AMD Ryzen 5000 IPC Performance Tested: Everything at 4GHz

[Nargg]

Makes me wonder about what might power my next laptop in a few years, Intel ? AMD ? ARM ? Interesting times

ARM has it's place, and a solid one at that. You'll see it in a lot more devices in the future, as even Microsoft is betting on it's increase in market share. That said, I doubt in at least the next 10 years or more that you'll see ARM in the power side of computing. ARM is RISC based, and RISC is good for some tasks, but not all. Especially on content creation and editing. CISC has shown many times over to be the best of breed for that, as well as class AAA games. And the x86/x64 archeticture, as well as the GPU options designed to work with that, are made from the ground up just for the heavy workload environment and does more that good at it.

 

[Lionvibez]

Not sure I get the hype, my 3800X set on auto everything, except a "safe" Ryzen dram calculator 3733 tune gets a better Cinebench single core score than the 5800x 527 to 517 and is about 1% slower in multicore, 5279

This is a joke right?

The 3800X minus the DDR4 3733 tune scores 506.

The cinebench single core speed of a 5800X that isnt' capped to 4Ghz is 624!

 

[Bluescreendeath]

Thank you Steven for a fine piece of benchmarking. Hopefully, this will shut up Intel apologists on this site for a while.

A part of me is sad that AMD is totally dominating Intel in both productivity and in gaming now because I didn't get a chance to buy AMD stocks...

 

[Lionvibez]

A part of me is sad that AMD is totally dominating Intel in both productivity and in gaming now because I didn't get a chance to buy AMD stocks...

The time to buy AMD stock passed along time ago.

Just before the launch of Zen 1 in 2017 would have been the right time.

 

[yeeeeman]

No, that's not a big takeaway ... because they aren't the same chip at all and claiming the 10700k is a "2015 era chip" is ... well, silly at best.

The node has been refined, the architecture optimized, support for much faster ram, support for double the amount of ram, different socket / chipset required, much higher TDP, better hardware encoding support, double the amount of cores, double the level 3 cache, and 900mghz higher boost clock.

But other than just those things ... exactly identical. :rollseyes:

No refinement has been done on the architecture.
If you have knowledge of the exact refinement, please show me the documentation that states this.
This is just a scaled up 6700K with more cache and higher frequencies.
Scaling up frequency isn't anything amazing, 7700k in 2016 was getting pretty close to 5Ghz in OC already.
Stop being so stubborn and accept the fact that Intel just took skylake parts and tweaked them. thinned the die, improved frequencies via process and added cores. That isn't anything like what AMD did with Zen 2/Zen 3 vs Zen 1.

 

[Some lunatic]

I see that now, useless benchmark, but I see that now.

Bro wtf are you talking about, they're comparing IPC specifically, not overall performance. Are you high?

 

[JimboJoneson]

No refinement has been done on the architecture.
...

I said the architecture has been optimized. Please read more carefully.

What I am clearly refuting is the fact that you are claiming that the 10700k is a "...2015 era chip." and "...is just a 6700k with more cores and cache..." (verbatim).

Both these statements are 100% false as I indicated with the list of differences. Sorry if you feel me pointing that out is "stubborn".

 

[Lionvibez]

I said the architecture has been optimized. Please read more carefully.

What I am clearly refuting is the fact that you are claiming that the 10700k is a "...2015 era chip." and "...is just a 6700k with more cores and cache..." (verbatim).

Both these statements are 100% false as I indicated with the list of differences. Sorry if you feel me pointing that out is "stubborn".

in this case stubborn = Technically Correct.

 

[JimboJoneson]

in this case stubborn = Technically Correct.

Haha, yes.

While I can be a bit pedantic at times, had the claim been "I'm impressed that Intel can keep up to this level without a new architecture" - then I would have agreed with that sentiment, as it is rather impressive to be honest. One doesn't need to make ridiculous claims to get that point across.

 

[PEnnn]

Great article.

But why do you insist on posting links to items (CPUs in this case, GPUs in others) knowing full well they're not in stock / Amazon didn't sell any of them yet??

Oh wait, anybody reading this article 2-3 years from now might be lucky and does find them in stock. Gotcha!!

 

[jpuroila]

No, that's not a big takeaway ... because they aren't the same chip at all and claiming the 10700k is a "2015 era chip" is ... well, silly at best.

The node has been refined, the architecture optimized, support for much faster ram, support for double the amount of ram, different socket / chipset required, much higher TDP, better hardware encoding support, double the amount of cores, double the level 3 cache, and 900mghz higher boost clock.

But other than just those things ... exactly identical. :rollseyes:

To be entirely fair, the main reason that 6700k was still a quadcore chip is because at the time, Intel had no real competition for high-end desktop CPUs. Had AMD been competitive at the time, I'm sure they would have been up to at least 6 cores by then.

 

[Soaptrail]

Unfortunately, Zen 3 is overpriced right now. This will change when Rocket Lake arrives and with the arrival of non X Zen 3 processors but at this moment they represent poor value when you consider the price hikes.

How do you figure it is overpriced? You don't necessarily need a new mobo so that can make the total upgrade cost cheaper for some of us.

People seem to think unless AMD is cheaper than Intel it is overpriced.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

The time to buy AMD stock passed along time ago.

Just before the launch of Zen 1 in 2017 would have been the right time.

I bought a few hundred bucks of AMD around/before Zen 1 when it was at $15 per share "just for lulz." Even after that, it was still a good buy considering it was hovering around $20-$30 around 2018-2019 and it's now at like $70-80 per share.

 

[Lionvibez]

$15 was a good time to buy in and so was $20-$30. Now its too late.

 

[Bluescreendeath]

$15 was a good time to buy in and so was $20-$30. Now its too late.

Yes. We're way past a good price now. I'm still surprised AMD shot up so quickly though.

 

[Makste]

I wonder how long AMD can keep this up. Such large IPC gains in a short time is impressive, a lot of it seems to come from reduction sin inter core latency and improvements to the memory controller. How many more low hanging fruit are left in that regard?

Yeah ARM is still a pipe dream. The fact that Apple, despite seeing massive "jumps" in performance and efficiency, is still using intel processors in their more powerful macs speaks volumes as to how capable their ARM processor actually is.

ARM can be good, if you optimize your software for it. Even then, as adobe on the surface X showed, even with those optimizations ARM still struggles with heavier workloads compared to ULV x86. An appropriate ARM core with enough silicon to perform on the level of Zen or Core will likely pull as much power as either.

I'd also like to laugh at the shopping link for Amazon having a full page of ryzen 3000 processors and not a single 5000 series of any type. They are not even listed on Amazon right now. "no supply issues" uh huh.

Indeed, how many low hanging fruit are still available in this regard? But I'm sure where there's a will, there's a way.

 

[Makste]

While the main takeaway of this article is indeed the way AMD has progressed things in the past few years, the other big one is just how good this 2015 era product from Intel was and still is. I mean, 10700k is just a 6700k with extra cores and cache. And damn, for a 5 years old product it doesn't get ashamed at all. In gaming it is comfortably in second place after a brand spanking new product and in multi core processing it is right in the middle of the pack. All of this from a 2015 class product.
See this the other way around. What if Intel would have continued their cadence from 2015 till now? We would have had more innovation, better products. Too bad Intel is still forced to use rebadged old CPUs to stay relevant.

Am sure Intel is brewing something. Am still waiting for an unexpected announcement from them about something new and competitive. Too many corporations are innovative these days though, Intel should realise that AMD is nolonger its only direct competitor.

 

[tuxer413]

What voltage for cpu and soc should I apply for 4ghz stable ryzen 5 2600 gigabyte b450m?
It doesn't have manual voltage setting but max +300

 

[punctualturn]

Amazing results.

This is why I love this place and Hardware Unboxed.

All Hail Our Holy Lady Dr. Lisa Su!

 

[Thunder6230]

Thank you for another great insight from a different angle. Zen 3 is pound for pound (or should is say hertz for hertz) a faster CPU than intel's offering. Let's see how Intel hits back in 2021 with Rocket Lake.

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/11900k-engineering-sample-cpu-z good answer

 

[Lionvibez]

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/11900k-engineering-sample-cpu-z good answer

good answer for the 8c/16t 5800X but nothing for the 5900X or 5950X.

 

[JStacts]

I'm just waiting for them to start stashing their extra cores in the next dimension...

 

[Thunder6230]

good answer for the 8c/16t 5800X but nothing for the 5900X or 5950X.

it was full of ironie we hace to respect the actual better company. now its not the intel but intel was very long time good. we are talking about more than a decade.

 

[Avro Arrow]

It's really astonishing what AMD has managed to do in about 3½ years. From the FX-series (which wasn't great, but certainly wasn't as bad as people say) which wasn't competitive at all from a pure performance standpoint to absolute supremacy with Ryzen 3. Talk about rags to riches!

 

[Avro Arrow]

In gaming it is comfortably in second place after a brand spanking new product

There are only two companies that make x86-type CPUs for the consumer market so being "comfortably in second-place" is like saying "comfortably in last-place". Sure, they can be comfortable there because it's not like VIA is coming up behind them.

in multi core processing it is right in the middle of the pack.

Again, there are only two companies involved so how can you be in "the middle of the pack" when there's noone behind you?

Your point about the Intel architecture being old is quite valid and you should have stopped there because this nonsensical part of your post makes you appear to be a raving fanboy who is in denial of reality. That reality is that there is no "comfortable second-place" and being "in the middle of the pack" is literally impossible. Intel is dead-last in both single and multi-threaded workloads and that's really all there is to it.

When AMD only had the FX-series, did you say that AMD was "comfortably in second-place"? I sure didn't. I said that while the FX-series CPUs aren't as terrible as people say, they were clearly inferior in pretty much all performance metrics. They were a better value than the Intel CPUs but that only went so far.
If you were just a regular gamer (like me) then the FX CPUs were fine and actually pretty great for the price. For everyone else, the only word that could be used to describe them was insufficient.

Don't try to spin reality into something that it isn't. It's bad for your psyche and it makes people think that you're either absorbing some really exotic chemicals or you're just guano-crazy.

Intel is getting it's posterior handed to it and, believe it or not, that's a great thing for the industry because they've been sandbagging since Sandy Bridge. Intel's not going to die from this. They are very diversified and, considering that AMD managed to survive the FX-series years, Intel could be completely uncompetitive for over a century and would still survive. Yes, they are THAT big and THAT rich already. Never fear.