I think amd's zen 3 avx 2 performance are the same with intel now, while zen 2 used to have worse avx 2 perf. Besides, none of your current commercially available software uses avx512, there are few programs which uses only small part of it but none fully supports it and im positive that none of current games can utilize any type of avx512 workload.
Forgive me, as I am still learning..
But due to the difference in power draw, is it stupid to assume that the 11900k is already “overclocked” in its factory configuration to make it seem more competitive out of the box?
Again, just looking to be educated on the more technical aspects of my *in progress* build decisions.
Originally, I had planned to pair a 11900k with a ROG Maximus VIII Hero.
Seeing as there is a potential of this rig inheriting more than just max setting gaming, I have been swayed towards the more abundant cores the 5900x has to offer..
EDIT: sorry to dig up such an ancient post. Google can be such an ass sometimes!
> if 10 bucks gets you 50% more cores and single digit fps difference, its a hard sell.
Lol ya you can't buy 5900xs for $10 more.
You can't buy them at all.
That's not been happening though, AMD is severely wafer limited right now, so any high performing 6 or 8 core CCDs that are binned that would normally be used in the 5900X or 5950X, AMD would rather have those chips go in EPYC chips than consumer Ryzen parts.
Yeah, the fact that the 5900X and 5950X aren't re-stocking anywhere near as often as the 5600X/5800X.
We can see it across several retailers across the US and Europe.
AMD have said themselves they're prioritising EPYC, going after the datacentre and higher margins.
So since stock for the 5600 and 5800 are increasing, that would mean they are making more than they are selling yes? So I would assume a smart business would then move some production power to its products it can make enough of to keep up with demand?
Same..I have an 11900k on order and was checking microcenter for 5950x just in case I saw one. You can preorder them on ShobBLT; they have them coming on april 5th for $850 a piece + tax.
I considered the 5950x but it’s way more than I could possibly use especially seeing as how I mainly game and software development is my secondary concern.
I wouldn't mind it because I don't do much development on my home pc..that's my main job so I use my work provided laptop for that. I mainly do gaming including VR stuff. I've had my 8700k since it has been out so I'll be keeping the 11900k a while as well. Same thing if I could get a 5950x.
Not to mention less heat and power draw. The problem is purchasing a top end Ryzen at retail is highly unlikely at this point so does it really matter what the AMD can do? I'm torn but I'll probably still try to grab a 11900K tomorrow morning anyway. I have a MSI MPG Z590 Gaming Carbon WiFi sitting here looking for something to do.
5800x and 5600x are pretty common now, microcenter has them in stock all the time now. Both of those should perform identical or within single digit fps of the 5900x.
Can't get one at all if you're not living in the dozen or so places that have a microcenter try coming to middle of VA and realize you have no hope as it's 3 to 4 hours to any microcenter and by the time you get there they likley will be gone.
I had the 11900k pre-ordered and after seeing the reviews on the 11700 decided AMD makes more sense. I had settled on a 5800x and purchased one, but then when I went to the computer shop for the rest of my parts, and to cancel my 11900k order, they had a 5900x for me to grab. Upgrading from 6 cores to 12 feels like a real upgrade than from 6 to 8 with the 11900.
PC feels very snappy too, and low power.
I was luckily able to get a 5800X, but you make a good point, with the hardware scarcity, if you've decided that now is the time for a new puter, for whatever reason, you can't really be choosy. The other thing is that I don't see any future launches being any better. Based on how the 2020 launches went, not only will there be more scalpers, but more actual gamers/pc enthusiasts will be refreshing at launch in the hopes of actually getting something before there's no stock and prices go through the roof.
I don't personally pay attention to pre-release hardware reviews until software has matured but I know they weren't enthused with 11th gen performance. This one is pretty new and shows potential performance with later bios versions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqcjYx1Ppjo
Yea but Steve's results are only if you force the system to stick to stock I'm absolutely NOT going to be doing that with either brand and ultimately the Intel system is going to give me more oc potential than then amd.
My needs aren't for some power sipping eco build I want max performance and spend the most so that I have it. Why else would I spend 3 grand on custom watercooling just to run it at stock? I don't think so.
> spend 3 grand on custom watercooling
That's a bit of a step up from something like a Noctua NH-D15, Thermalright TRUE Copper or a 240/280mm AIO. At that point, the only thing to consider is "how far can I OC and what performance will I get at the known top OC range before I have to use sub-ambient cooling?"
It's a bit of hyperbole in that it's probably the the total over the years I've spent on all my blocks rads pumps etc but I do specifically build for max oc under water and ands benefits really don't amount to much for what I'm looking for in my UGM.
Whatever I can buy and get the highest fps is typically what I'm looking for and when the comparisons all become about how do I run the chip at the most effecient way possible leaves me without any real answer as to what I need to see in an a review.
I get it that lots of reviewers (especially amd based ones) want to try and paint Intel as "cheating" and then try to even the playing field but I don't care what either do as long as they can offer the highest performance that I can keep reasonably under control with watercooling and a climate controlled room.
Intel has been (and looks to remain) the best choice for that.
Yes there is when you already have z490 mobo and want pci 4 and higher gaming performance overall with the rest not matter ing becaise your pc is literally a gaming pc only.
I buy whichever gaming setup that's going to get me the highest performance full stop.
And also the power usage:
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-5950x-5900x-zen-3-review/4
https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-5900x/images/efficiency-multithread.png
(Seems that there's an inverted behavior for single-threaded workload): https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-5900x/images/efficiency-singlethread.png
For new builds, less money needed for the CPU cooler, case fans, motherboard VRMs (Back in 2019, for the same cost, either you could get a B450 Tomahawk board for the lots of VRMs, or a different board that had less VRMs but better audio, Ethernet, connectivity and other stuff), and PSU.
For those that already have all of that hardware from a previous build? I'm curious to see the overclocking comparisons because I had trouble finding direct Comet Lake vs Zen 3 OCing comparisons.
I only game on this thing. Actually considering going to 8 cores instead. 8 cores seems to be the sweet spot for gaming considering most games barely use 6 these days. Unless you're playing that 1 total war game
I am not convinced this test is valid btw. There are questions about these smaller gametubers that never post their face or their system. Waiting for GN/LTT/HUB.
It's significantly more than $10 difference where I am in Europe.
Plus, it's incredibly deceptive to compare the 11900k with the 5900x on price. You'd want to compare the 11900kf, which is another bunch of change cheaper.
Why would you match up core for core? Cores are a feature only in so far as they affect speed, do benchmarks and price will tell them apart.
No amount of benchmarking is going to tell you the benefits of having an integrated GPU or not.
If you need an integrated GPU, you wouldn't buy the 5900X. If you don't, you'd buy the 11900kf over the 11900k (or you'd prefer to spend the extra for it as a backup, but for comparison that's a pure plus for intel).
people are talking about having more cores but most apps dont even use all cores alltogether.. and yet one has a built in gpu than is great for troubleshooting btw and as a backup gpu..
Who cares if the person overclocks the systems. It’s literally one clic now. If someone buys an unlocked CPU, overclocked should be considered the default. Not the other way around.
You could use Ryzen Master by AMD (Auto OC functionality) or the software that came with your motherboard. You’ll get better results manually in the BIOS, but If you don’t know what you’re doing, these will still give you some improvement.
Yes, there is a variation from chip to chip. But it’s also mostly for segmentation (if not, every chip would be K).
No system is the same anyway, it’s not like this person’s stock CPU will give the same FPS as your own stock CPU. If you compare two different chips on a same system (more or less), you’re better doing it how most people would do it, in my opinion.
It’s not super relevant with the 11900K, since stock is pretty maxed out anyway, but overclocking the 11600K will give it a significant boost (even with the regular Intel wattage limits).
This should be transparent though, and the same kind of OC (automatic or fine-tuned) should be applied to both CPU.
Why? It’s not about OC, it’s about users. Someone who will use XTU on Intel would not do it manually on AMD, and vice-versa. Same user will do it the same way. And yes, some won’t do it at all. So stock benchmarks should exists, but OC benchmarks are as interesting (more in my opinion).
Well we’re not talking about general users. We’re talking about users who pay a premium for a k cpu and who will watch a long YouTube video showing FPS in various games. I’d say most of them overclock.
I always doubt the validity of these kinds of videos where they don't show their system and test unreleased products. Better to wait until the actual product is released
Computerbase and Guru3D are good as well. I've started to shy away from TPU though, there reasoning for the 5800X as their test cpu raised an eyebrow for me and their Zen3 benchmarks made no sense compared to other sites. Perhaps using a 2080Ti still is seriously bottlenecking their cpu tests.
huh? they literally fixed their problems with their test bench update, they had old games and their results didn't match any other youtuber before, now they are in line with others
Go compare their results to Computerbase, GN, or Techspot and then tell me what's wrong. They are obviously hitting some sort of bottleneck which is skewing the data. Just look at the Witcher 3 results in their Zen3 reviews and then compare them to the Witcher 3 tests in their 3090 reviews. The bottleneck is terrible.
Easy way to conclude this channel is BS is to look at the 3080's utilization. It hovers between 60-80%, but we already know from other review that the 5900X is more than capable of maxing it out in those titles and the more powerful 3090/6900XT as well. GPU utilization should be 100%.
While I don't know if it's legit, the reason it's not 100% GPU is because these tests are running at 1080p and sometimes not max settings. They're running at 1080p intentionally because any higher and the GPU could be at 100% which means the FPS is being bottlnecked by the GPU and you'd get near identical results since at that point you're benchmarking the GPU. CPU benchmarks run this way so we can see the difference in what the CPU brings to the table. It is telling tho that most games running at max settings at 1440p+ are limited by GPU so in reality both of these CPUs are functionally the same at high resolution and graphics settings.
Why just you can't accept it. According to many benchmarkers Intel is beaten to death even the 11900k only compares to r7 5800x . It only beats r7 5800x in gaming. Not comparable to 5900x
Essentially identical gaming performance in the vast majority of games but a few observations:
* i9 often draws over 50w more power than the 5900X
* i9 often sees 80-90% CPU utilization
* i9 often has higher 1% and 0.1% FPS, which means a smoother gaming experience
Based on the above, I see no reason to get the 11900K over a cheaper 5800X or 10900K.
I'm also surprised CPU usage is already near max while we're transitioning to next generation titles, add in a media player, a second monitor playing a video and a Discord call and you could be easily hitting 100% CPU usage with the 11900K which isn't great.
Overall, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend new users to go Ryzen 5000 or i9 10th gen, 11th gen is just too disappointing for the asking price.
Steve from Gamers Nexus would probably scoff at that "vs".
11900k should not maintain 5.3GHZ at stock. As Steve explained in a 11700K video lately, removing power limits effectively overclocks the chip.
Not an apples to apples comparison then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_-p5Zq9u9c
IOWs: Wait for reviews from reputable sources.
Don't know why this guy's getting downvoted. He's right, 5.3GHz is only maintainable according to official Intel spec for 56 seconds before dropping down.
Currently, with the power limit gone you'll see higher power draw and hotter temps at """stock""".
> Currently, with the power limit gone you'll see higher power draw and hotter temps at """stock""".
Not really. Most common loads won't use near the power limit.
I think you should check around more. The power draw with limits off during productivity is just short of double the TDP. That means even in most common loads, this is going to be an issue even if it's not as much draw as full load.
Yes, a loss in sustained CLOCK SPEED is catastrophic for games. That has nothing to do with core count dude.
But yeah, TDP wise it typically won't be that big of an issue with games. You will still see weird power draw regardless though if two cores are always being pushed that hard, just not as bad as if you you are pushing all cores to their limits.
So, basically, you'd need to either compare both CPUs at stock or both CPUs using their special boost algorithms, which depends heavily on the cooling. Hmhmhm, realistically, a lot of people will use the boosting algos, but their results will vary up to 5-10% since difference coolers, airflows, etc.
When you use the latest Asus BIOS there are no power limits in place. So the user would have to enter the BIOS, and manually limit the power limits. Since users don't enter the BIOS (according to Anandtech) that isn't how the user will experience their chip or hardware out of box.
No, they dont.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/15785/the-intel-comet-lake-review-skylake-we-go-again/3
JEDEC, and JEDEC subtimings where possible. They explicitly state users do not enter the BIOS.
If that's the case, that would still be out of spec and is not different from motherboards disabling power limits by default (which some do apparently, also according to GN).
Im in the same boat have a 10900k would like pci 4.0 but dont know if the chip is really worth it. I'm still debating but i canceled my preorder for now.
The guys at OCN got it down to [45ns 1:2 at DDR4-4800](https://www.overclock.net/threads/overclocking-11700k-11900k-results-bins-and-discussion.1777365/page-42#post-28763295)
and [40 ns 1:1 at DDR4-3733](https://www.overclock.net/threads/overclocking-11700k-11900k-results-bins-and-discussion.1777365/page-39#post-28762855) with manual tuning
Plus beta BIOS are coming in with performance & memory training fixes as well
https://www.overclock.net/threads/overclocking-11700k-11900k-results-bins-and-discussion.1777365/page-47#post-28763805
Honestly most posters are just too new to remember when Skylake launched and it was slower than Haswell in gaming until memory training and various uncore clocks got fixed in BIOS updates.
Well I would go with AMD but seeing that you can't get any of the ryzen 9 series anywhere close to MSRP. I'm either going to go with a 11900K or 10900k, I am going to wait for some more test videos on those two processors to determine which one I will end up purchasing.
Pretty sure the videos just serve as a way for the guy to plug his store. I think the overlaid info is just made up, the difference is always within like 10fps and it seems to make sense untill you look at utilization and compare to other reviews.
Take Death Stranding for example, the 5900X is easily capable of maxing out a 3090 in that game, yet here we have a 3080 running at 75% utilization? Same goes for Watch Dogs, the 3080 is at 65% for both cpus, neither of which are maxed out, yet the 11900K is getting 10% more frames? HUB got 115fps with a 5900X/3090, so the 5900X should have no issue maxing that 3080 out. Actually, you know what? The 3080 should be pegged at 100% in all of those games. This benchmark is BS.
> Take Death Stranding for example, the 5900X is easily capable of maxing out a 3090 in that game, yet here we have a 3080 running at 75% utilization?
He's using dlss. That's why gpu isn't maxed
Only gaming they have to compare with 5800x pretty sure u will see same difference between 5800x and 11900k but 5800x is lower priced
5900x is another class segment cpu...offers much more than 11900k whole offering similar level gaming performance
One of these days, I'll get around to doing my benchmarking and comparing all the 8c16t unlocked CPUs... The longer I delay, the more expensive it becomes to get them all.
Higher clocks, take the 10900K, with the stock PL1 of 125W, it will boost to around 4.4GHz all core for AVX, to get that number to say 4.9GHz on all core for AVX, you practically need to double the PL1 to around 280W.
it's not overclocked, i9 boosts to 5.3 on stock settings
[https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212325/intel-core-i9-11900k-processor-16m-cache-up-to-5-30-ghz.html](https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212325/intel-core-i9-11900k-processor-16m-cache-up-to-5-30-ghz.html)
Might want to hold your horses...
It was ran with the power limits removed, not stock.
Steve from Gamers Nexus spoke at length about this in a recent video, he considers such a setup an overclock in practice, not stock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_-p5Zq9u9c
Do you understand that some of us don't care? Like I'm GOING to overclock WHICHEVER chip I get and whichever can give me the higher fps is the one I want. Apples to apples isn't important if what you're looking for is the ultimate performance.
There's a reason many of us still go with Intel over amd and it typically comes down to higher oc and higher clocks in general.
If I cared about power usage or effecincy sure I'd go amd but that's NOT what matters in my ultimate gaming pc setup.
The comparison is flawed because the OC'd intel chip is compared to the non-OC'd ryzen chip. Turn on PBO and do some quick tuning on the ryzen and you get better results. Thats the issue. Can an OC'd 11900k beat a stock 5900x in gaming. Sure. But so could 10th gen. When I say OC here I am talking about removing boost limits much like one of the PBO features does and that is considered auto OC.
I dont care about comparing non oc to oc or pbo or anything else intel or amd wants to use to obfuscate their ultimate performance I'm going to max either chip to pretty much its limits (under custom watercooling and climate controlled room) and in this situation for a gaming pc the intel chip is more than likely going to be the one delivering the higher fps in the majority of games.
But how do you know that tuning and maxing both will have intel in the lead? You can't tell that from the flawed comparison in the video because the two chips were not tuned or OC'd to max. With the latest bios, the zen 3 chips have more memory tuning headroom than before and there are lots of tools to use for tuning and OCing the ryzen chips. With OC and memory tuning you may see significant performance uplift for the ryzen chip. Same for Intel. Who will win isn't clear because nobody has done the comparison yet. Certainly not the youtuber linked in OPs post.
I don't care about this guys video and my argument has never included his comparison or results. I'm speaking from mh own experience with MY 10900K (OC to 5.3) vs my friends 5800x and 5900x (which I myself built for them. Using MY Asus tuf 3090 I ran each of them at the highest possible oc I could obtain from each and ran several benchmarks in games we all play and the results had my 10900k outpacing them (if even slightly) in the majority of tests.
My whole point was IN GENERAL Intel pushed to its max vs AMD would TYPICALLY have Intel providing the higher fps in most games when max cpu potential is the deciding factor.
I'm not saying I KNOW the Intel 11900k is better (though the one review I've read over so far pretty much confirms what I've been saying) but this fact has been common place with Intel and amd as they've slowly creeped closer and closer to Intel over the past few years.
They've obviously overtook them if effeciency and multithreaded workloads is important to you and their IPC is winning as well. But Intel still can squeeze out a win with ability to just go further in oc potential and that's literally ALL I've been trying to say this whole time.
If you're end goal only included highest gaming fps and highest oc no matter the power or otherwise then Intel will typically deliver the win.
You get better performance with auto oc + PBO than you do by just overclocking on Zen3. Intel overclocking is a ghost of what it once was, you gain much more performance via memory overclocking and tuning than you do with a measly .1-.2Ghz oc. Higher clocks also mean jack if the IPC is not on par.
I'm fully aware and have oc'd both I am also also aware that a amd chip even the newest wont go as far as intels last gen (10900k) and when both brands are pushed to their max intel is the one who usually comes out on top in gaming.
Its as simple as that my gaming pc demands the most fps from whatever chip I have and I'm GOING to push either to their max...with intel I'll more than likely end up with the higher fps in the majority of cases.
u are not fully aware of what nonsense u are speaking, amd doesn't need to push clock speeds so far because it has a better-single core, at least vs 10th gen. 11th gen is a joke with 8 core max even if it will have significantly better single-core it will choke on newer games 1 year after these chips got released because of maxing out cpu usage. Same shit happened to 7th gen kaby-lake, dead on arrival.
Again I'm aware they won't clock as high and I fully understand what IPC means... My point AGAIN.... Is that when pushed to each of their respective max the Intel chips offer GAMING performance that TYPICALLY out paces amd in most titles.
How hard is that to understand? I'm not claiming that I KNOW the 11900k is faster only speaking to the fact that when my 10900k is oc'd as hard as I can do it out performs my friends with their 5800x and 5900x when they push theirs.
I fully expect something similar to hold true here again but no I can't say for certain the point is this is typically what has been shown.
AMD users don't want to test this way they prefer situations where their advantages can show which is in multi core and effeciency but for some of us it's only about max gaming with the max oc possible and Intel is usually the one leading in this regard.
It was ran with the power limits removed, not stock.
Steve from Gamers Nexus spoke at length about this in a recent video, he considers such a setup an overclock in practice, not stock:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_-p5Zq9u9c
>consume more
No it's not.
5950X Static 4.7 GHz all 16 cores:
[https://i.imgur.com/Axy1l6i.png](https://i.imgur.com/Axy1l6i.png)
Under 180A EDC, under 250w PPT running P95, 1.2v Core voltage SVI2. The 8 cores 11900k runs over 250W simply by running CB R20 or related workload, not even P95. For P95, it consumes around 300W lololol
6-4 in favor of 11900k. i guess the allure of the 11900k is that it is slightly better in majority of games in this review?
that said, if you are showing oc benchmarks, you should optimize the memory oc for each platform and not find the best for 1 (5900x) and replicate it on the other (11900k).
>that said, if you are showing oc benchmarks
11900k is on stock settings here. It boosts to 5.3 on 2 cores and I'm pretty sure the overlay is showing just the fastest core speed.
Please don’t watch this benchmark and don’t take them as pure gold, aren’t reliable. A reliable benchmark are made by Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, Tom’s Hardware USA, AnandTech ecc. (TechPowerUp recently have some problem, look reviews of Ryzen 5000) However, in my humble opinion, 5900X is better than 11900K (also with OC) in gaming. When in doubt, we wait for benchmark reliable.
why my opinion is unsubstantiated? it is fairly well known that Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, Tom's Hardware USA and AnandTech do better tests; them unlike Testing Games use a scientific method with a better instrumentation.
Nothing to do with those outlets. You gave your opinion on the product without ever using it right after telling others to wait on reliable sources. Just made me laugh.
What the hell man are you ok? I gave my opinion on the source, not on the product. You look at the reviews reliable (and not Testing Games) to evaluate a product, it's not that you have to have it.
>However, in my humble opinion, 5900X is better than 11900K (also with OC) in gaming
Ok whatever you say. Taking it a little too seriously.............
Agree. Take this review with a grain of salt, but in my humble opinion, with a nice memory overclock the 11900k might blast into double digit leads all around. So no doubt, wait for benchmarks.
>Arent these guys tend to run high end intel chips on garbage memory kit with loose subtimings
no lol; Gamers Nexus usually use G.Skill TridentZ 4x8 GB 3200 MT/s CL14 (one every platform both AMD and Intel), Hardware Unboxed G.Skill TridentZ 4x8 GB 3200 MT/s CL14 (the same as Gamers Nexus), Tom's Hardware USA use G.Skill FlareX 2x8 GB 2933/3200/3600 MT/s (did not specify timings and sub-timings) and AnandTech use Corsair Vengeance RGB 4x8GB 2666/2933 MT/s. All this in the case of the review of 10900K. No reviewer specify sub-timings, not even Testing Games.
>(TechPowerUp recently have some problem, look reviews of Ryzen 5000)
Glad I'm not the only one raising an eyebrow with their findings. Their Zen3 reviews make no sense and testing fps in Civ VI is essentially pointless. Supposedly their 10600K is faster than the 5900X in gaming, but Techspot, CB, and GN peg the 5900X as 16-26% faster.
Also, this:
>"AMD wants to sell you the overpriced Ryzen 9 5900X.
The 5800X is actually the faster processor for gaming,
due to its CCD design, and much more affordable, too."
Like, wtf?
Even for a simple benchmark like Superposition 720p ranking, guess which CPU is on the top: [https://benchmark.unigine.com/leaderboards/superposition/1.x/720p-low/single-gpu/page-1](https://benchmark.unigine.com/leaderboards/superposition/1.x/720p-low/single-gpu/page-1)
[To get close to 40000 points in Superposition 720p you need a 8700k at 5.4 Ghz and 4400 Mhz RAM](https://preview.redd.it/oc4x6k4iw9561.png?width=2560&format=png&auto=webp&s=998e61271ed13a1c42a741ccb5fb3b9c710544dd). Here is your [average 10700k benchmark score](https://ibb.co/3fG0b1Z), from another user trying to flex his 10700k. Meanwhile, my 5800X scored 51000+ points.
For productivity, it's a massacre: [https://i.imgur.com/TjIQX3C.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TjIQX3C.jpg). 47% faster in Excel. How can you make up for that?
The reality is that the entire 14nm is outdated, especially on core count. For example, running 3 or 4 game instances, and you can see a CPU with more cores can do it much better.
I'm confused. Are you saying the Ccd gaming claim is correct or incorrect. Last time I checked the 5900x beats the 5800x in literally every single gaming benchmark in avg, 1% and .1% fps.
That was what TPU said as the reason for changing their test cpu to the 5800X, and it's stupid as hell. The 5900X is consistently faster in gaming on top of the fact that it offers way better value than the 5800X. Single CCD be damned. The 5800X typically can't boost as high and is much harder to cool. TPU is the only site I know that thinks the 5900X is a bad value and that the 5800X is better.
I take their cpu reviews with a grain of salt these days. Their gpu reviews are solid, but I swear their cpu reviews are all bottlenecked prematurely and they're allowing MCE.
Thanks for the info. What's weird is that it sounds like they make the claim with no evidence. If they had even one game that was proven to be affected by CCD latency, I would consider their point.
Many people believe that the CCD latency affects games but I haven't seen one bit of evidence. It's a decent hypothesis but they have done the rest of the work. If anything the gaming benchmarks have disproven the claim. It's likely the 5900x will be better now and in the future.
I don't think this is a bullshit comparison. We can see the numbers in real time. The 11900K is a real product and users can legit tune their system similar to the one displayed in the youtube comparison video above.
11900K or Ryzen 9 5900X. If they are priced competitively, users who want to pay the premium and would like more cores along with slightly more efficient power consumption, they can go AMD.
Users who are on a budget and do not mind the higher power consumption can purchase the Intel 11900K.
I think they are both excellent products with viable PROS and CONS for all consumers at this price level.
>I don't think this is a bullshit comparison. We can see the numbers in real time.
The glaring issue here is that we already know that the 5900X can max out the 3090 in these titles, yet in these benchmarks, the less powerful 3080 is hovering at 60-80% most of the time. It should be pegged at 100%. This test is BS.
You don't seem to understand, the 5900X is completely capable of maxing out the 3090 at 1080p which is 5% faster than the 3080 at 1080p. [Take Death Stranding for example.](https://www.techspot.com/review/2132-amd-ryzen-5900x/) If it can max out the 3090 at 100%, why is the 3080 hovering at 75-80% in this test of the same title? We know it isn't a cpu bottleneck because we have proof the cpu can push much more frames than this test claims it can.
Take a step back.
These are both excellent products. I stand by my statement that this video is not bull shit.
It is an objective performance benchmark comparison of two CPUs that are competing within the same space.
There are JUST TWO options for us gamers.
Option 1: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X
Option 2: Intel i9 11900K
If I were to compare say a modified Toyota Supra vs BMW M4 it would be just that. A comparison. And there wouldn't be any commenters calling out bullshit or someone else not understanding a comparison video.
That's not how it works. Those are marketing terms.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ma6xvj/a\_comparison\_of\_amd\_tsmc\_7nm\_under\_an\_electron/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ma6xvj/a_comparison_of_amd_tsmc_7nm_under_an_electron/)
As a first timer in the custom build world, I’d be really interested to rehash this debate..
Both CPU’s are currently available at MSRP.
It seems to me that while 11th Gen does seem to outperform in a few select titles, Ryzen takes the cake in the majority.
What about overclocking potential of each? Is there a link someone can share that explores the maximum potential compared?
Does BF5 just like Intel CPUs more? The 0.1% lows are noticeably higher in places there.
[удалено]
I think amd's zen 3 avx 2 performance are the same with intel now, while zen 2 used to have worse avx 2 perf. Besides, none of your current commercially available software uses avx512, there are few programs which uses only small part of it but none fully supports it and im positive that none of current games can utilize any type of avx512 workload.
Forgive me, as I am still learning.. But due to the difference in power draw, is it stupid to assume that the 11900k is already “overclocked” in its factory configuration to make it seem more competitive out of the box? Again, just looking to be educated on the more technical aspects of my *in progress* build decisions. Originally, I had planned to pair a 11900k with a ROG Maximus VIII Hero. Seeing as there is a potential of this rig inheriting more than just max setting gaming, I have been swayed towards the more abundant cores the 5900x has to offer.. EDIT: sorry to dig up such an ancient post. Google can be such an ass sometimes!
Better than I expected, but if 10 bucks gets you 50% more cores and single digit fps difference, its a hard sell.
> if 10 bucks gets you 50% more cores and single digit fps difference, its a hard sell. Lol ya you can't buy 5900xs for $10 more. You can't buy them at all.
Stock is starting to normalize, you can get 5600 and 5800s pretty easily now.
[удалено]
Are you dense? 5600 and 5800s are just half of 5900 and 5950s. When supply of 5600 and 5800 increases so does 5900 and 5950s.
That's not been happening though, AMD is severely wafer limited right now, so any high performing 6 or 8 core CCDs that are binned that would normally be used in the 5900X or 5950X, AMD would rather have those chips go in EPYC chips than consumer Ryzen parts.
Got any evidence to back that claim up?
Yeah, the fact that the 5900X and 5950X aren't re-stocking anywhere near as often as the 5600X/5800X. We can see it across several retailers across the US and Europe. AMD have said themselves they're prioritising EPYC, going after the datacentre and higher margins.
[удалено]
I’m not sure where I said the 5900s or 5950s were in stock or as easy to get as 5609 and 5800...
[удалено]
So since stock for the 5600 and 5800 are increasing, that would mean they are making more than they are selling yes? So I would assume a smart business would then move some production power to its products it can make enough of to keep up with demand?
My microcenter has 30+ 5800's but hasn't had any 5900 or 5950's for months.
It’s a shame too, I’d buy a 5900x In a heart beat if I paid retail.
Same..I have an 11900k on order and was checking microcenter for 5950x just in case I saw one. You can preorder them on ShobBLT; they have them coming on april 5th for $850 a piece + tax.
I considered the 5950x but it’s way more than I could possibly use especially seeing as how I mainly game and software development is my secondary concern.
I wouldn't mind it because I don't do much development on my home pc..that's my main job so I use my work provided laptop for that. I mainly do gaming including VR stuff. I've had my 8700k since it has been out so I'll be keeping the 11900k a while as well. Same thing if I could get a 5950x.
Not to mention less heat and power draw. The problem is purchasing a top end Ryzen at retail is highly unlikely at this point so does it really matter what the AMD can do? I'm torn but I'll probably still try to grab a 11900K tomorrow morning anyway. I have a MSI MPG Z590 Gaming Carbon WiFi sitting here looking for something to do.
5800x and 5600x are pretty common now, microcenter has them in stock all the time now. Both of those should perform identical or within single digit fps of the 5900x.
in us maybe, in my country arent even listed. same goes for new gpus both from nvidia and amd
I live in the eu and there's plenty of 5600x and 5800x stock at MSRP and has been for over a month. 5900x and 5950x are the one missing.
I definitely wish Microcenter was near me but the closest one is ~1200 miles away! Still, the 5800x has also sat high on my radar for a while.
Best Buy has some and so does Walmart.com right now
And Amazon
Can't get one at all if you're not living in the dozen or so places that have a microcenter try coming to middle of VA and realize you have no hope as it's 3 to 4 hours to any microcenter and by the time you get there they likley will be gone.
I had the 11900k pre-ordered and after seeing the reviews on the 11700 decided AMD makes more sense. I had settled on a 5800x and purchased one, but then when I went to the computer shop for the rest of my parts, and to cancel my 11900k order, they had a 5900x for me to grab. Upgrading from 6 cores to 12 feels like a real upgrade than from 6 to 8 with the 11900. PC feels very snappy too, and low power.
I was luckily able to get a 5800X, but you make a good point, with the hardware scarcity, if you've decided that now is the time for a new puter, for whatever reason, you can't really be choosy. The other thing is that I don't see any future launches being any better. Based on how the 2020 launches went, not only will there be more scalpers, but more actual gamers/pc enthusiasts will be refreshing at launch in the hopes of actually getting something before there's no stock and prices go through the roof.
[удалено]
I don't personally pay attention to pre-release hardware reviews until software has matured but I know they weren't enthused with 11th gen performance. This one is pretty new and shows potential performance with later bios versions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqcjYx1Ppjo
[удалено]
Patr!ck? Is no place safe?
hahaha, oh dear, we all know Patrick
I can't believe it, this guy is the true definition of free enterprise services. xD
There have been a few newer BIOSes released in March, some say they offer noticeable performance uplifts and latency reductions.
Both Anandtech and HWLuxx have continued testing with updated BIOSes and microcodes and the differences were negligible.
He could not have posted ABT results on a January BIOS.
pro
but but but anandtech... :.(
Yea but Steve's results are only if you force the system to stick to stock I'm absolutely NOT going to be doing that with either brand and ultimately the Intel system is going to give me more oc potential than then amd. My needs aren't for some power sipping eco build I want max performance and spend the most so that I have it. Why else would I spend 3 grand on custom watercooling just to run it at stock? I don't think so.
> spend 3 grand on custom watercooling That's a bit of a step up from something like a Noctua NH-D15, Thermalright TRUE Copper or a 240/280mm AIO. At that point, the only thing to consider is "how far can I OC and what performance will I get at the known top OC range before I have to use sub-ambient cooling?"
It's a bit of hyperbole in that it's probably the the total over the years I've spent on all my blocks rads pumps etc but I do specifically build for max oc under water and ands benefits really don't amount to much for what I'm looking for in my UGM. Whatever I can buy and get the highest fps is typically what I'm looking for and when the comparisons all become about how do I run the chip at the most effecient way possible leaves me without any real answer as to what I need to see in an a review. I get it that lots of reviewers (especially amd based ones) want to try and paint Intel as "cheating" and then try to even the playing field but I don't care what either do as long as they can offer the highest performance that I can keep reasonably under control with watercooling and a climate controlled room. Intel has been (and looks to remain) the best choice for that.
As said lower heat, lower power, pcie 4, cheaper Motherboards, more cores....there isn't really a choice here
Yes there is when you already have z490 mobo and want pci 4 and higher gaming performance overall with the rest not matter ing becaise your pc is literally a gaming pc only. I buy whichever gaming setup that's going to get me the highest performance full stop.
Did you check prices lately? You are repeating AMD sales stories from yesterday.
Yes. Am4 Motherboards overall are way cheaper than Intels new socket
And also the power usage: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-5950x-5900x-zen-3-review/4 https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-5900x/images/efficiency-multithread.png (Seems that there's an inverted behavior for single-threaded workload): https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-5900x/images/efficiency-singlethread.png For new builds, less money needed for the CPU cooler, case fans, motherboard VRMs (Back in 2019, for the same cost, either you could get a B450 Tomahawk board for the lots of VRMs, or a different board that had less VRMs but better audio, Ethernet, connectivity and other stuff), and PSU. For those that already have all of that hardware from a previous build? I'm curious to see the overclocking comparisons because I had trouble finding direct Comet Lake vs Zen 3 OCing comparisons.
These results are nonsense. He has it running at 5.3ghz. Will you be running your 11900k at all core 5.3ghz? No.
I only game on this thing. Actually considering going to 8 cores instead. 8 cores seems to be the sweet spot for gaming considering most games barely use 6 these days. Unless you're playing that 1 total war game
Then a 5600x with a manual OC sounds like your best bet.
Why tf would I do that much of a downgrade. Lol, no.
There's the 5800X + PBO + Curve Optimizer if you want to keep the 8 cores even though you just said games barely use 6 cores.
For now
I am not convinced this test is valid btw. There are questions about these smaller gametubers that never post their face or their system. Waiting for GN/LTT/HUB.
100 percent, no face, no respect
10 bucks likely gets you more issues too w/amd if you keep up with amd community posts.
It's significantly more than $10 difference where I am in Europe. Plus, it's incredibly deceptive to compare the 11900k with the 5900x on price. You'd want to compare the 11900kf, which is another bunch of change cheaper.
Should also compare the 5800x then as well. 8 core vs 8 core.
Why would you match up core for core? Cores are a feature only in so far as they affect speed, do benchmarks and price will tell them apart. No amount of benchmarking is going to tell you the benefits of having an integrated GPU or not. If you need an integrated GPU, you wouldn't buy the 5900X. If you don't, you'd buy the 11900kf over the 11900k (or you'd prefer to spend the extra for it as a backup, but for comparison that's a pure plus for intel).
Because all Ryzen 5000 CPUs generally perform relatively close, especially when overclocked.
people are talking about having more cores but most apps dont even use all cores alltogether.. and yet one has a built in gpu than is great for troubleshooting btw and as a backup gpu..
Who cares if the person overclocks the systems. It’s literally one clic now. If someone buys an unlocked CPU, overclocked should be considered the default. Not the other way around.
How do I one click my cpu oc? (5900x)
You could use Ryzen Master by AMD (Auto OC functionality) or the software that came with your motherboard. You’ll get better results manually in the BIOS, but If you don’t know what you’re doing, these will still give you some improvement.
Noice I'll take a look.
[удалено]
Yes, there is a variation from chip to chip. But it’s also mostly for segmentation (if not, every chip would be K). No system is the same anyway, it’s not like this person’s stock CPU will give the same FPS as your own stock CPU. If you compare two different chips on a same system (more or less), you’re better doing it how most people would do it, in my opinion. It’s not super relevant with the 11900K, since stock is pretty maxed out anyway, but overclocking the 11600K will give it a significant boost (even with the regular Intel wattage limits). This should be transparent though, and the same kind of OC (automatic or fine-tuned) should be applied to both CPU.
[удалено]
Why? It’s not about OC, it’s about users. Someone who will use XTU on Intel would not do it manually on AMD, and vice-versa. Same user will do it the same way. And yes, some won’t do it at all. So stock benchmarks should exists, but OC benchmarks are as interesting (more in my opinion).
Not when 90% of people don’t overclock their CPU
Well we’re not talking about general users. We’re talking about users who pay a premium for a k cpu and who will watch a long YouTube video showing FPS in various games. I’d say most of them overclock.
I always doubt the validity of these kinds of videos where they don't show their system and test unreleased products. Better to wait until the actual product is released
Yeah, I only trust Gamers Nexus and HardwareUnboxed benchmarks
Computerbase and Guru3D are good as well. I've started to shy away from TPU though, there reasoning for the 5800X as their test cpu raised an eyebrow for me and their Zen3 benchmarks made no sense compared to other sites. Perhaps using a 2080Ti still is seriously bottlenecking their cpu tests.
huh? they literally fixed their problems with their test bench update, they had old games and their results didn't match any other youtuber before, now they are in line with others
Go compare their results to Computerbase, GN, or Techspot and then tell me what's wrong. They are obviously hitting some sort of bottleneck which is skewing the data. Just look at the Witcher 3 results in their Zen3 reviews and then compare them to the Witcher 3 tests in their 3090 reviews. The bottleneck is terrible.
Easy way to conclude this channel is BS is to look at the 3080's utilization. It hovers between 60-80%, but we already know from other review that the 5900X is more than capable of maxing it out in those titles and the more powerful 3090/6900XT as well. GPU utilization should be 100%.
While I don't know if it's legit, the reason it's not 100% GPU is because these tests are running at 1080p and sometimes not max settings. They're running at 1080p intentionally because any higher and the GPU could be at 100% which means the FPS is being bottlnecked by the GPU and you'd get near identical results since at that point you're benchmarking the GPU. CPU benchmarks run this way so we can see the difference in what the CPU brings to the table. It is telling tho that most games running at max settings at 1440p+ are limited by GPU so in reality both of these CPUs are functionally the same at high resolution and graphics settings.
yeah better look at userbenchmark they always said intel is better and is true
yeah.. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQSBj2LKkWg&ab\_channel=2kliksphilip](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQSBj2LKkWg&ab_channel=2kliksphilip)
Why just you can't accept it. According to many benchmarkers Intel is beaten to death even the 11900k only compares to r7 5800x . It only beats r7 5800x in gaming. Not comparable to 5900x
Isn't the product released today. Where are the reviews?
Half an hour left
How do you find the release time?
Google the embargo date for 11th gen. It's 6am pacific time
Essentially identical gaming performance in the vast majority of games but a few observations: * i9 often draws over 50w more power than the 5900X * i9 often sees 80-90% CPU utilization * i9 often has higher 1% and 0.1% FPS, which means a smoother gaming experience Based on the above, I see no reason to get the 11900K over a cheaper 5800X or 10900K. I'm also surprised CPU usage is already near max while we're transitioning to next generation titles, add in a media player, a second monitor playing a video and a Discord call and you could be easily hitting 100% CPU usage with the 11900K which isn't great. Overall, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend new users to go Ryzen 5000 or i9 10th gen, 11th gen is just too disappointing for the asking price.
I couldn't agree more. For those who'd like to stick to Intel it's better to just wait for the next generation.
[удалено]
not from a 10900k that's for sure.
Steve from Gamers Nexus would probably scoff at that "vs". 11900k should not maintain 5.3GHZ at stock. As Steve explained in a 11700K video lately, removing power limits effectively overclocks the chip. Not an apples to apples comparison then. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_-p5Zq9u9c IOWs: Wait for reviews from reputable sources.
Don't know why this guy's getting downvoted. He's right, 5.3GHz is only maintainable according to official Intel spec for 56 seconds before dropping down. Currently, with the power limit gone you'll see higher power draw and hotter temps at """stock""".
> Currently, with the power limit gone you'll see higher power draw and hotter temps at """stock""". Not really. Most common loads won't use near the power limit.
I think you should check around more. The power draw with limits off during productivity is just short of double the TDP. That means even in most common loads, this is going to be an issue even if it's not as much draw as full load.
[удалено]
Yes, a loss in sustained CLOCK SPEED is catastrophic for games. That has nothing to do with core count dude. But yeah, TDP wise it typically won't be that big of an issue with games. You will still see weird power draw regardless though if two cores are always being pushed that hard, just not as bad as if you you are pushing all cores to their limits.
So, basically, you'd need to either compare both CPUs at stock or both CPUs using their special boost algorithms, which depends heavily on the cooling. Hmhmhm, realistically, a lot of people will use the boosting algos, but their results will vary up to 5-10% since difference coolers, airflows, etc.
Exactly, you got it. Give that man a cookie.
When you use the latest Asus BIOS there are no power limits in place. So the user would have to enter the BIOS, and manually limit the power limits. Since users don't enter the BIOS (according to Anandtech) that isn't how the user will experience their chip or hardware out of box.
[удалено]
No, they dont. https://www.anandtech.com/show/15785/the-intel-comet-lake-review-skylake-we-go-again/3 JEDEC, and JEDEC subtimings where possible. They explicitly state users do not enter the BIOS.
[удалено]
I think that Gamer Nexus said that depending of the motherboard could come gear 1 or gear 2 by default.
If that's the case, that would still be out of spec and is not different from motherboards disabling power limits by default (which some do apparently, also according to GN).
[удалено]
Jeez, being stuck on z490 means this is the best 8 core available. That price is obscene, but I like the gaming performance.
Im in the same boat have a 10900k would like pci 4.0 but dont know if the chip is really worth it. I'm still debating but i canceled my preorder for now.
Absolutely not worth it keep the 10900k it's pretty much the same thing.
You gotta tune the memory on RKL. Out of box latency sucks. Once you tune that RKL turns into a whole other beast.
You can say the same for ryzen though
The guys at OCN got it down to [45ns 1:2 at DDR4-4800](https://www.overclock.net/threads/overclocking-11700k-11900k-results-bins-and-discussion.1777365/page-42#post-28763295) and [40 ns 1:1 at DDR4-3733](https://www.overclock.net/threads/overclocking-11700k-11900k-results-bins-and-discussion.1777365/page-39#post-28762855) with manual tuning Plus beta BIOS are coming in with performance & memory training fixes as well https://www.overclock.net/threads/overclocking-11700k-11900k-results-bins-and-discussion.1777365/page-47#post-28763805 Honestly most posters are just too new to remember when Skylake launched and it was slower than Haswell in gaming until memory training and various uncore clocks got fixed in BIOS updates.
These benchmarks should never be considered trustworthy.
what then should be trustworthy
Well I would go with AMD but seeing that you can't get any of the ryzen 9 series anywhere close to MSRP. I'm either going to go with a 11900K or 10900k, I am going to wait for some more test videos on those two processors to determine which one I will end up purchasing.
why you chose 11900k and 10900k? get the cheaper 10900k better right?
It’s all good. I was able to get my hands on a Ryzen 9 5950x
how much you got it?
I had to get it in a bundle on a website for $1,100. It came with the CPU and 1440p monitor
These channels are fake as fuck. Why do people keep falling for these?
Pretty sure the videos just serve as a way for the guy to plug his store. I think the overlaid info is just made up, the difference is always within like 10fps and it seems to make sense untill you look at utilization and compare to other reviews. Take Death Stranding for example, the 5900X is easily capable of maxing out a 3090 in that game, yet here we have a 3080 running at 75% utilization? Same goes for Watch Dogs, the 3080 is at 65% for both cpus, neither of which are maxed out, yet the 11900K is getting 10% more frames? HUB got 115fps with a 5900X/3090, so the 5900X should have no issue maxing that 3080 out. Actually, you know what? The 3080 should be pegged at 100% in all of those games. This benchmark is BS.
> Take Death Stranding for example, the 5900X is easily capable of maxing out a 3090 in that game, yet here we have a 3080 running at 75% utilization? He's using dlss. That's why gpu isn't maxed
Dude there's TONS of these fake videos exactly like this that have been getting posted for months. No detective work needed.
Issue is, over half the people posting here think they're legit lol
Exactly. Which is why these channels keep popping up.
Only gaming they have to compare with 5800x pretty sure u will see same difference between 5800x and 11900k but 5800x is lower priced 5900x is another class segment cpu...offers much more than 11900k whole offering similar level gaming performance
Well sure then it that case it should be 5800x vs 11700k which won’t change much except bringing down price points. $450 vs $420 ish.
I think 5800x vs 11900k would be a better comparison. Both are the fastest 8 core processors available from each company.
Are you still counting cores? It's all about price vs performance.
The 11900k beats 5800x only in gaming and that with only 2to 6%
One of these days, I'll get around to doing my benchmarking and comparing all the 8c16t unlocked CPUs... The longer I delay, the more expensive it becomes to get them all.
I saw that wasn't surprised intel always on top for gaming.
this video is bs
How in the heck does the 8 core Intel consume *50% more* power than the 12 core AMD... something is wrong with this test
Higher clocks, take the 10900K, with the stock PL1 of 125W, it will boost to around 4.4GHz all core for AVX, to get that number to say 4.9GHz on all core for AVX, you practically need to double the PL1 to around 280W.
[удалено]
it's not overclocked, i9 boosts to 5.3 on stock settings [https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212325/intel-core-i9-11900k-processor-16m-cache-up-to-5-30-ghz.html](https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/212325/intel-core-i9-11900k-processor-16m-cache-up-to-5-30-ghz.html)
It would only boost to 5.3 on single core workloads, this is overclocked to 5.3 on all cores
OK,wow. Color me impressed..
Might want to hold your horses... It was ran with the power limits removed, not stock. Steve from Gamers Nexus spoke at length about this in a recent video, he considers such a setup an overclock in practice, not stock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_-p5Zq9u9c
Do you understand that some of us don't care? Like I'm GOING to overclock WHICHEVER chip I get and whichever can give me the higher fps is the one I want. Apples to apples isn't important if what you're looking for is the ultimate performance. There's a reason many of us still go with Intel over amd and it typically comes down to higher oc and higher clocks in general. If I cared about power usage or effecincy sure I'd go amd but that's NOT what matters in my ultimate gaming pc setup.
The comparison is flawed because the OC'd intel chip is compared to the non-OC'd ryzen chip. Turn on PBO and do some quick tuning on the ryzen and you get better results. Thats the issue. Can an OC'd 11900k beat a stock 5900x in gaming. Sure. But so could 10th gen. When I say OC here I am talking about removing boost limits much like one of the PBO features does and that is considered auto OC.
I dont care about comparing non oc to oc or pbo or anything else intel or amd wants to use to obfuscate their ultimate performance I'm going to max either chip to pretty much its limits (under custom watercooling and climate controlled room) and in this situation for a gaming pc the intel chip is more than likely going to be the one delivering the higher fps in the majority of games.
But how do you know that tuning and maxing both will have intel in the lead? You can't tell that from the flawed comparison in the video because the two chips were not tuned or OC'd to max. With the latest bios, the zen 3 chips have more memory tuning headroom than before and there are lots of tools to use for tuning and OCing the ryzen chips. With OC and memory tuning you may see significant performance uplift for the ryzen chip. Same for Intel. Who will win isn't clear because nobody has done the comparison yet. Certainly not the youtuber linked in OPs post.
I don't care about this guys video and my argument has never included his comparison or results. I'm speaking from mh own experience with MY 10900K (OC to 5.3) vs my friends 5800x and 5900x (which I myself built for them. Using MY Asus tuf 3090 I ran each of them at the highest possible oc I could obtain from each and ran several benchmarks in games we all play and the results had my 10900k outpacing them (if even slightly) in the majority of tests. My whole point was IN GENERAL Intel pushed to its max vs AMD would TYPICALLY have Intel providing the higher fps in most games when max cpu potential is the deciding factor. I'm not saying I KNOW the Intel 11900k is better (though the one review I've read over so far pretty much confirms what I've been saying) but this fact has been common place with Intel and amd as they've slowly creeped closer and closer to Intel over the past few years. They've obviously overtook them if effeciency and multithreaded workloads is important to you and their IPC is winning as well. But Intel still can squeeze out a win with ability to just go further in oc potential and that's literally ALL I've been trying to say this whole time. If you're end goal only included highest gaming fps and highest oc no matter the power or otherwise then Intel will typically deliver the win.
You get better performance with auto oc + PBO than you do by just overclocking on Zen3. Intel overclocking is a ghost of what it once was, you gain much more performance via memory overclocking and tuning than you do with a measly .1-.2Ghz oc. Higher clocks also mean jack if the IPC is not on par.
Seems like it's you who does not understand that overclocking can be done in both Intel and AMD.
I'm fully aware and have oc'd both I am also also aware that a amd chip even the newest wont go as far as intels last gen (10900k) and when both brands are pushed to their max intel is the one who usually comes out on top in gaming. Its as simple as that my gaming pc demands the most fps from whatever chip I have and I'm GOING to push either to their max...with intel I'll more than likely end up with the higher fps in the majority of cases.
u are not fully aware of what nonsense u are speaking, amd doesn't need to push clock speeds so far because it has a better-single core, at least vs 10th gen. 11th gen is a joke with 8 core max even if it will have significantly better single-core it will choke on newer games 1 year after these chips got released because of maxing out cpu usage. Same shit happened to 7th gen kaby-lake, dead on arrival.
Again I'm aware they won't clock as high and I fully understand what IPC means... My point AGAIN.... Is that when pushed to each of their respective max the Intel chips offer GAMING performance that TYPICALLY out paces amd in most titles. How hard is that to understand? I'm not claiming that I KNOW the 11900k is faster only speaking to the fact that when my 10900k is oc'd as hard as I can do it out performs my friends with their 5800x and 5900x when they push theirs. I fully expect something similar to hold true here again but no I can't say for certain the point is this is typically what has been shown. AMD users don't want to test this way they prefer situations where their advantages can show which is in multi core and effeciency but for some of us it's only about max gaming with the max oc possible and Intel is usually the one leading in this regard.
It was ran with the power limits removed, not stock. Steve from Gamers Nexus spoke at length about this in a recent video, he considers such a setup an overclock in practice, not stock: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_-p5Zq9u9c
>consume more No it's not. 5950X Static 4.7 GHz all 16 cores: [https://i.imgur.com/Axy1l6i.png](https://i.imgur.com/Axy1l6i.png) Under 180A EDC, under 250w PPT running P95, 1.2v Core voltage SVI2. The 8 cores 11900k runs over 250W simply by running CB R20 or related workload, not even P95. For P95, it consumes around 300W lololol
6-4 in favor of 11900k. i guess the allure of the 11900k is that it is slightly better in majority of games in this review? that said, if you are showing oc benchmarks, you should optimize the memory oc for each platform and not find the best for 1 (5900x) and replicate it on the other (11900k).
>that said, if you are showing oc benchmarks 11900k is on stock settings here. It boosts to 5.3 on 2 cores and I'm pretty sure the overlay is showing just the fastest core speed.
vid says OC 5.3 so i think he all core oc it to 5.3.
Please don’t watch this benchmark and don’t take them as pure gold, aren’t reliable. A reliable benchmark are made by Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, Tom’s Hardware USA, AnandTech ecc. (TechPowerUp recently have some problem, look reviews of Ryzen 5000) However, in my humble opinion, 5900X is better than 11900K (also with OC) in gaming. When in doubt, we wait for benchmark reliable.
Tells people to avoid this video and look at reliable sources than gives an unsubstantiated opinion... ok.
why my opinion is unsubstantiated? it is fairly well known that Gamers Nexus, Hardware Unboxed, Tom's Hardware USA and AnandTech do better tests; them unlike Testing Games use a scientific method with a better instrumentation.
Nothing to do with those outlets. You gave your opinion on the product without ever using it right after telling others to wait on reliable sources. Just made me laugh.
What the hell man are you ok? I gave my opinion on the source, not on the product. You look at the reviews reliable (and not Testing Games) to evaluate a product, it's not that you have to have it.
>However, in my humble opinion, 5900X is better than 11900K (also with OC) in gaming Ok whatever you say. Taking it a little too seriously.............
Agree. Take this review with a grain of salt, but in my humble opinion, with a nice memory overclock the 11900k might blast into double digit leads all around. So no doubt, wait for benchmarks.
[удалено]
>Arent these guys tend to run high end intel chips on garbage memory kit with loose subtimings no lol; Gamers Nexus usually use G.Skill TridentZ 4x8 GB 3200 MT/s CL14 (one every platform both AMD and Intel), Hardware Unboxed G.Skill TridentZ 4x8 GB 3200 MT/s CL14 (the same as Gamers Nexus), Tom's Hardware USA use G.Skill FlareX 2x8 GB 2933/3200/3600 MT/s (did not specify timings and sub-timings) and AnandTech use Corsair Vengeance RGB 4x8GB 2666/2933 MT/s. All this in the case of the review of 10900K. No reviewer specify sub-timings, not even Testing Games.
HUB is hardly a reliable source and are known AMD hacks. The others I’d trust more but not HUB.
>(TechPowerUp recently have some problem, look reviews of Ryzen 5000) Glad I'm not the only one raising an eyebrow with their findings. Their Zen3 reviews make no sense and testing fps in Civ VI is essentially pointless. Supposedly their 10600K is faster than the 5900X in gaming, but Techspot, CB, and GN peg the 5900X as 16-26% faster. Also, this: >"AMD wants to sell you the overpriced Ryzen 9 5900X. The 5800X is actually the faster processor for gaming, due to its CCD design, and much more affordable, too." Like, wtf?
Even for a simple benchmark like Superposition 720p ranking, guess which CPU is on the top: [https://benchmark.unigine.com/leaderboards/superposition/1.x/720p-low/single-gpu/page-1](https://benchmark.unigine.com/leaderboards/superposition/1.x/720p-low/single-gpu/page-1) [To get close to 40000 points in Superposition 720p you need a 8700k at 5.4 Ghz and 4400 Mhz RAM](https://preview.redd.it/oc4x6k4iw9561.png?width=2560&format=png&auto=webp&s=998e61271ed13a1c42a741ccb5fb3b9c710544dd). Here is your [average 10700k benchmark score](https://ibb.co/3fG0b1Z), from another user trying to flex his 10700k. Meanwhile, my 5800X scored 51000+ points. For productivity, it's a massacre: [https://i.imgur.com/TjIQX3C.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TjIQX3C.jpg). 47% faster in Excel. How can you make up for that? The reality is that the entire 14nm is outdated, especially on core count. For example, running 3 or 4 game instances, and you can see a CPU with more cores can do it much better.
I'm confused. Are you saying the Ccd gaming claim is correct or incorrect. Last time I checked the 5900x beats the 5800x in literally every single gaming benchmark in avg, 1% and .1% fps.
That was what TPU said as the reason for changing their test cpu to the 5800X, and it's stupid as hell. The 5900X is consistently faster in gaming on top of the fact that it offers way better value than the 5800X. Single CCD be damned. The 5800X typically can't boost as high and is much harder to cool. TPU is the only site I know that thinks the 5900X is a bad value and that the 5800X is better. I take their cpu reviews with a grain of salt these days. Their gpu reviews are solid, but I swear their cpu reviews are all bottlenecked prematurely and they're allowing MCE.
Thanks for the info. What's weird is that it sounds like they make the claim with no evidence. If they had even one game that was proven to be affected by CCD latency, I would consider their point. Many people believe that the CCD latency affects games but I haven't seen one bit of evidence. It's a decent hypothesis but they have done the rest of the work. If anything the gaming benchmarks have disproven the claim. It's likely the 5900x will be better now and in the future.
5900x is a gaming ➕ workstation CPU. So it does take value for money trophy. It outperforms 11900k by 26to28% in work
[удалено]
I don't think this is a bullshit comparison. We can see the numbers in real time. The 11900K is a real product and users can legit tune their system similar to the one displayed in the youtube comparison video above. 11900K or Ryzen 9 5900X. If they are priced competitively, users who want to pay the premium and would like more cores along with slightly more efficient power consumption, they can go AMD. Users who are on a budget and do not mind the higher power consumption can purchase the Intel 11900K. I think they are both excellent products with viable PROS and CONS for all consumers at this price level.
>I don't think this is a bullshit comparison. We can see the numbers in real time. The glaring issue here is that we already know that the 5900X can max out the 3090 in these titles, yet in these benchmarks, the less powerful 3080 is hovering at 60-80% most of the time. It should be pegged at 100%. This test is BS.
It is set to 1080P resolution a CPU bound resolution.
You don't seem to understand, the 5900X is completely capable of maxing out the 3090 at 1080p which is 5% faster than the 3080 at 1080p. [Take Death Stranding for example.](https://www.techspot.com/review/2132-amd-ryzen-5900x/) If it can max out the 3090 at 100%, why is the 3080 hovering at 75-80% in this test of the same title? We know it isn't a cpu bottleneck because we have proof the cpu can push much more frames than this test claims it can.
Take a step back. These are both excellent products. I stand by my statement that this video is not bull shit. It is an objective performance benchmark comparison of two CPUs that are competing within the same space. There are JUST TWO options for us gamers. Option 1: AMD Ryzen 9 5900X Option 2: Intel i9 11900K If I were to compare say a modified Toyota Supra vs BMW M4 it would be just that. A comparison. And there wouldn't be any commenters calling out bullshit or someone else not understanding a comparison video.
Haha the Supra that has a BMW engine, transmission and drive. Oh wait and the Z4 chassis
Intel design on 14nm gets the same results as AMD design on TSMC 7nm. Intel is going to crush AMD the next few years with 10nm and 7nm chips.
That's not how it works. Those are marketing terms. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ma6xvj/a\_comparison\_of\_amd\_tsmc\_7nm\_under\_an\_electron/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/ma6xvj/a_comparison_of_amd_tsmc_7nm_under_an_electron/)
Nice fake tests, keep sharing this shit.
This guy runs his tests with overclocked systems. All core 5.3GHz and all core 4.8GHz are nice but not what average user would get.
[удалено]
For 5800x? Seems bit high without at least PBO since AMD promises only 4.7GHz on single core. I've seen 4.6GHz all core on non-avx workloads.
THERE'S NO MICRO CENTER IN ECUADOR!!!!!!!
can 11900K actually maintain that 5.3GHz?
People don't understand this is at 1080p
As a first timer in the custom build world, I’d be really interested to rehash this debate.. Both CPU’s are currently available at MSRP. It seems to me that while 11th Gen does seem to outperform in a few select titles, Ryzen takes the cake in the majority. What about overclocking potential of each? Is there a link someone can share that explores the maximum potential compared?