Since the 5600 came out it's been a good all around CPU especially the value compared to amd's less favorable ones like Ryzen 5 5500, Ryzen 5 4500 and etc.
@@SiemdeVries24 I would argue otherwise. The CPU may be 50% more expensive, but in a $1000 vs $1100 system, that's just 10% more. And if you multitask or use productive software, it is definitely worth
I really appreciate that recently you have been testing CPUs with both a high and mid tier cards. It gives me a better expectation of performance for the class of GPU i would be pairing the CPU with.
The 65W TDP of 5700X makes it simply amazing, still runs cool and consumes as 5600 with more 2 extra cores for a little longevity. I think they earned my extra bucks for it.
the fact that you can use a cheap cpu cooler makes it absolutely great for mid range units, i personally believe that everyone aiming for the 5600x should wait if they can and get the 5700x
I believe it does still use a fair bit more power than the 5600. Don't believe what it says on the box, it's a bit misleading. It's still a very power efficient CPU though.
Between this video, and the 3600 vs 5600 video, I think I'll have to accept I've got a pretty nice pairing with my R5 3600 and a 6600XT. I have virtually no reason to upgrade either my CPU or my GPU, unless I'm willing to do both. And even then, the margins probably aren't worth my costs still.
Well if you're into a resolution upgrade, a gpu upgrade would make sense while keeping the 3600. 1440p is a nice jump up from 1080p much in the same way as jumping from a 60Hz monitor to a 144Hz one.
only reason I upgraded from 3600 to 5600 was because of the core to core latency, trust me you can really feel that when you upgrade but if you dont play competitively in games its not so worth, in all honesty I expected 10-20 fps from the upgrade but Im pretty much consistently above 200fps in cod with the same gpu
The way I see it, by the time you need 8 cores for gaming it will probably be time to upgrade again anyway, so save your money until then. And the 8 core processors out in 5 years time will be leaps and bounds ahead of the 8 core processors we have now anyway
It really depends on what you do, if gaming is all you do it might be like this. However there's no Browser or Discord opened, which could use a core or two for those background tasks. Personally I also run a few other things and even keep IDE's open like IntelliJ between work.
The consoles are in year 2 of being 8 core machines, games taking advantage of more cores are 100% coming and given the state of the consoles and how common multiplatform is for ALL devs these days (well except Nintendo ahah) I think it makes 8 cores the new standard. I dunno though things change so fast.
@@StiekemeHenk definitely a case by case basis, but for just gaming then 6 cores is really the sweet spot atm, they're good (arguably overkill) for a simple work machine too, ie emails, browser stuff, documents
When I look at these charts I am always looking at the 1% low's and how close they are, because ultimately that make or breaks the experience... Love your charts..
I went 5700X because the extra cores help me for music production and recording applications. Would love to see a comparison to the 12700F with both DDR4 and DDR5.
I'm someone doesn't upgrade until I absolutely have to (still using a 2500K). Even though I play none of these games, the amount of effort you put behind these comparisons and benchmarks is extremely helpful to keep tabs on hardware performance and potential upgrade paths. Thank you!
recently upgraded to a 5700x from a 2700x and its a big improvement! I do some casual streaming and is working well for me encoding and gaming at the same time. was a no braner for the 2 extra cores for me! loving it so far.
Great video! Could you do a test of 2700x vs 2600x to see if the extra 2 cores on the older chips make any difference in today's games? That would be a good indication of what to expect with current gen models in the future!
It depends on the game, Some games wont care much beyond the 3core CCX and 4core CCX difference, OIthers like SOTTR almost act like they're bitcoin mining in the background where even a 6c12 thread cpu can see nearly 90% usage just to have a character walk through a village. People mistake usage for performance however. Even if you get a 6core, 8core, 12core, and 16core all locked at 4Ghz if you tell people they got 100fps, 110fps, 112fps and 115fps respectively people will say either A) gpu limit.... OR if you show an rtx3090 at 720p at 40% gpu usage they'll say B).. well the game isn't using all the cores.. which simply isn't how it works. It might be using all the cores and threads available at 50% (total average), 37.5%, 25% and 18.75% respectively. The performance bottleneck can be withing the game code or its engine or the API. In which case adding more cores is like adding more ram. Its a resource that is there if you need it but wont increase performance if you don't. Right now there aren't many games demanding cpu's capable of 4000cb in R15 in the case of a 3950x because games simply aren't that complex and if they were hundreds of millions of people wouldn't be able to play them (and the thousands of devs required would make it take forever and cost a fortune for minimal gameplay benefit).
To me it comes down to how long do you plan on keeping the system. If you are a constant upgrader (every 2-3 years), then the 5600 makes sense. If you're like me where you go 4-5 years between upgrades, then I would go with the 5700. I have the 5800x and I love it. Quick for doing a bunch of tasks (not just gaming). It's great for video editing/rendering.
IMO 8 cores is a minimum now for average graphic making projects, in the mid range of quality/requirements. You can work with 6 (even 4), but it's getting to a point where productivity suffers a bit, specially as multitasking - even with only a few heavy apps- is a must. Let alone the fact that rendering in video and 3D is slower and the gap is very noticeable between 8 and 6 cores, currently. And not everything can be GPU rendered, neither every app uses GPU rendering. For productivity, imo, is almost more about present than future.
@@3polygons Yeah I’m not going under 8 cores except for my media server which is running a i5-11500. It doesn’t have to struggle with too much. It just all depends on what you do with your pc. I know lots of ppl where a 6 core cpu is absolutely fine.
I bought the 3700X for the same reasoning. I expected that I could either use it longer than the 3600 before it becomes a bottleneck for the things I do. So far haven't seen a good reason to upgrade and I expect I can coast until Zen 5 and hopefully cheaper DDR5 pricing.
Went from a 3600 to a 5900X... Massive productivity gains (justifying the cost in my use case) but the exact same gaming experience while being significantly harder to keep cool/quiet (Scythe Fuma 2 struggles with the 5900X, now using a Phanteks dual tower cooler (140mm version) to keep it from throttling while quiet - no such issues with 3600 as you'd expect).
5700X is a sweet price spot for productivity (I mean, graphics, editing) in the low/mid range, though. It's the cheapest 8 core in AMD without removing a lot of cache (5700G), also ideal for those who (now that is doable) prefer to just couple it with a discrete card, as _MANY_ apps do actually require it to be so. While 5800X and 5800X3D are in the way too pricey spot, even more if you compare them to the power horse that it is an intel 12700. The reason behind it is that in this low/mid range, single core and the IPC of the 5600 is really nice and enough for Photoshop and similar apps (slightly better performance than a 10900K in it) . But the render time difference in both 3D rendering and video export in every app which has benchmarks about it, is a *huge* gap (from 6 cores to 8), and time is money. So, the bare minimum of 8 cores is a must for even very low budgets for graphics creation. I can only think of digital painters (who only do that, but I'm one and I also do video and 3D stuff!) and pixel artists ("Pixel Art") as the only ones that could be fine with a 6 core CPU. Maybe a bit tight if they plan on also stream and do it by CPU and work on graphics at same time (streaming that). Maybe Photographers too, but many RAW processing related tasks in several apps benefit immensely of many cores. From benchmark results, 6 cores for productivity/graphics/content creation in general, is not a purchase I personally would make, anymore, not even with low expectations about one's activity. Unless I was super tight in money. Or.... I know of countries where the pricing of tech is completely unbalanced with average income, I understand there going for a 4 core or even lower (is not "impossible" to find a way and workarounds). So, IMO it is smart from AMD to provide with this CPU. I applaud it.
@@tradehut2782 In Photoshop you have little to no difference, as it uses mostly the top clock it can use but does not make much use of extra cores. You might notice it though in certain blur filters being a bit slower than in the 5700X. Other than that, a 5600X is plenty for Photoshop. Having 32GB of RAM (imo that's a minimum for slightly serious photography) or more might be more important than getting sth better than a 5600X. Also having your Windows on a SSD, and Photoshop installed on it (or another SSD) on it, too, even if I recommend still having a HDD for production files if you have very large files (RAWs are huge) and write a lot to disk (consuming too many writes on a SSD). Of course, if you use SSDs for everything (might have to swap SSDs every 2-3 years, but might worth it if you earn a lot more by working faster, depends on your situation), including setting an SSD as cache disk, the overall speed and performance would also increase. But again, Photoshop is mostly about RAM and top clock CPU. I don't know about the other two apps, as I am not a photographer, I do not process RAW files. I just have handled Photoshop a lot in my career.
I went from Ryzen 3 3100 to Ryzen 7 5700X. The Ryzen 7 5700X can be purchased for less than $200 now. The 65W TDP of the 5700X matching the 3100 is one reason I got it. Its been a huge improvement in my system, and I didn't need to worry about PSU upgrade. Paired with the RX6600XT gpu, all the games I play are maxed out.
I mainly wanted to go to a 5700x for the better 1% lows. It was a good upgrade over my 3600x and I will be satisfied for a couple years before I look to jump on the AM5 platform once it matures a little more and has a better price to performance entry
@@Ilestun Pretty much. I played with an FX 8350 since February 2013 until August 2021, only then I upgraded into a Ryzen 7 3700x (because I was capped at 1080p 30fps gaming, but still kept gaming pretty much anything I wanted at decent settings). I just swapped my 3700X for a 5700X, and I know damn well it will serve me for the next 5+ years, with occasional GPU upgrades before jumping onto AM5 or... Like you said, AM6.
That part at the end about creeping budgets os spot on. If i decide to push and get a 3080 paired with a 5600 and 16GB RAM, everyone loses their minds because "if you can afford a 3080, you can afford X". Nah, I had extra in my budget and out it towards the part that would give me more noticeable performance.
I wonder if a "benchmark" comparison of the UE5 Matrix Awakens demo might give us a good indication of the type of CPU cores/performance we could be looking at needing in the not-to-distant future? Until we get some proper UE5/Lumen/Nanite based titles to run, that is.
The 5600 still gives you more cores per dollar, so the 5600 still seems like a no-brainer. You can always upgrade eventually to a higher core-count CPU if/when it actually becomes important, at which point a used 5700X or 5800X will likely be available on the used market for a much lower price.
@@eye776 I'm not sure how true this is. We've seen videos from channels like nxgamer that show the demo running at 540p and still at sub 30fps and the GPU idling significantly waiting on.... something. There are even snippets of data showing that the engine does scale up CPU frequency and threads (tested between 4 and 8 cores on an older ryzen). Obviously it's an early tech demo but we don't have much else to go on yet, and it does seem worth investigating given the topic of the video...
As expected indeed. I've helped 2 buddies upgrade from 2600 to 5600 while I upgraded myself to 5700X from 3600 . They are primarily gamers/websurfers and are enjoying the boost they got. I do a bit of video encoding and remuxing occasionally so it wasn't a total waste for me to get the 5700X but I probably could've got by with a 5600 myself. I do notice a tiny gaming improvement in a couple titles so far over my 'golden sample' 3600 but I'm only running a mid-range GPU at UW1440p so I wasn't expecting much. Just like your video Steve I'd chalk it up to clock speed as this 5700X boosts 350 MHz higher with PBO2 than my 3600. I needed a CPU of at least Ryzen 2 for another mobo which wouldn't accept any of the older Ryzens I had so the 3600 was earmarked for that (guess I shoulda read the CPU compat list before buying ). Tom's Hardware called the 5700X a price cut in disguise and that could easily be said here and I consider that to be accurate. After the release of 5800X3D there's no need for a 5800X at the price point so might as well get a 5700X and call it a day. I considered a 5800X3D but they're more expensive than a 5900X in my region so not worth it at this late stage of AM4.
I have both the 5600 and 5700x.. the 5700x runs at 49.9w maxed out at stock according to Ryzen Master and the 5600 runs at 54.9w... the new 7nm B2 stepping on the 5700x is awesome.. the 5600 is using the older 7nm A0 revision. Both were purchased at the same time.. so i guess the 5700x is the better product
I'm going from a R5 2400G to a R7 5700X, since I got a good deal for Black Friday and used some discount vouchers in the UK. AM4 is such a good platform.
I upgraded from 3600 to 5900X (and a pair of Samsung B-die 16G*2 memory) a couple of months ago. The performance improvement is sensible but not obvious, higher 1% fps though. Therefore, for game player, I suggest you spend more money on graphic card instead of CPU or high speed memory.
From watching the last few 5600 v xxxx videos it really show how much value it has compared to the other cpus. Don't even need to watch a 'v 5800x' as that would be similar to the 5700x. Now 5800x3d would be a worthy comparison between value and premium. Love the work.
Great video! I would like to see next a 5700x vs 12600k comparison as it is a more realistic matchup considering the price of CPU and Motherboard together. At least it is here in Denmark.
CPUs are priced similarly, but for motherboards, it's not even a contest. You can still use a dirt cheap B450 motherboard with the 5700x and it will perform just as good.
Most reviewers won't do this and it baffles me as to why. Some will at lease mention it as a benefit to more cores. A buddy of mine has a i5 9600k and he swears by "i5 is just as good as a 9900k in gaming. The fps numbers are almost the same" . Then comes to me the next day complaining about stutters while he's gaming. He won't listen
Those aren't standard background tasks, close whatever the fuck you are running when you want to play a game. If you don't have to fully concentrate on the game you are playing, it is not worth playing anyway. 8 cores and up only make sense for streamers.
People dont close most stuff for optimal performance? Discord or teamspeak or something I can understand but I dont see why anyone would have 20 tabs of pornhub open when theyre playing videogames.
I decided to upgrade from a 5600x to a 5700x mostly because the extra cores really help with running Ableton live 11 for music production. Got it for $180 usd too.
Thanks for this. Could you please add background tasks to these tests? Discord, a couple chrome tabs and maybe even streaming software running - a more realistic scenario for most gamers. The additional cores may come into play there, but it would be nice if these tests weren’t always so “sterile”, but more reflective of the average user experience.
@@Hardwareunboxed No maybe not streaming specifically. I just mean a more average use case - chrome tabs open, maybe Spotify, Teams, discord - your usual suspects which could affect performance. And then streaming as a seperate entry would be interesting.
@@urbanbunny5532 This is a common misconception, background tasks such as Spotify, Teams, discord make stuff all difference, they all use very few CPU cycles and this is easy for anyone to verify. The truth is when gaming unless you're encoding a video or streaming you don't need extra cores sitting around.
I'd be curious, though I know it would be an unreasonable amount of work for you guys, to see if the performance difference is greater in VR. The general rule of thumb is that VR is heavier on the CPU than flatscreen gaming, and that's one of the reasons I went with a 5700X over the 5600. That and the extra cores are handy for the occasional VM or productivity workload.
Ikr, it's hard to find performance results for vr, cpu or gpu. When I first got into vr I thought it would be how everyone would be gaming. I fell in love with flight and racing sims, but about half the people who try vr get motion sick, which I kinda understand. Going in reverse then going forward messes with my brain a little because the visual motion doesn't match the physical motion. I wont even race on triples anymore, the immersion does not compare.
My guess would be that in VR the gpu has an even greater impact as you most likely want to render it in the highest resolution and quality possible without dropping below the headsets refreshrate.
As a b350 tomahawk user with the ryzen 5 5600, Just doing a manual pbo of +200 mhz, you can just easily achieve what 5600x and 5700x can do. All you need is a decent cooler, it is still a decent motherboard to keep up with new CPUs.
The +200MHz PBO setting will often show the full benefit in games even with the included stock cooler. Games don't usually consume that much power, even if the CPU utilization is high.
I only play simracing games, in a rig with wheel and pedals, so I'm very familiar with ACC and playerbase. These results are from replay. That's all well and good and repeatable, but we simracers play (ACC) mainly online. And when you're on a server with big grid (more than 50 cars), Ryzen 3600 (I don't know about 5600 but I have first hand experience with 3600) fails miserably with any GPU on any resolution. Even Ryzen 5800X, if you race on Suzuka with 80 cars, your FPS will suffer. And it's worth mentioning that physics engine and graphics are "separated." If you have "weak" CPU, when you are racing online, you can have above 100FPS, but it feels more like 50-60 FPS. And most of us have ultrawide (3440:1440) or extreme ultrawide (5120x1440) or triple screen setup. And for these kinds of setups, I think Ryzen 5600 is just not enough.
Thinking of the 5600. I game at 4K on a RTX 3080 and my 7700K is showing age in heavy CPU titles, in the minimum lows especially. Wish at least 2 benchmarks for 4K res were added, I know the discrepancy will be even tinier than 1440p but still.
Having more serial throughput (IPC and/or clocks) aswell as 50% more cores and threads and 4x the l3 cache will likely be a good upgrade in terms of consistency even at 2160p. But I would urge caution by asking what games and framerates? Because it could just be a badly made game where trying to sustain 60fps minimums are relatively impossible if the game is the culprit. So if you can try the game out on a more powerful friends system (your gpu) that would give you a very good idea before you get your wallet out. Also double check your system isn't just running a billion programs at startup eating 3.7GB of ram before you even launch anything.
Thanks for the comparison. About to upgrade after 5-6 years. I only considered the 5700x because I found it at 175 bucks which is within budget and I happen to do video editing as a hobby. I'll be ordering the parts soon and I'd be looking to upgrade only after 6 or 7 more years
Thanks for the video Steve! This convinced me to settle for a 5600 and a 6800 XT combo. I was seriously considering the 5700X but the price for performance balance isn't there after watching your video. Some people in the comments talk about having other stuff open in the background while they game but that isn't my case so I'm good in that area. Really appreciate everything you do!
You hit it on its nail, if you do nothing much else its more than enough however if you do other stuff or hold things open like Word, a Browser, Discord or even creation tools like Blender you might want 2 more cores for those and a bit more RAM even. I run 8c 16t with 32gb, took me a bit more work hours but I never have to think about what I've got open and can hop back to work at any moment!
@@StiekemeHenk dude discord and web browsing dont effect it at all… people act like web browsing and discord are these intense multithreaded things. A 4 core 8 thread with 16gb of ram handles that fine, 6 cores barely make that snappier sure but whether that’s noticeable is a whole other thing. Thats not me recommending 4 cores over 6 either though for a pure gaming pc with low budget in mind i have been recommending the i5 12100+RX 6600 or RTX 3050 if they wanna stream. Thats super low budget tho
I have multiple windows open in the background on my 6 core 2600 and it's ez to do. Sometimes I even have two games open at once and switching. One is an emulator, the other is on steam. Not a problem to do multitasking AT ALL with 6 cores.
How much would these results change if you have discord streaming + Spotify / UA-cam playing at the same time. Are there real world scenarios (like being alt tabbed waiting for a match to start) where extra cores help with other things running in the background? I think most people will have a few other things running while gaming, or are those so minor that they won't noticibly impact performance?
sitting here with this video playing and the apps you listen running in the background I get as high as 10% CPU on my 5800x, I think that's something they overlooked... the 5600x may potentially lose performance in scenarios where the 8-core CPUs don't, and that is OFTEN overlooked when people recommend the 5600x...
If you're a heavy multitasker and need every single possible frame while gaming, then it's probably worth getting the 8-core. Although, if you have a midrange GPU, this could still be your main limitation anyway.
Definitely a valid question. It's been asked before, like when quad cores were "standard" and six cores the exotics. The answer is probably almost exactly the same, that the background tasks doesn't really put that much of a strain on the CPU. At least that was the case back then, but looking in the backview mirror we can see how that quickly changed. Today a quad core processor definitely is a liability when playing the latest games. And this will repeat in the future. A year or three down the road a six core processor will start to become a limiting factor. Now something I can't help but wondering about is how a processor such as the Intel Core 12600K with it's 6 performance cores with Hyper-Threading and 4 efficiency cores for a total of 16 threads fares compared to 8 core processors with a total of 16 threads. Personally I'm not a fan of the idea of separate efficiency cores. It makes the schedulers work harder as to optimize performance it has to identify which threads are demanding and which can do with simpler, slower processor cores. I can only imagine that this can cause occasional problems with performance. This can of course get better as the software scheduler improves, but it's still way more complex than if all the cores are equal. So how good is the current schedulers in Windows 10, 11 and Linux at unloading processes such as Discord, Spotify, streaming and background recording to the efficiency cores? Is it enough to mitigate the lower number of performance cores compared to the Ryzen 7 5700X? Is the extra money worth going with the 12600K over the non K version if you are not looking at overclocking? How about if you look at FSB OC using a motherboard like the one MSI has hinted about (the MSI MAG B660M MORTAR+ WIFI DDR4 if I remember correctly)? Asking as currently a i5-12600 (not the K version) paired with a decent B660 seems like a pretty good deal for gaming. So just how much of a difference would the four extra threads running on the efficiency cares really make for a gaming PC today, and will it be enough for tomorrow?
I'm more of a power-user and do a lot of multi-tasking. Those "background" processes (not really, but you could say so when running a game as the only visible application) barely take up CPU resources (normally). Right now I have some hundred Chrome tabs open, MSI Afterburner (background), Steam, Discord, some GIMP windows, Paint, VLC, MPC and few Notepad windows. Also just started up Spotify and let something play. CPU usage normally sits at 1-2%, with some spikes to 5+% (might be from when I do something). This is with an R7 3700X. It wasn't much different with my older i7-3770K from what I remember though. As more of an hardware enthusiast, I also do "proper" benchmarks of my hardware and based on some experience with my i7-3770K, R7 2700X and R7 3700X there was barely any difference when running a benchmark just quickly in a common system state (for maybe getting a quick look on how it performs) and doing a benchmark in a rather clean, freshly-started system with practically nothing running that doesn't come with Windows (and even there I disabled few things), besides MSI Afterburner. You also should keep in mind that those apps are, or should be, optimized for idle usage. Unfortunately I don't have meaningful numbers, as I don't think I properly tested this, but it's in the margin of error ballpark; 1 fps less*, perhaps a stutter more in first run. That difference is not specifically for CPU (gaming) benchmarks, although I rather recently did a CPU benchmark in AC: Odyssey and also didn't notice a significant difference there, the difference is bigger for first run vs later runs. What I pay more attention to is RAM usage, that's the main factor for me. Right now I have ~20 GiB committed, ~13 GiB "in use" - when I have more than just above 30 GiB committed, I know I won't have as good of an experience with Forza Horizon 4 for example or FH5 might crash, as those are a bit more hungry. * you shouldn't normally talk about FPS for performance differences/deltas, but percentages instead, but as I don't have actual numbers, I can't tell percentages now and only remember that I've seen 1 fps differences, probably in the ~60-100 fps range.
I wish for some of these CPU benchmarks you included some CPU intensive games like Civilization 6 (say a huge, 20 player game at turn 200). Frame rate is not important, but how long you wait for a turn is.
@@tuckerhiggins4336 It might. Haven't looked at it in some time... I was hoping with all the updates and DLCs they got better at using more cores. I have an old i5-8600K w/o HT and the game struggles on large maps.
@@tuckerhiggins4336 It would be relevant as a benchmark between different architectures, not core counts, plenty of us are still playing these kind of games and turn times can be brutal on slower cpu's.
I've been a proponent for opting for 8 cores over 6 for one very obvious reason that everyone seems to overlook.. Deployed gaming Pc's tend to have some bloat going on, be it background tasks during gaming, Rgb management software or playing music while gaming. severa; gamers whos system's I maintain tend to have a browser open in a second window or monitor. 8 cores gives you some extra power to maintain your max fps, even while you have some tasks tying up your cpu.
Pretty much irrelevant. Windows is very good at idling background processes and devoting all resources to a game. Whatever tiny portion of CPU time a browser requires makes no difference to a game.
I got a 5600 paired with a 3070ti. Flawless performance at 1440p 144hz. It outperforms the 8700k OC to 5.0ghz. You can get a second 5600 for almost the same price as a single 5700x. So I did and paired it with 1070ti another rocketship for 1080p 240hz esport gaming. Getting 2 5600 vs 1 5700x.
who asked u to advertise ur setups here? I thought u would say something useful after advertising the 1st one but then u unnecessarily did the same for the 2nd.
@@Dark.Syndicate lol advertising, you mean hardware matching. I got plenty more with specs not realted to the scope of this video. been on the six core game since 2010 aka(when you were born) And still not impresed with the 8 core gap so far so yeah 6 core 5600 is a solid budget offer so F´ur salt.
@@Dark.Syndicate just ignore it if you don’t care about it. Someone could also ask you who asked you to comment and complain that you didn’t say anything useful.
I have 5700x and i am very happy with it. Realy easy overclockable. Just +200mhz override and Curve -30 allcore. Boosting to 4850mhz and 4400mhz allcore. Thats on default EDC TDC etc. !
Cheapest 5600 I found was like $150 while 5700x was nearly $300 (2x price) So.. getting 95% of performance for half price, & pay the difference for better GPU is a smart choice Plus.. U can OC 5600 from default 4.4 to 4.6 easily U will get around slightly more fps
I recently upgraded from a 3600 and was deciding between the 5600 and 5700x. Either one would have been a good upgrade, however I figured the extra cores of the 5700x would not only allow me extra headroom for future games, but it would make my general productivity that much better. Yes, I run my 6600XT between 1440p and 4k, so I am definitely GPU bottlenecked. Here's something I'd like to see some youtubers test: Gaming while multitasking. I run a 4k 120 monitor and 2x 1440p monitors, and I am always watching one or two videos while I am gaming. While I am not into esports, I feel my situation is not rare; I think more and more people these days are gaming while streaming or having other sites open on another monitor. It would be interesting to see what kind of effect this has on cpu usage, especially between 4, 6, and 8 core CPUs
I plan on running this system for about 6 or 7 years, with only a gpu upgrade in the middle of that, so I paid a 40 dollar premium to get the 5700x instead(I got it on sale for $180). Also there is an fps benefit to installing all 4 ram sticks for the 5000 series, and that benefit is increased a bit more for the 5700x, over the 5600. My goal is to skip right over the AM5 platform and jump in to AM6 with a whole new system.
Glad to hear someone else say that, the pcie controller in my 5600x died so I have upgraded to the 5700x and fully plan on using it until either AM6 or AM5 if prices come way down. I always populate all 4 RAM slots because I do a lot of background tasks when gaming accross both monitors full of tabs, it's just nice not to have any slowdown at all when alt tabbing accross all these different programs and unpausing a game to just carry on.
I am so glad I waited for a video from you guys. I have been on the fence on upgrading from a 2600 to either of the two in the video. Thanks! I can now decide what to get.
He should have tested the 2600x vs 2700x so that we could see if modern games from 4 years from now would benefit from the extra cores when games actually stress the cpu
This will be really good info to have. I imagine 8 cores will be better in one or two examples. Personally as someone who will likely be keeping their CPU for 10+ years I would get 8 regardless of what the results are. Even 8 might be too low but the 5800X3D looks pretty tempting as an 8 core.
For purely gaming, i get that the difference at marginal at best. But for me personally, i run a ton of things simultaneously, at all times. And i'd love to see actual stats on this. Things like having Discord with a ton of channels, web browsers with videos and several tabs opened, multiple launchers, etc etc.
Evening Steve! I'm very satisfied with my Ryzen 5 5600 purchased recently. And I'm still waiting for your RX 6800 vs RTX 3070 Ti 50 games benchmark in 2022 blockbuster video!
With the 5600 going for $130usd lately, it’s clearly the best price to performance processor. Even at $330 the 5800x3d is 2.5x the price and definitely won’t give that level of performance improvement
I replaced my 1600 with a 5700X in an Asrock X370 board to match the Series X + PS5 in core count, have the PC be in better shape when 8C becomes standard, and because I'm not gonna upgrade the CPU again. GPUs were a rip off the last year, go splurging an extra $100 for 2 more cores seemed okay. I figured it would be better for emulation in away these bench marks wouldn't say.
I doubt you need to match the core count to run 'next gen' console ports on the PC at any point. The consoles are running on Zen 2, 5000 series are Zen 3. There's quite the performance uplift there (19% improved IPC according to AMD). 19% of 6 cores being basically 1.14 cores worth of performance already. Add to that the XBox series X runs at only 3.6GHz whilst Zen 3 desktop CPUs tend to run at much higher clock speeds* 6-cores should be fine for a long time still. *My Ryzen 7 5800X boosts up to 4.95Ghz even, that's a lot of extra clock cycles :).
If you do any kind of livestreaming, I would recommend the 8-core 5700x processor even if you would be using a gpu encoder (Nvidia nvenc new). Still, it helps to have 2 extra cores do background tasks.
Great video as always! I'm glad I spent less on the Ryzen 5600 - that was the sensible thing to do. On the other hand I overspent quite heavily three months ago to finally buy a graphics card and bought a 6900 XT for 1100 Euros. 😂 Thank you for your videos, I love the content!
Was 1100 euros including VAT? No need to feel buyer's remorse, you got a really decent GPU. And the next tier down of GPUs are only available from scalpers at nearly what you paid. I think AMD and Nvidia deciding to maximize profits by not making/selling at retail the 6800XT and 3080FE will bite them in their behinds.....at least I hope so.
@@carlkidd752 Yes, including VAT. I don't really feel remorse and I sure am happy with the 6900XT! The premium for the 6900XT instead of a 6800XT was okay despite all cards still being overpriced. So I said to myself "why not?" That's usually the wrong choice if you want to save money. 😄
@@wedemandcookies I recently bought a 6900XT from AMD web site for MSRP as my 1080Ti died. Noticeable uplift, but I would have bought the 6800XT, but AMD no longer even lists it on their site and other sellers wanted $900 or more. While a grand is still a lot, I really hate feeding scalpers. I really hope AMD and Nvidia decision to maximize profits bites them on their behinds. Good to hear you're enjoying your GPU and hopefully we both get years of fun out of them.
Perfect timing! Sitting atm trying to decide what's the better option. I'll think I go for the 5700x. I'm planning to keep my AM4 platform for some time and perhaps buy a RX 7000 series gpu this fall. Looking at the difference on high end gpu's I think the 100 dollar extra is worth it looking ahead.
Wouldn't it make more sense to spend the $100 on buying a RX7800 instead of RX7700 (or whatever tier you're planning on buying)? If you have a limited budget then its more efficient to go a tier up on your GPU than CPU?
@@emilioestevezz I got your point for sure. But 100$ won't change which gpu I choose, for me at least. The difference will be far bigger between the gpu models I think. It's always a mix of how much can you, and how much do you want to spend. I just want to make sure it handles the next gen gpu decently :)
Nice video as always! In my opinion people who uses 5700x, 5800x, or even 5950x for gaming don't need to fret about others to justify buying more expensive processor. Just enjoy it! TLDR: Average difference between Ryzen 5 5600 and 5700x is around 5%.
It would be nice to see the impact of background tasks in a test like this, such as Discord streaming with a friend - where you are streaming gameplay and watching your friend's stream at the same time.
That is very difficult to be done, as most background apps you mention do not produce a cpu load that is reliable and reproducible for these testing purposes. Gamers Nexus tried something like that and came to the conclusion that these low load apps don't really matter outside some low fps spikes maybe (again not reproducible). Hence if you carr about these spikes you are better off turning off useless windows features or switching to less cluttered operation systems like Linux.
@@WCIIIReiniger Hmm I'll have to look at those results. But Discord streaming and watching at the same time does hit my FPS noticably in demanding games. It might depend if a game can utilise all of my CPU such as Battlefield V or Cyberpunk. Also, NVENC is probably used for Discord streaming so it would affect GPU performance too. Discord streaming/watching is a pretty consistent workload though and does not cause spikes, but rather causes a consistent drop in game performance.
@@KillFrenzy96 I was a bit too quick on writing my comment. Yes the streaming in discord does take some processing power and it makes sense to have more. So as a streamer you do have different requirements. I don't know how much power is coming from the cpu and also if this can be tested reliably.
4:20 maybe not relevant for testing, but still being the #1 game played on steam, a lot of players who want to become competitive seek 350-400fps on lowest settings 1080p or even 1280x960p.
Is it worth doing a separate video on video editing and rendering tasks for these two CPU’s? Seems like for gaming and general computing is almost always a non issue for most new Gen 6 core CPU’s. Thoughts?
It's probably not worth doing considering core heavy workloads are almost linear improvement per core you add (assuming same gen hardware) up until the software can't support any more that is
Really enjoy yours and the other guy's videos. Been running a 1700 for six years now and will upgrade to this CPU on an ITX B350 Fatality board. I figure I will get 10+ years on this platform as a 5700x will more than amply power me forward in mixed computing. That is an incredible value matched only by Socket 7. These releases are end of life for this platform so not really sure why anyone would opt for a 6 core instead of an 8 especially upgraders but to each their own. Pricing at post time for these CPUs is around $230 USD now that the 7000 series is launched.
Personally I went for a 5600 and 6800 XT combination. Looking at the data here (considering the 6950 XT tested should be a fair bit more powerful than a 6800XT) I feel that this should make for a fairly well balanced gaming system.
Heck, if you mostly play graphics intensive single player titles a 3600 can easily keep the 6800XT pinned at 99%, so you should be good to go for most things that aren't in the "I'm an FPS snob and I'm proud of it" category.
@@Dark.SyndicateI do see the 5700X is also just a 65W CPU as well, so, it is more 'fair' as-is than I initially surmised. ('worry' is not applicable anyway; who 'worries' about processors?)
the 5700X is effectively a lower-binned 5800X, similar to how the 5600 is a lower-binned 5600X. The test was of newer/cheaper versions of yesteryear's parts.
My 2019 rig running Ryzen 7 3700X and 5700XT is doing just fine. I fully tuned those components to the max. Didn't even know I could run the FCLK to 1900 @ DDR4 3800 CL16 on old Vengeance RGB Pro RAM that was rated 3000.
Man walks into pet shop. Says he wants to buy a wasp. Man in shop says “We don’t sell wasps”. Man says “Then why have you got one in your window then?” Snare roll, hi hat.
I really like that you include the 6600xt as well as the 6950xt. It would be interesting to see a ryzen 1600 Vs 1700 against top demanding games through the years. Would have buying the extra cores have been worth it then. I still doubt it will, but it may of you go back to 4 Vs 6, say i7-7700k Vs the 6 core Intel CPU at the time (although it would have been very expensive at the time). I think your comment that the time that the difference is notable (for pure gaming only)) it's past the lifespan of the PC is probably true. Love these comparison videos (although most of us could guess the results here). Keep up the excellent work.
I thought the commentary at the end really worthwhile, just as I'm putting together a brand new system with a view to using some of the parts to refurbish my old X370 rig when it gets out of storage in Aus
I feel that the 5700X fills more of a niche role than purely a gaming first processor. It doesn't provide a huge boost in most regards to games over the 5600 and the only real reason it'd be the smarter choice would be closer to performing heavy workloads and multitasking. Though for me, I'd say it'd be a good choice for those who like to game and dabble into streaming or at least gaming and doing other things at the same time. Of course, better choices out there for that sort of thing but a little bit more headroom nonetheless. Though even from personal experience I'd say it's not a huge divide so honestly the 5600 is a great all round budget processor to go for as a drop in upgrade from older Ryzen chips.
There are a ton of streamers using 5600x as of today. Maybe when you do gaming+streaming+googling+videocalling+editing at the same time and 8-core would shine more but most people don't do it
For those of us that do more than just game the 2 extra cores make a difference now, and with the current gen of consoles having 8 cores more games will be like COD Vanguard in the future, so it will likely be good for longer. As a drop in upgrade for Ryzen 1 or 2 the 5700x makes more sense to me (Hence why I got one to replace my 2600) but if I was building new Intel's Alder Lake makes more sense than Zen3, or I'd wait for Zen4.
2024 prices in July! R7 5700x ($165), R5 5600 ($129), and R5 5600X ($156). I upgraded to R7 5700X from R7 2700, mobo is Prime X470 Pro, old video card RX 570 and 64GB 3000 RAM. Used for 1080P video edit, works quite well! R7 5700X is solid!
All the hype around "the best" item NEVER takes into account 1) use case and 2) budget. The price difference and performance difference between "good enough" and "the best" is often absurd cost versus marginal performance increases. For those of you NOT on a budget, kudos. For the rest of us with rent, kids, i.e. a budget, "good enough" does not have to mean bad. It just means you get 80% of the performance of a "Rolls Royce" system at a mini-van price. It is comparisons shown in this video and others you've done that really highlight "good enough" really IS "good enough". Thanks for all your efforts HUB team.
I started with a R5 1600 for my very first Ryzen CPU, on an ASUS X370-A motherboard, and am now with a R7 5700X (big thanks to ASUS for giving the X370 some more life).
I doubt it to be honest. But if it does, who cares, he is out of touch, IMO, with the masses and his upgrade advice caters to only a niche group. IMO again.... I've been told that I can't game competently on my Ryzen 1600 for awhile now, yet here I am still gaming just fine. :)
The PCIE controller in my 5600x fried which is sooooo annoying as I wanted to get years out of it and could have. I've upgraded to a R7 5700x and plan on using that touch wood until I go AM5 in 2025. Should be a nice upgrade and still plough through all my games for at least 2 years.
But also this is in a perfectly clean windows with no background tasks and minor bloatwares. Realistically I've seen better frame pacing going from 6 to 12 cores. Definitely not for all games but I play warzone a lot and saw that fps jump from 120 to 160 despite doing 1440p DLSS quality (so in reality between 1080p and 1440p) on a RTX 3060..But more important than the fps jump was the frame pacing graphs. It looked much much more stable
CPUs should really measure based on FPS vs utilizations %. That way pick the FPS you want to game at then look at how close you are at maxing out your CPU when the better GPU comes along.
I love that you used the B350 Tomahawk for this. Really highlights the platform versatility of AM4
That way he won't need to re-test older chips. Just reuse the data from them to compare to the newer chips. 😄😄
I was literally just looking at these chips while speccing out a build for a friend. Your timing is uncanny Steve!
Now you know to not spend the $100 more on the 5700x if it's a gaming rig. GG.
Since the 5600 came out it's been a good all around CPU especially the value compared to amd's less favorable ones like Ryzen 5 5500, Ryzen 5 4500 and etc.
@@SiemdeVries24 I would argue otherwise. The CPU may be 50% more expensive, but in a $1000 vs $1100 system, that's just 10% more. And if you multitask or use productive software, it is definitely worth
@@davidyang9902 I would advise you to read my full comment before reacting. I said, if it’s a gaming rig.
@@davidyang9902 and 10% of the full budget more on a cpu you don’t really need? I would use that $100 extra if you have it on a better GPU anyday.
That's not that big of a gap honestly, the 5600 is looking better every day. Thank you for testing.
Even though its been a few years, the 5600 is still a good CPU for a budget build
I really appreciate that recently you have been testing CPUs with both a high and mid tier cards. It gives me a better expectation of performance for the class of GPU i would be pairing the CPU with.
The 65W TDP of 5700X makes it simply amazing, still runs cool and consumes as 5600 with more 2 extra cores for a little longevity. I think they earned my extra bucks for it.
is 65w tdp stock for 5700x or bios settings ?
@@aslan.51 O'clock your 5700X to 5800X by increasing multiplier?
the fact that you can use a cheap cpu cooler makes it absolutely great for mid range units, i personally believe that everyone aiming for the 5600x should wait if they can and get the 5700x
I believe it does still use a fair bit more power than the 5600. Don't believe what it says on the box, it's a bit misleading. It's still a very power efficient CPU though.
@@xDamage69 actually yes, I used the assassin king 120 se ARGB on it and it never goes above 53C under prime95
The nuanced way you explain things is something I always like in your reviews and benchmark videos.
Between this video, and the 3600 vs 5600 video, I think I'll have to accept I've got a pretty nice pairing with my R5 3600 and a 6600XT. I have virtually no reason to upgrade either my CPU or my GPU, unless I'm willing to do both. And even then, the margins probably aren't worth my costs still.
That's a really good combo.
Well if you're into a resolution upgrade, a gpu upgrade would make sense while keeping the 3600. 1440p is a nice jump up from 1080p much in the same way as jumping from a 60Hz monitor to a 144Hz one.
@@PunzL True its the sweetspot (QHD).
thats a good sweet spot
only reason I upgraded from 3600 to 5600 was because of the core to core latency, trust me you can really feel that when you upgrade but if you dont play competitively in games its not so worth, in all honesty I expected 10-20 fps from the upgrade but Im pretty much consistently above 200fps in cod with the same gpu
The way I see it, by the time you need 8 cores for gaming it will probably be time to upgrade again anyway, so save your money until then. And the 8 core processors out in 5 years time will be leaps and bounds ahead of the 8 core processors we have now anyway
It really depends on what you do, if gaming is all you do it might be like this.
However there's no Browser or Discord opened, which could use a core or two for those background tasks.
Personally I also run a few other things and even keep IDE's open like IntelliJ between work.
The consoles are in year 2 of being 8 core machines, games taking advantage of more cores are 100% coming and given the state of the consoles and how common multiplatform is for ALL devs these days (well except Nintendo ahah) I think it makes 8 cores the new standard. I dunno though things change so fast.
@@jpkc86 FYI- consoles were 8 core last gen as well.
@@jpkc86 Its been that way for 10 years
@@StiekemeHenk definitely a case by case basis, but for just gaming then 6 cores is really the sweet spot atm, they're good (arguably overkill) for a simple work machine too, ie emails, browser stuff, documents
When I look at these charts I am always looking at the 1% low's and how close they are, because ultimately that make or breaks the experience... Love your charts..
I went 5700X because the extra cores help me for music production and recording applications. Would love to see a comparison to the 12700F with both DDR4 and DDR5.
It's not 12700f competitor
@@АнтонКраценюк Oh, I know. I'd just like to see the results.
@@АнтонКраценюк It can
I'm someone doesn't upgrade until I absolutely have to (still using a 2500K). Even though I play none of these games, the amount of effort you put behind these comparisons and benchmarks is extremely helpful to keep tabs on hardware performance and potential upgrade paths. Thank you!
Damn man what games do you enjoy i enjoy games from 1995-2012 hence me being on an i5 4690 atm.
So which one did you go for? Cuz i also got a 2500k😅 and am looking to upgrade to one of these.
recently upgraded to a 5700x from a 2700x and its a big improvement! I do some casual streaming and is working well for me encoding and gaming at the same time. was a no braner for the 2 extra cores for me! loving it so far.
Thanks, it's good data to know.
Why not use 2 computers
@@jounik8980 £££
Great video! Could you do a test of 2700x vs 2600x to see if the extra 2 cores on the older chips make any difference in today's games? That would be a good indication of what to expect with current gen models in the future!
It depends on the game, Some games wont care much beyond the 3core CCX and 4core CCX difference, OIthers like SOTTR almost act like they're bitcoin mining in the background where even a 6c12 thread cpu can see nearly 90% usage just to have a character walk through a village.
People mistake usage for performance however.
Even if you get a 6core, 8core, 12core, and 16core all locked at 4Ghz if you tell people they got 100fps, 110fps, 112fps and 115fps respectively people will say either A) gpu limit.... OR if you show an rtx3090 at 720p at 40% gpu usage they'll say B).. well the game isn't using all the cores.. which simply isn't how it works. It might be using all the cores and threads available at 50% (total average), 37.5%, 25% and 18.75% respectively.
The performance bottleneck can be withing the game code or its engine or the API.
In which case adding more cores is like adding more ram. Its a resource that is there if you need it but wont increase performance if you don't.
Right now there aren't many games demanding cpu's capable of 4000cb in R15 in the case of a 3950x because games simply aren't that complex and if they were hundreds of millions of people wouldn't be able to play them (and the thousands of devs required would make it take forever and cost a fortune for minimal gameplay benefit).
Im rocking a 5600 and a 3060 ti and its an awesome combo, crushes pretty much every game i throw at it at least at 1080p.
To me it comes down to how long do you plan on keeping the system. If you are a constant upgrader (every 2-3 years), then the 5600 makes sense. If you're like me where you go 4-5 years between upgrades, then I would go with the 5700. I have the 5800x and I love it. Quick for doing a bunch of tasks (not just gaming). It's great for video editing/rendering.
Is it good for GIS and civilo?
IMO 8 cores is a minimum now for average graphic making projects, in the mid range of quality/requirements. You can work with 6 (even 4), but it's getting to a point where productivity suffers a bit, specially as multitasking - even with only a few heavy apps- is a must. Let alone the fact that rendering in video and 3D is slower and the gap is very noticeable between 8 and 6 cores, currently. And not everything can be GPU rendered, neither every app uses GPU rendering. For productivity, imo, is almost more about present than future.
@@3polygons Yeah I’m not going under 8 cores except for my media server which is running a i5-11500. It doesn’t have to struggle with too much. It just all depends on what you do with your pc. I know lots of ppl where a 6 core cpu is absolutely fine.
I bought the 3700X for the same reasoning. I expected that I could either use it longer than the 3600 before it becomes a bottleneck for the things I do. So far haven't seen a good reason to upgrade and I expect I can coast until Zen 5 and hopefully cheaper DDR5 pricing.
@@kasakka Very smart! Let’s see what the first Gen Zen4s bring. For now you have a capable cpu.
Do you have the data now to compare the 3600, 3800x, 5600, and 5800X3D in one graph? I think this would be most interesting!
yeah that would be interesting, and please put the result of the 3600 using pcie gen 3 as most ppl dont use 3600 with gen 4 pcie
And with the current series entry level gpu and the most used gpu on steam :D Is Steve gonna accept this challenge ?
Ditto. I've got a 3600 and would like to see the 3600, 5600, and 5700X on the same graph.
I would stick with the 3600.
Went from a 3600 to a 5900X... Massive productivity gains (justifying the cost in my use case) but the exact same gaming experience while being significantly harder to keep cool/quiet (Scythe Fuma 2 struggles with the 5900X, now using a Phanteks dual tower cooler (140mm version) to keep it from throttling while quiet - no such issues with 3600 as you'd expect).
5700X is a sweet price spot for productivity (I mean, graphics, editing) in the low/mid range, though. It's the cheapest 8 core in AMD without removing a lot of cache (5700G), also ideal for those who (now that is doable) prefer to just couple it with a discrete card, as _MANY_ apps do actually require it to be so. While 5800X and 5800X3D are in the way too pricey spot, even more if you compare them to the power horse that it is an intel 12700.
The reason behind it is that in this low/mid range, single core and the IPC of the 5600 is really nice and enough for Photoshop and similar apps (slightly better performance than a 10900K in it) . But the render time difference in both 3D rendering and video export in every app which has benchmarks about it, is a *huge* gap (from 6 cores to 8), and time is money. So, the bare minimum of 8 cores is a must for even very low budgets for graphics creation. I can only think of digital painters (who only do that, but I'm one and I also do video and 3D stuff!) and pixel artists ("Pixel Art") as the only ones that could be fine with a 6 core CPU. Maybe a bit tight if they plan on also stream and do it by CPU and work on graphics at same time (streaming that). Maybe Photographers too, but many RAW processing related tasks in several apps benefit immensely of many cores.
From benchmark results, 6 cores for productivity/graphics/content creation in general, is not a purchase I personally would make, anymore, not even with low expectations about one's activity. Unless I was super tight in money. Or.... I know of countries where the pricing of tech is completely unbalanced with average income, I understand there going for a 4 core or even lower (is not "impossible" to find a way and workarounds).
So, IMO it is smart from AMD to provide with this CPU. I applaud it.
what about 5600x vs 5700x for photoshop, ON1 photo raw etc?
@@tradehut2782 In Photoshop you have little to no difference, as it uses mostly the top clock it can use but does not make much use of extra cores. You might notice it though in certain blur filters being a bit slower than in the 5700X. Other than that, a 5600X is plenty for Photoshop. Having 32GB of RAM (imo that's a minimum for slightly serious photography) or more might be more important than getting sth better than a 5600X. Also having your Windows on a SSD, and Photoshop installed on it (or another SSD) on it, too, even if I recommend still having a HDD for production files if you have very large files (RAWs are huge) and write a lot to disk (consuming too many writes on a SSD). Of course, if you use SSDs for everything (might have to swap SSDs every 2-3 years, but might worth it if you earn a lot more by working faster, depends on your situation), including setting an SSD as cache disk, the overall speed and performance would also increase. But again, Photoshop is mostly about RAM and top clock CPU. I don't know about the other two apps, as I am not a photographer, I do not process RAW files. I just have handled Photoshop a lot in my career.
@@tradehut2782 ON1 might have a much more modern code base and benefit largely from multiple cores, you would have to research about that.
I went from Ryzen 3 3100 to Ryzen 7 5700X. The Ryzen 7 5700X can be purchased for less than $200 now. The 65W TDP of the 5700X matching the 3100 is one reason I got it. Its been a huge improvement in my system, and I didn't need to worry about PSU upgrade. Paired with the RX6600XT gpu, all the games I play are maxed out.
I mainly wanted to go to a 5700x for the better 1% lows. It was a good upgrade over my 3600x and I will be satisfied for a couple years before I look to jump on the AM5 platform once it matures a little more and has a better price to performance entry
With the 5700x you could consider waiting for the am6
@@Ilestun Pretty much. I played with an FX 8350 since February 2013 until August 2021, only then I upgraded into a Ryzen 7 3700x (because I was capped at 1080p 30fps gaming, but still kept gaming pretty much anything I wanted at decent settings). I just swapped my 3700X for a 5700X, and I know damn well it will serve me for the next 5+ years, with occasional GPU upgrades before jumping onto AM5 or... Like you said, AM6.
That part at the end about creeping budgets os spot on. If i decide to push and get a 3080 paired with a 5600 and 16GB RAM, everyone loses their minds because "if you can afford a 3080, you can afford X". Nah, I had extra in my budget and out it towards the part that would give me more noticeable performance.
I wonder if a "benchmark" comparison of the UE5 Matrix Awakens demo might give us a good indication of the type of CPU cores/performance we could be looking at needing in the not-to-distant future? Until we get some proper UE5/Lumen/Nanite based titles to run, that is.
The 5600 still gives you more cores per dollar, so the 5600 still seems like a no-brainer. You can always upgrade eventually to a higher core-count CPU if/when it actually becomes important, at which point a used 5700X or 5800X will likely be available on the used market for a much lower price.
@@eye776 I'm not sure how true this is. We've seen videos from channels like nxgamer that show the demo running at 540p and still at sub 30fps and the GPU idling significantly waiting on.... something. There are even snippets of data showing that the engine does scale up CPU frequency and threads (tested between 4 and 8 cores on an older ryzen). Obviously it's an early tech demo but we don't have much else to go on yet, and it does seem worth investigating given the topic of the video...
@@GTSavvy The engine is very dependent on a very fast NVME SSD.
the demo is incredibly unoptimized so I don't think it's the best indicator of future performance
That UE5 Matrix demo isn't a realistic outlook on upcoming UE5 titles. Seems more like 4-5 years on what games might possibly be type thing.
Great video as usual. Also loved the shots of the hardware using the madalorian figures. BIG FAN
As expected indeed. I've helped 2 buddies upgrade from 2600 to 5600 while I upgraded myself to 5700X from 3600 . They are primarily gamers/websurfers and are enjoying the boost they got. I do a bit of video encoding and remuxing occasionally so it wasn't a total waste for me to get the 5700X but I probably could've got by with a 5600 myself. I do notice a tiny gaming improvement in a couple titles so far over my 'golden sample' 3600 but I'm only running a mid-range GPU at UW1440p so I wasn't expecting much. Just like your video Steve I'd chalk it up to clock speed as this 5700X boosts 350 MHz higher with PBO2 than my 3600. I needed a CPU of at least Ryzen 2 for another mobo which wouldn't accept any of the older Ryzens I had so the 3600 was earmarked for that (guess I shoulda read the CPU compat list before buying ). Tom's Hardware called the 5700X a price cut in disguise and that could easily be said here and I consider that to be accurate. After the release of 5800X3D there's no need for a 5800X at the price point so might as well get a 5700X and call it a day. I considered a 5800X3D but they're more expensive than a 5900X in my region so not worth it at this late stage of AM4.
Was waiting for that comparaison for a while now. Thank you Steve
I have both the 5600 and 5700x.. the 5700x runs at 49.9w maxed out at stock according to Ryzen Master and the 5600 runs at 54.9w... the new 7nm B2 stepping on the 5700x is awesome.. the 5600 is using the older 7nm A0 revision. Both were purchased at the same time.. so i guess the 5700x is the better product
My 5600 is B2
@@furkanykaya lucky.. whats the power draw in ryzen master when you bench mark it or stress it using CPU ID
@@defectiveclone8450 55.7w but my mobo is gigabyte ab350m 5 years old 😂
what is dierence between rev a0 and b2 ? for gaming? more fps ? higer clock boost ?
@@Venom-gs4nz same frquency but lower power consumption which means less heat
I'm going from a R5 2400G to a R7 5700X, since I got a good deal for Black Friday and used some discount vouchers in the UK. AM4 is such a good platform.
I upgraded from 3600 to 5900X (and a pair of Samsung B-die 16G*2 memory) a couple of months ago. The performance improvement is sensible but not obvious, higher 1% fps though. Therefore, for game player, I suggest you spend more money on graphic card instead of CPU or high speed memory.
Good to know thank you.
From watching the last few 5600 v xxxx videos it really show how much value it has compared to the other cpus. Don't even need to watch a 'v 5800x' as that would be similar to the 5700x. Now 5800x3d would be a worthy comparison between value and premium.
Love the work.
+1 for that Mandalorian & Ryzen chip setup, pretty cool! Zen cores are made with Beskar!
Great video! I would like to see next a 5700x vs 12600k comparison as it is a more realistic matchup considering the price of CPU and Motherboard together. At least it is here in Denmark.
CPUs are priced similarly, but for motherboards, it's not even a contest. You can still use a dirt cheap B450 motherboard with the 5700x and it will perform just as good.
Yes, but let's consider building a new pc with decent parts. If somebody just going for the value than its the 12400 or 5600 anyway.
You missed the point of the video
He already did that...
I'd love to see these tests run again with some standard background tasks running, e.g. Spotify, Webex/Teams, UA-cam and some more browser tabs.
Most reviewers won't do this and it baffles me as to why. Some will at lease mention it as a benefit to more cores. A buddy of mine has a i5 9600k and he swears by "i5 is just as good as a 9900k in gaming. The fps numbers are almost the same" . Then comes to me the next day complaining about stutters while he's gaming. He won't listen
Those aren't standard background tasks, close whatever the fuck you are running when you want to play a game. If you don't have to fully concentrate on the game you are playing, it is not worth playing anyway. 8 cores and up only make sense for streamers.
People dont close most stuff for optimal performance? Discord or teamspeak or something I can understand but I dont see why anyone would have 20 tabs of pornhub open when theyre playing videogames.
All these have minimal effect. Check yourself using task manager.
gamers nexus has already made a video about this in the past, virtually no difference in performance with discord+browser+a few other apps open
I decided to upgrade from a 5600x to a 5700x mostly because the extra cores really help with running Ableton live 11 for music production. Got it for $180 usd too.
Thanks for this.
Could you please add background tasks to these tests? Discord, a couple chrome tabs and maybe even streaming software running - a more realistic scenario for most gamers. The additional cores may come into play there, but it would be nice if these tests weren’t always so “sterile”, but more reflective of the average user experience.
It's a normal PC, not a 'sterile' test system. Most gamers don't have streaming software open when gaming/or ever.
@@Hardwareunboxed No maybe not streaming specifically. I just mean a more average use case - chrome tabs open, maybe Spotify, Teams, discord - your usual suspects which could affect performance. And then streaming as a seperate entry would be interesting.
Not gonna lie here, would defnitely like to see the load from streaming software especially if software encoding a video stream not using nvenc
@@urbanbunny5532 This is a common misconception, background tasks such as Spotify, Teams, discord make stuff all difference, they all use very few CPU cycles and this is easy for anyone to verify. The truth is when gaming unless you're encoding a video or streaming you don't need extra cores sitting around.
Streaming is a very tiny proportion of gamers 💀💀💀
This is one of the best tech reviews I've seen.
Clear, concise, to the point. Brilliant presentation.
Video idea: streaming tests. Would be interested in seeing some performance differences between streaming setups.
Me too.
I'd be curious, though I know it would be an unreasonable amount of work for you guys, to see if the performance difference is greater in VR. The general rule of thumb is that VR is heavier on the CPU than flatscreen gaming, and that's one of the reasons I went with a 5700X over the 5600. That and the extra cores are handy for the occasional VM or productivity workload.
To all the 6 people who care and would watch it yeah not happening.
@@Takashita_Sukakoki lol 😂 missing out or too poor for VR either way your loss.
@@bobdole3251 Imagine being so immature that you think "too poor for...." is actually an insult.
Ikr, it's hard to find performance results for vr, cpu or gpu. When I first got into vr I thought it would be how everyone would be gaming. I fell in love with flight and racing sims, but about half the people who try vr get motion sick, which I kinda understand. Going in reverse then going forward messes with my brain a little because the visual motion doesn't match the physical motion. I wont even race on triples anymore, the immersion does not compare.
My guess would be that in VR the gpu has an even greater impact as you most likely want to render it in the highest resolution and quality possible without dropping below the headsets refreshrate.
As a b350 tomahawk user with the ryzen 5 5600, Just doing a manual pbo of +200 mhz, you can just easily achieve what 5600x and 5700x can do. All you need is a decent cooler, it is still a decent motherboard to keep up with new CPUs.
The +200MHz PBO setting will often show the full benefit in games even with the included stock cooler. Games don't usually consume that much power, even if the CPU utilization is high.
I only play simracing games, in a rig with wheel and pedals, so I'm very familiar with ACC and playerbase. These results are from replay. That's all well and good and repeatable, but we simracers play (ACC) mainly online. And when you're on a server with big grid (more than 50 cars), Ryzen 3600 (I don't know about 5600 but I have first hand experience with 3600) fails miserably with any GPU on any resolution. Even Ryzen 5800X, if you race on Suzuka with 80 cars, your FPS will suffer. And it's worth mentioning that physics engine and graphics are "separated." If you have "weak" CPU, when you are racing online, you can have above 100FPS, but it feels more like 50-60 FPS.
And most of us have ultrawide (3440:1440) or extreme ultrawide (5120x1440) or triple screen setup. And for these kinds of setups, I think Ryzen 5600 is just not enough.
As someone who only games specific games which need specific rigs - obviously this video wasn't meant for you
What cpu and GPU do you use?
Thinking of the 5600. I game at 4K on a RTX 3080 and my 7700K is showing age in heavy CPU titles, in the minimum lows especially. Wish at least 2 benchmarks for 4K res were added, I know the discrepancy will be even tinier than 1440p but still.
Having more serial throughput (IPC and/or clocks) aswell as 50% more cores and threads and 4x the l3 cache will likely be a good upgrade in terms of consistency even at 2160p.
But I would urge caution by asking what games and framerates? Because it could just be a badly made game where trying to sustain 60fps minimums are relatively impossible if the game is the culprit.
So if you can try the game out on a more powerful friends system (your gpu) that would give you a very good idea before you get your wallet out.
Also double check your system isn't just running a billion programs at startup eating 3.7GB of ram before you even launch anything.
@@tomstech4390 good advice. Thanks man.
Thanks for the comparison. About to upgrade after 5-6 years. I only considered the 5700x because I found it at 175 bucks which is within budget and I happen to do video editing as a hobby.
I'll be ordering the parts soon and I'd be looking to upgrade only after 6 or 7 more years
Thanks for the video Steve! This convinced me to settle for a 5600 and a 6800 XT combo. I was seriously considering the 5700X but the price for performance balance isn't there after watching your video.
Some people in the comments talk about having other stuff open in the background while they game but that isn't my case so I'm good in that area.
Really appreciate everything you do!
Well im similar to your case, im with Ryzen 5 5600x with RX 6900XT and i dont see much sense to go to 8core+ for now as im just playing mostly...
You hit it on its nail, if you do nothing much else its more than enough however if you do other stuff or hold things open like Word, a Browser, Discord or even creation tools like Blender you might want 2 more cores for those and a bit more RAM even.
I run 8c 16t with 32gb, took me a bit more work hours but I never have to think about what I've got open and can hop back to work at any moment!
@@StiekemeHenk dude discord and web browsing dont effect it at all… people act like web browsing and discord are these intense multithreaded things. A 4 core 8 thread with 16gb of ram handles that fine, 6 cores barely make that snappier sure but whether that’s noticeable is a whole other thing. Thats not me recommending 4 cores over 6 either though for a pure gaming pc with low budget in mind i have been recommending the i5 12100+RX 6600 or RTX 3050 if they wanna stream. Thats super low budget tho
I have multiple windows open in the background on my 6 core 2600 and it's ez to do. Sometimes I even have two games open at once and switching. One is an emulator, the other is on steam. Not a problem to do multitasking AT ALL with 6 cores.
@@StiekemeHenk it doesn't make a difference. I can play a game with chrome, discord and whatever open with my coffee lake 6core and everything it good
How much would these results change if you have discord streaming + Spotify / UA-cam playing at the same time. Are there real world scenarios (like being alt tabbed waiting for a match to start) where extra cores help with other things running in the background?
I think most people will have a few other things running while gaming, or are those so minor that they won't noticibly impact performance?
sitting here with this video playing and the apps you listen running in the background I get as high as 10% CPU on my 5800x, I think that's something they overlooked... the 5600x may potentially lose performance in scenarios where the 8-core CPUs don't, and that is OFTEN overlooked when people recommend the 5600x...
I had the same thought.
Would be great to take the game the scored most evenly in
and then slam some real world goodness on for a second try.
If you're a heavy multitasker and need every single possible frame while gaming, then it's probably worth getting the 8-core. Although, if you have a midrange GPU, this could still be your main limitation anyway.
Definitely a valid question. It's been asked before, like when quad cores were "standard" and six cores the exotics. The answer is probably almost exactly the same, that the background tasks doesn't really put that much of a strain on the CPU. At least that was the case back then, but looking in the backview mirror we can see how that quickly changed. Today a quad core processor definitely is a liability when playing the latest games. And this will repeat in the future. A year or three down the road a six core processor will start to become a limiting factor.
Now something I can't help but wondering about is how a processor such as the Intel Core 12600K with it's 6 performance cores with Hyper-Threading and 4 efficiency cores for a total of 16 threads fares compared to 8 core processors with a total of 16 threads. Personally I'm not a fan of the idea of separate efficiency cores. It makes the schedulers work harder as to optimize performance it has to identify which threads are demanding and which can do with simpler, slower processor cores. I can only imagine that this can cause occasional problems with performance. This can of course get better as the software scheduler improves, but it's still way more complex than if all the cores are equal.
So how good is the current schedulers in Windows 10, 11 and Linux at unloading processes such as Discord, Spotify, streaming and background recording to the efficiency cores? Is it enough to mitigate the lower number of performance cores compared to the Ryzen 7 5700X? Is the extra money worth going with the 12600K over the non K version if you are not looking at overclocking? How about if you look at FSB OC using a motherboard like the one MSI has hinted about (the MSI MAG B660M MORTAR+ WIFI DDR4 if I remember correctly)?
Asking as currently a i5-12600 (not the K version) paired with a decent B660 seems like a pretty good deal for gaming. So just how much of a difference would the four extra threads running on the efficiency cares really make for a gaming PC today, and will it be enough for tomorrow?
I'm more of a power-user and do a lot of multi-tasking. Those "background" processes (not really, but you could say so when running a game as the only visible application) barely take up CPU resources (normally). Right now I have some hundred Chrome tabs open, MSI Afterburner (background), Steam, Discord, some GIMP windows, Paint, VLC, MPC and few Notepad windows. Also just started up Spotify and let something play. CPU usage normally sits at 1-2%, with some spikes to 5+% (might be from when I do something). This is with an R7 3700X. It wasn't much different with my older i7-3770K from what I remember though.
As more of an hardware enthusiast, I also do "proper" benchmarks of my hardware and based on some experience with my i7-3770K, R7 2700X and R7 3700X there was barely any difference when running a benchmark just quickly in a common system state (for maybe getting a quick look on how it performs) and doing a benchmark in a rather clean, freshly-started system with practically nothing running that doesn't come with Windows (and even there I disabled few things), besides MSI Afterburner.
You also should keep in mind that those apps are, or should be, optimized for idle usage.
Unfortunately I don't have meaningful numbers, as I don't think I properly tested this, but it's in the margin of error ballpark; 1 fps less*, perhaps a stutter more in first run. That difference is not specifically for CPU (gaming) benchmarks, although I rather recently did a CPU benchmark in AC: Odyssey and also didn't notice a significant difference there, the difference is bigger for first run vs later runs.
What I pay more attention to is RAM usage, that's the main factor for me. Right now I have ~20 GiB committed, ~13 GiB "in use" - when I have more than just above 30 GiB committed, I know I won't have as good of an experience with Forza Horizon 4 for example or FH5 might crash, as those are a bit more hungry.
* you shouldn't normally talk about FPS for performance differences/deltas, but percentages instead, but as I don't have actual numbers, I can't tell percentages now and only remember that I've seen 1 fps differences, probably in the ~60-100 fps range.
I wish for some of these CPU benchmarks you included some CPU intensive games like Civilization 6 (say a huge, 20 player game at turn 200). Frame rate is not important, but how long you wait for a turn is.
doubt Steve will ever have time for that.
@@dazzlerweb A boy can wish.
Doesn't Civ use like 1 core, so it wouldn't matter?
@@tuckerhiggins4336 It might. Haven't looked at it in some time... I was hoping with all the updates and DLCs they got better at using more cores. I have an old i5-8600K w/o HT and the game struggles on large maps.
@@tuckerhiggins4336 It would be relevant as a benchmark between different architectures, not core counts, plenty of us are still playing these kind of games and turn times can be brutal on slower cpu's.
I've been a proponent for opting for 8 cores over 6 for one very obvious reason that everyone seems to overlook.. Deployed gaming Pc's tend to have some bloat going on, be it background tasks during gaming, Rgb management software or playing music while gaming. severa; gamers whos system's I maintain tend to have a browser open in a second window or monitor. 8 cores gives you some extra power to maintain your max fps, even while you have some tasks tying up your cpu.
Pretty much irrelevant. Windows is very good at idling background processes and devoting all resources to a game. Whatever tiny portion of CPU time a browser requires makes no difference to a game.
I got a 5600 paired with a 3070ti. Flawless performance at 1440p 144hz. It outperforms the 8700k OC to 5.0ghz. You can get a second 5600 for almost the same price as a single 5700x. So I did and paired it with 1070ti another rocketship for 1080p 240hz esport gaming. Getting 2 5600 vs 1 5700x.
Well its a superior piece of hardware compared to intel 8th gen flagship. So thats natural it will be fast.
who asked u to advertise ur setups here? I thought u would say something useful after advertising the 1st one but then u unnecessarily did the same for the 2nd.
@@Dark.Syndicate bro chill he has 2 setup so he will naturally boast about it.
@@Dark.Syndicate lol advertising, you mean hardware matching. I got plenty more with specs not realted to the scope of this video. been on the six core game since 2010 aka(when you were born) And still not impresed with the 8 core gap so far so yeah 6 core 5600 is a solid budget offer so F´ur salt.
@@Dark.Syndicate just ignore it if you don’t care about it. Someone could also ask you who asked you to comment and complain that you didn’t say anything useful.
I have 5700x and i am very happy with it. Realy easy overclockable. Just +200mhz override and Curve -30 allcore. Boosting to 4850mhz and 4400mhz allcore. Thats on default EDC TDC etc. !
What cooling are you using?
@@CryHollowZ Corsair H150i Elite LCD
Lol my Ryzen 5 5600 was crashing in Prime95 with +150 and -10 all core. Had to go - 5 on two cores to get it stable.
Cheapest 5600 I found was like $150 while 5700x was nearly $300 (2x price)
So.. getting 95% of performance for half price, & pay the difference for better GPU is a smart choice
Plus.. U can OC 5600 from default 4.4 to 4.6 easily U will get around slightly more fps
Cheapest 5600 i can find in my region is $210 right now
@@PaulJohn01 150$ on SEA
Thanks a ton! Love how you use simple and easy to understand terms (% increase/decrease). Love the content delivery.
I recently upgraded from a 3600 and was deciding between the 5600 and 5700x. Either one would have been a good upgrade, however I figured the extra cores of the 5700x would not only allow me extra headroom for future games, but it would make my general productivity that much better. Yes, I run my 6600XT between 1440p and 4k, so I am definitely GPU bottlenecked.
Here's something I'd like to see some youtubers test: Gaming while multitasking. I run a 4k 120 monitor and 2x 1440p monitors, and I am always watching one or two videos while I am gaming. While I am not into esports, I feel my situation is not rare; I think more and more people these days are gaming while streaming or having other sites open on another monitor. It would be interesting to see what kind of effect this has on cpu usage, especially between 4, 6, and 8 core CPUs
Are you running the 4k monitor and both the 1440p monitors off the 6600xt, and if so, were you doing that with the 3600 before your upgrade?
@@thedandyp yes, I run 4 monitors, including a 720p display for stats. I got the 4k recently, so only had the 3 displays with the 3600.
I plan on running this system for about 6 or 7 years, with only a gpu upgrade in the middle of that, so I paid a 40 dollar premium to get the 5700x instead(I got it on sale for $180). Also there is an fps benefit to installing all 4 ram sticks for the 5000 series, and that benefit is increased a bit more for the 5700x, over the 5600. My goal is to skip right over the AM5 platform and jump in to AM6 with a whole new system.
Glad to hear someone else say that, the pcie controller in my 5600x died so I have upgraded to the 5700x and fully plan on using it until either AM6 or AM5 if prices come way down. I always populate all 4 RAM slots because I do a lot of background tasks when gaming accross both monitors full of tabs, it's just nice not to have any slowdown at all when alt tabbing accross all these different programs and unpausing a game to just carry on.
I am so glad I waited for a video from you guys. I have been on the fence on upgrading from a 2600 to either of the two in the video. Thanks! I can now decide what to get.
Wait for Zen 4
@@GewelReal I don't want to change platform.
Good too see Total War: Warhammer 3 in there as that and TW Three Kingdoms gives both the CPU/GPU a good workout.
He should have tested the 2600x vs 2700x so that we could see if modern games from 4 years from now would benefit from the extra cores when games actually stress the cpu
I'm literally looking at my upgrading options from a 2600 and the 5600x looks pretty good, thanks to this video.
would love to see that one. pretty sure it performs similar to a 2700x
I think you get a solid 50% ipc boost going from a 2600 to a 5600X.
This will be really good info to have. I imagine 8 cores will be better in one or two examples. Personally as someone who will likely be keeping their CPU for 10+ years I would get 8 regardless of what the results are. Even 8 might be too low but the 5800X3D looks pretty tempting as an 8 core.
For purely gaming, i get that the difference at marginal at best.
But for me personally, i run a ton of things simultaneously, at all times. And i'd love to see actual stats on this. Things like having Discord with a ton of channels, web browsers with videos and several tabs opened, multiple launchers, etc etc.
Evening Steve! I'm very satisfied with my Ryzen 5 5600 purchased recently. And I'm still waiting for your RX 6800 vs RTX 3070 Ti 50 games benchmark in 2022 blockbuster video!
If you are in the US, Newegg has the Gigabyte rx 6900 xt gaming OC on sale for 820usd. Just get that if you are looking at a 6800 or a 3070ti.
@@tallgeese3pilot Thanks for the info but I own an RX 6800
With the 5600 going for $130usd lately, it’s clearly the best price to performance processor.
Even at $330 the 5800x3d is 2.5x the price and definitely won’t give that level of performance improvement
I replaced my 1600 with a 5700X in an Asrock X370 board to match the Series X + PS5 in core count, have the PC be in better shape when 8C becomes standard, and because I'm not gonna upgrade the CPU again. GPUs were a rip off the last year, go splurging an extra $100 for 2 more cores seemed okay. I figured it would be better for emulation in away these bench marks wouldn't say.
I doubt you need to match the core count to run 'next gen' console ports on the PC at any point. The consoles are running on Zen 2, 5000 series are Zen 3. There's quite the performance uplift there (19% improved IPC according to AMD). 19% of 6 cores being basically 1.14 cores worth of performance already. Add to that the XBox series X runs at only 3.6GHz whilst Zen 3 desktop CPUs tend to run at much higher clock speeds* 6-cores should be fine for a long time still.
*My Ryzen 7 5800X boosts up to 4.95Ghz even, that's a lot of extra clock cycles :).
The Mandolorian appearance was strong in this one. Loved it. Thanks for the info!
If you do any kind of livestreaming, I would recommend the 8-core 5700x processor even if you would be using a gpu encoder (Nvidia nvenc new). Still, it helps to have 2 extra cores do background tasks.
Thanks for the info. :)
I really enjoyed your perspective in the closing thoughts
Subscribed!
Great video as always! I'm glad I spent less on the Ryzen 5600 - that was the sensible thing to do. On the other hand I overspent quite heavily three months ago to finally buy a graphics card and bought a 6900 XT for 1100 Euros. 😂 Thank you for your videos, I love the content!
I did the same 😅
Tbh could be worse guys, Ive seen people pay 1k for a 3070 lol
Was 1100 euros including VAT? No need to feel buyer's remorse, you got a really decent GPU. And the next tier down of GPUs are only available from scalpers at nearly what you paid. I think AMD and Nvidia deciding to maximize profits by not making/selling at retail the 6800XT and 3080FE will bite them in their behinds.....at least I hope so.
@@carlkidd752 Yes, including VAT. I don't really feel remorse and I sure am happy with the 6900XT! The premium for the 6900XT instead of a 6800XT was okay despite all cards still being overpriced. So I said to myself "why not?" That's usually the wrong choice if you want to save money. 😄
@@wedemandcookies I recently bought a 6900XT from AMD web site for MSRP as my 1080Ti died. Noticeable uplift, but I would have bought the 6800XT, but AMD no longer even lists it on their site and other sellers wanted $900 or more. While a grand is still a lot, I really hate feeding scalpers.
I really hope AMD and Nvidia decision to maximize profits bites them on their behinds.
Good to hear you're enjoying your GPU and hopefully we both get years of fun out of them.
Greetings from Portugal. Thinking of upgrading my old 2700X. Thanks for the vid, keep up the excellent work.
Perfect timing! Sitting atm trying to decide what's the better option. I'll think I go for the 5700x. I'm planning to keep my AM4 platform for some time and perhaps buy a RX 7000 series gpu this fall. Looking at the difference on high end gpu's I think the 100 dollar extra is worth it looking ahead.
Wouldn't it make more sense to spend the $100 on buying a RX7800 instead of RX7700 (or whatever tier you're planning on buying)? If you have a limited budget then its more efficient to go a tier up on your GPU than CPU?
@@emilioestevezz I got your point for sure. But 100$ won't change which gpu I choose, for me at least. The difference will be far bigger between the gpu models I think.
It's always a mix of how much can you, and how much do you want to spend. I just want to make sure it handles the next gen gpu decently :)
@@emilanderssonmotorsport6378 Why not wait and see the prices first before gambling?
@@cccpredarmy Yeah it might be worth waiting. Maybe the AM4 cpu's will be cheaper then as well =)
Will the 5700x be a bottleneck with the next gen gpus?
Thanks for the very well done comparison!
Nice video as always! In my opinion people who uses 5700x, 5800x, or even 5950x for gaming don't need to fret about others to justify buying more expensive processor. Just enjoy it!
TLDR: Average difference between Ryzen 5 5600 and 5700x is around 5%.
It would be nice to see the impact of background tasks in a test like this, such as Discord streaming with a friend - where you are streaming gameplay and watching your friend's stream at the same time.
That is very difficult to be done, as most background apps you mention do not produce a cpu load that is reliable and reproducible for these testing purposes. Gamers Nexus tried something like that and came to the conclusion that these low load apps don't really matter outside some low fps spikes maybe (again not reproducible). Hence if you carr about these spikes you are better off turning off useless windows features or switching to less cluttered operation systems like Linux.
@@WCIIIReiniger Hmm I'll have to look at those results. But Discord streaming and watching at the same time does hit my FPS noticably in demanding games. It might depend if a game can utilise all of my CPU such as Battlefield V or Cyberpunk. Also, NVENC is probably used for Discord streaming so it would affect GPU performance too. Discord streaming/watching is a pretty consistent workload though and does not cause spikes, but rather causes a consistent drop in game performance.
@@KillFrenzy96 I was a bit too quick on writing my comment. Yes the streaming in discord does take some processing power and it makes sense to have more.
So as a streamer you do have different requirements. I don't know how much power is coming from the cpu and also if this can be tested reliably.
i've been on the 2700x for nearly 4 years, I'll upgrade to a 5000 soon for the next couple years, 8-cores is way safer of an upgrade than 6
They might release Ryzen 7000 on AM4. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
4:20 maybe not relevant for testing, but still being the #1 game played on steam, a lot of players who want to become competitive seek 350-400fps on lowest settings 1080p or even 1280x960p.
Honestly I'm very happy with my 5600, you can't beat the price to performance for a budget gaming PC.
Yup one of the best deals currently, and you get Uncharted collection for free too!
I was looking at the 5600 last week, thanks for the video 👌🏻
Is it worth doing a separate video on video editing and rendering tasks for these two CPU’s? Seems like for gaming and general computing is almost always a non issue for most new Gen 6 core CPU’s. Thoughts?
It not worth it, for editing and rendering you going for the 8 cores no doubt.
Would like to see a comparison of the 5600X, 5700X and 5900X when doing stuff like streaming with OBS. Would be really great.
It's probably not worth doing considering core heavy workloads are almost linear improvement per core you add (assuming same gen hardware) up until the software can't support any more that is
I went 5600X to 5800X3D. I just wanted to stay on AM4 for a few years more. DDR5 and AM5 will be sweet then.
Can you show CPU usage statistics between 6 and 8 cores? That should be another data point worth considering.
Really enjoy yours and the other guy's videos. Been running a 1700 for six years now and will upgrade to this CPU on an ITX B350 Fatality board. I figure I will get 10+ years on this platform as a 5700x will more than amply power me forward in mixed computing. That is an incredible value matched only by Socket 7. These releases are end of life for this platform so not really sure why anyone would opt for a 6 core instead of an 8 especially upgraders but to each their own. Pricing at post time for these CPUs is around $230 USD now that the 7000 series is launched.
Personally I went for a 5600 and 6800 XT combination. Looking at the data here (considering the 6950 XT tested should be a fair bit more powerful than a 6800XT) I feel that this should make for a fairly well balanced gaming system.
Heck, if you mostly play graphics intensive single player titles a 3600 can easily keep the 6800XT pinned at 99%, so you should be good to go for most things that aren't in the "I'm an FPS snob and I'm proud of it" category.
Lighting behind you was on point for this video. We'll done Steve on box :)
should it not at least have been 5700X vs. 5600X? (The 5600 would have clocks commensurate with a 65W CPU, or, it should...)
5700x is 65w lol
do u think 5600x instead of 5600 would change results enough for u to worry about it?
always sometimes monsters
@@Dark.SyndicateI do see the 5700X is also just a 65W CPU as well, so, it is more 'fair' as-is than I initially surmised. ('worry' is not applicable anyway; who 'worries' about processors?)
the 5700X is effectively a lower-binned 5800X, similar to how the 5600 is a lower-binned 5600X. The test was of newer/cheaper versions of yesteryear's parts.
My 2019 rig running Ryzen 7 3700X and 5700XT is doing just fine. I fully tuned those components to the max. Didn't even know I could run the FCLK to 1900 @ DDR4 3800 CL16 on old Vengeance RGB Pro RAM that was rated 3000.
Man walks into pet shop. Says he wants to buy a wasp. Man in shop says “We don’t sell wasps”. Man says “Then why have you got one in your window then?”
Snare roll, hi hat.
That's great!
I really like that you include the 6600xt as well as the 6950xt.
It would be interesting to see a ryzen 1600 Vs 1700 against top demanding games through the years. Would have buying the extra cores have been worth it then. I still doubt it will, but it may of you go back to 4 Vs 6, say i7-7700k Vs the 6 core Intel CPU at the time (although it would have been very expensive at the time).
I think your comment that the time that the difference is notable (for pure gaming only)) it's past the lifespan of the PC is probably true.
Love these comparison videos (although most of us could guess the results here). Keep up the excellent work.
Does the 3D V-cache affect SAM differently between the 5800X and 5800X3D?
Love the video glad my 6-core holds up
I thought the commentary at the end really worthwhile, just as I'm putting together a brand new system with a view to using some of the parts to refurbish my old X370 rig when it gets out of storage in Aus
I feel that the 5700X fills more of a niche role than purely a gaming first processor. It doesn't provide a huge boost in most regards to games over the 5600 and the only real reason it'd be the smarter choice would be closer to performing heavy workloads and multitasking. Though for me, I'd say it'd be a good choice for those who like to game and dabble into streaming or at least gaming and doing other things at the same time.
Of course, better choices out there for that sort of thing but a little bit more headroom nonetheless. Though even from personal experience I'd say it's not a huge divide so honestly the 5600 is a great all round budget processor to go for as a drop in upgrade from older Ryzen chips.
There are a ton of streamers using 5600x as of today. Maybe when you do gaming+streaming+googling+videocalling+editing at the same time and 8-core would shine more but most people don't do it
I was waiting for this one. Great video.
For those of us that do more than just game the 2 extra cores make a difference now, and with the current gen of consoles having 8 cores more games will be like COD Vanguard in the future, so it will likely be good for longer. As a drop in upgrade for Ryzen 1 or 2 the 5700x makes more sense to me (Hence why I got one to replace my 2600) but if I was building new Intel's Alder Lake makes more sense than Zen3, or I'd wait for Zen4.
Windows is bottleneck of CPU in Games. But Windows sure improved a lot since 6 cores plus CPUs became mainstream.
The number of cores across different architectures is irrelevant. 6 cores of the 5600 are faster than the 8 cores of the consoles.
2024 prices in July! R7 5700x ($165), R5 5600 ($129), and R5 5600X ($156). I upgraded to R7 5700X from R7 2700, mobo is Prime X470 Pro, old video card RX 570 and 64GB 3000 RAM. Used for 1080P video edit, works quite well! R7 5700X is solid!
So basically not a noteworthy differences unless you play CoD Vanguard
Or any other CPU intensive games.
Such as?
All the hype around "the best" item NEVER takes into account 1) use case and 2) budget. The price difference and performance difference between "good enough" and "the best" is often absurd cost versus marginal performance increases.
For those of you NOT on a budget, kudos. For the rest of us with rent, kids, i.e. a budget, "good enough" does not have to mean bad. It just means you get 80% of the performance of a "Rolls Royce" system at a mini-van price.
It is comparisons shown in this video and others you've done that really highlight "good enough" really IS "good enough". Thanks for all your efforts HUB team.
I had a 2700x and was deciding between upgrading to one of these two. I ended up with a 5900x
These latest videos are hitting the real questions!
Good morning, Australia.
Good evening wherever you are from :)
I started with a R5 1600 for my very first Ryzen CPU, on an ASUS X370-A motherboard, and am now with a R7 5700X (big thanks to ASUS for giving the X370 some more life).
We know this video is gonna trigger tech deals
I doubt it to be honest. But if it does, who cares, he is out of touch, IMO, with the masses and his upgrade advice caters to only a niche group. IMO again....
I've been told that I can't game competently on my Ryzen 1600 for awhile now, yet here I am still gaming just fine. :)
The PCIE controller in my 5600x fried which is sooooo annoying as I wanted to get years out of it and could have. I've upgraded to a R7 5700x and plan on using that touch wood until I go AM5 in 2025. Should be a nice upgrade and still plough through all my games for at least 2 years.
Ha, this is my plan as well(possibly get 5700x soon and then get AM5 by 2025 at earliest).
But also this is in a perfectly clean windows with no background tasks and minor bloatwares.
Realistically I've seen better frame pacing going from 6 to 12 cores. Definitely not for all games but I play warzone a lot and saw that fps jump from 120 to 160 despite doing 1440p DLSS quality (so in reality between 1080p and 1440p) on a RTX 3060..But more important than the fps jump was the frame pacing graphs. It looked much much more stable
Thank you for this exact comparison! Fast becoming my favourite tech channel.
just mentioned these CPU's in a presentation like maybe an hour ago
CPUs should really measure based on FPS vs utilizations %. That way pick the FPS you want to game at then look at how close you are at maxing out your CPU when the better GPU comes along.