# Please help with Amd-Intel decition.



## menko2

Hi.

I have been waiting for some months now to get a new system. I even got a amd x570 and 5900x more that a month ago but returned (dark hero board was in very early stages bio-wise).

I just want it for gaming at 4k 120fps and I have three options:

1) get again amd 5900x and x570.

2) get a z590 soon with a 10700k until rocket lake launch. Then get a 11900k.

3) get a z490 with 10900k.

I want to be a little future proof regarding pcie 4.0 but I'm tired of waiting.

My results with 5900x and x570 were a bit worst than with my 8700k and z370 in 4k. Very similar but a bit less. I did tweak RAM, PBO, all core oc,... PBO gave me the best results but didn't get to my old 8700k @5GHZ and z370 board.

Any help to decide? I'm so tired of waiting...


----------



## Cryptedvick

Definitely go for the 5900x.
While 11900k will be slightly better (as in 2-4%) at single threaded performance, it will still get destroyed in multi core usage. Remember, its still an 8 core 16 thread CPU, whereas the 5900x has 12 cores and 24 threads. 
Since games are starting to benefit more and more from having more cores/threads, the 5900x is your best option.
Considerably more performance overall, runs cooler, uses less power, way more PCIe lanes, PCIE4, everything you could ever want, so, Option 1, all the way.


----------



## menko2

Cryptedvick said:


> Definitely go for the 5900x.
> While 11900k will be slightly better at single threaded performance, it will still get destroyed in multi core usage.
> Since games are starting to benefit more and more from having more cores/threads, the 5900x is your best option.
> Considerably more performance overall, runs cooler, uses less power, way more PCIe lanes, PCIE4, everything you could ever want, so, Option 1, all the way.


That's what I thought when I got that system over a month ago but the results didn't go as expected.

I remember when I installed Horizon Zero Dawn and saw how my 8700k and z370 was performing better.

But now I see maybe I did some mistakes. I used ram 3800mhz with infinity fabrik at 1900. Even now this setting are not for all the boards-cpu with the new bios so back then maybe I was getting a penalty in performance. My board was the Asus crosshair viii dark Hero.

For sure this setup have anything I want as I used a samsung 980 pro as well and rtx 3090 but I'm worry to fail again. I'm more comfortable with intel but I don't mind amd as long i get better results.

Rocket lake should have everything but waiting for months still...


----------



## Cryptedvick

menko2 said:


> That's what I thought when I got that system over a month ago but the results didn't go as expected.
> 
> I remember when I installed Horizon Zero Dawn and saw how my 8700k and z370 was performing better.
> 
> But now I see maybe I did some mistakes. I used ram 3800mhz with infinity fabrik at 1900. Even now this setting are not for all the boards-cpu with the new bios so back then maybe I was getting a penalty in performance. My board was the Asus crosshair viii dark Hero.
> 
> For sure this setup have anything I want as I used a samsung 980 pro as well and rtx 3090 but I'm worry to fail again. I'm more comfortable with intel but I don't mind amd as long i get better results.
> 
> Rocket lake should have everything but waiting for months still...


Keep in mind that you also want futureproofing. 11900k will again be an 8 core 16 thread CPU. Right now, I see games using up to 80% of my 9900k 5Ghz. In a couple of years there will be plenty of games taking advantage of more and more cores so the 12 core 24 thread will definitely give you an edge. Not to mention the ability to do other things at the same time, if needed.


----------



## menko2

I ordered again the Asus Dark Hero x570 with the 5900x.

I hope this time the bios is more mature and I get better fps than with my 8700k and z370.

The fact of OC the Ryzen with pbo or all core is a bit complicated than intel puting everything at 5.0ghz or so.

If not I'll return for 10900k and z590 until rocket lake launches.

Why is it that 8700k gets so similar or better scores than the 5900x when this one is so much powerful?


----------



## Cryptedvick

menko2 said:


> I ordered again the Asus Dark Hero x570 with the 5900x.
> 
> I hope this time the bios is more mature and I get better fps than with my 8700k and z370.
> 
> The fact of OC the Ryzen with pbo or all core is a bit complicated than intel puting everything at 5.0ghz or so.
> 
> If not I'll return for 10900k and z590 until rocket lake launches.
> 
> Why is it that 8700k gets so similar or better scores than the 5900x when this one is so much powerful?


Because for games, there really isn't that much difference, rather mild. Even more so for 4k. 
Here is a cool video showing the difference between the CPUs, lacking the 8700k, which would fall within a few percentage from the 9900k. 
Whatever you do, there is really zero reason to go to rocket lake. Intel lost this round hard and until they manage to get their fab process down, reduce power consumption and get to 10-12 cores, AMD is king. 
Between the 5900x and intels upcoming 11900k, the 5900x is definitely better all around.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Cryptedvick said:


> Because for games, there really isn't that much difference, rather mild. Even more so for 4k.
> Here is a cool video showing the difference between the CPUs, lacking the 8700k, which would fall within a few percentage from the 9900k.
> Whatever you do, there is really zero reason to go to rocket lake. Intel lost this round hard and until they manage to get their fab process down, reduce power consumption and get to 10-12 cores, AMD is king.
> Between the 5900x and intels upcoming 11900k, the 5900x is definitely better all around.


This is Overclock.net, not stock clock.net. Here is an oveclocked comparison from a reputable person who knows what he’s doing, speaks English and shows his face. If the 5950x is beaten by the 10900k, the 11900k will absolutely dominate in games.


----------



## menko2

0451 said:


> This is Overclock.net, not stock clock.net. Here is an oveclocked comparison from a reputable person who knows what he’s doing, speaks English and shows his face. If the 5950x is beaten by the 10900k, the 11900k will absolutely dominate in games.


I'm quite confused with the video so I'll watch it again.

What i did saw is this video. Both systems tweaked rams according to their systems. Looks like with ram tweaked intel wins most of times.


----------



## Cryptedvick

0451 said:


> This is Overclock.net, not stock clock.net. Here is an oveclocked comparison from a reputable person who knows what he’s doing, speaks English and shows his face. If the 5950x is beaten by the 10900k, the 11900k will absolutely dominate in games.


Buddy, your argument made me giggle a little bit, because I've been a member of this forum since 07 and there have been quite a few times when I made that same statement, that this is OCN, the pursuit of performance, not of stock clocks. 
Fact of the matter is, in the same video you shared, the 10900k system is beating AMDs because its using an RTX3090, while the AMD system is using an RX6800XT which obviously means that the RTX system will win. In the mixed sections of the video, the AMD system with the RTX card comes on top, on every game except Godfall.

Below is another video from a reputable source where the 5900x is compared to the 10900k. Also, the 10900k is a 10 core 20 thread CPU, the 11900k will be 8 core 16 thread.
Keep in mind that these are games we are talking about. Even with the upcoming 11900k with its promised 19% IPC gain, you will not see a 19% improvement in games. This 19% IPC gain will put it on par with the 5900x in single threaded scenarios, maybe 2-5% faster. The difference will be minimal in gaming.

Take into account that more and more games are taking advantage of more cores lately, and the 5900x has 50% more cores and threads, for a total of 24 threads over 16 threads on the 11900k.
Should OP ever decide that he wants to do anything other than gaming at some point in the future, those 24 threads will destroy anything thrown its way and then some.





EDIT: This is from Intels own presentation at CES









Here is another video of both CPUs 5900x and 10900k stock vs overclocked
In any workload scenario, the 5900x is way better than the 10900k.
In games they are pretty much on par, sometimes slower, sometimes faster.

Last point to mention, which is rather irrelevant but still, the overclock on the 5900x is at 4.65Ghz while Intels is 5.2Ghz, a significant difference for worse overall performance. If you were to test these two CPUs clock for clock, say 4.5Ghz on both, to test actual silicon efficiency, well, you get the picture... but then again, Intel is made to run at higher frequency so it doesn't really matter.


----------



## menko2

Error


----------



## menko2

Cryptedvick said:


> Buddy, your argument made me giggle a little bit, because I've been a member of this forum since 07 and there have been quite a few times when I made that same statement, that this is OCN, the pursuit of performance, not of stock clocks.
> Fact of the matter is, in the same video you shared, the 10900k system is beating AMDs because its using an RTX3090, while the AMD system is using an RX6800XT which obviously means that the RTX system will win. In the mixed sections of the video, the AMD system with the RTX card comes on top, on every game except Godfall.
> 
> Below is another video from a reputable source where the 5900x is compared to the 10900k. Also, the 10900k is a 10 core 20 thread CPU, the 11900k will be 8 core 16 thread.
> Keep in mind that these are games we are talking about. Even with the upcoming 11900k with its promised 19% IPC gain, you will not see a 19% improvement in games. This 19% IPC gain will put it on par with the 5900x in single threaded scenarios, maybe 2-5% faster. The difference will be minimal in gaming.
> 
> Take into account that more and more games are taking advantage of more cores lately, and the 5900x has 50% more cores and threads, for a total of 24 threads over 16 threads on the 11900k.
> Should OP ever decide that he wants to do anything other than gaming at some point in the future, those 24 threads will destroy anything thrown its way and then some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: This is from Intels own presentation at CES
> View attachment 2474999
> 
> 
> Here is another video of both CPUs 5900x and 10900k stock vs overclocked
> In any workload scenario, the 5900x is way better than the 10900k.
> In games they are pretty much on par, sometimes slower, sometimes faster.
> 
> Last point to mention, which is rather irrelevant but still, the overclock on the 5900x is at 4.65Ghz while Intels is 5.2Ghz, a significant difference for worse overall performance. If you were to test these two CPUs clock for clock, say 4.5Ghz on both, to test actual silicon efficiency, well, you get the picture... but then again, Intel is made to run at higher frequency so it doesn't really matter.


The video with the different configurations shows that the 5800x is the way to go with the RTX 3090 I have in most games. Quite shock since I ordered the 5900x.

I can still cancel 5900x for 5800x. I read about the 5800x being one CCD will give boost but I didn't think I will give as much.

So better get the 5800x and good to go?


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> Error


I'd go with at least 10-12 cores to be safe. AAA games these days are using 8+ cores.. 
Especially if you play games like bfv


----------



## Cryptedvick

menko2 said:


> Error





menko2 said:


> The video with the different configurations shows that the 5800x is the way to go with the RTX 3090 I have in most games. Quite shock since I ordered the 5900x.
> 
> I can still cancel 5900x for 5800x. I read about the 5800x being one CCD will give boost but I didn't think I will give as much.
> 
> So better get the 5800x and good to go?


Definitely go with the 5900x, not the 5800x. I don't really know who that guy is and how he did his reviews, but best would be to check on more reputable channels, from multiple sources.
Once you do this, the 5900x is the obvious winner and the best option for you.
8cores/16 threads on the 5800x will not be better in any scenario vs 12 cores/24 threads.
Remember, you want to be future proofed and 50% more cores/threads is the nr1 argument in this regard.

EDIT: lol, I sound like an AMD sales person here, shoving down your throat the 5900x. haha 
Don't get me wrong, I've been an Intel user my whole life, never had an AMD CPU, but I have to hand it to them, they really came around and I couldn't be happier. More competition is always best for us, consumers. Now Intel is actually forced to come out with new, better CPUs, forcing AMD again for better CPUs next round and so on, which is nothing but best news for us. 
Performance monopoly sucks! As we have seen with the decade old intel domination before the AMD 5000 series.


----------



## menko2

Cryptedvick said:


> Definitely go with the 5900x, not the 5800x. I don't really know who that guy is and how he did his reviews, but best would be to check on more reputable channels, from multiple sources.
> Once you do this, the 5900x is the obvious winner and the best option for you.
> 8cores/16 threads on the 5800x will not be better in any scenario vs 12 cores/24 threads.
> Remember, you want to be future proofed and 50% more cores/threads is the nr1 argument in this regard.
> 
> EDIT: lol, I sound like an AMD sales person here, shoving down your throat the 5900x. haha
> Don't get me wrong, I've been an Intel user my whole life, never had an AMD CPU, but I have to hand it to them, they really came around and I couldn't be happier. More competition is always best for us, consumers. Now Intel is actually forced to come out with new, better CPUs, forcing AMD again for better CPUs next round and so on, which is nothing but best news for us.
> Performance monopoly sucks! As we have seen with the decade old intel domination before the AMD 5000 series.


That's what i though too. 12 cores better than 8. But also the fact of the 5800x using one CCD gets better latency and seem to affect performance.

This is the second video I saw overclocking the CPUs and RAM considering each system. But in the other one intel win and in this one AMD wins.

My experience from the past was my 8700k beating the 5900x in 4k gaming but I could have made mistakes. 

Youtube videos are all over the place with results about both systems...making my head crazy.


----------



## Digitalwolf

I have a EVGA 3080 FTW3 Ultra for reference. I'm only playing a couple of games right now in free time. Relatively I have a 3900x on a B550 Vision D and a 10600K that I got for cheap on a Z490 Master. The AMD Machine I actually do work on as well so it has to be stable with any settings. Honestly haven't even messed with trying to optimize the Z490 beyond some basic bios stuff.

Gaming I don't really feel like there is enough of a difference to talk about. Obviously in multi threaded stuff the 3900x is going to stomp my lowly 12 thread Intel box... In games or gaming benchmarks they seem pretty much the same. Same GPU in both boxes...

So if all you are going to do is play games... my advice is to find whatever motherboard has any options you wants, catches your eye etc and then buy the appropriate cpu for that platform and /enjoy.


----------



## o1dschoo1

Digitalwolf said:


> I have a EVGA 3080 FTW3 Ultra for reference. I'm only playing a couple of games right now in free time. Relatively I have a 3900x on a B550 Vision D and a 10600K that I got for cheap on a Z490 Master. The AMD Machine I actually do work on as well so it has to be stable with any settings. Honestly haven't even messed with trying to optimize the Z490 beyond some basic bios stuff.
> 
> Gaming I don't really feel like there is enough of a difference to talk about. Obviously in multi threaded stuff the 3900x is going to stomp my lowly 12 thread Intel box... In games or gaming benchmarks they seem pretty much the same. Same GPU in both boxes...
> 
> So if all you are going to do is play games... my advice is to find whatever motherboard has any options you wants, catches your eye etc and then buy the appropriate cpu for that platform and /enjoy.


Depends on the game. Recent games are using more cores if you got them.


----------



## menko2

o1dschoo1 said:


> Depends on the game. Recent games are using more cores if you got them.


My fear is that over a month ago my 8700k @5GHZ with a Asus z370-e gaming was getting a bit more fps at 4k than the 5900x with the Asus x570 Dark hero motherboard.


----------



## Digitalwolf

o1dschoo1 said:


> Depends on the game. Recent games are using more cores if you got them.


Ya... After a semi recent patch one of the games I play can put my 3900X at around 77% load... prior to the patch it was 39% max. Guess what... at 4K blah blah blah I get slightly better frame times on my 10600K and performance otherwise is virtually identical with half the cores/threads.

I'm sure there are some scenarios where that might change and thus depends on games you play. My response is based on I'm pretty sure they presented a pure gaming scenario at 4K 120 as opposed to any mixed situation where I would go for the cores 100%. They aren't going to see enough of a difference between Intel and AMD in my opinion that it matters. Personally in certain metrics my Intel is better (frame times and things like that) but in just FPS comparison or how it feels to play the game... I see no difference.

I also run a B550 board because I can't stand the majority of X570 boards that you can actually buy. On the Intel side I'm not exactly overly impressed with Z490 or Z590 but less so with Z590 and the prices incoming are stupid. But performance wise.. just for gaming flip a coin.


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> My fear is that over a month ago my 8700k @5GHZ with a Asus z370-e gaming was getting a bit more fps at 4k than the 5900x with the Asus x570 Dark hero motherboard.


Then go intel and 10900k


----------



## Rabit

Ryzen 3600 will be enough because at 4K GPU is almost always bottleneck with exception on some competitive games where you have 300+FPS
Upgrade CPU when you upgrade GPU couple years later, or when fell need.
Board chose B550, X570 are overpiced without off giving any additional value.
Also late production Ryzen 3500 can OC high example 2020 43 week 4,565Ghz AMD Ryzen 5 3600 @ 4565.75 MHz - CPU-Z VALIDATOR

But your if your old CPU cannot max yuor GPU usage at 4K you can try 5900x - 2x ram write speed compared to 5800x single die vs 2 die desing.


----------



## menko2

In this video the 5800x comes even better than the 5950x and 10900k being just one CCD (less latency).

Is it better alternative than 5900x or 5950x?


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> In this video the 5800x comes even better than the 5950x and 10900k being just one CCD (less latency).
> 
> Is it better alternative than 5900x or 5950x?


That wouldn't explain the fact that your ryzen 5000 was as fast as your 8700k. Personally I wouldn't take a chance and just go 10900k.


----------



## menko2

o1dschoo1 said:


> That wouldn't explain the fact that your ryzen 5000 was as fast as your 8700k. Personally I wouldn't take a chance and just go 10900k.


If it wasn't for the pcie 3 limitation and 16 lines to the cpu (not ssd) I would get it.

Once direct storage api comes will that.


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> If it wasn't for the pcie 3 limitation and 16 lines to the cpu (not ssd) I would get it.
> 
> Once direct storage api comes will that.


You don't need pcie 4.0. pcie 3.0 isn't even being fully utilized


----------



## menko2

o1dschoo1 said:


> You don't need pcie 4.0. pcie 3.0 isn't even being fully utilized


It's more for the four pcie 4.0 lines of the ryzen 5000 going to the the cpu for SSD. 

Will have an impact this year once direct storage 

Rocket like will have it but 8 cores...


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> It's more for the four pcie 4.0 lines of the ryzen 5000 going to the the cpu for SSD.
> 
> Will have an impact this year once direct storage
> 
> Rocket like will have it but 8 cores...


I'd personally wait to see what Intel's new hdet system is gonna look like. Cause if they are dropping 10 cores from mainstream it's probably gonna be a 10 core bottom of the bucket for hdet with quad channel memory pcie 4 and 40+ pcie lanes.


----------



## menko2

o1dschoo1 said:


> I'd personally wait to see what Intel's new hdet system is gonna look like. Cause if they are dropping 10 cores from mainstream it's probably gonna be a 10 core bottom of the bucket for hdet with quad channel memory pcie 4 and 40+ pcie lanes.


What is hdet? Never heard of.


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> What is hdet? Never heard of.


X58 x79 x99 x299. It's the big boy CPUs of intel. 

I7 and i9 x series. They have all the full features and more robust boards. Yea it cost a bit more but if you want them pcie lanes and cpu cores/memory bandwidth your gonna pay for it lol. Flip side they hold their value. My 2011 x79 rampage board still goes for 200 dollars on eBay 10 years later.


----------



## menko2

o1dschoo1 said:


> X58 x79 x99 x299. It's the big boy CPUs of intel.
> 
> I7 and i9 x series. They have all the full features and more robust boards. Yea it cost a bit more but if you want them pcie lanes and cpu cores/memory bandwidth your gonna pay for it lol. Flip side they hold their value. My 2011 x79 rampage board still goes for 200 dollars on eBay 10 years later.


This sounds good. I only wonder how to cool this big CPUs with built with 14nm.


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> This sounds good. I only wonder how to cool this big CPUs with built with 14nm.


Aio. 10-12 cores and a aio it should do 4.5-4.8


----------



## Damage Inc

> I just want it for gaming at 4k 120fps


Uh huh. What else would you want your new rig to do for you.


----------



## menko2

Damage Inc said:


> Uh huh. What else would you want your new rig to do for you.


As long i get better fps than my 8700k and z370 board I'll be good.


----------



## Slaughtahouse

This is a long conversation about a component that has little impact to performance for gaming at 4k 120fps (assuming high settings / latest titles).

By the time we even have a GPU which does that AND outpaces the scope and features of these games, your CPU will already be out of date.


----------



## menko2

Slaughtahouse said:


> This is a long conversation about a component that has little impact to performance for gaming at 4k 120fps (assuming high settings / latest titles).
> 
> By the time we even have a GPU which does that AND outpaces the scope and features of these games, your CPU will already be out of date.


Meaning that no CPU right now will give me better performance in games than my 8700k and z370? My graphic card is the 3090.

I thought that a high end mobo+cpu will give me a small boost and prepare for BAR-SAM shared memory and direct storage this year.


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> Meaning that no CPU right now will give me better performance in games than my 8700k and z370? My graphic card is the 3090.
> 
> I thought that a high end mobo+cpu will give me a small boost and prepare for BAR-SAM shared memory and direct storage this year.


You will get a boost but maybe 10-15 fps.


----------



## Slaughtahouse

Meaning just apply some common sense. No offense but you're focused on the CPU when the GPU does the majority of leg work. Buy what performs well today, if you need to, and save your pennies for the GPU.

3090 doesn't drive 4k 120 fps in the latest titles. So why are you spending more on the CPU? Unless you're talking older games or lower settings?

If I were you, I'd just keep the 8700k if your objective is 4k 120fps. Because 4k 120fps isn't possible today with newer games / high settings.

There is no future proofing. You can invest in some hardware that we can anticipate will hold better value, like oldschool said with X79. But that's not due to gaming performance. Rather quad channel support / ECC, many PCI-E lanes, cheap xeons available on the market etc. All of those can make great servers or rendering setups for cheap.


----------



## o1dschoo1

Slaughtahouse said:


> Meaning just apply some common sense. No offense but you're focused on the CPU when the GPU does the majority of leg work. Buy what performs well today, if you need to, and save your pennies for the GPU.
> 
> 3090 doesn't drive 4k 120 fps in the latest titles. So why are you spending more on the CPU? Unless you're talking older games or lower settings?
> 
> If I were you, I'd just keep the 8700k if your objective is 4k 120fps. Because 4k 120fps isn't possible today with newer games / high settings.
> 
> There is no future proofing. You can invest in some hardware that we can anticipate will hold better value, like oldschool said with X79. But that's not due to gaming performance. Rather quad channel support / ECC, many PCI-E lanes, cheap xeons available on the market etc. All of those can make great servers or rendering setups for cheap.


Only future proofing you can do is really buy the best cooling you can get aka custom water loop and clock to the moon on the best cpu you can get. 

I'll put it simple for you. I upgraded from a 4960x 16gb of 2133 ddr3 ram aka ivy bridge 6 core x79 at 4.5 to a i9 7900x at 4.7 with 32gb of ddr4 3800 tweaked b die. 2k resolution with a 1080 under water on both setups 2 fps difference. 2k and up really doesn't tax the cpu hard per say you just want the amount of cores to be right as games are starting to use more cores.


----------



## 113802

Only future proofing you can do is buy a sTRX4 board which AMD confirmed long-term support. While both AM4/LGA1200 are dead sockets with no upgrade path.


----------



## o1dschoo1

WannaBeOCer said:


> Only future proofing you can do is buy a sTRX4 board which AMD confirmed long-term support. While both AM4/LGA1200 are dead sockets with no upgrade path.


Lol them CPUs are insanely overpriced


----------



## 113802

o1dschoo1 said:


> Lol them CPUs are insanely overpriced


Compared to the 5950x I agree but when comparing the HEDT market and the core count/PCIe lanes they're competitive. They even support ECC unbuffered RAM. only thing that comes close are Xeon-Ws but then again AMD released their new ThreadRipper Pro lineup.


----------



## BulletSponge

At 4K you will be more GPU than CPU bound. It's a case of allocating a bit more to the GPU budget to account for a lesser performing CPU or vice versa. Personally I would lean towards the former but my experience is upgrading from a 1600X/X370/1080ti to a 3700X/X570/3080 rig.


----------



## Asmodian

WannaBeOCer said:


> Only future proofing you can do is buy a sTRX4 board which AMD confirmed long-term support. While both AM4/LGA1200 are dead sockets with no upgrade path.


sTRX4 is DDR4 though. LTS for datacenters isn't the same a future proof for a desktop user.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Cryptedvick said:


> Buddy, your argument made me giggle a little bit, because I've been a member of this forum since 07 and there have been quite a few times when I made that same statement, that this is OCN, the pursuit of performance, not of stock clocks.
> Fact of the matter is, in the same video you shared, the 10900k system is beating AMDs because its using an RTX3090, while the AMD system is using an RX6800XT which obviously means that the RTX system will win. In the mixed sections of the video, the AMD system with the RTX card comes on top, on every game except Godfall.
> 
> Below is another video from a reputable source where the 5900x is compared to the 10900k. Also, the 10900k is a 10 core 20 thread CPU, the 11900k will be 8 core 16 thread.
> Keep in mind that these are games we are talking about. Even with the upcoming 11900k with its promised 19% IPC gain, you will not see a 19% improvement in games. This 19% IPC gain will put it on par with the 5900x in single threaded scenarios, maybe 2-5% faster. The difference will be minimal in gaming.
> 
> Take into account that more and more games are taking advantage of more cores lately, and the 5900x has 50% more cores and threads, for a total of 24 threads over 16 threads on the 11900k.
> Should OP ever decide that he wants to do anything other than gaming at some point in the future, those 24 threads will destroy anything thrown its way and then some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: This is from Intels own presentation at CES
> View attachment 2474999
> 
> 
> Here is another video of both CPUs 5900x and 10900k stock vs overclocked
> In any workload scenario, the 5900x is way better than the 10900k.
> In games they are pretty much on par, sometimes slower, sometimes faster.
> 
> Last point to mention, which is rather irrelevant but still, the overclock on the 5900x is at 4.65Ghz while Intels is 5.2Ghz, a significant difference for worse overall performance. If you were to test these two CPUs clock for clock, say 4.5Ghz on both, to test actual silicon efficiency, well, you get the picture... but then again, Intel is made to run at higher frequency so it doesn't really matter.


I'd say point taken that in games they are on par give or take with the 5800X often coming out on top. I think the 11900k will outperform the 5800X in games (I will personally be upgrading CPUs), but Ryzen 3 refresh might match 11900k. But to the OPs point, he can buy a 10700k and Z490 board, then sell the 10700k on ebay for $300 when the 11900K comes out and little will be lost. If he buys a 5800X or 5900X, he will need a new motherboard when Ryzen refresh comes out. And he did not mention workload scenarios, only games.

And Testing Games does not overclock so that video doesn't really belong here.


----------



## menko2

0451 said:


> I'd say point taken that in games they are on par give or take with the 5800X often coming out on top. I think the 11900k will outperform the 5800X in games (I will personally be upgrading CPUs), but Ryzen 3 refresh might match 11900k. But to the OPs point, he can buy a 10700k and Z490 board, then sell the 10700k on ebay for $300 when the 11900K comes out and little will be lost. If he buys a 5800X or 5900X, he will need a new motherboard when Ryzen refresh comes out. And he did not mention workload scenarios, only games.
> 
> And Testing Games does not overclock so that video doesn't really belong here.


I think the short question is:

What system will give me more fps in 4k gaming at with their optimal components and settings. (Ram, mobo, ssd,...). I already have the rtx 3090.

my current system is asus z370-e, 8700k @5GHZ, 2x8gb g.skill [email protected] 1.42v.

1) z490-z590 with a 10900k. (Ram has much more headroom that what I have now)

2) x570 with a 5900x. (Ram will be around 3800mhz cl14 dual rank).

Which one for more fps at 4k?


----------



## geriatricpollywog

menko2 said:


> I think the short question is:
> 
> What system will give me more fps in 4k gaming at with their optimal components and settings. (Ram, mobo, ssd,...). I already have the rtx 3090.
> 
> my current system is asus z370-e, 8700k @5GHZ, 2x8gb g.skill [email protected] 1.42v.
> 
> 1) z490-z590 with a 10900k. (Ram has much more headroom that what I have now)
> 
> 2) x570 with a 5900x. (Ram will be around 3800mhz cl14 dual rank).
> 
> Which one for more fps at 4k?


I would wait for the 11900K if you already have a 8700k. Even with a 10700K at 5.5ghz, some games still want more single core performance. The 5800X has the single core performance but Overclocking is weak.


----------



## RamenRider

Maybe get a 6000 series RX GPU too to take advantage of that ragemode.


----------



## Cryptedvick

0451 said:


> I would wait for the 11900K if you already have a 8700k. Even with a 10700K at 5.5ghz, some games still want more single core performance. The 5800X has the single core performance but Overclocking is weak.


Whatever the 11900k brings on the table, its doubtful that it'll be that much. Remember, its still an 8 core/16 thread CPU. There is only so much you can squeeze from that, and Intel's been squeezing for years. 

With games taking advantage of more and more cores, long term, the 5900x will be proven to be better at games. At anything other than that, there's no comparison. 
Even if some games want more single core performance, you saw the cherry picked benchmarks straight from intel that show 2-8% better FPS vs the 5900x... I guess we'll see true reviews once its out, so indeed, best to wait and see what an 11900k can do, just for piece of mind that you (OP) would have made the right decision. 

Regarding overclocking, that is very subjective. 
I think a point could be made that if you ran both chips at the same frequency, you'd know which one is considerably more efficient. 
My guess is that AMD is really working hard to hit that 5Ghz mark with Ryzen and we'll more than likely see it in the not so distant future. 
All in all, things are definitely looking up for us gamers!


----------



## menko2

Cryptedvick said:


> Whatever the 11900k brings on the table, its doubtful that it'll be that much. Remember, its still an 8 core/16 thread CPU. There is only so much you can squeeze from that, and Intel's been squeezing for years.
> 
> With games taking advantage of more and more cores, long term, the 5900x will be proven to be better at games. At anything other than that, there's no comparison.
> Even if some games want more single core performance, you saw the cherry picked benchmarks straight from intel that show 2-8% better FPS vs the 5900x... I guess we'll see true reviews once its out, so indeed, best to wait and see what an 11900k can do, just for piece of mind that you (OP) would have made the right decision.
> 
> Regarding overclocking, that is very subjective.
> I think a point could be made that if you ran both chips at the same frequency, you'd know which one is considerably more efficient.
> My guess is that AMD is really working hard to hit that 5Ghz mark with Ryzen and we'll more than likely see it in the not so distant future.
> All in all, things are definitely looking up for us gamers!


I just saw benchmarks of Assassins Creed Valhalla and intel wins for a good margin. 5fps in 4k is quite a lot.

So confusing. 

I guess the best will be to build the 5800x-5900x system and check in person comparing to my 8700k and z370.


----------



## 113802

Asmodian said:


> sTRX4 is DDR4 though. LTS for datacenters isn't the same a future proof for a desktop user.


The OP appears to be in a rush to upgrade even though I wouldn't recommend an upgrade now. There are four current consumer platforms, three of which are dead sockets. AMD confirmed sTRX4 Threadripper will have long term support regarding CPU upgrades for this socket. The other platforms they're looking to upgrade to are also DDR4.


----------



## geriatricpollywog

Cryptedvick said:


> Whatever the 11900k brings on the table, its doubtful that it'll be that much. Remember, its still an 8 core/16 thread CPU. There is only so much you can squeeze from that, and Intel's been squeezing for years.
> 
> With games taking advantage of more and more cores, long term, the 5900x will be proven to be better at games. At anything other than that, there's no comparison.
> Even if some games want more single core performance, you saw the cherry picked benchmarks straight from intel that show 2-8% better FPS vs the 5900x... I guess we'll see true reviews once its out, so indeed, best to wait and see what an 11900k can do, just for piece of mind that you (OP) would have made the right decision.
> 
> Regarding overclocking, that is very subjective.
> I think a point could be made that if you ran both chips at the same frequency, you'd know which one is considerably more efficient.
> My guess is that AMD is really working hard to hit that 5Ghz mark with Ryzen and we'll more than likely see it in the not so distant future.
> All in all, things are definitely looking up for us gamers!


Things are looking up for gamers. I had to attach a daughterboard with dip switches called a "Gold Finger Device" to my original Athlon in order to overclock and the level of bios control we have these days is unreal.

Comparing AMD to Intel at the same frequency would not make sense, since Intel relies on clock speed and AMD relies on IPC. Intel does not have the IPC (yet) and AMD does not have the mhz (yet). It's like Pentium 4 Northwood vs Athlon64 all over again!



menko2 said:


> I just saw benchmarks of Assassins Creed Valhalla and intel wins for a good margin. 5fps in 4k is quite a lot.
> 
> So confusing.
> 
> I guess the best will be to build the 5800x-5900x system and check in person comparing to my 8700k and z370.


I hate to add to the confusion but I would read some of the horror stories before pulling the trigger on Zen 3. All 3 of these threads are on the first page of the AMD CPUs forum.

OCCT errors on new 5800x. Should I return? | Overclock.net 
5900x Not Boosting Under Load | Overclock.net 
5950x slower In Port royal Benchmark then 9900k | Overclock.net


----------



## menko2

0451 said:


> Things are looking up for gamers. I had to attach a daughterboard with dip switches called a "Gold Finger Device" to my original Athlon in order to overclock and the level of bios control we have these days is unreal.
> 
> Comparing AMD to Intel at the same frequency would not make sense, since Intel relies on clock speed and AMD relies on IPC. Intel does not have the IPC (yet) and AMD does not have the mhz (yet). It's like Pentium 4 Northwood vs Athlon64 all over again!
> 
> 
> I hate to add to the confusion but I would read some of the horror stories before pulling the trigger on Zen 3. All 3 of these threads are on the first page of the AMD CPUs forum.
> 
> OCCT errors on new 5800x. Should I return? | Overclock.net
> 5900x Not Boosting Under Load | Overclock.net
> 5950x slower In Port royal Benchmark then 9900k | Overclock.net


I had the 5900x and Asus dark hero and it went well. But the performance was the same same as my 8700k and z370 in gaming. 

But no problems so far. Maybe now bios are better after one month and a half and correct my mistake of puting ram at 3800mhz-1900 Infinity fabrik (a little too much).


----------



## menko2

0451 said:


> Things are looking up for gamers. I had to attach a daughterboard with dip switches called a "Gold Finger Device" to my original Athlon in order to overclock and the level of bios control we have these days is unreal.
> 
> Comparing AMD to Intel at the same frequency would not make sense, since Intel relies on clock speed and AMD relies on IPC. Intel does not have the IPC (yet) and AMD does not have the mhz (yet). It's like Pentium 4 Northwood vs Athlon64 all over again!
> 
> 
> I hate to add to the confusion but I would read some of the horror stories before pulling the trigger on Zen 3. All 3 of these threads are on the first page of the AMD CPUs forum.
> 
> OCCT errors on new 5800x. Should I return? | Overclock.net
> 5900x Not Boosting Under Load | Overclock.net
> 5950x slower In Port royal Benchmark then 9900k | Overclock.net


It looks like that the latency is the factory limiting the ryzens to perform better than intel as intel latency is lower and don't need to adjust to infinity fabrik.


----------



## warpuck

The short version. For all core my 3800x did better with slight under voltage and 50 MHz below the rated value for all core. (passed all stress testing apps) and the included cooler.
For gaming just using precision boost worked better in some games. Some of the cores would clock to 4550 Mhz.
The 3800X is limited INTERNALLY to 140 watts MAX. The 5000s are pretty much the same.
Did I gain $50 more performance with the 180 watt cooler? Some, but not $50 more. But it is a lot quieter when maxed because the cooler is not maxed. And the CPU is 15-20C cooler.
But I do have a LED nicey cooler for a HTPC build, if AMD ever does out with a consumer version of a 5000 series APU.

The 6 pipe I picked does not have LEDs.
Cant see the light show any way. The case is behind the 27" monitor 

This is a pretty good explanation of AMD overclock for Zen 5000s below.





For Zen 3, I don't think The 5000 series is much different.





Oh yes the motherboard does make difference. A really good B550 is a bit better than a bargain X570.
But I don't think a Crosshair VIII is 2 times or more better than a Asrock X570 Steel Legend or the B550 Taichi.
The Crosshair does have a lot more USB connections on the rear panel and 2 LAN ports.

Even Jay thinks for gaming a 5600X is a better choice than 10700K. For rendering the 10700K. The 10700K is about 5% better.
Both are more than 100% more of what is needed for gaming.

If I was depending on rendering for making a living with it. 5900X. MOAR cores is better for that.
Also the difference between 3200 speed and 3600 speed RAM is not that much and 32 and 64 GB is works much better than 16 GB for most things. For games, not really.

A ThreadRipper would make that much difference? Yes. But not for gaming.


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> I think the short question is:
> 
> What system will give me more fps in 4k gaming at with their optimal components and settings. (Ram, mobo, ssd,...). I already have the rtx 3090.
> 
> my current system is asus z370-e, 8700k @5GHZ, 2x8gb g.skill [email protected] 1.42v.
> 
> 1) z490-z590 with a 10900k. (Ram has much more headroom that what I have now)
> 
> 2) x570 with a 5900x. (Ram will be around 3800mhz cl14 dual rank).
> 
> Which one for more fps at 4k?


5900x should give you more fps but it's gonna be 10 fps if that and ton of money for that small gain. That's why were telling you to wait


----------



## menko2

o1dschoo1 said:


> 5900x should give you more fps but it's gonna be 10 fps if that and ton of money for that small gain. That's why were telling you to wait


Thank you man but I'm taking things day by day. I'm now out of cancer and químio recently so time is precious. I hope you understand now why Im eager to update to something new even if benefit is low. Health is good at the moment but I won't know for sure until some time pass...

You mean to wait for end of the year right? Rocket Lake will equal Ryzen 5000 I guess.

I bought a 5800x and x570 Asus Dark Hero because this two I can return to the shop if I don't like them. (5900x or 5950x can't be found unless second hand).

Tomorrow I'll try the new setting and now I'm just doing tests and benchmarks to compare.


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> Thank you man but I'm taking things day by day. I'm now out of cancer and químio recently so time is precious. I hope you understand now why Im eager to update to something new even if benefit is low. Health is good at the moment but I won't know for sure until some time pass...
> 
> You mean to wait for end of the year right? Rocket Lake will equal Ryzen 5000 I guess.
> 
> I bought a 5800x and x570 Asus Dark Hero because this two I can return to the shop if I don't like them. (5900x or 5950x can't be found unless second hand).
> 
> Tomorrow I'll try the new setting and now I'm just doing tests and benchmarks to compare.


That would be your best bet. Compare them directly.


----------



## menko2

o1dschoo1 said:


> That would be your best bet. Compare them directly.


What do you think about rocket lake comparing to what we have now with amd and intel?


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> What do you think about rocket lake comparing to what we have now with amd and intel?


Rocket lake is suppose to be a 19 percent ipc increase but it's dropping 2 cores. Ik for damn sure I won't drop 2 cores especially being I keep hardware for 3-4 years. But same hand I'm happy with my x299 setup and skylake x as a whole.


----------



## menko2

o1dschoo1 said:


> Rocket lake is suppose to be a 19 percent ipc increase but it's dropping 2 cores. Ik for damn sure I won't drop 2 cores especially being I keep hardware for 3-4 years. But same hand I'm happy with my x299 setup and skylake x as a whole.


That's why I get confused with the numbers of cores. 

Normally they suggest in GN and other websites that the 5600x is great gaming cpu and the 5900x or 5950x are more for productivity.

Will the extra cores give performance in actual games? 4k gaming. I haven't seen many games taking advantage of many cores.


----------



## o1dschoo1

menko2 said:


> That's why I get confused with the numbers of cores.
> 
> Normally they suggest in GN and other websites that the 5600x is great gaming cpu and the 5900x or 5950x are more for productivity.
> 
> Will the extra cores give performance in actual games? 4k gaming. I haven't seen many games taking advantage of many cores.


Ik battlefield v uses 10 if it's there resident evil 2 and 3 remake uses 8 cores. It's moving in that route . And that's at 2k and 4k res


----------



## Slaughtahouse

Thanks for elaborating on the context, OP. If that is the case, keep us posted on the results.

I still can't recommend that spending more on the CPU will help given the resolution (4K) but if you're on a race for the best hardware, just stick with what performs best today. IMO Zen 3 (on average) is best... slightly. Some titles, you'll see Comet Lake pull away but it's a close race either way.

*Just be aware you'll still be GPU bound in almost all scenarios for modern, new titles with all the settings*. Even if we isolate a CPU intensive game, like Civ 6 or Read Dead 2, you can see some results on the impacts (4K Low).









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







www.anandtech.com





Whether it's a 5600x, 5800x, 5900x, they all perform nearly identical at that resolution. Now if you're talking older games, then you'll surely hit 120fps no problem with a 3090. But note that most older games, rely heavily on single core performance. So again, we land back at the CPU with the best IPC.

You can see in a game like World of Tanks, the impacts at 4k.









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







www.anandtech.com





Or various other games at 4K...





__





AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (Zen 3) CPU Review


AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X (Zen 3) processor blends solid gaming and productivity performance into one CPU. Join us as we take a look.




www.tweaktown.com





If you don't trust those websites, I am sure you can find many more with similar results at 4K.


----------



## menko2

Slaughtahouse said:


> Thanks for elaborating on the context, OP. If that is the case, keep us posted on the results.
> 
> I still can't recommend that spending more on the CPU will help given the resolution (4K) but if you're on a race for the best hardware, just stick with what performs best today. IMO Zen 3 (on average) is best... slightly. Some titles, you'll see Comet Lake pull away but it's a close race either way.
> 
> *Just be aware you'll still be GPU bound in almost all scenarios for modern, new titles with all the settings*. Even if we isolate a CPU intensive game, like Civ 6 or Read Dead 2, you can see some results on the impacts (4K Low).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.anandtech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it's a 5600x, 5800x, 5900x, they all perform nearly identical at that resolution. Now if you're talking older games, then you'll surely hit 120fps no problem with a 3090. But note that most older games, rely heavily on single core performance. So again, we land back at the CPU with the best IPC.
> 
> You can see in a game like World of Tanks, the impacts at 4k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.anandtech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or various other games at 4K...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (Zen 3) CPU Review
> 
> 
> AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X (Zen 3) processor blends solid gaming and productivity performance into one CPU. Join us as we take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tweaktown.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't trust those websites, I am sure you can find many more with similar results at 4K.


I'm mounting the pc some time today. I bought the 5800x because if the lack of inter-ccd latency but specially because I can return if results are not good. I got also ram 3800mhz cl14 so everything is in ideal conditions for this system.

I'll be posting in 16 hours or so.


----------



## menko2

I'm stuck cause I can't read the temps of the 5800x cores.

I installed everything as always in a new windows 10 installation. Drivers (even the chipset from AMD website which is newer), updated to latest beta bios,...

I tried diferent programs with no luck trying to read the temps. I can see the temps of everything except the cpu cores.

Any help with this?


----------



## menko2

Slaughtahouse said:


> Thanks for elaborating on the context, OP. If that is the case, keep us posted on the results.
> 
> I still can't recommend that spending more on the CPU will help given the resolution (4K) but if you're on a race for the best hardware, just stick with what performs best today. IMO Zen 3 (on average) is best... slightly. Some titles, you'll see Comet Lake pull away but it's a close race either way.
> 
> *Just be aware you'll still be GPU bound in almost all scenarios for modern, new titles with all the settings*. Even if we isolate a CPU intensive game, like Civ 6 or Read Dead 2, you can see some results on the impacts (4K Low).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.anandtech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether it's a 5600x, 5800x, 5900x, they all perform nearly identical at that resolution. Now if you're talking older games, then you'll surely hit 120fps no problem with a 3090. But note that most older games, rely heavily on single core performance. So again, we land back at the CPU with the best IPC.
> 
> You can see in a game like World of Tanks, the impacts at 4k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.anandtech.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or various other games at 4K...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (Zen 3) CPU Review
> 
> 
> AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X (Zen 3) processor blends solid gaming and productivity performance into one CPU. Join us as we take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.tweaktown.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't trust those websites, I am sure you can find many more with similar results at 4K.


After many hours of tweaking and testing all I can say is a bit disappointing. Overall the ryzen is way better than my old [email protected] 
But for gaming...I know playing at 4k there won't be diference but I still get around 4-5fps in almost every game with a RTX 3090.

The "fps lows" are a bit better with the ryzen processor. I tweaked the rams a lot as well (3800mhz cl14 and Infinity fabric 1900mhz).

Also overclocking the processor to all cores are 4.8ghz or boost single core to 5.05ghz doesn't make difference in the gaming. 

I have been trying at least to replicate the results of my [email protected] with no luck. Instead of being a few fps lower I expected to be with the same or a few fps up.

So I'm thinking to get a z590 with a 11900k. That should give me scores like the 8700k or a bit more.


----------



## Asmodian

menko2 said:


> The "fps lows" are a bit better with the ryzen processor.


Personally, the lows are the most important. They are what makes a game feel slow.


----------

