AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

[Grim5]

At

Insightful post on Anandtech forums:



https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...hread-confirmed.2585890/page-23#post-40313986

Basically the numbers AMD gives in their CPU launch presentations for Ryzen have been very accurate. So the huge gains claimed over Ryzen 3000 or comparative to the 10900K will play out exactly the same in comprehensive independent reviews like ComputerBase's.[/QUO

post the charts so we can see the numbers

 

[RavenXXX2]

 

[alec]

Looks plausible, as much as I can tell from AMD slides

 

[humbug]

If that's accurate, its not bad, similar performance over Intel what Intel had over Zen 2. A sort of inversion.

 

[Destination]

Who made those slides?
We haven't been made aware of reviewers even receiving copies to assess as yet, have we?

I don't see why a 5600X will beat intels top line in single core.

 

[MegaPinches]

I don't see why a 5600X will beat intels top line in single core.

It should do

 

[Mercutio]

Who made those slides?
We haven't been made aware of reviewers even receiving copies to assess as yet, have we?

I don't see why a 5600X will beat intels top line in single core.

Why shouldn't it?
intel probably still get to wave "all core boost" speeds around for a while but single core was clearly the target this gen.

 

[kevman]

slow and done.

Still its lasted better than the AMD equivalent at the time and still sells for more than a new 3600 on ebay.

 

[Mercutio]

Ryzen 5000 has really destroyed Intel in IPC hasn't it. It's higher than Intel's 10nm Tiger Lake even.

By the time Tiger Lake comes to desktop (late 2022?), AMD will be massively ahead with 5nm Ryzen 6000 next year.

I wonder when Intel reach into the "black money" pot and start the dirty tricks again. AMD has been here before and got quietly shanked in process.

 

[alec]

Who made those slides?
We haven't been made aware of reviewers even receiving copies to assess as yet, have we?

I don't see why a 5600X will beat intels top line in single core.

Guy in anandtech forums.
These are projections from relative performance slides that AMD has shown to computerbase charts. Normalised by relative 3900X/5900X and 10900K/5900X performance for which there was most data presented.

As much as I can tell it looks plausible. 5600X and 5800X numbers could be off, as there is only a single slide for each

 

[Destination]

Why shouldn't it?
intel probably still get to wave "all core boost" speeds around for a while but single core was clearly the target this gen.

If it does then all the 5000 chips will destroy intel in gaming.
Its unlikely this will be the case, only the higher end ones which have the higher clocks.

We will wait and see, but I'd be utterly amazed if a 5600X beats 10900K in single core CB r20, hope it does though.

 

[RavenXXX2]

If it does then all the 5000 chips will destroy intel in gaming.
Its unlikely this will be the case, only the higher end ones which have the higher clocks.

We will wait and see, but I'd be utterly amazed if a 5600X beats 10900K in single core CB r20, hope it does though.

It boosts to 4.6, 300 lower than the 5950X, of course it will smash the 10900K in CB R20 single.

 

[Mr Oblong]

Intel wont compete until maybe 2022 but then amd has next gen ryzen so it seems Intel is the catch up maybe a few years and its a big maybe as die shrinks is ending.



Fastest in the world, so go figure



slow and done.

Aren't they almost competing now, with price reductions on many SKUs?

 

[clv101]

We will wait and see, but I'd be utterly amazed if a 5600X beats 10900K in single core CB r20, hope it does though.

Utterly amazed? I thought it was looking pretty likely?

 

[Joxeon]

Aren't they almost competing now, with price reductions on many SKUs?

I don't think Intel will mind as their chips will now offer comparable gaming performance and better multi core at the 5000 series 6 and 8 core price points.

 

[alec]

If it does then all the 5000 chips will destroy intel in gaming.

Thats how it looks. Suddenly $299 5600X is not that much, for something that beats 10900K in games and is nipping at the heels of 10700K even in full multicore tasks.
... all at 65W!

 

[~>Dg<~]

Thats how it looks. Suddenly $299 5600X is not that much, for something that beats 10900K in games and is nipping at the heels of 10700K even in full multicore tasks.
... all at 65W!

thing is its a a 6 core. ideally you wanna be going 8 especially if keeping for a long while

 

[alec]

thing is its a a 6 core. ideally you wanna be going 8 especially if keeping for a long while

Core count is just a number. So is frequency.
Real world performance is what counts. If a 6 core can complete same workload as 8 core in same amount of time, it is as good.
And in case of 5600X vs 3700X, equal in multicore, better everywhere else - 5600X is a clear winner. Core count be damned.

 

[Lokken86]

If it does then all the 5000 chips will destroy intel in gaming.
Its unlikely this will be the case, only the higher end ones which have the higher clocks.

We will wait and see, but I'd be utterly amazed if a 5600X beats 10900K in single core CB r20, hope it does though.

It's only going to be around 5% short of the 5900x here. Enough to beat the 10900k.

 

[queamin]

Core count is just a number. So is frequency.
Real world performance is what counts. If a 6 core can complete same workload as 8 core in same amount of time, it is as good.
And in case of 5600X vs 3700X, equal in multicore, better everywhere else - 5600X is a clear winner. Core count be damned.

So if a quad core comes in at £300 is that ok.?