AMD Ryzen 9 5900X

[ahenriquedsj]

What happened at CS GO? LOL

 

[ViperXTR]

i had a good deal with a 3600Mhz CL18, i wonder if it's still fine, i can put it on CL16 still i guess

 

[SystemMechanic]

Theree's Many things wrong with this review, really disappointing to see this from TPU.. TPU disappointment strikes yet again. I dont believe your 65c load temps on 10900k Its fake for sure.

 

[Bruno_O]

I love TPU for the design / graphics presentation, but this review really dropped the ball. Sorry, 3600C16 memory is dirty cheap now (we're at DDR4 peak, DDR5 next year), and AMD said that this platform could go to 4000 Mhz 1:1 mem/flck, so this piece really feels biased / tuned to protect Intel, even if undesired. Buying a ~550 CPU and saving $10 bucks on memory - for a staggering performance loss - makes no sense.

 

[SystemMechanic]

I love TPU for the design / graphics presentation, but this review really dropped the ball. Sorry, 3600C16 memory is dirty cheap now (we're at DDR4 peak, DDR5 next year), and AMD said that this platform could go to 4000 Mhz 1:1 mem/flck, so this piece really feels biased / tuned to protect Intel, even if undesired. Buying a ~550 CPU and saving $10 bucks on memory - for a staggering performance loss - makes no sense.

They also used a 2080Ti and their CPU load temps just seem so wrong..

 

[Turmania]

I'm very disappointed with some people coming on here, trying to accuse, mislead, and throw a mud at integrity of these tests and testers themselves. If you dont like it, bugget off! Now what I noticed is this time around AMD played safe with boost clocks, in most cases boost actually exceeded their advertised numbers. Remember last year? They could not even get close to those numbers ands on top of that no issues on bios/software. This was the biggest question mark for AMD, and I think today they passed it. Well done AMD.

 

[Yosar]

I call bullshit on these tests. Witcher 3 is especially bullshit.

Test AMD Ryzen 9 5900X i 5950X vs Intel Core i9-10900K - najlepszy procesor do gier (i nie tylko)

AMD ponownie miesza na rynku procesorów dla komputerów stacjonarnych. Nowe układy z rodziny Vermeer, oparte na mikroarchitektura Zen 3, oferują ogromny wzrost wydajności, zarówno w codziennych zastosowaniach, jak i w profesjonalnych aplikacjach. A jak wypadają w grach? Czy procesory Intela...

www.komputerswiat.pl

AMD Ryzen 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X: performance analysis

The official Digital Foundry review of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X, hosted by Eurogamer, including syntheti…

www.eurogamer.net

Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 5900X - Premiera architektury Zen 3 | PurePC.pl

Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 5900X - Premiera architektury Zen 3 (strona 25) Test wydajności procesora AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (Zen 3 Vermeer) vs Intel Core i9-10900K (Comet Lake) w grach komputerowych i programach. Który procesor jest szybszy?

www.purepc.pl

https://d1sxg8jua9jde6.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/amd-ryzen-5900x-5800x-5600x-gaming-benchmarks-pichau-14.jpg

In every test 5900X beats 10900K easily in this game. Not even close to be considered equal.
All those sites are wrong and only TechpowerUp is right? Sorry, but this revierw is so much dishonest that I stoped belive in any review from this site.
Reviewer fake those tests or doesn't know what he does. And I don't know what is worse, dishonesty or incompetence.
Oh, and any multiplayer or strategic game totally ignored. Worthless review by all means.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Anands used 2933 on their 10900K, and 3200 on their Zen 3 CPUs. No sane person with a 10700K or above is going to run DDR4-2933.

So they basically crippled the Intel systems.

This is the effect of using higher speed RAM with Intel chips. It's like 5% going to DDR4-3200, and 8% using DDR4-3600 :

 

[EarthDog]

Anands used 2933 on their 10900K, and 3200 on their Zen 3 CPUs. No sane person with a 10700K or above is going to run DDR4-2933.

So they basically crippled the Intel systems.

This is a like vs like situation. Both values are the maximum rated for the cpu. Anything above that is considered overclocking (the imc). To be fair (imo) they should be tested at the same speeds. 3600 for example, is overclocking both imcs and lets each cpu stretch its legs.

You also need to understand the majority don't overclock in the first place.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I call bullshit on these tests. Witcher 3 is especially bullshit.

Test AMD Ryzen 9 5900X i 5950X vs Intel Core i9-10900K - najlepszy procesor do gier (i nie tylko)

AMD ponownie miesza na rynku procesorów dla komputerów stacjonarnych. Nowe układy z rodziny Vermeer, oparte na mikroarchitektura Zen 3, oferują ogromny wzrost wydajności, zarówno w codziennych zastosowaniach, jak i w profesjonalnych aplikacjach. A jak wypadają w grach? Czy procesory Intela...

www.komputerswiat.pl

AMD Ryzen 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X: performance analysis

The official Digital Foundry review of the AMD Ryzen 9 5900X and Ryzen 7 5800X, hosted by Eurogamer, including syntheti…

www.eurogamer.net

Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 5900X - Premiera architektury Zen 3 | PurePC.pl

Test procesora AMD Ryzen 9 5900X - Premiera architektury Zen 3 (strona 25) Test wydajności procesora AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (Zen 3 Vermeer) vs Intel Core i9-10900K (Comet Lake) w grach komputerowych i programach. Który procesor jest szybszy?

www.purepc.pl

https://d1sxg8jua9jde6.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/amd-ryzen-5900x-5800x-5600x-gaming-benchmarks-pichau-14.jpg

In every test 5900X beats 10900K easily in this game. Not even close to be considered equal.
All those sites are wrong and only TechpowerUp is right? Sorry, but this revierw is so much dishonest that I stoped belive in any review from this site.
Reviewer fake those tests or doesn't know what he does. And I don't know what is worse, dishonesty or incompetence.
Oh, and any multiplayer or strategic game totally ignored. Worthless review by all means.

Another one who can't read a graph.

Tell us, which chips from that eurogamer link won this. I'll give you a hint, it starts with a 10 :

Or this :

Or this :

 

[SIGSEGV]

Another one who can't read a graph.

Tell us, which chips from that eurogamer link won this. I'll give you a hint, it starts with a 10 :

View attachment 174580

Or this :

View attachment 174581

Or this :

View attachment 174582

LMAO, wtf is this.
only 3? come on man. give me more....

 

[RandallFlagg]

This is a like vs like situation. Both values are the maximum rated for the cpu. Anything above that is considered overclocking (the imc). To be fair (imo) they should be tested at the same speeds. 3600 for example, is overclocking both imcs and lets each cpu stretch its legs.

You also need to understand the majority don't overclock in the first place.

I think it's valid either way, as long as the viewer knows it . Out here in enthusiast space though, almost no-one buys anything slower than DDR4-3200, in fact almost everyone has DDR4-3200 if you peruse system specs. If you are talking about OEM systems, then they should probably test with DDR4-2666 on both platforms, because that is by a wide margin the predominant speed of RAM that will be put on OEM boxes.

 

[EarthDog]

I think it's valid either way, as long as the viewer knows it . Out here in enthusiast space though, almost no-one buys anything slower than DDR4-3200, in fact almost everyone has DDR4-3200 if you peruse system specs. If you are talking about OEM systems, then they should probably test with DDR4-2666 on both platforms, because that is by a wide margin the predominant speed of RAM that will be put on OEM boxes.

Enthusiast land is but a drop in the bucket my friend. Not much would have changed if they ran intel at 2933 compared to 3200 (their lax rated). Again, most aren't overclocking. Overclocking is a variable metric depending on how far users want to push things.

In short, let it go... that isn't a great argument you brought up with that anand review.

 

[Minus Infinity]

Wow how bad does the 1800X look nowadays. I only have a lowly 1700X and it's amazing to see how even the 5600X beats out the 8 cores designs in a lot of tests. I have two PCs and one is a dinosaur running Intel 3570K and 1070 and other is 1700X + 1080 Ti. I was just going to update the old one, make that my powerhouse and the 1700X machine becomes the secondary PC, but now I will even update that one. One build will be full on, 5900X + 6800XT, the other I'll just do cpu, MB, memory and GPU, probably 5600X + either keep the 1080Ti or get 6800.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Enthusiast land is but a drop in the bucket my friend. Not much would have changed if they ran intel at 2933 compared to 3200 (their lax rated). Again, most aren't overclocking. Overclocking is a variable metric depending on how far users want to push things.

In short, let it go... that isn't a great argument you brought up with that anand review.

But it is where the difference came from. People are talking about 0-5% difference in the reviews. Look at the 9900K at 2666 vs 3200, that's 14.4% to be precise. 3200->3600 is 1%. Those margins are more than enough for memory to explain this if AT ran their Intel chips at 2933 and AMD chips at 3200.

As far as OEM arguments, if it's an OEM type setup config they should be running at typical OEM speeds which would be 2133 - 2933 at best. For enthusiast / custom builds, it's almost all 3200. If they want to max out the performance, use the fastest you can get stable.

Honestly for anyone thinking about an OEM system (Dell, HP, etc), *all* of these enthusiast review sites are garbage information.

Edit: added the chart showing effects of RAM on 9900K vs 3900X I was referring to.

 

[EarthDog]

But it is where the difference came from. People are talking about 0-5% difference in the reviews. Look at the 9900K at 2666 vs 3200, that's 14.4% to be precise. 3200->3600 is 1%. Those margins are more than enough for memory to explain this if AT ran their Intel chips at 2933 and AMD chips at 3200.

As far as OEM arguments, if it's an OEM type setup config they should be running at typical OEM speeds which would be 2133 - 2933 at best. For enthusiast / custom builds, it's almost all 3200. If they want to max out the performance, use the fastest you can get stable.

Honestly for anyone thinking about an OEM system (Dell, HP, etc), *all* of these enthusiast review sites are garbage information.

Edit: added the chart showing effects of RAM on 9900K vs 3900X I was referring to.

Brotha... we can't help how they spec their systems out. 2933 is the max for intel, 3200 for AMD. I have no idea what foreign language site you're quoting, but you should provide a link so we can see exactly what game that is and have some context for this image you keep posting. Also note that 2666 JEDEC is below the max... and JEDEC timings are extremely high... nothing of which Anandtech did, note. Their 2933 was with more appropriate than JEDEC timings. Same with the AMD.

Here are some links for you to chew on... notice here there isn't much of a difference in games.

AMD Zen 2 Memory Performance Scaling with Ryzen 9 3900X

We take a close look at memory scaling on AMD's new Zen 2 Ryzen 3900X, testing both application and gaming performance at seven different memory speed and timing combinations ranging from 2400 MHz all the way up to 4000 MHz.

www.techpowerup.com

...and intel

Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake Memory Benchmark Analysis

We take a close look at memory speeds, latencies, and command rate on Intel's latest Core i7-8700K with Z370. Scenarios tested include fail-safe 2133 MHz, the platform default of 2666 MHz, and overclocked memory speeds ranging from 3000 MHz to 4000 MHz - at various timings.

www.techpowerup.com

I'm sure there are some results like this that show huge gains, but those are anomolous for the most part. Memory speeds, generally yield a couple % gains. AMD tends to benefit more, especially with lower latency. Again, give it up... whatever you're arguing here.

 

[RandallFlagg]

It's computerbase.de - a very active site. I posted the link the first time I put up that image. Most of the recent 'revelation' that in fact Intel does scale with RAM speed - better than Ryzen in fact - started from this review.

Core i9-9900K vs. Ryzen 9 3900X mit RAM-OC in Spielen

Wie hoch ist die Spieleleistung wirklich? Core i9-9900K und Ryzen 9 3900X treten mit übertakteten Samsung-B-Dies im CPU-Limit in Spielen an.

www.computerbase.de

Brotha... we can't help how they spec their systems out. 2933 is the max for intel, 3200 for AMD. I have no idea what foreign language site you're quoting, but you should provide a link so we can see exactly what game that is and have some context for this image you keep posting. Also note that 2666 JEDEC is below the max... and JEDEC timings are extremely high... nothing of which Anandtech did, note. Their 2933 was with more appropriate than JEDEC timings. Same with the AMD.

Here are some links for you to chew on... notice here there isn't much of a difference in games.

AMD Zen 2 Memory Performance Scaling with Ryzen 9 3900X

We take a close look at memory scaling on AMD's new Zen 2 Ryzen 3900X, testing both application and gaming performance at seven different memory speed and timing combinations ranging from 2400 MHz all the way up to 4000 MHz.

www.techpowerup.com

...and intel

Intel i7-8700K Coffee Lake Memory Benchmark Analysis

We take a close look at memory speeds, latencies, and command rate on Intel's latest Core i7-8700K with Z370. Scenarios tested include fail-safe 2133 MHz, the platform default of 2666 MHz, and overclocked memory speeds ranging from 3000 MHz to 4000 MHz - at various timings.

www.techpowerup.com

I'm sure there are some results like this that show huge gains, but those are anomolous for the most part. Memory speeds, generally yield a couple % gains. AMD tends to benefit more, especially with lower latency. Again, give it up... whatever you're arguing here.

#1 Their test is with a 9900K, which was Intel Spec'd for 2666.

If you truly mean what you say about not using out of spec RAM, then they should be using DDR4-3200 CL22. Anything else, is overclocked. <-- This is a fact. That is why computerbase did the test with DDR4-3,200 MHz, 22-22-22-42-2T, 1.2V (R9 3900X)

So basically everyone who is testing with DDR-3200 that is not CL22 is overclocking.

Which is pretty much everyone.

Which makes the whole DDR4-2933 thing for Intel quite hypocritical. Everyone's ok with OC the CL, but not the speed, eh?

 

[arbiter]

Reading some these comments, amazing how dumb some people are. "Why don't you use xxxx memory" or "why don't you use RTX3090". There is A REASON for hardware they use when testing cause they have RESULTS using that same hardware to compare it to. The second you change memory or gpu you have nothing to compare it against cause every other test is using that hardware you just threw out. The results you get with different hardware now question's well was the gain cause the cpu is better or was it the faster memory you put in or was it the faster gpu you just dropped it.

Just as RandallFlagg said above https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-ryzen-9-5900x.274036/page-6#post-4386276

 

[mkppo]

AMD sent the 5950X so that it arrived today


After 3090, but not enough time to retest all comparison CPUs


Don't really care about what AMD recommends. I feel like 3200 CL14 is a great compromise between cost, performance and what's realistic for actual people who go out and buy hardware. I don't bench Intel with Power Limit removed, just because Intel wants it. Working on a memory scaling article for next week already

When doing the memory scaling article, kindly consider doing a test for 2x8GB vs 4x8GB as well. I believe it should marginally impact performance and would be very interesting to watch.

Awesome CPU launch. Amazing that there's 20%+ more performance at the same power draw on the same node. Kudos AMD.

 

[Rob94hawk]

I'm guessing there's not much to gain with regards to gaming with the 5950X? Was hoping for a review of that as well.

 

[mkppo]

But it is where the difference came from. People are talking about 0-5% difference in the reviews. Look at the 9900K at 2666 vs 3200, that's 14.4% to be precise. 3200->3600 is 1%. Those margins are more than enough for memory to explain this if AT ran their Intel chips at 2933 and AMD chips at 3200.

View attachment 174584

Many other websites tested at similar RAM speeds , including gamer nexus, and the 5900X seems to be slightly faster than 10900k.

Also, regarding this graph you repeatedly keep posting, keep in mind that Ryzen benefits massively from subtiming optimization as well. That, coupled with faster memory should increase FPS another 10%+ for Zen 3 as well. Have a look here (It's an older article for Zen 2):

Testing 3rd-Gen Ryzen DDR4 Memory Performance and Scaling

When we reviewed Ryzen's latest iteration we briefly checked out different DDR4 memory speeds but now that things have settled we were put on a mission to...

www.techspot.com

It's generally known, and W1zzard himself mentions that Ryzen benefits more from faster RAM. But the main performance is obtained from subtiming optimization. My 3950x got atleast 10% more gaming performance at low res benchmarks, not that I care as I use it for rendering etc.

 

[Minus Infinity]

I'm guessing there's not much to gain with regards to gaming with the 5950X? Was hoping for a review of that as well.

Well Techspot tested the 5950X and it's the gaming champ for most part. They called it total domination!

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Review

Here's our first look at Ryzen 5000, starting with a full review of the Ryzen 9 5950X flagship. This new chip packs 16 cores with SMT support...

www.techspot.com

 

[Rob94hawk]

Well Techspot tested the 5950X and it's the gaming champ for most part. They called it total domination!

AMD Ryzen 9 5950X Review

Here's our first look at Ryzen 5000, starting with a full review of the Ryzen 9 5950X flagship. This new chip packs 16 cores with SMT support...

www.techspot.com

Appreciate the link!

Edit: Uh, they used a top of the line new cpu and a 3090 and only benched games in 1080p!? Disappointing.

 

[EarthDog]

If you truly mean what you say about not using out of spec RAM

Which makes the whole DDR4-2933 thing for Intel quite hypocritical. Everyone's ok with OC the CL, but not the speed, eh?

I didn't say anything about that. The spec just lists the speed. JEDEC has to do with the memory itself. I'm talking about overclocking the IMC. It is not overclocking the RAM using the XMP profiles/what it's rated for on the box.

It isn't hypocritical at all. Now you're assigning a specific JEDEC specification from memory to something that doesn't have one. They just list speed, not specific timings. That is on the RAM itself. And again, if I buy a set of sticks rated to run DDR4 4000, they aren't overclocked. That is their specification. JEDEC profiles are on the sticks for compatibility reasons. Don't get your head twisted assigning meaning to things that aren't there.

 

[W1zzard]

Theree's Many things wrong with this review, really disappointing to see this from TPU.. TPU disappointment strikes yet again. I dont believe your 65c load temps on 10900k Its fake for sure.

Just gotta wait for the CPU to run into its power limit. For temps we're reporting the long term stable state, not the single highest temp. Does that make sense?