Thursday, October 8th 2020

AMD Launches AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors: The Fastest Gaming CPUs in the World

Today, AMD (NASDAQ: AMD) introduced the highly anticipated AMD Ryzen 5000 Series desktop processor lineup powered by the new "Zen 3" architecture. Offering up to 16 cores, 32 threads and 72 MB of cache in the top-of-the-line AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, AMD Ryzen 5000 series processors dominate in heavily threaded workloads1 and power efficiency2, while the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X processor offers up to a 26% generational uplift in gaming performance3. With extensive improvements throughout the core including a unified 8-core complex with direct access to 32 MB L3 cache, the new AMD "Zen 3" core architecture delivers a 19% generational increase in instructions per cycle (IPC)4, the largest since the introduction of "Zen" processors in 2017.

"Our commitment with each generation of our Ryzen processors has been to build the best PC processors in the world. The new AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors extend our leadership from IPC4, power efficiency2 to single-core5, multi-core performance1 and gaming6," said Saeid Moshkelani, senior vice president and general manager, client business unit, AMD. "Today, we are extremely proud to deliver what our community and customers have come to expect from Ryzen processors - dominant multi-core1 and single-core performance5 and true gaming leadership6 - all within a broad ecosystem of motherboards and chipsets that are drop-in ready for AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors."
AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors
Featuring a remarkable 19% IPC increase4 over the prior generation in PC workloads, the "Zen 3" architecture pushes gaming and content creation performance leadership6,1 to a new level. "Zen 3" architecture reduces latency from accelerated core and cache communication and doubles the directly accessible L3 cache per core while delivering up to 2.8X more performance-per-watt versus the competition2.

The top of the line 16 core AMD Ryzen 9 5950X offers:
  • The highest single-thread performance of any desktop gaming processor5
  • The most multi-core performance of any desktop gaming processor and any desktop processor in a mainstream CPU socket1
The 12 core AMD Ryzen 9 5900X offers the best gaming experience by:
  • Average of 7% faster in 1080p gaming across select game titles than the competition7
  • Average of 26% faster in 1080p gaming across select titles generationally8
AMD 500 series motherboards are ready for AMD Ryzen 5000 Series desktop processors with a simple BIOS update. This broad ecosystem support and readiness includes over 100 AMD 500 series motherboards from all major motherboard manufacturers. AMD Ryzen 5000 Series desktop processors announced today are expected to be available for purchase globally on November 5, 2020.

AMD Ryzen Equipped to Win Game Bundle
The AMD Ryzen Equipped to Win game bundle program is back with the highly anticipated next chapter in the Far Cry series, Far Cry 6. Customers who purchase an AMD Ryzen 9 5950X, AMD Ryzen 9 5900X, or AMD Ryzen 7 5800X processor between November 5th, 2020 and December 31st, 2020 will receive a complimentary copy of Far Cry 6 Standard Edition - PC digital when released10 . Additionally, customers who purchase an AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT, or AMD Ryzen 7 3800XT processor between October 20th, 2020 and December 31st, 2020 will also receive a free copy of Far Cry 6 Standard Edition - PC digital10.1 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020. Multi-core performance evaluated with Cinebench R20 nT with a similarly configured Ryzen 9 5950X vs. a Core i9-10900K. Results may vary. R5K-005
2 Testing by AMD Performance Labs as of 09/01/2020 using Cinebench R20 nT versus system wall power during full load CPU test using a Core i9-10900K, Ryzen 9 3900XT, Ryzen 9 5900X, Ryzen 9 3950X, and a Ryzen 9 5950X configured with: 2x8GB DDR4-3600, GeForce RTX 2080 Ti, Samsung 860 Pro SSD, Noctua NH-D15s cooler, and an open-air test bench with no additional power draw sources. Results may vary. R5K-007
3 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020 measuring gaming performance of a Ryzen 9 5900X desktop processor vs. a Ryzen 9 3900XT in 11 popular titles at 1920x1080, the High image quality preset, and the newest graphics API available for each title (e.g. DirectX 12 or Vulkan or DirectX 11). Results may vary. R5K-009
4 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020. IPC evaluated with a selection of 25 workloads running at a locked 4GHz frequency on 8-core "Zen 2" Ryzen 7 3800XT and "Zen 3" Ryzen 7 5800X desktop processors configured with Windows 10, NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (451.77), Samsung 860 Pro SSD, and 2x8GB DDR4-3600. Results may vary. R5K-003
5 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020 with a Ryzen 9 5950X processor vs a Core i9-10900K configured with NVIDIA GeForce GTX 2080 Ti graphics, Samsung 860 Pro SSD, 2X8 DDR4-3600, Windows 10 and a Noctua NH-D15s cooler. Single-core performance evaluated with Cinebench R20 1T benchmark. Results may vary. R5K-004
6 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 9/2/2020 based on the average FPS across 40 PC games at 1920x1080 with the High image quality preset using an AMD Ryzen 9 5900X processor vs. Core i9-10900K. Results may vary. R5K-002
7 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020 measuring the Gaming performance of a Ryzen 9 5900X vs a Core i9-10900K in 11 popular titles at 1920x1080, the High image quality preset, and the newest graphics API available for each title (e.g. DirectX 12 or Vulkan over DirectX 11, or DirectX 11 over DirectX 9). GeForce RTX 2080 Ti (451.77), 2x8GB DDR4-3600, Noctua NH-D15s, and Windows 10 May 2020 Update (build 2004) used for all titles. Results may vary. R5K-010
8 Testing by AMD performance labs as of 09/01/2020 measuring gaming performance of a Ryzen 9 5900X desktop processor vs. a Ryzen 9 3900XT in 11 popular titles at 1920x1080, the High image quality preset, and the newest graphics API available for each title (e.g. DirectX 12 or Vulkan or DirectX 11). Results may vary. R5K-009
9 Max boost for AMD Ryzen Processors is the maximum frequency achievable by a single core on the processor running a bursty single-threaded workload. Max boost will vary based on several factors, including, but not limited to: thermal paste; system cooling; motherboard design and BIOS; the latest AMD chipset driver; and the latest OS updates. GD-150
10 Limited time offer available through participating retailers only. 18+ only. Following purchase, product must be installed on system where coupon code will be redeemed. Void where prohibited. Residency and additional limitations apply. Full offer terms at www.amdrewards.com/terms.
Add your own comment

216 Comments on AMD Launches AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Desktop Processors: The Fastest Gaming CPUs in the World

#151
Turmania
I bet XT versions will come and at the same price point of when they launch X versions. I do as well believe AMD will lower their asking price of these CPU's before November 5th availability. However, XT version will probably come 6 to 9 months later. Only change is if Intel releases 11th gen sooner than expected.
Posted on Reply
#152
Zach_01
Turmania
I bet XT versions will come and at the same price point of when they launch X versions. I do as well believe AMD will lower their asking price of these CPU's before November 5th availability. However, XT version will probably come 6 to 9 months later. Only change is if Intel releases 11th gen sooner than expected.
I wont argue that.
If the yeilds are good and consistent and launched X versions are something like the 95+% of the working dies then it could require some time for AMD to harvest enough dies for better or even worsts SKUs. (XTs and nonXs).
Posted on Reply
#153
JrRacinFan
Served 5k and counting ...
Zach_01
I hope you have a silo of corn stored because even if this is in AMD's plans it wont come any time soon, especially now that they "have" the competition in 99.9% of cases with Intel trying to straight out 10nm.
Maybe in a year... If there is something else ZEN3 related I would expect that it would be lower/mid range SKUs. And that is related directly to present 7nm node yields and seems to be much better than last year's.

I could almost say that 7nm yields are so good now that all 4 ZEN3 SKUs are already the "XT"s. AMD is playing all for all this round. Both CPU and GPU devisions.
Now I never said I was expecting them at launch sheesh. It could be a year from now and Id be happy.
Posted on Reply
#155
JrRacinFan
Served 5k and counting ...
Whatever happenned to XFR? Was that supposed to only be a 1st gen thing?
Posted on Reply
#156
Zach_01
XFR still exists. But we call it PBO now, since ZEN2. If it works and under what circumstances is another story much much complicated.
Posted on Reply
#157
GoldenX
Now we wait for Intel to release Gen 11 so Zen3 lowers prices.
Posted on Reply
#158
Shatun_Bear
GoldenX
Now we wait for Intel to release Gen 11 so Zen3 lowers prices.
That will be a paper launch in 6 months time...
Posted on Reply
#159
RandallFlagg
GoldenX
Now we wait for Intel to release Gen 11 so Zen3 lowers prices.
Actually I imagine that Intel will lower prices earlier, even if not officially. You can already get a 10700 for $299 at Microcenter, $319 at Newegg, and $317 at B&H Photo. Given that the 10700 has a fan with it, this actually makes it cheaper than a 5600X @$299 + $30 fan.

I think the 10850K launch makes a lot more sense now. Intel probably knew that the 5800X would come in right at $450, which is exactly where the 10c/20t 10850K sits.

Probably something worth noting. Intel 14nm, they own the fab, and it's super efficient with high yields. I don't think AMD/TSMC will win a price war with Intel, I bet Intel could sell the 10850K for $300 and still make more money than AMD can make on a 5800X at $450. But it sure would be nice if someone would start a price war.
Posted on Reply
#160
GoldenX
I don't think AMD's prices are due to low yields. It seems to be that high only to beat a dead horse and get higher profits.
Intel CPUs are more expensive to make, a monolithic 10 core will always be more expensive than a CPU with separate dies that can be modulated at will.
Posted on Reply
#161
R0H1T
I have a hard time believing that a 10c chip with all 10 cores enabled is so easy to make that Intel's making a boatload money off of it. Unless of course you also believe it's a 12c die harvested part? Intel's margins may still be a bit higher overall but not by much. Chiplets are the future & that's why Intel is so desperate to get their hands on the glue!
Posted on Reply
#162
GoldenX
See? The Pentium D + FX idea wasn't wrong at all, it was just ahead of its time.
Posted on Reply
#163
RandallFlagg
Uhh, so I made that statement assuming people knew but okay.

Both of them are actually making bank. Keep in mind these are pecentages and Intel sells a heck of a lot more chips than AMD (like more than 5x more).

Intel also has its foundries to build and maintain, which AMD doesn't, but AMD has to pay TSMC to fab its chips which means TSMC gets a cut.






Posted on Reply
#164
wheresmycar
RandallFlagg
Uhh, so I made that statement assuming people knew but okay.

Both of them are actually making bank. Keep in mind these are pecentages and Intel sells a heck of a lot more chips than AMD (like more than 5x more).

Intel also has its foundries to build and maintain, which AMD doesn't, but AMD has to pay TSMC to fab its chips which means TSMC gets a cut.







2020 not looking fat-healthy but healthy for intel. Is that a "hold my hand" dip or "i'll show you in the 1st Qtr of 2021" wink?

I wander what these charts would look like after subtracting other expenses (net profit)? Question is, is AMD 10% or more economical overall? Randallflag get digging!
Posted on Reply
#165
RandallFlagg
Well, the dip happened for both Intel and AMD, but much worse for Intel. That's a Covid dip.

Goes back to AMD isn't the one making the chips, TSMC is. AMD basically just has a big engineering facility, and employ only 11,000 people. AMD didn't have to change much, just their schedules for delivery of chips probably slid a bit.

Manufacturers are affected very differently, Intel had to furlough / shut down manufacturing for a while. They have many fabs in multiple countries, and employ over 110,000 - literally 10x more people than AMD.
Posted on Reply
#166
oobymach
Anyone else notice they skipped 4000? My guess is a hardware flaw that was only noticed partway through manufacturing, why else would they skip a gen?
Posted on Reply
#167
bencrutz
oobymach
Anyone else notice they skipped 4000? My guess is a hardware flaw that was only noticed partway through manufacturing, why else would they skip a gen?
yeah, sure sherlock :)
Posted on Reply
#168
Makaveli
oobymach
Anyone else notice they skipped 4000? My guess is a hardware flaw that was only noticed partway through manufacturing, why else would they skip a gen?
Posted on Reply
#169
dragontamer5788
RandallFlagg
Both of them are actually making bank.

[SNIP...]
Those graphs are gross profits. Aka: how to lie with graphs.

* Revenue -- "Money made"
* Gross Profit: Revenue - COGS, aka used to calculate "margin".
* Net Profit: Revenue - COGS - a whole bunch of other stuff. Also known as "The Bottom Line".

It always bothers me when people talk Gross instead of Net. Just because it has the word "profit" in it doesn't mean its what colloquial people understand as profits. If "profit" is unspecified, there's usually an underlying assumption that you're talking about Net.

--------------



Here's a comparison of Intel's Net profit vs AMD's Net Profit. Very different story, eehhh? That's billions of dollars by the way.
Posted on Reply
#170
londiste
oobymach
Anyone else notice they skipped 4000? My guess is a hardware flaw that was only noticed partway through manufacturing, why else would they skip a gen?
This was absolutely the right move. They should have CPU and APU lines aligned from now on.
Previously:
- Ryzen 2000 CPUs were Zen+, Ryzen 2000G APUs were Zen.
- Ryzen 3000 CPUs were Zen2, Ryzen 3000G APUs were Zen+
- Ryzen 4000G APUs were Zen2.
Now Ryzen 5000 CPUs are Zen3 and presumably Ryzen 5000G APUs will also be Zen3.
Same applies to mobile, which were and are on the APU side of things.
GoldenX
I don't think AMD's prices are due to low yields. It seems to be that high only to beat a dead horse and get higher profits.
Intel CPUs are more expensive to make, a monolithic 10 core will always be more expensive than a CPU with separate dies that can be modulated at will.
I really wish we had good sources on how much it costs to manufacture all of this but there is a good chance that 10-core may not be more expensive to manufacture.
- Intel 10-core is 206mm² (as a sidenote, pretty close to Zen/Zen+ dies in size).
- Ryzen 3000 is 75mm² CCD plus 125mm² IO Die. Probably minor additional cost from chiplet packaging (and 5000 is presumably pretty much the same).
Two things that factor in here are yields - which by educated guess are either the same or still better for 14nm than 7nm even with these die sizes - and costs - where 7nm still seems to cost 1.6x what 12/14/16nm costs.
I think overall manufacturing costs come out a wash if not even a slight edge for Intel.

By the way, Intel seems to be using 6-core die (150mm²) in addition to the 10-core one. 10-core die goes into 8 and 10 core SKUs plus 10600K.
Posted on Reply
#171
AsRock
TPU addict
Zyll Goliath
Prices goes UP a bit......

But so did the performance, a fair bit too. On top of that 12 core 24threads is hella deal for $550 and if it was not for AMD be on a lot less for that price.
Posted on Reply
#172
londiste
AsRock
But so did the performance, a fair bit too. On top of that 12 core 24threads is hella deal for $550 and if it was not for AMD be on a lot less for that price.
We will have to wait for reviews and see. Intel has been out of this run from get-go and $549 5900X (12c/24t, 3.7/4.8GHz) is going against 3900X (12c/24t, 3.8/4.6GHz) with MSRP of $499 and street prices around $400. Notable big improvements like 8-core CCDs are not likely to have much of an effect on well-threaded productivity performance. Manufacturing process is the same, so limited efficiency boost - and base clock is specced 100MHz lower. This should be interesting :)

Edit:
Well, technically 3900X has been succeeded by 3900XT at the same price point and basically identical spec except a 100MHz higher boost clock.
Posted on Reply
#173
AsRock
TPU addict
3900X $500 ?, don't you mean the 3900XT ?. i got my 3900X 8 month ago for $430 and would not surprised to see it go lower than $400 before EOL.

3900XT is around $70 more and no cooler but the cooler will depend on the user.
Posted on Reply
#174
Calmmo
Mine was 500 ~3.5 months after launch. That was after actively trying acquire one for the entirety of those first 3 months and not being able to.
(people like to talk about nvidia paper launches these days, but AMD did exact the same thing with their R9 CPUs just last year, wont be surpised if its the same with 5000 again)
Posted on Reply
#175
RandallFlagg
dragontamer5788
Those graphs are gross profits. Aka: how to lie with graphs.

* Revenue -- "Money made"
* Gross Profit: Revenue - COGS, aka used to calculate "margin".
* Net Profit: Revenue - COGS - a whole bunch of other stuff. Also known as "The Bottom Line".

It always bothers me when people talk Gross instead of Net. Just because it has the word "profit" in it doesn't mean its what colloquial people understand as profits. If "profit" is unspecified, there's usually an underlying assumption that you're talking about Net.
Gross tells you the cost to build a chip vs the sale price, which was the topic. Net shows you nothing in that regard as it includes capital expenditures like building new plants, developing new products, marketing costs, and various administrative costs. So in fact, Net is the one that is 'fake' and can be manipulated. A highly profitable company can invest heavily in capital expenditures and appear to be broke on Net. This is why for a decade or more Amazon never made a dime, yet look at their revenue and gross margin and you see a different picture. Looking at a raw profit number like "20B vs 600M" (Net) tells you nothing about this, people who looked at that alone with Amazon would have though Macys was kicking their tail for a decade..

Hyperbolic example, using Net - if I'm selling 10 billion units of something and make $20B Net vs selling 10 units of something and making 600M Net, then the one making 20B can only lower price $20 before profit is zero or negative ($20B / 10B units). The one selling 10 units can lower price $60M each before profit is zero. Hence Net is useless in this discussion unless you know quantity across multiple sectors and can break it down in terms of net profit per unit. That type of data is not out there, so gross margin is all we have.

Of course, neither Intel nor AMD can lower their costs such that gross margin is anywhere near zero, else they'd have to cease all marketing, R&D, and so on to break even. My guess is they both need at least 20% and probably 30% Gross Margin to hit break even on Net Income.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment