Who just won? Zen 3 only slightly edges out Intel 10th gen on benchmarks.

[Doubble]

Summary
kind of long. someone please make a tldr in comments 
 

So the benchmarks are out. AMD Ryzen Zen 3 vs Intel 11th gen rocket lake is the big questions for CPUs in the next 6-12 months. luckily Intel was leaked its 8 core option for rocket lake on userbenchmark.com for all to see. AMD followed up to this by releasing 6 reviewer samples onto userbenchmark. when comparing an i9 10850k, which is a slightly modified i9 10900k used to meet supply therefore the i9 $700 dollar price tag doesn't apply here, to a Ryzen 5800x, which is AMD's 8 core chip meant at challenging the i7 10700k for around 100 more than an i7 and is $10 cheaper than an I9 10850k, the test results came out as followed:

 

Quotes

Quote

effective speed 0+ for 5800x
base clock i9 10850k 3.6 GHz Turbo boost 5ghz. 
base clock Ryzen 7 5800x 3.8ghz(the best bench was 4.6 and was overclocked so its not stock base) and turbo boost to 4.6GHz

Average score 5800x +3%
        memory 10850k +5% at 92.8 points
        Single core 5800x +10%
        Dual core 5800x +9%
        Quad core 5800x +4%

        Octa core 10850k +3%

 

Overclocked Score 5800x +1% 

        memory 10850k +0% at 97.3 points
        Single core 5800x +4%
        Dual core 5800x +5%
        Quad core 5800x +3%

        Octa core 10850k +6%

 

Reviewer Notes
10850k 
"just buy this instead of a 10900k and save 30$ and overclock it to get identical performance to a 10900k"
.
5800x
"Very impressive early results with these 5800X pre-release marketing samples. The Effective Speed will likely settle between 92% to 97% when we get more submissions from our users."

 

Benchmark against 5800x vs 11th gen competitor 8-core option which I will call "11700k" due to a lack of naming

 

effective speed +2% for intel 11700k
base clock i9 10850k 3.4 GHz Turbo boost 4.2GHz. 
base clock Ryzen 7 5800x 3.8ghz(the best bench was 4.6 and was overclocked so its not stock base) and turbo boost to 4.6GHz

Average score 5800x +3%
        memory 5800x +11% at 88.5 points
        Single core 11700k +10%
        Dual core 11700k +14%
        Quad core 11700k +11%

        Octa core 11700k +1%

 

Overclocked Score 11700k +0% 

        memory 5800x +22% at 97 points
        Single core 11700k +8%
        Dual core 11700k +12%
        Quad core 11700k +7%

        Octa core 5800k +3%

 

no new reviewer notes

 

My thoughts

These results have only grown my interest in 11th gen rocket lake. first a look at multicore performance a look at the graphs shows AMD and Intel's architecture changes. AMD has moved away from more cores to better cores with keeping the same amount of cores the same and intel has the better cores at a less cores. even 8 cores is only -5% compared to AMD's 5950x 16 core CPU. AMD's move to place a higher price point for these chips might backfire. If intel can get the marketing right and place their chips at $400, AMD will have to make a mover other than a simple XT variant. Alder lake also plans to fix intel's issue with only 8 cores by moving to 10nm and a LGA 1700. AMD Zen 4 doesn't look like its coming any time soon and the CPU wars may flip. 2021 will be the next socket change for both teams. without motherboard saving both blue and red fans will have to pick their new CPU and motherboard. if intel can get the better option out there by the flip many red computers could go blue and their motherboards will follow.

Enough about marketing and the future of the companies your just here for the fancy graphs. despite being called user benchmark it is hard to compare and contrast many CPU at the same time in a user friendly way. Data compiled by Doubble

 

here is each chart individually

 

 

 

In my opinion buy your board. Ryzen 5000 seem equally matched but price could change everything. just keep on waiting to see if you have above zen 1 or 7th gen. if your below 6th gen or using an old chip from amd this will be a great time to upgrade. if you also have an am4 or lga 1200 with support chipset give these chips a look. who knows. alder lake is around the corner with aging PCs it could take AMD's crown for best multithreaded performance. 2021 is when the standards switch so if your pc is getting to the 4-6 year range consider both teams chips in 2021. for anything older ryzen 5000 or rocket lake could be a fit for you

Sources

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-10850K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X/m1255865vs4085

https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-0000-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-5800X/m1341265vs4085

 

[Grabhanem]

I'd wait for a better benchmark before making any judgements. UserBenchmark tends to be pretty dubious, listing an i3 8350K above an i9 9980XE in their "effective speed" if I remember right.

[Doubble]

Just now, Grabhanem said:

I'd wait for a better benchmark before making any judgements. UserBenchmark tends to be pretty dubious, listing an i3 8350K above an i9 9980XE in their "effective speed" if I remember right.

some buy probably overclocked to hell on the 8350k just to joke around. most benchmarks with thousands of benchmarks are pretty accurate

[Slottr]

-Moved to CPU's Motherboards and Memory-

 

Please know that Tech News requires a reputable source, userbenchmark is not one of those

[Doubble]

Just now, Slottr said:

-Moved to CPU's Motherboards and Memory-

 

Please know that Tech News requires a reputable source, userbenchmark is not one of those

why does everyone say that. so what. some guy got an i3 to 5ghz 

[DildorTheDecent]

10 minutes ago, Doubble said:

So the benchmarks are out.

Are they? I'm not seeing anything on Techpowerup, Guru3D, hexus.net or Anandtech.

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, Doubble said:

why does everyone say that. so what. some guy got an i3 to 5ghz 

yea 5ghz is nice, but there is much more to a cpu than frequency.

 

The userbenchmark ratings seems to be off from a lot of real world uses, and seems dubious in how they are calculated. Wait like a day and we get good reviews out.

[zeusthemoose]

Just now, Doubble said:

why does everyone say that. so what. some guy got an i3 to 5ghz 

This is a great post about why userbenchmark should not be trusted. 

 

[Coolmaster]

11th gen Intel is still going to be 14nm, your lithography chart says the 11700k is 10nm which it won't be. It's 12th gen Intel will probably be on 10nm.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Coolmaster

[Fasauceome]

6 minutes ago, Doubble said:

most benchmarks with thousands of benchmarks are pretty accurate

That's a pretty massive misconception. Quantity =/= quality, if you don't control for variables then all the data is useless.

 

Just now, Coolmaster said:

It's 12th gen Intel will be on 10nm.

Lest Intel drive their investors to suicide

[Slottr]

2 minutes ago, Doubble said:

why does everyone say that. so what. some guy got an i3 to 5ghz 

Userbenchmark is notorious for having an extreme Intel bias, skewing results and displaying this info without disclaimer.

[Doubble]

5 minutes ago, Coolmaster said:

11th gen Intel is still going to be 14nm, your lithography chart says the 11700k is 10nm which it won't be. It's 12th gen Intel will probably be on 10nm.

you right. i got it confused with alder lake

 

[VeganJoy]

it'll be interesting to see how userbenchmark can move the goalposts for intel this time around (what can keep their favorite child, the 9100f, at the top of the list?), maybe they can spew some more bs about "moar cores bad" at us some more? that'll show us how mature and non-biased they are... 

 

as an aside, how has their weird scoring system put 2080tis >10% higher than 3070s?? can't wait to see how they handle big navi benchmarks lol

[DarkSmith2]

Nothing new, we knew that 5000series would only trade blow with comet lake in gaming since Ashes of Singularity Benchmark leaks and AMDs own announcement show, they pointed out an average of 7% higher gaming performance compared to a non overclocked 10900k with slow RAM.

 

If you ask me nobody won, AMD didnt, Intel didnt, and we as consumer for sure didnt win either. (especially considering price bumps) 

Its 3 Years ago already since Coffeelake got released and gaming performance still isnt climbing more than single digit % since then.

[Grabhanem]

7 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

Nothing new, we knew that 5000series would only trade blow with comet lake in gaming since Ashes of Singularity Benchmark leaks and AMDs own announcement show, they pointed out an average of 7% higher gaming performance compared to a non overclocked 10900k with slow RAM.

 

If you ask me nobody won, AMD didnt, Intel didnt, and we as consumer for sure didnt win either. (especially considering price bumps) 

Its 3 Years ago already since Coffeelake got released and gaming performance still isnt climbing more than single digit % since then.

You can buy a 16-core processor with per-core speeds comparable to the best in the world for $800. In what way is that not a win for consumers?

[VeganJoy]

11 minutes ago, Grabhanem said:

You can buy a 16-core processor with per-core speeds comparable to the best in the world for $800. In what way is that not a win for consumers?

assuming purely gaming performance, its not a big difference. for content creators and such it's pretty good though, ryzen has already been pretty good regarding computational workloads compared to intel. but considering that the 8700k released at 370 bucks iirc, a 5600x at 300 bucks isnt super interesting from a purely gaming perspective. i actually kinda expect intel to become the more bang-for-your-buck choice now, considering that they're pretty behind on power draw and workstation uses. zen 2 may very well be the pinnacle of price-to-performance for amd's foreseeable future if intel keeps dropping the ball, and we'll be stuck paying 300 bucks for 6 cores still. 

 

seems like amd achieving parity/leads with intel and amd has been arguably worse for consumers as there's no more appropriately priced budget offerings from either side's new products. not everyone has 300 bucks to spend on a cpu and 500+ for a gpu. many people will be stuck buying last gen stuff at full price for now...

[DarkSmith2]

15 minutes ago, Grabhanem said:

You can buy a 16-core processor with per-core speeds comparable to the best in the world for $800. In what way is that not a win for consumers?

A 16core processor is only valuable for a very small niche of consumers. Apart from that 16core CPUs arent new, bringing them to a Mainstream Plattform for a lesser price due to being produced more efficiently (cheaper) is not going to change alot for most poeple.

What you mean with "per-core speeds" is not clear, please elaborate.

[geo3]

AMD won the moment they offered more than 2 generations without needing to buy a new MB. 

[DarkSmith2]

1 minute ago, geo3 said:

AMD won the moment they offered more than 2 generations without needing to buy a new MB. 

Did they really? Ive seen people upgrading from r5 1600 to r5 2600 to r5 3600. In that time i havnt bought anything with going for Intels 8700k and its still faster.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

to me AMD won, i don't even care if it's slower or faster by a few %. like, if i was to build a new machine from new parts now i'd choose AMD any day.

 

i'm so sick of Intel and also Nvidia just screwing over consumers because they can. Intel does it with for example overclocking support being unavailable on non-K sku's and ECC ram limited to Xeon. that matters more than you think, ECC ram is dirt cheap on the used market, like if the limit wasn't there you could pick up 32gb of ECC DDR3 for your 4th gen i7 for €40 if you wanted to, that is much much much cheaper than the same capacity consumer memory. 

 

and nvidia does it by for example limiting virtualization support on geforce cards and prohibiting open-source driver makers from reverse engineering their cards, so the default open source drivers for nvidia cards on linux barely work, and you need to install nvidia's shitty linux drivers to make your card at least usable. 

 

AMD has been a breath of fresh air the last few years and if i was in the market for a new system i would buy from them any day not because i care about the few % of performance i gain or lose but because i support them as a company and the additional things their products allow me to do. 

[Grabhanem]

37 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

A 16core processor is only valuable for a very small niche of consumers. Apart from that 16core CPUs arent new, bringing them to a Mainstream Plattform for a lesser price due to being produced more efficiently (cheaper) is not going to change alot for most poeple.

What you mean with "per-core speeds" is not clear, please elaborate.

Past high-core-count chips have compromised on core boost performance for power or thermal reasons-- see most Xeons not going much above 3GHz base. Ryzen has no such problems.

 

As to your "most people" assertion, what "most people" can do is based on what's reasonably priced. Not long ago you would have been spending $1000+ for a basic 8-core workstation CPU, now it's $300 and therefore will matter to more people because more people can use it.

 

Competition has led to better value across the board. Your 8700K was a $350+ CPU at launch, and now that kind of performance is available for sub $200 on cheaper motherboards. Besides, the only reason your CPU exists at all was because AMD started offering more than 4 cores on a consumer platform-- without that, you'd just have another 7700K.

 

35 minutes ago, DarkSmith2 said:

Did they really? Ive seen people upgrading from r5 1600 to r5 2600 to r5 3600. In that time i havnt bought anything with going for Intels 8700k and its still faster.

I've also seen people with i7 7700s (which is a more era appropriate comparison for the 1600) struggling with CPU performance with only a minor upgrade available to their platform because Intel can't be bothered to come out with a bios update. More options is always better.

[DarkSmith2]

1 hour ago, Grabhanem said:

Past high-core-count chips have compromised on core boost performance for power or thermal reasons-- see most Xeons not going much above 3GHz base. Ryzen has no such problems.

 

As to your "most people" assertion, what "most people" can do is based on what's reasonably priced. Not long ago you would have been spending $1000+ for a basic 8-core workstation CPU, now it's $300 and therefore will matter to more people because more people can use it.

 

Competition has led to better value across the board. Your 8700K was a $350+ CPU at launch, and now that kind of performance is available for sub $200 on cheaper motherboards. Besides, the only reason your CPU exists at all was because AMD started offering more than 4 cores on a consumer platform-- without that, you'd just have another 7700K.

Ryzen also still has problems with clock speeds. But to compare Ryzen with Xeons is just trying "hard" to find anything positive to say.

 

Same topic as with stating something about that 8700k wouldnt excist without AMD, infact it was more than 2years in development, long before any Ryzen CPU was released. And this has nothing to do with AMD. 

 

But regardless, from this i get your standpoint, you are not objective on the topic. Thats why the conversation ends here. Id rather talk about facts not fiction.

 

PS: If you would really think about it, the i7 5820k was a 6core 12 thread cpu released in 2014 for 400$ and it beats the r5 1600 in gaming. But that just on a sidenote.

 

 

[DarkSmith2]

hmm doublepost.

[Mister Woof]

2 hours ago, geo3 said:

AMD won the moment they offered more than 2 generations without needing to buy a new MB. 

And I won for buying an 8700k in 2017 without NEEDING to upgrade in 2 generations.

[SavageNeo]

8700k was probably the best buy around that time. Still oen fo the best cpus for gaming, very good oc and temps AFTER delid. Decent at workloads .

 

my dad bought 7600k. One of the worst buys. Like he made a music pc and did not want r 5 1600/ r 7 1700, he wanted intel because it was "better". anyway my dad moved to AMD lately.