That's all 4 in 24 hours, as promised. Check back soon for other content with these parts! Watch our AMD R5 5600X CPU review: ruclips.net/video/01EhbmJAW-k/видео.html Our Wireframe Desk-Sized Mouse Mats are on back-order and will be shipping soon! store.gamersnexus.net/products/gn-wireframe-mouse-mat Watch our AMD R9 5950X CPU review: ruclips.net/video/72AHENDeTEI/видео.html Watch our AMD R9 5900X CPU review: ruclips.net/video/utWSSlyabjc/видео.html
true that, however the 5800x is binned the same way as the 5950x, as it uses CCD's with all 8 cores enabled. Meaning it could reliably be overclocked to 4.9 Ghz
I want a 5600x, but those are all sold out, and my local Micro Center has 25 5800x in stock and they are selling them at what I could get 5600x for from scalpers.
@@MethaTugan Same here. It was the only 5000 series I could find. Unfortunately, it also seems to be the worst binned, with the highest temperatures. At stock settings, mine runs up to 90C under a Corsair H110i AIO, and I've checked the paste. I had to go in and limit the PPT in PBO to 135 watts to keep it under 80C. Really annoying honestly...
@@brettwebb6789 isnt that crazy? So dam hot and amd think it's ok at 90c, not to mentioned it kill the life span of the cpu running so hot all the time. AMD probably think were running ms words or something
and that might not even last any longer when the Radeon 6000 series launches. It just might be the thing that edges AMD CPUs and GPUs over the competition.
Intel has new faster Rocket Lake CPUs that fit in current sockets and enable PCI-E 4.0 shipping soon though. Intel will still be fastest for gaming bar a month or two.
Honestly still 100% happy with my 5800x. The fact I was able to run photoshop between matches on Warzone @ 120+ FPS And run music and other browsers with background apps like discord is more than I could ever ask for.
yeah, and even at current pricing it's still a viable option. Steve does go over this at the end of the vid which is good, vs just saying this makes zero sense. I understand why people don't like the price, but AMD knows they can do it because it's the sweet spot for many who primarily game and want a little extra headroom for streaming etc., but don't want or need to go all the way to a 5900x. While price per performance etc. tells a story, you have to factor overall budget and functional needs, especially in markets where overall prices are higher. If you need a bit more cores than 5600x but don't need double, the 5800x is still $150 cheaper after tax than 5900x, and your spend is ~$710 vs ~$860 here in Canada. AMD knows if 6 cores isn't enough for you, you're generally not comparing to the 6 core part in price anymore as your baseline. For many it's what are my viable options and budget, and so your baseline becomes the 5800x
AMD's pricing strategy with the 5800X really confuses me. Where I live in the UK they are charging £420 for it. You can get an i7-10700k for £340 and the 5600X for £280. The 5800X is certainly a better CPU, but it's not worth the extra cost.
There is another reason to get the 5800x: When the 5600x is out of stock everywhere, and you want a new pc relatively soon. My nephew held off from building a new system for a few months because of ryzen 5, and the 5600x can't be found anywhere down here, so he settled on the 5800x.
It's also a better choice if you don't plan on doing an entire system rebuild for another 5-6 years. Next gen games run on 8 cores, and later in the life cycle its likely that they will rely on them more.
Yup. I picked up a 5800x because it was available and I'm building now for a system that I do not intend to rebuild for another 6 years. I'm building this to be stable and not something I need to faff around with every year. Fingers crossed for stable firmware/drivers. I also wanted to have the most cores without a chip that has multiple CCX.
@@CAthomaselliott I think you did the right thing. Basically the 5800x is better than the 5600x - just on a higher price. If there is only the 5800 available, sure go for it. Maybe wait for Benchmarks what grafics card you should buy
This is exactly what AMD wants you to do. You see, when AMD priced it around only 100$ less than a 12 core processor you are automatically set to buying the 12 core for extra 100$ or reducing 150$ for the 6 core. So if AMD manages to not send out heaps of stocks of 5600X and instead a 5800X you are compelled to settle on it no matter what unless you are not in a hurry or have the capacity to wait. And if you choose to buy 5900X its even 100$ higher. And later at some point in time when the 5800X 's price is reduced, it will be the best bang for buck processor and again it will be a massive profit for AMD. So it's a win or win situation for AMD. *Marketing at its finest.*
Just goes to show how far AMD have come in the last few years. Their mid range 5800X matches or beats Intel's flagship 10900K in almost every benchmark while having 20% fewer cores, costing less, consuming less power and running cooler; yet it's considered to be poor value for money compared to its siblings. Looks like Intel has a lot of work to do.
While this is the worst value for money, I think this is the one I'll be getting. I don't need the 12 cores, but I kinda do want a fully enabled CCD, and the slightly higher boost clocks, while being substantially easier to cool than the 12 core part.
The 5900X makes up for having 2 CCX's by having double the cache, that's why gaming performance is the same. And did you look at the power consumption charts? 127W in Blender for the 5800X vvs 133W for the 5900X.
Considering the 5800X has come down to ~$380 USD and the 5600X hasn't budged from $300, $80 for 2 more cores and a bit faster speed sounds fairly reasonable.
@@Lancx yeah it's definitely a solid deal and it'll last long, I just did some pbo2 overclocking and I've gotten some pretty good results 4.94 GHz for single core and 4.74 GHz all core on cinebench r20 max temps are 81c
5800x is a very good cpu. I'm very happy with it. It's blazing fast in rendering and editing video. and in the games I have a great result from this cpu. Highly recommended 👌
Not bad! I upgraded the cooler on mine and it clocks around 150MHz over rated max turbo at peak, which is still nice to see. I didn't realize how inadequate the Hyper 212 was until I put an AK620 on it last week.
9:58 "More numbers = more better" You heard him folks. Finally Steve has seen the light and has rebuked the ways of fake tech news. PS happy Friday Steve. Thanks to both you and the GN team for the hard work this week.
If you care only for gaming I would say to go with the 5600X. I mean in most games there is no dif and in only a few of them there is a 5-10fps dif. Is it worth it? It's subjective ofc. Depends on the gpu too and how many years you want to keep it.
@@kostisap9350 I'm a bit unsure about that tbh. I'm planing to upgrade my CPU around February or March 2021 and would like to use that CPU for at least 2-3 years. Now with the new consoles releasing and stuff, shouldn't the system requirements for games get a bit higher over the next years? I'm gaming in 1440p/144 Hz and I'm really not sure if the 5600X would be strong enough to power my rig for 2-3 years. But I also don't wanna pay 550-600€/$ for the 5900X so I'm really considering the 5800X and hope either the 5800X gets a bit cheaper until Early 2021 or AMD releases something like a 5700X soon.
To me it also looks like the best one that's more future proof then just 6 cores. 12 cores feels overkill My I7 2600K is still quite strong and going after 9 years.
@@tardvandecluntproductions1278 i felt good with my 2600k, it finally died after almost a decade, I want a 5900x but if I can only get my hands on a 5800x ill be fine with that.
I agree 8 is the sweet spot. But for only 100 dollars more getting the 12 cores seems to be the best deal. I think a 5700x would be the real sweet spot, (at 380ish) but i think the 5900x will age pretty well all things considered and is worth the extra cores.
@@theorangecarousel481 It's not the best deal - you're spending more money. It's only a deal if you're using the 12 cores - if not then you're spending money on clout (which is fine).
True, but 5800x is beast thanks to PBO2. All i did was set curve optimiser to negative 30 (max) its runing literally without any problems. In Cinebench R20 all cores are runing 4850-4900 MHz rock stable 😛
@@Kojotous007 LOL! That's exactly what I did with my 5800x in PBO2 with all core max to 4.6 GHz (didn't win the silicon lottery), and set the CPU voltage to 1.26. It's sure is a beast of a CPU. It's way snappier than my 3900x for my music production, and I can see a huge difference. At this point the scalpers that keep hi jacking all the 5900x & 5950x can choke on them, and kick rocks. 😉
Linus had an interesting take on the marketing strategy on his show last night. Basically, the 5600X is a 5800X with two cores disabled (AMD switched to a unified model where all CPUs have the same architecture). The pricing seems to suggest the yields aren’t great, and so expect AMD to produce a lot more 5600X than 5800X. In other words, the point of the 5800X isn’t to sell itself, it’s to boost the sales of the 5600X and 5900X by comparison. I know this trick has a well known name in marketing, I just forget what it is.
@Nobody It's possible AMD thought the yields would be worse and bad enough to justify the 5800x price. AMD is not going to disable 2 cores of a perfectly good bin just to sell it for $150 less as a 5600x. We might just be witnessing AMD's happy accident.
I see no issue here. For a CPU that you're going to keep for a while and having some extra cores/threads for games that will inevitably are going to use more cores in the near future due to the new console launch, but not wanting to spend the money for the 5900x because not needing THAT much more cores or the multicore heavy lifting, the 5800x makes total sense. The 5600x is simply not enough of a CPU except you want to swap later on to a better line and just save some money now. The question is if a 500series board is going to be bios-update compatible with the Zen 3+ or 4 generation. And as I keep saying; with more and more things running in the background, which are being coded for multicore support, thus adding ever increasing demand, you want to have more cores available aside because at some point you will be better off manually assigning cores with a command line instead of letting the kernel scheduler handle everything. Thus I see the 5800x as a perfectly valid choice for an "only gaming" computer if you don't intend to switch to the next generation in a year or two.
I said that exact same thing when Zen 2 launched: those 2c/4t will be sorely missed when true next gen games arrive. It's a sad thing but games are made with consoles in mind and all of those have Zen 2 with 8c/16t inside them. Sure, Zen 3 is a lot faster in games but remember the 9600K with its 6c/6t being faster in average but unplayable in RDR2 and other games compared to Intel's own 4c/8t? Of course you'll better off with a 5600x/3080 combo than with a 5800x/3070 if your budget only allows a 6 core CPU but faster GPU but that logic applies at every price point or budget, like Steve pointed out 20 times in his review.
I was lucky enough to get an order through, this was the only one that had an order page at the retailer (in germany). Upgrading to this from the 1700, probably still going to be happy with the 5800X
Newegg in Canada decided to update it's stock at 1AM where I live... and of course, sold out instantly... While I was asleep because I had to work next morning.
You will love the difference, I went from a 1800x to 3800x and it was extremely noticeable (just dropped it into my asus x370 mobo) first gen ryzen was actually quite horrible, main one been single threaded performance is not good and AVX wasn't very good on 1000/2000 cpus (I had to overclock mine to 3.8ghz all Core turbo just to make it not hitch/stutter) but I went from a i7-920 to a 1800x so it was a massive improvement but in some games that are Cpu/latency bound I effectively upgraded to a 4th gen i7 witch wasn't good if the 8700k was released (witch it annoying did 1-3 months after I got the 1800x) I would have gotten that instead of the ryzen cpu due to near double single threaded performance (only thing the 1800x had was its core/thread count) where as the 3800x runs like a 8700k/9900k and it runs very well I don't regret getting the 1800x but if the 8700k was released I would have gotten the 8700k
@WhatDa FarkenHell just wanted the 1800x (it was only £30.l more then the 1700x), the 8700k wasn't released at the time when I got the 1800x (remember this was 3 years ago and I upgraded from a overclocked i7-920) in using the 1800x it has been fine apart from having to set turbo to 3.8ghz all Cores should note I Only Had problems with 3 games with the 1800x (oxygen not included, Factorio and ksp) as they are super sensitive to cache and ram latency and ran more like a 4th gen i7 cpu, the 3800x I currently own with 2933 ram it runs more like a 8700k/9700k) All other games on the 1800x ran as expected I was aware of 1600 and 1700 non x
I got a 5600x coming. My kid got my 1700 and wife now getting my current 2700x. And since amd not playing around with benchmarks I’m getting a 6800xt since the 3080 will never be in stock 😂
It's a bad value compared to the 5600X and 5900X, but it's still a damn good CPU and will last you for years to come. You'll also be able to upgrade to a 5950X or whatever Zen 4 down the line very easily.
@@skmetal7 ruclips.net/video/6x2BYNimNOU/видео.html - Ding ding ding! Recently bought a 5800X for $378 ($420, and received a 10% gift card for the purchase) - which finally put it in the proper value range. So, yeah, exactly as predicted. 5950X has gone up, 5900X is mostly not in stock. Lots of places have 5800X for around $420 as I type. Use pcpartpicker . com.
@@midnightblack7616 same just price matched a 5800x from bestbuy for $413 after tax. Considering the fact that the 5900x is $570 at the lowest price I’d say it’s good value especially since I can always upgrade once prices lower later on but the 5800x will crush whatever I throw at it for now
The difference between "no mans land" and jack of all trades is a subtle one. I am primarily a gamer but also do some productivity work and some streaming where the extra cores are nice to have.
I'm here from the future to say, I had to make an easy decision of what cpu to buy. The 5800x is currently $189 and the 5700x is $210. Bet you can guess which one I bought.
I’m not really sure it’s fair to make direct comparisons between an OC 5900x and a stock 5800x. In a lot of the graphs you didn’t even include the results from an oc 5800x but did for other parts.
I think the 5800x is positioned to be the "streamer" cpu. If you're a gamer that also streams, runs discord, and other programs in the background, the 5800x makes more sense to buy than either the 5600x or the 5900x. The 5600x is for pure gaming, the 5900x is just overkill for a system like that. The $100 you save from buying the 5900x can be pushed into a better gpu. the 5800x is a good jack-of-all-trades cpu but not necessarily the master of anything. It's also a good future proof cpu since it does have 8 cores, meaning if games coming out for PS5 and Xbox Series X start to push core count over a single thread, you may see the 5800x start to show much better gains over the 5600x in future games.
It would be interesting to have a benchmark like that. With OBS streaming, discord and some other stuff running in background. But it seems GN won't have time for that) I personally think though that 5600x will be enough for this too. Streaming does not produce so much load, and games do not load 6 cores evenly, so the additional stuff should fit into underloaded cores "for free".
@@divertiti What games are you running and at what resolutions? Also, what programs are you running? Yes, you don't need a powerful computer for streaming, but having a better cpu would make a difference especially if you're also recording for later uploading to something like RUclips, meaning more background processes happening.
interesting how looking at your charts I find a different conclusion. My primary PC usage is gaming, but I also heavily multitask while gaming, and I do light video and photo editing on the side. The price should be $50 cheaper, but even as is the 5900x doesnt feel worth the extra $100 over the 5800x, but I do feel the 5800x worth the extra $150 over a 5600x based on my usage and your results.
Pretty much this, if you're doing mixed workloads the 5800X makes sense even with this uneven price difference. Do check your local prices though. In my area the 5800X's price is very close to the middle point between the 5600X and 5900X (within 10-20 EUR). As I don't have uses for 12 cores I snagged the 5800X without hesitation.
It's around a 200$ difference in my country between the 5800x and the 5900x and even though I could benefit from the 4 extra cores they are not worth an additional 200$ imo Btw if your interested the 5950x is around 1700$ in my country
The conclusion I came to is that the 5800x is a 10900k killer. if you had been the sort of person that might have bought a 10900k, as of today the 5800x does everything better for the same price.
Lol I really don't understand why the 5800x is getting so much grief for its price position. If price to performace in gaming is the only thing you care about the entire stack of Ryzen 5000 CPUs all look awful compared to the 5600x 🤣 "the 5800x is only 1.5% better than the 5600x for $150 more" - not ok "the 5900x is 1.65% better than the 5600x for $250 more" - perfectly reasonable
Valid point, there still is a solid lead for the R9 5900X vs. R7 5800X in multi-threaded workloads though and only for 100 dollars more. But compare the 5800 to the i9 10900k, it has 2-more cores than the 5800, is more expensive and more power hungry, yet the 5800 basically matches it in many applications. The R7 5800X is still a very solid chip.
@@scotmotuz5209 I know but purely from a gaming standpoint the 5800x or 5900x are generally not much better than the 5600x. As for Intel I'm not surprised, and with Rocket Lake supposed to be only 8 cores they have no chance 🤣
I'm looking for a 8 core CPU with good single thread, and at 400+ dollars, this isn't what I was expecting to be the only option on the AMD team, considering they've been playing the "lower priced but just as good". People cried about 6 cores at 300+ dollars with Intel, and we're there now with AMD, this is why I don't want to invest in the platform just yet, and why AMD feels deceiving, upping the prices and limiting options (like the lack of a 5700X) because there's no competition. If Intel can be criticized for such, I think AMD can be too, and they're not getting my money if this is the trend. Edit: (5600X is 370 USD in my country rn)
@@GamersNexus I have noticed IRL nvenc is actually worse than straight up using the CPU. At least when it comes to what I see on the stream, at 1080p it looks more like low bitrate 720p with a TON of compression. Directly from cpu (manually setting affinity for OBS) my 9900k may not be able to stream 60fps 1080p but 60fps 900p actually looks better from the CPU than NVENC 1080p. Wonder if you would so some testing to compare. At least for me, actual picture quality > numeric performance.
@@singular9 depends on the GPU if you have a 1660/2000 nvidia or higher the quality loss is less then 2% vs x264 encoding, but the is a big but, nvidia still can't seem to handle grass correctly (unless you add 2000kbs bitrate or just stick with 30fps) and that's where x264 is better in general just stick with 25-30fps , your sacrificing 25 to 50% image quality (goes blocky when your moving) to make it marginally noticeable smoother (so you got slightly smoother image of 60fps of squares) and it turns phones into hand warmers and drains battery faster if your cpu encoder streaming and gaming the 5900x the better choice as you can set the preset to slow or slower so it can recover really fast when moving around quickly If your using a 1660/2000 or higher GPU to stream the 5800x or 5900x is better option then the 5600x because your going to have stuff open that uses 1-2 threads of cpu (browser other stuff) but best to run at max bit rate 6000-8000kbs (1080p30)
@@GamersNexus I stream and encode from time to time and plan to probably buy an AMD GPU, how's the AMD Codec on that end? I have no clue.. in case it's not that great I can still stream on the CPU.
Gamers Nexus is by far the most reliable channel when it comes to parts reviews and comparision, it's amazing the fact that you focus more on actual real world usage (like 3D and Adobe softwares) instead of just gaming and technical bs that the average PC builder can't get anything out of
AMD dominated Intel this round. I’ve been running Ryzen processors exclusively since the 2400G came out. Their value proposition at each price point made the choice easy. I never was an intel fanboy but had a core2duo for a long time. It was a great processor, but AMD Ryzen was a game-changer.
This channel and Steve will permanently and unconditionally hold the FULLEST possible extent of my gratitude. As a relatively new PC builder I have saved countless amounts of time, money, and have gained priceless amounts of knowledge which I would normally not have. Thank you Steve and Gamers Nexus for saving me from being drowned in my own ignorance 🙏🏻
I also did purchase it because the 5600x is never in stock when im awake 😂 How's the temps on it? I've been seeing a lot of people say it runs quite high... I got a hyper evo 212 with push pull fans... I'm worried I'm gonna need to get a new cooler
@@gameovergaming5463 I have the same question. I read some people are running in eco mode to get thermals under control and I read somewhere that only allows for a 12% gain over the 3700X which is selling for about $250 on Amazon right now with their 10% off deal. But, the 3700X will probably bottleneck a 3080 at 1440p.
@@gameovergaming5463 Hyper 212 is old man, I got mine 8 years ago... I know it was the standard back then but I think the scythe mugen is way better now.
I was expecting your R7 review to be the least positive towards the new ones, given that you guys don't really find the x800X series to make much sense to buy. Great work as usual, though!
Always have been hahaha Your focus has always been on value and people getting the most out of their money, so your honest opinions are most appreciated, even if we can predict them
@@GamersNexus Yes you are! I ordered my 5800X yesterday, I've been rocking an FX-8370 for years and I just wanted the 8-core thing to be real this time. :)
Getting this one regardless of weird price position. I want the better clocking and fully enabled die with all the cores accessing the same cache L3 cache with no inter-ccx latency. 5800X fits the bill!
100+ hours of content covering the whole lineup in depth and that too very quickly, Steve and the team truly deserves a lot more. These are videos we will keep coming back to, for the whole Zen 3 time cycle.
listening to steve talk about how "little sense" the best 8 core of this generation makes, after immediately saying "if games cant use more than 8 cores, you suffer frequency decay, especially if the game doesnt leverage those cores." seems a little unfair. so, since MOST ALL games DON'T use more than 8 cores.. Doesn't that in turn mean it makes A LOT of sense? I mean, No, it isnt the best price to performance ratio, but that "sense" proposition isnt fair to make unless you take into account ALL use cases. (not to mention, next generation consoles have 8core 16 thread processors) if you want a system that will be able to natively , ideally run ports of those games on the pc, it makes ALOT of sense they'd be optimized for 8 cores. (especially if the people who port the game dont bother doing a good job, leaving threading optimizations to be like the console. and we've ALL seen shitty ports that dont leverage the hardware) the 6 core may not scale with ports if they are ported especially inEptly.. but that will need to be verified when they become available. I consider the 5800 the PERFORMANCE sweet spot for a decient build, because you get at LEAST 5600x performance, and have two extra cores to handle everything else background task related. (if thats how someone wants to look at it)
Gamers don't need 8-core CPUs. 8-core+ CPUs are for workstations. The 5800X doesn't make sense for workstations. It costs too much for the performance it gives. The 3700X is still amazing for many tasks (or at least C++ compile, which is what mine is for). It launched for $300, and MSRP is now $280. The 5800X costs over 50% as much and is at best a 20% improvement. Given how great the 3700X is already, you're not likely to notice a difference unless you're doing something absurd like compiling Firefox. If you're doing something that heavy, you either need a heavy upgrade or you plan your schedule around that workload.
@@solidbeat1 Well in this case for the 5800X, you can’t really make that argument. The 4790k, while still highly priced, was the top tier for gamers/streamers at the time (unless you really wanted to fork over some serious money for an Intel extreme chip). The 5800X is more of a “Jack of all trades, master of none” CPU, with a not so favorable price. The 3700X was more of a justifiable purchase on release because even though it fit in the same place in the market, the price was much more reasonable at $330.
@@angolin9352 In 2017 gamers didn't need 6 core CPUs either, things change. They change slowly but they change. Buying a 6 core now is like buying a quad core then, Steve is always too short sighted for this. His entire argument seemed to be "the 5800X is no better than the 5600X in the games we benchmarked right here so there is no point in buying it". I'm buying my CPU to keep it for and skip AT LEAST 2 more CPU generations, my next system will be DDR5 after the prices have somewhat cooled down. I'm not just interested in game performance at this very moment from games that are even a couple of years old. Next gen consoles will have real 8 core 16 thread Zen2 CPUs. And yes sure a fast 6 core will still be fine for years, but it won't be optimal anymore, the 8 core will be faster. For people who are buying the end and want the best performance, they don't just buy what they "need". They want at least some wiggle room and want to stay near the top of the curve. 12 cores however is at that point where these CPU are just going to be pretty much obselete by the time 12 cores offer any noticeable benefit over 8 cores for gaming, so it seems like too much. But the 5800x and 5900x being so close in price makes it a harder choice, ideally I would just want to buy 8 cores but AMD seemingly delibrately made it so that I'm not really saving much from not buying 12 cores. Just seems kind of weird to just recommend gamers only buy a 6 core £300 CPU to pair with their £800 GPUs because it's all you need at this moment.
@@angolin9352 Also, the ‘future-proofing’ concept on CPU’s isn’t that good imo. If you look at the 4690k, it took years past it’s release for games to utilize more cores/processing power. By the time it really did matter, it was over 4 years after its release. People who had a 4790k over a 4690k were still/are still looking to upgrade around the same time. So although the 4790k has decent performance gains on it, it didn’t really make a difference on when to upgrade for most people. The 5600X and 5800x kind of fits the same way.
Hi Steve. Minor complain about charts presented. Like the one at 4:40. Can you make sure, really sure, your software sets the Y grid correctly to be sensible. Like set Y grid spacing there to 100MHz, not 75MHz, which feels unnatural and distracting. Otherwise awesome editing with highlights, traces delay, and blinking stuff / time remaining. Great stuff.
Bought a 5800X for $240 before tax at Micro Center. 5700X was priced $30 lower but was out of stock, and 5800X3D was still a little too expensive for me.
It’s weird I still plan to get the 5800X, I understand it’s a bit irrational. I figure I upgrade so infrequently I’ll spend a bit more.Thanks for all the testing and info GN.
I got me a 5800x. I’m happy with it. :)didn’t want just 6 cores n definitely don’t need 12 so I went right in the middle. I fig the 5600x would be a better value but Ive wanted the 5800x since amd announced the 5k series lol so I went with what I thought I’d be happy with. Money is only ever really wasted if your not happy with what u bought. If your happy with it then imo it’s worth every penny :)
Steve, I have to really commend you on doing "Time for a turn" for your Civ 6 benchmark. Unlike the FPS rating that every other reviewer seems to use, yours is USEFUL! Is there any chance you could post the savegame someplace, so that we can compare on our own systems?
I heard Linus mention this benchmark a couple days ago (I think referencing this test). It would be cool to have real world stuff like civ 6 turns more often, especially because I like Epic game duration and I go through a ton of turns. Maybe we can see compile times for large applications soon too
Thanks! For putting out great content, I’ve been following your channel for a few months now. I wish I found your channel before I purchased components for a new gaming build. It’s been 10 Years since my last build, and I have fallen behind the new technology. I felt like I was way out of my league. The damage is done the budget is blown. I’m trying to make the best of it by learning more about todays computer components and tuning to make the most out of the mistakes I made purchasing what I thought was right. I’m gaining confidence with every video you guys put out and I’m close to diving into the timings to get the most out of my new build. Thanks again keep up the good work. You’ll make a decent PC builder out of me yet. Thanks again.
It's worth mentioning that prices will vary according to availability, I'm not sure how stable prices are in the NA but in Europe they tend to not really reflect MSRP. In my region the 5600X is ~330 EUR, the 5800X is ~485 EUR while the 5900X is ~620 EUR. So the 5800X is 155 EUR more expensive than the 5600X and 135 EUR cheaper than the 5900X; that places it very close to a middle-ground price between the 5600X and 5900X. In other words, it makes perfect sense buying this processor in my area. Always check your local prices boys and girls.
The 5800X is still a good choice if you need to perform some workstation related loads but live in the many parts of the world where the price difference of US$ 100 becomes exponential in your local currency.
Or even the power costs ^^ Thats the reason why undervolting is for me more importend then OC, when you are paying 0.48$/kWh (0,41€/kWh) and also want min. 8 Cores xD
I actually feel the 5800x is the entry CPU for gamers who don't want a far weaker CPU than they should have in 2 years. If you are actually doing workstation stuff and its part of your $$$ / hobby the extra 100 are worth a 5900x
The problem when we talk about value, is we talk about games that are current, rather than thinking 2-3 maybe 5 years ahead. 6 Cores will start to fall off hard in 12 months (18 months max), when the console game creators start optimising games for 8-cores. As per the PS5 and Xbox X/S.
@@joooseph22 I agree that the 5800x is overpriced by around 60-80$ RRP, however, if you are looking for an upgrade, I still think it's a solid CPU to power your system for the next 3-5 years no problem for AAA titles in 1080p/1440p
@@Seohce I agree, when I built with my i7 3770, dual core was "better for gaming". But people who built dual core were up for an entire system upgrade (or upgrade to a second hand 3770) after 2-3 years. Fast forward 8 years (with a GPU upgrade in the middle) and this build is finally done, I would like to get another 6+ years from my next build. Having said that, I still agree with the 5800x being overpriced, it just happens to be the CPU that suits my needs the best. I'll be waiting a couple of months anyway though, fingers crossed for a price drop!
Yep, bought a 4 core CPU, when everyone said 2 cores is enough and used it 7 years. Then bought a 4C/8T CPU when everyone said 4C/4T is enough and I still use it today, almost 7 years later. Still runs good, a old 4C/4T CPU really runs bad now. Going to get a 8C/16T as my next build.
I was applying this logic for a while since multi-core CPUs (especially around 2010) started becoming mainstream, but it took another 7 years before 4 cores wasn't enough. I do believe 6 cores will eventually be minimum spec but when that happens there'll be mainstream offerings cheaper and better than what we have now, so $150 (right now) saved will go to other things like a GPU.
Some people been also theorising that the initial yields for CCXs might be worse for full 8 cores - so pointing people towards the 6-core-based SKUs might also be a factor in the 5800x pricing? Any thoughts? (btw, ty for all the hard work over the past few days 👍 )
I know this cpu was released in 2020, but it's still a decent CPU for today. I got this cpu for $290 while the 5600x is $309. I mean, you can't beat the performance for the cost I got it for.
GN seems to hate 8 core CPUs! It was cold on the i7-10700K as well. For me this CPU is the sweet spot: No need for the power of the 3900X (and I do edit videos, just not that much) but has 8 core all round ability as well as single CCX architecture. It's a great CPU but I think people are just struggling to swallow AMD's pricing regime this time around. I think in a few years the 5800X wil be holding up better than a 5600X becauuse of those extra cores- but $150 worth of 'more'? Hard to know.
Hard to know indeed. In my mind if I'm keeping it for awhile $150 doesn't seem alot, until you realize it's half the price of a 5600x. Steve is right it's like they didn't want to sell as many 5800x and used it to sell more 5600x and 5900x. Clearly an opening here for a 5600 and a 5800 non x sku. $249 for 5600 and $399 for 5800.
@@jpesicka999 >it's like they didn't want to sell as many 5800x It might be that they know they *can't*. A CCX with 1 or 2 defective cores can become a 5600X, but for a 5800X every core on the die has to be viable. That reduces yield. Same with 5900X vs 5950X - the 5900X can use cast off parts. AMD are probably using the slight price hike to manage demand to fit supply.
@@WeirdNeville 5950x requires high boost clock. Any CCDs that have all cores functional but fail to reach boost requirements will likely become 5800x. edit: not only boost, 5950x also requires the best CCDs with lower voltage and less TDP requirement.
Steve, seriously what am I missing? The graphs seem to indicate that the 5800X is across the board almost as powerful as the 5900X, and it's $100 less. It also seems to be the most overclockable of all these chips, which puts it sometimes on par with the 5950X. Why are you saying that it's not a good choice?
I'm still missing what makes Ryzen 5000 compelling at all. For gaming, a mid-range CPU is all most people need to hold them over for about 5 years. Anything higher is usually a waste of money that could be spent on a better graphics card. Workstation users need high-end CPUs. These new chips start at mid-range, but the cheapest costs what the 3700X did when it was new, performs worse at most workstation tasks, and isn't much better at gaming. The 5800X isn't enough of a gain over the 3700X to justify the 1.5x increase in the 3700X's original MSRP, never mind what it's going for now. The 900 series might have its fans, but I can't imagine that there is a large market that can afford to pay almost $1,000 for a CPU and actually uses that performance, but isn't willing or able to buy a new or used Threadripper. Overall Ryzen 5000 just seems overpriced. It's not bad, it looks good. Just not worth the high premium AMD is demanding.
out of the four zen 3 chips released, it's the least performance for the money... however I don't know that that's the point of it. seems perfectly positioned as a 10900k killer to me. prior to today, if you wanted the best gaming CPU, you got a 10900k if you also used the computer for real work some times, say someone that games a lot but also makes videos or some such. the 10900k is still better than the 5600x in this role, but for the same price, the 5800x is far better. Pretty much for anyone that would have otherwise chosen a 10900k instead of a 3900x for a hundred bucks less, the 3800x is the perfect part.
@@angolin9352 even if some of stuff you mentioned make sense, world is not as cut and dry as you imagined. there are lots of different people with different use cases, you said about 900 series, way I see it, most smaller productions and freelancer who were on 2700x with existing b450/b550 seeking to upgrade it made a lot of sense rather than saying going for a threadripper + TR mobo which cost a lot, sure they are nothing for big companies but those people wont even bother to get a 2700x to begin with but for smaller business these 5000 series could be a game changer especially when upgrading from 2000 series
I am here from the future it's now around $200 cheaper than the 5900x and only around $70 more than the 5600x so it's in the perfect place for most bang for the buck.
highest all core clock, better than the 10700k in all cases (unlike the 5600x), in most cases it ties or beats the 10900k ($530), it appears to have the most impactful overclocking of the 5000 stack. It has its merits. You also point out that the 5800x is only 6% better than the 5600x in photoshop, while ignoring the fact that the 5900x is also only 6% better but is $250 more. not fair. The reason I went with the 5800x is the magical 8 core count, which I expect future games to be optimized for because of the new consoles (also 8 cores). I expect to see more fps gains when more games take advantage of all cores (which is already apparent in some games). Its important to realize that dx12 hits a wall at 6 cores, which makes having 8+ cores not great for most games, FOR NOW. This is probably going to change in the next iteration of DirectX. I bet in a few years 6 cores will be the new quad core and everyone will recommend at least 8 cores. Lastly, everything you said about the 5800x gaming performance value can be said about the 5900x. While the 5900x is obviously valuable for production stuff, its a terrible value for gaming. Which basically limits gamers to one cpu, the 5600x.
@@Ninja_Pro And the 10700k will probably scale better into the future than the 5600x. More cores means as apps use more core you get more benefit. (I wouldn't buy either of these atm but its not like its in a awful spot.) GN runs its benches on clean installs i assume (or testing benches), i have firefox and sometimes chome open and many more programs. I often watch videos listen to music, etc while gaming. ill often push 10-20% cpu easily before the game on my 8 core system. Do that on a 6 core and you have a large fight over processing power. But the 5800x is different its also 8 cores and it preforms very well core to core (better than the 5900x or 5600x), its is over priced but wait for the price drop, or not, and its a really good deal as a 4-5 year cpu. GN should run a test where they take up ~15% of cpu (or like x number of back ground programs) and then run their benchmarks to see the REAL world performance in games.
@Muka Hadama not for zen 3 man. The 5800x is the best cpu for warzone. I don’t know about apex or overwatch though (zen 3 probably wins). Rocket lake might change that, but until then amd wins
@Muka Hadama well you cant compare cold war and black ops 2, the graphics are on another level. And yes, 6 cores is definitely enough. I’m just saying the 5800x is the best gaming cpu, even though it’s not the best value in terms of # of cores. And I haven’t noticed bad 1% lows like you’re saying. Also the ps5 is cheap because sony makes more money off of game purchases, you can’t compare a PC with a console like that, a pc can do so much more than a ps5.
One factor that I think is overlooked when running these benchmarks - the 5600x, 5800x, and 5900x are all very close in gaming during clean benchmarks. I'm not sure about you, but I usually game with maybe a zillion Chrome tabs, an idling VM, Shadowplay, discord, RDP session and who knows what else running in the background. Could I close it all, sure, but I'm paying for the privilege not to have to do that. Would a 5800x or 5900x pull ahead more significantly with a large number of background processes happening? I think it would be interesting. Maybe the 5800x makes more sense when you consider real-world scenarios as opposed to clean room benchmarking. I'd love to see that tested.
All you mentioned is more memory dependant than CPU but if you are heavy VM user I wouldn't even look at 5600X. Now for gaming it's more of a question whether we will see better parallelization than 6 cores anytime soon, which I highly doubt, but if that happens 5800X will age better than both 5600X and 5900X for real time dynamic workloads such as games since those two are 6 cores per CCX design and 5800X is single 8 core CCX eliminating inter core latency issues that may happen with 6+6 5900X
@@XPACT3 I agree memory is a primary consideration with a lot of background tasks - but they still use CPU cycles. I'm not a 'heavy' user. Most of my heavy stuff sits on servers where they belong, but never the less stuff gets to be local sometimes. And that said, I've observed my system hovering around 25% CPU utilization at idle often before launching a game. This is on an 8700k @ 5.0Ghz. I haven't bothered breaking down exactly where that comes from, but I suspect mostly discord with Krisp enabled, I'll pay more attention. There are already a number of games that benefit from >6 core, and I expect that trend will continue. The consoles all have 8 core now so it is really only a matter of time. I was strongly preferring the 5800x based on the same logic you laid out regarding CCX latency. But it doesn't seem like anybody else is really talking about that this generation - and lots of people are pushing the 5900x as the overall better value. Ultimately, whether I end up with a 5800x or 5900x is going to depend on which one I can actually get my grubby mitts on.
@@KenanYusufTemel Sadly no, it probably has to do with stability but every configuration is X+X. That somewhat explains a price premium for 5800X since it is actually one perfect 8 core CCX. Inter core latency between two CCXs is still there. They managed to reduce latency between cores on the same CCX which is one of the reasons they are better at gaming now, but between two there is still average 80ns instead of very respectable 15-17ns in one CCX itself
The 5800X has the highest price per core value of any part in the launch lineup. It's in a very weird position, and you'd expect the 12 or 16 core part to be this overpriced.
Probably just to utilise 8 core CCD that can't reach 5950x boost target. At least they make some bucks by selling it instead of killing some cores (becomes 5600x) or outright discard it.
@blitzcaster It's not just about clocks speeds. The 5800X is getting the intact (all 8 cores operational) dies with the worst power efficiency. You can see that in it's 105W TDP which is 61% greater than the 5600X despite only having 33% more cores and the same as the 5900x despite that processor having 50% more cores. Honestly that really puts me off the 8 core AMD CPUs although of course that is the desirable core configuration for gaming due to the reduced core-core latency and because it is what the next gen consoles have :/
Guys don't forget that this is based on old games review, considering the games coming in the next 5 years, 5800x have much more sense with the extra 2 cores for the next gen games, and this "future-proof" extra cores might worth it way more down the line if you don't plan to upgrade every 1-2 years and as this is the end for AM4 socket it make much more sense as even if you want to upgrade you will need new motherboard, so if you have one, don't be sorry because of the negative GN review. Just my 2 cents.
but isn't it if you play on 1440p or 4k, that games will be more and more gpu bound, so 2 more core cpu power is kinda negligible? but of course maybe that 2 cores could help when you do livestream...
@@jamzqool that depends on the games itself, some games are heavy cpu and cores users, some are not and some prefer clock speed on single core than more cores, so it's really dependent on the game in particular.
The worst? Lol, $100 bucks less than the "i really don't need 12 cores for anything", still awesome performance and will last for as long as you need it. To me, after the 5600 for gamers, this is the CPU to go for.
Yes because 5600X is still a 6 core part which does not offer the futureproofing as a 8 core CPU does when games are being optimized for one and consoles are 8 core so it will start losing its edge in the newer games and 8 cores will help in another workload like transcoding even if you are not using it professionally. And yes 5900X might seem better value but those are 4 cores you don't really need unless you are using it professionally and then a 5950X might make more sense and a 12 core might end up performing worse in some 8 core optimized titles. Also its not like 100$ is nothing you can always invest it in a better GPU or something just like Steve mentioned.
@@shubham601 Very little of this makes any sense. From what we saw the 5900 outperforms the lower core 5800x. And as we saw in titles that really favor multi threading it REALLY ran away with it. We're about to go into a generation where having more than the bare minimum 8c/16t will likely see the difference grow.
The thing that Steve is missing, is that if you want more than 6 cores for modern workloads, without the 5800x, there would be a $250 price jump from the 5600x to the 5900x.
just got this cpu at retail, sad you have to say that now these days. It maybe the worst of the best, but this was replacing my 3700x. This jump is performance is enough to justify the upgrade, I did notice that cyberpunk works 98% gpu usage (3070) vs when it was paired with the 3700x, which varied from 70-90 gpu usage.
That's all 4 in 24 hours, as promised. Check back soon for other content with these parts!
Watch our AMD R5 5600X CPU review: ruclips.net/video/01EhbmJAW-k/видео.html
Our Wireframe Desk-Sized Mouse Mats are on back-order and will be shipping soon! store.gamersnexus.net/products/gn-wireframe-mouse-mat
Watch our AMD R9 5950X CPU review: ruclips.net/video/72AHENDeTEI/видео.html
Watch our AMD R9 5900X CPU review: ruclips.net/video/utWSSlyabjc/видео.html
The worst for last lol
@Dr No Ocular Moses
Thanks for your hard work!
Impressive work! Now go and sleep! 😴
are you going to be doing some coverage on motherboards for these? b vs x chipsets?
I find it ironic that the main title where intel still pulls ahead is called Red Dead Redemption...
Ha! Hadn't even thought of that. COINCIDENCE?!
@@sharki9876 intel is team blue, amd is team red
hahahhaha xD
@@CLDHCrew Your name is short for Coldhand.
It should be renamed to Blue Dead Redemption.
I predict that in 6 months Steve will say "the 5800x is the best choice because of the latest price drop"
That seems to be the trend!
@@GamersNexus hope so
At the moment 5800x is only there to tempt people for 5900x because its "only" 100 bucks more.
Sure hope so, i got my eyes on that one =)
@@sansp9996 Id buy 5800x for 349
5800X: For those of us who couldn't grab a 5900X before they sold out...
true that, however the 5800x is binned the same way as the 5950x, as it uses CCD's with all 8 cores enabled. Meaning it could reliably be overclocked to 4.9 Ghz
yes exactly what i did
Same, but still comes with FarCry6. I do like that it uses the best silicon...no disabled cores due to faults in manufacturing
I also bought one for 490€ because when the 5900x is in stock it costs 700-800€.
I will sell it when i can grab a 5900x near msrp.
I want a 5600x, but those are all sold out, and my local Micro Center has 25 5800x in stock and they are selling them at what I could get 5600x for from scalpers.
The 5800X does have a serious advantage over basically every other AMD 5000 series processor. Namely... it exists.
pogger
I bought a few days ago a Ryzen 7 5800x because it was the only one avaible since launch.
@@MethaTugan Same here. It was the only 5000 series I could find. Unfortunately, it also seems to be the worst binned, with the highest temperatures. At stock settings, mine runs up to 90C under a Corsair H110i AIO, and I've checked the paste. I had to go in and limit the PPT in PBO to 135 watts to keep it under 80C. Really annoying honestly...
I got lucky and got a 5800x 2 weeks ago. Then finally got a lucky and got a 5900x, trading the 5800x back in.
@@brettwebb6789 isnt that crazy? So dam hot and amd think it's ok at 90c, not to mentioned it kill the life span of the cpu running so hot all the time.
AMD probably think were running ms words or something
We went from “Get intel if you ONLY want to game” to “Get Intel if you ONLY want to play red dead redemption”
and that might not even last any longer when the Radeon 6000 series launches. It just might be the thing that edges AMD CPUs and GPUs over the competition.
LMAO
hahaha best commet
Intel has new faster Rocket Lake CPUs that fit in current sockets and enable PCI-E 4.0 shipping soon though. Intel will still be fastest for gaming bar a month or two.
@@richto1000 rocket lake may be able to take back a slim lead but just FYI it’s looking like at least 3 months and possibly 5 months
The thumbnails were on point this entire series.
I realized through this series I don't look at thumbnails, just click the video blindly
The time stamp titles as well. MOAR NUMBERZZZ! :D
"We added more decimals to the end of that one, which means it's a larger number, and therefore more impressive"
Fine, you get a like
Honestly still 100% happy with my 5800x. The fact I was able to run photoshop between matches on Warzone @ 120+ FPS And run music and other browsers with background apps like discord is more than I could ever ask for.
What gpu do u have ??
what gpu?
what is ur gpu? please
@@Eranta 1070 STRIX
@@mrmidnight32 thanks, Cheers!
I have some Temperature issues.
"We saved the worst for last"
This was the one I managed to get my hands on :/
Same
It's objectively a good performer as they said, it's just the least good value out of the 4 is all. You're still getting a very strong CPU
It's still an insane CPU buddy, don't feel bad.
me too buddy. But it is the "worst" of the best. We're gonna be ok
Same. This was the buy for me though. I didn't really need the extra cores and threads for what I'm doing.
This CPU is gonna be an absolute king when it drops in price I’m definitely gonna use one in my 2021 build
The 3700X went from similarly odd positioning to being great as the price dropped!
@@GamersNexus yes!
@@GamersNexus How long until that dropped in price?
yeah, and even at current pricing it's still a viable option. Steve does go over this at the end of the vid which is good, vs just saying this makes zero sense. I understand why people don't like the price, but AMD knows they can do it because it's the sweet spot for many who primarily game and want a little extra headroom for streaming etc., but don't want or need to go all the way to a 5900x. While price per performance etc. tells a story, you have to factor overall budget and functional needs, especially in markets where overall prices are higher. If you need a bit more cores than 5600x but don't need double, the 5800x is still $150 cheaper after tax than 5900x, and your spend is ~$710 vs ~$860 here in Canada. AMD knows if 6 cores isn't enough for you, you're generally not comparing to the 6 core part in price anymore as your baseline. For many it's what are my viable options and budget, and so your baseline becomes the 5800x
AMD's pricing strategy with the 5800X really confuses me. Where I live in the UK they are charging £420 for it. You can get an i7-10700k for £340 and the 5600X for £280. The 5800X is certainly a better CPU, but it's not worth the extra cost.
There is another reason to get the 5800x:
When the 5600x is out of stock everywhere, and you want a new pc relatively soon.
My nephew held off from building a new system for a few months because of ryzen 5, and the 5600x can't be found anywhere down here, so he settled on the 5800x.
Yeah that problem will be solved in 1 month, when there will be enough stock
It's also a better choice if you don't plan on doing an entire system rebuild for another 5-6 years. Next gen games run on 8 cores, and later in the life cycle its likely that they will rely on them more.
Yup. I picked up a 5800x because it was available and I'm building now for a system that I do not intend to rebuild for another 6 years. I'm building this to be stable and not something I need to faff around with every year. Fingers crossed for stable firmware/drivers. I also wanted to have the most cores without a chip that has multiple CCX.
@@CAthomaselliott I think you did the right thing. Basically the 5800x is better than the 5600x - just on a higher price. If there is only the 5800 available, sure go for it. Maybe wait for Benchmarks what grafics card you should buy
This is exactly what AMD wants you to do.
You see, when AMD priced it around only 100$ less than a 12 core processor you are automatically set to buying the 12 core for extra 100$ or reducing 150$ for the 6 core.
So if AMD manages to not send out heaps of stocks of 5600X and instead a 5800X you are compelled to settle on it no matter what unless you are not in a hurry or have the capacity to wait.
And if you choose to buy 5900X its even 100$ higher.
And later at some point in time when the 5800X 's price is reduced, it will be the best bang for buck processor and again it will be a massive profit for AMD. So it's a win or win situation for AMD.
*Marketing at its finest.*
Just goes to show how far AMD have come in the last few years. Their mid range 5800X matches or beats Intel's flagship 10900K in almost every benchmark while having 20% fewer cores, costing less, consuming less power and running cooler; yet it's considered to be poor value for money compared to its siblings. Looks like Intel has a lot of work to do.
Have a shot every time he says "5800x, 5900x or 5600x".
DON'T DIE.
Hardcore mode: Take a shot every time he says "Fifty" :)
Help me, I fell off my chair.
@@GamersNexus How can You die?
Drink the water LMAO
@@sexyyoda7567 Uhmm Water intoxication is a thing you know
While this is the worst value for money, I think this is the one I'll be getting. I don't need the 12 cores, but I kinda do want a fully enabled CCD, and the slightly higher boost clocks, while being substantially easier to cool than the 12 core part.
enjoy your wasted money!
@@maxolina I will, very much!
Don’t worry it’s a SOLID middle chip. You sound like you know what you want
@@maxolina I think the idea of 'wasted money' is pretty subjective here.
The 5900X makes up for having 2 CCX's by having double the cache, that's why gaming performance is the same. And did you look at the power consumption charts? 127W in Blender for the 5800X vvs 133W for the 5900X.
Considering the 5800X has come down to ~$380 USD and the 5600X hasn't budged from $300, $80 for 2 more cores and a bit faster speed sounds fairly reasonable.
down even further - it's only like 350 rn i'm genuinely looking at it
Just bought a 5800x for 5600x pricing
@@TheDerpyPie I just snagged it for 330. I feel like thats a solid deal for the next 3-4 years.
@@Lancx yeah it's definitely a solid deal and it'll last long, I just did some pbo2 overclocking and I've gotten some pretty good results 4.94 GHz for single core and 4.74 GHz all core on cinebench r20 max temps are 81c
@@TheDerpyPie Yeah mine is similar. Im at about 4.8 all core with a max temp of 78 in r20.
Funny how this may be the best AM4 value CPU today.
Intel: Stop the benchmarks!
I get that reference xD
*(Rick Dalton points fingers)
lol
Intel: We already won the gaming marketing! AMD is fake news! Just like nvidia 3000 series supply.
"It's RDR, sir."
"Ok, count those in."
"we saved the worst for last"
5800X: **cries**
5800x is a very good cpu. I'm very happy with it. It's blazing fast in rendering and editing video. and in the games I have a great result from this cpu. Highly recommended 👌
The fact that my 5800x clocks 300mhz over rated max turbo boost without any tinkering and without hitting thermal limits was a nice surprise
Not bad! I upgraded the cooler on mine and it clocks around 150MHz over rated max turbo at peak, which is still nice to see. I didn't realize how inadequate the Hyper 212 was until I put an AK620 on it last week.
9:58 "More numbers = more better" You heard him folks. Finally Steve has seen the light and has rebuked the ways of fake tech news.
PS happy Friday Steve. Thanks to both you and the GN team for the hard work this week.
Is that what Intel is going for with their naming scheme?
More numbers = more better merch incoming?
The takeaway I got from this is wait for it to drop $50 or more and snag it up. Or wait for the 5900x to go on a sale and snag that up instead :O lol
If you care only for gaming I would say to go with the 5600X. I mean in most games there is no dif and in only a few of them there is a 5-10fps dif. Is it worth it? It's subjective ofc. Depends on the gpu too and how many years you want to keep it.
@@kostisap9350 I'm a bit unsure about that tbh. I'm planing to upgrade my CPU around February or March 2021 and would like to use that CPU for at least 2-3 years. Now with the new consoles releasing and stuff, shouldn't the system requirements for games get a bit higher over the next years? I'm gaming in 1440p/144 Hz and I'm really not sure if the 5600X would be strong enough to power my rig for 2-3 years. But I also don't wanna pay 550-600€/$ for the 5900X so I'm really considering the 5800X and hope either the 5800X gets a bit cheaper until Early 2021 or AMD releases something like a 5700X soon.
That sucks. Wish they made the 5600x 8 cores for 300
I got mine for MSRP price, and sell farcry(40€) to a friend. so for me the 5800x is 100% worth it :) 110€ more then the 5600x
Warm Soft Kitty leaks show They are gonna be on par, but still using 14nm++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
''The worse'' its the one every gamer wants, because its the single ccd, single ccx 8core model.
To me it also looks like the best one that's more future proof then just 6 cores. 12 cores feels overkill
My I7 2600K is still quite strong and going after 9 years.
@@tardvandecluntproductions1278 i felt good with my 2600k, it finally died after almost a decade, I want a 5900x but if I can only get my hands on a 5800x ill be fine with that.
@@Rommer2258 You don't need more than 8 cores for everything, 8 is the sweetspot, same for the new 8 cores i7s.
I agree 8 is the sweet spot. But for only 100 dollars more getting the 12 cores seems to be the best deal. I think a 5700x would be the real sweet spot, (at 380ish) but i think the 5900x will age pretty well all things considered and is worth the extra cores.
@@theorangecarousel481 It's not the best deal - you're spending more money. It's only a deal if you're using the 12 cores - if not then you're spending money on clout (which is fine).
"More numbers therefore more better"
Never change, Steve. Haha!
"more numbers, more better"
Nobody:
Intel: i9 109020x kf
underrated comment
109020X KF-S with an increased power target from 165W instead of 125
nobody:
@@Dave-dh7rt where is the 14++++++nm?
@@ZigaZaga_TTV rocket lake lol
Damn the 9:44 section killed me XD
150$ for 1,50% better efficiency, we got it Steve lmao
Counterpoint--$150 more gets you the ability to efficiently and effectively stream your game from the same PC rather than having to run two.
that joke went too long and became unfunny at the end though
@@rangersmith4652 Counterpoint: if you dont steam at 240fps a 5600x is way more than enough
5800x: For those of us who can’t beat the scalpers to get a 5950x, or 5900x.
true, I had to buy a 5800x, because well, 5900x is nonexistent
True, but 5800x is beast thanks to PBO2. All i did was set curve optimiser to negative 30 (max) its runing literally without any problems. In Cinebench R20 all cores are runing 4850-4900 MHz rock stable 😛
@@Kojotous007 LOL! That's exactly what I did with my 5800x in PBO2 with all core max to 4.6 GHz (didn't win the silicon lottery), and set the CPU voltage to 1.26. It's sure is a beast of a CPU. It's way snappier than my 3900x for my music production, and I can see a huge difference. At this point the scalpers that keep hi jacking all the 5900x & 5950x can choke on them, and kick rocks. 😉
@@DerdOn0ner Same! The 5800X in my computer is better that the 5900x I can't buy!
I love my 5800x no matter what anyone says
Steve always goes full nerd in his videos, going really in-depth and it helps you forget about your life problems I swear🤣🤣 love this channel!
I call it autistic detail. I have ADD so I have to watch three times to understand it.
corrections to thumbnails: r7 instead of r9 5800x
Thanks. Fixing.
Linus had an interesting take on the marketing strategy on his show last night.
Basically, the 5600X is a 5800X with two cores disabled (AMD switched to a unified model where all CPUs have the same architecture). The pricing seems to suggest the yields aren’t great, and so expect AMD to produce a lot more 5600X than 5800X.
In other words, the point of the 5800X isn’t to sell itself, it’s to boost the sales of the 5600X and 5900X by comparison. I know this trick has a well known name in marketing, I just forget what it is.
@Nobody It's possible AMD thought the yields would be worse and bad enough to justify the 5800x price. AMD is not going to disable 2 cores of a perfectly good bin just to sell it for $150 less as a 5600x. We might just be witnessing AMD's happy accident.
I see no issue here. For a CPU that you're going to keep for a while and having some extra cores/threads for games that will inevitably are going to use more cores in the near future due to the new console launch, but not wanting to spend the money for the 5900x because not needing THAT much more cores or the multicore heavy lifting, the 5800x makes total sense. The 5600x is simply not enough of a CPU except you want to swap later on to a better line and just save some money now. The question is if a 500series board is going to be bios-update compatible with the Zen 3+ or 4 generation.
And as I keep saying; with more and more things running in the background, which are being coded for multicore support, thus adding ever increasing demand, you want to have more cores available aside because at some point you will be better off manually assigning cores with a command line instead of letting the kernel scheduler handle everything. Thus I see the 5800x as a perfectly valid choice for an "only gaming" computer if you don't intend to switch to the next generation in a year or two.
I said that exact same thing when Zen 2 launched: those 2c/4t will be sorely missed when true next gen games arrive. It's a sad thing but games are made with consoles in mind and all of those have Zen 2 with 8c/16t inside them. Sure, Zen 3 is a lot faster in games but remember the 9600K with its 6c/6t being faster in average but unplayable in RDR2 and other games compared to Intel's own 4c/8t?
Of course you'll better off with a 5600x/3080 combo than with a 5800x/3070 if your budget only allows a 6 core CPU but faster GPU but that logic applies at every price point or budget, like Steve pointed out 20 times in his review.
6 cores is fine for gaming in 2-3 years lol. I also dont need to play the latest game. Im sure this cpu with a good gpu can play cyberpunk just fine
I'm really going to enjoy my 1.1746680286% increase in gaming performance! I don't have buyers remorse in the slightest! :) *cries in a corner*
I'm with you bro. Steve really hurt us with that nail in the coffin.
I think it still ill be fine when 8 core consoles force games to use all 8 cores
@@petervansan1054 I can make my 5800x last for another 10 years until then :D
wait intil they they test out SAM feature of AMD, Maybe it shows that the 5800x is way better for gaming then the 5600 x ;) u dont know
@@jonathanlarsen4177 I know that... but my wallet's crying.
I was lucky enough to get an order through, this was the only one that had an order page at the retailer (in germany). Upgrading to this from the 1700, probably still going to be happy with the 5800X
Newegg in Canada decided to update it's stock at 1AM where I live... and of course, sold out instantly... While I was asleep because I had to work next morning.
You will love the difference, I went from a 1800x to 3800x and it was extremely noticeable (just dropped it into my asus x370 mobo)
first gen ryzen was actually quite horrible, main one been single threaded performance is not good and AVX wasn't very good on 1000/2000 cpus (I had to overclock mine to 3.8ghz all Core turbo just to make it not hitch/stutter)
but I went from a i7-920 to a 1800x so it was a massive improvement but in some games that are Cpu/latency bound I effectively upgraded to a 4th gen i7 witch wasn't good
if the 8700k was released (witch it annoying did 1-3 months after I got the 1800x) I would have gotten that instead of the ryzen cpu due to near double single threaded performance (only thing the 1800x had was its core/thread count)
where as the 3800x runs like a 8700k/9900k and it runs very well
I don't regret getting the 1800x but if the 8700k was released I would have gotten the 8700k
@WhatDa FarkenHell just wanted the 1800x (it was only £30.l more then the 1700x), the 8700k wasn't released at the time when I got the 1800x (remember this was 3 years ago and I upgraded from a overclocked i7-920)
in using the 1800x it has been fine apart from having to set turbo to 3.8ghz all Cores
should note I Only Had problems with 3 games with the 1800x (oxygen not included, Factorio and ksp) as they are super sensitive to cache and ram latency and ran more like a 4th gen i7 cpu, the 3800x I currently own with 2933 ram it runs more like a 8700k/9700k)
All other games on the 1800x ran as expected
I was aware of 1600 and 1700 non x
I got a 5600x coming. My kid got my 1700 and wife now getting my current 2700x. And since amd not playing around with benchmarks I’m getting a 6800xt since the 3080 will never be in stock 😂
It's a bad value compared to the 5600X and 5900X, but it's still a damn good CPU and will last you for years to come. You'll also be able to upgrade to a 5950X or whatever Zen 4 down the line very easily.
Ah, back in the blissful days when we thought the sell-through rate would recover and prices would drop as things normalize. I miss having that hope.
5 month later and still no hope... :/
@@skmetal7 ruclips.net/video/6x2BYNimNOU/видео.html - Ding ding ding! Recently bought a 5800X for $378 ($420, and received a 10% gift card for the purchase) - which finally put it in the proper value range. So, yeah, exactly as predicted. 5950X has gone up, 5900X is mostly not in stock.
Lots of places have 5800X for around $420 as I type. Use pcpartpicker . com.
@@midnightblack7616 yeah, I just got a 5800x as well. Had to settle for that instead of the 5900x.
@@midnightblack7616 Exactly where I bought my 5800x last week. Newegg has it at the $420 Blaze it price.
@@midnightblack7616 same just price matched a 5800x from bestbuy for $413 after tax. Considering the fact that the 5900x is $570 at the lowest price I’d say it’s good value especially since I can always upgrade once prices lower later on but the 5800x will crush whatever I throw at it for now
The difference between "no mans land" and jack of all trades is a subtle one. I am primarily a gamer but also do some productivity work and some streaming where the extra cores are nice to have.
Bravo! GN.
4 reviews in 24 hours as promised.
Amazing work guys.
You are outdoing yourself.
What a day for both us and you guys. Although in this video you can clearly see all this taking a toll on our dude lol
I'm here from the future to say, I had to make an easy decision of what cpu to buy. The 5800x is currently $189 and the 5700x is $210. Bet you can guess which one I bought.
I’m not really sure it’s fair to make direct comparisons between an OC 5900x and a stock 5800x. In a lot of the graphs you didn’t even include the results from an oc 5800x but did for other parts.
Every graph has "stock" and "4.8Ghz"(OC) for 5800x.....
OH, the 3700x review reboot.
I think the 5800x is positioned to be the "streamer" cpu. If you're a gamer that also streams, runs discord, and other programs in the background, the 5800x makes more sense to buy than either the 5600x or the 5900x. The 5600x is for pure gaming, the 5900x is just overkill for a system like that. The $100 you save from buying the 5900x can be pushed into a better gpu.
the 5800x is a good jack-of-all-trades cpu but not necessarily the master of anything. It's also a good future proof cpu since it does have 8 cores, meaning if games coming out for PS5 and Xbox Series X start to push core count over a single thread, you may see the 5800x start to show much better gains over the 5600x in future games.
And for being int the middle, it would be the chosed one for many. (I've received mine today ;-))
I run discord and other programs while gaming at 120fps on a i7-4770k, you don't need 8 core for that. For streaming just use NVENC.
It would be interesting to have a benchmark like that. With OBS streaming, discord and some other stuff running in background. But it seems GN won't have time for that)
I personally think though that 5600x will be enough for this too. Streaming does not produce so much load, and games do not load 6 cores evenly, so the additional stuff should fit into underloaded cores "for free".
@@divertiti What games are you running and at what resolutions? Also, what programs are you running? Yes, you don't need a powerful computer for streaming, but having a better cpu would make a difference especially if you're also recording for later uploading to something like RUclips, meaning more background processes happening.
@@lowskillcamper Oh absolutely agree with that. The 5600x is more than powerful enough to do streaming with.
R7 5800X is a very good value now, just picked one up for $206 on Amazon, after taxes.
Got it for $180 on ebay for early black friday today. Since I'm upgrading from a Ryzen 5 2600 it's a win for sure.
Picked one up for Black Friday flash sale at $149.99
”More numbers = more better” Steve 2020 LMAO! best thing I heard this year
interesting how looking at your charts I find a different conclusion. My primary PC usage is gaming, but I also heavily multitask while gaming, and I do light video and photo editing on the side. The price should be $50 cheaper, but even as is the 5900x doesnt feel worth the extra $100 over the 5800x, but I do feel the 5800x worth the extra $150 over a 5600x based on my usage and your results.
Pretty much this, if you're doing mixed workloads the 5800X makes sense even with this uneven price difference.
Do check your local prices though. In my area the 5800X's price is very close to the middle point between the 5600X and 5900X (within 10-20 EUR). As I don't have uses for 12 cores I snagged the 5800X without hesitation.
It's around a 200$ difference in my country between the 5800x and the 5900x and even though I could benefit from the 4 extra cores they are not worth an additional 200$ imo
Btw if your interested the 5950x is around 1700$ in my country
The conclusion I came to is that the 5800x is a 10900k killer. if you had been the sort of person that might have bought a 10900k, as of today the 5800x does everything better for the same price.
I wish it was $50 cheaper but it is literally perfect for my usage while 5900x I would never take advantage off.
@@Longshotsz In which currency?
Lol I really don't understand why the 5800x is getting so much grief for its price position. If price to performace in gaming is the only thing you care about the entire stack of Ryzen 5000 CPUs all look awful compared to the 5600x 🤣
"the 5800x is only 1.5% better than the 5600x for $150 more" - not ok
"the 5900x is 1.65% better than the 5600x for $250 more" - perfectly reasonable
Valid point, there still is a solid lead for the R9 5900X vs. R7 5800X in multi-threaded workloads though and only for 100 dollars more. But compare the 5800 to the i9 10900k, it has 2-more cores than the 5800, is more expensive and more power hungry, yet the 5800 basically matches it in many applications. The R7 5800X is still a very solid chip.
@@scotmotuz5209 I know but purely from a gaming standpoint the 5800x or 5900x are generally not much better than the 5600x. As for Intel I'm not surprised, and with Rocket Lake supposed to be only 8 cores they have no chance 🤣
I'm looking for a 8 core CPU with good single thread, and at 400+ dollars, this isn't what I was expecting to be the only option on the AMD team, considering they've been playing the "lower priced but just as good". People cried about 6 cores at 300+ dollars with Intel, and we're there now with AMD, this is why I don't want to invest in the platform just yet, and why AMD feels deceiving, upping the prices and limiting options (like the lack of a 5700X) because there's no competition. If Intel can be criticized for such, I think AMD can be too, and they're not getting my money if this is the trend.
Edit: (5600X is 370 USD in my country rn)
I don’t know guys…some of you in here bashing the 5800X from 6+ months ago. Turns out it is a great processor.
When AMD's latest offerings are so OP, they're kicking the crap out of themselves..... 5000 series..... the berserker gen
1.1747% means everything to me. Thank you for validating my choice to get this over the 5600x.
edit: Actually the 1.1746680286% is what matters most.
Well, here in Brazil we use points as thousands separator so the 5800x is a lot faster here than in the US!
5800x gang 🙏🏼
@@CapaNoisyCapa eae brother
@@maxkraft2709 More like throwing money at AMD gang lol
the 5800x does have better 1% and 0.1% lows than the 5600x, plus I am sure it can be better for streaming. Not bad!
The lows are often within error either direction. Yes, it would be better for streaming if you aren't just using NVENC.
@@GamersNexus I have noticed IRL nvenc is actually worse than straight up using the CPU. At least when it comes to what I see on the stream, at 1080p it looks more like low bitrate 720p with a TON of compression. Directly from cpu (manually setting affinity for OBS) my 9900k may not be able to stream 60fps 1080p but 60fps 900p actually looks better from the CPU than NVENC 1080p. Wonder if you would so some testing to compare. At least for me, actual picture quality > numeric performance.
@@GamersNexus Also I swear I saw multiple charts where the 5800x got 10-20fps higher 0.1% lows.
@@singular9 depends on the GPU if you have a 1660/2000 nvidia or higher the quality loss is less then 2% vs x264 encoding, but the is a big but, nvidia still can't seem to handle grass correctly (unless you add 2000kbs bitrate or just stick with 30fps) and that's where x264 is better
in general just stick with 25-30fps , your sacrificing 25 to 50% image quality (goes blocky when your moving) to make it marginally noticeable smoother (so you got slightly smoother image of 60fps of squares) and it turns phones into hand warmers and drains battery faster
if your cpu encoder streaming and gaming the 5900x the better choice as you can set the preset to slow or slower so it can recover really fast when moving around quickly
If your using a 1660/2000 or higher GPU to stream the 5800x or 5900x is better option then the 5600x because your going to have stuff open that uses 1-2 threads of cpu (browser other stuff) but best to run at max bit rate 6000-8000kbs (1080p30)
@@GamersNexus I stream and encode from time to time and plan to probably buy an AMD GPU, how's the AMD Codec on that end? I have no clue.. in case it's not that great I can still stream on the CPU.
Gamers Nexus is by far the most reliable channel when it comes to parts reviews and comparision, it's amazing the fact that you focus more on actual real world usage (like 3D and Adobe softwares) instead of just gaming and technical bs that the average PC builder can't get anything out of
AMD dominated Intel this round. I’ve been running Ryzen processors exclusively since the 2400G came out. Their value proposition at each price point made the choice easy. I never was an intel fanboy but had a core2duo for a long time. It was a great processor, but AMD Ryzen was a game-changer.
I laughed so hard at "MORE NUMBERS, MORE BETTER"
Papa AMD’s
yeah like 110909020k on 14nm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
@@enveloreal F to the Intel Core 3D i9-90210
Somebody gotta put that in a commercial one day "More numbers means more better". Y'all wild, lol
This actually wrong, many benchmarks "less number means more better" such as the time is takes to complete a task. But essentially yes, numbers.
This channel and Steve will permanently and unconditionally hold the FULLEST possible extent of my gratitude. As a relatively new PC builder I have saved countless amounts of time, money, and have gained priceless amounts of knowledge which I would normally not have. Thank you Steve and Gamers Nexus for saving me from being drowned in my own ignorance 🙏🏻
Just picked one up for $240 on Amazon. Definitely worth the wait!
I'm a simple man, I see mroe numbers, I spend more numbers
Loved the Livestream last night! Killing it as always! Let Ocular Moses know he is still the best Camera Man around! Keep up the awesome work!
The conclusion is it's still a decent CPU.
Just has bad pricing relative to the performance and value that the 5600X offers.
And I bought it. I could have spared at least 50 dollars 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@oneirosgames Same here, but I am more than happy with 8c / 16t for my gaming only PC.
It was still far cheaper than going the 5900X or 5950X route.
I also did purchase it because the 5600x is never in stock when im awake 😂 How's the temps on it? I've been seeing a lot of people say it runs quite high... I got a hyper evo 212 with push pull fans... I'm worried I'm gonna need to get a new cooler
@@gameovergaming5463 I have the same question. I read some people are running in eco mode to get thermals under control and I read somewhere that only allows for a 12% gain over the 3700X which is selling for about $250 on Amazon right now with their 10% off deal. But, the 3700X will probably bottleneck a 3080 at 1440p.
@@gameovergaming5463 Hyper 212 is old man, I got mine 8 years ago... I know it was the standard back then but I think the scythe mugen is way better now.
I’m rocking a 5800X and a 7900XTX for 4K gaming and it’s still fine for me.
5800X and GTX 1080, quite happy.
I was expecting your R7 review to be the least positive towards the new ones, given that you guys don't really find the x800X series to make much sense to buy.
Great work as usual, though!
Are we so predictable?!
Always have been hahaha
Your focus has always been on value and people getting the most out of their money, so your honest opinions are most appreciated, even if we can predict them
@@GamersNexus Yes you are! I ordered my 5800X yesterday, I've been rocking an FX-8370 for years and I just wanted the 8-core thing to be real this time. :)
Getting this one regardless of weird price position. I want the better clocking and fully enabled die with all the cores accessing the same cache L3 cache with no inter-ccx latency. 5800X fits the bill!
2 years later and 5800X is only 10€ more than 5700X on Amazon as of now so it's worth it
Just bought one for 150$ lol
I just got my 5800x and I really love it
100+ hours of content covering the whole lineup in depth and that too very quickly, Steve and the team truly deserves a lot more. These are videos we will keep coming back to, for the whole Zen 3 time cycle.
listening to steve talk about how "little sense" the best 8 core of this generation makes, after immediately saying "if games cant use more than 8 cores, you suffer frequency decay, especially if the game doesnt leverage those cores." seems a little unfair. so, since MOST ALL games DON'T use more than 8 cores.. Doesn't that in turn mean it makes A LOT of sense? I mean, No, it isnt the best price to performance ratio, but that "sense" proposition isnt fair to make unless you take into account ALL use cases. (not to mention, next generation consoles have 8core 16 thread processors) if you want a system that will be able to natively , ideally run ports of those games on the pc, it makes ALOT of sense they'd be optimized for 8 cores. (especially if the people who port the game dont bother doing a good job, leaving threading optimizations to be like the console. and we've ALL seen shitty ports that dont leverage the hardware) the 6 core may not scale with ports if they are ported especially inEptly.. but that will need to be verified when they become available. I consider the 5800 the PERFORMANCE sweet spot for a decient build, because you get at LEAST 5600x performance, and have two extra cores to handle everything else background task related. (if thats how someone wants to look at it)
Gamers don't need 8-core CPUs. 8-core+ CPUs are for workstations. The 5800X doesn't make sense for workstations. It costs too much for the performance it gives. The 3700X is still amazing for many tasks (or at least C++ compile, which is what mine is for). It launched for $300, and MSRP is now $280. The 5800X costs over 50% as much and is at best a 20% improvement. Given how great the 3700X is already, you're not likely to notice a difference unless you're doing something absurd like compiling Firefox. If you're doing something that heavy, you either need a heavy upgrade or you plan your schedule around that workload.
@@solidbeat1 Well in this case for the 5800X, you can’t really make that argument. The 4790k, while still highly priced, was the top tier for gamers/streamers at the time (unless you really wanted to fork over some serious money for an Intel extreme chip). The 5800X is more of a “Jack of all trades, master of none” CPU, with a not so favorable price. The 3700X was more of a justifiable purchase on release because even though it fit in the same place in the market, the price was much more reasonable at $330.
@@angolin9352 In 2017 gamers didn't need 6 core CPUs either, things change. They change slowly but they change. Buying a 6 core now is like buying a quad core then, Steve is always too short sighted for this. His entire argument seemed to be "the 5800X is no better than the 5600X in the games we benchmarked right here so there is no point in buying it". I'm buying my CPU to keep it for and skip AT LEAST 2 more CPU generations, my next system will be DDR5 after the prices have somewhat cooled down. I'm not just interested in game performance at this very moment from games that are even a couple of years old. Next gen consoles will have real 8 core 16 thread Zen2 CPUs. And yes sure a fast 6 core will still be fine for years, but it won't be optimal anymore, the 8 core will be faster. For people who are buying the end and want the best performance, they don't just buy what they "need". They want at least some wiggle room and want to stay near the top of the curve. 12 cores however is at that point where these CPU are just going to be pretty much obselete by the time 12 cores offer any noticeable benefit over 8 cores for gaming, so it seems like too much. But the 5800x and 5900x being so close in price makes it a harder choice, ideally I would just want to buy 8 cores but AMD seemingly delibrately made it so that I'm not really saving much from not buying 12 cores.
Just seems kind of weird to just recommend gamers only buy a 6 core £300 CPU to pair with their £800 GPUs because it's all you need at this moment.
@@angolin9352 Also, the ‘future-proofing’ concept on CPU’s isn’t that good imo. If you look at the 4690k, it took years past it’s release for games to utilize more cores/processing power. By the time it really did matter, it was over 4 years after its release. People who had a 4790k over a 4690k were still/are still looking to upgrade around the same time. So although the 4790k has decent performance gains on it, it didn’t really make a difference on when to upgrade for most people. The 5600X and 5800x kind of fits the same way.
Hi Steve. Minor complain about charts presented. Like the one at 4:40. Can you make sure, really sure, your software sets the Y grid correctly to be sensible. Like set Y grid spacing there to 100MHz, not 75MHz, which feels unnatural and distracting. Otherwise awesome editing with highlights, traces delay, and blinking stuff / time remaining. Great stuff.
Bought a 5800X for $240 before tax at Micro Center. 5700X was priced $30 lower but was out of stock, and 5800X3D was still a little too expensive for me.
It’s weird I still plan to get the 5800X, I understand it’s a bit irrational. I figure I upgrade so infrequently I’ll spend a bit more.Thanks for all the testing and info GN.
It's rational if it's the right fit for your current and future needs to not spend the extra money to upgrade 5900x.
@@egalanos same here I don't need the 5900x so why pay £100 more for 4 more cores I am not going to use (I can use that towards a 2tb ssd and gpu)
@@egalanos I was more comparing it to the 5600X but yeah, you’re right about that.
I got me a 5800x. I’m happy with it. :)didn’t want just 6 cores n definitely don’t need 12 so I went right in the middle. I fig the 5600x would be a better value but Ive wanted the 5800x since amd announced the 5k series lol so I went with what I thought I’d be happy with. Money is only ever really wasted if your not happy with what u bought. If your happy with it then imo it’s worth every penny :)
well the new consoles are on going to be optimized for 8 core games. Could be a better future proof choice. We will see
Steve, I have to really commend you on doing "Time for a turn" for your Civ 6 benchmark. Unlike the FPS rating that every other reviewer seems to use, yours is USEFUL! Is there any chance you could post the savegame someplace, so that we can compare on our own systems?
Good idea.
Firaxis should introduce a Civ VI benchmark so other reviewers could more easily use it as well.
@@4Leka Depending on how they implement it, though, it may still be better to do it manually if you want more consistent data.
I heard Linus mention this benchmark a couple days ago (I think referencing this test). It would be cool to have real world stuff like civ 6 turns more often, especially because I like Epic game duration and I go through a ton of turns. Maybe we can see compile times for large applications soon too
Thanks! For putting out great content, I’ve been following your channel for a few months now. I wish I found your channel before I purchased components for a new gaming build. It’s been 10 Years since my last build, and I have fallen behind the new technology. I felt like I was way out of my league. The damage is done the budget is blown. I’m trying to make the best of it by learning more about todays computer components and tuning to make the most out of the mistakes I made purchasing what I thought was right. I’m gaining confidence with every video you guys put out and I’m close to diving into the timings to get the most out of my new build. Thanks again keep up the good work. You’ll make a decent PC builder out of me yet. Thanks again.
Funny you gave 5 $ and he didn't even say thank you lol
The price dropped to 199 euro. Great buy at this moment ;)
It's worth mentioning that prices will vary according to availability, I'm not sure how stable prices are in the NA but in Europe they tend to not really reflect MSRP.
In my region the 5600X is ~330 EUR, the 5800X is ~485 EUR while the 5900X is ~620 EUR. So the 5800X is 155 EUR more expensive than the 5600X and 135 EUR cheaper than the 5900X; that places it very close to a middle-ground price between the 5600X and 5900X. In other words, it makes perfect sense buying this processor in my area.
Always check your local prices boys and girls.
True that mate, the 5900 is $160 AUD more then the 5800
yess now the r 2600 will have a price drop so i can finally afford a athlon 200ge
* Athlon XP
2 years later i bought this for 179, seems like a deal to me
"Worth every penny" - Gamer Nexus Review
The 5800X is still a good choice if you need to perform some workstation related loads but live in the many parts of the world where the price difference of US$ 100 becomes exponential in your local currency.
Or even the power costs ^^ Thats the reason why undervolting is for me more importend then OC, when you are paying 0.48$/kWh (0,41€/kWh) and also want min. 8 Cores xD
Unlike Nvidia and Intel, Ryzen here has turned out to match the US RRP + any sales tax.
@@drmeddenrasen7236 Where?!? island?
I actually feel the 5800x is the entry CPU for gamers who don't want a far weaker CPU than they should have in 2 years. If you are actually doing workstation stuff and its part of your $$$ / hobby the extra 100 are worth a 5900x
The problem when we talk about value, is we talk about games that are current, rather than thinking 2-3 maybe 5 years ahead. 6 Cores will start to fall off hard in 12 months (18 months max), when the console game creators start optimising games for 8-cores. As per the PS5 and Xbox X/S.
*when* games optimize more cores, so just wait for a price drop to get your money's worth
@@joooseph22 I agree that the 5800x is overpriced by around 60-80$ RRP, however, if you are looking for an upgrade, I still think it's a solid CPU to power your system for the next 3-5 years no problem for AAA titles in 1080p/1440p
@@Seohce I agree, when I built with my i7 3770, dual core was "better for gaming". But people who built dual core were up for an entire system upgrade (or upgrade to a second hand 3770) after 2-3 years.
Fast forward 8 years (with a GPU upgrade in the middle) and this build is finally done, I would like to get another 6+ years from my next build.
Having said that, I still agree with the 5800x being overpriced, it just happens to be the CPU that suits my needs the best.
I'll be waiting a couple of months anyway though, fingers crossed for a price drop!
Yep, bought a 4 core CPU, when everyone said 2 cores is enough and used it 7 years. Then bought a 4C/8T CPU when everyone said 4C/4T is enough and I still use it today, almost 7 years later. Still runs good, a old 4C/4T CPU really runs bad now. Going to get a 8C/16T as my next build.
I was applying this logic for a while since multi-core CPUs (especially around 2010) started becoming mainstream, but it took another 7 years before 4 cores wasn't enough. I do believe 6 cores will eventually be minimum spec but when that happens there'll be mainstream offerings cheaper and better than what we have now, so $150 (right now) saved will go to other things like a GPU.
Some people been also theorising that the initial yields for CCXs might be worse for full 8 cores - so pointing people towards the 6-core-based SKUs might also be a factor in the 5800x pricing? Any thoughts?
(btw, ty for all the hard work over the past few days 👍 )
I know this cpu was released in 2020, but it's still a decent CPU for today. I got this cpu for $290 while the 5600x is $309. I mean, you can't beat the performance for the cost I got it for.
got one recently for 210. this things value is going crazy rn.
GN seems to hate 8 core CPUs! It was cold on the i7-10700K as well.
For me this CPU is the sweet spot: No need for the power of the 3900X (and I do edit videos, just not that much) but has 8 core all round ability as well as single CCX architecture. It's a great CPU but I think people are just struggling to swallow AMD's pricing regime this time around. I think in a few years the 5800X wil be holding up better than a 5600X becauuse of those extra cores- but $150 worth of 'more'? Hard to know.
Hard to know indeed. In my mind if I'm keeping it for awhile $150 doesn't seem alot, until you realize it's half the price of a 5600x. Steve is right it's like they didn't want to sell as many 5800x and used it to sell more 5600x and 5900x. Clearly an opening here for a 5600 and a 5800 non x sku. $249 for 5600 and $399 for 5800.
@@jpesicka999 >it's like they didn't want to sell as many 5800x
It might be that they know they *can't*. A CCX with 1 or 2 defective cores can become a 5600X, but for a 5800X every core on the die has to be viable. That reduces yield. Same with 5900X vs 5950X - the 5900X can use cast off parts. AMD are probably using the slight price hike to manage demand to fit supply.
@@WeirdNeville 5950x requires high boost clock. Any CCDs that have all cores functional but fail to reach boost requirements will likely become 5800x.
edit: not only boost, 5950x also requires the best CCDs with lower voltage and less TDP requirement.
@@UltimateAlgorithm there's also Epyc to consider, a bunch of the CCD's will end up there too.
Steve, seriously what am I missing? The graphs seem to indicate that the 5800X is across the board almost as powerful as the 5900X, and it's $100 less. It also seems to be the most overclockable of all these chips, which puts it sometimes on par with the 5950X. Why are you saying that it's not a good choice?
+1
Because it has the worst price to performance. That said it's still the best choice for a lot of use cases.
I'm still missing what makes Ryzen 5000 compelling at all. For gaming, a mid-range CPU is all most people need to hold them over for about 5 years. Anything higher is usually a waste of money that could be spent on a better graphics card. Workstation users need high-end CPUs. These new chips start at mid-range, but the cheapest costs what the 3700X did when it was new, performs worse at most workstation tasks, and isn't much better at gaming. The 5800X isn't enough of a gain over the 3700X to justify the 1.5x increase in the 3700X's original MSRP, never mind what it's going for now. The 900 series might have its fans, but I can't imagine that there is a large market that can afford to pay almost $1,000 for a CPU and actually uses that performance, but isn't willing or able to buy a new or used Threadripper.
Overall Ryzen 5000 just seems overpriced. It's not bad, it looks good. Just not worth the high premium AMD is demanding.
out of the four zen 3 chips released, it's the least performance for the money... however I don't know that that's the point of it. seems perfectly positioned as a 10900k killer to me. prior to today, if you wanted the best gaming CPU, you got a 10900k if you also used the computer for real work some times, say someone that games a lot but also makes videos or some such. the 10900k is still better than the 5600x in this role, but for the same price, the 5800x is far better. Pretty much for anyone that would have otherwise chosen a 10900k instead of a 3900x for a hundred bucks less, the 3800x is the perfect part.
@@angolin9352 even if some of stuff you mentioned make sense, world is not as cut and dry as you imagined. there are lots of different people with different use cases, you said about 900 series, way I see it, most smaller productions and freelancer who were on 2700x with existing b450/b550 seeking to upgrade it made a lot of sense rather than saying going for a threadripper + TR mobo which cost a lot, sure they are nothing for big companies but those people wont even bother to get a 2700x to begin with but for smaller business these 5000 series could be a game changer especially when upgrading from 2000 series
I am here from the future it's now around $200 cheaper than the 5900x and only around $70 more than the 5600x so it's in the perfect place for most bang for the buck.
I just got a 5800x, it was only 45 dollars more than the 5600x and 140 less than the 5900x. That’s why I grabbed it.
If there's anything I've learned from this election, 1.1746680286% matters.
highest all core clock, better than the 10700k in all cases (unlike the 5600x), in most cases it ties or beats the 10900k ($530), it appears to have the most impactful overclocking of the 5000 stack. It has its merits. You also point out that the 5800x is only 6% better than the 5600x in photoshop, while ignoring the fact that the 5900x is also only 6% better but is $250 more. not fair.
The reason I went with the 5800x is the magical 8 core count, which I expect future games to be optimized for because of the new consoles (also 8 cores). I expect to see more fps gains when more games take advantage of all cores (which is already apparent in some games). Its important to realize that dx12 hits a wall at 6 cores, which makes having 8+ cores not great for most games, FOR NOW. This is probably going to change in the next iteration of DirectX. I bet in a few years 6 cores will be the new quad core and everyone will recommend at least 8 cores.
Lastly, everything you said about the 5800x gaming performance value can be said about the 5900x. While the 5900x is obviously valuable for production stuff, its a terrible value for gaming. Which basically limits gamers to one cpu, the 5600x.
@@Ninja_Pro And the 10700k will probably scale better into the future than the 5600x. More cores means as apps use more core you get more benefit. (I wouldn't buy either of these atm but its not like its in a awful spot.)
GN runs its benches on clean installs i assume (or testing benches), i have firefox and sometimes chome open and many more programs. I often watch videos listen to music, etc while gaming. ill often push 10-20% cpu easily before the game on my 8 core system. Do that on a 6 core and you have a large fight over processing power.
But the 5800x is different its also 8 cores and it preforms very well core to core (better than the 5900x or 5600x), its is over priced but wait for the price drop, or not, and its a really good deal as a 4-5 year cpu.
GN should run a test where they take up ~15% of cpu (or like x number of back ground programs) and then run their benchmarks to see the REAL world performance in games.
@Kiri Haimura zen 2 yes but not zen 3
@Muka Hadama not for zen 3 man. The 5800x is the best cpu for warzone. I don’t know about apex or overwatch though (zen 3 probably wins). Rocket lake might change that, but until then amd wins
the 5800x is for the people who game and stream/render on the side
@Muka Hadama well you cant compare cold war and black ops 2, the graphics are on another level. And yes, 6 cores is definitely enough. I’m just saying the 5800x is the best gaming cpu, even though it’s not the best value in terms of # of cores. And I haven’t noticed bad 1% lows like you’re saying. Also the ps5 is cheap because sony makes more money off of game purchases, you can’t compare a PC with a console like that, a pc can do so much more than a ps5.
I find comforting that I'm not the only one that enjoys more than one hour of reviews of a single product stack.
I agree with this review... and it is probably the only reason why they are the only processors in stock for us non-bots
One factor that I think is overlooked when running these benchmarks - the 5600x, 5800x, and 5900x are all very close in gaming during clean benchmarks. I'm not sure about you, but I usually game with maybe a zillion Chrome tabs, an idling VM, Shadowplay, discord, RDP session and who knows what else running in the background. Could I close it all, sure, but I'm paying for the privilege not to have to do that.
Would a 5800x or 5900x pull ahead more significantly with a large number of background processes happening? I think it would be interesting. Maybe the 5800x makes more sense when you consider real-world scenarios as opposed to clean room benchmarking.
I'd love to see that tested.
strongly agree. also a definite argument for future proofing as well, since a cpu upgrade usually means a near whole system upgrade
All you mentioned is more memory dependant than CPU but if you are heavy VM user I wouldn't even look at 5600X.
Now for gaming it's more of a question whether we will see better parallelization than 6 cores anytime soon, which I highly doubt, but if that happens 5800X will age better than both 5600X and 5900X for real time dynamic workloads such as games since those two are 6 cores per CCX design and 5800X is single 8 core CCX eliminating inter core latency issues that may happen with 6+6 5900X
@@XPACT3 Is it not 8+4? Then its a huge disadvantage.
@@XPACT3 I agree memory is a primary consideration with a lot of background tasks - but they still use CPU cycles. I'm not a 'heavy' user. Most of my heavy stuff sits on servers where they belong, but never the less stuff gets to be local sometimes. And that said, I've observed my system hovering around 25% CPU utilization at idle often before launching a game. This is on an 8700k @ 5.0Ghz. I haven't bothered breaking down exactly where that comes from, but I suspect mostly discord with Krisp enabled, I'll pay more attention.
There are already a number of games that benefit from >6 core, and I expect that trend will continue. The consoles all have 8 core now so it is really only a matter of time.
I was strongly preferring the 5800x based on the same logic you laid out regarding CCX latency. But it doesn't seem like anybody else is really talking about that this generation - and lots of people are pushing the 5900x as the overall better value.
Ultimately, whether I end up with a 5800x or 5900x is going to depend on which one I can actually get my grubby mitts on.
@@KenanYusufTemel Sadly no, it probably has to do with stability but every configuration is X+X. That somewhat explains a price premium for 5800X since it is actually one perfect 8 core CCX. Inter core latency between two CCXs is still there. They managed to reduce latency between cores on the same CCX which is one of the reasons they are better at gaming now, but between two there is still average 80ns instead of very respectable 15-17ns in one CCX itself
The 5800X has the highest price per core value of any part in the launch lineup. It's in a very weird position, and you'd expect the 12 or 16 core part to be this overpriced.
@mohammad khalil You mean the 6800?
@mohammad khalil you must mean the 6800, the 6800xt is in a good position overall
Probably just to utilise 8 core CCD that can't reach 5950x boost target. At least they make some bucks by selling it instead of killing some cores (becomes 5600x) or outright discard it.
@blitzcaster It's not just about clocks speeds. The 5800X is getting the intact (all 8 cores operational) dies with the worst power efficiency.
You can see that in it's 105W TDP which is 61% greater than the 5600X despite only having 33% more cores and the same as the 5900x despite that processor having 50% more cores.
Honestly that really puts me off the 8 core AMD CPUs although of course that is the desirable core configuration for gaming due to the reduced core-core latency and because it is what the next gen consoles have :/
@@zig131 tdp is NOT power usage, look at reveiws for power usage
This review really don't age well at all.
Still true
Great review series! And the live overclock stream was very cool!
Guys don't forget that this is based on old games review, considering the games coming in the next 5 years, 5800x have much more sense with the extra 2 cores for the next gen games, and this "future-proof" extra cores might worth it way more down the line if you don't plan to upgrade every 1-2 years and as this is the end for AM4 socket it make much more sense as even if you want to upgrade you will need new motherboard, so if you have one, don't be sorry because of the negative GN review. Just my 2 cents.
Don't forget DDR5 is around the corner. More cores are good only if you have faster RAM.
@@SuperTheLycan I think that cores usability mostly depends on the games and game engines ability to utilize the available cores properly.
but isn't it if you play on 1440p or 4k, that games will be more and more gpu bound, so 2 more core cpu power is kinda negligible?
but of course maybe that 2 cores could help when you do livestream...
@@jamzqool that depends on the games itself, some games are heavy cpu and cores users, some are not and some prefer clock speed on single core than more cores, so it's really dependent on the game in particular.
The worst? Lol, $100 bucks less than the "i really don't need 12 cores for anything", still awesome performance and will last for as long as you need it. To me, after the 5600 for gamers, this is the CPU to go for.
Yes because 5600X is still a 6 core part which does not offer the futureproofing as a 8 core CPU does when games are being optimized for one and consoles are 8 core so it will start losing its edge in the newer games and 8 cores will help in another workload like transcoding even if you are not using it professionally. And yes 5900X might seem better value but those are 4 cores you don't really need unless you are using it professionally and then a 5950X might make more sense and a 12 core might end up performing worse in some 8 core optimized titles. Also its not like 100$ is nothing you can always invest it in a better GPU or something just like Steve mentioned.
@@shubham601 Very little of this makes any sense. From what we saw the 5900 outperforms the lower core 5800x. And as we saw in titles that really favor multi threading it REALLY ran away with it. We're about to go into a generation where having more than the bare minimum 8c/16t will likely see the difference grow.
The thing that Steve is missing, is that if you want more than 6 cores for modern workloads, without the 5800x, there would be a $250 price jump from the 5600x to the 5900x.
Exactly and the new consoles are 8 core. The only reason the 5800x is the worst right now is its price but that will change soon.
"More numbers, therefore more better." I love that.
ME: oh finaly the one I could buy and wasn't out of stock
Gamers Nexus: we saved the WoRst FoR LasT
As a 3800X buyer when it was the only thing in stock, there are worse fates.
Well the 5800X is not the worst CPU. There is just no reason paying 150$ extra for a minor performance boost
"More Numbers - More Better"
That's savage.
just got this cpu at retail, sad you have to say that now these days. It maybe the worst of the best, but this was replacing my 3700x. This jump is performance is enough to justify the upgrade, I did notice that cyberpunk works 98% gpu usage (3070) vs when it was paired with the 3700x, which varied from 70-90 gpu usage.
I feel like the 5800x is the "In case we gauged something wrong" model