News AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Lays The Smackdown On The Intel Core i5-10600K

Gurg

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2013
457
48
18,820
1
For anyone that runs SISoftware Sandra 6-8 hours a day it appears the 5600x may be your CPU. Think I'll wait for the review with the gaming suite chart and both CPUs OC to see which chip is best.

With only a 4.6ghz boost, the 5600x may not even be able to beat a 5ghz OC 9600k in the gaming suite charts. The 9600k is just $169 at Microcenter
 
Reactions: Soaptrail

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
With only a 4.6ghz boost, the 5600x may not even be able to beat a 5ghz OC 9600k in the gaming suite charts.
Comparing a stock CPU with an overclocked one drawing nearly twice as much power isn't exactly a fair comparison and I doubt very many people waiting until the 9600k got discounted to $170 at MC before buying one will invest every extra dollar required in all of the other components needed to get a decent stable OC.
 

VforV

Prominent
Oct 9, 2019
31
15
535
0
For anyone that runs SISoftware Sandra 6-8 hours a day it appears the 5600x may be your CPU. Think I'll wait for the review with the gaming suite chart and both CPUs OC to see which chip is best.

With only a 4.6ghz boost, the 5600x may not even be able to beat a 5ghz OC 9600k in the gaming suite charts. The 9600k is just $169 at Microcenter
I love how narrow minded people are, thinking that a 6c/6t CPU is a good investment in 2020... Unless you plan to upgrade again next year that CPU is gonna age very bad soon.

Also I would not even raise my hope it can beat 5600x, even OC.
 

Geezer760

Distinguished
Aug 29, 2009
102
3
18,695
2
For anyone that runs SISoftware Sandra 6-8 hours a day it appears the 5600x may be your CPU. Think I'll wait for the review with the gaming suite chart and both CPUs OC to see which chip is best.

With only a 4.6ghz boost, the 5600x may not even be able to beat a 5ghz OC 9600k in the gaming suite charts. The 9600k is just $169 at Microcenter
Does microcenter ship items? can you purchase items online and have them shipped from microcenter to anywhere in the US? if not, good luck, your only in luck if you live near a microcenter for that price, so you'd have to goto Newegg @ $199 and Amazon @ $199 as well.
 
Reactions: Avro Arrow

CerianK

Distinguished
Nov 7, 2008
171
23
18,695
2
I love how narrow minded people are, thinking that a 6c/6t CPU is a good investment in 2020...
Even though I plan on building a new gaming, etc., PC shortly, I still have to rebuild my old dual CPU server that just had a motherboard failure ($86 US, used). Luckily, I was also able to pick up a matched pair of 12 core processors (24 cores / 48 threads!) for only $300 US total as an upgrade. They support AVX, but not AVX2, which isn't a deal-breaker for what I do.

Looking forward, I can't imagine anyone investing in less than 6 cores / 12 threads... better yet 8/16, just to be safe.
 

Gurg

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2013
457
48
18,820
1
Comparing a stock CPU with an overclocked one drawing nearly twice as much power isn't exactly a fair comparison and I doubt very many people waiting until the 9600k got discounted to $170 at MC before buying one will invest every extra dollar required in all of the other components needed to get a decent stable OC.
5600x won't OC???? It's just not fair! So sad!

What we are seeing are successive releases of new CPUs that just aren't offering significant if any performance increases in most common PC used programs for gaming , MS Office or internet over the 9 series Intel K cpus especially if overclocked. Unless programs you use needs more than a six core CPU you might be better served buying a decent AIO water cooler and overclocking a lesser priced 9600K or 10600K .

Future proofing is buying on sale a decent AIO water cooler, PSU,, case, keyboard, speakers, mouse or monitor that can be moved to successive builds. not in buying superfluous cores that your programs never require.

The additional power needed to OC only costs about $20 a year
 
Last edited:

joeblowsmynose

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
619
239
19,370
4
...

Future proofing is buying on sale a decent AIO water cooler, PSU,, case, keyboard, speakers, mouse or monitor that can be moved to successive builds. ...

I totally agree ... when the CPU and motherboard of your choice offers literally no future proofing capabilities, then those are all that is left to consider ... if you are content with getting the short straws, that is.

I'm pretty sure no one has ever made a mouse, speaker or keyboard purchase decision based on how "future proof" it is ... The term doesn't even apply to these things. It applies to things where the technology is quickly evolving, like platforms (motherboards/chipsets) and processors ... (well, some processors, anyway)
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Avro Arrow
With only a 4.6ghz boost, the 5600x may not even be able to beat a 5ghz OC 9600k in the gaming suite charts. The 9600k is just $169 at Microcenter
A store dumping processors in the bargain bin for $100 off their MSRP doesn't exactly seem like a good sign that they expect them to hold up well. >_>

Ultimately, 9th-gen i5s are now roughly equivalent to 10th-gen i3s in terms of overall performance, so it makes makes sense to price them more like i3s. Intel didn't release an unlocked i3 this generation, so the 9600K is now fulfilling that role. At $170, the 9600K seems like a pretty decent option for a semi-budget gaming processor, assuming one lives near one of the small number of Microcenter locations offering them for that price.
 
Reactions: Avro Arrow

Olle P

Distinguished
Apr 7, 2010
670
50
19,090
24
Comparing a stock CPU with an overclocked one drawing nearly twice as much power...
What do you mean by "nearly" twice as much power? The Core i5 is nearly twice as much power stock, overclocked it should be closer to thrice as much power...

Pretty sure the jump to 8c16t is still one bridge too far for the majority of domestic PCs at current prices.
... 9th-gen i5s are now roughly equivalent to 10th-gen i3s in terms of overall performance, ...
I agree.
Eight cores is even for me either to expensive (new architecture) or to low single core performance (old architecture). 4-6 (physical) cores are within a sensible budget for most households and technical requirements.
For some time now I've been arguing that eight threads is the minimum level, making even 4C/8T a better option than 6C/6T.
 
Reactions: Avro Arrow

martinch

Honorable
Mar 21, 2014
773
1
11,365
118
I love how narrow minded people are, thinking that a 6c/6t CPU is a good investment in 2020... Unless you plan to upgrade again next year that CPU is gonna age very bad soon.
Honestly, it depends on what you're doing with your PC. :) My relatives have a Haswell Core i3 (2C/4T) in their PC (running Linux), and have no performance issues with it whatsoever - everything is essentially instant (they use it for general home-office purposes, so not exactly demanding). My own PC has a Haswell Core i7 (4C/8T) in it, which I have no reason to change - I use it for the odd game, and editing images from digital cameras using RawTherapee and darktable (the former is very multi-threaded and despite hitting 100% CPU use across most cores in brief spikes, has no visible delay when making edits; the other uses the GPU). If I were to upgrade my camera to one with a double the pixel count or more, then I would want to upgrade to an Ryzen 7/9, but then again, the cost of the PC would be minor compared to the camera...

What am I trying to say? Different people have different use-cases, low-end modern hardware is surprisingly capable, and most people on here aren't the average user. :D

The additional power needed to OC only costs about $20 a year
Sometimes, it's not just the cost of the extra power that's the consideration. The room my PC is in gets unpleasantly hot in the summer (35C @ 80%+ RH) - even just using my PC for basic office tasks, it has a noticeable impact on the temperatures in the room after about 30 minutes (it's not like my PC is massively inefficient either, being a Haswell Core i7, GTX 970, and an SSD, effectively running at idle). This basically means there's 2-3 weeks of the year during which I don't want to use my PC (and adding AC isn't an option). :(
 

mitch074

Distinguished
Honestly, it depends on what you're doing with your PC. :) My relatives have a Haswell Core i3 (2C/4T) in their PC (running Linux), and have no performance issues with it whatsoever - everything is essentially instant (they use it for general home-office purposes, so not exactly demanding). My own PC has a Haswell Core i7 (4C/8T) in it, which I have no reason to change - I use it for the odd game, and editing images from digital cameras using RawTherapee and darktable (the former is very multi-threaded and despite hitting 100% CPU use across most cores in brief spikes, has no visible delay when making edits; the other uses the GPU). If I were to upgrade my camera to one with a double the pixel count or more, then I would want to upgrade to an Ryzen 7/9, but then again, the cost of the PC would be minor compared to the camera...

What am I trying to say? Different people have different use-cases, low-end modern hardware is surprisingly capable, and most people on here aren't the average user. :D


Sometimes, it's not just the cost of the extra power that's the consideration. The room my PC is in gets unpleasantly hot in the summer (35C @ 80%+ RH) - even just using my PC for basic office tasks, it has a noticeable impact on the temperatures in the room after about 30 minutes (it's not like my PC is massively inefficient either, being a Haswell Core i7, GTX 970, and an SSD, effectively running at idle). This basically means there's 2-3 weeks of the year during which I don't want to use my PC (and adding AC isn't an option). :(
You can try downclocking your components a lot - I run Folding@home on all my rigs 24/7. Reducing clock speeds by 20% reduced heat output by 20°C. Reducing clock speeds to very low (1600MHz on an Athlon II X4, 1200MHz on a i5 Haswell) makes them almost cold while still doing productivity work comfortably (f@h off). Switching to onboard graphics (removing the GPU) made even more of a difference. Just use an integer divider compared with RAM clock for best performance.
 
Reactions: Soaptrail

Gurg

Distinguished
Mar 13, 2013
457
48
18,820
1
I totally agree ... when the CPU and motherboard of your choice offers literally no future proofing capabilities, then those are all that is left to consider ... if you are content with getting the short straws, that is.

I'm pretty sure no one has ever made a mouse, speaker or keyboard purchase decision based on how "future proof" it is ... The term doesn't even apply to these things. It applies to things where the technology is quickly evolving, like platforms (motherboards/chipsets) and processors ... (well, some processors, anyway)
Maybe "futureproof" was a bad word choice, maybe not. My Corsair M65 mouse has RGB and its DPI can be set up to 18000, I only have it set to 4500 DPI as that is what I prefer for my current usage. My Logitech z623 speakers will put out 400 watts, but I have never come even close to cranking the volume all the way. I have a Corsair K70 with RGB and cherry red mechanical switches even though I don't play shooter games that extensively use the wasd keys. A 1000 watt PSU even though I don't SLI anymore. I could easily drop in a 3080 GPU and OC a 9900K or 10900k and not have to worry about PSU. Also have a 280mm AIO even though a 240 would probably suffice for my current CPU.. Two m.2 Samsung 970+ one for Windows and other for games and programs even though one might suffice.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean by "nearly" twice as much power? The Core i5 is nearly twice as much power stock, overclocked it should be closer to thrice as much power...
OP was talking about gaming, stop using single spike max power draw of a stress test as if it's the only power number all the time.
Gaming on the i5, and even the i9 really, is on the same level as any ryzen on power draw if you consider the whole system.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i9-10900k/18.html
 
Reactions: Gurg

AnarchoPrimitiv

Reputable
Jan 12, 2016
17
3
4,525
2
For anyone that runs SISoftware Sandra 6-8 hours a day it appears the 5600x may be your CPU. Think I'll wait for the review with the gaming suite chart and both CPUs OC to see which chip is best.

With only a 4.6ghz boost, the 5600x may not even be able to beat a 5ghz OC 9600k in the gaming suite charts. The 9600k is just $169 at Microcenter

What is with people, and by "people", I mean desperate Intel fan, thinking that frequency, in and of itself, means anything? Frequency means absolutely NOTHING independent of IPC. We already know, for sure 100% that Zen 2 has better IPC than 9th gen Intel chips and even 10th gen. We are told that Zen 3 has 19% IPC improvement over Zen 2, so that should mean Zen 3 is 25%+ better IPC over 9th gen Intel CPUs. Let's not forget the latency decreases as well, the cache redesign, the doubling of cores per CCX, etc. I'm willing to guarantee, that the 5600x will not only beat the 9600k, but the 10600k as well at ANY frequency in gaming.

Lisa Su so far, has never made a claim she hasn't lived up to and I'm inclined to believe her claims as I'm sure she doesn't want to look like an idiot, not to mention the $50 price hike is another good sign that Zen 3 will be the new gaming king. BTW, I can't stand the entitled brats that think for some reason AMD is their personal charity that should sell hardware at cost, just for them. The 1800x debuted at $500, and now the 5800X, which is most likely 40%-50% faster (maybe more), is debuting $50 cheaper at $450 and they have the audacity to whine about it. All pricing is determined by competition, and when was the last time that Intel offered such a big performance increase over that few generations with a coinciding $50 decrease? I can't think of one... So what is there to LEGITIMATELY complain about?
 
Reactions: Avro Arrow

Turtle Rig

Prominent
BANNED
Jun 23, 2020
772
103
590
13
Looks like Tom is on top of his game as we got some reviews in and it is not looking good for the 10600k chip vs the equally budget 5600x.TLDR🙈

Ryzen 5 5600X comes wielding six Zen 3 cores with 12 threads, 32MB of L3 cache, and base and boost clock speeds of 3.7 GHz and 4.6 GHz, respectively. The Core i5-10600K, which also has a six-core, 12-thread design, has 12MB of L3 cache and features a 4.1 GHz base clock and 4.8 GHz boost clock.
The Core i5-10600K clearly boasts higher boost clocks and a more generous thermal limit. Intel's contender conforms to a 125W TDP (thermal design power) rating, while the Ryzen 5 5600X is rated for 65W. Theoretically, the Core i5-10600K should be faster since it has more breathing room to execute. However, the Ryzen 5 5600X leverages AMD's groundbreaking Zen 3 microarchitecture, so don't count the Ryzen 5 5600X out just yet.

Here are my thoughts on Toms review. I think hes on it. However I can not believe they are still touting 6 core CPU's. I guess there is a nitch market for that as people can't afford the higher tier. Nice article Tom, to cap off the one with the 5950x. AMD is shining bright right now I just hope stocks are there as covid-19 can really mess things up coming from China. Also we have Ampere as a low stock if any. I suggest people who want to go AMD 5000 series and Ampere 3000 series to wait until the end of December and potentially beginning of the year as prices will go down and stock will be available so your not forced to buy a video card from a vendor you simply do not like. My two cents. Thanks again Tom you rock!❤👶🎗✝💯
 

Turtle Rig

Prominent
BANNED
Jun 23, 2020
772
103
590
13
Guys this is getting out of control in a bad and a good way. Firstly if we want to talk RAW gaming performance on the new 5000 series and the Intel 10900k 10700k the 9900k the 9900ks and 9700k 8c 8t and 8700k 6 core which still performs only couple frames below these newer CPU's. Even if you buy a freakin 8700k your set for gaming unless you play at 1080p. Then you would want the fastest CPU. However who play at 1080p now a days. Now the resolution of choice is 2k 1440p with AA methods turned on MSAA and all AA methods and high qwuality and in game settings maxed out; with pay sync and freesync you get a butter smooth experience even if the frame rate falls below the monitors refresh of 144hz. As that is what the sync technologies are for. You do not notice a frame drop and it is still smooth even going to 90fps from 144fps or 200fps and what not. Now a days don't be buying a CPU to have the latest one or video card as you will always lose out. Something newer is introduced as soon as you spend a grip on a 1500 3090 and a 5000 series Ryzen with Mobo and 3600Mhz RAM and SSD. Best thing right now is to just wait until December and beginning of next year unless you have very poor rig right now and need to upgrade. Just remember AMD lies and nVidia and both AMD throw gimmicks at you while nVidia has joined Intel forces and now gives paper launches, although that is not entirely their fault and is because of covid-19 and the lack of deliveries from China and what not. Now a days you find a 3080 you won the lottery and even if you do it might not be from a vendor you want to get. Everyone has their preference so right now unless your in a hole play the waiting game and prices will go down by end of year after BF and starting in Jan and what not.✝🎗👶🙈🚓🍩💯
 

Teeroy32

Distinguished
May 23, 2011
166
2
18,695
2
Guys this is getting out of control in a bad and a good way. Firstly if we want to talk RAW gaming performance on the new 5000 series and the Intel 10900k 10700k the 9900k the 9900ks and 9700k 8c 8t and 8700k 6 core which still performs only couple frames below these newer CPU's. Even if you buy a freakin 8700k your set for gaming unless you play at 1080p. Then you would want the fastest CPU. However who play at 1080p now a days. Now the resolution of choice is 2k 1440p with AA methods turned on MSAA and all AA methods and high qwuality and in game settings maxed out; with pay sync and freesync you get a butter smooth experience even if the frame rate falls below the monitors refresh of 144hz. As that is what the sync technologies are for. You do not notice a frame drop and it is still smooth even going to 90fps from 144fps or 200fps and what not. Now a days don't be buying a CPU to have the latest one or video card as you will always lose out. Something newer is introduced as soon as you spend a grip on a 1500 3090 and a 5000 series Ryzen with Mobo and 3600Mhz RAM and SSD. Best thing right now is to just wait until December and beginning of next year unless you have very poor rig right now and need to upgrade. Just remember AMD lies and nVidia and both AMD throw gimmicks at you while nVidia has joined Intel forces and now gives paper launches, although that is not entirely their fault and is because of covid-19 and the lack of deliveries from China and what not. Now a days you find a 3080 you won the lottery and even if you do it might not be from a vendor you want to get. Everyone has their preference so right now unless your in a hole play the waiting game and prices will go down by end of year after BF and starting in Jan and what not.✝🎗👶🙈🚓🍩💯
I play at 1080, my wife plays at 1080 and so do my kids, in fact the majority of people on Steam use 1080. I am planning on an upgrade, still 1080 but 144 Hz instead of 60.
 
Reactions: Avro Arrow

Avro Arrow

Distinguished
That's how the comparisons seem to be going lately ... lol. My curiosity is truly piqued to see how close AMD marketing slides are to objective reality across several scenarios.
Well to be fair, AMD's marketing has been pretty much spot-on since the introduction of Zen 1. On the other hand, ATi's marketing has been horrible.
Just reading "25 store locations nationwide" makes me chuckle when I think of how massive the USA is.
What do you mean by "nearly" twice as much power? The Core i5 is nearly twice as much power stock, overclocked it should be closer to thrice as much power...
You're 100% on-point with that. I remember when Intel fanboys used to complain that their i7s were only 65W while the FX-8350 was 105W. Now suddenly, it doesn't matter? Amazing, eh? LOL
Eight cores is even for me either to expensive (new architecture) or to low single core performance (old architecture). 4-6 (physical) cores are within a sensible budget for most households and technical requirements.
For some time now I've been arguing that eight threads is the minimum level, making even 4C/8T a better option than 6C/6T.
As the Protoss Templar used to say.. "You think as I do."
This is the reason why, when looking at a new craptop, I opted for the slower R5-3500U over the faster R5-4500U. Sure, the 4500U is newer and faster but it's only 6C/6T while the 3500U is 4C/8T. In time, those extra 2 threads will make a difference to the point that both APUs would see similar performance. I remember seeing a test where a guy compared four cores clocked at 1GHz vs. one core clocked at 4GHz (same CPU). The four slower cores were WAY faster than the 1 core (which even had trouble just loading Windows) and that's how I see things going forward, but even more so.
Honestly, it depends on what you're doing with your PC. :) My relatives have a Haswell Core i3 (2C/4T) in their PC (running Linux), and have no performance issues with it whatsoever - everything is essentially instant (they use it for general home-office purposes, so not exactly demanding).
Yeah, but the key word here is LINUX. You're comparing apples and oranges there. With Linux, you could probably get great performance from an old Phenom II X4 940 with 4GB of DDR2-800.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that using Linux is an awesome solution for people like your relatives who just perform everyday common tasks on their PCs like emails, browsing and YouTube but they can only do this because they have an expert like you to install Linux for them. The average person would be lost because while I did successfully install Ubuntu on a PC, it wasn't completely automatic like Windows is so a degree of tech savvy is required. Many people still only know how to turn it on and load Firefox (or whatever they use).

I'd say that paradoxically, the people who would get the most benefit from using Linux are the same people who are least likely to know how to implement it. Of course, I'm talking home PCs here, not servers.
Sometimes, it's not just the cost of the extra power that's the consideration. The room my PC is in gets unpleasantly hot in the summer (35C @ 80%+ RH) - even just using my PC for basic office tasks, it has a noticeable impact on the temperatures in the room after about 30 minutes (it's not like my PC is massively inefficient either, being a Haswell Core i7, GTX 970, and an SSD, effectively running at idle). This basically means there's 2-3 weeks of the year during which I don't want to use my PC (and adding AC isn't an option). :(
Oof, not having A/C sucks, I remember those days. Yeah, you'd want to get as efficient a PC as possible but I can tell you a trick on how to get A/C without A/C. Check this out:
  1. Fill a bunch of 2L pop bottles with water and put them in the freezer.
  2. Once frozen, take one out and put it in a wide bowl on a table.
  3. Point a fan at the bottle and turn it on
  4. Periodically empty the water buildup in the bowl
  5. When the bottle is completely melted, swap it with a frozen one
Repeat steps 4 and 5 as needed. You'll find that this will not only cool the room but it will de-humidify it as well because the moisture in the air will immediately condense when it touches the frozen bottle. That should make your life better. It's a little life-hack I came up with in University.
I play at 1080, my wife plays at 1080 and so do my kids, in fact the majority of people on Steam use 1080. I am planning on an upgrade, still 1080 but 144 Hz instead of 60.
I don't recommend getting a 144Hz monitor. Not because it's not good but because it is good and once you get used to 144Hz, a 60Hz display will be unbearable. That's why I stick to 60Hz, I like being happy without having to spend more money. LOL
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY