AMD Ryzen 5000 IPC Performance Tested: Everything at 4GHz

[Steve]

IPC performance is a good indicator of a CPU's architecture efficiency, so we're checking out how Zen 3 compares against Intel's 10th-gen Core and AMD's progress with Ryzen over the past three years.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/article/2143-ryzen-5000-ipc-performance/

 

[mosu]

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

 

[MarkHughes]

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

 

[Puiu]

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

I doubt it will be ARM in just a few years (unless you prefer apple stuff)

 

[tancabean]

Would’ve liked to see a 5900x or 5950x in there to see the impact of an extra 32MB of L3 cache.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

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?

I doubt it will be ARM in just a few years (unless you prefer apple stuff)

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.

 

[R00sT3R]

My poor old 9900K (AKA 10700K) your reign at the top was a glorious one, but all good things....

 

[yeeeeman]

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.

 

[Shadowboxer]

I want one of these new Ryzen 5xxx CPUs but can’t bring myself to spend £700-£800+ that it would cost to upgrade my 4790K to a 5800/5900X, it’s just not bad enough yet to need me to spend the money. I’d get maybe 20-40 fps more in best case scenario, it’s just not worth the outlay.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

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.

Intel isnt forced to do so. They choose to do so out of their own stubborness. they could have backported their new design to 14nm (what they are doing for alder lake) years ago. That could have been comet lake. They could have tried a chiplet design or some other idea.

They just refused to, because they were still making money hand over fist. Now that's being legitimately threatened by AMD.

Leet us remember, that the onyl reason we got more then 4 cores on intel to create that 10700k in the first place was the threat of Zen. Intel was perfectly happy to stay on quad cores for another few years.

 

[poohbear]

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.

 

[bviktor]

Gosh, that power consumption chart is so good to look at. Finally.

 

[Irata]

Gosh, that power consumption chart is so good to look at. Finally.

Looking at system power consumption savings in combination with the performance uplift over my 2700x, the 5000 series looks like a very worthwhile upgrade. Heck, the Wraith Prism HSF that I am using right now should be more than fine for use with the 3800x, so money saved.

I think it‘ll be upgrade time in a year or so when prices have gone down.

 

[Badelhas]

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.

Sorry but I couldn't agree less. Because of the lack of competition Intel has been milking us since 2012, releasing CPUs with small performance gains year after year and forcing us to upgrade our motherboard almost every year. The last true Intel champion was the 2500k which I overclocked to 4.8ghz the moment I got it (a 45% increase). This is why only a year ago I decided to upgrade from that CPU to the 3600. And remember, people with a ryzen 1xxx and a 470b board can buy a 5xxx without having to buy a new motherboard. This is commendable, at least and a very consumer oriented advantage.

 

[Lionvibez]

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.

My takeaway is stagnation of products is not good for the market.

You were basically paying the same high price for the same uarch with small changes for 5 years that is a negative for me not a positive.

 

[Michael7]

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.

 

[Fulltone]

Bail on the word Zen? So overused now like awesome was and still is.

 

[JimboJoneson]

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...

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:

 

[BrotherMichigan]

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?

Zen 3 is a large redesign of the entire execution side of the CPU, involving much more than simply reducing core to core latency, and the memory controller is identical to the one used with Zen 2. I'm sure there are just as many opportunities for optimization of this architecture as there were for Zen/+/2.

 

[Puiu]

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.

The US Amazon doesn't seem to have them in stock but I did find the 5600x and 5800x in stock on the UK Amazon. Europe seems to be doing better in general with the new Ryzen CPUs. It's also in stock in Romania where I live.

 

[Almstsobur]

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

 

[Lew Zealand]

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.

LOL at being "comfortably in second place" in a 2-horse race.

 

[herpaderp]

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

lol you serious? So that means you didn't actually read what they were doing here.

The 5800x was deliberately capped to 4GHz since that's a speed that every chip in these tests, from Zen 1 all the way to Zen 3, can comfortably run at with no tweaking involved. That's what you're comparing your 3800x to here, a neutered chip that's being denied about 15% of its potential boost capability.

The 5800x can quite commonly hit 4.6GHz all core OCs, or if you leave it on auto settings, it'll hit upwards of 4.7-4.8GHz on lightly threaded workloads. That's quite a bit faster than the 3800x's ~4.5GHz boost, and it's not taking into account how much faster the 5800x is per clock. Oh and don't forget that they're only running 3200 CL14 memory, compared to your custom 3733 tune.

 

[Almstsobur]

lol you serious? So that means you didn't actually read what they were doing here.

The 5800x was deliberately capped to 4GHz since that's a speed that every chip in these tests, from Zen 1 all the way to Zen 3, can comfortably run at with no tweaking involved. That's what you're comparing your 3800x to here, a neutered chip that's being denied about 15% of its potential boost capability.

The 5800x can quite commonly hit 4.6GHz all core OCs, or if you leave it on auto settings, it'll hit upwards of 4.7-4.8GHz on lightly threaded workloads. That's quite a bit faster than the 3800x's ~4.5GHz boost, and it's not taking into account how much faster the 5800x is per clock.

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

 

[herpaderp]

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