Product test

Ryzen 9 5900X: The new gaming king

5.11.2020

Translation: machine translated

The Ryzen 9 3900X has hit the market like a bomb: it's a top performer in terms of productivity and also makes a decent trap when gaming. With its successor, the Ryzen 9 5900X, AMD is now even taking the gaming crown.

The Ryzen 9 5900X is the secret flagship of the Ryzen 5000 line-up. Although the twelve-core processor is "only" in second place behind the 5950X, it should be the better choice for most people: 24 threads are currently more than enough.

The processor in detail

If you are interested in the Zen 3 architecture in detail, click on the article below. I have summarised everything important there.

Product test
Ryzen 5000: AMD sets new standards
by Kevin Hofer

Here are the features of the chip compared to the competition and its predecessor in detail:

Processor	Microarchitecture / manufacturing process	Cores / Threads	Base / boost clock (GHz)	TDP (Watt)	L3 cache (MB)	PCIe Lanes	Memory Support	Price (as of 05.10.2020)	Price per thread (as of 05.10.2020)
Ryzen 9 5900X	Zen 3 / 7 nm+	12 / 24	3,7 / 4,8	105	64	24 Gen4	Dual-channel DDR4-3200	549	22,90
Ryzen 9 3900X	Zen 2 / 7 nm	12 / 24	3,8 / 4,6	105	64	24 Gen4	Dual-channel DDR4-3200	450	18,75
Core i9-10900K	Comet Lake / 14nm++	10 / 20	3,7 / 5,3	125	20	16 Gen3	Dual-channel DDR4-2933	520	26

Like the 5950X, the 5900X basically has no direct competitor. Intel's high-end model, the i9-10900K, only has ten cores. Nevertheless, I am using it here for comparison so that you can see how the most comparable model from Intel performs.

Compared to its predecessor, the 5900X has a 200 MHz higher boost clock. At 3.7 GHz, the base clock is 100 MHz lower than the 3900X. That doesn't sound like much at first, but thanks to the innovations of the Zen 3 architecture, there is still a leap in performance with the same consumption. Unlike its predecessor, the 5900X comes without a cooler.

Test setup and method

I used the following components for the review:

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X (AM4, 3.70 GHz, 12 -Core)

Processors

CHF256.–

AMD Ryzen 9 5900X

AM4, 3.70 GHz, 12 -Core

Motherboards

ASUS ROG Crosshair VIII Formula

AM4, AMD X570, ATX

Graphics card

KFA2 GeForce RTX 2080 Super Ex

8 GB

Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB (2 x 8GB, 3200 MHz, DDR4-RAM, DIMM)

RAM

CHF95.–

Corsair Dominator Platinum RGB

2 x 8GB, 3200 MHz, DDR4-RAM, DIMM

CPU coolers

CHF107.–

Noctua NH-U12A

158 mm

SSD

Corsair MP600

1000 GB, M.2 2280

Power Supply PC

Used

CHF110.–

Corsair RM850 *2019*

850 W

I activate XMP in the BIOS. Otherwise I leave everything on default - except under the subtitle "Overclocking". I use AGESA V2 1.1.0.0 for the BIOS and version 2.10.13.408 is installed for the chipset driver. Windows 10 is running version 2004.

The testing method is based on my graphics card reviews. Here is an overview of the various benchmarks:

Cinebench R20
CPU-Z Benchmark
Blender
Handbrake
7-Zip
Photoshop
PCMark 10
Fire Strike / Fire Strike Ultra
Time Spy / Time Spy Extreme
Games: "Assassin's Creed Odyssey", "Civilisation VI: Gathering Storm", "Deus Ex: Mankind Divided", "Far Cry 5", "Gears 5", "Red Dead Redemption 2", "Strange Brigade" and "Shadow of the Tomb Raider"

I run all benchmarks three times and take the best result in each case.

Overclocking and Cinebench R20

As always with CPU reviews, I am aware that the overclocking potential with the Noctua air cooler is limited. I could probably achieve higher clock frequencies with an AIO. However, since most people still cool their CPUs with air, the test with air cooling is more meaningful. I'm also not a professional overclocker. If you have an AIO or custom water cooling, you can achieve better temperatures. Nevertheless, the overclocking potential of the Ryzen 9 5900X is much greater than I would have assumed. I manage to overclock all twelve cores to 4.7 GHz. And the chip doesn't even get particularly hot.

As a reference, I run the Cinebench R20 benchmark. At stock settings, the Ryzen 9 5900X achieves a multi-core score of 8201, with the processor heating up to 72° Celsius and running at 4.4 GHz on all cores. This means it gets about as hot as the competitor from Intel, which gets up to 73° Celsius on stock in Cinebench R20. The predecessor 3900X reached 75° Celsius. The 5900X makes a huge leap over its predecessor, especially in the single core: it now scores 633 points. The predecessor managed 504, which corresponds to an increase of 26 per cent. The Multi Core is still 14 per cent higher.

With a voltage of 1.35 volts, I manage to overclock the 5900X to 4.7 GHz on all cores. The system runs stably. I did manage to boot Windows at 4.8 GHz, but the system kept crashing. With this clock frequency on all 12 cores, I achieved a multi-core score of 8907 in Cinebench, almost 9 per cent more than in stock mode. The CPU gets 88° Celsius warm in the process.

CPU-Z

In the CPU-Z benchmark, the performance increase of the 5900X compared to the 3900X is similar to that of Cinebench - even if not exactly to the same extent. It is clear that the AMD CPU beats the competition from Intel in Multi Core because of the two cores. However, the difference in the single core is also considerable. The 3900X was still 51 points behind the i9-10900K, while the 5900X is now 85 points ahead of the Intel processor.

7-Zip

In the integrated benchmark of 7-Zip - I choose the standard "Dictionary size" of 32 MB - the difference to the predecessor is also large: the 5900X manages just over 18,000 instructions per second (MIPS) more, which corresponds to 17 per cent. AMD leaves the competition from Intel far behind with an additional 20,000. However, the 5900X also has two more cores at its disposal.

Blender bmw27

The performance increase in Blender compared to its predecessor is not quite as great. The new AMD processor renders the benchmark scene eight seconds faster than its predecessor. This corresponds to around seven per cent. Compared to the Intel, the 5900X is 16 seconds faster.

Handbrake

In the Handbrake test, the difference between 5900X, 3900X and i9-10900K is three seconds each. The 5900X encodes the 88-second, 645 MB 4K trailer of "The Dark Knight Rises" with Handbrake's "Fast 1080p30" presets around six per cent faster than its predecessor and 12 per cent faster than its Intel competitor.

Photoshop

Different workloads are performed in the Photoshop benchmark from Puget Systems. You can find more detailed information here. At the end, the benchmark calculates a score based on a reference workstation. This achieves 1000 points. The small difference to the reference workstation, which is equipped with older components, can be explained by the RAM: The workstation has 64 GB of RAM installed and the testbench only has 16, so you should ignore the result of the reference workstation. Much more important are the results of the individual processors on our testbench.

In the benchmark, the 5900X performs around 28 per cent better than the 3900X and around 23 per cent better than the 10900K. That's a huge leap in performance.

PCMark 10

The generational leap in PCMark 10 is smaller at nine per cent. The benchmark tests various scenarios such as the loading time of apps, efficiency in spreadsheets, browsing or photo and video editing. It calculates a score from this. Compared to the 10900K, the test CPU is still four per cent ahead.

Fire Strike, Fire Strike Ultra, Time Spy and Time Spy Ultra

The synthetic game benchmarks provide a first look at the performance in games. I have omitted the overall score, which is calculated from the results of the graphics card and CPU. This is because the GPU score is very inconsistent. I had differences of over 1000 points here.

In two benchmarks, the new AMD CPU clearly outperforms the competition from Intel and its predecessor. In Time Spy, however, Team Red remains behind Team Blue. In the 4K benchmark Time Spy Extreme, the increase in performance is the smallest. Across the four benchmarks, the 5900X is around 15 per cent ahead of the 10900K. Compared to its predecessor, the 5900X even performs 18 per cent better.

The games

In addition to the average FPS, I also provide the frame time in percentiles for the games, namely 99 and 99.9. The measured values of the percentiles are frame times measured in milliseconds. In other words, the time intervals from picture to picture or frame to frame. The purpose of the percentile values is to ignore isolated outliers. 99 percentile means that 99 per cent of all measured values are faster than the specified measured value. If a value in the graphic is 95 FPS, 99 per cent are running at a higher frame rate than 95 FPS. Exactly one per cent, on the other hand, runs slower than 95 FPS. The same applies to the 99.9 percentile. For better comparability, the result is converted from frametimes in milliseconds to the traditional FPS value.

As you can see, the Ryzen 9 5900X performs better in certain games and worse in others than the 10900K. The only big difference is in "Strange Brigade". The game generally runs worse with AMD processors than with Intel processors. I therefore exclude it from the presentation of the average FPS. However, the game shows that Intel is still favoured by certain games.

In 1080p resolution, AMD is three FPS ahead of Intel with the 5900X. In 1440p resolution, AMD and Intel are in lockstep and in 2160p resolution, AMD is again ahead by one FPS.

Compared to its predecessor, a lot has changed, especially in Full HD: 16 per cent more FPS there. In 1440p and 2160p, it's still nine and six per cent more respectively.

Conclusion: Intel is overtaken at the top of gaming

AMD is also the new top dog in gaming. Although it is not enough for the title of Gaming King in all games in every resolution, AMD now has the fastest gaming processor on average. In future, it will no longer be a case of: "You're gaming, then you have Intel", but rather: "Which game do you play?" and that will determine which processor you use.

In terms of applications, the 5900X is between 7 and 28 per cent faster than its predecessor, the 3900X. This is in line with what AMD promised in advance. The 5900X is currently the best choice for gaming and working if your pockets aren't big enough for the 5950X.

At 549 francs, the processor costs 30 francs less than its predecessor when it was released. That's great compared to the increase in performance, but you shouldn't forget that the processor is now supplied without a cooler. These costs are therefore additional. This also makes the processor more expensive than the i9-10900K, but it also offers two more cores. It offers a lot more performance, especially in applications. It is also superior in gaming. That's why the 5900X is preferable to the i9-10900K, even if it costs 6 per cent more. If you add the benefits such as PCIe 4.0 of the Ryzen series, the decision should only be difficult for hardcore Intel fans.

21 people like this article

Kevin Hofer

Senior Editor

kevin.hofer@digitecgalaxus.ch

From big data to big brother, Cyborgs to Sci-Fi. All aspects of technology and society fascinate me.

Gaming

Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest

Gaming

Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest

Computing

Follow topics and stay updated on your areas of interest

Product test

Our experts test products and their applications. Independently and neutrally.

Show all

These articles might also interest you

Product test
Far from unrivalled: Ryzen 9 5950X
by Kevin Hofer
Product test
Ryzen 5 5600X: The new budget gaming CPU?
by Kevin Hofer
Product test
AMD Ryzen 5 3600XT: Better than its predecessor and the competition - and pointless
by Kevin Hofer