Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
AMD

AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Processors Set a New Performance Bar Over Intel (hothardware.com) 70

MojoKid writes: AMD made bold claims when the company unveiled its new Zen 3-based Ryzen 5000 series processors early last month. Statements like "historic IPC uplift" and "fastest for gamers" were waved about like flags of victory. However, as with most things in the computing world, independent testing is always the best way to validate claims. Today AMD lifted the embargo on 3rd party reviews and, in testing, AMD's new Ryzen 5000 series CPUs set a new performance bar virtually across the board, and one that Intel currently can't touch. There are four processors in the initial Ryzen 5000 series lineup, though it's a safe bet more will be coming later. The current entry point is the Ryzen 5 5600X 6-core / 8-thread processor, followed by the 8-core / 16-thread Ryzen 7 5800X, 12-core / 24 thread Ryzen 9 5900X, and the flagship 16-core / 32-thread Ryzen 9 5950X. All of these new CPUs are backwards compatible with AMD socket AM4 motherboards. In comparison to Zen 2, Zen 3 has a larger L1 branch target buffer and improved bandwidth through multiple parts of its pipeline with additional load/store flexibility. Where Zen 2 could handle 2 load and 1 store per cycle, Zen 3 can handle 3 load and 2 stores. All told, AMD is claiming an average 19% increase in IPC with Zen 3, which is a huge uplift gen-over-gen. Couple that IPC uplift with stronger multi-core scaling and a new unified L3 cache configuration, and Zen 3's performance looks great across a wide variety of workloads for both content creation and gaming especially. AMD's Ryzen 9 5950X, Ryzen 9 5900X, Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 5 5600X will be priced at $799, $549, $449 and $299, respectively and should be on retail and etail shelves starting today.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Processors Set a New Performance Bar Over Intel

Comments Filter:
  • Now if only they actually had any in stock!

    • As an AMD stockholder that is exactly the sort of problem I hope for them to have! :)

    • Who cares? The greatest thing about AMD is their backwards compatibility with sockets/motherboards.

      I can buy one of these a few months from now and slip it into today's PC without changing anything else.

      With Intel I'd probably be looking at a whole new motherboard, maybe new RAM... etc.

      • Well, for a certain number of chipsets, anyway...

        https://www.pcmag.com/opinions... [pcmag.com]
        -
        Unlike Zen 2, which is compatible with just about any AM4-based motherboard, the cutoff for Zen 3 is a bit higher up the chipset stack this time. The new CPUs will work only with motherboards from the X470, B450, and later chipset generations. (That includes the new X570 and B550 boards.) Plus, it's down to motherboard manufacturers to make it work, issuing the proper updates.
        -

        Earlier chipsets like my B350 are SOL, even thoug

    • I think they had a pretty good idea how many they should build for day 1.

  • I guess cheaper Ryzen 3 will follow in a few months...
    For gaming, Ryzen 5 5600X is about as good as the more expensive parts. Ryzen 3 5300X could be almost as good as well, for less money as 4 cores / 8 threads is usually enough for gaming.

    • by darkain ( 749283 )

      That all depends on workload though. If look at JUST gaming and no other activities, then sure. But it is extremely common now to do game streaming, so the extra cores are a huge benefit there. Also, us gamers love to multi-task, so at least for me, I'll usually have a bunch of other apps open while gaming that I can alt+tab over to during loading screens or while menus or whatever.

      • unless you are encoding video in the background while gaming, I doubt your multi-task has much of an effect. Your web browser shouldn't be using a lot of CPU when idle.

        • Should ...

          In reality, it is the most CPU intensive thing beside games.
          Because it essentially IS a game engine and OS and complex layouter and media player all in one.

          Hell, in certain situations it can even eat half your CPU while officially "closed".
          Because it allows sites to run background tasks, and those keep the browser alive. And downloading something over a slow connection is one of them.
          Which is horrible behavior, especially on mobile. Where not even airplane mode kills it.You need to force-c

    • by slaker ( 53818 )

      Gaming is such a small thing though. Everything is going to be limited to whatever the fuck a Playstation or whatever GPU is installed can do. How often is a CPU the bottleneck for a gaming rig now?

      I'm thinking about video editing or batch image processing. Most people probably aren't looking at 4k120 raw video, but it's beastly to edit right now, even on the Threadripper system I have. Getting a 20% IPC improvement is massive, especially if it scales to the workstation grade hardware.

      • Gaming is such a small thing though. Everything is going to be limited to whatever the fuck a Playstation or whatever GPU is installed can do. How often is a CPU the bottleneck for a gaming rig now?

        Depends what kinds of games you're playing. If you're playing AAA garbage that's all graphics and no substance you're probably going to be GPU-bound. If you're playing games that aren't made by AAA code monkey sweatshop farms, like X4 or Dwarf Fortress or Cataclysm DDA, you are always CPU- or memory-bound.

        • by slaker ( 53818 )

          I have played Dwarf Fortress but I'll admit I'm not much of a gamer. Last I checked, it still runs as a single thread that will eventually choke anything. I still suspect that CPU bound titles are the vanishing minority.

      • If you're editing 120fps footage, well, you must really really like rotoscoping.

    • A big advantage of the 5600X over the 3600X (which I have and am very happy with) is that on the 5600X all the cores are on the one CCX, which gives latency benefits in some scenarios, and access to more cache.

      The 3300X also has this advantage, although testing shows that it doesn't keep up with the 3600X due to other factors (though it's not exactly slow ...).

      For me, the 5600X is going to be the best option for most people to have in a high-end gaming rig for a while.

      • I bought a 3600X two weeks ago and it's plenty for anything I might do in the near future (6 cores, 12 threads).

        The best thing is that these new chips will work with the exact same motherboard. If I ever feel the need to upgrade it will be 10 minutes work and only cost me the price of the CPU.

        AMD commitment to backwards compatibility is awesome, both for wallets and for the planet.

        • Unless you upgrade to a Ryzen 9, the performance increase likely won't be worth the change. You'd be better to put down a little more money for a 3700X right now, and never upgrade on that motherboard, than buy a 3600X now and upgrade to a 5600X in a year or two.

          I'd be interested in CPU upgrade if I could upgrade with a 5 years old motherboard. My CPU from 2012 is still good enough. I might wait for AM5 / DDR5 before upgrading.

    • Whoops - misread (currently hypothetical) 5300X as 3300X ...

    • This time I'm going to pamper myself and go for the top end desktop part and a top end motherboard with it. Got to get me some of that 32 core creamy smoothness.

  • by The New Guy 2.0 ( 3497907 ) on Thursday November 05, 2020 @03:55PM (#60688768)

    The current entry point is the Ryzen 5 5600X 6-core / 8-thread processor,

    All 6 cores are dual threaded, so that makes it a 12-thread processor. Typo... get me rewrite!

  • Intel (Score:2, Troll)

    by fred6666 ( 4718031 )

    Everybody say they are outperformed but when looking at the street prices they are still quite competitive, at least in the low to mid range that I care about. For non-gamers, we need a GPU. It doesn't need to be powerful so Intel integrated ones are perfect. Prices are in $CAD.

    Ultra-cheap : no competition from AMD in these price points
    Pentium Gold 6400: $80
    Core i3-9100F: $100 (no graphics)

    Cheap CPU: Intel has a much faster CPU, worst GPU. But both GPUs are too slow for gaming anyways.
    Ryzen 3 3200g: $135
    Cor

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jbengt ( 874751 )

      For non-gamers, we need a GPU. It doesn't need to be powerful so Intel integrated ones are perfect.

      I'm a non-gamer, and no, the integrated GPU in my lst work laptop was nowhere good enough. At work my laptop typically has open an e-mail client, a web browser with a few tabs open, several spreadsheets, a couple of word processing documents, AutoCAD with a couple of drawings open, maybe some photos from the job site, and .pdfs ranging from small, mostly text documents to large, multi-page scanned 48"x36" dr

      • I disabled the Nvidia GPU on my work laptop because it didn't make any noticeable improvement. I don't do any 3D CAD however. But yes, for the rest of the tasks you describe, Intel is more than good enough.

      • Sounds like your laptop just didn't have enough memory...
    • Everybody say they are outperformed but when looking at the street prices they are still quite competitive, at least

      ... at least when you cheat and don't include the motherboard price.

      AMD's high quality, low cost chipsets is what makes choosing AMD so much cheaper.

      You wanted to masturbate to Intel, but all you managed was giving a hand job to a dildo. Translation: Find the real prices, Dildo.

      • Intel and AMD motherboards seems comparable in price. The only thing is that AMD can have PCIe 4 and faster RAM.
        But $80-100 CAD motherboards with either AMD b450 or Intel b460 are what I am looking for. I don't care about those $300 motherboards, maybe AMD has the edge there.

    • Your listed prices don't reflect the real world. Except for the low end, Intel can't compete. Here are prices from Amazon and NewEgg:

      Core i3-9100 = $110
      Ryzen 3 3200G = $140

      Core i3-10100 = $115
      Ryzen 5 3400G = $140
      Ryzen 5 2600 = $150

      Core i5-10400 = $180
      Ryzen 5 2600X = $167

      Core i5-10600 = $266
      Ryzen 5 3600XT = $233

      Core i7-10700 = $350
      Ryzen 7 3700X = $305

    • by fintux ( 798480 )

      You forgot about Ryzen 1600 AF at $85, which almost matches Ryzen 5 2600 in performance. Ryzen 3100 and 3300X - what does Intel have against them?

      It's also odd way of defining performance by cores and threads. Suddenly that became a thing once Intel has lost on the performance per core. Obviously you shouldn't put i7-10700 against Ryzen 7 3700X, but rather Ryzen 5 5600X. Even with less cores and being cheaper, it beats the Intel option.

      AMD 5900X and 5950X - what does intel have to offer there? What does it

      • You forgot about Ryzen 1600 AF at $85,

        I didn't forget that chip. It's $344 in Canada right now. Not even an option.

        It's also odd way of defining performance by cores and threads. Suddenly that became a thing once Intel has lost on the performance per core. Obviously you shouldn't put i7-10700 against Ryzen 7 3700X, but rather Ryzen 5 5600X. Even with less cores and being cheaper, it beats the Intel option.

        I will if they are both available for the same price. 5600X is currently $420 in Canada, and out of stock everywhere.

        AMD 5900X and 5950X - what does intel have to offer there? What does it have to beat 5600X in price-to-perf? Oh yeah, that's right, nothing. But you completely "forgot" about the new line of CPUs even when the whole news was exactly about these.

        These are not in stock but yes, I stopped at the Ryzen 7 because Ryzen 9 are too expensive for me to be even looking at these options.
        Just like I didn't care that Intel had a more performing $1000 chip when I bought my Athlon XP.

        I wonder if you work at Intel, have Intel stocks, or are just a fanboy.

        I have a few Intel stocks yes. What I care about is performance per dollar. I couldn't ca

      • Even in the USA the 1600AF is $244 USD. It is nowhere to be found at the $85 price point anymore.

  • by Whatchamacallit ( 21721 ) on Thursday November 05, 2020 @05:32PM (#60689246) Homepage

    Patiently waiting for the new EPYC / Threadrippers. Could are diddly-squat about gaming. I need more cores than the gaming 5000 Ryzen provides. I want to see the replacement to the 3990 64 core and the 3970 32 core Threadrippers and if they will require new motherboards or not.

  • by thegarbz ( 1787294 ) on Thursday November 05, 2020 @07:22PM (#60689590)

    All of these new CPUs are backwards compatible with AMD socket AM4 motherboards.

    That is incorrect. These new CPUs are not backwards compatible with AM4 motherboards. They are backwards compatible with *certain very new chipsets* on AM4 motherboards, at least right now. They will be backwards compatible with more chipsets on AM4 motherboards come January assuming that the motherboard vendors push updated BIOSes for older products (Asus confirmed they intend to push the updates, not sure about anyone else. I hope Gigabyte does). And they will never be backwards compatible with other AM4 motherboards.

    Right now the compatibility unless you're on a X570, B550 or A520 chipset you're not going to be using these right now.
    X470 and B450 support is expected in January.

  • The best scenario for end users is a close competition between chip manufacturers.
    For the longest time, AMD's offerings were very poor relative to Intel.
    Luckily for us, they didn't give up. They now have better CPUs than Intel.
    While I have always been an advocate for the underdog, it's difficult to view Intel that way.
    Nonetheless, I very much hope for better products from Intel, otherwise AMD will take over Intel's previous dominance and we will all suffer as a result.
    Summary:
    1. Monopolies - bad
    2.

"Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue

Working...