AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D Review: Gaming-First CPU

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
Everyone that uses productivity software that doesnt scale with cores? Autocad / photoshop / matlab etc.
Any valid reason why those software mostly use single thread? No, there isn't any. They just suck. Also who play games And use those?
Yes the 3d is marginally faster at low resolution gaming, gets blasted in everything else and yet its vastly more expensive. If this was an intel cpu you would be flaming the hell out of it.

I dont recall the 3d existing 1.5 years ago. Actually, its not even out yet. So what are you talking about
Remember 7700K? It was bit faster at gaming but lost on everything that used cores (against Ryzen). However Intel's alternative for Ryzen at that time both needed new socket (LGA2011) and cost $1000. With AMD you have choice between best gaming CPU and best productivity CPU on same socket. Problem?

5800X3D uses Zen3 architecture that came out around 1.5 years ago.
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
Any valid reason why those software mostly use single thread? No, there isn't any. They just suck. Also who play games And use those?
Yes, lots of valid reasons. Matlab for example, if you have 2 functions and the first one depends on the results of the first one, throwing 50 cores at the problem doesn't change anything, you need to solve the first function first in order to go to the 2nd one.

What do you mean who plays games and uses those? Are you saying that for example, engineers don't have gaming as a hobby? Only unemployed people play games? What the heck are you saying?
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
Remember 7700K? It was bit faster at gaming but lost on everything that used cores (against Ryzen). However Intel's alternative for Ryzen at that time both needed new socket (LGA2011) and cost $1000. With AMD you have choice between best gaming CPU and best productivity CPU on same socket. Problem?

5800X3D uses Zen3 architecture that came out around 1.5 years ago.
No it wasn't a bit faster, it was a LOT faster.

So basically the 3d is the modern 7700k, only it's more expensive and it's pretty terrible at single thread performance ;)
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
Yes, lots of valid reasons. Matlab for example, if you have 2 functions and the first one depends on the results of the first one, throwing 50 cores at the problem doesn't change anything, you need to solve the first function first in order to go to the 2nd one.
And this one function takes how long to compute on this "terrible single core performance" CPU? I would say no-one ever notices difference between Intel and "terrible single core performance" CPU.

And how about Autocad or Photoshop? Tasks those software do are supposed to be mostly pararrel ones.
What do you mean who plays games and uses those? Are you saying that for example, engineers don't have gaming as a hobby? Only unemployed people play games? What the heck are you saying?
I'm saying that most people that use those software for working purposes have different machines for work and gaming. Matlab does not need expensive GPU so probably someone who uses that for work also has another gaming machine.
No it wasn't a bit faster, it was a LOT faster.

So basically the 3d is the modern 7700k, only it's more expensive and it's pretty terrible at single thread performance ;)
It also depended on games that were run. Nowadays even FX-8350 looks pretty good against 2500K.

Basically yes but it has huge power consumption advantage against comparable Intel solutions and there are also available good choices for other uses on same platform. So not directly comparable.
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,549   +4,514
TechSpot Elite
I don't get why people are arguing so much about what is essential just a tech demo from AMD. We don't even know how the availability will be (maybe AMD will only make a few thousands and call it a day after Zen4 launches)

Yes, Intel has better CPUs right now, but at the same time the tech demo pretty much put a stop to any "rearview mirror" ideas from Intel. For new system builders Intel is my recommendation, and for people who just want a simple upgrade for their AM4 system, the 5800X3D is the best solution if they just want to play games.

If Zen 3 can gain this much with just the extra cache, then Raptor Lake better outperform expectation otherwise Intel will once again be on the back burner. All AMD needs is an extra 15% IPC + 200MHz compared to 5800X3D (with or without the gains from DDR5).
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
I don't get why people are arguing so much about what is essential just a tech demo from AMD. We don't even know how the availability will be (maybe AMD will only make a few thousands and call it a day after Zen4 launches)

Yes, Intel has better CPUs right now, but at the same time the tech demo pretty much put a stop to any "rearview mirror" ideas from Intel. For new system builders Intel is my recommendation, and for people who just want a simple upgrade for their AM4 system, the 5800X3D is the best solution if they just want to play games.

If Zen 3 can gain this much with just the extra cache, then Raptor Lake better outperform expectation otherwise Intel will once again be on the back burner. All AMD needs is an extra 15% IPC + 200MHz compared to 5800X3D (with or without the gains from DDR5).
Not just tech demo but proves that AMD could do something Intel couldn't. Something that really benefits without upping power consumption.

And that's why Intel is years behind AMD. It's not that hard to put something fast if just forgetting power consumption. I wouldn't even consider LGA1700 CPUs because power consumption simply is too high. And those who say power consumption does not matter, wait for few months until new GPUs arrive...

I'll laugh when Intel launches Sapphire Rapids. I heavily doubt it will match even Epyc 7742 (Zen2, 2018) on efficiency. Again, AMD does not really care That much about desktops, servers and laptops are what AMD aims right now. Sadly.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Arguing about power consumption on a desktop is what fanboys do when their CPU is underperforming… unless a CPU is actually throttling because of it, almost NO ONE cares how much power their CPU draws. They just want it to perform!
This CPU is decent as an upgrade - but you’d be a fool to purchase a new PC with it…

Honestly, it’s not even really worth it as an upgrade as the difference in gaming at higher resolutions (which most gamers would be using) is negligible on ALL modern CPUs and most PC owners would be better suited waiting for the new architectures on both sides.
 

Tantor

Posts: 314   +577
Excellent article from Techspot, as usual.

I would like to see a future article comparing the 5800x3d against an Intel running just 8 performance cores, at the same clock speed. Mano a Mano, 8vs8.
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
And this one function takes how long to compute on this "terrible single core performance" CPU? I would say no-one ever notices difference between Intel and "terrible single core performance" CPU.

And how about Autocad or Photoshop? Tasks those software do are supposed to be mostly pararrel ones.

I'm saying that most people that use those software for working purposes have different machines for work and gaming. Matlab does not need expensive GPU so probably someone who uses that for work also has another gaming machine.

It also depended on games that were run. Nowadays even FX-8350 looks pretty good against 2500K.

Basically yes but it has huge power consumption advantage against comparable Intel solutions and there are also available good choices for other uses on same platform. So not directly comparable.
Dude, discussing with you is pointless. You are a hard core fanboy. Just went back to the 1800x review thread and you were just talking **** about the 7700k,yet you are praising the new worse version of it thats called the 5800x 3d. Whatever, amd doesnt give a damn about you and neither do I. Keep on
 

yannus

Posts: 55   +45
I have to say that this CPU is a good ending point in the AM4 family. It shows a perspective of the future, takes back part of the performance crown and above all, shows that when a CPU maker wants, they can make a socket last years and that is good for the consumer. When I think of someone buying a 2xxx serie processor and a 3xx serie motherboard being able to update to a high-end 5950 or 5800x3d, that's quite more respectful of the customer than buying a motherboard for every generation of CPU. A friend of mine just reminded me the good old times of socket 7, and he was right, motherboards used to be CPU agnostic. As we don't have that anymore, it's necessary for CPU makers to make their motherboard/socket last.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
Dude, discussing with you is pointless. You are a hard core fanboy. Just went back to the 1800x review thread and you were just talking **** about the 7700k,yet you are praising the new worse version of it thats called the 5800x 3d. Whatever, amd doesnt give a damn about you and neither do I. Keep on
Like I said, you're forgetting many things. 5800X3D is 8 core, not 4 core. 7700K did not have CPU attached NVMe (like AM4 had). There was no good productivity CPU available for LGA1151, there is for AM4 etcetc. You just cannot directly compare there two CPU's.

That"s very evident if you actually read and try to understand my comments. Perhaps that's too much to ask...
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
Like I said, you're forgetting many things. 5800X3D is 8 core, not 4 core. 7700K did not have CPU attached NVMe (like AM4 had). There was no good productivity CPU available for LGA1151, there is for AM4 etcetc. You just cannot directly compare there two CPU's.

That"s very evident if you actually read and try to understand my comments. Perhaps that's too much to ask...
Oh, so you are buying a 3d and down the line youll upgrade to a 5950x? Lol, whatever, you are just a fanboy praising everything amd does. Peace
 

phinn888

Posts: 11   +9
Who's gonna spend that kind of money on a CPU to play at 1080p. Pointless.

Maybe but don't forget 1080p is still by far the most popular gaming resolution as per Steam stats, especially when you want to maintain higher framerates. A lot of people still buy them for 165Hz / 240Hz setups in competitive games too. Something like 1440p 165Hz would seem a better choice though.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
How about commenting what I wrote, not what You Think I wrote?
I'll give it a try :)
Like I said, you're forgetting many things. 5800X3D is 8 core, not 4 core. 7700K did not have CPU attached NVMe (like AM4 had). There was no good productivity CPU available for LGA1151, there is for AM4 etcetc. You just cannot directly compare there two CPU's.

That"s very evident if you actually read and try to understand my comments. Perhaps that's too much to ask...
So we take a 5800x, underclock it, and add a bunch of cache to make it better at games... and sacrifice a few % in productivity...

The actual "stats" of the 7700 were/are obviously different - we're talking several years ago and PCs have evolved (but not your AMD slant - we'll get to that later). But his point - that the Intel was the better gaming CPU while getting beaten in productivity is certainly valid for this conversation.

That we are even comparing the 12900 and 5800X3D, however, is patently absurd. The 12900 is double the price! Assuming price wasn't a concern though, only a complete AMD fanboy (ie: HardReset) would be purchasing the 5800. The 12900 performs almost exactly the same in games, while absolutely destroying it in every other benchmark.

And while we use 1080P benchmarks to see the THEORETICAL performance differences between CPUs, remember that at higher resolutions, the difference in ACTUAL gaming performance between almost ANY CPU is virtually identical - almost all modern games are GPU bound, not CPU bound.

Since most of us (obviously not HardReset) live in the real world, and cost IS a concern, the CPU to get - and this has been mentioned MANY times - would be the 12700 (or even the 12500) as they will be virtually identical in ACTUAL gaming performance, will thrash the 5800 in productivity, and are far cheaper.

The only people the 5800X3D make sense for are those who already have an AM4 motherboard and need an upgrade - and MUST have the best GAMING CPU AMD offers. Right now, the 5900X is selling for CHEAPER than the 58003DX - while it's not quite as fast at games, it is WAY better in productivity and would be the better buy.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
So we take a 5800x, underclock it, and add a bunch of cache to make it better at games... and sacrifice a few % in productivity...

The actual "stats" of the 7700 were/are obviously different - we're talking several years ago and PCs have evolved (but not your AMD slant - we'll get to that later). But his point - that the Intel was the better gaming CPU while getting beaten in productivity is certainly valid for this conversation.
Yes, that's what 5800X3D basically is.

Not that valid because AM4 also offered much better platform (CPU attached NVMe that is normal now on Intel too) and also with AM4 you could swap "productivity CPU" if you like on same platform. For LGA1151, 7700K was best performance everywhere. Not forgetting fact that 4 cores was simply not too much for even gaming at that time. Right now, 8 cores is considered enough for almost everything on gaming.

Somewhat OK comparison point but not that much.
That we are even comparing the 12900 and 5800X3D, however, is patently absurd. The 12900 is double the price! Assuming price wasn't a concern though, only a complete AMD fanboy (ie: HardReset) would be purchasing the 5800. The 12900 performs almost exactly the same in games, while absolutely destroying it in every other benchmark.
Perhaps that's why it's also so expensive. Of course AMD could release "5950X3D" (non-existing) that would be around as fast on games and on productivity too. But who would buy it? Because you get same gaming performance on cheaper 5800X3D, why bother with much more expensive "5950X3D"?

Of course that would be Real comparison point. Too bad, we don't have it.
And while we use 1080P benchmarks to see the THEORETICAL performance differences between CPUs, remember that at higher resolutions, the difference in ACTUAL gaming performance between almost ANY CPU is virtually identical - almost all modern games are GPU bound, not CPU bound.
I have been against low resolution benchmarks for years. You can look my old posts. Nothing to discuss here because I agree.
Since most of us (obviously not HardReset) live in the real world, and cost IS a concern, the CPU to get - and this has been mentioned MANY times - would be the 12700 (or even the 12500) as they will be virtually identical in ACTUAL gaming performance, will thrash the 5800 in productivity, and are far cheaper.
Again problem is that top models rarely make sense when looking at price/performance. This I agree. But, some people want Best performance and are willing to pay that. I also agree that.

This is more top gaming CPU -comparison, not does-it-make-sense -comparison.
The only people the 5800X3D make sense for are those who already have an AM4 motherboard and need an upgrade - and MUST have the best GAMING CPU AMD offers. Right now, the 5900X is selling for CHEAPER than the 58003DX - while it's not quite as fast at games, it is WAY better in productivity and would be the better buy.
Generally I agree that 5900X is better buy like even some Intel CPU's. But again, some people want top gaming performance so let them have it because 5800X3D is Clearly meant to be gaming CPU. Those who want something else than purely gaming CPU, should look elsewhere.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Of course AMD could release "5950X3D" (non-existing) that would be around as fast on games and on productivity too. But who would buy it? Because you get same gaming performance on cheaper 5800X3D, why bother with much more expensive "5950X3D"?
They would never release it as it can't run at high clock speeds - they'd need to lower the frequency... so you'd have a more expensive CPU that isn't as good at productivity as the "vanilla" 5950 and probably exactly the same in games as the 5800X3D (extra cores from 8 to 16 wouldn't have any real effect on gaming)... so yeah, who would buy that?

But hopefully with their new architecture later this year, they solve the clock speed problem with the 3Dcache and can offer a CPU that is better than the 5950 at productivity and better at gaming than the 5800X3D... assuming the price is about the same as the original 5950, THAT would be a CPU I'd want to buy!
I have been against low resolution benchmarks for years. You can look my old posts. Nothing to discuss here because I agree.
No, benchmarking at low resolutions is the only way to see which CPU handles gaming better.... you just have to keep in mind that in real world situations, the CPUs will perform about the same.
This is more top gaming CPU -comparison, not does-it-make-sense -comparison.
Then they should have used the 12900KS....
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
How about commenting what I wrote, not what You Think I wrote?
I did. You said the socket offers good productivity cpus, as that makes any difference. You are not upgrading the 5800x 3d into a 5950x, so who cares what the socket offers? Fact is the 3d is a worse (way worse actually) version of the 7700k.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,665   +1,321
They would never release it as it can't run at high clock speeds - they'd need to lower the frequency... so you'd have a more expensive CPU that isn't as good at productivity as the "vanilla" 5950 and probably exactly the same in games as the 5800X3D (extra cores from 8 to 16 wouldn't have any real effect on gaming)... so yeah, who would buy that?
Well, lower clock speeds may be just safeguard. AMD is not producing these too much and IF there is problems, then AMD is in trouble. But yes, because cache mostly helps in games and 8 cores is enough, who buys more expensive CPU that is not faster in games? Perhaps some will buy it but I doubt too many...
But hopefully with their new architecture later this year, they solve the clock speed problem with the 3Dcache and can offer a CPU that is better than the 5950 at productivity and better at gaming than the 5800X3D... assuming the price is about the same as the original 5950, THAT would be a CPU I'd want to buy!
Currently not confirmed if there will be Zen4 models with 3D cache on launch. Perhaps later but...
No, benchmarking at low resolutions is the only way to see which CPU handles gaming better.... you just have to keep in mind that in real world situations, the CPUs will perform about the same.

Then they should have used the 12900KS....
Exactly and I'm always promoting real world situations. If there is no difference, then there is no need to use unrealistic settings to get differences...

We could say 12900KS has too high power consumption, that's why usually there was FX-8350/8370 but not FX-9590...
I did. You said the socket offers good productivity cpus, as that makes any difference. You are not upgrading the 5800x 3d into a 5950x, so who cares what the socket offers? Fact is the 3d is a worse (way worse actually) version of the 7700k.
I didn't claim anyone upgrading from X to Y. It's just that you cannot compare CPU's because platforms that are so far away: LGA1151 platform offers 4C/8T CPU (7700K), that is best in both games and productivity. AM4 platform offers either 8C/16T with 3D cache OR 16C/32T without 3D cache.

In other words: 7700K is best in Everything platform offers, 5800X3D is not.
 

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
Well, lower clock speeds may be just safeguard. AMD is not producing these too much and IF there is problems, then AMD is in trouble. But yes, because cache mostly helps in games and 8 cores is enough, who buys more expensive CPU that is not faster in games? Perhaps some will buy it but I doubt too many...

Currently not confirmed if there will be Zen4 models with 3D cache on launch. Perhaps later but...

Exactly and I'm always promoting real world situations. If there is no difference, then there is no need to use unrealistic settings to get differences...

We could say 12900KS has too high power consumption, that's why usually there was FX-8350/8370 but not FX-9590...

I didn't claim anyone upgrading from X to Y. It's just that you cannot compare CPU's because platforms that are so far away: LGA1151 platform offers 4C/8T CPU (7700K), that is best in both games and productivity. AM4 platform offers either 8C/16T with 3D cache OR 16C/32T without 3D cache.

In other words: 7700K is best in Everything platform offers, 5800X3D is not.
Who cares about the platform when the 3d is the last cpu you are putting on it???? Wtf are you even saying. If you buy the 3d,youll be stuck with the 3d until you change your mobo, so who cares.

Point is the 7700k was a bad cpu, yet it was way better positioned than the 3d is today. And here you are praising the 3d, go figure.
 

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
Most people who will do a CPU upgrade do indeed have 3200Mhz RAM. So yeah, the 5800X3D makes perfect sense for them.
No they don't, especially not Ryzen 1000 owners lol, they were capped at 2933 for most boards and cpu combos and 3200/C14 was insanely expensive back then
 

Puiu

Posts: 5,549   +4,514
TechSpot Elite
No they don't, especially not Ryzen 1000 owners lol, they were capped at 2933 for most boards and cpu combos and 3200/C14 was insanely expensive back then
Early adoption was low (as you obviously know) and the 2933 issue was fixed within a few months with bios updates. You can run 3200MHz just fine on the first gen Ryzen PC.

Most cheap Ryzen systems run 3000MHz or higher, which isn't bad at all, if they were built in the last 3 years.

And the simple fact that you can even upgrade a 1st gen system to something like this should make you happy. Not use a condescending tone as if it's something to mock. We are talking about 2017 dude, 5 full years.
 
Last edited:

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
Early adoption was low (as you obviously know) and the 2933 issue was fixed within a few months with bios updates. You can run 3200MHz just fine on the first gen Ryzen PC.

Most cheap Ryzen systems run 3000MHz or higher, which isn't bad at all, if they were built in the last 3 years.

And the simple fact that you can even upgrade a 1st gen system to something like this should make you happy. Not use a condescending tone as if it's something to mock. We are talking about 2017 dude, 5 full years.
Not at all, Ryzen 1000 series had memory issues throughout. First with Ryzen 2000 series and 400 series chipsets it was all sorted.

You also needed premium memory to get decent gaming perf from 1000 and 2000 series, it ruined the value proposition. Many buyers lost 10-20% fps because of going cheap on the memory OR using an inferior motherboard with memory compatibility issues. 3200/C16 took alot of the perf compared to 3200/C14 on Ryzen 1000/2000. 3200/C14 memory was costly back then.

And lastly, very few Ryzen 1000 owners will have the option to upgrade to this chip, because most 300 series boards will never get firmware updated to support it. They will rather sell you a new motherboard.

TONS of 300 series boards only support up to 3000 series. Including expensive boards like Asus ROG Crosshair HERO X370 which was one of the most expensive X370 boards.

SOME boards support 5000 series, many do not. Especially cheaper boards, as in B series with crappy VRM.

AMD did not even wanted to support Ryzen 3000 and 5000 series on 300 and 400 series chipsets, before community raged...
 
Last edited:

Usukosej

Posts: 183   +82
5800x3D is faster than Intel's 320 euro CPU on games and makes that with much lower power consumption. That's good showing.

Who actually cares about single thread performance outside games? Right, nobody.

AMD's server based CPU with 1.5 year old architecture beats Intel's desktop only architecture on games with much lower power consumption? What Intel still have? Moar cores with much higher power consumption. Yes, if there wasn't too many Intel fanboys on laptop and server markets, Intel would have been in trouble years ago.

i5-12600K is ~250 dollars and will perform just as well as 5800X3D in gaming with OC to 5+ GHz on all-core (which all will do) while beating it in applications, meaning superior all-round performance. Hell even at stock the 12600K will be within a few percent of 5800X3D in gaming :joy: AMD wants 449 dollars for this chip, running on a dead socket.

Tons of people cares about single thread perf - alot of programs still are not multi threaded.

Alder Lake beats Zen 3 in both single and multi threaded workloads. AMD has nothing in the consumer-space that makes sense right now. Intel has best value and best performance.

Look up TECHSPOTS top 5 CPU article and you will see. Hard read for an AMD fanboy tho, I know :joy: Intel sits on BEST VALUE and BEST PERFORMANCE in the consumer space.

Intel owns enterprise markets (servers and laptops), desktop markets (intel sold better than amd in the last 2 quarters) and soon Intel is coming for AMDs GPU segment; Low to mid end. Nvidia dominates dGPU market with 85% .. AMD and Intel can share the remaining 15% 🤣 🤣
 
Last edited:

Strawman

Posts: 565   +289
Early adoption was low (as you obviously know) and the 2933 issue was fixed within a few months with bios updates. You can run 3200MHz just fine on the first gen Ryzen PC.

Most cheap Ryzen systems run 3000MHz or higher, which isn't bad at all, if they were built in the last 3 years.

And the simple fact that you can even upgrade a 1st gen system to something like this should make you happy. Not use a condescending tone as if it's something to mock. We are talking about 2017 dude, 5 full years.
Thats not true actually, on most mobos and cpus you cant run 3200 with anything but bdies. I had 3 r5 1600 with 3 different mobos, all had the same issue

I would be happy about the upgradability if the price of a mobo wasn't inclided in the price of the cpu. With the 3d being 450 euros, you ARE paying for a motherboard, you just dont get one, you have to stick with your old outdated one.