AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Review: 6-Core Gaming Beast

mistyrain

Posts: 14   +18
Great review. However, one point from me when comparing woth the 3600x. Do not forget that many people will make whole new system and pairing it with radeon 6000 you will have the Rage mode and the full power gain of the combination. This should have been added in that section in my oppinion. If you are buying radeon 6000 and buy ryzen 3600x is a stupid move, but with 5600x ... a whole different story.
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,270   +2,114
The pricing of both the 5800X and the 5600X here do feel like a little shine has been taken off AMD's hype train. Now, of course AMD have jacked up the prices. The X models are premium products. They are no longer chasing in performance, they are matching or usually beating competition all round and have adjusted their prices accordingly. Justifiably.

On the flip side it shows that AMD are no more your friend than Intel. They want to make as much money as possible. I just had the feeling that if AMD had positioned them at slightly lower prices and better cost to performance ratios they would entirely clean up and in the long term would be more beneficial. They will sell exceedingly well anyway, but 10 percent less MSRP on these models would have been a killer move.

Intel are a giant, and they have dominated the industry for a long time. AMD's strategy has been near flawless the past 4 years to claw back into contention. However this seemed the point where they could choose raw profit right now, or long term gain in the industry with their brand for massive future growth before Intel strike back. They have chosen the higher profit margins and I get the business standpoint. We'll see how it pays off longer term. Intel won't fold up their tent and go home just yet.

Perhaps I am just asking too much, and a Ryzen 5600 will be the clear champ when the dust settles. The best buys on the Zen range have been the non X models since dot, so I wait with anticipation to see where they fall in the stack.
 

meric

Posts: 285   +243
So the 5900x got 95 points but you gave only 85 to 5600x? I mean the 5600x is closer to being a mainstream product which performs close to more expensive parts, still offering much better perf/price despite the price increase. And this performance will probably go up slightly more with RDNA 2 cards. This is the value champ of this generation but it only gets a 85 :-/
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bamda
Great review. However, one point from me when comparing woth the 3600x. Do not forget that many people will make whole new system and pairing it with radeon 6000 you will have the Rage mode and the full power gain of the combination. This should have been added in that section in my oppinion. If you are buying radeon 6000 and buy ryzen 3600x is a stupid move, but with 5600x ... a whole different story.
Until they lift the review embargo they wouldnt be able to back it up with any numbers so quite unhelpful at this point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

Irata

Posts: 966   +1,418
TechSpot Elite
So as far as pricing goes, the 5600x is actually not that bad. The cost per frame is lower than the Core i5-10600k‘s, which only costs $20 less but is otherwise left in the dust.

Its actual gaming competitor appears to be the 10700k which costs $379.
Now in multi-threaded applications the latter is often better but not as much as the core count and price difference would indicate. I do expect the 10700k to do better in multitasking while gaming scenarios which is why I would not get less than 8C for my next upgrade. As that will be next year, I am still counting on reduced prices.

Yes, cheaper AMD CPU would be great but imho expecting them to offer best at everything CPU at bargain prices is not realistic. As long as AMD continues to deliver as they have been doing since Ryzen was launched I do not see it as milking. If we were to get to a point of stagnation is when I would start to be upset.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Makste and Boshum

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,074   +1,231
Thanks. On par with the 10700K in games for $80 less. AMD did say the biggest gains would be at 1080p and they weren't kidding.
I'm hoping for a 5600X price drop or sale soon, but I'll pay full price if I don't want to wait anymore.

Upgrading from a 2700X on X470 @ 1080p/144Hz.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: fb020997

pildorman321

Posts: 14   +9
The 5600x looses in productivity against the 3700 a better 8/16 cpu compatible with ALL BOARDS: A320, b350, b450, b550, A520, X570 , X370 VS 2 OVERPRICED boards. in value vs the 3600. until there is a "170 -200 non x 5600 version that works- day one- on any b450 the 5600 is a hard pass, too many negatives including poor resale value, 100$ price hike making it a 6 core hi end part a contradiction in 2020
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael7

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,046   +2,576
The pricing of both the 5800X and the 5600X here do feel like a little shine has been taken off AMD's hype train. Now, of course AMD have jacked up the prices. The X models are premium products. They are no longer chasing in performance, they are matching or usually beating competition all round and have adjusted their prices accordingly. Justifiably.

On the flip side it shows that AMD are no more your friend than Intel. They want to make as much money as possible. I just had the feeling that if AMD had positioned them at slightly lower prices and better cost to performance ratios they would entirely clean up and in the long term would be more beneficial. They will sell exceedingly well anyway, but 10 percent less MSRP on these models would have been a killer move.

Intel are a giant, and they have dominated the industry for a long time. AMD's strategy has been near flawless the past 4 years to claw back into contention. However this seemed the point where they could choose raw profit right now, or long term gain in the industry with their brand for massive future growth before Intel strike back. They have chosen the higher profit margins and I get the business standpoint. We'll see how it pays off longer term. Intel won't fold up their tent and go home just yet.

Perhaps I am just asking too much, and a Ryzen 5600 will be the clear champ when the dust settles. The best buys on the Zen range have been the non X models since dot, so I wait with anticipation to see where they fall in the stack.
Anyone who thought AMD was their "friend" or would keep the prices low just to appeal to those with less money is an utter maroon. AMD is a for profit company, once they are competitive they will raise prices.

How quickly we forget that AMD sold a $1031 single core FX that was 10-15% faster then their $400 athlon parts.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,074   +1,231
Anyone who thought AMD was their "friend" or would keep the prices low just to appeal to those with less money is an utter maroon. AMD is a for profit company, once they are competitive they will raise prices.

How quickly we forget that AMD sold a $1031 single core FX that was 10-15% faster then their $400 athlon parts.
Also:
$900 FX 9590
$1500 R9 Pro Duo
$549 R9 Nano, Fury X
$699 R9 Radeon 7
 

Lionvibez

Posts: 2,046   +1,413
"But what about the 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 3600X, how will it age? Our guess is extremely well as the massive IPC increase offered by the new Zen 3 architecture means the 5600X is comparable to previous generation 8-core processors such as the 3700X and 10700K, or the Zen 2 parts used in the next gen consoles, and no one expects those processors to become obsolete any time soon."

Is that first line suppose to be Ryzen 5 5600X and not 3600X as the following sentence show you are talking about Zen 3?


Anyone who thought AMD was their "friend" or would keep the prices low just to appeal to those with less money is an utter maroon. AMD is a for profit company, once they are competitive they will raise prices.

How quickly we forget that AMD sold a $1031 single core FX that was 10-15% faster then their $400 athlon parts.
Anyone who thought this doesn't understand how a business works and especially publicly traded ones.
 

hover389

Posts: 21   +23
I dont agree with comparing the 5600X to the 3600 non X. Compare similiar price point products. That would make as much sense and comparing the 5600 non X to the 3600X.

Also highlight the product thats reviewed and being reviewed against in your benchmark graphs. It makes readable alot easier.
 

dirtyferret

Posts: 642   +753
"However, the Core i7-7700K hasn’t yet suffered quite the same fate despite also being a quad-core processor, as it features SMT support for 8 threads. Although it features half as many cores and threads as the Ryzen 7 1700, it’s able to keep up in the latest and greatest games, though it is starting to show some weakness in most demanding titles. At some point, we do expect the R7 1700 to beat the 7700K in games and again if we look at the Cinebench R20 multi-core performance, we see that when fully utilized the Ryzen processor is almost 40% faster and that’s obviously a massive difference."


What the fan boys fail to understand on the whole cores vs IPC gaming argument is CPUs (and tech in general) doesn't get faster down the road it just doesn't slow down as fast necessarily. The 7600k at launch was a good gaming CPU and very good when OC. Today with higher demand in CPU gaming performance it's OK but obviously has its limits. The Ryzen 1600 was solid at launch as a gaming CPU and is a notch better then a OC 7600k in several games but it hasn't gotten faster. Even entry levels CPUs offer better gaming performance from both Intel & AMD.

So the 7700k was an excellent gaming CPU at launch, still is a very good gaming CPU now and several years from now will still be a solid gaming CPU. The Ryzen 1700x was a mediocre gaming CPU at launch, is now still a mediocre gaming CPU (Ryzen 3300x takes it to the woodshed), will be a mediocre gaming CPU several years from now and when the 7700k is struggling then sure the 1700x will offer a little better gaming performance but bragging that you are getting 33FPS when the other guy is getting 29FPS is hardly a win.

I would rather have a gaming CPU that offers excellent to very good performance throughout its lifespan and then I can upgrade it when it starts to struggle as opposed to a gaming CPU that's mediocre throughout its gaming lifespan but gives me an extra year (maybe two) of mediocre performance.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 351   +371
You know, it's getting to the point that there is literally NO reason for a gamer to get more than a hexacore CPU. Look how fast tech is moving now with CPUs performing much better than far more expensive CPUs from just one year prior.

Making a heavier investment in a higher-end CPU makes no sense when it will just be matched or beaten one year later by a CPU that is far less expensive. Now, professional apps are different because they MAKE you money and the more expensive CPUs become relevant but for gaming, the hexacore Ryzen 5 is the only CPU that should be considered right now. Since they all have similar gaming performance, you won't be upgrading any less by getting a Ryzen 7 or Ryzen 9 but you WILL be paying a LOT more to do so each time.
 

EdmondRC

Posts: 28   +21
Wow the 6 core 12 thread 5600 goes toe to toe with the 8 core 16 thread 10700k just about across the board. That is definitely a good showing for AMD 5000 series. Still, the 10700k is slightly ahead in most tasks and in games, Intel should probably drop the 10700k to about $320.
 

JimboJoneson

Posts: 291   +465
... Still, the 10700k is slightly ahead in most tasks and in games ...
Are you referring to the contents of this article? I'm pretty sure the 11 game average puts the 5600X ahead, but if you are referring to a different data set please provide the source.

The two extra cores help the 10700k in 3D rendering, if you consider that a 'task', but in less heavily threaded loads, like Photoshop, After Effects, the 5600x pulls well ahead ... just depends on the requirement for 8 cores vs 6 or less.

I do agree Intel should trim some prices, but if the past has any precedence, they'll just make potential buyers wait for Rocket Lake.
 
Last edited:

Bamda

Posts: 155   +62
The pricing of both the 5800X and the 5600X here do feel like a little shine has been taken off AMD's hype train. Now, of course AMD have jacked up the prices. The X models are premium products. They are no longer chasing in performance, they are matching or usually beating competition all round and have adjusted their prices accordingly. Justifiably.

On the flip side it shows that AMD are no more your friend than Intel. They want to make as much money as possible. I just had the feeling that if AMD had positioned them at slightly lower prices and better cost to performance ratios they would entirely clean up and in the long term would be more beneficial. They will sell exceedingly well anyway, but 10 percent less MSRP on these models would have been a killer move.

Intel are a giant, and they have dominated the industry for a long time. AMD's strategy has been near flawless the past 4 years to claw back into contention. However this seemed the point where they could choose raw profit right now, or long term gain in the industry with their brand for massive future growth before Intel strike back. They have chosen the higher profit margins and I get the business standpoint. We'll see how it pays off longer term. Intel won't fold up their tent and go home just yet.

Perhaps I am just asking too much, and a Ryzen 5600 will be the clear champ when the dust settles. The best buys on the Zen range have been the non X models since dot, so I wait with anticipation to see where they fall in the stack.
One thing to keep in mind is that AMD CPUs usually have shown to have better sales and discounts over time than Intels. Plus the processors have lowered in price over time as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Soaptrail

Bamda

Posts: 155   +62
Anyone who thought AMD was their "friend" or would keep the prices low just to appeal to those with less money is an utter maroon. AMD is a for profit company, once they are competitive they will raise prices.

How quickly we forget that AMD sold a $1031 single core FX that was 10-15% faster then their $400 athlon parts.
One thing I will say in AMD's defense is they brought competition to Intel and that comes at a cost. The price increase is justifiable if we are going to continue to see these kinds of increases in performance. I will gladly pay that price.
 
Last edited:

EdmondRC

Posts: 28   +21
Are you referring to the contents of this article? I'm pretty sure the 11 game average puts the 5600X ahead, but if you are referring to a different data set please provide the source.

The two extra cores help the 10700k in 3D rendering, if you consider that a 'task', but in less heavily threaded loads, like Photoshop, After Effects, the 5600x pulls well ahead ... just depends on the requirement for 8 cores vs 6 or less.

I do agree Intel should trim some prices, but if the past has any precedence, they'll just make potential buyers wait for Rocket Lake.
You are correct, the 5600X is just ahead in gaming. I'm not sure what I was looking at I thought it was the opposite, with the i7-10700k just ahead.
 

BSim500

Posts: 706   +1,500
I dont agree with comparing the 5600X to the 3600 non X. Compare similiar price point products.
Many people looking to upgrade from older cheaper parts want to know how many extra FPS they could expect to gain if they upgraded into a higher bracket. Comparing only exactly the same price brackets on every upgrade cycle is useless as a guide for people on lower end chips thinking about a big upgrade (not just an endless stream of mild side-grades). Same reason why many older pre-Ryzen i7 reviews that included i3 & i5's (eg, 4770K, 6700K, etc) got it right. "but, but, but they're completely difference prices!". Yes we know, but many on older i3's still wanted that information to see whether it was worth a "big" upgrade to an i7 or whether an i5 would do.

It's no different today. How much gain from a Ryzen 2600 or an i5-8400? We don't know. Reviewers don't bother anymore "because they're not the same price" even though these are the people most likely to be upgrading... One user on a cheap 1600 may be looking to spend more but is undecided between a 5600X vs 5800X, whilst another looking for a more budget option may well be looking at comparing the i5-10400F vs 5600X if it's only 13% slower but half the price.

It's simply good to have more high / low data points across price brackets, not just overly rigid "if you paid $180 for your last CPU, then you are only 'permitted' to cross-compare to other $180 CPU's" 'analysis'. CPU reviews used to be way more flexible / helpful than that for those moving between price brackets over time.
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 155   +115
Will there be a price war? not sure with Intel - not the smartest cookies in the box - I think they will hold - and it will cost them market awareness - plus they might lose automatic loyalty.
How much stock does AMD have of 3600? - what are there production plans.
If they priced the above chip at $260 - then the 3600 would have to drop to at least 180 etc etc
So I think AMD is probably making good margins and they have OPTIONs .
Anyway hoping for a discount in 6 months as supply stocks build and they cream has already been taken ( eg move the next buyers off the rank ).

Imagine getting a 3600+m/b +16gb for somewhere between $300 to $350 - for most PC users that would be a corker of a m/c