Tuesday, September 29th 2020

First Signs of AMD Zen 3 "Vermeer" CPUs Surface, Ryzen 7 5800X Tested

AMD is preparing to launch the new iteration of desktop CPUs based on the latest Zen 3 core, codenamed Vermeer. On October 8th, AMD will hold the presentation and again deliver the latest technological advancements to its desktop platform. The latest generation of CPUs will be branded as a part of 5000 series, bypassing the 4000 series naming scheme which should follow, given that the prior generation was labeled as 3000 series of processors. Nonetheless, AMD is going to bring a new Zen 3 core with its processors, which should bring modest IPC gains. It will be manufactured on TSMC's 7 nm+ manufacturing node, which offers a further improvement to power efficiency and transistor density.

Today, we have gotten the first benchmark of AMD's upcoming Ryzen 7 5800X CPU. Thanks to the popular hardware leaker, TUP APISAK, we have the first benchmark of the new Vermeer processor, compared to Intel's latest and greatest - Core i9-10900K. The AMD processor is an eight-core, sixteen threaded model compared to the 10C/20T Intel processor. While we do not know the final clocks of the AMD CPU, we could assume that the engineering sample was used and we could see an even higher performance. Below you can see the performance of the CPU and how it compares to Intel. By the numbers shown, we can expect AMD to possibly be a new gaming king, as the numbers are very close to Intel. The average batch result for the Ryzen 7 5800X was 59.3 FPS and when it comes to CPU frames it managed to score 133.6 FPS. Intel's best managed to average 60.3 FPS and 114.8 FPS from the CPU framerates. Both systems were tested with NVIDIA's GeForce RTX 2080 GPUs.
Source: @TUM_APISAK (Twitter)
Add your own comment

82 Comments on First Signs of AMD Zen 3 "Vermeer" CPUs Surface, Ryzen 7 5800X Tested

#1
ZoneDymo
Cool but it's not saying that much if over clocking (potential) is ignored.
Still the closer they get on gaming the better.
Posted on Reply
#2
Mussels
Moderprator
If they can match intels single threaded performance, they'll suddenly change the perception of their CPU's.

I'm so tired of "AMD is for the poors" i see on facebook, they need to stomp intel and make this better for consumers.
Posted on Reply
#3
Rahnak
The fact that the benchmark was run at 4K rather than 1440p or 1080p is a little suspicious. And the fact that while having much higher cpu frames, it was still marginally behind in actual framerate in 2 out of 3.
Posted on Reply
#4
Xex360
Mussels
If they can match intels single threaded performance, they'll suddenly change the perception of their CPU's.

I'm so tired of "AMD is for the poors" i see on facebook, they need to stomp intel and make this better for consumers.
AMD already surpassed Intel in single thread, the problem is in games, maybe due to latency, it seems core to core latency is lower in Intel compared to AMD, at the same time maybe games are more optimised for Intel's architecture given of the awfulness of AMD's CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#5
Selaya
Given the inherent disadvantage of a chiplet-based design compared to the monolithic, I'd be very impressed indeed if this could match up against Intel's at the very top end. However, the midrange should be really solid; or if you want to do anything else with your computer besides gaming basically, this will probably absolutely shit Intel on anything that can multithread.

(Why does the 10900K only have 16GB of memory tho.)
Posted on Reply
#6
AlwaysHope
AMD showing off their shiny new desktop cpu with NVIDIA gpu.... :confused:
Promote the competition why don't they? :kookoo:
Not the first time I've seen this & probably won't be the last either!
Posted on Reply
#7
PooPipeBoy
AlwaysHope
AMD showing off their shiny new desktop cpu with NVIDIA gpu.... :confused:
Promote the competition why don't they? :kookoo:
Not the first time I've seen this & probably won't be the last either!
It's a leak, not an official marketing stunt. But even so it's hard to avoid using Nvidia when everyone knows their GPUs are the most powerful (for the moment).
Posted on Reply
#8
DeathtoGnomes
AlwaysHope
AMD showing off their shiny new desktop cpu with NVIDIA gpu.... :confused:
Promote the competition why don't they? :kookoo:
Not the first time I've seen this & probably won't be the last either!
Everyone knows when its comes to PR/hype you need to compare to the same parts, in this case a 2080 is the commonality.
Posted on Reply
#9
AlwaysHope
PooPipeBoy
It's a leak, not an official marketing stunt. But even so it's hard to avoid using Nvidia when everyone knows their GPUs are the most powerful (for the moment).
No doubt they most powerful at the moment, but that site choose to feature it with the oppositions product. I'm sure are AMD employees embarrassed about that. RDNA2 had better put the blow down asap!
Posted on Reply
#10
DeathtoGnomes
ZoneDymo
Cool but it's not saying that much if over clocking (potential) is ignored.
Still the closer they get on gaming the better.
Xex360
AMD already surpassed Intel in single thread, the problem is in games, maybe due to latency, it seems core to core latency is lower in Intel compared to AMD, at the same time maybe games are more optimised for Intel's architecture given of the awfulness of AMD's CPUs.
The only awefulness here is Intel cant do anything better than AMD except in gaming and even then only single threaded games.
Posted on Reply
#11
CmdrLaw
Watching this intently.

Have been using a 3700X recently but about to build a new system.

Did a build for a friend recently, they wanted to go Intel and the 10850K OCing very easily @5.3 All core on 10 cores was a hell of an incentive to switch back to blue.

I am doubtful AMD will be beating Intel on gaming just yet, but will see what the independent benchmarking says.
Posted on Reply
#12
arbiter
Rahnak
The fact that the benchmark was run at 4K rather than 1440p or 1080p is a little suspicious. And the fact that while having much higher cpu frames, it was still marginally behind in actual framerate in 2 out of 3.
Other thing is they used "ashes of the singularity" which is a game that is an AMD tech demo as well. So to me this is pretty much worthless leak since its a game made for AMD hardware. Interesting how Intel machine is only given 16gb memory and amd has 32gb which has me suspect on memory used in general. The other thing has me suspect is the number under summary on right side. Intel says 5900 and amd says 5800(no not cpu model). Since i don't know about AoS benchmarking summary page if that means settings were different or what.
DeathtoGnomes
The only awefulness here is Intel cant do anything better than AMD except in gaming and even then only single threaded games.
I guess you missed the AMD 3900x vs Intel 10900k both using a RTX 3080. Take a guess which one won?
Posted on Reply
#13
efikkan
This is getting exciting, but let's wait for real benchmarks before rushing to any conclusions.
Xex360
AMD already surpassed Intel in single thread, the problem is in games, maybe due to latency, it seems core to core latency is lower in Intel compared to AMD
No, AMD only pull ahead when Intel are power limited, which happens with heavy load on many cores.
There are two main reasons which gives Intel an edge in gaming and certain other workloads; a better front-end(prefetcher, branch-prediction etc.) and lower memory latency. Other contributors includes cache configurations, clock cycles required of specific instructions etc. Core to core latency is not as important as memory latency, there are thousands of memory accesses for each core to core access.
Xex360
at the same time maybe games are more optimized for Intel's architecture given of the awfulness of AMD's CPUs.
There is no such thing, it's simply a result of AMD's design choices.
In order to optimize software for specific hardware, you need either special ISA features or specific performance characteristics.
DeathtoGnomes
The only awefulness here is Intel cant do anything better than AMD except in gaming and even then only single threaded games.
"Single threaded" is commonly misunderstood by most of you in here.
Single threaded performance is a benchmark of a single thread, that doesn't mean that applications which scales better with "single threaded performance" are only running a single thread. Whenever you see "single threaded performance" you should think "performance per thread" instead.
Posted on Reply
#14
DeathtoGnomes
Mussels
If they can match intels single threaded performance, they'll suddenly change the perception of their CPU's.

I'm so tired of "AMD is for the poors" i see on facebook, they need to stomp intel and make this better for consumers.
I'm so poor still use Vishera.....
Posted on Reply
#15
trom89
ZoneDymo
Cool but it's not saying that much if over clocking (potential) is ignored.
Still the closer they get on gaming the better.
You are correct.
But the the exciting part is the fact that assuming this is a R7 399$ CPU vs i9 699$ CPU.
I can only wonder the 5900X performance.
Posted on Reply
#17
Flanker
Is there a 5700 non-X so I can pair it with a 5700 non-XT graphics card?
Posted on Reply
#18
DemonicRyzen666
Xex360
AMD already surpassed Intel in single thread, the problem is in games, maybe due to latency, it seems core to core latency is lower in Intel compared to AMD, at the same time maybe games are more optimised for Intel's architecture given of the awfulness of AMD's CPUs.
monolithic die
www.pcgamesn.com/amd/ryzen-5-4650g-benchmark-3600

www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-pro-4750g-renoir-review/5
Selaya
Given the inherent disadvantage of a chiplet-based design compared to the monolithic, I'd be very impressed indeed if this could match up against Intel's at the very top end. However, the midrange should be really solid; or if you want to do anything else with your computer besides gaming basically, this will probably absolutely shit Intel on anything that can multithread.

(Why does the 10900K only have 16GB of memory tho.)
Lower latency


www.techpowerup.com/269223/amd-ryzen-7-4700ge-memory-benchmarked-extremely-low-latency-explains-tiny-l3-caches

None of it seems to do anything for Ryzen.
Posted on Reply
#19
tigger
I'm the only one
arbiter
Other thing is they used "ashes of the singularity" which is a game that is an AMD tech demo as well. So to me this is pretty much worthless leak since its a game made for AMD hardware. Interesting how Intel machine is only given 16gb memory and amd has 32gb which has me suspect on memory used in general. The other thing has me suspect is the number under summary on right side. Intel says 5900 and amd says 5800(no not cpu model). Since i don't know about AoS benchmarking summary page if that means settings were different or what.


I guess you missed the AMD 3900x vs Intel 10900k both using a RTX 3080. Take a guess which one won?
Just watched a vid, pretty close actually. doubt the 3900x being on PCIe 4 made any difference at all either.
Posted on Reply
#20
Gungar
DeathtoGnomes
The only awefulness here is Intel cant do anything better than AMD except in gaming and even then only single threaded games.
Intel is better in games that aren't single threaded too...
Posted on Reply
#21
Mussels
Moderprator
Gungar
Intel is better in games that aren't single threaded too...
many games are designed on intel systems because duh, the majority of their customers use intel. Things are changing now where ryzens sprinting arguably equal to intel depending on how you test it, and i dunno if its the pain medication, the caffeine or the shiny benchmarks but i'm very excited for where the tech world is going this year (the REST of the year is fucking garbage lol)
Posted on Reply
#22
Zubasa
CmdrLaw
Watching this intently.

Have been using a 3700X recently but about to build a new system.

Did a build for a friend recently, they wanted to go Intel and the 10850K OCing very easily @5.3 All core on 10 cores was a hell of an incentive to switch back to blue.

I am doubtful AMD will be beating Intel on gaming just yet, but will see what the independent benchmarking says.
The absolute frequency is not that useful in terms of performance gain.
The Intel cpus in recent years already boost to around 4.9~5Ghz on their own. (More so when modern motherboard just ignore the Intel boost limits / duration anyway)
So even if you manage 5.3Ghz stable on all core, the actual performance increase is not that much over stock.
Posted on Reply
#23
efikkan
Mussels
many games are designed on intel systems because duh, the majority of their customers use intel.
They are, but it's irrelevant as both Intel and AMD CPUs share the same ISA and have very similar performance characteristics. Software developers have no access to the underlying native microarchitecture, so there is nothing to optimize for at this level. Just because a piece of software runs better on one CPU doesn't mean it's optimized for it, it could be that a the hardware just handles the workload better due to resource balancing and advantages of that architecture, advantages which usually are hard or impossible to exploit directly from software.

Pretty much no games contain low-level assembly code anyway these days, and many studios use off-the-shelf game engines and do no low-level coding at all.
Posted on Reply
#24
FinneousPJ
It is weird how little info we have when the launch is supposed to be next week.
Posted on Reply
#25
Metroid
Mussels
If they can match intels single threaded performance, they'll suddenly change the perception of their CPU's.

I'm so tired of "AMD is for the poors" i see on facebook, they need to stomp intel and make this better for consumers.
I'm okay for intel to be top of gaming framerates, that gives us cheaper and yet better multithreaded ryzen cpus. I think that is the reason amd is not charging an arm and a leg for them at moment because high end users are still opting for intel cpus for gaming and I would like to keep that way. If amd can keep increasing even more multithreaded performance on ryzen, that is a buy for me as multithreading performance is much more important for me.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment