• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question Ryzen 5k series for gaming, 1 chiplet or 2?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BTRY B 529th FA BN

BTRY B 529th FA BN

Lifer
"The single core chiplet has some small benefits over a dual chiplet design where some cross-CPU communication is needed, and that comes across in some of our very CPU-limited gaming benchmarks."

What benefits are gained with 1 chiplet VS 2 chiplets? Is it lower latency?
 
lobz said:
Aside from the inferior platform and the much higher power consumption, for zero benefit in gaming at best, and and the same time for being worse in literally everything else. Looking at the big picture, I can't see too much competitiveness. Of course, everyone will justify their bias as they please. I also don't necessarily mean bias as a bad thing in your case, everyone is biased towards their likings. I hate bias only when someone tries to convince other people along it 🙂
Click to expand...


I also don't find it help when statements like inferior platform, much higher power consumption and worse at everything are thrown out without an quantitative measurements.

If either a X570 with a Zen3 or a Z490 and 10900k work perfectly fine with the power supply and cooling on hand, power usage is at the bottom of the list. Important in a laptop or a SSF chassis potentially but that's not a concern.

As far as platform, the only difference I see between the boards is PCIE 4 which I've yet to see any meaningful impact, especially with games. My 3970X with RAID 0 NVMe drives isn't any faster day to day than a single 970 Evo Plus in the Intel systems. When it comes to WiFi 6 or LAN the Intel based boards on both sides have been much more reliable in my use. Zen 1 and 2 where much more picky with RAM so I had to be much more selective there and the onboard Realtek USB controllers are a pain.

The everything else is worse is also highly focused on specific apps or lines of work which I have found meaningless in my daily life. I spend way more time coding than compiling, barely have time for messing with photos or videos and the majority of work is cloud based.

So maybe that's a bias towards what fits my needs, but I also build at least 2 desktops a year for myself and have touched pretty much every Intel and most AMD platforms in the last 20+ years. Not in a condensed manor that we get in reviews or YouTube videos, but living with them on a daily basis. I'm finding that the big Zen 3 jump, while impressive, hasn't unlocked that much for me, compared to prior advancements in x86 like multi-core, x64 and Zen CCX. Things that AMD gave the consumer market and really changed expectations.
 
KentState said:
I also don't find it help when statements like inferior platform, much higher power consumption and worse at everything are thrown out without an quantitative measurements.

If either a X570 with a Zen3 or a Z490 and 10900k work perfectly fine with the power supply and cooling on hand, power usage is at the bottom of the list. Important in a laptop or a SSF chassis potentially but that's not a concern.

As far as platform, the only difference I see between the boards is PCIE 4 which I've yet to see any meaningful impact, especially with games. My 3970X with RAID 0 NVMe drives isn't any faster day to day than a single 970 Evo Plus in the Intel systems. When it comes to WiFi 6 or LAN the Intel based boards on both sides have been much more reliable in my use. Zen 1 and 2 where much more picky with RAM so I had to be much more selective there and the onboard Realtek USB controllers are a pain.

The everything else is worse is also highly focused on specific apps or lines of work which I have found meaningless in my daily life. I spend way more time coding than compiling, barely have time for messing with photos or videos and the majority of work is cloud based.

So maybe that's a bias towards what fits my needs, but I also build at least 2 desktops a year for myself and have touched pretty much every Intel and most AMD platforms in the last 20+ years. Not in a condensed manor that we get in reviews or YouTube videos, but living with them on a daily basis. I'm finding that the big Zen 3 jump, while impressive, hasn't unlocked that much for me, compared to prior advancements in x86 like multi-core, x64 and Zen CCX. Things that AMD gave the consumer market and really changed expectations.
Click to expand...
So then you never needed neither a 10900K nor a 5900X for what you've describing. In your context the term 'competitive' means absolutely nothing between the 10900K and the 5900X, they're both unnecessary overkill products. Thanks for wasting my time. I don't wanna waste yours, so I just direct you to Gamersnexus's 5600X review. He tells you everything that I couldn't, ergo that the CPU you need was the 10600K until a couple of days ago, which became the 5600X.
 
lobz said:
You're almost surely looking at vastly different reviews. Gamersnexus really has the 10900K head to head... with the 5600X ;p
Click to expand...
And the 5600x is basically even with the 5800x as well as the 5900x and 5950x. There's not even a 5% spread between all the top end CPUs and again the 10900k trades blows as it wins some games.
 
Ricky T said:
And the 5600x is basically even with the 5800x as well as the 5900x and 5950x. There's not even a 5% spread between all the top end CPUs and again the 10900k trades blows as it wins some games.
Click to expand...
Which means that purely for gaming you really don't need anything better than a 5600X, and if you want more than gaming, Intel is worse in everything else.
Really not sure what you're trying to say, but I'm quite fond of the idea that you don't have to buy a $450+ CPU if you want to build a crazy fast gaming machine.
As for trading blows, there are quite a few games where AMD is ahead with more than 10%, whereas the only game Intel has a really decisive win is RDR2.

It's getting a bit ridiculous in these topics, why are so many of you behaving like adolescent thrill-addicts, implying that AMD has to utterly destroy, demolish, execute, behead and crucify every Intel CPU, otherwise it's 'meh'.
 
lobz said:
Which means that purely for gaming you really don't need anything better than a 5600X, and if you want more than gaming, Intel is worse in everything else.
Really not sure what you're trying to say, but I'm quite fond of the idea that you don't have to buy a $450+ CPU if you want to build a crazy fast gaming machine.
As for trading blows, there are quite a few games where AMD is ahead with more than 10%, whereas the only game Intel has a really decisive win is RDR2.

It's getting a bit ridiculous in these topics, why are so many of you behaving like adolescent thrill-addicts, implying that AMD has to utterly destroy, demolish, execute, behead and crucify every Intel CPU, otherwise it's 'meh'.
Click to expand...
What are you even talking about? Maybe go back and actually read what I was originally replying to and look at the context. The person I was replying to in post 13 that started this chain of events was acting like the 10900k cant match the new Ryzen cpus unless going to a higher res.
 
Last edited:
thesmokingman said:
Do you realize the IPC increase in the 5950x is simply down to its boost clock? That means raise the boost clock oof the 5800x in PBO voila same IPC.
Click to expand...

I've never even touched the boost with my 3800X on my board, but if that's possible I guess I could give it a shot. The last thing that crosses my mind is why am I seeing reports of the 5800X running hotter than the 5600X & 5950X?
 
ondma said:
Possibly a higher voltage for the 5800x, since all 8 cores have to be functional???
Click to expand...

Nope. It runs whatever voltage it needs, no Ryzen's run a static voltage. And why would it be hotter than a 5900x which is not only 8+4 core but also has a higher boost clock??
 
thesmokingman said:
Nope. It runs whatever voltage it needs, no Ryzen's run a static voltage. And why would it be hotter than a 5900x which is 8+4 core??
Click to expand...

A 5900x is 6+6.

A 5800x should probably run a little bit hotter than a 5900x at all core load due to higher heat density, but I don't think it should be more than a few degrees at most. The very high temperatures some are seeing are probably a result of a motherboard overvolting the CPUs, a bad heatsink/thermal paste application, or an issue with the packaging of the CPU.

Edit:

PCmag tested a 5800x and this is their temp report:

In our testing, when overclocking or at stock, the Ryzen 7 5800X never went above 69 degrees C
Click to expand...

They are using a 280mm AIO cooler. So a clear example that the 5800x doesn't just 'run hot'. There is an issue with either the setup or the CPU of those who are reporting really high temps on the 5800x.
 
Hitman928 said:
A 5900x is 6+6.

A 5800x should probably run a little bit hotter than a 5900x at all core load due to higher heat density, but I don't think it should be more than a few degrees at most. The very high temperatures some are seeing are probably a result of a motherboard overvolting the CPUs, a bad heatsink/thermal paste application, or an issue with the packaging of the CPU.
Click to expand...

Are you sure? its 6+6? I read otherwise. And yea, I concur there shouldn't be much difference in temps for these chips.
 
Last edited:
Hitman928 said:
A 5900x is 6+6.

A 5800x should probably run a little bit hotter than a 5900x at all core load due to higher heat density, but I don't think it should be more than a few degrees at most. The very high temperatures some are seeing are probably a result of a motherboard overvolting the CPUs, a bad heatsink/thermal paste application, or an issue with the packaging of the CPU.

Edit:

PCmag tested a 5800x and this is their temp report:



They are using a 280mm AIO cooler. So a clear example that the 5800x doesn't just 'run hot'. There is an issue with either the setup or the CPU of those who are reporting really high temps on the 5800x.
Click to expand...

LOL PCMAG...
 
Hitman928 said:
So are you saying PCmag got their temperature reading wrong?
Click to expand...

You wanna argue that? Seriously?

PCMag also wrote this. 🙄

A single CCD, with one eight-core CCX and one four-core CCX, now lives underneath the hood of the Ryzen 9 5900X. This is configured with four of the cores of the second CCD disabled in the Ryzen 9 5900X, and this new approach of centralizing eight cores at a time, rather than just four, helps the processor lead the pack in lightly threaded games like Counter-Strike and League of Legends.
Click to expand...

au.pcmag.com

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X

The Ryzen revolution: At last, AMD pushes Intel's Core i9 into the back seat
au.pcmag.com au.pcmag.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top