Those anandtech numbers seem fishy as hell.
I'm just running through stuff blindly because you haven't specified a use case for your claim that the 5600X doesn't move the price to performance needle.
So you're looking for the best chip to game at 720p with a 2080 Ti?
That can't be true because @720p the cache will be hit significantly faster and that must surely have an impact on performance. So, my statement that a 720p test is more of "a cache and memory benchmark" is not false, because of the speed factor. At 4k, because of the delay from gpu, the cache is not hit as hard so even cpus with less than stellar cache and memory subsystems do as well as those with superior subsystems.
5600X has a 12% GB5/SPEC2006 ST lead (over the 10700K/10900K respectively, as no figures given for 10600K) per ATThose anandtech numbers seem fishy as hell.
Do you understand why they ran the games at such a low resolution?
360p is certainly a new lowman it's really funny because it's like amd fan and intel fan switching side. now amd fan use low resolution performance but now intel fan argue its not important hahah
Try arguing Zen 2 is just as good as Skylake in commonly used resolutions and with commonly used GPUs and you'll see just how far you get. In fact wait, I'll do it for you.man it's really funny because it's like amd fan and intel fan switching side. now amd fan use low resolution performance but now intel fan argue its not important hahah
That's it. No lowres testing, no need for 10600K, 10700K, 10900K, 5800X, 5900X, 5950X.
Wait... what?
Taking lowest resolution in AnandTech's games tested (that makes it more CPU-bound, right?), the 5600X beats the 10600K by at least 6.5%, and on average 42%, for 13% more money. In CPU testing, the 5600X beats the 10600K by 21%, again, for 13% more money. (In CPU tests I removed the Open SSL sha256 benchmark because Intel's chips are absurdly bad at that... subbed in the 10700K benchmark for GB5, and removed Crysis low because 10600K didn't appear on the chart.)
So how does it "barely" move the price to performance needle? Can you explain that?
You're pathetic at this point: complaining about lowres gaming relevance for the average user only to come around and promote overclocking, using expensive 4000Mhz CL15 memory kits, and more importantly testing as low as 1080p Medium settings to minimize GPU bound scenarios in some games. Very high relevance for the common user.I beg to differ.
People forget that Ryzen chips come maxed out to perform. Intel chips have a lot more performance to offer through overclocking.
Well go look Tech Jesus new 5600x review. His take on this is, there is actually no reason to have other than amd cpu in the charts but hey, you have to have another brand, so here it is.I beg to differ.
People forget that Ryzen chips come maxed out to perform. Intel chips have a lot more performance to offer through overclocking.
Without knowing the details...it could be that Zen3 is able to detect a mis-predict faster and abort more quickly (whether or not the # of pipeline stages changed).
I don't understand your vitriol. Overclocking is basically free performance within grasp of any gamer. You don't have to buy expensive memory or God knows what. Don't panic.You're pathetic at this point: complaining about lowres gaming relevance for the average user only to come around and promote overclocking, using expensive 4000Mhz CL15 memory kits, and more importantly testing as low as 1080p Medium settings to minimize GPU bound scenarios in some games. Very high relevance for the common user.
You can't have it both ways, I told you already you were about to close doors behind you.
My vitriol stems from you faking ignorance to promote a talking point even though you know better:I don't understand your vitriol. Overclocking is basically free performance within grasp of any gamer. You don't have to buy expensive memory or God knows what. Don't panic.
Yeah its almost like they are unburdening the GPU to test the CPU. Weird. In a CPU review, of all places....360p is certainly a new low
I beg to differ.
People forget that Ryzen chips come maxed out to perform. Intel chips have a lot more performance to offer through overclocking.
I beg to differ.
People forget that Ryzen chips come maxed out to perform. Intel chips have a lot more performance to offer through overclocking.
Special situations like Microcenter in the US do indeed create opportunity for the 10600K just as @blckgrffn managed to grab the 9700K at $200. That's an outstanding deal, one that I probably wouldn't pass were it available in my country.10600K can also a fine CPU but only if you get it at a considerable discount (such as the microcenter ones) vs the 5600X.
Higher detail will only make the 10600k look better. Plus, all the systems were tested at this resolution. Again, you don't have to invest in expensive memory, but then again, you could do so since expensive memory is gaming memory.My vitriol stems from you faking ignorance to promote a talking point even though you know better:
I'm all for debates and even playing devil's advocate, but I will not stand anybody deliberately deceiving others.
- that overclocking scales because the memory subsystem is aggressively scaling as well, they're using a very fast and very expensive memory kit and custom timings to make the overclock scale well into 10900K territory and make up for the smaller L3 cache.
- the performance results are obtained at unrealistic detail settings which is in direct contradiction with your previous gripes with low res gaming. Does 1080p Medium settings sound like something one would use on 3070/3080 class GPU?
Its the ego, an extremely difficult thing for many to comprehend let alone understand.I won't get mad, I just don't agree. So what now, next they will say in the 5600 non-X review that it's a 50% price bump over the 3300X?
Or will they go the even dumber direction and say 'WOW, this is so much stronger than the 3600X for the same price'?
Same goes for Gamersnexus and everyone else who pretends that AMD is either A: 100% surely won't launch a non-X version soon, or B: obliged to launch precisely corresponding SKUs every generation on day one by some unwritten, unspoken law of the Great Reviewer Council.
I say this with all the respect in the world, because they're both super hard working channels with reliable testing methodology and an accountable attitude.
Give it a rest, playing stupid is the lowest of the low trick, a get out of jail card.I don't understand your vitriol. Overclocking is basically free performance within grasp of any gamer. You don't have to buy expensive memory or God knows what. Don't panic.
Overclocking isn't exactly free on Intel platforms:Overclocking is free performance that people in this category exploit for more performance.
On top of all this, here's the power draw:
5600X @ stock: 67W
10600K @ stock: 104W
10600K @ 5.1Ghz: 218W
You will notice the difference in noise unless you pay even more for a quiet setup, vs the 5600x where the bundled fan is sufficient, when running stock.
Which one do you claim is the overclocked 10600K, the one with 3200Mhz CL14 or the one with 4000 CL15? Because simply overclocking the CPU while using fast but not exotic memory will only yield 9900K class performance, which the 5600X has shown it can match without issue.One of the most popular lines around here, not long ago, was no one needs more than an overclocked 10600k for gaming. Well, there's your overclocked 10600k. Why's that a problem now? Overclocking is free performance that people in this category exploit for more performance. Again, you don't have to invest in expensive memory, but then again, you could do so since expensive memory is gaming memory.
Which one do you claim is the overclocked 10600K, the one with 3200Mhz CL14 or the one with 4000 CL15? Because simply overclocking the CPU while using fast but not exotic memory will only yield 9900K class performance, which the 5600X has shown it can match without issue.