• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Takes the Crown of the Fastest CPU in Passmark Single-Thread Results

Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
3,153 (2.41/day)
Location
Lund, Sweden
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Motherboard Biostar X370GTN
Cooling Custom CPU+GPU water loop
Memory 16GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C16
Video Card(s) AMD R9 Fury X
Storage 500GB 960 Evo (OS ++), 500GB 850 Evo (Games)
Display(s) Dell U2711
Case NZXT H200i
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Lenovo Compact Keyboard with Trackpoint
Software Windows 10 Pro
All three vendors AMD, NVIDIA and Intel have a naming scheme they follow closely. XX80 products from NVIDIA have always been top tier, starting with GeForce4 4800Ti. Ryzen XX60 CPUs have always been entry-level, Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 5 2600, Ryzen 5 3600 and now Ryzen 5 5600X. Again, if Intel had done anything like that, people would have torn them apart and they had the performance crown for more than a decade.
Uh, what? No, none of those have ever been entry level CPUs. They are, and have always been, mid-range parts. In the Ryzen 1000-series there were the 1200 and 1300X. In the 2000 series there was the 2300X, with 2000-series APUs (2200G and 2400G) filling out the entry level offerings. In the 3000 series you had the same again, with the 3100 and 3300X, alongside the 3200G and 3400G. You seem to be conflating which parts are interesting to enthusiasts with what their product tier is. This is simply not true. xx60(X) Ryzen CPUs are very much mid-range parts. (I'd say the xx60 non-X is lower mid-range, xx60X is just plain mid-range, and the xx70 is upper mid-range.)

The Core i3 6100, much faster in single-threaded mode than anything from AMD at that time was sold for $117.
The Core i3 4130 before it, $122.
Relevance? One is a Skylake part, launched long before any Ryzen, and the other is Haswell, launched several years before that again.

Why didn't Intel sell the Core i3 6100 for $183? It was the fastest entry level CPU at that time!
... it wasn't. That was the i3-6300. Besides that, due to the massive increase in core counts in the past 3 or so years the range and tiering of CPUs has obviously changed - hence why we no longer have $400 4c8t CPUs, as I said. All your examples here illustrate is just how terrible value the i7-6700K and similar chips were even in their time.

Double effing standards and hypocrisy from AMD fans all the effing time even when their idol starts ripping off (Ryzen 5 3600 $200, Ryzen 5 5600 with the same number of cores $300).
What double standard? You're comparing different lineups and saying they are the same. There have been xx60X SKUs in all Ryzen series so far. There will in all likelihood be in the 5600 series, but it has as of yet not been launched. I would be shocked if there wasn't a ~$230 5600 non-X launched in a few months - and if that turned out to be true, I would indeed be rather pissed. You are allowing your apparent bias against AMD to make you preemptively angry long before the full 5000 series lineup is launched; you are creating a reason for yourself to be mad. Please stop.

Even the most evil company in the world, Intel, didn't allow itself to do that as indicated earlier. F it and I'm out.
Allow itself to do what? To increase their prices as they got into a better competitive positioning? Given that Intel has been dominant in CPUs since at least 2006 I really don't have the data available to comment on that. But I don't know about you, but to me, bribing OEMs to use your product instead of a competitor's is ... ever so slightly worse than increasing prices a little. Just a tad, you know?

Speaking of monopolies. Yes, AMD is playing like a monopoly. They've got the highest performance and they've started dictating prices which indicate they have no competition. Again, refer to my example at the beginning of the post: Intel did not allow itself to increase prices between generations for similar products, except when they started to offer significantly more cores. AMD has increased the price of their entry level CPU by whopping 50%, not $50 you keep mentioning.
First off: acting like a monopolist does not make you one. Secondly, there are many reasons beyond being a monopolist for increasing prices - such as delivering a superior product. Or are you saying BMW and Mercedes are monopolists because they price their cars higher than Toyota and Honda? Intel didn't need to increase prices because they had already created a market situation where they were selling dirt-cheap CPUs for $400 and calling them high-end. AMD tore down that system, and now you're somehow complaining that in late 2020 you can get a $300 6c12t CPU that at 65W TDP/88W max power draw boosts to 4.6GHz with significantly higher IPC than competing solutions? I mean, the 3600 was a fantastic value CPU, but the 5600X is promising to be noticeably faster - it's clocked higher and has much higher IPC, after all. It's still not as great value as the 3600 was, but it's not bad - and again, there will in all likelihood be a 5600 non-X.

I'm ignoring your posts from now on. You've failed to address the fact that Intel doesn't allow itself to raise prices when they release faster better products. You're trying to compare the 5600X to the 3600X which wasn't the entry level CPU, it was the 3600 which cost $200, so the difference is not $50 but $100, i.e. whopping 1.5 times. Good luck with AMD a-licking and vindicating their monopolistic behavior (because it is what is is). What's bad for Intel and NVIDIA, is totally OK for AMD. I get it, now I have nothing else to talk with you about.
Dude, you need to calm down. You have created an entirely arbitrary definition of "entry level" that you are then using to whine about a situation that isn't real. Is the 5600X more expensive than the 3600? Yes. Is it also much faster? Yes. Is it in the same product tier? No, that would be the (likely ~$230) 5600 or the ($249) 3600X. Is it going to be the entry level Ryzen 5000 chip going forward? Not in any way, shape or form. Launching higher end parts first, and filling out the midrange and lower end later is entirely standard industry practice. AMD does it, Intel does it, Nvidia does it, and there is nothing inherently problematic with this.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,669 (3.64/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC alive since Aug 18th 2019
Processor Ryzen 5 3600 (PBO Enabled)
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro, BIOS F22
Cooling Corsair H110i 280mm (Liquid metal for TIM)
Memory CorsairVengeanceLPX DDR4 2x8GB 3466MHz CL16-18-18-36 1T, B-die A0 PCB, @3800 CL16-18-18-36 1T(1.46V)
Video Card(s) MSI RX 5700XT Gaming X
Storage Samsung NVMe: 970Pro 512GB (2019) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB SSD (2017), 860Evo 1TB SSD (2020)
Display(s) 24" EIZO FlexScan S2411W 1920x1200, 16:10 60Hz samsung S-PVA 14-bit (16.7M/1.06B colors), 6ms G2G
Case None
Audio Device(s) Sound Blaster Z <--optical link--> Logitech Z5500 5.1 500W
Power Supply Corsair HX750i
Mouse Logitech MX Master
Keyboard Logitech G15 v2
Software Windows 10 Home 64bit (v2004)
I'm ignoring your posts from now on. You've failed to address the fact that Intel doesn't allow itself to raise prices when they release faster better products. You're trying to compare the 5600X to the 3600X which wasn't the entry level CPU, it was the 3600 which cost $200, so the difference is not $50 but $100, i.e. whopping 1.5 times. Good luck with AMD a-licking and vindicating their monopolistic behavior (because it is what is is).
Yeah, ignore the fact that entry level of 3000series is 3100 and 3300... You can close your eyes all you want. Still exist. Still there.
Are you playing blind?
A little help? Are you ignoring other things also except me?
And the 1200/1300/1400/1500/3100/3300 what exactly are? Sub-entry level or non existent CPUs?
You can cry all you want. 5600X is replacing 3600X and has price bump of 50$. That is a +20% on MSRP with at least the same performance uplift and most probably performs faster than any 6core.
You can try all you want but 5600X is replacing 3600X, you like it or not, understand it or not. I highly doubt the you dont, but just trying to distort reality for whatever reason. Couldnt care less why...

EDIT: typo
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
914 (0.33/day)
Relevance? One is a Skylake part, launched long before any Ryzen, and the other is Haswell, launched several years before that again.
No effing relevance, AMD releases a new generation of the same product (More cores? No! Some new features, maybe the AVX512 instruction set, or DL instructions? No! Maybe integrated graphics for a change? No!) at a whopping 1.5 times higher price.

I mean, the 3600 was a fantastic value CPU, but the 5600X is promising to be noticeably faster - it's clocked higher and has much higher IPC, after all. It's still not as great value as the 3600 was, but it's not bad - and again, there will in all likelihood be a 5600 non-X.
Has Intel ever increased their prices 1.5 fold when their new CPUs offered fantastic increases in IPC and frequency? Should I remind you of Sandy Bridge which featured both these great advances vs. Clarkdale before it?

What double standard? You're comparing different lineups and saying they are the same. There was no X SKU in the 3600 series. There was in the 1600 and 2600 series. There will in all likelihood be in the 5600 series, but it has as of yet not been launched. I would be shocked if there wasn't a ~$230 5600 non-X launched in a few months - and if that turned out to be true, I would indeed be rather pissed. You are allowing your apparent bias against AMD to make you preemptively angry long before the full 5000 series lineup is launched; you are creating a reason for yourself to be mad. Please stop.
AMD has deliberately chosen not to release the Ryzen 5 5600 to increase their margins - exactly the thing which Intel and NVIDIA are hated for. I don't care if they release the 5600 at a later time, I'm talking about their initial lineup. You and no one else know if 5600 will ever get released. Period. Intel and NVIDIA get ripped apart when they release new generations of products at a higher price. AMD now does exactly the same and all I see is tons of lame excuses to make it look OK'ish. God, I'm tired of this stupid conversation. F it and I'm done with it.

First off: acting like a monopolist does not make you one.
Wow. I'm out of words. Never seen logic being skewed and twisted like this time around. Another person whose messages I will no longer see. For the 20th, I don't understand why this behavior is condoned while Intel and NVIDIA are destroyed for it.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
3,120 (2.44/day)
System Name Best AMD Computer
Processor AMD TR4 1920X
Motherboard MSI X399 SLI Plus
Cooling Alphacool Eisbaer 420 x2 Noctua XPX Pro TR4 block
Memory Gskill RIpjaws 4 3000MHZ 48GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire Vega 64 Nitro, Gigabyte Vega 64 Gaming OC
Storage 6 x NVME 480 GB, 2 x SSD 2TB, 5TB HDD, 2 TB HDD, 2x 2TB SSHD
Display(s) Acer 49BQ0k 4K monitor
Case Thermaltake Core X9
Audio Device(s) Corsair Void Pro, Logitch Z523 5.1
Power Supply Corsair HX1200!
Mouse Logitech g7 gaming mouse
Keyboard Logitech G510
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 Steam. GOG, Uplay, Origin
Benchmark Scores Firestrike: 24955 Time Spy: 13500
If AMD had launched these X Skus at the price of the already existing 3000 weries skus they would have to have prematurely drop the price of those parts. As much as AMD really gained in mind share and revenue they have only been financially solvent for about 1 year. As much as people would like to complain about their tactics being the same as Intel if you already own a B450 to X570 board you just need a BIOS update to make it work. So much anger for such a small issue. If you don't want to pay $299 US for the 5600X just wait until a chip comes out that you want. This is the last iteration of AM4 (as far as we know) so expect that it there will be lot's of choices for all of us including the upcoming 4000 series APUs.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
3,153 (2.41/day)
Location
Lund, Sweden
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Motherboard Biostar X370GTN
Cooling Custom CPU+GPU water loop
Memory 16GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C16
Video Card(s) AMD R9 Fury X
Storage 500GB 960 Evo (OS ++), 500GB 850 Evo (Games)
Display(s) Dell U2711
Case NZXT H200i
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Lenovo Compact Keyboard with Trackpoint
Software Windows 10 Pro
No effing relevance, AMD releases a new generation of the same product (More cores? No! Some new features, maybe the AVX512 instruction set, or DL instructions? No! Maybe integrated graphics for a change? No!) at a whopping 1.5 times higher price.

Has Intel ever increased their prices 1.5 fold when their new CPUs offered fantastic increases in IPC and frequency? Should I remind you of Sandy Bridge which featured both these great advances vs. Clarkdale before it?
Okay, here's some basic math:
Ryzen 3600X: $249
Ryzen 5600X: $299.
299/249 = 1.2008
1.2008 ≠ 1.5

For what seems to be the hundredth time: the 5600X is not in the same tier as the 3600.

AMD has deliberately chosen not to release the Ryzen 5 5600 to increase their margins - exactly the thing which Intel and NVIDIA are hated for. I don't care if they release the 5600 at a later time, I'm talking about their initial lineup. You and no one else know if 5600 will ever get released. Period. Intel and NVIDIA get ripped apart when they release new generations of products at a higher price. AMD now does exactly the same and all I see is tons of lame excuses to make it look OK'ish. God, I'm tired of this stupid conversation. F it and I'm done with it.
Sure, part of why there isn't yet a 5600 is that while we wait for it, some people will get impatient and buy the X instead, increasing AMD's margins a tad and helping them amortize the R&D cost for the new architecture faster with higher ASP parts. For the rest of us, we can wait a bit, not get stressed out over stupid stuff, and get a non-X when it launches.

As for this double standard you're speaking of: I don't believe I've ever criticized either Intel or Nvidia for launching high end parts first and filling out the rest of the lineup later. As I said, it's standard industry practice, and not inherently problematic (partly due to the amortization of R&D costs I mentioned above).

And as for whether a 5600 non-X will be released: as I've gone into at length above, there have always been both X and non-X SKUs in the Ryzen 5 xx60 series. There is no reasonable reason for there not to be this time around, but you are for some reason expecting there not to be. You are the one expecting a change from the norm here, the one making a new assumption, and as such the burden of proof is on you. As for my reaction if there, against all odds, is no non-X coming, I've already gone into that too:
I would be shocked if there wasn't a ~$230 5600 non-X launched in a few months - and if that turned out to be true, I would indeed be rather pissed.
If you actually read the posts of the people you were arguing against we would be having a much more productive discussion here.
Wow. I'm out of words. Never seen logic being skewed and twisted like this time around. Another person whose messages I will no longer see. For the 20th, I don't understand why this behavior is condoned while Intel and NVIDIA are destroyed for it.
To be a monopolist, you need to be in a position where you can have a monopoly. Intel still outsells AMD by at least 3-4X. That is hardly a monopoly, right? As for you entering into a discussion, making a bunch of sensationalist claims with no backing, and then lashing out at and ignoring the people arguing against you, well ... that's on you.
 
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
3,120 (2.44/day)
System Name Best AMD Computer
Processor AMD TR4 1920X
Motherboard MSI X399 SLI Plus
Cooling Alphacool Eisbaer 420 x2 Noctua XPX Pro TR4 block
Memory Gskill RIpjaws 4 3000MHZ 48GB
Video Card(s) Sapphire Vega 64 Nitro, Gigabyte Vega 64 Gaming OC
Storage 6 x NVME 480 GB, 2 x SSD 2TB, 5TB HDD, 2 TB HDD, 2x 2TB SSHD
Display(s) Acer 49BQ0k 4K monitor
Case Thermaltake Core X9
Audio Device(s) Corsair Void Pro, Logitch Z523 5.1
Power Supply Corsair HX1200!
Mouse Logitech g7 gaming mouse
Keyboard Logitech G510
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 Steam. GOG, Uplay, Origin
Benchmark Scores Firestrike: 24955 Time Spy: 13500
Okay, here's some basic math:
Ryzen 3600X: $249
Ryzen 5600X: $299.
299/249 = 1.2008
1.2008 /= 1.5

For what seems to be the hundredth time: the 5600X is not in the same tier as the 3600.


The best way to compare the 2 is the 3100 to 3300x. Both 4 cores but very different. One is readily available and the other is on back order world wide. As I keep saying if you have had the pleasure of owning a 3300x to compare to even the 2600 you would be very excited for the prospect of a 6 core single CCX solution. Let us all just hope that the price remains at $299.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
1,669 (3.64/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC alive since Aug 18th 2019
Processor Ryzen 5 3600 (PBO Enabled)
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro, BIOS F22
Cooling Corsair H110i 280mm (Liquid metal for TIM)
Memory CorsairVengeanceLPX DDR4 2x8GB 3466MHz CL16-18-18-36 1T, B-die A0 PCB, @3800 CL16-18-18-36 1T(1.46V)
Video Card(s) MSI RX 5700XT Gaming X
Storage Samsung NVMe: 970Pro 512GB (2019) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB SSD (2017), 860Evo 1TB SSD (2020)
Display(s) 24" EIZO FlexScan S2411W 1920x1200, 16:10 60Hz samsung S-PVA 14-bit (16.7M/1.06B colors), 6ms G2G
Case None
Audio Device(s) Sound Blaster Z <--optical link--> Logitech Z5500 5.1 500W
Power Supply Corsair HX750i
Mouse Logitech MX Master
Keyboard Logitech G15 v2
Software Windows 10 Home 64bit (v2004)
As for you entering into a discussion, making a bunch of sensationalist claims with no backing, and then lashing out at and ignoring the people arguing against you, well ... that's on you.
He entered this with intention to do more than that, but I highly doubt he can...

I know AMD fans are super excited but I'd love to shit on your parade.
I guess this is productive... in a way...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 8, 2020
Messages
2 (0.01/day)
Location
Ottawa, Canada
System Name La Machina
Processor AMD Ryzen 2700
Motherboard ASUS B450 TUF mATX
Cooling EVO 212
Memory Corsair 3200MHz CL16
Video Card(s) RX 560
Storage Some SSD here, some old spinning stuff there
Display(s) 4k Samsung TV and an Asus Pro Art 231
Case Some microatx Antec
Audio Device(s) ASUS Essence STX
Power Supply Seasonic 600W maybe?
I come here for the comments. I wasn't disappointed. You are all awesome.

No one like price hikes, but I'm sure this isn't all money in the pocket for AMD. I wonder if they bought IP to move their architecture forward. That would explain a hike. Might be the same IP that's finding itself in Zen2 and new consoles... Possibly a deferred cost model? Simple supply and demand for their CPUs is another factor. They have the product and increased market share to show for it now, no?

This isn't monopoly. This is capitalization. And they're doing it very well. They're not fixing the market and choke-holding us to buy their products. Intel arguably has become that, but only thanks to the same approach: capitalize. Which, for them, I believe was mostly a question of volume of supply (which is only shaky in the last few years), and establishing ISAs which other vendors then pay to implement and use. More IP.

There's only guilt when you fix/manipulate markets, like price-fixing (as ATI and NVIDIA once did some 15 years ago?) and purposefully breaking an existing market solution to artificially encourage the adoption of a bad product, for which you're the sole provider (electric cars, intel MMX).
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
902 (0.17/day)
Has Intel ever increased their prices 1.5 fold when their new CPUs offered fantastic increases in IPC and frequency?
Neither have AMD. 36 % isn't 50 %. :D

Code:
3600X    249        5600X    299    20 % higher
3700X    329        5800X    449    36 % 
3800X    399        5800X    449    12.5 %
3900X    499        5900X    549    10 %
3950X    749        5950X    799    6.7 %
Yeah we all miss the successors of the 3600 and the 3700X, but if prices seem a bit high, just wait.
More models will most likely show up, prices will go down, and Rocket Lake will probably affect prices in some way.
Stop comparing the 3700K to the 5800X, as we will most likely see some product in between there at some point.
The successor to the 3800X is the 5800X, obviously.

Should I remind you of Sandy Bridge which featured both these great advances vs. Clarkdale before it?
You're the one who has to be reminded before you make yet another bitter post about not having the money for Ryzen 5000. Give it a rest already.

Clarkdale was a low end dual core.
Sandy Bridge was the successor to Lynnfield, the latter had lower clock speeds but still a very capable CPU. Both launched at over 300USD.

Now stop being bitter, we don't care.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
367 (0.17/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i5-10400
Motherboard Asus Prime Z490M Plus
Cooling Air
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3200 F4-3200C16D-32GVK
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 KO Ultra
Storage Inland Premium 256GB SSD 3D NAND M.2 2280 PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4 + WD Blue 1TB SATA SSD
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Lian Li 205M
Power Supply PowerSpec 650W 80+ Bronze Semi-Modular PS 650BSM
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
I know AMD fans are super excited but I'd love to shit on your parade. You know why? AMD has finally outperformed an Intel uArch from ... 2015. This might sound like a great achievement but honestly it's just because Intel has completely f*ed up their 10nm transition. Yeah, their latest 10nm++ node (first - Cannon Lake, second - Ice Lake and now Tiger Lake) allows to boost to 4.8GHz at the expense of insane power consumption and they've made changes to the Willow Cove Core architecture which sometimes translate to a lower performance than Ice Lake:



In short Intel has turned from an indisputable x86 performance leader to something else entirely and AMD has quickly seized the opportunity to significantly increase their prices. An entry level Ryzen 5000 CPU, Ryzen 5 5600X, is now 50% (!) more expensive than its Ryzen 3000 counterpart, Ryzen 5 3600. There's nothing to be excited about. One struggling monopoly has been replaced by another.

What is funny here is how hard you had to look to cherry pick a benchmark that showed AMD over Tiger Lake. Right below that same image you posted, is the one below, where a 15W limited Tiger Lake is nearly twice as fast as the 4750G Pro (using AVX) - and who in their right mind would disable this if they are doing this type of thing (which, most won't be doing this) :

117500.png



And then there are all the benchmarks of real-world things people do with their laptops that you ignored, and where Tiger Lake completely rips apart AMD.

In fact, Tiger Lake as a laptop chip is as fast and quite often faster than the 10900K in many instances. For example, the Kraken 1.1 scores of 630/631 are better than the previous best score for any system - 730ms scored by a 10900K. Tiger Lake is hitting 630/631ms. That is a huge difference.

If any significant part of this gets in to Rocket Lake, Zen 3 won't be on top for very long.

Web Browsing :




117521.png



117522.png


Rendering :

117506.png


Play a MMO :

117539.png


Play an FPS :

117539.png
 

Attachments

Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
902 (0.17/day)
Tiger Lake is very capable. Overall, it has a faster GPU but a slower CPU compared to Renoir, whit the latter being no surprise given it only has 4 cores.
Even a 6 core TL would possibly come close to Renoirs CPU performance.


Now I don't know why Intel still can't make 10 nm and 8 cores. Low yields with Cannon Lake and Ice Lake, I get that, but even to this day? Intel's 10 nm is a train wreck that keeps on pushin'. :D The architecture seems decent tho.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
367 (0.17/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i5-10400
Motherboard Asus Prime Z490M Plus
Cooling Air
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3200 F4-3200C16D-32GVK
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 KO Ultra
Storage Inland Premium 256GB SSD 3D NAND M.2 2280 PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4 + WD Blue 1TB SATA SSD
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Lian Li 205M
Power Supply PowerSpec 650W 80+ Bronze Semi-Modular PS 650BSM
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
Tiger Lake is very capable. Overall, it has a faster GPU but a slower CPU compared to Renoir, whit the latter being no surprise given it only has 4 cores.
Even a 6 core TL would possibly come close to Renoirs CPU performance.


Now I don't know why Intel still can't make 10 nm and 8 cores. Low yields with Cannon Lake and Ice Lake, I get that, but even to this day? Intel's 10 nm is a train wreck that keeps on pushin'. :D The architecture seems decent tho.
Tiger Lake does not have a slower CPU, it has less cores. Look at the benchmarks.

This is the R15 ST Tiger Lake vs 4800U - Tiger Lake is 27.1% faster here. :


TigerCB15ST.JPG



Keep in mind Tiger is an Intel laptop chip, I'm now comparing to full on desktop chips -

This is vs the R5 3600 desktop chip, Tiger is 18.5% faster :

Tigervs3600CB15ST.JPG


This is vs the R7 3800XT - the fastest AMD desktop chip here, Tiger is 8% faster:

Tigervs3800XTCB15ST.JPG


And here, the fastest desktop chip you can buy for this ST benchmark the 10900K, is beaten by a Tiger Lake laptop chip:

Tigervs10900KCB15ST.JPG
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Messages
457 (0.37/day)
Not really relevant to the news article, but I wonder how long it’ll take for userbenchmark to change its point system (again) after the launch? Will it become just a memory latency test? XD
Hey, as long as intel win, it's OK.

We saw a long time ago that money overpower dignity.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
902 (0.17/day)
Tiger Lake does not have a slower CPU, it has less cores. Look at the benchmarks.
Well, that's pretty much what I said. :rolleyes:
Overall, it has a faster GPU but a slower CPU compared to Renoir, with the latter being no surprise given it only has 4 cores.
Even a 6 core TL would possibly come close to Renoirs CPU performance.
Please read before you reply.
Also mobile vs desktop doesn't make much difference when talking ST, since power limit becomes less of a limiting factor.


1603555094653.png
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
367 (0.17/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i5-10400
Motherboard Asus Prime Z490M Plus
Cooling Air
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3200 F4-3200C16D-32GVK
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 KO Ultra
Storage Inland Premium 256GB SSD 3D NAND M.2 2280 PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4 + WD Blue 1TB SATA SSD
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Lian Li 205M
Power Supply PowerSpec 650W 80+ Bronze Semi-Modular PS 650BSM
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
Well, that's pretty much what I said. :rolleyes:



Please read before you reply.
Also mobile vs desktop doesn't make much difference when talking ST, since power limit becomes less of a limiting factor.
I did read it, but saying the "CPU is slower" is false, fewer cores is not the same thing as having a slower CPU. That depends entirely on what you're doing, and most things are still single thread limited. Just open up task manager and watch as you do things, you'll go single core limited long before you go multi-core limited the vast majority of the time. Then there is the spectre of 6 and 8 core Tiger Lake in Q1. Then if you get Rocket Lake multi-core high freq and high power limits, the picture becomes quite a bit clearer.

That 2nd comment about power doesn't make sense. The 3800XT is 26% faster than the 4800U in single thread - the difference is entirely due to power limits since these are the same architecture chips. Diminishing returns, sure, but 26% is nothing to sneeze at. Yet that 105W desktop TDP part still loses to a 28W Tiger Lake part by 8%.

The per core performance difference between laptop Tiger Lake and the laptop Ryzen Renoir and desktop Ryzen Zen 2 parts is massive. For that matter the difference between Tiger Lake and Comet Lake is massive as well.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
902 (0.17/day)
fewer cores is not the same thing as having a slower CPU.
Nobody said so. TL is slower in many benchmarks, mostly because it only has 4 cores.
I did edit my last post so maybe you didn't get the comparison of the 15 W 4800U and the 65 W 4750G, both Renoir. The 15 W part barely runs slower in ST than the 65 W.
Judging by your logic, the 4800U would crush the 4750G if it could run at 65 W, which is not the case.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2010
Messages
8,416 (2.15/day)
Location
Manchester uk
System Name RyzenGtEvo/ Asus strix scar II
Processor Amd R7 3800X@4.350/525/ Intel 8750H
Motherboard Crosshair hero7 @bios 2703/?
Cooling 360EK extreme rad+ 360$EK slim all push, cpu Monoblock Gpu full cover all EK
Memory Corsair Vengeance Rgb pro 3600cas14 16Gb in two sticks./16Gb
Video Card(s) Sapphire refference Rx vega 64 EK waterblocked/Rtx 2060
Storage Samsung Nvme Pg981, silicon power 1Tb samsung 840 basic as a primocache drive for, WD2Tbgrn +3Tbgrn,
Display(s) Samsung UAE28"850R 4k freesync, LG 49" 4K 60hz ,Oculus
Case Lianli p0-11 dynamic
Audio Device(s) Xfi creative 7.1 on board ,Yamaha dts av setup, corsair void pro headset
Power Supply corsair 1200Hxi
Mouse Roccat Kova/ Logitech G wireless
Keyboard Roccat Iksu force fx
Software Win 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores 8726 vega 3dmark timespy/ laptop Timespy 6506
Should be a new version out shortly to correct this great wrong, userbench clearly will need a new version too soon.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
367 (0.17/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i5-10400
Motherboard Asus Prime Z490M Plus
Cooling Air
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3200 F4-3200C16D-32GVK
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 KO Ultra
Storage Inland Premium 256GB SSD 3D NAND M.2 2280 PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4 + WD Blue 1TB SATA SSD
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Lian Li 205M
Power Supply PowerSpec 650W 80+ Bronze Semi-Modular PS 650BSM
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
Nobody said so. TL is slower in many benchmarks, mostly because it only has 4 cores.
I did edit my last post so maybe you didn't get the comparison of the 15 W 4800U and the 65 W 4750G, both Renoir. The 15 W part barely runs slower in ST than the 65 W.
Judging by your logic, the 4800U would crush the 4750G if it could run at 65 W, which is not the case.
You're making a false comparison and putting words in my mouth.

The 4800U is in fact crushed by the 3800XT by 26%. I just said that. If desktop variants of the tiger lake architecture gets a similar differential, it would crush a 10900K and a 3800XT by around 30% in single core.
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2006
Messages
902 (0.17/day)
You're making a false comparison and putting words in my mouth.
You're the one who said that Tiger Lake is held beck in ST by being mobile, I said no, and showed you a direct comparison with desktop and mobile Renoir, an indication that power limit has nothing or very little to do with it.

What you say is holding back mobile TL must hold back mobile Renoir as well? That's your logic, and don't feel hurt that I carried it over to a different comparison, no offence was intended.

The 4800U is in fact crushed by the 3800XT by 26%.
So why not compare the 4800U with its desktop counterpart? By doing so we see exactly what happens when we go from mobile to desktop, ruling out a few differences.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
3,153 (2.41/day)
Location
Lund, Sweden
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Motherboard Biostar X370GTN
Cooling Custom CPU+GPU water loop
Memory 16GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C16
Video Card(s) AMD R9 Fury X
Storage 500GB 960 Evo (OS ++), 500GB 850 Evo (Games)
Display(s) Dell U2711
Case NZXT H200i
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Lenovo Compact Keyboard with Trackpoint
Software Windows 10 Pro
That 2nd comment about power doesn't make sense. The 3800XT is 26% faster than the 4800U in single thread - the difference is entirely due to power limits since these are the same architecture chips. Diminishing returns, sure, but 26% is nothing to sneeze at. Yet that 105W desktop TDP part still loses to a 28W Tiger Lake part by 8%.
There are significant differences between how Intel and AMD treat power limits and turbo though, both on desktop and mobile. Mobile Intel parts tend to boost to higher power levels than mobile AMD parts, and IIRC single core boost power for TGL is significantly higher than for Renoir, so that at least partially explains the delta. TGL is still very fast obviously, and faster than Zen 2 in both IPC and boost clocks (including mobile TGL vs desktop Zen2). Zen 3 should surpass it though:
SKL (and derivatives): 100% IPC
Zen 2: ~107% IPC (though that doesn't include latency-sensitive applications like games, number is based on AT's SPEC numbers)
ICL (and TGL, as there shouldn't be any IPC change) : ~118% IPC
Zen 3: ~107*1.19= 127.33% IPC. So even with TGL clocking slightly higher Zen 3 should have the upper hand, at worst they'll tie.
 
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
851 (0.16/day)
Location
Toronto, Ontario
System Name AMD Ryzen
Processor 3800X
Motherboard Asus Prime X570-Pro
Cooling Corsair H150i Pro
Memory 16GB Gskill Trident RGB DDR4-3200 14-14-14-34-1T
Video Card(s) GIGABYTE Radeon RX 580 GAMING 8GB
Storage Corsair MP600 1TB PCIe 4 / Samsung 860Evo 1TB x2 Raid 0
Display(s) HP ZR24w + LG 24MB35 on Neo-Flex® Dual Monitor Lift Stand
Case Fractal Design Meshify S2
Audio Device(s) Creative X-Fi + Logitech Z-5500
Power Supply Corsair AX850 Titanium
Mouse Corsair Dark Core RGB
Keyboard Logitech G810
Software Windows 10 Pro x64 1909
Benchmark Scores https://valid.x86.fr/1zr4a5
I know AMD fans are super excited but I'd love to shit on your parade. You know why? AMD has finally outperformed an Intel uArch from ... 2015. This might sound like a great achievement but honestly it's just because Intel has completely f*ed up their 10nm transition. Yeah, their latest 10nm++ node (first - Cannon Lake, second - Ice Lake and now Tiger Lake) allows to boost to 4.8GHz at the expense of insane power consumption and they've made changes to the Willow Cove Core architecture which sometimes translate to a lower performance than Ice Lake:



In short Intel has turned from an indisputable x86 performance leader to something else entirely and AMD has quickly seized the opportunity to significantly increase their prices. An entry level Ryzen 5000 CPU, Ryzen 5 5600X, is now 50% (!) more expensive than its Ryzen 3000 counterpart, Ryzen 5 3600. There's nothing to be excited about. One struggling monopoly has been replaced by another.
lol you came in here to Intel Fan boy troll and then got destroyed by logic.

Is the intel defense Fund not paying you enough?

i've seen post like this on numbers forums from fan boys you really can't take heat AMD is putting out, so lets go and try to rain on peoples parade to make myself feel better... Get a life!
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2009
Messages
1,134 (0.27/day)
Location
Chicago, Illinois
I dont know what lisa is doing but she is doing it right, new management, new plan, new thinking, new products, new records, new highs, new performance. When lisa got in, amd was so far behind intel and nvidia that only a miracle would turn the tides. Good work lisa.

I hope msi releases a bios for my b450 before january 2021 so i can purchase that 5600x or the 5900x.

It's more along the lines of what they're not doing. They're not milking ancient tech and expecting consumers to be happy like Intel has been. In my opinion AMD has advanced MOSTLY because they're pushing further in the NM process all while Intel sat on their ass. It was the classic story of the Tortoise And The Hare. The hare slept way too long and is now in a panic.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
367 (0.17/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i5-10400
Motherboard Asus Prime Z490M Plus
Cooling Air
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3200 F4-3200C16D-32GVK
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 KO Ultra
Storage Inland Premium 256GB SSD 3D NAND M.2 2280 PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4 + WD Blue 1TB SATA SSD
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Lian Li 205M
Power Supply PowerSpec 650W 80+ Bronze Semi-Modular PS 650BSM
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
It's more along the lines of what they're not doing. They're not milking ancient tech and expecting consumers to be happy like Intel has been. In my opinion AMD has advanced MOSTLY because they're pushing further in the NM process all while Intel sat on their ass. It was the classic story of the Tortoise And The Hare. The hare slept way too long and is now in a panic.
AMD doesn’t push ‘nm’, that would be TSMC. AMD is just reaping the rewards of TSMCs leadership in that area.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
3,153 (2.41/day)
Location
Lund, Sweden
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Motherboard Biostar X370GTN
Cooling Custom CPU+GPU water loop
Memory 16GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C16
Video Card(s) AMD R9 Fury X
Storage 500GB 960 Evo (OS ++), 500GB 850 Evo (Games)
Display(s) Dell U2711
Case NZXT H200i
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Lenovo Compact Keyboard with Trackpoint
Software Windows 10 Pro
About Tiger Lake 1165G7 being fast, I dunno anymore. I guess I didn't read up enough in my own link. Shame on me.
View attachment 173182
That looks like it's from a NotebookCheck review. Care to link it? Of course absolute performance in mobile depends a lot on the implementation (chassis, cooling, VRM, fan curves, etc.), but at least on paper TGL should boost higher than ICL in the short term and sustain slightly higher base clocks in the long term.

It's more along the lines of what they're not doing. They're not milking ancient tech and expecting consumers to be happy like Intel has been. In my opinion AMD has advanced MOSTLY because they're pushing further in the NM process all while Intel sat on their ass. It was the classic story of the Tortoise And The Hare. The hare slept way too long and is now in a panic.
Don't underestimate the value of the architectural development they've done. Remember, Zen (1) represented a >50% IPC improvement over ... ugh, Excavator? I could never tell all that heavy machinery apart. Never mind, Zen was a massive improvement in both performance/clock and performance/W even before accounting for the node improvement. That was just icing on the cake. And they've kept iterating on it rapidly, with yearly improvements (though admittedly Zen+ wasn't much to write home about). All the while Intel has just last year gotten around to actually improving their architecture's performance characteristics. Though it's also well worth mentioning that before things stagnated for Intel, we were seeing 5-10% IPC improvements per generation from them. ICL and TGL are ~18% up from SKL, so that's much better, but it took five years. In the mean time, AMD has delivered +~3%, +~15% and +~19% and on a much tighter schedule.
 
Top