New Ryzen 5000 Series Benchmarks Put AMD’s “Fastest Gaming CPUs” Claim to the Test

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
11,202
Points
83
ryzen-logo-amd-logo-1024x576.jpg
Image: AMD



During its Zen 3 event, AMD boldly claimed that its new Ryzen 5000 Series processors had overtaken Intel’s Comet Lake-S lineup as the fastest gaming CPUs in the world.



Early third-party benchmarks for the Ryzen 9 5900X, Ryzen 7 5800X, and Ryzen 5 5600X published by Brazilian YouTube channel Pichau seem to support that theory, but they also suggest that Intel remains king in certain games.



You can see how AMD’s Zen 3 lineup compares with Intel’s Core i9-10900K below. While red team’s CPUs rank first for the majority of...
Click to expand...

Continue reading...
 
Ohhhh... This is so good!

I wish I was a fly in Intel's boardroom today!
 
At those frame rates, in those types of games(GTAV and RDR2), are you really going to notice 10 FPS?
 
Looks like its a wash in terms of minimum FPS. The delta between min and max FPS also looks to be tighter on Intel chips at a glance. But we're talking about a scale of 1-3 FPS here. So this is now a solid, dead heat competition between Intel and AMD. Intel is actually the cheaper option, at the moment, going for $530 for the 10900K compared to $550 for the 5900X.
 
Riccochet said:
At those frame rates, in those types of games(GTAV and RDR2), are you really going to notice 10 FPS?
Click to expand...
That's been the argument pro-AMD users have had for years when they were behind by just a bit.

I've heard in a few places that the 6 and 8 core may do better than the 12 and 16... a bit lower on clock, but since there is only 1 CCX, it gains a bit better on these ultra-high FPS. Haven't seen any benches to confirm that yet though.
 
Armenius said:
Intel is actually the cheaper option, at the moment, going for $530 for the 10900K compared to $550 for the 5900X.
Click to expand...

What's the "buy in" cost between the two? Intel's CPU might be cheaper, but aren't AMD's motherboards (mostly) cheaper than Intel's for the same features?
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
What's the "buy in" cost between the two? Intel's CPU might be cheaper, but aren't AMD's motherboards (mostly) cheaper than Intel's for the same features?
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure about that (regarding cheaper MB support). While you can get cheaper X570 solutions, they are lacking in feature-set and lacking in VRM designs. For the Budget CPU's this may be worth it, but for the 5900X I wouldn't want to skimp on the VRM's supporting it.
 
$20 difference between CPU's isn't really a bargain, considering the 5900X is considerably faster.
 
Space_Ranger said:
I'm not so sure about that (regarding cheaper MB support). While you can get cheaper X570 solutions, they are lacking in feature-set and lacking in VRM designs. For the Budget CPU's this may be worth it, but for the 5900X I wouldn't want to skimp on the VRM's supporting it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, AMDs boards are up in cost. I'll say that most of that (and my own readiness to pay for it) comes from not wanting to skimp at all.

Perhaps things will change a bit soon, but right now, you do want the very best chipset and at least an above average board for AMD, when you could easily make a few compromises with an Intel combo without consequence.
 
Did all of you miss the "for the same features" part of the post? I never said anything about cheap, budget boards or boards lacking features the other has to cut costs.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Did all of you miss the "for the same features" part of the post? I never said anything about cheap, budget boards or boards lacking features the other has to cut costs.
Click to expand...
Shoot, I'm just talking about getting it stable under load with perhaps faster RAM and a minor tune. That's the worry with budget-oriented AMD boards with their higher-end CPUs.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Did all of you miss the "for the same features" part of the post? I never said anything about cheap, budget boards or boards lacking features the other has to cut costs.
Click to expand...
I mean, you can get a B550 with decent VRMs, multi-gig ethernet, pcie 4.0 (GPU and first NVME), all the tuning/clocking you want for well under $200... What Intel boards can I buy in that range with feature parity? Sure I may skip the $89 B550 if I'm going 5800x+, but for a 5600x it'd work fine and I could still run decent memory speeds. I get the argument, but there are so many boards/features available it's hard to really say you have to spend a lot to build an AMD system. You don't have to, you just can if you want to.

Anyways, seems AMD closed the last deficit to Intel, so now after years of hearing but AMD isn't behind by much from the AMD boys and Intel boys saying Intel or nothing for gaming, I fully expect these arguments to be 100% reversed from each camp. The only difference is before at least when AMD was behind in gaming they were better in many other things, where Intel doesn't have anything to fall back on. Fun times to be a PC enthusiast, maybe not as fun times if your just an Intel enthusiast, but even if you are it will mean cheaper prices, so win all around.
 
So is this the last on this socket now?

I'm on a 2700 and it's doing fine for my purposes, on a ITX platform.
Thinking I will wait for the next socket and then upgrade the MB too...
 
Auer said:
Also, gonna be a while before I look at Intel again.

View attachment 615
Click to expand...
That looks like scaling is based on... cache? And then maybe clockspeed after that?

Regardless, there's very little reason to look outside AMD CPUs for productivity, just don't try to throw an AMD GPU in there too, I just had to rip one out ;).
 
In gaming looks like it is the same wash between AMD and Intel like the early official benchmarks showed. Games that scale better with cores are obviously performing better on the 12-core 5900X compared to the 10-core 10900K. If you do any kind of productivity work AMD is still the obvious choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top