AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested
by Dr. Ian Cutress on November 5, 2020 9:01 AM ESTSection by Andrei Frumusanu
CPU MT Performance: SPEC 2017
Whilst single-threaded performance of Zen3 seems to be an absolute win for the new Ryzen 5000 series CPUs, multi-threaded performance is also the other important aspect of a design. Generally, what comes into play much more for multi-threaded performance is the power efficiency of the design. As none of the current x86 consumer or enterprise parts are able to actually run all their cores at maximum frequency for peak performance due to platform power limitations, any resulting performance boost we might see between generations with a similar power cap will be due to power and energy efficiency gains between the designs.
For AMD, we’re limiting the detailed comparisons here to the 3950X and the 5950X which both have a PPT of 142W, which means that’s the maximum peak power for the platform, and observed 120-125W sustained figures in actual workloads. We’re also throwing in a 10900K for context, but given the very different core count numbers it doesn’t serve an exact apples-to-apples comparison.
Starting off with SPECint2006, the performance uplifts for the new Ryzen 5000 series here doesn’t seem to be all that significant in most tests, with uplifts well below those of the single-thread benchmarks.
Most of the tests are showing a 10% performance uplift, with the more memory heavy test showing no improvement. Some of the minor uplifts such as a 5% boost in 502.gcc seem quite disappointing and showcase that the new platform isn’t all that big of a boost for productivity workloads.
In SPECfp2017, 510.parest and 527.cam4 stand out as the two workloads with the biggest improvements, with the rest of the workloads all either having sub-5% improvements, or even just flat or slower performance than the 3950X.
** Preliminary figures to be re-tested due to 2x16GB SR vs 4x8GB SR memory DIMM configuration, scores will improve.
Overall, the new Ryzen 5000 series are showcasing a quite conservative 8-9% performance improvement over their predecessor generation SKUs. The 12-core variant here is showing a little bigger boost of 10-13%.
In this regard, the new chips seem to have missed the mark in terms of AMD’s claims for 12% better performance per watt for the new 5950X, and 26% better performance per watt for the 5900X – their marketing should have done better in explaining those figures, or just be more conservative with their numbers. This also doesn’t bode too well for the eventual EPYC-based Zen3 Milan chips.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
339 Comments
View All Comments
Qasar - Tuesday, November 10, 2020 - link
simple. if intel/nvidia does it, its ok, and accepted. but if amd does it ? its a crime, and becomes important.TheinsanegamerN - Thursday, November 12, 2020 - link
The leectrical costs from running intel VS amd add up to literal cents per month. If you are that concerned....you shouldnt be buying $500 CPUs.Cost of ownership really only matters, similarly, on cheap low end cars. People buying $100K+ mercedes are not particularly concerned about the price of parts or fuel, if they were they wouldnt be buying a $100K car.
Threska - Monday, November 16, 2020 - link
Funny thing my APC UPS keeps track of something like that for things plugged it. Only thing that demonstrates is that everything costs, even FUN.Spunjji - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link
Only if you totally ignore performance per watt... You need a cooler capable of dissipating up to 250W to hit that performance, and even then, your characterisation here is garbage. Overall the 5800X is a superior product for the same price, and it's only just been released.Let the shitty, bitter takes continue!
Gigaplex - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link
And when Intel held the performance crown, they priced their parts higher than the competition. This is to be expected. AMD only undercut on price because they couldn't compete on performance previously.LithiumFirefly - Friday, November 6, 2020 - link
They didn't just price their parts higher for nearly 25 years they just slapped $1,000 price tag on their top chip didn't matter what its performance was $1,000 that's what it was.just4U - Thursday, November 5, 2020 - link
the 5900X is nice at it's price point @ only 3-10 bucks more than the 10900K which appears to be what it's competing with.. and all the 10core parts really. The 5800X is in a odd position.. and I doubt it's going to be all that popular at that price point.Spunjji - Sunday, November 8, 2020 - link
5600 and 5700 non-X will be where it's at for value when they roll around.just4U - Monday, November 9, 2020 - link
Yeah I agree.. plus it's likely that prices will come down on these parts somewhat or be offered on sale or bundled..(saw a bit of that on launch day but they all sold out so whatever)bananaforscale - Monday, November 9, 2020 - link
"Value destroying price hike"? Sure for 3600 vs 5600X (which is *arguably* comparable), 3900X vs 5900X there's no contest. 5900X is demonstrably more than 10% faster is most cases. FWIW, I'd go for the 5800X over 10900K performance being equal because PCIe 4 and lower power draw.