Thursday, October 1st 2020

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X CPU-Z Bench Score Leaks, 27% Higher 1T Performance Over 3700X

With AMD expected to announce its 5th Generation Ryzen "Vermeer" desktop processors next week, the rumor-mill is grinding the finest spices. This time, an alleged CPU-Z Bench score of a 12-core/24-thread Ryzen 9 5900X processor surfaced. CPU-Z by CPUID has a lightweight internal benchmark that evaluates the single-threaded and multi-threaded performance of the processor, and provides reference scores from a selection of processors for comparison. The alleged 5900X sample is shown belting out a multi-threaded (nT) score of 9481.8 points, and single-threaded (1T) score of 652.8 points.

When compared to the internal reference score by CPUID for the Ryzen 7 3700X 8-core/16-thread processor, which is shown with 511 points 1T and 5433 points nT, the alleged 5900X ends up with a staggering 27% higher 1T score, and a 74% higher nT score. While the nT score is largely attributable to the 50% higher core-count, the 1T score is interesting. We predict that besides possibly higher clock-speeds for the 5900X, the "Zen 3" microarchitecture does offer a certain amount of IPC gain over "Zen 2" to account for the 27%. AMD's IPC parity with Intel is likely to tilt in its favor with "Zen 3," until Intel can whip something up with its "Cypress Cove" CPU cores on the 14 nm "Rocket Lake-S" processor.
Sources: 9550pro (Twitter), VideoCardz
Add your own comment

120 Comments on AMD Ryzen 9 5900X CPU-Z Bench Score Leaks, 27% Higher 1T Performance Over 3700X

#1
wolf
Performance Enthusiast
Interesting if true, I guess we'll know soon enough. If that is pretty much stock 5900X performance I could see one dropping in to replace my 3700X when the hype train settles down sometime next year.
Posted on Reply
#2
ratirt
That's a nice uplift. I'd rather want to see the 3700x compared to 5700x or 3900x vs 5900x but this is still promising. The single core bench number is quite amazing.
Posted on Reply
#3
nguyen
Oh boy I'm just itching to upgrade my 8700K for awhile now, seems like 5950X or 5960X would be a worthy upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#4
DemonicRyzen666
nguyen
Oh boy I'm just itching to upgrade my 8700K for awhile now, seems like 5950X or 5960X would be a worthy upgrade.
I'm with this as long it's upgradable to DDR5 and Pcie 5.0.
Posted on Reply
#5
umano
DemonicRyzen666
I'm with this as long it's upgradable to DDR5 and Pcie 5.0.
It won't, this is the last am4 cpu. I am really curious about x670
Posted on Reply
#6
AnarchoPrimitiv
I've been predicting for months that between the IPC increase, frequency increase/node improvement, and the doubling of cores per CCX, that the core for core performance lift could be upwards of 30%, although this isn't total confirmation, it's in the right direction.

TPUs own analysis showed that the performance difference between the 3100 and the 3300x is 12% due to the respective two vs one CCX design, and since then I've postulated that this (along with the cache redesign, 17%-20% IPC gains and 200-300mhz frequency bump), the total performance uplift could be upwards of 30%...Can't wait to upgrade my 2700x for a 5900x and my X470 for an x670
Posted on Reply
#7
nangu
ratirt
That's a nice uplift. I'd rather want to see the 3700x compared to 5700x or 3900x vs 5900x but this is still promising. The single core bench number is quite amazing.
My 3900X scores 550 ST and 8400 MT, so if those numbers are true, the bump over the 3900X is really good.
Posted on Reply
#8
robb
DemonicRyzen666
I'm with this as long it's upgradable to DDR5 and Pcie 5.0.
what a stupid thing to say. how would the cpu or mobo support something that is not even released yet? and you must have been living under a rock because it has been known for years this is the end of the road for AM4.
Posted on Reply
#9
DemonicRyzen666
umano
It won't, this is the last am4 cpu. I am really curious about x670
robb
what a stupid thing to say. how would the cpu or mobo support something that is not even released yet? and you must have been living under a rock because it has been known for years this is the end of the road for AM4.
Bolded part. not AM4. TRX4.
Posted on Reply
#10
Vya Domus
Until CPU-Z's benchmark tool gets nerfed again for Zen processors :).
Posted on Reply
#11
tigger
I'm the only one
Nice but i think i will stick with my rig till Am5. then hopefully intel will have its shit together, or i will switch to Am5/AMD
Posted on Reply
#12
PooPipeBoy
I don't give a rat's arse about Ampere or Navi. Cutting-edge processor releases are where it's at, especially of this magnitude in performance gains.
Posted on Reply
#13
Neverdie
Maybe it's time to upgrade my i5 3570k :P Don't know if the performance jump is worth it. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#14
john_
That's a promising score but CPU-Z was always a bad benchmark, in my opinion, to compare different architectures. I think it really uses any extra special instruction it can find and if one architecture is significantly better than the other in just one area, it will so a score difference that will never be seen in real usage. But it is a promising score.
Posted on Reply
#15
Outback Bronze
I would like to know clock speeds.

Very impressive results atm. I might finally go AMD : )
Posted on Reply
#16
R0H1T
This doesn't say much, if anything at all. First 5900x is a direct upgrade over 3900x, assuming they're switching to 5xxx part numbers for all next gen chips, so it has more cache likely higher bin as well. Not to mention a better comparison would've been with 3800x or indeed 3900x dodecacore.
Posted on Reply
#17
BluesFanUK
DemonicRyzen666
I'm with this as long it's upgradable to DDR5 and Pcie 5.0.
Let's be realistic - both of those are utterly pointless and likely will be for years to come even after release. You can exceed 4,000MHz on DDR4 right now, and GPU's are barely saturating PCIe 3.0 at the moment.

Yeh it's nice to have bragging rights and feel like it's future proofing your system, but i'd be willing to wager most people would upgrade their system once more before DDR4 and PCIe 4.0 become irrelevant.

I've learnt my lesson over the years, new and shiny doesn't always translate to being better.
Posted on Reply
#18
Chrispy_
nguyen
Oh boy I'm just itching to upgrade my 8700K for awhile now, seems like 5950X or 5960X would be a worthy upgrade.
TBH the 8700K is still a really strong chip for just about everything you could want to do today; It's still close to the top of the charts for anything that isn't limited by core count and if you'd genuinely needed more cores you'd be on a 3900X already.

I'm not telling you how to spend your money, but I personally won't be buying a new CPU until something comes along that needs more. At the moment I'm mostly just bouncing off the upper refresh-rate of my monitor and TV and discarding frames.
Posted on Reply
#19
efendi
Hmm... My ten years old Sandy Bridge @5GHz scored 490 SC and 2452 MC here - we didn't get too far since then it seems, at least on single core
Posted on Reply
#20
harm9963
Now i have a reason to upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#21
Taraquin
Hope this transaltes into significantly better gamingperformance. Wonder how far we get on ram support, since Renoir APUs can du 2200-2300 infinity fabric I`m hoping Zen 3 can do atleast that.
Posted on Reply
#22
Bwaze
WCCFTech compares it to 3900X too:

"As for performance, the chip scored 652.8 points in the single-core test which is 27% faster than the AMD Ryzen 7 3700X and up to 25% faster than the Ryzen 9 3900X.

Coming to the multi-threaded performance test, the alleged AMD Ryzen 9 5900X CPU scored a total of 9481 points which is a massive 75% improvement over the Ryzen 7 3700X & a 15% improvement over the Ryzen 9 3900X."

Why only 15% higher score than 3900X in multicore? That's lower than the alleged IPC uplift - for almost 50% higher TDP, presumably. Something's not right.
Posted on Reply
#23
R0H1T
Bwaze
Why only 15% higher score than 3900X in multicore? That's lower than the alleged IPC uplift - for almost 50% higher TDP, presumably. Something's not right.
Because the "IPC" gains cannot be normalized for multithreaded workloads. Not only does every core clocks differently but also without fixed clocks, which I doubt this test was run on, you're just relying on the "TDP" & the boost algorithm to measure the performance, not to mention different motherboards make the test even more unreliable. For almost any workload you can think of, the IPC gains will not be 1:1 coming from ST to MT tasks. Though the length of the tests also matter, without fixed clocks & TDP restrictions (removed) the bigger core siblings will be at a disadvantage in short duration benches.
Posted on Reply
#24
Bwaze
Zen2 had uplift in single and in multicore compared to Zen1 or Zen+. 2700X to 3700X had 12% increase in single core CPU-Z score (457 to 509), but 13% increase in multicore (4839 to 5465).

It's strange that 3900X to 5900X wouldn't follow the same pattern, especially with the TDP and frequency uplift. I could imagine this result if processor was thermally or power limited.
Posted on Reply
#25
Dredi
R0H1T
Because the "IPC" gains cannot be normalized for multithreaded workloads. Not only does every core clocks differently but also without fixed clocks, which I doubt this test was run on, you're just relying on the "TDP" & the boost algorithm to measure the performance, not to mention different motherboards make the test even more unreliable. For almost any workload you can think of, the IPC gains will not be 1:1 coming from ST to MT tasks. Though the length of the tests also matter, without fixed clocks & TDP restrictions (removed) the bigger core siblings will be at a disadvantage in short duration benches.
IPC cannot be ’normalized’ for single threaded applications either, because it is always by definition an application specific metric.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment