AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (8C/16T, Zen 3) Beats Intel Core i9-10900K (10C/20T) in AotS Benchmark

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
12,595
Points
113
amd-ryzen-logo-lava-cracks-1024x576.jpg
Image: AMD



Benchmarks for AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800X have surfaced (via APISAK) at the Ashes of the Singularity benchmarking site. The discovery not only confirms that red team is skipping a beat and adopting the 5000 Series nomenclature for its Zen 3 processors, but that its 8-core “Vermeer” SKUs may perform even better than Intel’s 10-core offerings.



According to comparisons shared by Hexus, the Ryzen 7 5800X manages to hit 167 FPS in the Crazy 4K preset (normal batch). Intel’s Core i9-10900K, on the other hand, only achieves 136 FPS. While there are many factors at play (e.g., memory capacity and speed), we’re seeing optimistic estimates of up to 20 percent higher performance for the Ryzen 7 5800X...
Click to expand...

Continue reading...


 
Looking like AMD will be getting my money for CPU's for years to come. So happy with my 3700x that replaced a 2600K but already looking ahead for when I have to retire the 4930K rig in the cave.
 
More reasons to stick with Ryzen, My 2700 has been great and probably would do just fine for 4k gaming for another year or so..at 65W :)

Gonna try it with a 3090 when they are a bit more available, if it is getting in the way of things I can always just go 3700X or 5700 whatever.
 
Man this is really starting to feel like the late 90s and early 00s.

Now if only Epic would release an official, real, 100% done, Unreal Tournament. I'd be in heaven.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Man this is really starting to feel like the late 90s and early 00s.

Now if only Epic would release an official, real, 100% done, Unreal Tournament. I'd be in heaven.
Click to expand...
We're due for one, aren't we? What with the latest UE builds for the new consoles with all the shiny stuff?

Eduardo_Domingot said:
Juicy Juicy Juicy rumors and only rumors, but I still expect to see AMD deliver a walloping with its CPU lineup.
Click to expand...
I have a 9900K, and not being that 'hardcore' of a gamer, I really can't see a clear upgrade on the market. About the only thing I could do that would make a difference is go for significantly more cores with AMD, which I'd do in a heartbeat if I needed the additional cores, and yet that'd probably run games within a margin of error at best next to my current CPU.

However, if AMD actually can give us higher single-core performance and more cores without any crippling gotchas, it might finally be time to switch back to team green for CPUs!
 
LazyGamer said:
I have a 9900K, and not being that 'hardcore' of a gamer, I really can't see a clear upgrade on the market.
Click to expand...
Probably the best, most sensible CPU intel has released in years. I like the 10900 stuff but the 9900K pretty much covers it. However, both were outside of my budget and I really wanted to be ready for PCIe 4.0. I will say that after coming from nearly ten years of using Intel "i" series I've been extremely happy with my 3700x. Really was a 'plug-n-play' kind of build. I was nervous but after one BIOS update to top it off things just work. I have not had a single issue since the build was done last November.
 
I've only really recommended AMD lately outside of those that insist on having the 'fastest' CPU for gaming. I picked up my 9900K early in its release cycle before we really knew whether the issues seen with the 1000- and 2000-series with regards to stuff like UEFI releases and memory compatibility would be repeated.

But with stability out of the box figured, and chipset / board issues likely to not be a lasting concern, I'm really interested in what AMD does next!
 
Eduardo_Domingot said:
Juicy Juicy Juicy rumors and only rumors, but I still expect to see AMD deliver a walloping with its CPU lineup.
Click to expand...

Not really. This is literally the worst "gaming benchmark" to judge a CPU by. It's interesting that it beats Intel's Core i9-10900K here, but it isn't an indication that we'll see the same thing in other games and game engines.
 
Dan_D said:
Not really. This is literally the worst "gaming benchmark" to judge a CPU by. It's interesting that it beats Intel's Core i9-10900K here, but it isn't an indication that we'll see the same thing in other games and game engines.
Click to expand...
Yeah I am not stating that we will. Its just a rumor as I said and I am only trying to say I have high expectations for this CPU lineup. I know you have more of a luke warm expectation and that's OK. Neither one of us actually knows whats coming up in terms of performance.
 
Eduardo_Domingot said:
Yeah I am not stating that we will. Its just a rumor as I said and I am only trying to say I have high expectations for this CPU lineup. I know you have more of a luke warm expectation and that's OK. Neither one of us actually knows whats coming up in terms of performance.
Click to expand...

I'm expecting a definite improvement on the performance front. I'm expecting more than Intel's bullshit 7-11% performance increases which always came out to 0-3% in reality. 15% or more seems like a reasonable expectation. I don't believe rumors about 5.0GHz boost clocks. If they are "true" it will likely be more of the same. That is, the boost clocks do reach those levels, but do so infrequently enough that it doesn't really count.
 
Last edited:
I'm more interested in real world performance. Not forced boost clocks that almost no one will ever see under specific conditions.
 
Dan_D said:
I'm expecting a definite improvement on the performance front. I'm expecting more than Intel's bullshit 7-11% performance increases which always came out to 0-3% in reality. 15% or more seems like a reasonable expectation. I don't believe rumors about 5.0GHz boost clocks. If they are "true" it will likely be more of the same. That is, the boost clocks do reach those levels, but do so infrequently enough that it doesn't really count.
Click to expand...
Yeah the 5GHz thing I dont believe either. I am thinking maybe we will see a sustained 4.6 or 4.7 this time around. I would love to be wrong.
 
Eduardo_Domingot said:
Yeah the 5GHz thing I dont believe either. I am thinking maybe we will see a sustained 4.6 or 4.7 this time around. I would love to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Each iteration of Zen seems to have gone up 100MHz. A boost clock of 4.8GHz on the top model I could believe. Although, I think it would be more clock speed shenanigans like what we see with Zen 2.
 
AotS is a useless benchmark that has always overwhelmingly favored AMD.

AotS should never be used in any benchmark. It is utterly useless in predicting performance in anything except AotS it's a total outlier.

Anyone who benchmarks with AotS is just trying to sell an agenda, not tryong to provide an honest representation of performance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top