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

[Avro Arrow]

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.

I don't understand your post. I didn't wait for Ryzen and I was happy as a clam as I gamed my butt off with my FX with my twin HD 4870s and then HD 7970s.

Nobody said that anyone had to wait but I said that people who threw money at Intel because they believed the hype that AMD was horrible were either ignorant (not necessarily their fault) or lazy. The whole time I had my FX-8350 I couldn't understand why people said it was so terrible when it was working just fine for me. I could understand if people were doing CPU-intensive tasks like content creation but for gaming, the FX-8350 was great for me. Hell, although I knew that it could be overclocked, I never felt the need to do so.

 

[Avro Arrow]

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

I agree but when you've been milking the same cow because you couldn't be bothered to get off of your butt and go to another cow when the one you're at is running out of milk, that is pretty lazy. That's what Intel's been doing. Instead of moving to another cow, they just sat where they were and started charging more and more for less and less milk.

 

[toooooot]

F34k! I wanna jump from 2600x!

 

[Ludak021]

I don't understand your post. I didn't wait for Ryzen and I was happy as a clam as I gamed my butt off with my FX with my twin HD 4870s and then HD 7970s.

Nobody said that anyone had to wait but I said that people who threw money at Intel because they believed the hype that AMD was horrible were either ignorant (not necessarily their fault) or lazy. The whole time I had my FX-8350 I couldn't understand why people said it was so terrible when it was working just fine for me. I could understand if people were doing CPU-intensive tasks like content creation but for gaming, the FX-8350 was great for me. Hell, although I knew that it could be overclocked, I never felt the need to do so.

Entry level i5 was faster than FX bulldozer and that's why you can't understand my post - you are used to "meh" being "good enough for you". Gaming is/was CPU intensive task, about as intensive as average user will get CPU to do most of the time. Synthetic benchmarks, are done in an hour and that's that, if even that.

 

[HardReset]

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).

Just to remind: Hyper-Threading is Intel's term for SMT. There is not and probably never will be Hyper-Threading on AMD CPU's.

 

[Ludak021]

It's the same thing, different name...Years pass and it advanced, sure, but it's the same thing.

 

[HardReset]

It's the same thing, different name...Years pass and it advanced, sure, but it's the same thing.

Basically same thing but again: SMT is general term, Hyper-Threading is Intel only. So talking about AMD Hyper-Threading...

I'm actually surprised AMD didn't create marketing name for SMT. I expected Threadripper to be that one, but was wrong.

 

[Ludak021]

Sure. Then again, it's clear (now that Bulldozer is dead) what logical core is, and what it is not, they (AMD) also mark their CPUs as cores/threads so I, personally, think there is no need to market SMT really. Maybe market how better it is now and compared to Intel's HT, still...You don't go and get Epyc or Threadripper without knowing what is what. I could be wrong.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Just to remind: Hyper-Threading is Intel's term for SMT. There is not and probably never will be Hyper-Threading on AMD CPU's.

Please note that I used the term "hyper-threading" ONLY for Intel and SMT for AMD just to separate the two because AMD never gave their version of SMT a brand name.

Seriously though, do you honestly believe that someone who knows that hyper-threading first came out on Netburst Pentium 4 CPUs but was first effectively used on Nehalem i7s DOESN'T know that hyperthreading and SMT are the same thing? LOL

 

[HardReset]

Seriously though, do you honestly believe that someone who knows that hyper-threading first came out on Netburst Pentium 4 CPUs but was first effectively used on Nehalem i7s DOESN'T know that hyperthreading and SMT are the same thing? LOL

Of course. Not so many people know SMT and HT are same. Even less know what is HT anyway. And even less know about SMT.

So yes, there are many that know HT but have no idea that SMT is same thing. Do not overestimate people knowledge.