News AMD's Ryzen 9 5950X Shatters PassMark Records

[Admin]

The upcoming Zen 3 flagship SKU flexes its performance in PassMark ahead of its launch.

AMD's Ryzen 9 5950X Shatters PassMark Records : Read more

 

[tummybunny]

As someone who's been around a while it's hard not to feel that both AMD and Intel deserve this outcome.

 

[Schlachtwolf]

Amazing to think that the upgrade for me from my 2700x to say a 5900x will give me an FPS boost similar to a GPU upgrade.... mad....(and a new GPU will be coming too when the market settles in....... 2025 LOL)

 

[sizzling]

Amazing to think that the upgrade for me from my 2700x to say a 5900x will give me an FPS boost similar to a GPU upgrade.... mad....(and a new GPU will be coming too when the market settles in....... 2025 LOL)

Only if you are entirely cpu bound with the 2700x.

 

[nofanneeded]

I wonder how Threadripper 5000 would perform ... Bravo AMD !!!

 

[Schlachtwolf]

The 2700x has been great to me but a RTX 3080 or (likely) Radeon 6900xt would certainly push it to and probably beyond it's limits. In RDR2 I have played on my system and on an Intel 10900k with an RTX 2080 and both with 3600mhz Corsair RAM.... you notice a big difference in the FPS on higher settings, so the 2700x is hitting it's ceiling on new GPU's.

 

[VforV]

We're not underestimating Zen 3, but it's a bit hard to swallow that the AMD chip with a 400 MHz boost clock would outperform the Core i9-10900K.

*400 MHz lower boost clock you mean.

Also, "a bit hard to swallow"? There are dozens of leaked benchmarks by now shopwing the same scenario, yet it's still hard to swallow for some people.... pffft. Well prepeare to "swallow" for real in 2 weeks time when AMD kicks Intel's a***...

 

[Psyadin]

Would've thought TH would know about IPC, but apparently they dont, frequency is only one part of the equation, it would be like measuring your property size by length and no width.
In synthetical tests where more each cycle is more or less maxed out, the equation is frequency x ipc, to my knowledge Intel and AMD doesnt give an exact number, and it would be hard to verify even if they did, but we know for certain that AMD's is well over Intel's since at least Zen 2.
So the 400MHz difference doesnt matter that much, and assuming AMD's IPC is 10% or more over Intels it will far outweigh that difference... at least in synthetic benchmarks.

 

[RodroX]

Well this is no surprise, it was kinda what you would expect after seen the Ryzen 5 5600X result last week..

I know this is only a leak, and only one test, but the most amazing part for me is that the Ryzen 5 5600X (6 cores / 12 threads) appears to have a multicore result of ~22800 points, when the Core i9 10900K have 24200 point with its 10 cores and 20 threads, that for me is kinda mind blowing.

 

[semitope]

Till actual benchmarks show up, these passmark results with 1 CPU of unknown settings should be ignored. Everything else you'll compare it to would have thousands of results averaged

 

[Jesse_20]

Does no one proofread their work these days? So many grammatical errors.
Quality of the site keeps diminishing.

 

[Avro Arrow]

The 2700x has been great to me but a RTX 3080 or (likely) Radeon 6900xt would certainly push it to and probably beyond it's limits. In RDR2 I have played on my system and on an Intel 10900k with an RTX 2080 and both with 3600mhz Corsair RAM.... you notice a big difference in the FPS on higher settings, so the 2700x is hitting it's ceiling on new GPU's.

Yes it is hitting the ceiling because the R7-2700X is on the Zen+ node which is just a smidgen better than the original R7-1700X. You'd get a massive performance boost just from going to the 3700X, let alone the 5700X.

Would've thought TH would know about IPC, but apparently they dont, frequency is only one part of the equation, it would be like measuring your property size by length and no width.

Well, lately, Tom's has been making some mistakes based on the outdated assumption that anything from AMD or ATi must be inferior to anything from Intel or nVidia unless proven otherwise. You should have seen Jarred's reaction when I speculated that AMD only teased the RX 5800 XT at the Ryzen 5000 launch instead of the RX 6900 XT. He called that idea "unrealistic" and it turned out to be correct. They have this idea that veteran users like me (who were here when Tom actually ran this site), are as clueless as someone who has been exposed to tech for two weeks.

Till actual benchmarks show up, these passmark results with 1 CPU of unknown settings should be ignored. Everything else you'll compare it to would have thousands of results averaged

They weren't ignored when the CPUs in question were Intel CPUs so they won't ignore them now.

 

[Avro Arrow]

As someone who's been around a while it's hard not to feel that both AMD and Intel deserve this outcome.

As someone who has also been around awhile, it's hard not to agree with you.

 

[Integr8d]

16 is the new 4

 

[g-unit1111]

All I have to say is: shut up and take my money!

 

[anshugiri]

Here’s the result
https://www.passmark.com/baselines/V10/display.php?id=131240019557

 

[CerianK]

Here’s the result
https://www.passmark.com/baselines/V10/display.php?id=131240019557

Right... I had no problem finding the result, and the 2nd result for the 5600X:
https://forums.tomshardware.com/thr...le-threaded-performance.3656126/post-22031528

 

[spongiemaster]

*400 MHz lower boost clock you mean.

Also, "a bit hard to swallow"? There are dozens of leaked benchmarks by now shopwing the same scenario, yet it's still hard to swallow for some people.... pffft. Well prepeare to "swallow" for real in 2 weeks time when AMD kicks Intel's a***...

It isn't surprising that the 5950x won, I think they're pointing out the margin of victory. The 5950x finished 16.3% ahead of the 10900k with a 12.25% clock deficit. That would indicate a nearly 30% higher IPC than the 10900k, which would be higher than even AMD claimed using the 19% better than the 3000 series claim as a basis. This is for single threaded performance. In multi-threaded, the 5950x is obviously going to obliterate the 10900k.

 

[Zeh]

What I find most interesting, is that the 5600X ST beats 10900K while almost beating it on multicore, even having only 6 vs 10 cores. It seems like a thermal limit on the 10900K. The 5800X will probably beat 10900K on both ST/MT. There's not much increase in MT for 5950X, perhaps also a thermal limit?

 

[Makaveli]

He called that idea "unrealistic" and it turned out to be correct. They have this idea that veteran users like me (who were here when Tom actually ran this site), are as clueless as someone who has been exposed to tech for two weeks.

Ain't that the truth look at my join date.

Tom left the site in 2007 so I hope you were a reader before your join date.

 

[Unolocogringo]

Ain't that the truth look at my join date.

Tom left the site in 2007 so I hope you were a reader before your join date.

Ive been here since fall of 96 but the site has my join date way off.
Even tried the original Tom'sDelfi forums which were a joke.

 

[Makaveli]

Ive been here since fall of 96 but the site has my join date way off.
Even tried the original Tom'sDelfi forums which were a joke.

ahh thanks for the update.

So there was some jank with the join dates once they moved the site from old to new.

i've been a reader since 99 but my join date is accurate.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

It isn't surprising that the 5950x won, I think they're pointing out the margin of victory. The 5950x finished 16.3% ahead of the 10900k with a 12.25% clock deficit. That would indicate a nearly 30% higher IPC than the 10900k, which would be higher than even AMD claimed using the 19% better than the 3000 series claim as a basis. This is for single threaded performance. In multi-threaded, the 5950x is obviously going to obliterate the 10900k.

It is best to "Under Promise and Over Deliver" than "Over Promise and Under Deliver".

I think AMD has learned from past mistakes in communications to the public.

 

[jeremyj_83]

It isn't surprising that the 5950x won, I think they're pointing out the margin of victory. The 5950x finished 16.3% ahead of the 10900k with a 12.25% clock deficit. That would indicate a nearly 30% higher IPC than the 10900k, which would be higher than even AMD claimed using the 19% better than the 3000 series claim as a basis. This is for single threaded performance. In multi-threaded, the 5950x is obviously going to obliterate the 10900k.

Don't forget that Zen 3's is 19% higher than Zen 2. Zen 2's IPC was already 7-10% higher than Sky Lake derivative CPUs.

 

[Intel999]

Till actual benchmarks show up, these passmark results with 1 CPU of unknown settings should be ignored. Everything else you'll compare it to would have thousands of results averaged

Dude, you sound about as oblivious on here as you do when posting on Reddit.

There is very little unbelievable about this Passmark posting.

I know it's not easy to accept reality when everything your fanboyism has taught you to believe comes crashing down around you.

I suspect your views on GPUs leans toward the green team, as well.

May I suggest you pop a Xanax prior to Wednesday's launch event for the 6000 series of GPUs. You are going to need it. Lol