***OFFICIAL*** Ryzen 5000 / Zen 3 Launch Thread REVIEWS BEGIN PAGE 39

[AtenRa]

Not in Civ 6 or Stellaris or a bunch of other games where they become very CPU bound even at 4K. It is a shame that these games are not tested in reviews as much as improving the performance of late game stellaris or reducing AI turn time in Civ 6 are meaningful improvements.

As far as Civ 6 is concerned the 5600X is faster than the 10900K let alone the 10700 and since this is turn time resolution will have no impact on the performance improvemet.

I play both Civ and Stelaris and im sure nobody will feel the performance difference between the 5600X and 10700.

 

[DisEnchantment]

AVX2 VAES support just landed into Geekbench, seems to have a pretty big effect on scoring.

5800X GB5.3 Windows running 4.85GHz single core (this is stock behaviour - it's the maximum boost allowed by Precision Boost 2)

ST score: 1717.

Generic - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Generic with an AMD Ryzen 7 5800X processor.

browser.geekbench.com

AES scoring is in the same region as TGL now, so it's a noticable bump to scores of around 5%. Might even be enough to push Linux Zen 3 scores into the 1800pts range.

I don't have 5800X, but I downcore my 5950X and tested it with 5.3.0. Bone stock, no tweaks. Just downcore.

Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. X570 AORUS PRO - Geekbench

Benchmark results for a Gigabyte Technology Co., Ltd. X570 AORUS PRO with an AMD Ryzen 9 5950X processor.

browser.geekbench.com

Anyway, AT is pretty useless, GB5 and Spec2006 are the main highlights of the very few things they have cross platform
Phoronix is go to, for cross platform, just an example, they got 100+ benchmarks for graviton2, not 2.

100+ Benchmarks Of Amazon's Graviton2 64-Core CPU Against AMD's EPYC 7742 - Phoronix

www.phoronix.com

I have 0 interest in anything Apple ARM, but ARM on Linux is pretty much daily stuff for me. And AT is not it.

 

[zinfamous]

50$ is increase for 12, 16C CPUs. That X or no X product segmentation and marketing is irrelevant to budget gamer. For him 6C got 50% increase in dollars or euros. Call it early adopter, fan boy tax, but please stop justifying it.
I have been around here for years ( since Ultra66 modification into RAID controller days lol ) and same arguments were made for Athlon 64 / X2. Did not make entry level 4200 chip more accessible for anyone

Then why do you think this is the budget gamer part? It isn't. Wait until Q1.

 

[Timorous]

I play both Civ and Stelaris and im sure nobody will feel the performance difference between the 5600X and 10700.

I am going to disagree with you there but actual benchmarks would be nice.

Only 2 sites tested Civ 6 AI. Gamers Nexus and OC3D. OC3D did not disclose their ram config other than stating it was 3600 but timing information and number / size of sticks was not disclosed. GN clearly disclosed they used 4x8GB 3200C14 sticks on both platforms and they run the test 4 times and average the results. I was also able to cross reference the GN scores for the 9900K and 3300X in their 10600K review to a Legit Reviews test of the 3300X and 9900K where they used 2x16GB 3600C18 ram. The GN scores were 0.5s faster for both the 9900K and 3300X but they were around 31s and 36s mark respectively. Given that out of the two with the information provided I tend to give more credence to the GN numbers.

Nowhere tests Stellaris (or any other paradox grand strategy game) to see how well it runs at end game when quite often the days/second starts to really slow down, even on the fastest settings. This is a shame as some sort of reliable test of end game performance would be really useful.

These are the kinds of games where getting a 'good enough' GPU to hit 30fps @ 4k is all you need and spending the rest on CPU/Memory can get you a better overall experience than the usual mantra of GPU > CPU.

 

[shady28]

A 10700 is a power limited and lower clocked version of the 10700k, without even taking overclocking into account. It doesn't perform the same as a 10700k at stock and will be significantly slower in heavy multi threaded situations.

That's not really true. You can unlock power limits on a 10700 such that it will maintain all core boost. You can also change the BCLK up to 102.9 which overclocks it by 2.9%. In the end you get all core 4.94Ghz I believe. With the power limits removed, a 10700 will be faster in multithreaded benchmarks and applications vs a stock 10700K.

Naturally you can do the same thing to a 10700K, and a lot more. 5.1Ghz all core on air is common.

I should point out, getting a 140Mhz overclock (2.9%) on a non K Intel chip + power unlock is directly comparable to the most you can do on most Zen chips, i.e. small 100-200Mhz OC and PBO on AMD. Zen doesn't overclock well. The K series takes it to an entirely different level.

 

[DrMrLordX]

3600X was bad value, 5600X is bad value.

The 3600X was a bad value since it offered virtually no additional performance over the cheaper 3600. The 5600X actually trades blows with the 5950X and 10900k in some games for less money. In that respect, it's actually a good value - for top-end gamers who want to pay a midrange price.

By the way, I would like to know where all you "AMD shouldn't raise prices" posters were a few months ago when I was panning the XT launch? I knew this would happen. Knew it!

 

[rbk123]

All the preliminary information I have seen so far has said you will not need a new motherboard for Rocket Lake. You are simply incorrect or making stuff up.

I remember the same thing with Kaby lake, and guess what? Most needed a new motherboard. I'm not incorrect yet, since it hasn't happened. I may end up being incorrect but you're a fool if you think an Intel upgrade won't require a new motherboard. That's very rare for Intel, but this may be one of those rare occasions - we'll see.

 

[Hitman928]

10700K all core turbo = 4.7GHz
10700 all core turbo = 4.6GHz

Gaming doesnt stress the CPU that much, the performance difference between 10700K and non K model is 5% at best.
Also, memory speed is not that much of a performance uplift with Intel CPUs as is with Zen 1 and 2

I was replying to a post about multi-threaded performance so your reply to me is pointless. The all core turbo cannot be sustained on the 10700 as it runs into its power limit after turbo duration (65 W) and then significantly reduces clocks compared to the 10700k.

 

[rbk123]

10700 is in your opinion a better choice, compared to 5600X, because with only 50$ bucks more it will perform worse and lacks PCIe4. Cool.

Close - it's only $48 more expensive.

For a mere $48 extra, you can get less performance in everything. Who wouldn't want that?

 

[Nereus77]

10700K all core turbo = 4.7GHz
10700 all core turbo = 4.6GHz

Gaming doesnt stress the CPU that much, the performance difference between 10700K and non K model is 5% at best.
Also, memory speed is not that much of a performance uplift with Intel CPUs as is with Zen 1 and 2

The video bellow perfectly illustrate the extremely small performance difference between the Core i7 10700 + 2933MHz memory vs Core i7 10700K + 3600MHz memory.



i7 10700 (B460 + 2933) vs i7 10700k (Z490 + 3600) with RTX2080Ti

Yes, yes, and the 5600x with DDR4 3600 makes mincemeat of both, we get it.

I'm glad you're posting all this. I really hope you commit and buy this machine, while a whole bunch of other people get the 5600X so you can actually see which is better. In fact, I'm super glad you will use this setup to play CPU-bound games as well (Civ VI and Stellaris), the sort of games that would really appreciate a faster CPU.

Just remember you were shown the better setup which you didn't like because it involved 3 letters in a combination you hate: AMD.

Edit: Just for fun....

(Remember non-K is lower fps)

AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested

www.anandtech.com

 

[rbk123]

That's not really true. You can unlock power limits on a 10700 such that it will maintain all core boost. You can also change the BCLK up to 102.9 which overclocks it by 2.9%. In the end you get all core 4.94Ghz I believe. With the power limits removed, a 10700 will be faster in multithreaded benchmarks and applications vs a stock 10700K.

Not with the stock cooler you can't, which is part of his superb pricing model.

 

[DisEnchantment]

By the way, I would like to know where all you "AMD shouldn't raise prices" posters were a few months ago when I was panning the XT launch? I knew this would happen. Knew it!

Let me help you here

I don't think that's what he means. If AMD launches the 3900XT today @ $499, then they launch the 4900x in October at a higher price.

Launch new parts, remove cooler, raise prices, same performance as late sample 3800Xs, They were already setting expectations for the 5000 series.

From a business perspective, shareholders will murder AMD's management if they used their limited supply of wafers to manufacture and sell SKUs with lower ASP. It is what it is.
The budget champion will arrive when the market demand for high end parts has been satiated. A lot of people would be complaining if they did not get their 5950X or 5900X. Imagine the outrage with all the paper launch . Reddit is inflamed and people want their 5900Xs/5950X.
Who do you want to satisfy?

 

[AtenRa]

Just remember you were shown the better setup which you didn't like because it involved 3 letters in a combination you hate: AMD.

Really ???

Thats funny..............

 

[Hitman928]

That's not really true. You can unlock power limits on a 10700 such that it will maintain all core boost. You can also change the BCLK up to 102.9 which overclocks it by 2.9%. In the end you get all core 4.94Ghz I believe. With the power limits removed, a 10700 will be faster in multithreaded benchmarks and applications vs a stock 10700K.

Naturally you can do the same thing to a 10700K, and a lot more. 5.1Ghz all core on air is common.

I should point out, getting a 140Mhz overclock (2.9%) on a non K Intel chip + power unlock is directly comparable to the most you can do on most Zen chips, i.e. small 100-200Mhz OC and PBO on AMD. Zen doesn't overclock well. The K series takes it to an entirely different level.

So you're saying the 10700 isn't a power limited, lower clocked SKU when not taking overclocking into account because you can quasi-overclock the CPU? Ok, well, the 5600x can overclock as well and is fully unlocked (with good cooling it can get more like 300 - 400 MHz as the 5000 series clocks better than the previous Zen generations) but more importantly, for the 10700 you also now can't cheap out on the motherboard and have to buy decent aftermarket cooling as you will be doubling or more its power consumption. Now your 10700 at $50 more than a 5600x ends up being more like $100+ more to edge out a 5600x in heavily multi-threaded scenarios . At that price point you are really close to a stock 5800x which will have a clear victory over an overclocked 10700 and the overclocked 10700 at best is still just going to tie a 5600x in gaming. So again, you are spending the same money for less overall performance or significantly more money for a small win in heavily multi-threaded loads and a tie in gaming. There is no value in a 10700 compared to Zen3 offerings.

 

[shady28]

I play both Civ and Stelaris and im sure nobody will feel the performance difference between the 5600X and 10700.

Can see scores at the link below. The GS Gathering Storm AI benchmark is probably most relevant. More cores does indeed help Civ 6, but it seems 8 cores is the top end of useful. A 9700 for example scored about the same as a 10700K, same as a 3950X. Not a lot of heavy duty OC and such there and the fastest I saw was a power unlocked 9900K which squeaked under 30s, beating the 9700 / 10700 and 3950X by about 10%.

Post your AI benchmark score

CPU: i7-6700k @ 4.00GHz 4.00 RAM: 16 GB GPU: GTX 1080 AI: 7.43 GS AI: 46.65

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[Nereus77]

Really ???

Thats funny..............

Do you have a better reason why you want a slower machine for more money?

 

[DrMrLordX]

@DisEnchantment

At least there was you. AMD clearly needs more wafers, btw.

By the way, there is one other metric that makes the 5600X look kind of "bad" from a value perspective.

3600X->5600X price increase: 25% 20% duh
3800X->5800X price increase: 12.5%
3900X->5900X price increase: 10%
3950X->5950X price increase: ~6.7%

Clearly the 5950X represents the least-onerous increase in price. If you're in the market for a $749 halo product, is $799 really that much worse? Eh, not so much. But an increase from $249 to $299 might make you think twice about a motherboard, RAM, or PSU choice. The 5600X is in a weird place, though: the IPC and clockspeed increases it represents over the 3600X are pretty massive. I don't know that it's fair to just think of it as a 6c, when it's an elite gaming CPU in its own right and a decent candidate to replace (or supplant) a wide variety of 8c CPUs in productivity.

@Nereus77

You don't seem to know (or remember) AtenRa's forum history.

 

[JujuFish]

@Nereus77

You don't seem to know (or remember) AtenRa's forum history.

Yeah, I was beginning to question my own memory, because I had mentally categorized AtenRa as an AMD fan if not full on fanboy.

 

[shady28]

So you're saying the 10700 isn't a power limited, lower clocked SKU when not taking overclocking into account because you can quasi-overclock the CPU? Ok, well, the 5600x can overclock as well and is fully unlocked (with good cooling it can get more like 300 - 400 MHz as the 5000 series clocks better than the previous Zen generations) but more importantly, for the 10700 you also now can't cheap out on the motherboard and have to buy decent aftermarket cooling as you will be doubling or more its power consumption. Now your 10700 at $50 more than a 5600x ends up being more like $100+ more to edge out a 5600x in heavily multi-threaded scenarios . At that price point you are really close to a stock 5800x which will have a clear victory over an overclocked 10700 and the overclocked 10700 at best is still just going to tie a 5600x in gaming. So again, you are spending the same money for less overall performance or significantly more money for a small win in heavily multi-threaded loads and a tie in gaming. There is no value in a 10700 compared to Zen3 offerings.

If you OC a 5600X, you'll need cooling too. Neither processor comes with a cooler, so you have to buy one. I repeatedly stated what could be done with minimal off the shelf cooling solutions.

You can run a 10700 max turbo on air. In fact if you bother to read the normal review sites on the 10700K, you can do up to 5.1Ghz all core on air. The 10700 won't do 5.1Ghz so you don't need anything special there beyond a solid air cooler, though I personally would get a $70 AIO cooler.

A 10700 is like $20 more than a 5600X on open market right now. At microcenter it's $299, and $319 for the K. A cheap Z490 is like $30 more than a B550. You can actually buy a 10700 / 10700K right now, not so much the 5600X.

And, you can go to Rocket Lake later. AM4 is dead after Zen 3.

I think the point has been made. These compete in the same price area and they have pros and cons. Certainly for anyone who wants to tweak / OC their system, the 10700K is the right choice, as there are 9900K / 10700K OC systems that will beat a 5800X in both single and multi-thread. And that's not using LN2 - custom dual 240mm loops suffice.

That being the case, the 5600X at its current price point doesn't really offer much new in terms of price, or performance.

 

[Nereus77]

Yeah, I was beginning to question my own memory, because I had mentally categorized AtenRa as an AMD fan if not full on fanboy.

Interesting! So he's just wanting a slower machine for no reason at all?

 

[AtenRa]

Do you have a better reason why you want a slower machine for more money?

I have already explained that I prefer to spend 50$ more for a 8C 16T CPU even if TODAY is 5% slower in games vs the 6C 12T 5600X.
As I have said im expecting 10700 to mature better vs the 5600X and im expecting that 10700 will get a useful upgrade path (for gaming) when Rocket Lake launch in the end of Q1 2021, something 5600X lacks.

Those are exactly the same reasons most of us were using with Ryzen 3700X vs Core i5 10600K just a few months ago.

 

[AtenRa]

If you OC a 5600X, you'll need cooling too. Neither processor comes with a cooler, so you have to buy one. I repeatedly stated what could be done with minimal off the shelf cooling solutions.

You can run a 10700 max turbo on air. In fact if you bother to read the normal review sites on the 10700K, you can do up to 5.1Ghz all core on air. The 10700 won't do 5.1Ghz so you don't need anything special there beyond a solid air cooler, though I personally would get a $70 AIO cooler.

A 10700 is like $20 more than a 5600X on open market right now. At microcenter it's $299, and $319 for the K. A cheap Z490 is like $30 more than a B550. You can actually buy a 10700 / 10700K right now, not so much the 5600X.

And, you can go to Rocket Lake later. AM4 is dead after Zen 3.

I think the point has been made. These compete in the same price area and they have pros and cons. Certainly for anyone who wants to tweak / OC their system, the 10700K is the right choice, as there are 9900K / 10700K OC systems that will beat a 5800X in both single and multi-thread. And that's not using LN2 - custom dual 240mm loops suffice.

That being the case, the 5600X at its current price point doesn't really offer much new in terms of price, or performance.

Both 5600X and 10700 (non K) comes with coolers.

 

[AtenRa]

n/a

 

[AtenRa]

Can see scores at the link below. The GS Gathering Storm AI benchmark is probably most relevant. More cores does indeed help Civ 6, but it seems 8 cores is the top end of useful. A 9700 for example scored about the same as a 10700K, same as a 3950X. Not a lot of heavy duty OC and such there and the fastest I saw was a power unlocked 9900K which squeaked under 30s, beating the 9700 / 10700 and 3950X by about 10%.

Post your AI benchmark score

CPU: i7-6700k @ 4.00GHz 4.00 RAM: 16 GB GPU: GTX 1080 AI: 7.43 GS AI: 46.65

forums.civfanatics.com

How many secs difference do you believe 10700 vs 5600X have in the AI Bench ??? 2-3 ??? more ???

Do you really believe anyone will notice 2-5 secs difference in the game ??

 

[Hitman928]

If you OC a 5600X, you'll need cooling too. Neither processor comes with a cooler, so you have to buy one. I repeatedly stated what could be done with minimal off the shelf cooling solutions.

You can run a 10700 max turbo on air. In fact if you bother to read the normal review sites on the 10700K, you can do up to 5.1Ghz all core on air. The 10700 won't do 5.1Ghz so you don't need anything special there beyond a solid air cooler, though I personally would get a $70 AIO cooler.

Both processors come with a cooler, but not one that will do for overclocking, especially the 10700. You won't get away with minimal off the shelf cooling when you overclock the 10700 as you have suggested as it will be using over 200W of power when loaded. You're talking premium air cooling or decent closed loop water cooling.

Compare that to the overclocked 5600x:



Where you actually could get away with cheaper air cooling.

A 10700 is like $20 more than a 5600X on open market right now. At microcenter it's $299, and $319 for the K. A cheap Z490 is like $30 more than a B550. You can actually buy a 10700 / 10700K right now, not so much the 5600X.

Very few people percentage wise have access to a Microcenter, so I wouldn't call that the street price. The price the vast majority of people can buy a 10700 at is $350. Besides that, at Microcenter, I'm very confident they will offer deals on the 5600x as well once we are passed the launch hysteria, they always do. As far as stock goes, obviously the 5600x just launched and is out of stock so if you absolutely have to build a machine today, the 5600x isn't an option. That's a pretty strained argument though that will not be valid for much longer.

And, you can go to Rocket Lake later. AM4 is dead after Zen 3.

True, but Rocket Lake performance is a big fat unknown at this point and still on 14 nm, so I wouldn't be expecting any large increases here without blowing out the power consumption.

I think the point has been made.

Yep, a 10700 has been made irrelevant for new system builds.

These compete in the same price area and they have pros and cons.

Yes, the pro for the 10700 is it has similar performance or a little less performance. The con, it is more expensive. That about wraps it up.

Certainly for anyone who wants to tweak / OC their system, the 10700K is the right choice, as there are 9900K / 10700K OC systems that will beat a 5800X in both single and multi-thread. And that's not using LN2 - custom dual 240mm loops suffice.

Flat out false.

That being the case, the 5600X at its current price point doesn't really offer much new in terms of price, or performance.

The 5600x isn't a value king, but the 10700 is even worse. If you start talking overclocked 10700k you're in a whole other price segment and then there are better AMD options as well.