why 5900x is performing better than 5800x in some games?Are games start using more than 8 core?

[GodDoesGood]

5800x have 8 cores on 1 ccd whereas 6+6 on 5900x .so even after  higher latency still 5900x performs better or equal .i am not able to understand the concept why this is happening.if u really know pls help me understand for making a better purchase

[Mohammad Saleh]

more price=more performance

[SavageNeo]

It has little highe boost speed and douple the cache of the 5800x.

Also it has 8core+4 core CXX.

[SavageNeo]

Just now, Mohammad Saleh said:

more price=more performance

That is not true since Intel does not have more performance. compraed to 5600x or 5800x to 10900k

[GodDoesGood]

2 minutes ago, SavageNeo said:

It has little highe boost speed and douple the cache of the 5800x.

Also it has 8core+4 core CXX.

i has 6+6 not 8+4 .plus the cache is divided among 2 ccds so it is equal or less effectively

[GodDoesGood]

6 minutes ago, Mohammad Saleh said:

more price=more performance

sorry u dont know 

[D13H4RD]

It's probably boosting a little higher versus the 5800X 

[SavageNeo]

5900x has more L2 cache aswell. 50% more actually.

[Loki0111]

Yes, most games use more then one core. Some games are taking advantage of 8 cores or more.

 

Cyberpunk for example was using 15 threads on my 3900X, Bannerlord 2 and Metro Exodus are others.

 

With both new consoles being 8 core zen 2's I think its fairly safe to expect more games in the future taking advantage of the additional cores available.

[GodDoesGood]

2 minutes ago, Loki0111 said:

Yes, some games are taking advantage of more cores. Cyberpunk for example was using 15 threads on my 3900X.

thats 8 core bro 8 core 16 thread

[mahyar]

5900x has better overall single threaded performance

[Loki0111]

4 minutes ago, GodDoesGood said:

thats 8 core bro 8 core 16 thread

Yes, the game is using 15 threads. But the OS needs to run as does the Steam client and Discord in my case.

 

But point is valid Cyberpunk itself is not using more then 16 threads and I am sure it would run fine on a modern 8C/16T.

[GodDoesGood]

5 minutes ago, mahyar said:

5900x has better overall single threaded performance

tests  were conducted at same clocks to remove boost effect.4.7ghz all.i should mention it i didnt i am sorry

[porina]

1 hour ago, GodDoesGood said:

tests  were conducted at same clocks to remove boost effect.4.7ghz all.i should mention it i didnt i am sorry

Got a link to the test results you are referring to?

 

1 hour ago, SavageNeo said:

5900x has more L2 cache aswell. 50% more actually.

L2 is tied per-core. So more cores = more cache. It isn't useful to count it beyond that.

[GodDoesGood]

3 minutes ago, porina said:

Got a link to the test results you are referring to?

 

L2 is tied per-core. So more cores = more cache. It isn't useful to count it beyond that.

Ryzen 5 5600X vs. Ryzen 7 5800X vs. Ryzen 9 5900X | Test with RTX 3080 - YouTube

i cant find other vids but this is one i found look at the results it is better or equal but 5900x should be lower than 5800x

[porina]

1 hour ago, GodDoesGood said:

Ryzen 5 5600X vs. Ryzen 7 5800X vs. Ryzen 9 5900X | Test with RTX 3080 - YouTube

i cant find other vids but this is one i found look at the results it is better or equal but 5900x should be lower than 5800x

Skimming their results, it looks like in most cases, the differences in average fps are not really that different from each other. If you have to have the best of the best, that might affect the decision, but being practical you're going to have a great gaming experience with any of those CPUs. The differences between them are not really going to make a meaningful difference to the experience. It would have been nice if they could also have summarised the 1% lows as that could be more interesting than the raw average. It seemed there was some benefit to high core models in some of the games at least.

 

As for the "why" that is more difficult to say. That the cores are fixed at equal clock may give the advantage more to the higher core count models, who in practice would otherwise have a lower power budget per core, which might mitigate those gains. So that has to be kept in mind.

 

At the end of the day, a 12 core part will have more resource than 8 core part of same clock. If games are able to use that in some way, it could get through the work a little faster than an 8 core part. A common misunderstanding is people valuing CPU threads almost as much as a real core, where in practice it is a lot less. A good scaling software like Cinebench might gain 30% from SMT threads vs an actual core at same clock, and for most software it will be much less than that. If we assume a game scales to 16 threads (implied from 8 cores with SMT), there is still a throughput benefit to 12 real cores vs 8c16t, and that can translate into slightly higher average fps we see here.

 

Maybe someone with more time can go back and compare the 1% lows some more, especially between the 8c and 12c parts. The 8 core part does have a benefit of unified L3 cache, unlike older generation Ryzen. While physically still chiplet arrangement with a CCD and IOD, it behaves more like the good old days of a monolithic CPU where there is little differentiation in core connectivity. This may or may not help more in some games than others.

 

I still think, you'll not go wrong with any of these CPUs for gaming. Now if you have non-gaming uses that might be better able to use more cores, that could be worth looking at.

[GodDoesGood]

47 minutes ago, porina said:

Skimming their results, it looks like in most cases, the differences in average fps are not really that different from each other. If you have to have the best of the best, that might affect the decision, but being practical you're going to have a great gaming experience with any of those CPUs. The differences between them are not really going to make a meaningful difference to the experience. It would have been nice if they could also have summarised the 1% lows as that could be more interesting than the raw average. It seemed there was some benefit to high core models in some of the games at least.

 

As for the "why" that is more difficult to say. That the cores are fixed at equal clock may give the advantage more to the higher core count models, who in practice would otherwise have a lower power budget per core, which might mitigate those gains. So that has to be kept in mind.

 

At the end of the day, a 12 core part will have more resource than 8 core part of same clock. If games are able to use that in some way, it could get through the work a little faster than an 8 core part. A common misunderstanding is people valuing CPU threads almost as much as a real core, where in practice it is a lot less. A good scaling software like Cinebench might gain 30% from SMT threads vs an actual core at same clock, and for most software it will be much less than that. If we assume a game scales to 16 threads (implied from 8 cores with SMT), there is still a throughput benefit to 12 real cores vs 8c16t, and that can translate into slightly higher average fps we see here.

 

Maybe someone with more time can go back and compare the 1% lows some more, especially between the 8c and 12c parts. The 8 core part does have a benefit of unified L3 cache, unlike older generation Ryzen. While physically still chiplet arrangement with a CCD and IOD, it behaves more like the good old days of a monolithic CPU where there is little differentiation in core connectivity. This may or may not help more in some games than others.

 

I still think, you'll not go wrong with any of these CPUs for gaming. Now if you have non-gaming uses that might be better able to use more cores, that could be worth looking at.

THANK U FOR INSIGHT.

can  i ask u between 5900x and 5950x what good does more 4 cores give in video editing,rendering etc.i mean is there any advantage except rendering time like smooth playback(i know nothing about that) or some other shit?.But any way i never thought that .I am grateful. thank you

[porina]

4 hours ago, GodDoesGood said:

can  i ask u between 5900x and 5950x what good does more 4 cores give in video editing,rendering etc.i mean is there any advantage except rendering time like smooth playback(i know nothing about that) or some other shit?.But any way i never thought that .I am grateful. thank you

If you were to only use CPU for those kinds of workloads, they tend to scale well with available CPU so more cores is generally faster. This is more complicated because many such software are no longer pure CPU. They can also use GPU to help out. The benefit more CPU gives may be reduced as more work is then done elsewhere.

 

If there are other advantages I'm not sure. Smoother playback can be limited elsewhere like disk or network speeds, or available ram.