ryzen 5000 real consumption?

S

Strange bird

Gawd
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Messages
539
I need help because I can't find the right data anywhere, how much power does the ryzen 5500 consume and how much does it load the motherboard compared to the ryzen 2700x?
The same question applies to the ryzen 5700X?
Can someone tell me the real difference in consumption?
I'm undecided between a ryzen 5500 and a ryzen 5700x processor on an asrock b450m s.l. and 4K resolution, rtx 3060 12gb
 
The 2700x is a 105watt TDP part, it would match up to a 5800x in power draw, 5700x and down are all 65watt TDP and will draw less power than your 2700x and run cooler!
 
Last edited:
But how much less is that? I don't know if I would buy a ryzen 5500 or 5700x.
I found a video where the ryzen 5700x heats a lot more than the 5500, close to 2700x, and then there is a video where the total consumption is a little higher than the ryzen 5500, I don't know what is correct?
 
pendragon1 said:
a 8/16 core/thread chip at 4.6GHz is going to run hotter than a 6/12 at 4.2 chip, and use a little more power.
Click to expand...
I expressed myself wrongly, the temperature doesn't worry me that much, but I can't find the actual consumption anywhere, I'm interested in the consumption and whether my motherboard can support the ryzen 5700x normally or not (on auto settings).

I would change Ryzen 2700x, but I don't know with which processor
How long is your boot time (until entering windows 10 or 11) with the ryzen 5000 series?

According to this, it turns out that it consumes a little, it's a pity that Ryzen 2700x is not in the table

Here the ryzen 5500 consumes the most of all.
I really don't understand how this is possible.
 
Last edited:
Strange bird said:
I expressed myself wrongly, the temperature doesn't worry me that much, but I can't find the actual consumption anywhere, I'm interested in the consumption and whether my motherboard can support the ryzen 5700x normally or not (on auto settings).

I would change Ryzen 2700x, but I don't know with which processor
How long is your boot time (until entering windows 10 or 11) with the ryzen 5000 series?
Click to expand...
ok then. the 5700x is a 65w chip, the 2700x is a 105w chip. your board will handle it just fine. make sure your bios is up to date and drop it in.
not sure, never timed it but task manager shows
1690572165075.png
 
pendragon1 said:
ok then. the 5700x is a 65w chip, the 2700x is a 105w chip. your board will handle it just fine. make sure your bios is up to date and drop it in.
not sure, never timed it but task manager shows
View attachment 586222
Click to expand...
That's really fast
And here it's a completely different story, here the 5700x consumes much more and heats up much more then ryzen 5500
And who to believe now?
 
Strange bird said:
That's really fast
And here it's a completely different story, here the 5700x consumes much more and heats up much more then ryzen 5500
And who to believe now?
Click to expand...

not too shabby.
ummm i was comparing your old 2700x to the 5700x and i already explained the difference youre seeing between the 5500/5700x...
this isnt rocket surgery ;)

ANNNND you just said youre not worried about temp...
Strange bird said:
temperature doesn't worry me
Click to expand...
 
Strange bird said:
Here the ryzen 5500 consumes the most of all.
Click to expand...
It look like a margin of error, they all so close that maybe it would change if they used different 5500 and 5600 and 5700 cpus

Der8auer had a video that showed just how much same sku can vary from one to other:
at 4:00:


All Ryzen 7600, same ram, same motherboards the power in watts goes from 110 to 126 while running C23, saying a 7600 consump X would be misleading, it is more you would test a bunch and say in average around, same goes for the cinebench score that goes between 13600 to 14500 on the same SKUs, depending on your lottery.
 
You need Ryzen Master to run Curve Optimizer on the cpu, my 5700x came back - 10 offset, and tested up to 92c, your stock cooler will work.
 
pendragon1 said:
a 8/16 core/thread chip at 4.6GHz is going to run hotter than a 6/12 at 4.2 chip, and use a little more power.
Click to expand...


All else being equal. Though differnet CPU archiectures have differnet power requirements. Like Intel latest gen CPUs despite being a little faster do use more power on average. So a 6/12 Intel chip even with e-cores off could use as much as an 8/16 as last 2 gen Ryzen chips.

Though Intel CPUs are easier to cool relative to power consumption as AMD chips are more dense. So not always an apples to apples comparison with regard to temperatures.
 
Wolverine2349 said:
All else being equal. Though differnet CPU archiectures have differnet power requirements. Like Intel latest gen CPUs despite being a little faster do use more power on average. So a 6/12 Intel chip even with e-cores off could use as much as an 8/16 as last 2 gen Ryzen chips.

Though Intel CPUs are easier to cool relative to power consumption as AMD chips are more dense. So not always an apples to apples comparison with regard to temperatures.
Click to expand...
w're not talking about intel...
 
The 5500 is a turd anyways and shouldn't be considered by anyone. Its a 5600G APU with the graphics portion fused off so it only has 16MB cache compared to the 32MB you get on a standard 5600 desktop part. If the difference in wattage between the two is a make or break for your power bill you probably should look at not having a desktop PC in the first place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yodap
like this
I'm going to buy 5600x, I wanted 5700x, but one shop dragged me and screwed me and I gave up in the end.

Guys, is thermal paste better than thermal pads?
If so, then I will throw away all the thermal pads from the motherboard and put only thermal paste.
I think the warranty on the mbo has expired, so it has nothing to do with it.

What do you think about it?
 
It's made so that only thermal pads fit.
I only put the paste, but the cooler did not touch the chip at all, it must be a thermal pad.

But I removed that shield that surrounds the I/O shield.
And I also removed the led strip that is under that shield.
This is totally unnecessary and only blocks air circulation.

https://www.asrock.com/mb/amd/b450m steel legend/
 
Strange bird said:
It's made so that only thermal pads fit.
I only put the paste, but the cooler did not touch the chip at all, it must be a thermal pad.

But I removed that shield that surrounds the I/O shield.
And I also removed the led strip that is under that shield.
This is totally unnecessary and only blocks air circulation.

https://www.asrock.com/mb/amd/b450m steel legend/
Click to expand...

Why not just leave it alone? Why would you even do this? You got some ocd bro thermal pads for vrm like those last 10+ years.
 
LigTasm said:
Why not just leave it alone? Why would you even do this? You got some ocd bro thermal pads for vrm like those last 10+ years.
Click to expand...
I just removed the shield at the i/o connector, it's useless and I don't keep the led lights on.
I would like to replace the thermal pads with paste, but I can't, I would have to have other screws or sand them.
Thermal paste is better than thermal pads.
 
Strange bird said:
I just removed the shield at the i/o connector, it's useless and I don't keep the led lights on.
I would like to replace the thermal pads with paste, but I can't, I would have to have other screws or sand them.
Thermal paste is better than thermal pads.
Click to expand...

If the heat transfer rate of the pad exceeds the production of the component (it does) it doesn’t make any difference at all. If you want to cool it more, put a fan on it. The heatsink dissipating what its collected into the air is the bottleneck.
 
LigTasm said:
If the heat transfer rate of the pad exceeds the production of the component (it does) it doesn’t make any difference at all. If you want to cool it more, put a fan on it. The heatsink dissipating what its collected into the air is the bottleneck.
Click to expand...
I didn't understand you well, but what I researched a bit is that thermal paste cools and dissipates heat better than thermal pads,why are they pushing pads?
This for the fans is a good idea, only the fans have to be very small so that they can be connected to the heatsink.
 
Strange bird said:
why are they pushing pads?
Click to expand...
no one is "pushing them" they are used where gaps are lager than paste can fill or where "high performance" isnt really needed.

now if you were talking about the graphite pads for cpus, those are just an alternative that some people asked for, so several makers released them. yes they arent as good as paste but they are "easier" and reusable. you have to decide which you prefer, performance or convenience. i use paste...
 
Strange bird said:
I didn't understand you well, but what I researched a bit is that thermal paste cools and dissipates heat better than thermal pads,why are they pushing pads?
This for the fans is a good idea, only the fans have to be very small so that they can be connected to the heatsink.
Click to expand...

Its like this, your component, in this case the VRM mosfets, need to be cooled. They produce a certain amount of heat, which we denote in watts. Thermal pads are rated in W/mK, or watts per meter-kelvin. So long as the thermal pad rating exceeds the heat output of the component, it literally does not matter if you put liquid gold in there, nothing else will happen. The heat is being transferred away as fast as it can be made.

The problem is your heatsink attached to it radiates heat into the surrounding air which has a very poor thermal conductivity. So the only way to increase the cooling is to add more airflow, or liquid cool it.

In the case of a CPU or GPU die with a very high heat output, pads are not sufficient. You need the component and the cooler to be as close as physically possible for maximum heat transfer, which is why you would use paste. Paste is not made as a transfer medium like pads, rather it just fills in the gaps and holes on the metal surfaces that are generally microscopic to give maximum surface area for transfer to take place. Theoretically the best case would be surfaces machined so precisely that they do not need any paste at all.
 
I know about this that the thermal paste for the cpu serves only to fill the empty space between the cooler and the "cap" of the processor.
That's why I bought a noctua cooler, because it has a very well-finished surface that sits on the processor, others don't really have that, noctua was the best, I don't know if it's still like that.

I have not heard of these graphite ones for cpu.

This is my lga1156 motherboard, so it's quality and not the current one, which is basically a bunch of unnecessary plastic.But that's another topic.
https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-P55A-UD3R-rev-10#ov
The only thing I did on it was changing the pads and putting paste, I think I put thermal paste under this gigabyte heatsink
 
Strange bird said:
I know about this that the thermal paste for the cpu serves only to fill the empty space between the cooler and the "cap" of the processor.
That's why I bought a noctua cooler, because it has a very well-finished surface that sits on the processor, others don't really have that, noctua was the best, I don't know if it's still like that.

I have not heard of these graphite ones for cpu.

This is my lga1156 motherboard, so it's quality and not the current one, which is basically a bunch of unnecessary plastic.But that's another topic.
https://www.gigabyte.com/Motherboard/GA-P55A-UD3R-rev-10#ov
The only thing I did on it was changing the pads and putting paste, I think I put thermal paste under this gigabyte heatsink
Click to expand...
if you take the heat sink off and check that the paste is actually spread out and making contact then its fine and will work better than a pad. if it looks good, just put it back on. if not, it needs a new pad.
 
pendragon1 said:
if you take the heat sink off and check that the paste is actually spread out and making contact then its fine and will work better than a pad. if it looks good, just put it back on. if not, it needs a new pad.
Click to expand...
I think it's ok, the gigabyte board has a mechanism with a fader and a pin, so there is no screw and stop to which it goes.
Something similar to a regular CPU cooler that comes with intel or amd processors.
I seem to have checked that, with this asrock the situation is completely opposite, there is no contact if it is paste.There must be at least 1mm of empty space in between.And it has to go pads.On the asrock, everything is screwed from below, while the old gigabyte has all the pins from above.
 
The problem with older mbos, graphic cards, etc. is that they have bad thermal pastes and pads, and over time this turns into "concrete" and it is necessary to replace it if you continue to use it.
 
Strange bird said:
The problem with older mbos, graphic cards, etc. is that they have bad thermal pastes and pads, and over time this turns into "concrete" and it is necessary to replace it if you continue to use it.
Click to expand...

You were talking about Ryzen 5000 chips in your op, not older stuff. Paste and pads all need to be replaced every few years.
 
LigTasm said:
You were talking about Ryzen 5000 chips in your op, not older stuff. Paste and pads all need to be replaced every few years.
Click to expand...
No, I'm talking about my lga 1156 motherboards, older graphics cards I had, sound cards, etc.
This asrock still has ok pads, and actually I don't even have those small pads around CPU place to replace, I'll have to buy them somewhere.
 
Strange bird said:
That's really fast
And here it's a completely different story, here the 5700x consumes much more and heats up much more then ryzen 5500
And who to believe now?
Click to expand...


Late to the party, but for what it's worth. I went from 5600 to 5700X (i know, sidegrade, but i do x265 encoding and 2 cores are useful). All the rest being the same, the 5700X runs 1-2 C cooler than the 5600 at 100% load. I am very satisfied by the thermal behaviour.
 
Strange bird said:
That's really fast
And here it's a completely different story, here the 5700x consumes much more and heats up much more then ryzen 5500
And who to believe now?
Click to expand...

They're comparing stock 5500 with a 5700x with pbo on. Pbo increases the cpu's power envelope compared to stock settings, hence is not known for its efficiency.
 
Last edited:
funkydmunky said:
Haha. When a troll speaks and good hearted folk ARE SO STUPID! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
No, i'm just stupid.
He nicely explained to me that in that video they use pbo, ryzen has a lot of settings, it can consume and heat up a lot or a little.


I received a ryzen 5600x, but the installation will take time, I won't have time.
What do you suggest for ryzen 5600x, to install 16gb ram or 32gb ram?
I currently have 32gb with ryzen 2700x, but my ram is not 100% the same, it works at 2666mhz cl 16,19,19, and something else, otherwise the original is 3200mhz cl 16-18-18

Yes, it says PBO ON nicely, but I didn't notice at all
pbo is overclocking and then they are wasteful.

Is the B2 revision still current for the 5600x or has AMD released a new revision?
 
Last edited:
Hello guys!
I installed ryzen 5600x, I got practically nothing, ryzen 2700x was really a good processor.
My boot time is a little better, the lowest I've seen is 10.5 seconds.

Red dead redemption 2 game, practically everything is the same, the minimum fps is a little higher for me.

I don't know, I don't see the purpose of changing 2700x for 5600x

The only biggest gain for me could be the temperature and consumption, I have not yet monitored how much it consumes and how much it heats up. I just recently put it on and just tested the in-game rdr2 benchmark.
A bunch of new options appeared in the bios, everything is left on auto settings. I have no idea what it's all about, I just see that there are a lot of new options.

Who has a high-end motherboard and ryzen 2700x, ryzen 5600x is practically no upgrade.
I don't know why some say that the ryzen 5600x is a much better processor than the 2700x, when it is not at all.
 
Strange bird said:
Hello guys!
I installed ryzen 5600x, I got practically nothing, ryzen 2700x was really a good processor.
My boot time is a little better, the lowest I've seen is 10.5 seconds.

Red dead redemption 2 game, practically everything is the same, the minimum fps is a little higher for me.

I don't know, I don't see the purpose of changing 2700x for 5600x

The only biggest gain for me could be the temperature and consumption, I have not yet monitored how much it consumes and how much it heats up. I just recently put it on and just tested the in-game rdr2 benchmark.
A bunch of new options appeared in the bios, everything is left on auto settings. I have no idea what it's all about, I just see that there are a lot of new options.

Who has a high-end motherboard and ryzen 2700x, ryzen 5600x is practically no upgrade.
I don't know why some say that the ryzen 5600x is a much better processor than the 2700x, when it is not at all.
Click to expand...
You went from 8 cores, down to 6....

I don't know who told you this would be a major upgrade... but clearly they're wrong.
 
Strange bird said:
I don't know why some say that the ryzen 5600x is a much better processor than the 2700x, when it is not at all.
Click to expand...
Strange bird said:
4K resolution, rtx 3060 12gb
Click to expand...

You spent months researching thermal pads but don't understand what being GPU limited means?

I personally went from a 3900X to a 5900X, and then to a 5800X3D, on the same motherboard. Both CPU upgrades resulted in significant performance increases. Why? Because I wasn't GPU limited in the games that I play.
 
GotNoRice said:
You spent months researching thermal pads but don't understand what being GPU limited means?

I personally went from a 3900X to a 5900X, and then to a 5800X3D, on the same motherboard. Both CPU upgrades resulted in significant performance increases. Why? Because I wasn't GPU limited in the games that I play.
Click to expand...
It's not all of a sudden, I announced earlier, but apparently you don't read my messages.

I'm not gpu limited because I don't have a strong graphics card.

Why didn't I buy the 5700x? Well, mostly because it probably consumes more and heats up more than the 5600x and I don't want to have wasteful processors and heaters anymore.
In fact, I ordered it (5700x), but one shop passed me by a bit, so I gave up. They dragged me a bit.

This 5600x goes up to some 64 degrees and 78W, but that's not exactly 100% load, I tested it on a scan with windows defender scan and superantispyware free scan.
Later I will squeeze it with cinebench r23 to see the real consumption and heating

There are tons and tons of reviews for the 5600x, but apparently all paid for and none of the reviews are realistic. They only test with top motherboards and top memories and top other components, which is not at all realistic for me when I have a mid-range b450m motherboard and an rtx 3060 12gb gpu.
They do not show the real situation at all,both for consumption and for heating the processor.
 
Last edited:
pendragon1 said:
wtf does that even mean?!
ps: virus scans have never been a "test" any normal person would use.
Click to expand...
They didn't answer me for a long time, when I sent an inquiry about the processor, they replied that I should wait another two weeks at least and the price would increase a little, and then I gave up.And then I bought a 5600x and waited for about 2 weeks until it arrived.That's pretty much how everything went.
I will test it with cinebench r23, that's what I have from the testing tool.I have recently tested 2700x with it, so I will be able to compare the differences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top