AMD's 12-core, 24-thread Ryzen 9 5900X is priced to compete with Intel's Core i9-10900K, now we need to find out how they stack up in terms of performance.
AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Review: i9-10900K Versus
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
mAdmAnDingo
Posts: 94 +82
Terrific, thanks for the review Steve. I am certainly impressed with the 5900X all round stellar performance (not to mention its efficiency). And any buyer should be more than satisfied with it, considering it is an incredibly potent CPU on all fronts. I am sure it will find a home in many a Techspot readers PC, and rightly so, it is an excellent addition to the 5000 lineup.
And now I am looking forward to your 5800X and 5600X reviews Steve. Especially the 5600X. AMDs high end looks great, and now I am eager to see the more mainstream offering, because I have a feeling it will be the 5000 budget gaming CPU to get. After seeing the results for the 5950X and now 5900X, I really think the 5600X will deliver terrific gaming and all round performance as well.
And now I am looking forward to your 5800X and 5600X reviews Steve. Especially the 5600X. AMDs high end looks great, and now I am eager to see the more mainstream offering, because I have a feeling it will be the 5000 budget gaming CPU to get. After seeing the results for the 5950X and now 5900X, I really think the 5600X will deliver terrific gaming and all round performance as well.
Last edited:
amghwk
Posts: 1,547 +1,539
Same price. More cores. Similar gaming performance. Better hardcore productivity performance.
5900X is absolutely the clear winner here.
For AMD's Ryzen family, it's another ace up it's sleeve.
Only brand loyalists and egotists will argue otherwise. It's not a time to be arguing. It's time to face the reality.
5900X is absolutely the clear winner here.
For AMD's Ryzen family, it's another ace up it's sleeve.
Only brand loyalists and egotists will argue otherwise. It's not a time to be arguing. It's time to face the reality.
amghwk
Posts: 1,547 +1,539
After seeing the Zen 3's Ryzen 7's performance, I'll finally make the decision which Zen 3 to upgrade to, from my current i7 8700K.
The 5900X is slightly more acceptable, wallet-wise. The 5950X's asking price of extra $250 is a bit hard on me, considering how close is the 5900X to it.
3950X owners should stay put, I guess. They already secured a worthy CPU.
The 5900X is slightly more acceptable, wallet-wise. The 5950X's asking price of extra $250 is a bit hard on me, considering how close is the 5900X to it.
3950X owners should stay put, I guess. They already secured a worthy CPU.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
I see the 5800x snuck into a couple of graphs
Vulcanproject
Posts: 1,698 +3,210
5900X pulling down 70 watts less than the 10900k while packing two more cores. That's enough to lean AMD when you can pair it with a high end GPU and still have bearable power consumption. Not to mention if it happens to be an AMD GPU you might see additional performance gains with their direct memory access.
The future also belongs more to the 5900X and despite AM4 reaching the end there is still the 16 cores above it up for grabs later if you want one more step.
It's gotta be the 5900X. 10900k is essentially irrelevant at anything above $500 with these tests. A $50 price drop would make it more interesting but I wouldn't hold my breath. Only after Intel replace it with Rocket Lake early next year.
The future also belongs more to the 5900X and despite AM4 reaching the end there is still the 16 cores above it up for grabs later if you want one more step.
It's gotta be the 5900X. 10900k is essentially irrelevant at anything above $500 with these tests. A $50 price drop would make it more interesting but I wouldn't hold my breath. Only after Intel replace it with Rocket Lake early next year.
nonamepew
Posts: 19 +61
I cant wait for my 5900X to arrive. Will be pairing it with a Aorus B550 master. Looking forward to memory scaling article.
The only disappointing part is the pricing. Back in the good days of Athlon, AMD used to have better CPUs for less money. Now it looks they went Intel's way, so there's no incentive for me to rush a buy before I see how it will compare to Rocket Lake.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
I am actually very curious to see how Navi 21 performs on Intel and AMD without the direct memory access feature and then compare that to how Ampere performs on Intel vs AMD. I‘m really curious if the performance delta is the same.
amghwk
Posts: 1,547 +1,539
Yes, the above features made the point for the 5900X. And even if Intel decided to reduce it's price, it's only fitting that it's lower cores now demand it, in the face of 5900X. Either way, Intel's fate is sealed.
And I don't think Rocket Lake going to be any different soon. They got away with their overpricing for far too long. It's time they stop and have an insight.
veLa
Posts: 1,243 +985
Wow! This chip really makes me excited for the X470 and B450 chipsets to get the new BIOS. It would be a massive upgrade to drop into a slightly older, but still high end motherboard.
I'm still considering going with a 3900X / XT when the sales hit though. There will be mad deals on the last generation to be had. I work in an enterprise environment and we often apply the n-1 strategy to both patching and hardware.
I'm still considering going with a 3900X / XT when the sales hit though. There will be mad deals on the last generation to be had. I work in an enterprise environment and we often apply the n-1 strategy to both patching and hardware.
Vulcanproject
Posts: 1,698 +3,210
I doubt the GPU memory access will be a dramatic or widespread advantage for games but every little helps. 5 percent here or there will push the incentive to go all AMD and increase the value proposition.
Although the real competitor of the 10900K is the 5800X. The 5900X only competes in price. Intel better lower the price of the 10900K by like 100$ at least, because at its current price it really is good for nothing.
Theinsanegamer
Posts: 5,427 +10,174
The 5900x looks very tempting. Might have to sell my 9700k setup, they're still going for good money on ebay.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1722
I dont know why so many people think AMD is a charity and is going to willingly destroy their own margins forever. They have a consistent lead over intel and intel, even if they can get rocket lake out next year, will still be suffering from 14nm power usage and lower core counts. AMD exists to make money first and foremost, and with them taking the gaming crown and the photoship crown, intel has nothing they dominate outside a handful of games, and witht he next gen consoles rocking zen cores even that may be short lived. AMD is going to raise the price to cover their future R+D orders, they've been running on shoestring budgets for over 15 years now.
You really should take off your rose-colored glasses and put down the kool-aid. When AMD was ahead, we were gifted with the FX-57, a $1031 processor, in 2005! Lower end models were still pushing $400-500 at the same time.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1722
I dont know why so many people think AMD is a charity and is going to willingly destroy their own margins forever. They have a consistent lead over intel and intel, even if they can get rocket lake out next year, will still be suffering from 14nm power usage and lower core counts. AMD exists to make money first and foremost, and with them taking the gaming crown and the photoship crown, intel has nothing they dominate outside a handful of games, and witht he next gen consoles rocking zen cores even that may be short lived. AMD is going to raise the price to cover their future R+D orders, they've been running on shoestring budgets for over 15 years now.
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
I was thinking more in terms of driver optimizations for each CPU brand.
So if the performance delta between e.g. the 6800XT and 3080 is x% on Intel, will it be the same on AMD?
I don‘t expect it to be different but it would be interesting to see.
Last edited:
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
I’m more than likely going to purchase a 5800X (Or 5700X if it exists) as soon as I can. But that doesn’t mean I haven’t noticed the heinous markup for what is about 20% perf improvement over the 3xxx series. I knew this would happen, as soon as they dominate they start marking up just like Intel did. I don’t blame AMD for this, they want to make as much money as they possibly can. I blame Intel for being absent and allowing the competitor to run away with it.
Now the sick dog is Intel. Please Intel for the love of god don’t do to us what AMD just did and basically disappear from the marketplace for a decade. If you do then the Ryzen 6xxx series will have another heinous price bump and wel be back to paying $300 for a quad core again!
Now the sick dog is Intel. Please Intel for the love of god don’t do to us what AMD just did and basically disappear from the marketplace for a decade. If you do then the Ryzen 6xxx series will have another heinous price bump and wel be back to paying $300 for a quad core again!
Irata
Posts: 2,288 +4,002
Looking at Gamers Nexus review, the 5600x seems to be the gaming CPU to get, just like the 10600 was before for them.
Will still get at least an 8C model since my kid is really into multi tasking which reviews usually do not look at. But there is time - GPU. comes first and my 2700x is still doing fine.
Looking at the 5600x‘s results @65W, it really screams for a 5600XT @105W.
With the games used, raising the visual quality settings increases the amount of work done by the CPU. Yes, it also increase the workload for the GPU, but that's why a GeForce RTX 3090 is used, along with a 1080p resolution.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
I mostly agree with you although if you’re just gaming then the quite a bit cheaper and available for next day delivery 10600K is a consideration. Although personally I would choose the 5600X out of the two. But I don’t want either. Both are compromises. Looking at the benchmarks the 5900X is the part I want but it’s just too much over the 5800X to be worth it. As you say, “XT” parts would offer that little extra to make it much more worth it for gamers but we know if such branding comes out then wel be paying yet even more for it.
I’m replacing a 4790K, it’s 6 years old and is by far the best CPU I have ever purchased in my 20+ years of PC building. After 6 years I want more than 2 more cores.
Also judging by the stock issues I will more than likely find myself waiting for long enough to make it worth waiting just a little longer for rocket lake. (Which will also likely have stock issues but oh well).
Fortunately that magnificent 4790K actually isn’t struggling in games yet, it still does over 60hz in any game (but less in some than the 144hz my monitor goes at), I don’t need a replacement, I just want one and I want more USB C ports, WiFi 6 and PCIe4.
Wow, triggered. I don`t think you understand what charity is. Tip: it`s free. Also you don`t get my point. I said making them cheaper would have been an incentive for an early buy. Your argument: "they need the money". Really? You don`t say!
I suppose the article's interesting in an academic way but I can't picture anyone building a gaming PC with it as no game gets close to using this many cores. I also can't picture many productivity users who could make use of this amount of processing power and who actually build their own PC's. Maybe the point is mute as the chip doesn't seem to be available anywhere. Maybe it's just aimed squarely at review sites who just need the best CPU available to test the latest GPU's?
Similar threads
- Locked
