AMD Ryzen 5000 launch: "Fastest gaming CPU," higher clocks, higher prices

Julio Franco

Posts: 8,695   +1,575
Staff member

AMD CEO, Lisa Su unveiled the company's Zen 3 architecture today in the form of new Ryzen 5000 series desktop processors. First of all, yes, this is the Ryzen 5000 series. AMD has branded the lineup in this way to avoid any confusion with existing Ryzen 4000 parts. AMD's had this weird split for a while where Zen 2 on mobile has been Ryzen 4000, while desktop parts were the 3000 series. That ends today with the Ryzen 5000 series which is all Zen 3 moving forward.

AMD announced four new processors, all of which will be available on November 5. The Ryzen 9 5900X brings a 12 core, 24 thread design with a 4.8 GHz boost clock, 70 MB of cache split into 64 MB L3 and 6 MB L2, along with a 105 W TDP. It'll be available for $549.

Next up is the Ryzen 7 5800X, an 8 core 16 thread part with a 4.7 GHz boost clock, 32 MB of L3 cache and 105 watt TDP for $449, and then we have the Ryzen 5 5600X which at $299 brings 6 cores, 12 threads, a 4.6 GHz boost clock, 32 MB of L3 cache and a 65 watt TDP.

At the top of the stack is the Ryzen 9 5950X: 16 cores, 32 threads, with a boost clock up to 4.9 GHz, 72 MB of L3 + L2 cache, and a 105 watt TDP, priced at $800 with the same November 5 launch date.

AMD has kept the same core count configuration as its predecessors. We're also getting the same amount of cache in each chip, and the same TDP, with AMD explicitly mentioning to us the power consumption will be the same between Zen 2 and Zen 3-based chips, presumably of the same core count.

One aspect of the Ryzen 5000 series that we can see from these specs is the higher frequency AMD is able to hit. Previously for the X series, AMD were hitting 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 GHz from the six core through to 16 core parts, then with the XT models we got a small bump up to 4.5, 4.7, and 4.7 GHz for six through 12 core designs.

With Zen 3, AMD is hitting slightly higher clocks, from 100 to 200 MHz higher, which is a modest gain, however AMD is achieving this with no changes to the process node. New Ryzen 5000 chips are still using TSMC's 7nm manufacturing node.

The bigger news surrounding Zen 3 are the changes AMD has made to the core design. The company says this is an all-new design with a bigger jump than we got from Zen to Zen 2. Every area was looked over when trying to improve performance. One major change is a shift in the way the CCX modules work...

Zen 2 chiplets which featured eight cores were split into two four core CCX's each with 16 MB of L3 cache. Zen 3 unifies the design meaning each 8-core triplet has a single CCX with unified access to all 32 MB of L3 cache. AMD says this reduces latency for both the cores and memory significantly, which helps gaming performance. AMD says there's a 19% average IPC improvement for Zen 3 versus Zen 2.

AMD is also claiming higher performance per watt for Zen 3 versus Zen 2, at 2.4 times that of first-generation Zen. AMD will also proudly tell you it's 2.8 times more efficient than the Core i9-10900K, which is no surprise given Intel remains stuck on 14 nm with a Skylake-era architecture.

All connectivity in Zen 3 remains the same as before, so the same configuration of PCIe 4.0 lanes and the same memory support which remains at DDR4-3200 as a base spec, with up to DDR4-3733 getting a one-to-one ratio. With the Infinity Fabric, we were told that everything you know about Zen 2's memory applies to Zen 3, so the same recommendations for memory kits will apply.

You will also have spotted that all Ryzen 5000 models are more expensive than previous generations. Each product has received a $50 price increase, so for example where the Ryzen 7 3800X used to cost $400 at launch, the Ryzen 7 5800X will now cost $450. We don't think the price hike is unreasonable, and we’ve seen how CPU prices go down over time (sometimes faster in one generation than other), which does mean that at least for the short term, the newer processors will be more expensive than the ones they’re replacing by a wider margin.

We're also not seeing any “non-X” parts at launch. Zen 2 launched with the 3700X and 3600 as more affordable, lower clocked variants of the 3800X and 3600X, but that isn't happening this time around. We think the door might still be open for lower-cost Zen 3 parts, but we're not getting them at launch.

AMD did spend almost the entire presentation talking about gaming performance, and it's clear that this generation is when AMD expects to take the throne for not just productivity performance, but 1080p gaming as well. Benchmarks from the company itself should always be taken with a grain of salt, so keep that in mind as we go through some of these, but AMD is making some bold statements.

In Cinebench R20 single thread, AMD is claiming the Ryzen 9 5900X will hit a score of 631 making it the first desktop processor to hit the 600-point mark. That's with the IPC improvements and the slight clock speed jump to 4.8 GHz turbo. Previously, AMD would get around 530 in this benchmark with the 3950X, which means we could be seeing a 100-point or 19% performance improvement, which is right on what AMD has said should be the average IPC gain. Intel’s Core i9-10900K in our testing scored 551, so this would make the 5900X 15% faster.

AMD is claiming Ryzen 5000 is the fastest CPU on the market in their performance charts, which were tested at 1080p high settings using an RTX 2080 Ti and DDR4-3600 memory for all configurations including Intel’s.

The Ryzen 9 5900x was up to 25% faster in many CPU-limited titles than the Ryzen 9 3900 XT, and some gains were up to 50 percent higher like in League of Legends, and CS GO, according to AMD's numbers.

When compared to the competition, AMD expects to beat the i9-10900k in most games. What's most impressive here is that in games where AMD has struggled in the past like Far Cry New Dawn, AMD is now claiming a performance lead.

In our benchmarking, the 10900K was 18% faster than the 3950X in Far Cry, but now AMD says it's 2 percent ahead of Intel, which is a very minor lead, but given where AMD is coming from, it makes it a little more impressive and will put AMD in the conversation for those that want the "best of the best" gaming CPU.

In other titles AMD is typically claiming a ~5% lead on Intel's best gaming processor. AMD told us that they don't expect to beat Intel in every game, but that they should come pretty close and on occasion the wins can be significant. Of course, we'll have to see where AMD ends up in our benchmark suite, but with this generation AMD has gone from claiming they are in contention to being possibly the fastest.

AMD also states they have the fastest processor for single-thread heavy productivity workloads like Solidworks. When comparing the R9 5950X to the 10900K, AMD showed a six percent lead assisted by a 27 percent gain in performance over their previous generation flagship.

In the end, we'll have to wait for independent benchmarks to judge the value proposition that AMD is showing. Like all company-produced benchmarks, we suspect there has been some level of cherry-picking. To what extent, we'll have to wait until reviews come out.

AMD seems to have learned from rocky platform launches of previous Zen CPUs, because this time around they’re being more straightforward if you are planning to upgrade to a new CPU. Support for Ryzen 5000 with 500 series motherboards will come in two stages. Available already is initial support for Zen 3 on existing motherboards. Any BIOS update on these boards that includes AGESA 1.0.8.0 code or newer will be able to post and boot into a system with a Zen 3 processor installed.

AMD then says for the best Zen 3 experience there will be another BIOS update to AGESA 1.1.0.0 around launch on November 5. It seems that some boards have already received this code and have released updates, but it's expected most 500 series boards will have the update ready by launch. As for 400-series motherboards, B450 and X470, AMD is expecting better BIOS for these boards to be available starting January 2021.

As far as we know, there won't be a 600 series of motherboards anytime soon. It's all about 500 and 400 series for this launch. After seeing what AMD has in store with Zen 3, we think it's important to note just how crucial 400 series motherboard support is with this generation.

Finally, we got a very brief look at performance for an upcoming “unnamed” Radeon RX 6000 series GPU. The graphics card was shown off playing a game paired with a Ryzen 5000 CPU and we also got only a handful of benchmark figures.

Shown below is Borderlands 3, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, and Gears of War 5 played at 4K using maximum quality settings. All games were playable at 60+ fps. We don't know whether this is the highest-end part in AMD’s lineup, but the product shown is producing performance around the mark of Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 3080.

We'll learn more about the Radeon RX 6000 series at AMD's October 28 event, but we guess a little bit of a teaser won’t hurt anyone.

That's it for AMD's Zen 3 announcement, and now we'll just have to wait until we get these chips on hand and benchmark them. You can expect reviews to go live around that November 5 launch date, which is nearly a month away. Stay tuned.

Permalink to story.

 

DZillaXx

Posts: 113   +163
Tables sure have turned.

I figured Zen3 would best Intel at pretty much every task. Seems like it will be true.

Honestly why even go Intel at this point.

Next year Zen 4 will be here with a new socket and will be even faster. While Intel is still struggling to get 10nm desktop chips on the market.

5800X is going to make for one fast gaming Chip.

Sadly for Intel they are pushed so hard out the box there isn't much overclock headroom. Rocket Lake isn't going to get Intel back on top.
 
Last edited:

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,272   +2,121
Look at that big tasty 32MB chunk of unified L3 cache on the 8 cores. Low latency, gaming goodness. You can see why they have angled it further towards gamers. There should be nothing in it versus Intel's best especially when you get to 1440p and above.

Unified cache, higher clocks, decent IPC uplift. They claim 19 percent but even if it's only 10 percent real world that's enough to erase the gaming performance gap. It should all come together to give another really sweet evolution of Zen.
 

Kazkas

Posts: 18   +56
Great CPUs, but pricing is on the expensive side... if to buy a new now (5th Nov), I would calculate performance gain and price differences with Ryzen 3000 series... Hopefully 5000 series prices will also drop later and such question will not arise :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Linux7055
Tables sure have turned.

...

Sadly for Intel they are pushed so hard out the box there isn't much overclock headroom. Rocket Lake isn't going to get Intel back on top.
Ryzen 3000 is also pushed to the limit, even more than intel, that's why it has such a complex boost algorithm and very limited overclock headroom with high voltages.

I'm guessing ryzen 5000 is also pushed to the limit, you will need very good cooling to OC, but at least it seems to beat intel at default clock, which is very good news. Intel will have to innovate to recover from this.
 

Irata

Posts: 991   +1,467
TechSpot Elite
Look at that big tasty 32MB chunk of unified L3 cache on the 8 cores. Low latency, gaming goodness. You can see why they have angled it further towards gamers. There should be nothing in it versus Intel's best especially when you get to 1440p and above.

Unified cache, higher clocks, decent IPC uplift. They claim 19 percent but even if it's only 10 percent real world that's enough to erase the gaming performance gap. It should all come together to give another really sweet evolution of Zen.
And they could even launch a 64MB dual CCD eight core CPU down the road. Not sure how that would turn out performance wise for gaming but for non-gaming applications that could give a nice boost and make it easier to cool at the same time.
 

mAdmAnDingo

Posts: 59   +56
I am keenly waiting to pick up an 5950X. I have been waiting patiently all year for release, and AMD says it is launching with the rest of the launch line up,excellent, can't wait. And now I am just waiting to see their 6000 GPUs, as it could be my next GPU. Exciting times.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 978   +579
AMD price gouging hard. The 6 core model has literally doubled in price!

Of course they have the performance advantage. And because of this I imagine I will be buying one of these juicy looking new CPUs to replace my ageing but brilliant 4790k.

Lmao to all the *****s who genuinely believed AMD would keep their low prices once they had the upper hand over Intel. These two companies are just as bad as each other.
 

Irata

Posts: 991   +1,467
TechSpot Elite
Ryzen 3000 is also pushed to the limit, even more than intel, that's why it has such a complex boost algorithm and very limited overclock headroom with high voltages.

I'm guessing ryzen 5000 is also pushed to the limit, you will need very good cooling to OC, but at least it seems to beat intel at default clock, which is very good news. Intel will have to innovate to recover from this.
If AMD did not change their TDP methodology, it does not look like they pushed the cores to the limit. TDP has stayed the same and even gone down from 95W to 65W for the 5600X vs. the 3600X.

It could be that the 7nm process is hitting its limits.
 
Last edited:

mbk34

Posts: 102   +51
I'd been looking forward to this announcement for a while but came away feeling a bit underwhelmed. We seem to be (almost) getting Intel gaming performance for (almost) Intel prices. I (almost) feel I should just buy Intel.
 
Last edited:

JimboJoneson

Posts: 294   +475
AMD price gouging hard. The 6 core model has literally doubled in price!

Of course they have the performance advantage. And because of this I imagine I will be buying one of these juicy looking new CPUs to replace my ageing but brilliant 4790k.

Lmao to all the *****s who genuinely believed AMD would keep their low prices once they had the upper hand over Intel. These two companies are just as bad as each other.
Doubled in price?? Lol ... Er ... no. It went up $50 from launch price of 3600x - which is a 20% increase -- so you get 20%+ better improvement in performance (19% IPC + 300mhz more clocks), reduced TDP (65 vs 95), best in class gaming performance (to be verified), for 20% more price.

I would have preferred the pricing stay the same, but to call that gouging, compared to what Intel has done the past 7 years is a laughable joke.


But how about the IGP performance on those Rocket Lake laptop chips, eh?
 

Lew Zealand

Posts: 1,631   +1,688
TechSpot Elite
AMD price gouging hard. The 6 core model has literally doubled in price!

Of course they have the performance advantage. And because of this I imagine I will be buying one of these juicy looking new CPUs to replace my ageing but brilliant 4790k.

Lmao to all the *****s who genuinely believed AMD would keep their low prices once they had the upper hand over Intel. These two companies are just as bad as each other.
Go ahead and post where the list price of the 3600X is half the list price of the 5600X. Like Jimbo said, it's up $50, which seems an OK price increase. I'd rather not pay that difference but that's business.
 

JimboJoneson

Posts: 294   +475
If AMD did nit change their TDP methodology, it does not look like they pushed the cores to the limit. TDP has stayed the same and even gone down from 95W to 65W for the 5600X vs. the 3600X.

It could be that the 7nm process is hitting its limits.
Steve from GN confirmed with AMD that TDP methodology did not change. AMD said they performance improvements did not change power consumption at all vs Zen2 (to be verified in testing) - which is damn impressive.

As far as whether or not the cores are pushed to the limit, architecture might be a limiting factor over power constraints. We'll be able to determine how far they are pushed with OC results when we get 3rd party testing, but I suspect it will be very similar to what we saw with zen2.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,461   +6,134
AMD price gouging hard. The 6 core model has literally doubled in price!

Of course they have the performance advantage. And because of this I imagine I will be buying one of these juicy looking new CPUs to replace my ageing but brilliant 4790k.

Lmao to all the *****s who genuinely believed AMD would keep their low prices once they had the upper hand over Intel. These two companies are just as bad as each other.
You are thinking of the base x600 class CPU. The X model is listed here. As the article stated, price increase is $50.

You should check your info before going on a bashing parade.

I'd been looking forward to this announcement for a while but came away feeling a bit underwhelmed. We seem to be (almost) getting Intel gaming performance for (almost) Intel prices. I was hoping for more for a lot less.
More than Intel gaming performance. At no point do they insinuate that you are getting less. The price increase is a bit disappointing.
 

Maxiking

Posts: 134   +151
You are thinking of the base x600 class CPU. The X model is listed here. As the article stated, price increase is $50.

You should check your info before going on a bashing parade.



More than Intel gaming performance. At no point do they insinuate that you are getting less. The price increase is a bit disappointing.
3900x was supposed to be on par with 9900k, so only a fool can trust amd benches.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 113   +163
AMD price gouging hard. The 6 core model has literally doubled in price!

Of course they have the performance advantage. And because of this I imagine I will be buying one of these juicy looking new CPUs to replace my ageing but brilliant 4790k.

Lmao to all the *****s who genuinely believed AMD would keep their low prices once they had the upper hand over Intel. These two companies are just as bad as each other.
At $299 the 5600X is going to be near the top of every game benchmark and meet or exceed intel's best in a majority of games. I don't blame AMD for wanting to make money.

We will no doubt get cheaper SKUs later in life, these early batches are going to sell like hot cakes.

Intel is so far behind AMD in terms of Performance per Watt compared to AMD, even when looking at the best Intel has on 10nm mobile. No wonder Apple is ditching them. They had to backport their 10nm arch to 14nm for the desktop, and we won't get that till 1h of 2021. Even then it will be limited stock, high prices, and clock speeds pushed as far as they can go. High TPD no doubt. And depending on how high they are able to clock it, will only just get back to matching AMD on single core performance. As while they are well behind AMD in IPC even with tiger lake (Willow Cove) which rocket lake will use, intel does have a clock speed advantage with their 14nm node.

This is the start to a long dark period in Intel's history where they will no doubt be playing catchup for the next 3 or so years. If not more. Intel's 7nm process is well behind schedule already, so the first half of this next decade is not looking too good for them.

Maybe their Graphic cards will have better luck.
 

Evernessince

Posts: 5,461   +6,134
Last edited:

Raytrace3D

Posts: 210   +215
AMD price gouging hard. The 6 core model has literally doubled in price!

Of course they have the performance advantage. And because of this I imagine I will be buying one of these juicy looking new CPUs to replace my ageing but brilliant 4790k.

Lmao to all the *****s who genuinely believed AMD would keep their low prices once they had the upper hand over Intel. These two companies are just as bad as each other.
Well, the top end isn't that bad. I purchased a Threadripper 2950X less than 2 years ago for 899 (shoot, my motherboard was 599).. at 799 for a much higher clocked vastly superior IPC cPU for a hundred bucks less than the Threadripper part (105W compared to 180W) is a massive win in my book. Everyone saying the prices have gone up... maybe, but the way I see it, things are looking pretty awesome.. just remember what prices Intel is at and I think we can appreciate AMD pricing.
 

DZillaXx

Posts: 113   +163
3900x was supposed to be on par with 9900k, so only a fool can trust amd benches.
To be fair, the 3900x wipes the floor with the 9900k in 90% of non gaming workloads. While being pretty decent while playing games....

But yes the 9900K was a better CPU for people that only care about gaming performance. AMD never made it seem like they were going to beat intel in that area. But AMD made sure Zen 2's gaming performance was strong and right behind the best Intel had to offer. Price to performance Zen2 did a good job. Which is why its been a favorite for new PC builders.
 

JimboJoneson

Posts: 294   +475
3900x was supposed to be on par with 9900k, so only a fool can trust amd benches.
AMD never claimed full gaming parity with 9900k. What they did do is show a slide with the two in a few games where the performance was very close, with the Intel beating or equaling the AMD part in the majority of games shown on that slide.

If you concluded from that one limited slide that the 3900x was supposed to be exactly on par in all games with the 9900k, rather than performance of the games shown, then that was a fault of yours.

I'm not saying that the games and performance shown in these slides above aren't cherry picked, I'm saying instead of speculating on performance based on slide presentations (whichever camp one resides in), let's wait for 3rd party reviews before making a solid conclusion.
 

Neatfeatguy

Posts: 98   +95
Why no 5600 or 5700x?
I think we will get those later along with 4000 apus
Or it maybe that variants such as these could be OEM only type items - it happens at times. Sometimes pre-built computers from companies such as HP or Dell get to do deals with manufacturers of CPUs or GPUs to use a lower cost/slightly lower performance variant.

For example: maybe Nvidia has a bunch of chips for their RTX 3060, but they don't meet the specs. They might do a slightly cut down model for Dell/HP or whomever pays to get it and provide some oddly named 3060 model that's OEM only.

A real example of this was the GTX 660: the 660 had an OEM model (slightly slower) and a 660Ti model.