AMD 5950X or 5900X?

[1Wolf]

DCS in VR with options cranked up as high as I can get them is really demanding. I've had to put DCS aside for some time now as my current system is simply too old to get the VR detail and smoothness I want. I can run DCS in VR but I have to lose alot of graphics options so it just hasn't been worth it to me. I don't build new systems very often so I really didn't want to build off Intel 14nm and until recently AMD just didn't have the raw single core speed I wanted. However, that seems to have changed.

 

I'm new to AMD. All of my previous machines have been intel based and I've never actually built an AMD rig. I don't care whether its Intel or AMD though...whichever will give me the best DCS VR experience.

 

So that brings me to my question. Price considerations aside, which is the better CPU for DCS in VR, the 5950X or the 5900X?

 

I'm confused because the 5900X has less cores/threads but is quoted as 3.7Ghz to 4.8Ghz. The 5950X has more cores/threads but is quoted as a lower base frequency of 3.4Ghz but a higher boosted frequency of 4.9Ghz.

 

Which is better for DCS?

[florist]

Given the scarcity, lack of stock of the new ryzen processors and their high price....I'd say buy a 10700k, 10900k

 

The performance difference is minimal in single core....at least you can get it right away...cheaper too

 

AMD hype really hit an all-time high those last few weeks and now that the dust is starting to settle....it's relatively disappointing. The new processors are barely above 10th gen intel.

Objectively they caught up so that's promising for the future

 

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

 

 

[Raptor05121]

Honestly, I forget who uploaded it, but someone did a real-world comparison test of the intels versus the new AMD on a bunch of games and it was split. Intel was a few frames faster on some, and AMD was a few frames faster on others. Its not nearly as much as everyone is making it out to be. Now some are saying with the increased bandwidth of the soon-to-be AMD cards with AMD chips, there will be improved performance, but even LTT said nVidia is still more impressive.

 

I doubt you'd see any noticeable difference. Like florist said, if you are in a position to buy NOW (and can snipe some black Friday deals) get whatever you can get. If you want god-send, I'd honestly wait. The 11th gen Intels will be out Q1 2021 and will surely make up any difference the AMD's currently have

[BitMaster]

Honestly, I forget who uploaded it, but someone did a real-world comparison test of the intels versus the new AMD on a bunch of games and it was split. Intel was a few frames faster on some, and AMD was a few frames faster on others. Its not nearly as much as everyone is making it out to be. Now some are saying with the increased bandwidth of the soon-to-be AMD cards with AMD chips, there will be improved performance, but even LTT said nVidia is still more impressive.

 

I doubt you'd see any noticeable difference. Like florist said, if you are in a position to buy NOW (and can snipe some black Friday deals) get whatever you can get. If you want god-send, I'd honestly wait. The 11th gen Intels will be out Q1 2021 and will surely make up any difference the AMD's currently have

 

Ahem...again @ 14nm++++ and a heavy TDP

 

add those frequent & famous Intel ME upgrades to the mix and I dare to say AMD is the better choice, given ( as you and many others say ) that they trade blows depending on the game.

 

The consens that I read across those revies is not so much about much higher fps but higher lowest fps and smoother overall gameplay. That counts more than 15fps more, especially if you are into VR.

[-Jeti-]

Well I just install the Ryzen 5800x have seen very nice uptick in performance over my 3600x the rated boost clock for the for the 5800x 4.7 I was getting well over 4.8 running fps monitor to see fps and CPU use under load in multiplayer. AMD has 8 cores per CCD on the 5800x and 5950x has 2 CCD so the 5800x and 5950x have the best binned CCD AMD have, were as 5600x and 5900x get the lower binned CCD due to the fact they only need 6 cores per CCD. So if you have the budget the 5950x the greatest up side if you looking at a 36 month cycle of upgrading.

 

 

[florist]

I had ordered a 5800x (as 5900x were long gone on amd's website) but for some idiotic reason, the address' country got amended....sending my order elsewhere...it got cancelled as AMD can't amend addresses and DHL doesn't allow the recipient to change it even when the error is obvious.

 

Figured it was godsent as I wanted the 5900x anyway which would have cost me about 580 euros. Got frustrated by the lack of available stock and tried to see if there might be some not so crazy prices on ebay and pay up the premium...dead end as they re basically selling for 1200. Then I remembered the benchmark results made by gamer nexus where intel 10th gen was awefully close to the new ryzen processors. Checked amazon prices and then realized...why pay 600 euros + 200 mobo for something unavailable when I can receive in 3 days similar performance with. 10700k for 550(350 + 200)? With a mobo that will be able to accommodate 11th gen

 

AMD has priced itself to the level of intel....yes they offer more versatility but in practical terms, does it really matter?

The hype gotten so big for AMD that every single previous gen cpu, gpu has since gone up in price...insane

 

Might as well buy nvidia too.

 

 

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[-Jeti-]

You make a good point and I also was thinking of going with the the same route of the 10700 and z490 chipset but intel has no real roadmap for the future just words on paper of what is coming till 11th gen comes out and a die shrink they are just using clock speed to stay competitive I have always gotten great mileage from AMD cpu's here in the states resupply is on a daily basis.

[Gman109]

IMO just wait until the new year. The 10900k (I have one) is going to be replaced in Q1 by Rocket lake and a new socket, so it's pointless IMO to go 10900k right now. I'm waiting for the 5950x as well, no hope in sight for that in the new year IMO. So I'll either upgrade my other non 10900k machines with Rocket lake, or the 5950x, whichever is faster, or more available, or maybe both.

[Leaderface]

Well I just install the Ryzen 5800x have seen very nice uptick in performance over my 3600x the rated boost clock for the for the 5800x 4.7 I was getting well over 4.8 running fps monitor to see fps and CPU use under load in multiplayer. AMD has 8 cores per CCD on the 5800x and 5950x has 2 CCD so the 5800x and 5950x have the best binned CCD AMD have, were as 5600x and 5900x get the lower binned CCD due to the fact they only need 6 cores per CCD. So if you have the budget the 5950x the greatest up side if you looking at a 36 month cycle of upgrading.

 

 

 

Right!

The problem now is the upcoming multicore DCS engine and the way it will affect the Intel vs AMD side of things.

If money is no object I will go AMD now (because of less power consumption), but a good I9 10900K will have similar performance right now I think. (Future is unknown).

[Raptor05121]

 

Ahem...again @ 14nm++++ and a heavy TDP

 

And? I don't care if its 3nm or 30nm, if its giving you the same performance, why do you care? If anything, it'll be cheaper. Chevy is still using 1980's pushrod engines in MY2021 vehicles and get more power than Fords newer, smaller, and even forced induction OHC design. Newer isn't always better. I'm not 100% sold on the new AMD's chipset just yet. I need some of you guys to drop coin and make some comparisons

 

[LucShep]

The thing is, stock availability on the (ultra-hyped) Ryzen 5000s CPUs is pretty low, and close to none of those you'll find available are priced at MSRP (i.e, prices are inflated).

Similar situation to what is seen for Nvidia's RTX3000s and AMD's RX6800s new GPUS.

 

Intel's i7 10700KF (found at 355,00 Eur, when Ryzen 5 5600X costs 335,00 Eur, in my area) and the i9 10850K (found at 475,00 Eur, when Ryzen 7 5800X costs 490,00 Eur, in my area) are great purchases at this very moment, due to this.

Either can be paired really nicely with a MSI Z490 Tomahawk or Gigabyte Z490 VisionG, which are amazing motherboards under 190,00 Eur, and allow overclocking to 5.1+Ghz all core if you ever get so obsessed with most performance (already great in stock clocks).

 

It’s worth noting that the AMD Ryzen chips also benefit a lot more from faster, tighter timings (and far more expensive) RAM too. People need to stop touting this as if it's a benefit for AMD. It's not, it's a form of bottleneck.

The Intel chips can run at full speed with slower (more affordable) RAM, while AMD chips need expensive RAM to be able to perform at their best, which is definitely not a positive.

 

So, for example, with Intel, you can pair your i5/i7/i9 "K" chip on Z490 mobo with affordable and quality 3200Mhz CL16 memory (such as Crucial Ballistix, or T-Force DarkZ) and get some savings (maybe spent instead on a nicer cooler, or faster GPU) while getting a heck of performance for the buck, on a matured well proven platform.

 

Yes, Intel is old 14nm (++++++), yes it can run hot at times, and yes there'll be Intel's next lineup next March/April 2021 (still on Socket 1200) but, at the end of the day, and as with anything computer-related, the truth is that you just simply cannot buy into the future, there are always better stuff on the horizon. You want great processing power, available right now and at non-inflated prices, then that's where it's at if you consider all things in current global scenario, IMHO.

[reece146]

Re: 5900X vs 5950X

 

If the machine is a gaming rig and will be used for DCS mostly I would do 5900X between those two. Why? Let's look at single thread performance:

 

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

 

All caveats about benchmarks apply! However, this gives a general trend and assuming at least a 5% error band on each entry gets us in the ballpark conversationally. The relative difference between these chips in single thread performance is not worth talking about.

 

That said, some of the benchmarks kicking around seem to imply that the 59XX is generally faster than the 5800X in spite of the 5800X being on all one CCX on the die. Some people are implying this is due to AMD binning the 59XX CPUs to be better examples for that niche. Or, is it just those that are sharing results winning/losing the silicon lottery? Hard to tell since the sample set is so small. AMD will never tell.

 

For a dedicated gaming rig I'd do the 5900X since you don't need the extra cores that the 5950X brings. The extra cash outlay for DCS is not worth it in my opinion. If the machine is being used for other things then the extra cores and potential performance may be worth it for you. I'm considering the 5950X for one of my core servers that runs lots of virtual machines via QEMU, kubernetes, docker, etc. There it makes sense - and won't be running DCS (well, will have a DCS server VM but that's different).

 

Re: Intel vs AMD and process, power, etc.

 

TDP can be a factor if the machine is always on. Idling at 25W vs 45 W is money (not real numbers). For a gaming rig it's not much of an issue if it's only running a few hours at a time 3-4-5 days a week. This is especially true if you don't pay much for electricity - relative to other parts of the world.

 

14nm vs 7 nm doesn't matter much other than the power draw implied by both process. Like was said above, when the rubber meets the pavement, lb-ft/N-m is lb-ft/N-m regardless of how it was generated. It will be interesting to see how Intel's future chips perform when they get to 7-5 nm and then apply all the special sauce they've been doing with 14 nm to stay relevant. 8-9GHz clocks is my prediction. :)

 

5600X vs 5800X I would do the 5800X just based on the single thread chart above but both spank Intel so can't go wrong with either if you are budget constrained.

 

FWIW, my current DCS machine (2D @ 4K) is 10700K (no OC yet) with 64GB of fast RAM (3200CL14) and a 2070 Super. The CPU is "bored" at all times and my big bottle neck now is the GPU. My frames are typically in the 55-85 range - lower when really low but rarely below 40 even when doing "stupid stuff" over Dover and the castle.

 

No matter what you buy it'll be good.

[Lurker]

Whenever I see people talk about future proofing as the reason why they should buy the best new CPU on the market I laugh out loud. The reason why I do so is because in 99% of the cases these very same people are the ones who buy the very first new CPU (and usually system) to come out next.

 

With this out of the way, if you are buying a completely new system there is no reason to get anything other than a 5XXX series of processors. The 5600X is more than enough for DCS and pretty much every game out there. But you can't go wrong with any of the new series of AMD chips, they simply blow Intel right out of the water and draw less power.

[Qiou87]

Long explanation

 

I agree on some of your points, but disagree on others. Yes, Ryzen 5000 availability is crap right now. Yes, performance is basically the same with 10700K or 10900K, especially in VR where you will be GPU-bottlenecked anyway. However, DCS sometimes suffers from CPU-frametime spikes, what some people wrongly call "lag" and is actually stutter. According to some benchmarks posted in this section, the new AMD CPUs seem to be less prone to these stutters than corresponding Intel CPUs, which improve your gaming comfort.

 

I also agree with other suggestions, 5600X is all the gaming CPU you need now and for the foreseeable future. You don't need 12 cores for gaming, especially if your focus is DCS. The gap (0,1 to 0,2GHz in peak boost) will not be noticeable and can be covered by using PBO2 or manual OC.

 

As for the Intel chips, old and proven is not always great. They tend to draw a lot of power, meaning you need to take a larger power supply - all else being equal, a 10700K or 10900K can run as high as 250W, and you don't want your PSU to go into safety when this happens. They have also shown in the last few years to suffer a lot more from security problems, that got patched but at the cost of some performance. AMD is not immune but seemed overall much less impacted.

 

You mention RAM as a problem for AMD but then advise getting 3200MHz for an Intel CPU, which is actually almost the sweet spot for AMD (the perf. gap between 3200 and 3600MHz is barely there). AMD doesn't need super expensive RAM, 3200MHz is cheap and is all Ryzen needs to shine, yes you can be marginally faster in some conditions with faster RAM, but we are talking about peanuts.

 

Final point in AMD's favor: PCI-E Gen4. Right now it is not a bottleneck for GPUs, but if we are speaking about "future-proofing", it is difficult to ignore that having a rig with Gen4.0 can help you in a few years, because usually you change GPUs more often than you do mobos & CPUs.

 

In the end, it seems like the wrong time to update your system given availability of CPUs and GPUs, prices are just crazy. But if you really cannot wait, I'd still try to grab a 5600X over a 10700K, and if its for VR, use the extra money (compared to 5900X) for a GPU upgrade. This is how you will improve your settings and get good visuals ingame.

[LucShep]

<snip>

 

My point is that 3200Mhz CL16 RAM (or 3600Mhz CL18 as altenative) is all that you need to get Intel top performance, for games and otherwise. From there on the gains are hardly noticed if exhistent.

A kit of 32GB (2x16GB) like those that I mentioned costs ~120,00 €ur only (similar price to those of far lower speeds), and it's widely available.

 

Now, if you ever tried a Samsung b-die based kit (3200Mhz CL14 and 3600Mhz CL16, etc) with further fine-tuned manual timings on Ryzen 3000s (same as on Ryzen 5000s, I presume?) you know that it can make a pretty considerable difference over that (whereas it does not with Intel). And those kits run over DOUBLE the price (usually 300,00+ €ur for a 32GB kit!) - if you can find them available.

 

On the Ryzen 5000s, my opinion is that the 5900X and 5950X are the only two worth buying in the Zen3 lineup at the moment, simply because the abnormal price increases (by AMD standards, then further increased by stock retailers) hits them the least. ~335,00 €ur for a 6 core and ~480,00 €ur for an 8 core on consumer socket was bad when Intel did it, and just as bad -if not worse- now that AMD is doing it.

 

And on the current trend of people saying that the R5 5600X is all one needs.... *shrugs*

This is 2015/2016 all over again, with people still telling you to get 4 cores 4 threads "it's all you'll ever need", but then the fellas that went for 4 cores 8 threads had the last laugh, just two years later.

In today's world, where 6 cores is the sweet spot for any gaming rig, you do not want to buy a 5600X for the long run, because if the gaming industry standard shifts (likely to happen, again), then you will be screwed, and you will be tempted to upgrade. On AMD's thoughts it is perfectly fair, because they charge you ~335,00 €ur, the least among all Zen3.

I would definitely not buy 6 cores at this point, instead get 8 cores to be safe, or 10 cores to be a luxury. Right now, 12 or 16 cores are just too much, unless you have programs that can utilize so many cores.

[Thinder]

I'm using these, got them for £129.59, tested them with proper BIOS setting up to 3600 with very little gain (AMD Ryzen 5 3600X), but I'm very pleased with them so far, good quality.

https://uk.crucial.com/memory/ddr4/bl2k16g32c16u4b

 

[Greekbull]

Been very happy with the performance of my new rig...the 5950X is a screamer.  With PBO I have 5 cores that have hit almost 5.1Ghz under load.  And with the IPC advantage over 10900K it translates to a pretty decent advantage.  Can't wait till we can finally tap into the extra cores.  From my old 8700K, 64GB RAM, 2080Ti rig I'm seeing an almost 40% improvement in performance.

[Bog9y]

Greek bull, is the 5900x much slower compared to the 5950x? 

[Greekbull]

I'm not sure it's much slower...from what I've seen in comparisons the 5950X and 5900X are both hand selected bins that are faster.  The 5950X in almost every comparison I've seen is a bit faster...in Firestrike which is a good comparison of DX11 I was about 4000 points faster than a friend with the exact same setup...3090, same RAM etc...

[Waxer]

@1Wolf I can give you a definitive answer. Specifically for DCS the 5900X and 5950X performance will be the same*.

 

(* It is possible that there might be a very, very small maybe 1% difference because of fairly technical infinity fabric considerations, or slight different in clock speeds, but it is almost certain to be unobservable except by logging data on a spreadsheet and pouring over graphs... you would not notice it in use. Hence I say no difference).

 

Indeed 5900X and 5950X performance will also be the same as the 5600X and 5800X. Now clearly all these CPUs are very different prices. So which choice makes sense to you depends on what else you use your PC for and what is available and how impatient you are.

 

Also the argument that 6 cores is not enough and you need 8, 12 or 16 cores... for DCS: no you don't. Even if you have always on background applications (antivirus, RGB software, fan controller and whatever else) and you run VoiceAttack, Discord, Steam VR etc etc. 6 cores is still enough. Maybe if you are a streamer you might want more cores, but then a lot of streamers have second PCs to do that anyways. But if you want 8, 12 or 16 for other stuff, or you want to contribute to my 401K and AMD shares then great! Knock yourself out. In fact buy two please!

 

In terms of spending money, you are better off asking "how can I keep my CPU cool enough?" so that the AMD boost algo will keep my CPU running at peak clock speed for as long as possible. Or by investing in sweet spot fast memory. (I already assume you are running on SSDs and HDDs are retired to a NAS or cold storage).

 

 

[Bog9y]

On 11/25/2020 at 11:08 PM, -Jeti- said:

Well I just install the Ryzen 5800x have seen very nice uptick in performance over my 3600x the rated boost clock for the for the 5800x 4.7 I was getting well over 4.8 running fps monitor to see fps and CPU use under load in multiplayer. AMD has 8 cores per CCD on the 5800x and 5950x has 2 CCD so the 5800x and 5950x have the best binned CCD AMD have, were as 5600x and 5900x get the lower binned CCD due to the fact they only need 6 cores per CCD. So if you have the budget the 5950x the greatest up side if you looking at a 36 month cycle of upgrading.

 

 

 

Jeti, is there any issues I should consider when installing the new CPU? Just about to receive a 5900X and upgrading from a 3600. I've never changed a CPU before, it doesn't seem like a big deal. 

 

1) update BIOS (I have a B450 mobo)

2) remove old CPU

3) install new CPU

4) download new chipset drivers perhaps? 

Anything I forgot?

 

[Supersonic]

Upgraded from a i5 4670k@4.2GHz, 16GB@1866MHz, GTX970, SSD combo.

With the 5900x the CPU is at 12% Utilisation with DCS graphics set high with depth of field and motion blur ticked.

Nearly went for the 5950x but felt it would be splitting hairs performance wise for the extra money.

[blkspade]

On 12/3/2020 at 6:42 AM, Milou said:

@1Wolf 

Also the argument that 6 cores is not enough and you need 8, 12 or 16 cores... for DCS: no you don't. Even if you have always on background applications (antivirus, RGB software, fan controller and whatever else) and you run VoiceAttack, Discord, Steam VR etc etc. 6 cores is still enough. Maybe if you are a streamer you might want more cores, but then a lot of streamers have second PCs to do that anyways. But if you want 8, 12 or 16 for other stuff, or you want to contribute to my 401K and AMD shares then great! Knock yourself out. In fact buy two please!

 

 

 

While it may never matter for DCS, its likely to sooner become an issue for other games. Going forward most other game engines are going to be ramping to an eventual target of 8C/16T of the new consoles. Amid all the bugs you can see how CDPR attempted to design their engine for Cyberpunk 2077, pretty much at the limit of previous gen consoles. One of their bugs had the AMD FX CPUs in mind that effectively disabled SMT on Ryzen. It needs 7 threads on PC for maximum throughput, so AMD 6C or less were greatly hampered. Last gen consoles are 8C8T, where 1C is held for the OS/UI. Now there is a future where cross platform game engines will literally be targeting a mildly downclocked R7 3700X, and on NVME storage.

 

Oh and DCS in its current state does actually hit many threads for IO operations. It's how you maximize throughput from an SSD. We just need them to get the rendering sorted out with Vulkan.