Tuesday, October 27th 2020

AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, Ryzen 9 5950X CPU-Z Scores Surface

Scores for AMD's upcoming Zen 3 Ryzen 7 5800X (8 core, 16 thread) and Ryzen 9 5950X (16 core, 32 thread) have surfaced on the CPU-Z benchmark. The results, which should - as always - be taken with appropriate salt, point towards the Ryzen 7 5800X scoring 650 single-core and 6593 points in the multi-threaded benchmark. The Ryzen 9 5950X is rated as scoring 690.2 points in the same single-threaded benchmark and 13306.5 points in the multi-threaded one. CPU-Z scores for the Intel Core i9-10900K (10 cores, 20 threads) are set at 584 and 7389 points respectively. This is further fuel to the fire on AMD's current technology and performance leadership.
Sources: CPU-Z Validator, Chiphell, via Videocardz
Add your own comment

46 Comments on AMD Ryzen 7 5800X, Ryzen 9 5950X CPU-Z Scores Surface

#1
ratirt
These new Ryzens, if true, are awesome. I'm getting one for sure and I'm gonna go 570x board for PCI-e 4.0 storage and skip my current 470x.
Posted on Reply
#2
R0H1T
Who cares, frankly aren't CPU-z scores trash anyway?
Posted on Reply
#3
KarymidoN
Can you feel it guys?

Posted on Reply
#4
xman2007
Damn I can just about hit 490 at 4.2ghz these St scores are impressive and people like me on first and second gen will get a massive performance uplift upgrading to ryzen 3
R0H1T
Who cares, frankly aren't CPU-z scores trash anyway?
Not really as they do scale linearly
Posted on Reply
#5
TheLostSwede
Holy mother of... o_O
AMD has really pulled out all the stops with the 5000-series.
I mean, this isn't the best benchmark in the world, but considering CPU-Z gimped AMD a few years back, this is even more impressive.
Posted on Reply
#6
xtreemchaos
well done AMD, most deff the stuff that dreams are made of . lets hope intel can pull something outa the bag to keep it interesting.
Posted on Reply
#7
TheLostSwede
xtreemchaos
well done AMD, most deff the stuff that dreams are made of . lets hope intel can pull something outa the bag to keep it interesting.
Can we give it another year at least, so AMD can enjoy pole position for a little while?
It's not that I don't want competition, as it's been sorely missing, but at the same time, AMD needs to build up a bit more of a cash reserve.
Posted on Reply
#8
Hattu
Looks good if true. Too bad i don't have the money to upgrade my MB, RAM and CPU.

Competition is good. Better products and hopefuly decent prices. Last time i paid 362€ (1800X), 265€ (16GB 3200/CL14) and 182€ (370X ITX), so atleast memory is cheaper today.
Posted on Reply
#9
xtreemchaos
id like to see them both performing well, just dont like it when one is far greater than the other.
TheLostSwede
Can we give it another year at least,
Posted on Reply
#11
ratirt
ViperXTR
b-but where is my 5700X? :(
get 5800x :) I don't think there will be 5700x this time around.
Posted on Reply
#13
windwhirl
R0H1T
Who cares, frankly aren't CPU-z scores trash anyway?
TheLostSwede
Holy mother of... o_O
AMD has really pulled out all the stops with the 5000-series.
I mean, this isn't the best benchmark in the world, but considering CPU-Z gimped AMD a few years back, this is even more impressive.
Well, there was the passmark benchmark that also showed similar promise. Granted, there is only one sample here, and we don't know the testing conditions, but if nothing else it looks promising

www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+9+5950X&id=3862
xman2007
Not really as they do scale linearly
I didn't know that. Thanks for that bit of info.
Posted on Reply
#14
Mats
So how much does 2400 MHz RAM hold this thing back?

Edit: Not the slightest. :D

Posted on Reply
#15
ViperXTR
ratirt
get 5800x :) I don't think there will be 5700x this time around.
ugh, oh well, its either 5700X (5800X) or 5600X for me anyway
Posted on Reply
#16
Mats
windwhirl
Well, there was the passmark benchmark that also showed similar promise.
There are obvious differences. Look at older models.
In Passmark MT the 3700X beats the 9900K by 21 %, sounds weird to me. (I know the ST score tells a different story)

In the CPU-Z table the ST score looks more accurate, with the 3950X getting beaten by several Intel models.

CPU-Z ST looks more reliable than the Passmark MT, IMO.
Posted on Reply
#17
windwhirl
Mats
There are obvious differences. Look at older models.
In Passmark MT the 3700X beats the 9900K by 20 %, sounds weird to me. (I know the ST score tells a diferent story)

In the CPU-Z table the ST score looks more accurate, with the 3950X getting beaten by several Intel models.

CPU-Z ST looks more reliable than the Passmark MT, IMO.
The ST score advantage on Intel's side is to be expected. The 9900K boosts very aggressively in those cases. The MT advantage on AMD's side is perhaps exaggerated by whatever method Passmark uses for the calculation, but TPU's own review does show the 3700X being better for MT tasks (although not as much as 20% in most cases, with a few ones being a draw or even lost to the 9900K)

By the way, in the 5600X case, the fact that it matches the 3700X would be due to it having all cores in a single CCD (no CCX here), unlike the 3700X which has four cores per CCX, with two CCXs per CCD.
Posted on Reply
#18
Mats
windwhirl
The MT advantage on AMD's side is perhaps exaggerated by whatever method Passmark uses for the calculation, but TPU's own review does show the 3700X being better for MT tasks (although not as much as 20% in most cases, with a few ones being a draw or even lost to the 9900K)
IDK, the 9900K was 3 % faster on average than the 3700X in TPU's review. There are always extremes, and some of then will be in the 3700X's favor of course, but if Passmark acts like an extreme, and not like more of a general benchmark, it doesn't really tell us much about overall performance.

All I'm saying is that the CPU-Z score looks more believable.
Posted on Reply
#19
Chrispy_
98.2MHz, what's with the very slow bus clock robbing nearly 100MHz off the CPU clockspeed?
Quick check on my own PC here and the 100MHz bus is running at 99.94MHz.
Posted on Reply
#20
zo0lykas
Good price for 1800x
Remember I paid for it £499,so now it's time to change whole system
Hattu
Looks good if true. Too bad i don't have the money to upgrade my MB, RAM and CPU.

Competition is good. Better products and hopefuly decent prices. Last time i paid 362€ (1800X), 265€ (16GB 3200/CL14) and 182€ (370X ITX), so atleast memory is cheaper today.
Posted on Reply
#21
HD64G
Guys please. No point in arguing against Zen3 superiority in every aspect of CPU performance now. Zen3 will become the new Athlon64 for gamers. It will have both the highest efficiency and perfomance while not very expensive. Intel has only Prescott-like (Pentium 4/D) CPUs atm (higher power draw and clocks but not performance). And that will remain unchanged until 2022-3.
Posted on Reply
#22
Makaveli
Mats
So how much does 2400 MHz RAM hold this thing back?

Edit: Not the slightest. :D


There 3800X at 519 is abit low compared to what I see on my rig.

My 3800X with PBO Fmax on with the newest Bios at DDR4 3200 with a Ryzen Dram fast profile applied.

Single (5800X) 650 vs (3800X) 541.5 = 16%

Multi (5800X) 6593 vs (3800X) 5599.4 = 15%



The last bios update has provided a nice boost in scores for me and I believe its because I'm hitting higher boost clocks now. Prior to this bios upgrade max boost for me was 4490

Posted on Reply
#23
Dave65
If it beats Intel, the Intel guys will still try to polish an Intel turd with, but we have more +++++++++++++++++
Posted on Reply
#24
Makaveli
Dave65
If it beats Intel, the Intel guys will still try to polish an Intel turd with, but we have more +++++++++++++++++
It will be faster than comet lake, and we already know rocket lake will be on 14+++++++++

The real test for Zen 3 will come with rocket lake in march 2021 so AMD will hold this lead for the next 5 months or so.
Posted on Reply
#25
jesdals
Its the single treaded score thats most impressive
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment