Reviews AMD Ryzen 9 5950X and Ryzen 7 5800X

Sorry if you feel like I was piling on. The gaming graph is lower for the 5800X compared to the 3800X so it is perhaps dependent on use case. I don't think you have to put it with water but I guess it depends on the case you have.

 

well the bit-tech test rig uses air cooling.....
doesnt seem to be throttling it.
For gaming at a medium+ res - even say 1440p
maybe still better with a sub £200 cpu and all the money you can on GPU

ryzen 5800x + nvidia 3070 vs 3300x + 3080 for instance.

gets more skewed @ 4k etc...

until AI is coding the games, They'll always have limited finite rules to execute. Graphics will always be trending towards infinite compute power required - as thats what photo realism needs.

 

At 4k the CPU becomes irelivent as its all on the GPU even at 1440p that quickly is the case, No gamer spends £750 on a cpu when a £400 one does the same job.

You might find niche cases where its not the case.

Red Dead Redemption same gpu at 4k its less than 0.5 fps between a super cpu and a very basic one (https://www.engadget.com/cpu-gaming...OpdKzuqTmxS5CWDpkDIvMuJ7iryvH9xSpBkwd1hrOxR2_)

 

Having seen a few reviews now, the bit-tech review seems much closer to the 10900k than some others.

One theory doing the rounds is that Zen 3 really likes faster memory (like previous gens) to get the most from it.

Could be worth investigating the performance again with different memory speeds/timings. Apparently it has a sweet spot at 4000mhz as all the clocks are on a 1:1 ratio if the CPU fclck is stable at 2000mhz that is.

 

Interesting development.
Up to 8% increase in FPS by using 4 sticks Vs 2 sticks of memory

 

That is quite interesting.

 

How ? Your doubling the memory bandwidth which results in more performance ?

AMD chips and gpus have always loved more memory performance

 

4 sticks don't double bandwidth on a dual channel platform that is why it is an interesting performance increase from the addition of extra sticks, it is specific to Zen 3 and doesn't happen on the other chips.

 

It is actually about rank count, not dimm count.
(Basic explanation of memory ranks)

There was already a smallish benefit from 4 memory ranks vs 2 memory ranks on Zen 2:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-3000-best-memory-timings,6310-2.html

 

Are the sticks tested in the video dual rank per stick or single rank? I probably missed it but can't Ctrl-F the video......

As said, I've seen tiny performance gain on R5 3600 going from single rank stick 2x8GB to dual rank stick 2x16GB.

 

There has always been a benefit to dual rank over single rank, as well as negatives, so you did DR if you wanted lots of RAM and accepted limited clk speed from loading memory controller, you went single rank if you want high MHZ and can get better performance from higher clocks than a DR setup in same system, sounds like the 2 sticks vs 4 is seeing much higher performance though than the SR/DR difference.

 

A detailed comparison, nice!

 

GN said in a comment to the video there'll be a follow-up with discussion about ranks.

This perhaps sounds daft (apologies i'm not on your level) but I sort of thought that more ram was more good and that the comparisons he made in the video 2x8Gb vs 4x8Gb whilst getting a 5-8% improvement doesn't seem that dramatic to me for the cost of £70 - £150? Especially as it was in carefully created scenarios designed to cause the biggest RAM bottleneck (like running F1 2020 at 300fps in high rather than ultra).

 

For me the price of the 5800X doesn't doesn't add up. The jump in price from the 5600X is just too much for 2 extra cores, then there's not a massive jump for 4 extra cores of the 5900X.

Also, if they only have one defecive core per CCU, why not offer a 7 core 5700X, rather than disabling 2 to get the 5600X?

 

5600 is 6 cores
5700 is 7 cores
5800 is 8 cores

What sort of black magic is this? Are you trying to breath common sense into the product numberings?

 

5800x is a bit over priced but they are now able to charge Intel Prices, As I said many years ago if AMD are ahead we pay the price if Intel are ahead we pay the price, There is no winner but Intel and AMD lol

Finding Niche usage cases to show the need for more used ram is really making the point that you dont need more ram

He should compare performance of 2x16gb and 4x8gb, About £60 price difference between them in the uk (4x8gb costs the extra £60)

Is there any performance gain there I would be amazed if there was

 

5800X is a gateway. They want you to buy the 5900x. The 5800x requires a perfectly working die. One that could be used elsewhere. Hence the price. The 5900x could actually be cheaper for them to make, as they only need two dies with 6 working cores. That is why it is the worst value out of the bunch.

Easily avoided. The 5600x is a bargain, the 5900x an animal.

 

Just a heads up, actual real stock of the 5800x that didn't sell out in .03 seconds has emerged in the UK:

https://www.ebuyer.com/1126987-amd-ryzen-7-5800x-am4-processor-100-100000063wof

 

5600x is up on scan also

 

Interesting bump on the thread.

There's your answer. You feel it's a nice upgrade, but not really necessary. I'd personally go with bigger M2 NVMe drive if you are still using HDD.

I'm actually running 5800x with Noctua D14 (the one before D15) with just a single 140mm fan (A15). Gets to ~65c gaming and tops out low 80's in synthetic benchmark. It's a hot one but still very manageable on air cooling.

Same cooler used to cool a heavily overclocked i7 2700k. Before then was Thermalright Ultra Extreme 120 (the legendary TRUE120) cooling an even more heavily overclocked Q6600. Those were simpler times with huge overlocking headroom, just add voltage.