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

[TerryLaze]

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.

Yeah this is what people call confirmation bias, you can also use a 256 threaded CPU running at ~1Ghz to do mundane everyday tasks see that it runs like dog and come to the conclusion that a dual core at 5Ghz is way way better,there are always pros and cons to any set up.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBxtS9BpVWs

 

[Teeroy32]

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
[/QUOTE]

I'm only wanting to upgrade because I play online FPS's like Battlefield and COD, in fact on BF4 I'm already getting 180-200fps ultra with my R5 2600 and RX480 8Gb, that's a lot of frames going to waste. Unfortunately on Warzone I have to lower some settings to high and medium to keep around 125, which I feel is noticeable smoother than 65-75 with the odd dip into the mid 50's on max settings. I play BF5 at 75-85 on ultra, will be getting a new GPU to step up to the 144ish zone on those newer games. I do get what your saying but I feel the smoothness of the higher frames on my games which I assume will be better when I have a refresh rate that is closer to the frames I'm getting. Which reminds me, I have to update my signature lol, my son has the i5-4690k now and I'm no longer using the Bitfenix Prodigy and am now using a Bitfenix Pandora ATX.

 

[Olle P]

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.

A few points:
1. I wasn't commenting the OP but the post from InvalidError that specifically said CPU (not "system").

2. My own experience says that Intel CPUs must be held back to their base frequency to come down to the TDP level of power consumption, so their TDP can reasonably be seen as an "average under load".
At the same time my Ryzens struggle hard to reach their TDP at peak power draw. (My current "95W" R5 3600X won't ever go above 75W peak.)
The R5 5600X has a TDP of only 65W, so I'd expect that number to be more in line with the actual power consumption.

 

[Vincent_2]

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.

Nope. For gaming at least, 6 cores is absolutely fine. You dont need more and you never will. Quite simply, game devs couldn't give a <Mod Edit> about this platform. It's the least important one in terms of sales, while also being the hardest to optimize for. That's why you can still get away with running games with a 6 year old 4790k without any major bottlenecking.

If you want to buy more cores based on a purely speculative theory that has been spouted for the past 10 years without being true, then go for it, but most people aren't into wasting money.

 

[cryoburner]

Nope. For gaming at least, 6 cores is absolutely fine. You dont need more and you never will. Quite simply, game devs couldn't give a <Mod Edit> about this platform. It's the least important one in terms of sales, while also being the hardest to optimize for. That's why you can still get away with running games with a 6 year old 4790k without any major bottlenecking.

If you want to buy more cores based on a purely speculative theory that has been spouted for the past 10 years without being true, then go for it, but most people aren't into wasting money.

There could be some truth in that for many current multiplatform titles, however we are talking about games designed to run reasonably well on the old, slow, 8-thread Jaguar processors used in the existing consoles. As far as desktop CPUs are concerned, those console APUs are comparable to AMD's 8-thread Bulldozer designs from 2011, only running at around half the clocks, and with one to two threads reserved for the OS and not directly accessible to games.

A new generation of consoles will be launching within the next few weeks though, featuring 8-core, 16-thread Zen 2 APUs. Those should be most comparable to a Ryzen 3700X from an architectural standpoint, though with somewhat lower clocks that I would expect might make their performance more like that of a 2700X. Some threads will again be reserved for OS functions, but developers will still gain access to around double the threads for next-generation titles, and each of those threads should offer over double the performance of those found in the base-model Xbox One and PS4 processors. So, games designed for those new consoles will have access to multiple times the multithreaded performance developers are utilizing today.

Most games might continue being designed with the existing consoles in mind for the next couple years, but it's highly likely that as game releases start dropping support for the currently 7-year old consoles, that they will start demanding more threads. If, as you say, developers don't bother optimizing much for PC hardware, then those games will expect having access to more threads on the PC as well. After all, do you really think developers are going to limit what they are doing on consoles just to maintain reasonable performance on older quad-core desktop processors?

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Nope. For gaming at least, 6 cores is absolutely fine.

He said 6c/6t. Not 6c/12t. I don't know if you ever heard of "Gamer's Nexus" and Steve Burke, but based on his relentless testing of every CPU in every possible way, his data suggests that 6c/6t has a chance to give you some stutter in several titles due to lack of threads and has been suggesting against 6c/6t i5s for this reason. But if you only care about average FPS and don't care about 1% lows and stutter, have at it.

Just look at these 1% and 0.1% lows on 6c/6t ... completely abysmal! Even at 5.2ghz! Even a 1st gen R5 1600 is buttery smooth in comparison to that crud - because it has 12 threads.

You dont need more and you never will.

And just 3 years ago that was infamously claimed about quad cores ...

 

[VforV]

Nope. For gaming at least, 6 cores is absolutely fine. You dont need more and you never will. Quite simply, game devs couldn't give a <Mod Edit> about this platform. It's the least important one in terms of sales, while also being the hardest to optimize for. That's why you can still get away with running games with a 6 year old 4790k without any major bottlenecking.

If you want to buy more cores based on a purely speculative theory that has been spouted for the past 10 years without being true, then go for it, but most people aren't into wasting money.

You have no idea what are you talking about... The game has changed since 3 years ago, not to mention 6 years ago...
The guys above me schooled you enough. It's you choice if you want to learn and be open-minded or not.

 

[TerryLaze]

There could be some truth in that for many current multiplatform titles, however we are talking about games designed to run reasonably well on the old, slow, 8-thread Jaguar processors used in the existing consoles. As far as desktop CPUs are concerned, those console APUs are comparable to AMD's 8-thread Bulldozer designs from 2011, only running at around half the clocks, and with one to two threads reserved for the OS and not directly accessible to games.

A new generation of consoles will be launching within the next few weeks though, featuring 8-core, 16-thread Zen 2 APUs. Those should be most comparable to a Ryzen 3700X from an architectural standpoint, though with somewhat lower clocks that I would expect might make their performance more like that of a 2700X. Some threads will again be reserved for OS functions, but developers will still gain access to around double the threads for next-generation titles, and each of those threads should offer over double the performance of those found in the base-model Xbox One and PS4 processors. So, games designed for those new consoles will have access to multiple times the multithreaded performance developers are utilizing today.

Most games might continue being designed with the existing consoles in mind for the next couple years, but it's highly likely that as game releases start dropping support for the currently 7-year old consoles, that they will start demanding more threads. If, as you say, developers don't bother optimizing much for PC hardware, then those games will expect having access to more threads on the PC as well. After all, do you really think developers are going to limit what they are doing on consoles just to maintain reasonable performance on older quad-core desktop processors?

The problem with your theory is that devs only started to use multithreading because one individual jaguar core stood no chance at all to drive any GPU while a single zen core is much much more capable so the need to use multithreading on the new consoles will go down immensely.

He said 6c/6t. Not 6c/12t. I don't know if you ever heard of "Gamer's Nexus" and Steve Burke, but based on his relentless testing of every CPU in every possible way, his data suggests that 6c/6t has a chance to give you some stutter in several titles due to lack of threads and has been suggesting against 6c/6t i5s for this reason. But if you only care about average FPS and don't care about 1% lows and stutter, have at it.

Just look at these 1% and 0.1% lows on 6c/6t ... completely abysmal! Even at 5.2ghz! Even a 1st gen R5 1600 is buttery smooth in comparison to that crud - because it has 12 threads.

If you have to use a tricked out 2080 ti and run games at 1080... normal
then your argument is already invalid.

Just look at these 1% and 0.1% lows on 6c/6t ... completely abysmal! Even at 5.2ghz! Even a 1st gen R5 1600 is buttery smooth in comparison to that crud - because it has 12 threads.

Yeah look at them, stock 9600k has basically 60FPS minimums while clocked to 5,2 it has 20.
Compared to the 1600 it is also 40-50% faster, slowing it down to the same 100FPS avg, with vsync or just by turning the settings to ultra as any sane person with a 2080ti would do, would give the 6c CPU enough headroom to stop stuttering.

 

[irateogle]

I do! I play games exclusively at 1080p with an AMD R5-3600 and a Nvidia 1080. Can't imagine spending the money for higher resolution on a 27 inch monitor and then having the opportunity to blow another wad of cash on an expensive graphics card. I play fast paced shooters and anything that kills the frames is no no for me. I'll be doing 1080p for the foreseeable future. And to keep the post relevant, will be buying a R5-5600 ASAP. I like the low thermal output, improved performance and the convenience that comes with not having to overclock for the perfomance.

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.✝🎗👶🙈🚓🍩💯

 

[joeblowsmynose]

...

Yeah look at them, stock 9600k has basically 60FPS minimums while clocked to 5,2 it has 20.

Good Eye! Almost as good as a first gen Ryzen 1600! Too bad about the OC numbers with the 9600k ...

 

[TerryLaze]

Good Eye! Almost as good as a first gen Ryzen 1600! Too bad about the OC numbers with the 9600k ...

Yeah but it shows clearly that the problem isn't with the number of the cores, if something runs much worse on faster hardware then the software has serious issues not the hardware..