Ryzen 9 5900XT vs Ryzen 9 5950X vs Ryzen 9 5900X w/ RTX 4090: Test in 8 games at 1080p

Поделиться
HTML-код
  • Опубликовано: 4 янв 2025

Комментарии • 41

  • @gecidbenchmarks
    @gecidbenchmarks  3 месяца назад +4

    // Timestamp
    0:00 Intro
    0:19 Gaming Benchmarks
    0:21 Baldur's Gate 3
    1:03 Counter-Strike 2
    1:44 Cyberpunk 2077
    3:05 Forza Horizon 5
    3:47 Horizon Forbidden West
    4:28 Starfield
    5:10 Star Wars Outlaws
    5:52 Total War Saga: Troy
    6:33 Overall Gaming Results
    7:38 Synthetic Tests
    8:36 Outro

  • @hababacon
    @hababacon 22 часа назад +1

    I damaged my 5900X taking my cooler off with liquid metal (4 years) and while yes the Liquid Metal kept the processor nice and cool, just don't apply it with the sense of upgrading a few years down the pipe. Anywho, I'm looking at the 5900XT or 5700X3D as my replacement processor. This is my living room PC and I'm using my spare parts from my primary PC after upgrading to AMD 5 platform with the 9900X. I have $150 in gift cards at BB. The 5700X3D is currently sold out at BB so the 5900XT is looking real interesting. Glad to see it has similar performance to the 5900X. I'm guessing it can't OC as much with 16 cores and presumably less quality silicon. My damaged 5900X could hit 4825 MHZ playing games, but only stable in productivity at 4725 MHZ. On the flipside, I should sell my X570 MB with 32 Gigs of ram (3600 MHZ CL16) for $150 and go all in on AM5.

  • @Sooluuss
    @Sooluuss Месяц назад +6

    ryzen 5900x still the beast for AM4.

  • @megac2557
    @megac2557 2 месяца назад +1

    Are you using Windows 11 24h2?

  • @MrSamadolfo
    @MrSamadolfo Месяц назад +1

    🤓👍 very neat test, i didnt now that video games can use 32 threads 🐢

  • @IsaacNl3x
    @IsaacNl3x 26 дней назад

    who is better this mobo Asus Rog Strix B550-F Gaming or
    Asus Tuf Gaming X570 gaming plus, Gigabyte B550M Aorus Elite AX V2 ?

  • @gunhp4759
    @gunhp4759 Месяц назад +6

    Much better temperature on 5900x

    • @swingdaddy2126
      @swingdaddy2126 29 дней назад

      less cores spread out over same size IHS. easier to cool.

  • @de-todo-un-poco-argentina
    @de-todo-un-poco-argentina Месяц назад +3

    hola ese ryzen 5900xt es un ryzen 5950x con menos mhz?

    • @ZendaKenn
      @ZendaKenn Месяц назад +1

      exactamente, un poco menos mas

    • @de-todo-un-poco-argentina
      @de-todo-un-poco-argentina Месяц назад

      @@ZendaKenn alli arme el 5900xt pero es un poquito estresadito viene un poco limitado para hacerle overclock y undervolt jeje.

    • @carlosraulvargas7445
      @carlosraulvargas7445 16 дней назад +1

      ​@@de-todo-un-poco-argentinapor lo que he visto en un vídeo, dicen que el silicio del 5900xt es de peor calidad, aunque no sé dónde se pueda corroborar esa información xd

    • @de-todo-un-poco-argentina
      @de-todo-un-poco-argentina 15 дней назад

      @@carlosraulvargas7445 si seguro que si porque tiene menos velocidad.

    • @RookySteed
      @RookySteed 9 дней назад

      @@carlosraulvargas7445 🤣🤣🤣

  • @McLeonVP
    @McLeonVP 16 дней назад

    basically 5900x cores +
    with 5950x cache = 5900xt

    • @vh9network
      @vh9network 15 дней назад

      Both 5900X & 5950X have 64MB of L3 cache.

    • @McLeonVP
      @McLeonVP 15 дней назад

      @vh9network doesn't matter L3
      L1 up from 700 to 1mb
      L2 from 6mb to 8MB

  • @guilherminhu
    @guilherminhu 20 дней назад +1

    agua vs water

    • @McLeonVP
      @McLeonVP 16 дней назад

      not really
      the cache

  • @bananeta
    @bananeta Месяц назад +1

    for virtualizor: 5900xt OR 5950x??? wich's better??? I love you all.

    • @shaheen06
      @shaheen06 Месяц назад +1

      im also wondering

    • @ThroneAndLibertyEden
      @ThroneAndLibertyEden 24 дня назад +1

      considering that 5950x is cheaper and runs a tiny bit cooler and is a tiny bit stronger id say 5950x is the clear winner, but its really not by much. so it just depends on where you get which one faster or cheaper.

    • @SinisterLynch
      @SinisterLynch 16 дней назад

      @@ThroneAndLibertyEdenthis guy didnt test the 5900xt right i run the same settings and get much higher fps in cs2

  • @LW80
    @LW80 3 месяца назад +2

    why 1080p? why not 4K?

    • @gecidbenchmarks
      @gecidbenchmarks  3 месяца назад +19

      So that the GPU does not become a bottleneck and does not limit the performance of the CPU.

    • @spikeweb5193
      @spikeweb5193 3 месяца назад

      Bo 1080p jest nadal najpopularniejsze, p po za tym w 4k karta graficzna przejmuje obliczenia, a procesory sa w większości zblizone do siebie

    • @watchulookinat271
      @watchulookinat271 2 месяца назад +1

      cause 1080p is king

    • @2jam
      @2jam 2 месяца назад +4

      if set to 4k, then the work is do by the GPU. this test is for CPU

  • @phwei-f8e
    @phwei-f8e 2 месяца назад +5

    5900XT is rubbish

    • @peterfuentes5893
      @peterfuentes5893 Месяц назад +4

      Not for the current price. 😂 it’s only $20 more than the x. You get more cores and threads.

    • @rommelreyes2209
      @rommelreyes2209 Месяц назад

      Yes for the price. If it was 50% cheaper yes

    • @IsaacNl3x
      @IsaacNl3x 20 дней назад +1

      5950x It's much more expensive. This comment would only make sense if both were equivalent in price.

    • @SinisterLynch
      @SinisterLynch 16 дней назад

      He didnt test the 5900xt right.

    • @gabehernandez3056
      @gabehernandez3056 10 дней назад

      ​@@SinisterLynch wym by that?

  • @shadowaussie1012
    @shadowaussie1012 26 дней назад

    I dont understand why Ryzen 5900xt is rubbish when its $300 cheaper, runs faster than 10-15 FPS than 5900x, Sane Power consumption and its newer while the 5900 os already 5 years old. the power supply reason why bills goes up and playing 8 hours a day. your better off going to Internet xafe spending 3 dollars an hour than playing with the higest gpu and 4090 unless your earning 5k a week I would properly spend less time pverclocking your pc gaming 32 GB ddr4 would help with performance