Ryzen 5 5600X benchmarks appear, cruise past Intel's Core i5-10600K

midian182

Posts: 6,187   +51
Staff member
What just happened? With the launch of AMD’s Ryzen 5000 processors just over two weeks away, anticipation is heating up for the next-gen CPUs. That excitement will be intensified following leaked benchmark results showing the Ryzen 5 5600X outperforming Intel’s Core i5-10600K.

Both chips feature a six-core/12-thread design, and while AMD’s offering has 32MB of L3 cache compared to the Intel chip’s 12MB, its 3.7 GHz base/4.6 GHz boost clocks can’t match the i5-10600K’s 4.1 GHz/4.8 GHz specs. Team blue’s processor also comes with a 125W TDP, whereas the Ryzen 5 5600X is rated at 65W.

As reported by TechPowerUp, the SiSoftware Sandra submission comes from prolific leaker @TUM_APISAK.

On paper, one would expect Intel’s product to be the better performer, but it seems the Zen 3 architecture has something to say about that assumption. The Ryzen 5 5600X scores 255.22 GOPS in the Processor Arithmetic test and 904.38 Mpix/s in the Processor Multi-Media test.

The Core i5-10600K, meanwhile, managed averages of 224.07 GOPS and 662.33 Mpix/s, respectively. That makes the Ryzen CPU 13.9 percent and 36.5 percent faster, respectively, than its rival.

Image courtesy of Kitguru

The results also show the Ryzen 5 5600X performing 18.8 percent and 44.6 percent faster on average than its Ryzen 5 3600X predecessor. Kitguru has helpfully compiled a list of all the new Ryzen 5000 CPU scores and compared them to their Ryzen 3000-series equivalents.

AMD has long stood in the shadow of Intel’s chips when it comes to gaming performance, but team red promises things will be different with Zen 3. The company says its Ryzen 9 5900X beat Intel’s Core i9-10900K in all but one of the games it tested at 1080p/High Quality. With the Ryzen 5000 series launching on November 5, we’ll soon discover the accuracy of its claims.

Permalink to story.

 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,273   +2,125
Zen 3 pretty much has to have better IPC than Intel's 10th gen at this point. It's the only way AMD's performance claims in the recent reveal add up.
 

Eldritch

Posts: 269   +373
It's really amazing how Intel lost its lead and keeps on falling further behind. Remember, these are gaming benchmark which is supposed to be strong point of Intel. They have already lost in productivity and power consumption.
They have far bigger budget, better facilities and experience and yet they are getting thoroughly trampled and it keeps getting worse.
At this point I would like to read an in depth article of how Intel managed to screw things up so badly.
 

mosu

Posts: 546   +187
It's really amazing how Intel lost its lead and keeps on falling further behind. Remember, these are gaming benchmark which is supposed to be strong point of Intel. They have already lost in productivity and power consumption.
They have far bigger budget, better facilities and experience and yet they are getting thoroughly trampled and it keeps getting worse.
At this point I would like to read an in depth article of how Intel managed to screw things up so badly.
Me too
 

Goat11

Posts: 23   +50
If it was up to Intel, we'd be still using 2 cores 4 threads CPUs for the rest of our lives. They've stopped innovating, invested in marketing only and thus - lost the battle to AMD. But I think they'll come back with a punch (well, maybe... it'll take a few years, but a good competition benefits us all)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

ThrakazogZ

Posts: 43   +58
If it was up to Intel, we'd be still using 2 cores 4 threads CPUs for the rest of our lives. They've stopped innovating, invested in marketing only and thus - lost the battle to AMD. But I think they'll come back with a punch (well, maybe... it'll take a few years, but a good competition benefits us all)
This is so true. While AMD has this coming out, Intel spent money on having Avengers on the boxes for the 10 series.......
 

franticfrosty

Posts: 80   +84
Almost seems like intels engineers & leadership has given up even attempting to improve or they're too blinded by their ego to see they are no longer top dog.

No way in hell can I see a respectable company continue to lose to a competitor without serious changes to improve and try to beat the competition that they trampled on so much. If I worked for intel I'd be depressed at the continuous losses to such a small company as AMD, Intel has the expertise, money, knowledge to destroy AMD when it comes to processing power but they just really arent even trying anymore.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charles Olson

MaxSmarties

Posts: 400   +219
Why would you expect bargain pricing from the leading product?

People really do expect AMD to give out better chips for celeron pricing for some reason.
Because that was what every AMD fanboy was telling us in the last 3 years...
Now almost $500 for an 8 cores are ok, right ?
 
It's really amazing how Intel lost its lead and keeps on falling further behind. Remember, these are gaming benchmark which is supposed to be strong point of Intel. They have already lost in productivity and power consumption.
They have far bigger budget, better facilities and experience and yet they are getting thoroughly trampled and it keeps getting worse.
At this point I would like to read an in depth article of how Intel managed to screw things up so badly.
It's not in-depth, but it's a start...
https://www.pcgamer.com/what-went-wrong-intel/
 

Aryassen

Posts: 109   +140
Because that was what every AMD fanboy was telling us in the last 3 years...
Now almost $500 for an 8 cores are ok, right ?
More like "reasonable". The price is comparable to the competition, the performance is (slightly) better, so maybe not as much bang for buck, but still OK in my book. And if you take into consideration the useable HSP (for some AMD models), the (Intel) chipset limitations (RAM speeds in particular), and longevity of the (AMD) CPU sockets, it all adds up to a an attractive option, even with the elevated prices.

No, it is not the best for everyone, but sure as hell is a good option for a LOT of potential buyers out there.
 
Last edited:

kiwigraeme

Posts: 165   +118
Unfortunately AMD got absolutely slaughtered in Battlefield 5.

As stated else where a 3600x and 3080 is enough for most people

well a 3600 and a 3060 is real good for most of us
 

mattferg

Posts: 88   +54
Zen 3 pretty much has to have better IPC than Intel's 10th gen at this point. It's the only way AMD's performance claims in the recent reveal add up.
Zen 2 had better IPC than Intel 10th gen... it just pad lower clocks. Zen 3 has even better IPC and clocks are much closer.
 

Vulcanproject

Posts: 1,273   +2,125
Zen 2 already does(at least in certain applications), it just lags behind in gaming because of the split L3 cache and higher core-to-core worst case latency.
Zen 2 had better IPC than Intel 10th gen... it just pad lower clocks. Zen 3 has even better IPC and clocks are much closer.
Most tests show it's a trade between them depending on application, Zen 2 does not have comprehensively better IPC. Techspot own tests against the 9th gen has shown that, as well as Legit Reviews and HotHardware tests against the 9th gen coming to the same conclusions.

Zen 3 should have entirely superior IPC virtually across the board as long as the uplift is at least 10 percent, if I need to clarify my comment.
 

R00sT3R

Posts: 327   +807
At this point I would like to read an in depth article of how Intel managed to screw things up so badly.
It doesn't really need an in depth article to understand why they find themselves in the position that they are.

Two words, 'Arrogance' & 'Complacency' explain everything.
 

arrowflash

Posts: 233   +203
Guess I'm going to finally upgrade my aging i5 4690 to a Ryzen 7 5800X.

My last primary PC with an AMD processor was the Athlon XP 2600+. It'll feel good to finally return to the AMD side.