Techspot - 32 Game Benchmarks - Ryzen 7 5800x vs. Intel 11700k

[kirbyrj]

https://www.techspot.com/review/2260-amd-ryzen-5800x-vs-core-i7-11700k/

TLDR Conclusions:
5800x - 4% faster at 1080p; 3% faster at 1440p; 4k no difference

I’m sure it won’t surprise many of you to hear that AMD wins this comparison. The Ryzen 7 5800X is the better choice for a number of reasons, including significantly better power efficiency and a better upgrade path, thanks to what is overall a superior platform.

As we see it, there’s no advantage to buying the Core i7-11700K except for the rare scenario where you need integrated graphics (e.g. you can't find a GPU at a decent price and don't have an older graphics card to use in a new build).

Looks like the power draw, marginally better performance, and ability to upgrade to 12/16 Cores overcomes the IGP and slightly cheaper price for Techspot.

 

[AVATARAT]

HU, now TS test this both CPU with 3800MHz RAM - how they manage to be Gear 1 for the Intel CPU?
Because everyone knows that with Gear 2 Intel are slower at 3800MHz.
For Gear 1 maximum as I know is 3600Mhz so both reviews are very strange.

 

[kirbyrj]

HU, now TS test this both CPU with 3800MHz RAM - how they manage to be Gear 1 for the Intel CPU?
Because everyone knows that with Gear 2 Intel are slower at 3800MHz.
For Gear 1 maximum as I know is 3600Mhz so both reviews are very strange.

I think HU is just the video review part of the operation while TS is the written website version. Same content.

They didn't list Gear 1 or 2 in the website. Not sure if they did in the video.

 

[Hallyday]

Both chips are expensive just for "gaming" purposes, and the upgrade route thing about Vermeer is kind of pointless as DDR5 will come alongside of significantly stronger chips, making the current tech look kind of a bit dated. You won't really want to blow all that cash into an older platform then. Also, the 5800X is single CCD, that eliminates some of the bottlenecks of multiple CCD design such as latency - helping the 5800X perform like 5900X in some games. This makes buying the bigger chips later even more pointless.

 

[kirbyrj]

Both chips are expensive just for "gaming" purposes, and the upgrade route thing about Vermeer is kind of pointless as DDR5 will come alongside of significantly stronger chips, making the current tech look kind of a bit dated. You won't really want to blow all that cash into an older platform then. Also, the 5800X is single CCD, that eliminates some of the bottlenecks of multiple CCD design such as latency - helping the 5800X perform like 5900X in some games. This makes buying the bigger chips later even more pointless.

I don't know about that. The jump from the 3XXX to 5XXX is big, but it's not like the 3XXX is irrelevant. It might be worth it to some when faced with a drop in 5950x upgrade for $500 vs. a whole platform upgrade of $1500+.

Either way with the Intel system, you're essentially tapped out at 8 newer cores or sidegrade to 10 older cores. And in theory, Alder Lake is coming later this year. It certainly doesn't make sense to buy Intel right now.

 

[Hallyday]

Gaming cares the most about GPU, I main a 3900X but I've done some Warzone with my 3600 couple months back, noticed no bottlenecks or differences from the CPU end whatsoever. We'll see how much the new platforms will cost. I'd suspect DDR5 to cost the most as that'll be the new deal, but there should still be cheap and decent boards on the AMD end. You can probably get a platform upgrade for well under 1500 by that time comes.

Intel does make sense with the lower end SKUs, 10400 is the pick for mid range setups regarding gaming. It's been a fairly good chip for 150, and still is tbh. Ever since AMD overpriced their CPUs, they've started looking worse bang for $$.

 

[kirbyrj]

Gaming cares the most about GPU, I main a 3900X but I've done some Warzone with my 3600 couple months back, noticed no bottlenecks or differences from the CPU end whatsoever. We'll see how much the new platforms will cost. I'd suspect DDR5 to cost the most as that'll be the new deal, but there should still be cheap and decent boards on the AMD end. You can probably get a platform upgrade for well under 1500 by that time comes.

Intel does make sense with the lower end SKUs, 10400 is the pick for mid range setups regarding gaming. It's been a fairly good chip for 150, and still is tbh. Ever since AMD overpriced their CPUs, they've started looking worse bang for $$.

I agree. AMD is shooting themselves in the foot by not having a midrange part under $300. Then again, they probably are maximizing profits with their limited fab allotment.

 

[ChadD]

I agree. AMD is shooting themselves in the foot by not having a midrange part under $300. Then again, they probably are maximizing profits with their limited fab allotment.

I'm sure they're moving every CPU they box up right now... so why not cash in. By the time stock across the board corrects itself to a point where customers won't just pay the extra. They'll be on to the next Ryzen and Intel will be trying to convince gamers small cores in their gaming rigs make any sense at all. I think AMD is sitting pretty right now... they retain the crown, they retain the only options going up from 8 cores, and they are selling chips faster then they are receiving them.

It might seem completely crazy... but they should probably be more worried about Nvidia then Intel in the short to mid term. Nvidia may cause them more grief in the server market then Intel. I mean at this point the parts of those markets that haven't already switched to AMD are entrenched with Intel. When Nvidia charges in it will be AMD they displace more then Intel. If Nvidia has some consumer part aimed at laptops or something to compete with M1 the same will probably happen. Nvidia could potentially slow a lot of the inroads AMD has been making in a bunch of markets. ARM is probably more a issue for AMD sales then Intels.

Intel on the other hand is going to try to big.Small x86 and I have a strong feeling its going to be a disaster.

 

[DPI]

TLDR Conclusions:
5800x - 4% faster at 1080p; 3% faster at 1440p; 4k no difference

Only glaring omission is they Intel has objective far more OC headroom but they compared them at stock. [email protected] allcore vs a 5800X + PBO, Intel is going to outrun it.

Dont get me wrong, I'm disappointed by Rocket Lake and 11700K isn't even as good as 10900K price for price, but I continue to not see a point to 5800X at any price above $350. Here are the best power user desktop CPUs right now IMO, in performance while not ignoring overclockability.

1. 5950X
2. 5900X
3. 10900K
4. 11700K (if you really need PCIe 4)

 

[GotNoRice]

Gaming cares the most about GPU

Your blanket statement is wrong and misleading. There are a lot of different games out there, and a lot of variation when it comes to resource usage. Even when just talking about one game, your game settings and monitor resolution will have a massive impact.

 

[Hallyday]

Your blanket statement is wrong and misleading. There are a lot of different games out there, and a lot of variation when it comes to resource usage. Even when just talking about one game, your game settings and monitor resolution will have a massive impact.

It is not wrong, it just wasn't detailed enough. Of course games care most about GPU, you can't deny this. Graphics processing is the top priority, CPU comes second - and if a game is so awfully balanced that it struggles on with even beast CPUs, then that's poor coding. I've seen this in PUBG back in the day, it wasn't a fault of my setup but rather the shitty game.

 

[GotNoRice]

Of course games care most about GPU, you can't deny this.

Another generalization about "games" instead of any actual specific game. Some games are more GPU intensive, while others are more CPU intensive. Even when just talking about one game, there are numerous situations where someone playing at 1080P might find themselves CPU limited while someone playing at 4K might find themselves GPU limited. A user also has many more options to reduce GPU load via lowering in-game settings. Whereas, if your CPU is too slow, you are up shit creek. You might be someone with a 4K 60hz monitor who likes to play at max game settings. Your CPU doesn't need to push more than 60 fps, but your GPU needs to be pretty beefy. Or you might be someone with a 1080p 240hz monitor. The combination of the lower monitor resolution and potentially lower in-game settings can reduce the GPU burden but you still need a CPU that can push a ton of FPS to get anywhere near that 240 number.

The more exceptions that have to be tacked on to a generalization, the less relevant the generalization becomes - and your generalization has quite a few exceptions.

 

[AVATARAT]

At stock. Theyre comparing a highly overclockable Intel (capable of 5Ghz+ on all cores) left at stock, to a AMD with nearly no OC headroom. And with 5800X being a "defective" 5950X with one CCX disabled, its thermal dissipation surface area is halved and more bottlenecked compared to the Intel's big die.

Dont get me wrong I'm disappointed by Rocket Lake and 11700K isn't even as good as 10900K price for price, but I continue to not see a point to 5800X at any price above $350. Here are the best power user desktop CPUs right now IMO, in performance without ignoring overclockability.

1. 5950X
2. 5900X
3. 10900K
4. 11700K (if you really need PCIe 4)

You are right about that that these are the best CPUs, but for gaming they are pointless.
Fine-tuned 5600x, 5800x, 11600k are enough.
Yes with top CPU you can take the last few percent but anything under 3-5% is pointless for their price.

Just buy 3600-4000MHz RAM with low latency for the price difference, tune it a bit and you will have the same result as top CPUs.

 

[Hallyday]

Another generalization about "games" instead of any actual specific game. Some games are more GPU intensive, while others are more CPU intensive. Even when just talking about one game, there are numerous situations where someone playing at 1080P might find themselves CPU limited while someone playing at 4K might find themselves GPU limited. A user also has many more options to reduce GPU load via lowering in-game settings. Whereas, if your CPU is too slow, you are up shit creek. You might be someone with a 4K 60hz monitor who likes to play at max game settings. Your CPU doesn't need to push more than 60 fps, but your GPU needs to be pretty beefy. Or you might be someone with a 1080p 240hz monitor. The combination of the lower monitor resolution and potentially lower in-game settings can reduce the GPU burden but you still need a CPU that can push a ton of FPS to get anywhere near that 240 number.

The more exceptions that have to be tacked on to a generalization, the less relevant the generalization becomes - and your generalization has quite a few exceptions.

First of all, 60 Hz at 4k with "max" settings requires a fair amount of GPU. If you have that much GPU, I'd expect the setup to have at least a halfway decent CPU and fact of matter is, change in resolution doesn't always reduce CPU load in tandem. There are some cases (such as that of PUBG), where the game brute-forces your setup so much that you need both a strong GPU and CPU, regardless of what resolution you play at. Though that's generally due to the poor nature of the code of the game.

Then you talk about 240 Hz panels, do you understand how VRR works? You don't need 240 FPS to make use of 240 Hz properly, and I'd heavily doubt you will actually notice a drop in smoothness when that 240 FPS drops down to 200 or such, while you're focused to the game.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/16.html

Look at the game tests there, the FPS numbers. The worst CPU on the list is a 1800X and from it to the better chips, there is NOT a big difference. The differences are generally minimal, and this goes with almost every game on that list. Of course one could argue that a really bad CPU could bring down your gaming experience, but then again there is no point in matching up a strong GPU with a weak ass CPU.

 

[GotNoRice]

First of all, 60 Hz at 4k with "max" settings requires a fair amount of GPU.

That's probably why I gave it as an example of being GPU limited.

If you have that much GPU, I'd expect the setup to have at least a halfway decent CPU

So what you're saying is that you need a good CPU to even make use of a good GPU. Sounds like a CPU is pretty important for gaming.

fact of matter is, change in resolution doesn't always reduce CPU load in tandem.

I gave the reduction of resolution as an example of reducing GPU load, not CPU load.

There are some cases (such as that of PUBG), where the game brute-forces your setup so much that you need both a strong GPU and CPU, regardless of what resolution you play at. Though that's generally due to the poor nature of the code of the game.

If someone plays a particular game, cares about that game, and wants to maximize their performance in that game, do you think they care if the game was "poorly coded"? Or, do they simply want what will give them the best performance in that game?

Then you talk about 240 Hz panels, do you understand how VRR works? You don't need 240 FPS to make use of 240 Hz properly, and I'd heavily doubt you will actually notice a drop in smoothness when that 240 FPS drops down to 200 or such, while you're focused to the game.

Yes, I understand how VRR works, and that you don't need to achieve FPS equal to your max refresh rate in order to have a "smooth" experience. But FPS does still matter. People don't buy 240hz monitors just to be capped at significantly lower FPS, regardless of what benefit VRR still provides at that lower FPS. You need a good CPU to pump out that extra FPS.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x/16.html

Look at the game tests there, the FPS numbers.

I see a LOT more variation at 1080P than at 4K, which once again shows that people's individual situations heavily influence which components they should focus on, as opposed using irrelevant vague generalizations to guide them. I also still believe people are better off focusing on the performance of games that they actually play.

Someone can simply keep a GPU usage monitoring tool up on a 2nd monitor while they play. If they are pegged at 100% GPU usage, then their GPU is holding them back. If it's not at 100%, then something else (potentially the CPU) is holding them back. That simple 60 second test would be infinitely more informative than a vague generalization that might not even apply to them.

 

[kirbyrj]

At stock. Theyre comparing a highly overclockable Intel (capable of 5Ghz+ on all cores) left at stock, to a AMD with nearly no OC headroom. And with 5800X being a "defective" 5950X with one CCX disabled, its thermal dissipation surface area is halved and more bottlenecked compared to the Intel's monolithic die. 5800X will run hotter.

Dont get me wrong I'm disappointed by Rocket Lake and 11700K isn't even as good as 10900K price for price, but I continue to not see a point to 5800X at any price above $350. Here are the best power user desktop CPUs right now IMO, in performance without ignoring overclockability.

1. 5950X
2. 5900X
3. 10900K
4. 11700K (if you really need PCIe 4)

The other caveat is if you already have an AM4 setup. You can move from a 2700x to a 5950x on an old x470 motherboard if you wanted (or more likely from 3xxx to 5xxx on x570). If you have a Comet Lake on z490, there isn't much point of moving to Rocket Lake.

 

[DPI]

The other caveat is if you already have an AM4 setup. You can move from a 2700x to a 5950x on an old x470 motherboard if you wanted (or more likely from 3xxx to 5xxx on x570). If you have a Comet Lake on z490, there isn't much point of moving to Rocket Lake.

True. Its just an unexciting time between more meaningful platform launches/refreshes. X570 motherboards are almost 2 years old and featureset is feeling dated on the ones that didn't get a revision bump end-2020, but exciting CPUs including 12 and 16 core nevertheless exist for it. Z590 motherboards have latest and greatest features, but lacklustre CPUs. The boards are actually more interesting than the CPUs.

Take a board like MSI MEG Godlike Z590, and it's got absolutely everything..as it should for $1000. But then you see the cpu socket on it and realize there's no CPU that will really do the board justice - max 8 cores if you want full Z590 featureset. What's the point?

Or the Z590 Aorus Master I got for $300 and has 10GbE, great VRM and CPU/Mem OC ability. But when I went to install the 11700k, it was like the idea of putting on a pair of dirty underwear.

It's too bad AMD wasn't ready with X570S refresh in the first half of this year or I could've ignored Z590 completely.

 

[AVATARAT]

The other caveat is if you already have an AM4 setup. You can move from a 2700x to a 5950x on an old x470 motherboard if you wanted (or more likely from 3xxx to 5xxx on x570). If you have a Comet Lake on z490, there isn't much point of moving to Rocket Lake.

10900к@5.1 with 4000 RAM, didn't need upgrade path for gaming.

 

[kirbyrj]

10900к@5.1 with 4000 RAM, didn't need upgrade path for gaming.

That wasn't available when people had 2700x's though. It's a legit drop in upgrade for many people. Intel blows for in socket upgrades.

 

[DPI]

That wasn't available when people had 2700x's though. It's a legit drop in upgrade for many people. Intel blows for in socket upgrades.

No contest, AMD sockets are top for upgrade longevity - and makes splurging on a higher end motherboard earlier in a cycle more attractive, whereas Intel even if they "support" 2 gens of CPU, there's always an asterisk next to it.

Like Z490 AIBs swore "don't worry, Rocket Lake full support with BIOS update, our Z490 boards have the PCie 4 traces", but in reality it turned out to be a mess with no consistency - vendor A supported PCie4 GPUs but not NVMe drives, vendor B vice versa, vendor C not at all, vendor D kinda sorta with a beta BIOS that then makes memory OC unstable plus other weird quirks.

 

[1_rick]

And with 5800X being a "defective" 5950X with one CCX disabled

No, the 5800X is a single, full 8-core CCX on one chiplet. The 5950 is two full 8-core CCXs on two chiplets, just like the 3000 generation (except that the 5000 series chiplets have one 8-core CCX instead of 2 -core CCXes.

 

[GoldenTiger]

No, the 5800X is a single, full 8-core CCX on one chiplet. The 5950 is two full 8-core CCXs on two chiplets, just like the 3000 generation (except that the 5000 series chiplets have one 8-core CCX instead of 2 -core CCXes.

That's exactly what DPI said...

 

[Rockenrooster]

That's exactly what DPI said...

not exactly.......
Can't have a disabled CCX/CCD if the other chiplet isn't even there....
https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-5000...gh-res-die-shots-close-ups-pictured-detailed/