Question Ryzen 9 5000 series intel equivalent?

[Amddefector]

Hi thanks for looking,

What would you guys say is Intel's equivalent to the new Ryzen 9 5000 series is please?

In terms of performance not price.

 

[rgd1101]

probably the 12th gen intel i9.
don't have solid performance review yet. wait another 3-4 weeks

 

[HOLDMYPC]

According to AMD's numbers the Ryzen 9 wrecks the INTEL i9's gaming crown and well productivity was always on the ryzen's side, though it would be wise to go through thied party reviews and benchmarks

 

[drea.drechsler]

According to AMD's numbers the Ryzen 9 wrecks the INTEL i9's gaming crown and well productivity was always on the ryzen's side, though it would be wise to go through thied party reviews and benchmarks

Definitely good to see some 3rd party so we can see the full spectrum of performance in a variety of games and resolutions.

I would expect it to widen Ryzen's lead in productivity, but I wonder how it will fare with those applications that gimped it's performance with Intel compiler's default switches. An example is MatLab which famously favors Intel because of that.

 

[Amddefector]

Ok thanks for the replies

I was just curious to see what Intel's equivalent was as I read that amd's pricing is no longer the cheaper alternative but as far as I can see there's still a considerable amount of saving by going with amd. I only have the 7 2700x atm but I've just switched from intel so wasn't gonna spend mega bucks on amd's top of the line CPU's straight away.

 

[drea.drechsler]

... so wasn't gonna spend mega bucks on amd's top of the line CPU's straight away.

I have to laugh at that.

'Mega bucks' for a $400 CPU just sounds funny to me considering people are griping over availability of a $1500 GPU now.

 

[Amddefector]

I have to laugh at that.

'Mega bucks' for a $400 CPU just sounds funny to me considering people are griping over availability of a $1500 GPU now.

I've been looking at 5000 series pricing and I can find one anywhere for 400usd?

 

[drea.drechsler]

I've been looking at 5000 series pricing and I can find one anywhere for 400usd?

You can't find one anywhere at all... they're not in stores yet.

But list is:

• AMD Ryzen 7 5800X: $449 (around £350, AU$630)
• AMD Ryzen 5 5600X: $299 (around £230, AU$420)

$449 is close enough for a 5800X, but a 5600X will be well more than 'adequate' for gaming (even paired with a 3090) based on 19% IPC uplift from a 3600X alone.

Are you running into 'pre-order' scams?

 

[egda23]

Definitely good to see some 3rd party so we can see the full spectrum of performance in a variety of games and resolutions.

I would expect it to widen Ryzen's lead in productivity, but I wonder how it will fare with those applications that gimped it's performance with Intel compiler's default switches. An example is MatLab which famously favors Intel because of that.

i would not word it like that. MatLab is not a bench program ! I would say that it takes advantage of available Intel tools in order to optimize it's performance. Nobody is holding AMD back if they want to develop similar software tools

 

[drea.drechsler]

i would not word it like that. MatLab is not a bench program ! I would say that it takes advantage of available Intel tools in order to optimize it's performance. Nobody is holding AMD back if they want to develop similar software tools

LOL...that makes me laugh because, basically, it is saying "if you don't like my (illegal) anti-competitive actions then just go and make your own anti-competitive actions".

To be sure, the defaults can be over-ridden at compile by using the right switches, or even over-ridden by the user after MatLab is installed. That does nothing to offset the fact that Intel is abusing it's monopoly position to artificially make the competition appear less....competitive.

And btw, MatLab is a benchmark, or at least has routines available to run benches. That's pretty important to those who use Matlab, or similar routines, in their profession as they may use it to make purchase decisions. That it has the potential to bias the decision unfairly is a significant consideration.

 

[geofelt]

Until the processors are launched and we see some independent benchmarks, nobody really knows.
AMD is claiming 10900K level performance.

What I am interested is the 19% improvement in IPC.
If that is coupled with a clock in excess of 5.0 then I will be impressed.

Intel is suggesting that we will see a similar ipc improvement with rocket lake due 1Q2021.
Since Intel seems to handle a 5.0 clock now, that is going to be competitive.

 

[drea.drechsler]

...
What I am interested is the 19% improvement in IPC.
If that is coupled with a clock in excess of 5.0 then I will be impressed.
...

I've not heard 5Ghz or over. I've only read 'around' 4.9Ghz, and if Zen2 guides us that will be in lightly threaded workloads. Why do you think it could? I'd beware the overhype! it was a bit too much leading up to the Zen2 launch too.

Zen2's performance doesn't come from it's max clocks anyway; it comes from the intermediate all-core clocks under really heavy loads. They tend to be higher (especially under better-than-stock cooling) than Intel CPU's can hold when they're getting hot under load.

 

[Amddefector]

I have to laugh at that.

'Mega bucks' for a $400 CPU just sounds funny to me considering people are griping over availability of a $1500 GPU now.

No I won't pre order anything these days. I've seen the Ryzen 9 5900x listed for £529. I want a thread ripper. that's what I ment by mega bucks. Just went with a cheap Ryzen 7 to test if the rumours where true about amd making decent CPU's these days. I'm happy with the performance.

 

[Turtle Rig]

Good post nice replies my gurus. The 5900x and later on the 5950 is a beast. It does beat the 10900k but these are all allegations just like the 19+ percent IPC and how AMD is touting these new CPU's as gaming CPU's when they simply are product workstation CPU's that do amazing in games. But not AMD has shown you these CPU's running their benches at 1080p and who play at 1080p after buying a powerful CPU like this then you should have a powerful video card. At 2k resolution the difference between the 5900x or higher and a 10900k the gap closes down as 2k becomes GPU dependent. Just chill for now until benchmarks come out as I personally can't trust AMD right now and need physical evidence. After all it is AMD that said PCIe 4.0 gives 69 percent faster GPU which is false. A PCIe 3.0 and 4.0 give the same performance. So AMD is a bit gimmicky so just wait couple weeks as said above for some reviews and benches then make your decision. But note Intel CPUs for certain tasks will always be better then AMD like Machine Learning and VR and other tech. Good Luck🎗✝💯👶👽

 

[Turtle Rig]

I've not heard 5Ghz or over. I've only read 'around' 4.9Ghz, and if Zen2 guides us that will be in lightly threaded workloads. Why do you think it could? I'd beware the overhype! it was a bit too much leading up to the Zen2 launch too.

Zen2's performance doesn't come from it's max clocks anyway; it comes from the intermediate all-core clocks under really heavy loads. They tend to be higher (especially under better-than-stock cooling) than Intel CPU's can hold when they're getting hot under load.

As drea.drechster said 5Ghz ain't going to happen and 4.8Ghz they claim will not be on all cores. Maybe one core if your lucky then the rest 4.6 and 4.4Ghz and 4.2 and so on. Just hang tight for some reviews and unbiased benchmarks at 2k resolution and not 1080p as that falls on the CPU and who plays at 1080p when they can afford a expensive CPU they should have a nice video card to couple that and play at 2k with AA methods and high quality and get 144fps to match a gaming monitors refresh rate. As for the 19 percent IPC improvement is all talke right now we need benchmarks and Tom will do this for us. I would personally get the 10900k overclock it to 5.2Ghz on all cores and call it a day, but that is just me and Im not telling you to do that just my two cents.🖐🎗💯👶👽

 

[BogdanH]

For me, 5GHz barrier is just a "sensation" number, meant to impress. Because, no matter what, 4800MHz vs 5000Mhz is "only" 4% better performance (at similar IPC). Difference is barely noticeable in real usage, if at all.
Of course, AMD shows new 5xxx series CPU in best light. But truth to be told, AMD was never accused for "false advertising". And so, if AMD managed to increase IPC performance by almost 20%(!), then 4% less clock speed is practically irrelevant. Especially if that also means much better power efficiency -and it does in AMD case.
Are new 5xxx CPU's worth the money AMD ask for? Of course not. Prices are now just being adjusted to Intel's already overpriced products. In sense: we (AMD) have better product (than Intel has) and so, similar prices are justified. Or should I say... expected by buyers?
Yes, we need to wait for actual reviews, to get better comparison. And at the end, my wallet will decide

 

[ragnarok0274]

The Intel equivalent of the Ryzen 9 5950X is the Core i11-1311000-KX. A 13th generation Core i11 20-core 40-thread processor with the 14nm++++++++++++++++ process, Intel UHD Graphics 69, a base clock of 1 MHz, a boost clock of 5 GHz, 69 PCIe lanes, and an LGA 1367 socket. MSRP $768. Code named "SpaceX Lake".
Purportedly Intel's 14th gen, "Mars Lake" chips will support the 10nm process.