the nuts! lol
I'm on a 1600AF simply because it was the cheapest route into AM4, waiting for the new chips to land, I'm not buying anyone anything for Xmas this year, I want a new GPU, Monitor, iPhone and a CPU and nobody going to buy me them sooooo
These are dark days indeed for my i9 9900K.
Once king of the hill, now sliding into middle age, mid table obscurity... (
Glad I'll be able to upgrade (even from a 3600).
Disagree with this, unless you are the geek fanboy needing cutting edge FPS, there is nothing wrong with your 9900K.
I am gaming on a i7 920 overclocked to 3.8GHz with a 1070 and am playing the latest games fine at 1440p.
I am about to upgrade my system as its 4 cores are starting to show their age now but, your CPU is 8 cores and from a gaming perspective there is nothing out there that even needs 8 cores.
Just buy a new AMD or Nvidia graphics card and be happy with your CPU
People need to appreciate Zen2 is behind Intel in pure gaming performance,and a bit behind in single threaded scores. So even if there are solid gains over Zen2,they might not be as big relative to Skylake uarch CPUs.
Last year you could get a Core i9 9900K for £400 and a Core i7 10700KF is even cheaper. So even if a £430+ Ryzen 7 5800X is 10% faster in gaming when both are tweaked,it doesn't make a Core i9 9900K "slow". The launch Zen3 SKUs are relatively expensive per core,when compared to Zen2 and even Intel Cometlake. AMD was also quite cunning during the reveal as they compared official Intel RRPs with the new Zen3 RRPs,but Intel Cometlake street prices are much lower and they ignored the cheaper KF SKUs which Intel have.
If you go by the last chart,AMD says the Ryzen 5 5600X at the same price as the Core i5 10600K is 13% better gaming performance/dollar,ie,its 13% faster. The problem is the Core i5 10600K is more conservatively clocked than the higher end Cometlake S SKUs(no thermal velocity boost),so gains more from being overclocked. Then when you take into account street pricing,and the cheaper KF things don't look as rosy for AMD.
For example a Core i5 10600KF is currently £230,and a flat conversion of the Ryzen 5 5600X RRP,makes it between £280~£290. Pre-orders in the UK seem to start at £290,so around £60 difference. So you can get a Core i5 10600KF with a decent cooler,for less money than the Ryzen 5 5600X with its crappy Wraith Stealth stock cooler.
So the issue here is when both are tweaked,I can't see the Ryzen 5 5600X being really that much ahead. Also as AMD downgraded the CPU cooler with the Ryzen 5 5600X,I assume you will need to budget for a better cooler to tweak it.
In the end it probably makes more sense to see how the Ryzen 5 5600 non-X and Ryzen 7 5700X pan out next year,but again if the £ gets weaker,it might not help either.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 24-10-2020 at 03:15 PM.
If the single core performance is true, then Zen 3 will be perfect for that long term usage in PCs. But if the performance between each of their chips is in 1-3% difference, buying a high end 5950X would only be a waste.
The problem is the consoles have moved to 8 Zen2 cores,so games will be coded for upto 8 desktop class CPU cores,and that is with all the dedicated sillicon which is used to offload SSD stuff,etc. These would need to be handled by the CPU or GPU in a desktop system. This is unlike the previous last few generations of consoles,which used tablet class CPU cores.
So realistically,I am not so sure,having at least 8C is a bad idea,if you intend to keep the CPU for the next few years. But the problem here,is the Ryzen 5 5800X is actually more expensive per core than a Ryzen 9 5900X:
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-r...cp-3cb-am.html
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-r...cp-3ca-am.html
So you pay £100 more(23% extra) but get 50% more cores. The Ryzen 9 5900X is also cheaper per core than a Ryzen 5 5600X!!
Wait Christmas or cyber-black days, don't buy new gear now.
Isn't the PS5 8 cores without SMT and the XSX is 8 cores with? Even so, then a hex core with SMT should still be ok if the games are being designed with 8 threads in mind. Obviously a physical core is far more powerful than a logical core but with AMD it's around 30-50% better multithread with SMT on.
Kalniel: "Nice review Tarinder - would it be possible to get a picture of the case when the components are installed (with the side off obviously)?"
CAT-THE-FIFTH: "The Antec 300 is a case which has an understated and clean appearance which many people like. Not everyone is into e-peen looking computers which look like a cross between the imagination of a hyperactive 10 year old and a Frog."
TKPeters: "Off to AVForum better Deal - £20+Vat for Free Shipping @ Scan"
for all intents it seems to be the same card minus some gays name on it and a shielded cover ? with OEM added to it - GoNz0.
ComputerBase.de spotted Ryzen 9 5950X PassMark results in the database too. These have since been removed from the PassMark page but saved by the German site:
single thread: 3,693 points (AMD Ryzen 9 3950X: 2,747)
multi-thread: 45,563 points (AMD Ryzen 9 3950X: 39,277)
https://www.computerbase.de/2020-10/...ark-benchmark/
They have SMT but SMT can be switched off in compatibility mode for older titles.
The MT scores don't seem to have a massive improvement. So it says to me most of the improvement in single core scores is down to clockspeed,and the reduction in latency moving to a unified 8 core CCX/CCD.
BTW,will Hexus test some older games when they get Zen3?? I have a feeling its mostly the games based on older engines which will see the biggest improvements overall.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)