The 16-core, 32-thread Ryzen 9 5950X is an impressive workhorse. It sits at the top of AMD’s latest Zen 3 based, 5000 series of CPUs and sends a clear message that AMD can beat Intel in terms of raw performance and core count. The 5950X has a boost clock speed of up to 4.9 GHz, a massive 72 MB cache and a TDP rating of 105W. Despite the clear “gaming” focus of AMD’s 5000 series launch marketing, the 5950X does not efficiently leverage all its 16 cores in gaming (as demonstrated by similar effective speed scores compared to the 12-core 5900X,8-core 5800X and 6-core 5600X.) 16 cores are only suitable for professional use cases that have CPU processing needs which cannot be more efficiently met by a GPU or other dedicated hardware. There is no Intel equivalent with this number of cores, and the 5950X’s uniqueness is reflected in its $799 USD price tag, 45% more expensive than the 5900X. Gamers will get far higher FPS per dollar by allocating a higher proportion of their budget towards a better GPU rather than blowing $799 USD on the 5950X. Professional users that plan to use 32 concurrent threads at 100% load will find value in the 5950X. On the other hand, workstation users that rarely exceed 20 concurrent threads at 100% should consider the 10850K for around half the money.[Nov '20CPUPro]
The Ryzen 9 5900X is second in AMD’s line-up of new Zen 3 based CPUs. The 12-core hyper-threaded processor has base/boost clock speeds of 3.7/4.8 GHz, a 70 MB cache and a TDP of 105W. The 5900X took center stage in the 5000 series launch presentation where AMD gunned for Intel’s “best gaming CPU” crown. They showed the 5900X as being 26% better for gaming than the previous generation’s Ryzen 9 3900XT, attributing this to the new architecture’s faster single core speeds and lower latency. AMD also stated that the 5900X achieves, on average, 6.8% faster gaming performance than Intel’s 10-core i9-10900K. The details around AMD’s testing were not disclosed but it is safe to assume that 6.8% is the highest average lead that AMD are willing to stand by. Our benchmarks show that the 5900X’s slightly faster cores and the 10900K’s slightly lower memory latency balance out to yield similar performance. Whilst presenting their figures, AMD admitted that their 3000 series CPUs were far from “best for gaming” and conceded that the 10900K is approximately 19% faster than the 3900XT (our effective speed marks the gap at just 14%). Despite this clear performance deficiency, AMD supported 3000 series sales with an aggressive and successful marketing campaign to easily outsell Intel over the last 12 months. Given the real performance uplift observed in the 5000 series, and the absence of any meaningful marketing from Intel, we expect CPU sales to shift even further in AMD’s favour. Gamers that do not wish to pay “marketing fees” should investigate Intel’s $190 USD i5-9600K, the saved $370 USD would be far better spent on a higher tier GPU. [Nov '20CPUPro]
We calculate effective speed which measures real world performance for typical users. Effective speed is adjusted by current prices to yield a value for money rating. Our calculated values are checked against thousands of individual user ratings. The customizable table below combines these factors to bring you the definitive list of top CPUs. [CPUPro]
Welcome to our freeware PC speed test tool. UserBenchmark will test your PC and compare the results to other users with the same components. You can quickly size up your PC, identify hardware problems and explore the best upgrades.