After testing the Ryzen 5000 12-core and 16-core models, today we're testing the Ryzen 7 5800X, AMD's newest 8-core CPU. So far, we've been impressed with the Ryzen 9 5900X and 5950X. So let's keep working on the product stack.
Probably not the best way to start the review, but we have to say that the 5800X looks like the least convincing processor in the new series. There is certainly nothing wrong with an 8-core, 16-thread processor with up to 4.7 GHz and a high IPC. In fact, it could be argued that this is the sweet spot for gamers. The problem is the price. At $ 450, it's just $ 100 cheaper than the 5900X. This will save you almost 20%, but you will get 33% fewer cores.
While the 5900X costs $ 46 per core, the 5800X costs 22% more at $ 56 per core – and even 12% more than the flagship 5950X. If you're wondering why AMD has positioned the 5800X so poorly, the answer is simple: there is no point in selling it cheaper.
As you probably know, Ryzen processors are made up of multiple chiplets or smaller chips rather than a single monolithic chip as we see it in Intel processors. In the case of Zen 3, a CCD or & # 39; Core Complex Die & # 39; 8 cores, so a CPU like the 5950X has two CCDs, with all cores enabled for an 8 + 8 core configuration. Then there's a third chip, the I / O chip, which contains the dual-channel DDR4 memory controller, the PCIe 4.0 root complex, and a range of SoC functions such as SATA and USB ports.
A CPU like the 5950X consists of two CCDs and a single I / O chip. The same configuration is used by the 5900X, but the 12-core version doesn't require fully functional CCDs, instead detective silicon with one or two failed cores can be used. Only 6 of the possible 8 cores are activated on each CCD, resulting in a 6 + 6 core configuration. This makes these 6 core CCDs less valuable as they cannot be used in the more expensive 5950X. So you see where this is going …
The Ryzen 7 5800X and R5 5600X only use a single CCD, but the 5800X requires top-shelf silicon with all cores enabled, while the 6-core 5600X receives the same silicon with lower binning as the 5900X.
If the 5800X shipped at roughly the same cost per core as the 5900X, it would only cost $ 370. To make that comparison possible, we should increase the price to $ 400 to match the 3800X, which is also half the price of the 5950X. At this price, AMD makes less profit with the highest quality silicon. Instead of selling it at a lower margin at $ 400,5800, it is better to save it for $ 800,595 or, alternatively, sell the 5800X at a higher price which they have been forced to do. It seems like these 8 core chiplets are very valuable to AMD, and we suspect they would also want to store as many as possible for Epyc 3 server processors where the margins are even bigger.
All of this leaves the 5800X in an unfortunate position, costing more per core than any other Ryzen 5000 series processor. Because of this, we believe most will either be sold on the 5900X or will choose to save some cash and go for the cheaper 6-core 5600X.
Either way, it's time to test and then we'll reevaluate the value of the 5800X towards the end of the review. To test the AMD CPUs, we use the MSI X570 Godlike with four 8 GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 CL14 memory modules for a capacity of 32 GB. All test systems are then cooled with the Corsair iCUE H150i Elite Capellix AIO. All productivity tests were performed with a GeForce RTX 2080 Ti. However, we used the top-notch RTX 3090 GPU for the gaming benchmarks.
As usual, we start with Cinebench R20. The 5800X scored 5982 on the multi-core test, and that meant it was 22% faster than the 3700X, a serious increase in performance, and that's what we expected from Zen 3. We didn't bother testing the 3800X as it really is no faster than the 3700X. This test is about a 3% increase in performance.
Compared to the 10700K, the new AMD CPU is 20% faster, although both chips contain 8 cores with 16 threads. In fact, the 5800X is only 7% slower than the 10900K with 25% more cores.
We measured the clocks of the 5800X when testing with Cinebench. For the multi-core test, in which all cores are heavily loaded, the 5800X clocked at around 4.55 GHz, which is well above the stated base clock frequency of 3.8 GHz. AMD also announces a maximum boost clock frequency of 4.7 GHz. This should be achieved on workloads with a core or light thread. In the Cinebench single core test, the 5800X normally ran at 4.85 GHz, which is 150 MHz above the stated specification.
The 7-zip compression performance is excellent. The 5800X even managed to displace the 10900K as it was 24% faster than the 3700X and 22% faster than the 10700K. In other words, the 5800X is now by far the fastest 8-core desktop CPU.
Decompression performance is also good, although the margins do shrink a bit. Compared to the 3700X, the 5800X is 19% faster and 31% faster than the 10700K, so a brutal 8-core smackdown.
AES performance was up 12% over the 3700X, making the 5800X a whopping 54% faster than the 10700K.
We expect a 16% increase in performance over the 3700X in Blender, which makes the 5800X 12% faster than the Core i7-10700K. It was also 16% slower than the 10900K and 31% slower than the 5900X, which makes sense since it contains 33% fewer cores.
As we've seen with the 5950X and 5900X, the gains for Zen 3 in V-Ray are extreme. The 5800X was 30% faster than the 3700X and not much slower than the 10900K.
The performance increases in the Corona benchmark were also strong and we see a performance increase of 26% for the 5800X compared to the 3700X. Compared to the Intel competition, we are talking about an increase of 11% compared to the 10700K.
Code compilation performance gains are less, although a 12% performance gain is nothing to sneeze at. This means that AMD is 15% ahead when comparing the 5800X and 10700K as well.
In DaVinci Resolve Studio 16, the CPU doesn't have a huge impact on performance, but we're still seeing a 6% increase for the 5800X over the 3700X.
It's similar in Premiere Pro. The 5800X beats the 3700X and 10700K by 14% while it was only 2% slower than the 10900K.
Photoshop relies heavily on single-core performance and with the massive improvement from Zen 3 in this regard, the 5800X is 27% faster than the 3700X. Since the 5800X, 5900X, and 5950X all have similar single-core performance, they deliver comparable results in this benchmark.
After Effects is another program that is heavily reliant on single core performance. As a result, the 5800X can outperform the 3700X by an impressive 23%. It was also 12% faster than Intel's best mainstream desktop CPU and 26% faster than the 10700K.
The Ryzen 7 5800X uses ~ 20 watts more than the 3700X, although that's not entirely surprising since the 3700X is just what you need for efficiency reasons. For example, the 3800X uses 20 watts more, which makes the 5800X and 3800X pretty even in terms of power consumption.
It's also worth noting that the 5800X was 16% faster than the 3700X in this test, so an overall system performance increase of 13% is still very good in terms of efficiency. It's also 30 watts less than Intel's 10700K.
In terms of temperatures, we ran a quick comparison between the Ryzen 7 3800X and the 5800X that was tested in a 21C room with Corsair's iCUE H150i AIO, MSI X570 Godlike, installed in the Corsair Obsidian 500D. We've seen the 5800X run 3 to 5 degrees hotter than the 3800X, which is pretty good as it clocks a little more than 400MHz faster at a similar voltage.
We used the RTX 3090 from Nvidia for our gaming tests. If we look at Far Cry New Dawn first, we find that the 5800X in this latency sensitive title is a whisker that is faster than the 5900X and 5950X, basically it's the same as the 10700K and is only 3% slower than that 10900K.
This is an 18% increase in performance compared to the 3700X, which at least lags behind the Core i5-10400 when comparing the average frame rates.
The performance in Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege is strong. The 5800X corresponds to more expensive Zen 3 processors with an average of 508 fps. That made it 2% faster than the 10700K and 19% faster than the 3700X, another big leap in performance of the generation.
We also see a 16% performance increase in Watch Dogs Legion from 99 fps to 155 fps. The 5800X matched the high-end models with 12 and 16 cores as well as the Intel 10700K and 10900K.
The 5800X was lightning fast in F1 2020, beating its predecessor by 20% and even displacing the 10700K by 5%. Basically, it was the same as the 5900X and 5950X and was only 3% behind the 10900K.
As seen with the 5900X and 5950X, Zen 3 offers solid performance in Horizon Zero Dawn, and the 5800X drops just a few frames compared to high-end models. This meant it was 3% faster than the 10700K and on par with the Core i7's performance level. This was possible due to an 18% increase in performance over the 3700X.
The winnings in Borderlands 3 are less impressive. Here the 5800X was 7% faster than the 3700x and that meant it was slightly slower than the competition from Intel parts. It was only 4% slower than the 10700K, however, which we would generally consider a draw.
Where we don't see a tie at Death Stranding, here the 5800X was 12% faster than the 10700K, and you'll have a hard time making up for that lead by overclocking the Core i7 part. The 5800X is also 33% faster than the 3700X, which is great. Now that we've looked at the 5900X and 5950X, we're slowly getting spoiled to see such margins.
The 5800X managed to hit the 10900K in Shadow of the Tomb Raider with an average of 165 fps. That made it 28% faster than the 3700X and 9% faster than the 10700K, while it was only 4% slower than the high-end Zen 3 base models.
Interestingly, the 5800X isn't as impressive as the 5900X and 5950X in Hitman 2, which brings the RTX 3090 to 151 fps at 1080p, putting it on par with the 10900K. Certainly not a bad result, but we didn't expect it to be 7% slower than the 5900X either.
The 5800X did well in Star Wars: Squadrons, essentially matching the parts with the higher core count to the 10900K, beating the 10700K by an 8% lead. We also see a huge 27% increase in performance over the 3700X.
Lastly we have Serious Sam 4, where the 5800X equals the 5900X and 5950X with performance that places it 11% ahead of the 10900K and a whopping 27% ahead of the 10700K. On top of that, we expect a crazy 51% increase in performance over the 3700X.
If we now average the gaming performance across all of our gaming examples, we find that the 5800X is roughly the same as the 10900K and, for the most part, not much slower than the 5900X and 5950X. It's 6% ahead of the Core i7-10700K and 23% ahead of the older 3700X.
With our Ryzen 7 5800X, we were able to achieve an all-core overclocking of 4.7 GHz with 1.375 V, i.e. the same frequency as the 5950X. With the 5800X, however, the multi-core performance could only be increased by 5%, as the all-core frequency was increased from 4.5 GHz to 4.7 GHz.
This overclocking degrades the single-core performance as we are now running 150 MHz slower and the Cinebench R20 performance has dropped 3% as a result.
We're also only seeing a 4% increase in performance in Blender, so it hardly seems worth the effort, especially given the drop in single-thread performance.
The result is that we are only expecting a 3% increase in power consumption so the thermal is not really affected.
The impact on gaming performance is not huge, as we saw with one core in the Cinebench R20 test. We're seeing a drop in the low single digit percentage. In Rainbow Six Siege we are talking about a performance loss of 4%.
The performance in Far Cry New Dawn remains unaffected, but we see the same 132 fps on average. While we didn't see any performance degradation here, it seems pretty clear that overclocking is pointless for this CPU.
Unfortunately, the massive price hike means the 5800X is inferior in value than the previous generation's 8-core pieces like the 3700X. You pay a 12% price premium, although this is on par with the 10700K, even though it is much worse than the 5900X.
It looks similar in Premiere Pro: The 3700X offers a better price-performance ratio and the 5800X is even replaced by the 10700K. At this price point, you're actually better off with the Ryzen 9 3900X.
For gaming, the 5800X costs a little more per frame than the 3700X, although the performance has been massively increased by 28%. It also loses value over the Core i7-10700K, although it does better than the 5900X as most games cannot take advantage of the additional cores.
If you look at the equation of values for all of the games tested, it's clear that Zen 3 is faster, but not as good as Zen 2 in terms of value. The 5800X is ousted by the 3700X, and even Intel's 10700K is a cheaper option to one cheaper price of $ 380.
What we learned
Given what we've already seen from Ryzen 9 parts, and how AMD positioned its 8-core variant in this generation, it's not surprising to learn that the Ryzen 7 5800X is a bit of a disappointment. In our opinion, AMD has been unwise to give Intel some breathing space here as the 5800X isn't the obvious choice for those looking to spend up to $ 450.
At least for gamers, the much cheaper Core i7-10700K offers more value. Yes, it's a little slower, but at $ 380 it's the better deal. The only weakness on the Intel platform is the lack of PCIe 4.0 support, but not everyone plans to take advantage of it right away. Buyers may face a situation where those looking to spend ~ $ 400 would be better off saving a few bucks if they choose Intel, or alternatively, they'll have to dig deeper and buy another $ 100. Throw in dollars to land the Ryzen 9 5900X.
This goes for productivity too, where the Ryzen 9 5900X offers a lot more for your money while the Core i7-10700K is pretty similar in terms of value. Compare that to the match between the 5900X and 10900K, and it's hard not to walk away from the 8-core model in disappointment. The 5900X dominates the 10900K in everything: performance, significantly better efficiency and a better range of functions – all at roughly the same price.
Sure, if we put the prices aside for a minute, the Ryzen 7 5800X remains a phenomenal advance over the previous generation of AMD's 8-core processors. An average 23% increase in gaming performance is astonishing, and as mentioned earlier, AMD now has the fastest 8-core desktop CPU in the world.
At $ 450, however, we recommend skipping the R7 5800X. You can either spend less on the 10700K or the 5600X is just what you need. Alternatively, you can spend more to get the 5900X or keep your eye open for a good deal on a 3rd generation Ryzen part.