The AMD Ryzen 5000 – especially the 5600X – is blowing my mind


I knew AMD was going to perform excellently with its next generation Gen3 CPU architecture, but I was not prepared for it. The new Ryzen chips are fast and powerful for both content creation and productivity. This is not surprising. Zen 2 Resences are also great for those tasks. But gaming is where Ryzen 5000-series products get the biggest benefit – and it turns AMD processors into the clearest and best option on desktops.

AMD is launching 16-core Ryzen 9 5950X, 12-core Ryzen 9 5900X, 8-core Ryzen 7 5800X, and Ryzen 5 5600X with its new architecture. And all of these chips have heavy generation leaps in single-core performance. This is what enables these CPUs to pull ahead of Intel, which has long been at the top when it comes to gaming thanks to its fast single-core performance.

I am late in the review period of Zen 3 because of the busy season, which cost me a lot of time on the Xbox series X and other TV launches. So for this story, I wanted to shrug on gaming. Everyone already knows and expects Ryzen to surpass its Intel Core counterparts in most production tasks. But if you’re gaming 90% of the time on your PC, has Ryzen really pulled off … or even further? Well, this is what the single-core Cinebench score suggests. All of the new Ryzens overtook the 10900K by a significant margin.

To determine this, I did two tests. I ran several CPU-intensive games at 1080p and medium settings. This would make the CPU bottleneck and show a difference in performance between AMD and Intel’s offerings. In other tests, I went for something more realistic. Does it matter if you use Ryzen or Intel if you’re gaming at 4K with ultra settings? Or does the GPU bottleneck negate AMD’s performance improvement?

Let’s do it.

Ryzen 5000 CPUs are typically faster under ideal conditions

In 1080p and lower graphical settings, you can often see the power difference between the new Ryzens and the Intel Core i9-10900K.

In Avengers, each Ryzen was a few frames faster than Milan or Intel competition. AMD’s CPU also has a better 95% downside, suggesting a smoother experience. As a reminder, 95% lows and 99% lows tell us that the game is running better than this framerate 95% or 99% of the time, respectively.

Avengers is interesting because its graphic settings have Intel-branded CPU features, which I maxed out for these tests. And it seems that there was no problem for the AMD CPU.

Teardown, a game about demolishing a tone-based environment that outperformed most AMD chips. The 5600X surpassed Framart by an average of 130.

Watch Dogs: The army was relatively even. I agree that this game prefers a faster CPU, but it clearly benefits from clock speeds rather than cores. My 5600X drove it alongside the 16-core 5950X.

Finally, Microsoft’s Flight Simulator seems to prefer more cores – unless you consider the overclocked 5600X, which was running at 5GHz on all cores. It was almost as fast as the 5950X.

Ryzen chips also helps to get more consistent 4K performance

The difference between 1080p and 2160p for benchmarking is that 2160p puts more burden on the GPU. Rendering pixels four times is a kind of workload that usually causes traffic jams to the video card, and this means that your CPU doesn’t matter that much.

And this was mostly in the case of AMD’s Ryzen 5000 product line. The Watch Dogs have 2160p, 3500X, 3800X, 3900X and 3950X all essentially tied at 44 frames per second. In 4K the Avengers, teardown and flight sim all saw a similar tie.

The reality is that all the difference between the 5600X up to 5950X doesn’t matter when the GPU is the bottleneck. And even in games that are notorious on CPU, GPU is more important on 4K.

So does this mean that all this benchmarking is useless for any gaming at 4K? Is Intel as effective as AMD in Ultra HD resolution? Well, no – no if you factor in overclocking.

For these tests, I focused on overclocking the 5600X. And with some tweaking, I was able to get significantly better performance from the AMD part. This also led to higher framers in tests at 2160p.

Even in Flight Sim, which preferred the 10900K at stock speeds, the overclocked 3600X surpassed that.

Now, this is not about going head-to-head in overclocking battles. You can also get better performance by tweaking the 10900K. This was just a quick way to show that 4Kyou doesn’t need to spend more money than the $ 300 5600X. This will help in some instances, but it’s probably not going to hold you back for the games. And considering how easy it was to overclock, it can also improve your 4K gaming.

Similar results appeared in teardowns.

The overclocked 5600X offered the same advantage over the Avengers.

Do not hesitate to get 5600X for gaming

My big path here is that the new Ryzen CPUs are great – especially the 5600X. This is a slam sting of a gaming CPU. And if you’re gaming on your PC most of the time and then doing your own tax or some occasional web browsing, you don’t need more than that. Spend $ 300 on this chip and then put the rest of your budget into the GPU.

If you want to do games and livestreams from a PC, or if you want to edit videos or create a 3D model, start moving to the 8-core 5800X or 12-core 5900X. Even the 5950X, which is $ 800, seems like a bargain, when you consider that it can give you the same results as a two-PC streaming setup with one machine.

For Intel, it is no longer just in conversation. It will continue to fight back, but I will not recommend my CPU to anyone anytime soon. It is not that 10900K or 10600K are bad. They are really good gaming CPUs. It is just that the equivalent Resences are superior in every way.

Leave a Reply