Ryzen 9 5950X - All Hail The King!

Auer said:
Jay called the benches vs. Intel "The digital equivalent of a prison yard beatdown".

Click to expand...

Overly dramatic. It was never this dramatic when Intel was doing the same or worse to AMD. Something Intel's been doing for most of the last two and a half decades or so. Intel is always judged by a different standard than AMD. When AMD is up, people applaud from the rafters while making excuses for them when they are down. People root for them like they are some blue collar, champion of the people and an underdog fighting the good fight. In reality, almost none of these perceptions align with reality.

That said, we pretty much knew what was going to happen.
 
www.pugetsystems.com

AMD Ryzen 5000 Series CPU Review Roundup

AMD's new Ryzen 5000 Series processors are here, with significant improvements including an advertised 19% improvement in IPC (instructions per clock). This should result in large performance gains across the board, but exactly how well do these CPUs perform in the real world?
www.pugetsystems.com www.pugetsystems.com
 
Space_Ranger said:
Intel needs to respond well. I'm always for competition, as we are the ones who benefit when competition is there!

Click to expand...
You know, I hadn't watched any of these yet, and that was probably one of Steve's better ones. I also have know idea how he keeps the names straight.

I will also say that I'm not that interested in average framerates; they represent how the game mostly plays, but when it comes to what you feel, that's those minimums, and that's how I compare CPUs for gaming. And GPUs. And whatever else.

In this sense, I can absolutely at least recommend AMD CPUs basically without caveat for gaming. Unlike with the 3000-series, there's essentially nothing to lose out on!

What I'm still hesitant about though, is recommending them for upgrades for those that already have a six- or eight-core Intel CPU, at least for gaming. We're still looking at AMD just barely edging out Skylake-based Intel CPUs where it counts for games. It also means that Intel doesn't have to move the needle much to gain back 'the lead', either, and we know they have Rocket Lake on the way.

Now, where I'll say that I'm actually seriously impressed, is that AMD has managed to increase performance in games by ~40% while dropping power usage. This is really starting to look more like Willamette vs. Thunderbird!
 
I will also say that I'm not that interested in average framerates; they represent how the game mostly plays, but when it comes to what you feel, that's those minimums, and that's how I compare CPUs for gaming. And GPUs. And whatever else.
Click to expand...
You must be real into memory overclocking, then!
 
Bloax said:
You must be real into memory overclocking, then!
Click to expand...
I wish. Faster memory is meaningless if you don't have enough of it, and gaming isn't the only thing I do on my systems. Being able to handle productivity / content creation is important for personal projects (and family's university projects), and I regularly find myself setting up VM clusters to test this or that, usually prototyping my wilder ideas for work.

But for dedicated gaming, absolutely, especially on AMD. I'm somewhat surprised that GN ran with 3200C14; while the average FPS improvement for Zen 3 is downright miraculous relative to its predecessors, the choice of lower speed (bandwidth) memory may have had an effect on the 1% lows on the AMD systems.

That's kind of why Intel has held on for gaming for so long; it's not that the AMD CPU cores themselves aren't competitive, but rather, with Intel you could get away with cheaper RAM, a cheaper motherboard, and effortless overclocking to produce top 1% results. AMD requires you to do more research and more planning and tinkering to get that result.
 
LazyGamer said:
You know, I hadn't watched any of these yet, and that was probably one of Steve's better ones. I also have know idea how he keeps the names straight.

I will also say that I'm not that interested in average framerates; they represent how the game mostly plays, but when it comes to what you feel, that's those minimums, and that's how I compare CPUs for gaming. And GPUs. And whatever else.

In this sense, I can absolutely at least recommend AMD CPUs basically without caveat for gaming. Unlike with the 3000-series, there's essentially nothing to lose out on!

What I'm still hesitant about though, is recommending them for upgrades for those that already have a six- or eight-core Intel CPU, at least for gaming. We're still looking at AMD just barely edging out Skylake-based Intel CPUs where it counts for games. It also means that Intel doesn't have to move the needle much to gain back 'the lead', either, and we know they have Rocket Lake on the way.

Now, where I'll say that I'm actually seriously impressed, is that AMD has managed to increase performance in games by ~40% while dropping power usage. This is really starting to look more like Willamette vs. Thunderbird!
Click to expand...
Agreed. Reviewers are being overly dramatic about the performance comparison for views and clicks. When it comes to those minimums it's a real wash between AMD and Intel in games. It is great to finally see real competition in the gaming segment for the performance crown again. The next few years should prove interesting to see if and how Intel can respond after all their recent delays and blunders.
 
I'm seeing a bit here and there on forums that ram makes a decent difference for Ryzen 5k - ideally you want 4 ranks of 4000mhz with the tightest timings you can manage. Does anyone actually have extra information about this, preferably from reliable sources?
 
Endgame said:
I'm seeing a bit here and there on forums that ram makes a decent difference for Ryzen 5k - ideally you want 4 ranks of 4000mhz with the tightest timings you can manage. Does anyone actually have extra information about this, preferably from reliable sources?
Click to expand...
 
Oof. Does GN break out all their data so you can get the relevant performance metrics without watching a 30 minute video?
 
Endgame said:
Oof. Does GN break out all their data so you can get the relevant performance metrics without watching a 30 minute video?
Click to expand...
TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Accidental Discovery: 2 vs. 4 Sticks of RAM on Zen 3 01:30 - Controlling Memory for Reviews is Important 06:34 - It's Not Memory Utilization 06:51 - Important Explanation & Shadow of the Tomb Raider 09:26 - F1 2020 Memory Speed & Timings Test for AMD Ryzen 5600X 11:10 - Three Kingdoms (Battle) AMD Zen 3 Memory Benchmarks 13:02 - Three Kingdoms (Campaign) AMD RAM Benchmarks 15:15 - The Division 2 AMD R5 5600X Memory Test 16:55 - GTA V 2 vs. 4 Sticks of RAM 17:59 - Red Dead Redemption 2 Memory Differences Test 19:16 - 7-Zip (Compression/Decompression) 20:29 - Intel 2 vs. 4 Sticks Memory (Tomb Raider) 20:56 - Intel F1 2020 2 vs. 4 Sticks 21:08 - Conclusion: This Doesn't Mean It's *Always* Better!
 
Auer said:
TIMESTAMPS 00:00 - Accidental Discovery: 2 vs. 4 Sticks of RAM on Zen 3 01:30 - Controlling Memory for Reviews is Important 06:34 - It's Not Memory Utilization 06:51 - Important Explanation & Shadow of the Tomb Raider 09:26 - F1 2020 Memory Speed & Timings Test for AMD Ryzen 5600X 11:10 - Three Kingdoms (Battle) AMD Zen 3 Memory Benchmarks 13:02 - Three Kingdoms (Campaign) AMD RAM Benchmarks 15:15 - The Division 2 AMD R5 5600X Memory Test 16:55 - GTA V 2 vs. 4 Sticks of RAM 17:59 - Red Dead Redemption 2 Memory Differences Test 19:16 - 7-Zip (Compression/Decompression) 20:29 - Intel 2 vs. 4 Sticks Memory (Tomb Raider) 20:56 - Intel F1 2020 2 vs. 4 Sticks 21:08 - Conclusion: This Doesn't Mean It's *Always* Better!
Click to expand...
Ja, Steve always has time stamps setup for the video. You can see the marks in the progress bar and the above text by clicking "MORE INFO" under the video.
 
TL/DW.. If you were able to get your hands on 4x8 3200 CL14 modules, and tune the **** out of them, you'll have the highest performance...
 
Space_Ranger said:
TL/DW.. If you were able to get your hands on 4x8 3200 CL14 modules, and tune the **** out of them, you'll have the highest performance...
Click to expand...
As long as they are single rank 3200 sticks. Also, I thought the gain in IF fabric speed by going to 4000 outweighed tight timings at slower speed?
 
Endgame said:
As long as they are single rank 3200 sticks. Also, I thought the gain in IF fabric speed by going to 4000 outweighed tight timings at slower speed?
Click to expand...
Not what Steve had noticed. The increased CL of the higher frequency sticks are too much to overcome it seems.
 
So, I need 64GB of ram. I assume that all 32GB modules are going to be dual rank, but can't confirm that just by looking at vendor websites it seems. The only confirmed single rank 16GB modules I've seen referenced are the Crucial Max 16GB sticks.

That means I can do the following:
2x 32GB Gskill Ripjaws 3200mhz 16-18-18-38
2x 32GB Gskill Ripjaws 4000mhz 18-22-22-42 (+$60)
4x 16GB Crucial Ballistix Max 4000mhz 18-19-19-39 (+$400)

I think the winner is likely to be the Gskill 4000 - I could afford to do the crucial, but those sub timings arent THAT much faster
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top