AMD's Ryzen 5 5600X beats the Core i5-10600K and Core i7-10700K in leaked benchmarks

[midian182]

Highly anticipated: We’re only a couple of days away from the highly anticipated launch of AMD’s Ryzen 5000 CPUs. The big question on everyone’s lips is how will the chips stack up against Intel’s equivalents. Based on leaked benchmarks, team blue has good reason to be worried: the Ryzen 5 5600X annihilates the Core i5-10600K in multi-threaded and single-core Cinebench R15 tests, and even beats the Core i7-10700K.

The Cinebench R15 benchmarks were posted by prolific leaker TUM_APISAK (original source: LTT Forums user Jumper118, who got the CPU from eBay yesterday, apparently). The Ryzen 5600X was running at 4.7 GHz across all six of its cores with a voltage set to 1.256 V, and the test platform used DDR4 memory set to 3200 MHz (CL14 timings) in an Asus ROG Crosshair VIII Hero motherboard.

pic.twitter.com/VEuMK86tqG

— APISAK (@TUM_APISAK) November 2, 2020

In the single-threaded benchmark—an area where Intel has traditionally outperformed its rival—the Ryzen 5 5600X scored 258 points. The Core i5-10600K, for comparison (thanks, Anandtech), scored 206 points, making AMD’s chip 25 percent faster. That’s despite the Ryzen running at a slower clock speed and with a 60W lower TDP.

The performance difference was even wider in the multi-threaded tests, where the Ryzen 5 5600X scored 2,040 points. That makes it 42 percent faster than the Core i5’s 1,428 points.

The Zen 3-based processor is also significantly faster than its predecessor, the Ryzen 5 3600X, beating it by 25 percent and 22 percent in multi-threaded and single-threaded tests, respectively. It also outperformed the Ryzen 7 3700X in the single-threaded benchmark (258 points vs. 204), though the last-gen chip edges ahead in multi-threaded workloads (2,112 vs. 2,040). Even the Core i7-10700K can’t match the Ryzen 5 5600X, scoring 2,005 points and 217 points.

We've also seen Cinebench R20 scores leak. They show the Ryzen 5 5600X scoring 4,746 points in multi-threaded and 609 points in single-threaded tests. Beating the Core i5-10600K and Ryzen 5 3600XT. It also outperforms the Ryzen 7 3700X and Core i7-10700K in single-threaded workloads, but not multi-threaded.

These aren't the first benchmarks to hint at the power of the Ryzen 5 5600X. Another leak from @TUM_APISAK last month also showed it hammering the Core i5-10600K.

The latest Ryzen processors launch on November 5, so there are only a few days before we can confirm their performance. But it certainly looks as if Intel should be concerned.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/87417-amd-ryzen-5-5600x-beats-core-i5-10600k.html

 

[emmzo]

That`s what happens when you sleep on the wheel, only improving on a six years old architecture is the definition of lazy. No competition, no innovation, inflated prices. Intel deserves it.

 

[R00sT3R]

..And my 9900K's slide into mid table benchmark obscurity continues apace.

Once king of the hill, now becoming the slow bloated middle aged dude, at the back of the bus.

 

[Aryassen]

..And my 9900K's slide into mid table benchmark obscurity continues apace.

Once king of the hill, now becoming the slow bloated middle aged dude, at the back of the bus.

Ohh, come on: the 9900K had two solid years as a top performer, and it still IS a potent gaming CPU which you could pair with even the most recent GPU monsters, wihout worrying about performance left on the table (productivity is a different story, that was always Ryzen's strong suite).

We just have more choices and real competition in the top segment (too), but a strong 8/16 CPU is not going to be irrelevant anytime soon (and I'm saying this as a happy Ryzen user, eagerly waiting for the 5600X launch).

 

[Achaios]

Intel totally deserve this.

They (and NVIDIA) have done everything they could to "pull an intel" on unsuspecting/ignorant customers and sell them the most outdated equipment possible for as much money as possible thereby ensuring that they have to replace their equipment asap with new gear.

Let us remember some of the most famous "intels" Chipzilla pulled on the average customer:

1. Monocore Laptop CPUS: Intel sold for years monocore CPUS for laptops. The high end option was a monocore Chip with HT, the Intel Pentium 4 3.06 HT. A laptop with this chip onboard sold for around $2500.


2. QX 9650 , 4 Cores, 4 Threads retailed for $899 in Dec 2007 when it was released. Customers who forked almost $1k to buy this chip saw their investment nullified in just 5 months time when Chipzilla released the Q9650 for $329.

On top of everything else, the Q9650 even overclocked better and produced less heat than the QX9650.

3. Sockets that accepted only the same generation of chips thus ensuring that your socket was obsolete the moment you bought it. Think Haswell's S1150 LGA. It could only take Haswell CPUS and NOT Broadwells, the next iteration on 22NM.

4. i7-7700K 4Cores with HT as top mainstream CPU for 2017. If Chipzilla could help it, we'd all still be buying 4 Cores chips with HT as top mainstream CPUs.

They were stalling technological progress just because they could and b/c it meant more $$ for them.

5. i5-9600k/i7-9700k, 6 & 8 Cores respectively but not HT. This is one of the newest "Intels" Chipzilla pulled. These 2 chips were obsolete the moment you bought them.

Intel's the worst thing that ever happened for the consumer in this business in the past 20-30 years. I really hope AMD puts them out of business.

 

[treetops]

Must sell 3700x and buy a 5600x! (well when my b450 gets a bios update)

 

[Adi6293]

Intel totally deserve this.

They (and NVIDIA) have done everything they could to "pull an intel" on unsuspecting/ignorant customers and sell them the most outdated equipment possible for as much money as possible thereby ensuring that they have to replace their equipment asap with new gear.

Let us remember some of the most famous "intels" Chipzilla pulled on the average customer:

1. Monocore Laptop CPUS: Intel sold for years monocore CPUS for laptops. The high end option was a monocore Chip with HT, the Intel Pentium 4 3.06 HT. A laptop with this chip onboard sold for around $2500.


2. QX 9650 , 4 Cores, 4 Threads retailed for $899 in Dec 2007 when it was released. Customers who forked almost $1k to buy this chip saw their investment nullified in just 5 months time when Chipzilla released the Q9650 for $329.

On top of everything else, the Q9650 even overclocked better and produced less heat than the QX9650.

3. Sockets that accepted only the same generation of chips thus ensuring that your socket was obsolete the moment you bought it. Think Haswell's S1150 LGA. It could only take Haswell CPUS and NOT Broadwells, the next iteration on 22NM.

4. i7-7700K 4Cores with HT as top mainstream CPU for 2017. If Chipzilla could help it, we'd all still be buying 4 Cores chips with HT as top mainstream CPUs.

They were stalling technological progress just because they could and b/c it meant more $$ for them.

5. i5-9600k/i7-9700k, 6 & 8 Cores respectively but not HT. This is one of the newest "Intels" Chipzilla pulled. These 2 chips were obsolete the moment you bought them.

Intel's the worst thing that ever happened for the consumer in this business in the past 20-30 years. I really hope AMD puts them out of business.

As much as I would like to see Intel to go out of business this would not be good for any of us and it would put 100 000 people out of job which is also something I do not want for anyone so lets just see them sweat for a year or two and then come back strong so we can all benefit from the competition : - )

 

[emmzo]

Intel totally deserve this.

They (and NVIDIA) have done everything they could to "pull an intel" on unsuspecting/ignorant customers and sell them the most outdated equipment possible for as much money as possible thereby ensuring that they have to replace their equipment asap with new gear.

Let us remember some of the most famous "intels" Chipzilla pulled on the average customer:

1. Monocore Laptop CPUS: Intel sold for years monocore CPUS for laptops. The high end option was a monocore Chip with HT, the Intel Pentium 4 3.06 HT. A laptop with this chip onboard sold for around $2500.


2. QX 9650 , 4 Cores, 4 Threads retailed for $899 in Dec 2007 when it was released. Customers who forked almost $1k to buy this chip saw their investment nullified in just 5 months time when Chipzilla released the Q9650 for $329.

On top of everything else, the Q9650 even overclocked better and produced less heat than the QX9650.

3. Sockets that accepted only the same generation of chips thus ensuring that your socket was obsolete the moment you bought it. Think Haswell's S1150 LGA. It could only take Haswell CPUS and NOT Broadwells, the next iteration on 22NM.

4. i7-7700K 4Cores with HT as top mainstream CPU for 2017. If Chipzilla could help it, we'd all still be buying 4 Cores chips with HT as top mainstream CPUs.

They were stalling technological progress just because they could and b/c it meant more $$ for them.

5. i5-9600k/i7-9700k, 6 & 8 Cores respectively but not HT. This is one of the newest "Intels" Chipzilla pulled. These 2 chips were obsolete the moment you bought them.

Intel's the worst thing that ever happened for the consumer in this business in the past 20-30 years. I really hope AMD puts them out of business.

Hail AMD, the savior, who rebranded the same videocards for a couple of years. Look, this should be a lesson for any company not to fxck with their customers, but if there`s no competition, we just switch a monopoly for another and AMD won`t be shy of milking by Intel`s recipe.

 

[nnguy2]

Hail AMD, the savior, who rebranded the same videocards for a couple of years.

I think in amd case this could be excuse... They were on the brink of collapse and bankruptcy and needed to put their resources in a better investment to save the company, namely development of ryzen.

 

[whateversa]

Synthetic benchmark comparisons of Intel and AMD CPUs are pointless - actual game/application benchmarks always tell a different story.

 

[hahahanoobs]

I hope to grab one within a week of launch on Thursday.
It will be painful waiting til January for beta BIOS. *sniff*

 

[SinEaterr]

@Achaios Q9550-Q9650 that was epic CPU qot mine 9550 E0 stepping from 2.83ghz to 4.2ghz good air. 1.256v if I recall. 4.3 GHz benches. On Asus maximus formula then PB5 deluxe when they actually made good heatsinks. Good times.Now I can't imagine buying intel CPUs or anything for that matter anymore.

 

[candle_86]

Synthetic benchmark comparisons of Intel and AMD CPUs are pointless - actual game/application benchmarks always tell a different story.

Not quite, Intel's single threaded power is showing to be lacking severely by these, and synthetic gives a good idea of where it can preform. Intel's last hope is highly optimized code that preforms poorly on ryzen, this is how they survived in the pentium 4 days. P4 beat a64 on highly optimized code that blocked and chips from using see2/3

 

[TheBigT42]

I have a x570 MB, DDR4 3600 ram, and a NH-U12A waiting on a CPU

 

[mrvco]

Synthetic benchmark comparisons of Intel and AMD CPUs are pointless - actual game/application benchmarks always tell a different story.

That's the question... will it be a different story? Or the same story? We will see in a couple of days.

 

[BSim500]

Intel's the worst thing that ever happened for the consumer in this business in the past 20-30 years. I really hope AMD puts them out of business.

Meanwhile the rest of us non-fanboy grown-ups would simply rather see Intel compete better than childish spite-fuelled fantasies of thousands of ordinary people losing their jobs on the back of trying to create a religious cult out of whether a piece of cardboard that a CPU comes packaged in is coloured red or blue...

 

[kiwigraeme]

I think Intel stopped making us excited for CPUs - that's why my other PC is still a I5-3570k ( this one is 3700x) - I kept thinking screw you Intel - my PC is doing fine - I don't need to buy a new MB and CPU for small gains year on year - eventually if no AMD I would of upgraded - but with a quiet desperate seething palpable unrequited hatred ( well a mild resentment TBH )

 

[Avro Arrow]

One thing that people must remember about Intel. Intel's not alone in the blame game. All the people who happily forked over their money to Intel are just as to blame as Intel is. When everyone is throwing money at you, you get to thinking that they're liking what you're doing so you don't bother changing.

People talk about how horrible the FX series was but my FX-8350 only cost me $170CAD and played every game under the sun perfectly for five years. I never suffered from bad frame rates or stutter. I was completely content with it. People had this dumb impression that they NEEDED Intel CPUs because they never were willing to try the other side. Well, I had used Intel exclusively for about twenty years before I bought my first AMD CPU (to be fair, AMD's presence was VERY limited at the time).

When I worked at Tiger Direct, I got to see AMD CPUs up close and I was pretty impressed with the value that they offered. They were the easiest things in the world to sell to people because a Phenom 9500 was the same price as a Core2Duo E8400. As soon as people heard "quad-core for the same price as dual-core" they couldn't stop themselves from handing over their money for it. The Intel CPU was best for gaming but for combined tasks, the Phenom 9500 was better (it also scored MUCH higher in the Passmark CPU Suite).

I went and grabbed a Phenom II X4 940 and, compared to the Core2Duo it was replacing, it was an absolute monster. The experience itself was identical to the one I had before but it was much faster. Knowing that AMD ran Windows exactly the same way as Intel made me perfectly comfortable sticking with them. Sure, the FX was no i7 but considering that it did everything that I wanted it to and the fact that it was dirt-cheap made it easy to keep using even as I saw all the hate for it by people who had never owned one.

Intel's best friends at the time were consumerism, corruption and ignorance (three things that never seem to be in short supply). Having seen their (and nVidia's) way of doing business from behind the scenes in the industry made me never want to own their stuff again. Unfortunately (for them, not for me), people have a tendency to be lazy and stupid. Instead of going out and informing themselves, they listened to people who may or may not have been paid shills posing as journalists and were unable to realise that the sizeable-looking gaps in the graphs often only represented between 500 and 750 milliseconds.

 

[SixTymes]

When will DDR5 platforms and the memory of course be released? any idea?

 

[Darth Shiv]

4. i7-7700K 4Cores with HT as top mainstream CPU for 2017. If Chipzilla could help it, we'd all still be buying 4 Cores chips with HT as top mainstream CPUs.

They were stalling technological progress just because they could and b/c it meant more $$ for them.

5. i5-9600k/i7-9700k, 6 & 8 Cores respectively but not HT. This is one of the newest "Intels" Chipzilla pulled. These 2 chips were obsolete the moment you bought them.

Intel's the worst thing that ever happened for the consumer in this business in the past 20-30 years. I really hope AMD puts them out of business.

I thought HT was still pretty poor? When is HT actually a significant benefit?

Ok looking at this fairly recent article, looks like it has come a decent way...

How Screwed is Intel without Hyper-Threading?

Today we're exploring the impact disabling Hyper-Threading has on Intel processors. We've done this in the past and it's an interesting test, however there are new incentives...

www.techspot.com

 

[Khanonate]

That`s what happens when you sleep on the wheel, only improving on a six years old architecture is the definition of lazy. No competition, no innovation, inflated prices. Intel deserves it.

I agree but it's not lazy, it's called "milking the cow".

 

[hahahanoobs]

That`s what happens when you sleep on the wheel, only improving on a six years old architecture is the definition of lazy. No competition, no innovation, inflated prices. Intel deserves it.

AMD was down and out during that time. I'd like to bag on Intel when they lose on equal footing. AMD is doing well, but they need consistency.

 

[HardReset]

When will DDR5 platforms and the memory of course be released? any idea?

Like I said on another thread: AMD confirmed 2022.

 

[Ludak021]

So, I should have waited 20 years for AMD to make a good cpu again? Is that it? I should not have bought 9700 some years ago, and I still enjoy it, and waited for another cinebench cpu? How many % is 5600 faster in games and movies than my cpu, or any modern CPU really? 2%? 3%? Its that what should we have waited for and not have bought intel/nvidia?

That's just not how market works. AMD's incapability to come up with "ryzen" sooner is AMD's fault, not mine, intel's or anyone's but AMD's.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I thought HT was still pretty poor? When is HT actually a significant benefit?

Ok looking at this fairly recent article, looks like it has come a decent way...

How Screwed is Intel without Hyper-Threading?

Today we're exploring the impact disabling Hyper-Threading has on Intel processors. We've done this in the past and it's an interesting test, however there are new incentives...

www.techspot.com

Hyperthreading as first used on the Intel Netburst architecture and it failed so badly that it wasn't seen again until years later on Nehalem. Nehalem was a much better implementation and so hyperthreading continued through Sandy Bridge up to today.

AMD was late to the hyperthreading scene. The FX-series didn't have it (although when your best-selling CPU has 8 physical cores it probably didn't matter at the time) so AMD's first implementation of their SMT occurred with the release of Zen. Since it was a newer-designed system, it proved superior to hyperthreading which hadn't appreciably changed since Sandy Bridge (for that matter, nothing has changed much since Sandy Bridge).