Jump to content

AMD Ryzen 5 (Zen 3)


Recommended Posts

Anandtech review - https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested

(their website is kinda dying right now)

AMD Ryzen 5000 Series Processors
Zen 3 Microarchitecture
AnandTech Cores
Threads
Base
Freq
Turbo
Freq
L3
Cache
TDP MSRP
Ryzen 9 5950X 16c/32t 3400 4900 64 MB 105 W $799
Ryzen 9 5900X 12c/24t 3700 4800 64 MB 105 W $549
Ryzen 7 5800X 8c/16t 3800 4700 32 MB 105 W $449
Ryzen 5 5600X 6c/12t 3700 4600 32 MB 65 W $299*

 

It's fast in games. It's fast in applications. It's fast. It's the new king.

 
             
             
             
             
             
Link to post
Share on other sites

So now that I have had a little more time to read and digest, some bullet points:

  • The 5950X will turbo to 5.0Ghz with the right conditions (heat, load and power). The other models will also turbo like 50-150 higher than rated on the box.
  • 5800X and 5600X are one chiplet which makes sense they are 8 cores or under.
  • I guess DDR4-3600 is now the recommended "ideal" RAM speed.
  • Power usage is basically the same with Zen 3 (compared to Zen 2).
Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm soo 5600x ? its about 150 diff and i feel like 150 is

soo a lot of times when im just gaming alone i have videos going on the side while i game and my performance tank. is that mostly on the gpu ? like would the jump between 6-8 core going to make any different? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, T1no said:

hmmm soo 5600x ? its about 150 diff and i feel like 150 is

soo a lot of times when im just gaming alone i have videos going on the side while i game and my performance tank. is that mostly on the gpu ? like would the jump between 6-8 core going to make any different? 

 

Many games STILL don't do a great job of taking advantage of more than 4 cores/8 threads (see video below from this year) so any performance issues you are seeing I am more willing to blame on drivers or browsers or OS weirdness or something else.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a huge perf. boost going from 4 core to 12 core because I run a ton stuff on the side. If you multi-task with other things running in the background I'd highly suggest going to at least 8 cores.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jedi2155 said:

I had a huge perf. boost going from 4 core to 12 core because I run a ton stuff on the side. If you multi-task with other things running in the background I'd highly suggest going to at least 8 cores.

extra bold underline emphasis on this

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, kuhla said:

Many games STILL don't do a great job of taking advantage of more than 4 cores/8 threads (see video below from this year) so any performance issues you are seeing I am more willing to blame on drivers or browsers or OS weirdness or something else.

Too add a few graphs that illustrate this point:

Red Dead Redeption

index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=625

Microsoft Flight Simulator (extreme case)

index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=632

I think 6 cores is plenty, the game benefits beyond 4 are negligible, especially at 1440p or above.  Unless you plan on doing substantial multitasking or video editing/encoding there's really not much benefit to going beyond that mark.  If you want more horsepower you could go with the 5800x, but I wouldn't go beyond that.  From a value standpoint, it's probably better to go with the 5600x and use the "extra" $150 on a better GPU. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

jesus said 5600x or just make the jump to 5900x if you really do multitasking, editing encoding.

or 5800x if on sale but prob anytime soon. (edited)

 

honestly im not to worry having a good performance in game for the 5600x but willing to pay the extra to be able to throw shit at it at the same time and not chug or chug less. but thanks for the visuals

Link to post
Share on other sites

the way how i understood it if you are building for a workstation prob fork more for the 5900x instead of the 5800x. the 5800x is 50 dollars too expensive on his scale im guessing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T1no said:

the way how i understood it if you are building for a workstation prob fork more for the 5900x instead of the 5800x. the 5800x is 50 dollars too expensive on his scale im guessing.

12 -> 16 -> 24 -> 32

12 -(+33%)-> 16 -(50%)-> 24 -(+33%)-> 32

if we tried to do the same with pricing it would be

$299 -(+33%)-> $400 -(+50%)-> $600 -(+33%)-> $800

I mean I guess I see what you are saying.......

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I am seeing a lot of chatter from people about memory with Zen 3......

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGux0pANft0
  2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UkGu6A-6sQ
  3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPTbx4fk3rw

.....not in terms of compatibility (like Zen 1) but in terms of performance. It's kind of an old discussion but again it's boiling down to two sticks and dual rank or four sticks and single rank being the best setup so now again people are scouring websites, forum posts, everything to figure out if the RAM they have/looking at is dual rank or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, T1no said:

hmm soo more sticks better depending on the rank.  i havent bought ram or decide my cpu.

Just like with a lot of other things, if gaming is priority #1, if you are bumping up the graphics settings or the resolution then the #1 limiting factor is your GPU not your CPU or RAM so this ends up being unimportant and just buy whatever the cheapest DDR4 3600 kit is at the size you want.

For me personally, I paid a premium for my current memory because I was worried at the time about leaving some CPU performance "on the table" so I shopped around for memory that specifically used Samsung B-die chips. Samsung stopped making those chips so even though there are still some floating around they are very expensive. That means you end up having to do a lot of back-and-forth comparison with tables like this to hopefully find confirmed dual rank products. Example: I wonder if this is dual rank because in the table the only things running at DDR4-3600 with 16-19-19-39 timings at 1.35V use Hynix 8Gbit CJR chips which should be dual rank I think. I would probably buy it, check in CPU-Z and if it's not dual rank send it back.

EDIT: Apparently Gigabyte has rank info on their memory compatibility lists which might be handy: https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/B550-AORUS-MASTER-rev-10/support#support-doc

Link to post
Share on other sites

To give a simpler response than kuhla.  Check the Qualified Vendor List for the motherboard you're buying, and then buy the size/speed you want.  I don't think B-die is worth hunting, just get something with good speed and low CAS timings. 

I've heard very good things about the g.skill trident z neo memory, so use this as a reference. 

https://www.newegg.com/g-skill-32gb-288-pin-ddr4-sdram/p/N82E16820232861

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...