Intel Core i5-11600K vs. AMD Ryzen 5 5600 vs. Core i5-10600K

ExReey

Posts: 17   +42
So let's say you have the same setups as Steve is using in the testing, and you run the same power test all the time. The difference between the two systems is 64 watts, so a full day of non-stop Blender benchmarking equates to 1.536 kWh. The average US cost per kWh of electricity is $0.1269 and with the current difference in CPU prices being around $95, that would take 487.4 days of non-stop Blender benchmarking to cover that amount.

While there's obviously considerable variance in kWh cost by state, how many people are going to be purchasing a Ryzen 5 5600X with the sole purpose of benchmarking Blender 24/7 or any high power consumption operation continuously for day after day?

just as a comparison: in Belgium is the current average cost about $0.29 per kWh.

So when you would run the Blender test non stop 365 days, the 5600X would save you about $163 each year.
 

McMurdeR

Posts: 282   +271
I'm totally on board with that conclusion. As good as they are, the 5600 chips are clearly overpriced in the current environment, and the platform will start to look dated by the autumn. I wouldn't normally normally advise anyone else to do this, but considering the stock/pricing situation, and with a reasonably capable 4 core 6700k in my possession, I've decided to wait for next gen and the first DDR5 platforms.

If you really must upgrade now that 10600KF is a steal. Put the extra budget into a better GPU if you can find one.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,452   +3,603
AMD may have overcharged for the lastest and greatest, is that what you are refering to? I could be wrong but I do not remember AMD charging more than Intel in the last 22 years. I do remember the race to 1GHz though.
You mean the original Athlon 950 Mhz / 1 Ghz ? If I remember correctly, the 1 Ghz Pentium III from Intel cost $990. Not sure how much they charged for their 1.13 Ghz model but since that one had to be recalled it does not matter.

Wasn‘t that around the time that Intel heavily engaged in anti competitive practices that they were fined for in several countries ?

Some of us old ones might not remember this....because...reasons.
Ahem. No. The AMD Athlon 64 era, specifically the Athlon 64 FX 62, a $1031 part, which was a whole 7-8% faster then $800 parts, to say nothing of it's ~15-20% advantage over $600 parts. The only reason AMD got away with this was Intel's inability to make netburst perform at all.
 

mbk34

Posts: 179   +122
Maybe it's just me but I found the initial table that lists the stats for each processor difficult to read. Wouldn't it of been easier to put values in every cell so there was no confusion over what value went with which processor? I understand what you're trying to do but, because there's no borders around the cells, it just means the reader has to work things out from the tabbing which seems unnecessary.
 

theruck

Posts: 308   +148

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,511   +1,091
"Frankly, the Ryzen part is not worth that price premium."

AMD is aware of this, but all CPUs that they can manifacture today are sold nonetheless.
Techspot always reviews with a money is the most important factor attitude.

To the person buying the computer to use like a tool and has no interest in how it works Techspot gives the correct recommendation. But if you are a keen builder, you’ve done your research and you are looking for the best and most interesting technology then you should ignore the conclusions of this site.

Ryzen is not worth the money if you are looking at this from a purely financial standpoint. But the nerds will drool far more over Ryzen parts than the Intel parts at this point in time.
 
Look at how miraculously, Intel can now offer such a CPU for that price.

They are only doing this now because AMD is kicking their arrogant and corrupt @sses.

If not, that CPU would easily cost us over US$700!

That's why I refuse to give them any money and hope that they die.

AMD already started charging much more. If Intel dies and AMD becomes a monopoly they'll start charging $1000 for Ryzen 5. That's how capitalism works. There is no good guy / bad guy. If there is competition the price will come down. If no competition the price will go up regardless of which company makes it.
 
This is what I want to know. What is the advantage to having the additional 4 PCIe lanes directly to the CPU? Actually, I have a pretty good idea of what it means in a technical way. I can also understand why going with a wider 8 lane DMI based on 3.0 PCIe instead of a faster 4 lane DMI based on PCIe 4.0 can be better for systems with more connected devices. The wider bandwidth should reduce bottlenecking and allow more simultaneous communication with connected devices and 3.0 is still pretty fast.

What I want to know is how does 4 more lanes on the CPU and a wider DMI affect loading times during gaming and connectivity. The I5 is a decent processor and AMD is still a bit better at that. The whole line of Ryzens, if I remember correctly, only has 16 lanes on the CPU and 4 lanes to the motherboard chipset. That is a big difference too and reviewers are not covering what that means in real performance.

That is a very important metric. Maybe more so that FPS in games. The FPS is largely dependent on the GPU but the GPU can't get you from the title screen to the actual gaming experience any faster. It can't put new textures in the GPU faster. The CPU has to do that and that comes down to faster communication with devices in many cases.

Is the difference large enough to be noteworthy for gaming? If, not then what about productivity. Many people are part time content creators. I can l already see that an 8 lane DMI and a fast NVME to the CPU will be impactful to a non linear editor like adobe. Not everyone can afford the cheaper X core or the more expensive Threadripper and 16 lanes to the CPU and a 4 lane to the chipset on everything but the new 11th gen intel chips can be restrictive with a multi disk setup for an editor. Does it make a significant difference for editing?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I was detailed about what I would like to see reviewed in a previous post but I would like to just state it in a more concise way.

Reviewers do a great job at measuring processing power with the various benchmarks but these days the CPU's communication capabilities are very important too. Processing and communication. Two important things. Intel is better at communication by far with the 11th gen, on paper. Will you benchmark it?

Intel says it wants to create chips for a broader range of applications. On paper, the 11th gen chips looks like a big step in that direction. The whole line seems to have moved a step closer to X core/Threadripper terrain.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,109   +688
This is what I want to know. What is the advantage to having the additional 4 PCIe lanes directly to the CPU? Actually, I have a pretty good idea of what it means in a technical way. I can also understand why going with a wider 8 lane DMI based on 3.0 PCIe instead of a faster 4 lane DMI based on PCIe 4.0 can be better for systems with more connected devices. The wider bandwidth should reduce bottlenecking and allow more simultaneous communication with connected devices and 3.0 is still pretty fast.

What I want to know is how does 4 more lanes on the CPU and a wider DMI affect loading times during gaming and connectivity. The I5 is a decent processor and AMD is still a bit better at that. The whole line of Ryzens, if I remember correctly, only has 16 lanes on the CPU and 4 lanes to the motherboard chipset. That is a big difference too and reviewers are not covering what that means in real performance.
Main advantage is to allow one M.2 NVMe drive to operate at full speed without slowing down other peripherals (that are usually connected to chipset). It also allows lower USB latencies with one M.2 drive.

It will have impact on gaming when games start to take advantage of it. Many games load equally fast from HDD vs SATA SSD currently.

You have Very bad memory. All Ryzen CPU's (from 2017 onwards) have at least 24 PCIe lanes from CPU. Zen and Zen+ CPU's have in fact 32 but 8 are disabled (that leaves 24 usable). It took 4 years from Intel to get on par with Ryzen.

That is a very important metric. Maybe more so that FPS in games. The FPS is largely dependent on the GPU but the GPU can't get you from the title screen to the actual gaming experience any faster. It can't put new textures in the GPU faster. The CPU has to do that and that comes down to faster communication with devices in many cases.

Is the difference large enough to be noteworthy for gaming? If, not then what about productivity. Many people are part time content creators. I can l already see that an 8 lane DMI and a fast NVME to the CPU will be impactful to a non linear editor like adobe. Not everyone can afford the cheaper X core or the more expensive Threadripper and 16 lanes to the CPU and a 4 lane to the chipset on everything but the new 11th gen intel chips can be restrictive with a multi disk setup for an editor. Does it make a significant difference for editing?
Again, depends on software. You could get difference between NVMe and SATA SSD on heavy loads. Also multi disk setup larger PCIe lanes make difference. That's main reason why Threadripper exists (aside from core count, of course).
 
Main advantage is to allow one M.2 NVMe drive to operate at full speed without slowing down other peripherals (that are usually connected to chipset). It also allows lower USB latencies with one M.2 drive.

It will have impact on gaming when games start to take advantage of it. Many games load equally fast from HDD vs SATA SSD currently.

You have Very bad memory. All Ryzen CPU's (from 2017 onwards) have at least 24 PCIe lanes from CPU. Zen and Zen+ CPU's have in fact 32 but 8 are disabled (that leaves 24 usable). It took 4 years from Intel to get on par with Ryzen.


Again, depends on software. You could get difference between NVMe and SATA SSD on heavy loads. Also multi disk setup larger PCIe lanes make difference. That's main reason why Threadripper exists (aside from core count, of course).

Thanks for the correction. I did remember that wrong. Do you remember why they disabled 8 of the lanes?
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,109   +688
Thanks for the correction. I did remember that wrong. Do you remember why they disabled 8 of the lanes?
No official info so far and perhaps never will be. Pick one or more below:

- AMD wanted to use chips that have some faulty PCIe lanes for Ryzens
- AMD didn't want Ryzen to be closer against Threadripper
- 32 lanes would have made motherboards more expensive (since manufacturers would have wanted to use those lanes)
- 24 lanes was considered more than good enough (it was 4 years ahead Intel)
- AMD already planned ahead time when they will have separate I/O chip (Zen2) and there 24 lanes would be bit cheaper than 32.
 

theruck

Posts: 308   +148
No. That is not severe attack. It works "severely" only with outdated software. It only leaks useless data when used against patched software.

Not severe, not even vulnerability at all. Intel still has huge lead.
don't get too excited too soon man... it's always only matter of time...
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,109   +688
don't get too excited too soon man... it's always only matter of time...
Like said on that thread, AMD recommends leaving root cause for that (Speculative Store Forwarding) on. Not severe at all. AMD's architecture still holds well.
 

Soaptrail

Posts: 37   +43
Ahem. No. The AMD Athlon 64 era, specifically the Athlon 64 FX 62, a $1031 part, which was a whole 7-8% faster then $800 parts, to say nothing of it's ~15-20% advantage over $600 parts. The only reason AMD got away with this was Intel's inability to make netburst perform at all.

I do not remember that at all so I found this on anandtech:

The Athlon 64 FX-62 verdict is a lot easier than with the 4000+ since the performance advantage is clear thanks to a 1MB L2 cache per core and an increase in clock speed. We would still recommend the FX-62 over the Extreme Edition 965 for gamers, but as we've seen in the past there are some situations where being able to execute four simultaneous threads, as you can with the EE, has its benefits.

Given the incredible price premium you pay for the FX-62, we would still strongly recommend going with a lower clocked Athlon 64 X2 instead. You can always overclock to get close to FX-62 performance or, alternatively, you could stay at the lower clock speed and enjoy lower thermal output.

So it looks like this was better than the competing Intel CPU which was $999 based on my google search but neither was a justified purchase based on the crazy price tags.
 

AlistairAA

Posts: 7   +8
Techspot always reviews with a money is the most important factor attitude.

To the person buying the computer to use like a tool and has no interest in how it works Techspot gives the correct recommendation. But if you are a keen builder, you’ve done your research and you are looking for the best and most interesting technology then you should ignore the conclusions of this site.

Ryzen is not worth the money if you are looking at this from a purely financial standpoint. But the nerds will drool far more over Ryzen parts than the Intel parts at this point in time.

Would you have ever bought the 8700k in the past? Or only the 8700 non-k. Just think of the Ryzen 5600X as the highest performing superior product, so of course people will pay more for it. When you are building a computer that costs $1000, it is easily justifiable to pay $100 more for the best 6 core CPU on the market. The 5600X is only $30 more than the 11600k where I live. That has nothing to do with Ryzen or Intel. Is the current top of the line 5600X MUCH faster than a 11400 or 11600k? Yes. Is the 11900k much faster than the 11700k or 5800X? No. That is simple.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,353   +1,511
11th gen is far less of a flop than Zen+ was.
20% IPC is better than 3% I promise.

I'm also still waiting for the 2800 and 2800X...

And you don't have to go back 20 years to see AMD charging a lot more for a lot less.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,109   +688
11th gen is far less of a flop than Zen+ was.
20% IPC is better than 3% I promise.

I'm also still waiting for the 2800 and 2800X...

And you don't have to go back 20 years to see AMD charging a lot more for a lot less.
You do remember Zen+ didn't make any changes for architecture? Gaining 3% more IPC without architecture changes is quite impressive. In fact I cannot figure out if Intel has never done same. Probably not.
 

summermick

Posts: 83   +114
How did you get the benchmark without random reboots?
my ryzen with B550 randomly reboots when I am not playing games! recent 9 bios updates haven't fixed it.
I'm not buying any hardware for another decade
 

AlistairAA

Posts: 7   +8
How did you get the benchmark without random reboots?
my ryzen with B550 randomly reboots when I am not playing games! recent 9 bios updates haven't fixed it.
I'm not buying any hardware for another decade
Try to replace your power supply? Random reboots have nothing to do with the CPU. Your motherboard could be broken also, but check the PSU first.
 

summermick

Posts: 83   +114
Try to replace your power supply? Random reboots have nothing to do with the CPU. Your motherboard could be broken also, but check the PSU first.
what happened to your critical thinking? SAT is not a thing in high school anymore? Random reboots only happen while not playing games eliminated the cause of PSU. Are people really this dumb now?
FYI, AMD already admitted that B550/X570 fncked up. Something wrong with its low idle.
 

HardReset

Posts: 1,109   +688
what happened to your critical thinking? SAT is not a thing in high school anymore? Random reboots only happen while not playing games eliminated the cause of PSU. Are people really this dumb now?
FYI, AMD already admitted that B550/X570 fncked up. Something wrong with its low idle.
Faulty capacitors on PSU may cause random reboots any time. That reboots happens outside gaming even more points at PSU.

There is not known "random reboot" issue on Ryzen CPU's or any chipsets. That B550/x570 things was about USB ports. And even that is quite rare. Of course CPU or chipset may be broken but more probable reasons are PSU, memory or motherboard.