Very nice. 🙂

Wow , 5800X is rocking ,and 5950X gave me a Woodie 🙂

http://valid.x86.fr/60vs0l found it

This is why I was puzzled when people complained the Zen3 had gone up in price. It has but then it seems so has the performance massively. AMD are not going to give things away to make cheapskates happy.... 🙂 They need money for investment for the future etc.

Martin5000:

http://valid.x86.fr/60vs0l found it

So 5800X is 16.3813% faster than 3800XT in multithreading. Nice.

I understand the comparison of the Single core, But It really means nothing anymore. Every program is multithreaded now. Unless you want it for the original Crysis.:)

Andy Watson:

This is why I was puzzled when people complained the Zen3 had gone up in price. It has but then it seems so has the performance massively. AMD are not going to give things away to make cheapskates happy.... 🙂 They need money for investment for the future etc.

It's because AMD is always the lower quality product. There is always some caveat to using them that means they need to be priced less than Intel. There's your mindset 🙂 Ezpz. I think this is mainly based on inexperience and emperical evidence in minute numbers as well as a range of uneducated assumptions.

xg-ei8ht:

I understand the comparison of the Single core, But It really means nothing anymore. Every program is multithreaded now. Unless you want it for the original Crysis.:)

This isn't necessarily true. Many things run on a primary thread and benefit from fast single threaded execution. Point in case being all games.

xg-ei8ht:

I understand the comparison of the Single core, But It really means nothing anymore. Every program is multithreaded now. Unless you want it for the original Crysis.:)

That is not true at all. The vast majority of games still benefit from a single thread performance. This CPU will tick all the boxes for all the scenarios.

Time to rewrite CPUZ.

Kool64:

Time to rewrite CPUZ.

Yes, let's make sure it uses some obscure Intel-only instruction that no actual program uses, and instead use a complicated and inefficient emulation for AMD. Can't have AMD with higher score than Intel, that's not permitted !

Kool64:

Time to rewrite CPUZ.

wavetrex:

Yes, let's make sure it uses some obscure Intel-only instruction that no actual program uses, and instead use a complicated and inefficient emulation for AMD. Can't have AMD with higher score than Intel, that's not permitted !

He's right though. That's a ridiculous implied IPC improvement that simply won't pan out in real world apps. Something is wrong, very clearly.

xg-ei8ht:

I understand the comparison of the Single core, But It really means nothing anymore. Every program is multithreaded now. Unless you want it for the original Crysis.:)

Trouble is we see MANY tech reviewers (and people) who emphasize single-threaded performance over multi-threaded... and there are various programs that prefer single-threaded performance over multi-threaded... games in particular won't make use of a large amount of cores or threads and a lot of them prefer clocks and IPC on a single thread... you might get 4 core utilization at best in games (and even then it leaves something to be desired as games aren't usually well optimized for PC's). Also, single-threaded performance tends to increase performance for all other cores... so if the IPC has gone up significantly (like it has with Zen 3), you're bound to see more improvements across all cores and threads... especially in software that can make use of it.

spine:

He's right though. That's a ridiculous implied IPC improvement that simply won't pan out in real world apps. Something is wrong, very clearly.

How can you be sure it won't pan out in the real world? Albeit I do agree that a LOT of software is written with Intel code mostly... its not inclusive of both Intel and AMD because for over a decade, Intel had little competition from AMD... that and the fact Intel initially bribed devs to make software which intentionally runs bad on AMD cpu's (which supposedly shouldn't be happening anymore, but I'd surmise there's still some leftover from those days where coding is primarily done with Intel executables in mind... not AMD... hence total overal scores for AMD would still be somewhat lower).

cryohellinc:

That is not true at all. The vast majority of games still benefit from a single thread performance. This CPU will tick all the boxes for all the scenarios.

the majority of DX11 games DX11 or less : - cannot use properly more than 4 cores - a lot don't even use hyperthreading - when you actually look for it (using MSI afterburner rivatuner) you would find some even use only 2 cores/threads no hyperthreading >< (tried to find a single core game didn't find one but I didn't check very old games) - most titles benefit 100% from higher cpu clocks - high end gpus require fast clocked cpus to feed them (this far..maybe amd will change that too ?!) - most titles suffer from stuttering and fps drops if you have more than 4 cores (set cpu affinity or process lasso can help but not get back 500-1000Mhz more) DX12 titles aka mostly AAA that not everyone wants to play (tomb raider, assassin's creed etc...) on the other hand benefit hugely from 4+ cores cpus and care less or not at all about cpu clock this is super apparent with my "go to" gpu stress test game borderlands 3 which can switch between DX11 and DX12 try it yourself, the game just runs better in DX12 as it uses more cores, something you can see, but also it doesn't care about cpu clock speed, nerf your cpu downclock it 500-700Mhz if you start from high enough 5 or 4.5ghz you'll see it changes almost zero (-0.3fps for me between 5.0->4.2ghz on a 9900k LOL) I really wish AMD breaks Intel gaming advantage, I want more lanes ! pcie 3.0 x16 is obsolete, stop this crap >< x16 3.0 for a gpu and x4 3.0 for a m.2 should be a minimum ! without taking any lanes from the rest of your motherboard

What will Userbenchmark modify this time?

wavetrex:

Yes, let's make sure it uses some obscure Intel-only instruction that no actual program uses, and instead use a complicated and inefficient emulation for AMD. Can't have AMD with higher score than Intel, that's not permitted !

Sadly they did it to Zen 1 so I won't be surprised if they do but on a side note I was being mostly sarcastic when I said that.

V3RT3X79:

this is strange that the r7 5800x (8cores/16Threads) got a score of 6585 in cpu-z bench, when my r9 3900x (Stock no OC) with the same amount of cores/threads in cpu-z give me the same score.... only single core score that is higher with the r7 5800x..... https://i.imgur.com/7nCrJdV.jpg

You have 12/24 threads, and 5800x have 8/16 threads

AlmondMan:

It's because AMD is always the lower quality product. There is always some caveat to using them that means they need to be priced less than Intel. There's your mindset 🙂 Ezpz. I think this is mainly based on inexperience and emperical evidence in minute numbers as well as a range of uneducated assumptions.

What ?...

Kool64:

Sadly they did it to Zen 1 so I won't be surprised if they do but on a side note I was being mostly sarcastic when I said that.

Of course 😉 Met too. But sarcasm aside, it did happen... I think that particular change was good, as the score didn't truly reflect real world performance, and after the change it did, for the most part. This time however I think Zen 3 is really THAT good, it's not just a measuring error. The fact that many don't believe it is because Intel has not change architecture for AGES now, and even the changes they did in the last 10 years were minor. So, a "normalcy" bias was ingrained in people's minds, that it's "not possible" to have 20% plus IPC increase generation to generation, because they (Intel) only gave us 2%, 3%... or absolutely nothing (just higher clocks). Yes, it IS possible, and more. In theory even +100% IPC should be possible, by throwing 5-10 times more transistors at the problem... but then you run into the power usage and inability to clock high enough due to excessive energy use. It's all a fine balancing act between more parallelism inside the core and how much energy that core uses. And I think AMD really nailed it this time !