How do the top end mainstream processors from both AMD and Intel compare against
each other? I’ve compared the Ryzen 9 5950x against the intel
i9-10900k in both games and applications at stock and overclocked to see the differences.
Starting with the specs, the 5950X is a 16 core 32 thread part,
while the 10900K has 10 cores 20 threads, so based purely on this we’re expecting AMD
to win multicore tests. The 10900K can reach higher clock speeds, but Zen 3 has more cache.
I’m comparing these two processors because they’re currently the best options on offer
from Intel and AMD’s mainstream lineup and I want to see the difference. In terms of price though,
the 5950X is $250 USD more expensive, so in that regard comparing to the 5900X makes more sense,
but a lot of you guys still wanted to see this comparison.
Both processors were tested in the same system, but I’ve had to change motherboards.The rest
of the components were otherwise the same, I’ve tested with 16gb of DDR4-3200 memory
running in dual channel at CL14 and with MSI’s GeForce RTX 3090 Gaming X Trio graphics card.
I’ve used the same Fractal S36 AIO with Noctua NT-H2 thermal paste for
both CPUs so we can get an apples to apples temperature comparison.
I’ve tested both CPUs at stock, so no MCE or power limits for the 10900K,
and with the following all core overclocks. I was easily able to get to 5.2GHz on the 10900K
and 4.7GHz on the 5950X, but this will vary based on silicon lottery.
With that in mind we’ll first check out the differences in applications,
as well as power draw and thermals, followed by gaming tests at 3 resolutions afterwards,
then finish up by comparing some performance per dollar metrics.
Starting with Cinebench R20, I’ve got the overclocked results towards the top of the graph,
and the stock results towards the bottom, with the 5950X above the 10900K. In this test
the 5950X had a large 56% higher score over the 10900K in the multicore test,
or 82% higher when both are overclocked, which is expected owing to it having 6 additional cores.
The 5950X was better in single core though, an area where Intel had previously had the lead
prior to Zen 3. The 5950X was 17% higher than the 10900K at stock in single core,
then with both overclocked the scores actually lower a little because my
all core overclocks are lower than the single core boost speeds that are possible at stock.
I’ve also tested the older Cinebench R15 as a lot of people still use it so you can
compare my results, the margins weren’t too different to R20 so let’s move on.
I’ve tested the Blender BMW and Classroom benchmarks,
and as a test that works better with more threads it’s another big win for the Ryzen 9 5950X.
At stock the 5950X was 52% faster in the longer classroom test, and this increases to a 72%
lead with both overclocked, as the overclock is making a bigger difference to the 5950X here.
The V-Ray benchmark uses the CPU to render out a scene, and as another test that sees a benefit
from more threads it’s a big win for the 5950X, which was scoring 66% faster than 10900K at stock,
but then with both overclocked the 5950X was now 83% higher - again we can see the
overclock doing better, the 5950X overclocked is almost 5000 points ahead of itself at stock,
while the 10900K is just 1000 points ahead of itself at stock.
The Corona benchmark also uses the processor to render out a scene,
again as another test that scales with additional threads the 5950X
was completing the task 54% faster at stock, and 73% faster when both are overclocked.
Handbrake was used to convert one of my 4K laptop review videos to 1080p. This is another test
that sees a benefit with more cores, so it was no surprise to see the 5950X completing the task 27%
faster than the 10900K at stock, then with both overclocked the 5950X was 30% faster. Although
a win for Ryzen, the margin isn’t as large compared to the rendering workloads previously.
Adobe Premiere was used to export one of my laptop review videos at 4K.
I’ve used VBR 1 pass which should be able to take advantage of quicksync,
and VBR 2 pass which doesn’t use hardware acceleration. Despite quicksync,
the 5950X was 16% faster in the 1 pass test at stock, but it was a much larger 32% faster in
the 2 pass test as they’re on more even footing without hardware acceleration.
I’ve also tested Adobe Premiere but with the Puget Systems benchmark tool, as this tests for more
things like live playback rather than just raw export times. The 5950X was ahead in this test
too, though the difference was smaller compared to export times with just a 15% lead at stock.
The differences in Adobe Photoshop were even smaller, one of the smallest out of
all games tested. This test typically depends on single core performance,
so it’s still impressive that AMD is able to win this test compared to past generations,
though the lead is just 10% higher score at stock, or 8% with both overclocked.
7-Zip was used to test compression and decompression speeds,
and this is typically a workload where Ryzen has an edge over Intel,
and that was definitely the case here. Whether overclocked or at stock, the decompression speed
was the biggest difference out of everything I’ve tested here. The difference was over 90%
with both overclocked, while compression still had a decent 55% boost with Ryzen.
VeraCrypt was used to test AES encryption and decryption speeds, and it’s a bit of a
weird one that often seems to favour Intel options, which seems to be the case here,
as this was the only test where the 5950X was behind the 10900K. Additionally, the 5950X seems
to behave negatively in this test overclocked, same for the i9, but the dip is lower.
Microsoft Excel was tested using the Hardware Unboxed large number crunch test,
and this is one which generally receives benefits from Ryzen’s larger cache size.
The 5950X was 67% faster at stock, and then 89% faster with both overclocked,
so Zen 3 could be the way to go if you need an epic spreadsheet machine.
Like most other single core tests, the 5950X was ahead of the
10900K in geekbench, in this case it was scoring 17% higher at stock,
which is impressive given last year when I compared the 3950X with the 10900K,
the Intel chip was 9% ahead. The multicore difference is of course much larger due to
the extra 6 cores of the 5950X, which allowed it to reach a 42% higher score at stock.
Here’s how these two processors compare in all applications tested at stock. The 10900K was
only ahead in VeraCrypt, otherwise the 5950X was winning in all of the others tested. We of course
expect the 5950x to win in multicore tests due to the higher core count, but there are some nice
wins in single core tests too. In some workloads like 7-Zip and Excel there were huge gains, while
others like Photoshop were smaller comparatively, but still 10% better on the AMD option.
With both processors overclocked, the margins between them increase for the most part,
with a larger lead to the Ryzen 9 5950X in most of the applications tested.
VeraCrypt was still ahead on the i9, but for the most part it appears that we’re
just getting more performance out of the 5950X by overclocking it compared to overclocking the
10900k - at least in multicore. The i9 closes the gap in some of the single core tests,
as its 5.2GHz all core overclock is closer to its 5.3GHz single core turbo
boost compared to the 4.7GHz on the 5950X which is 200MHz behind its 4.9GHz max boost clock.
When we look at the total system power draw from the wall with the blender test running. Whether at
stock or with both overclocked, the 5950X was using less power, which I think is seriously
impressive, just as a reminder at stock in this test the 5950X was completing the task 52% faster,
and 72% faster with both overclocked, so using less power and performing better is a serious win.
Higher power draw typically results in more heat, so it’s not really a surprise that the
10900K was also running warmer. The gap closes in with both overclocked as the 5950X overclock
does have a higher voltage, but still, it’s cooler and again performing better in this test.
These are the average clockspeeds during the blender test. I think this makes it clear as
to why the 5950X was doing better once overclocked, the clock speed over all 16
cores is around 800MHz higher once overclocked, meanwhile the 10900K was only getting a 300MHz
boost over itself at stock, so the 5950X has more overclock headroom comparatively.
Let’s check out gaming performance next, I’ve tested 10 games at 3 resolutions.
Shadow of the Tomb Raider was tested with the games benchmark tool. No difference
between the two processors at 4K, makes sense as we’re more GPU bound at higher
resolutions. The 5950X was just a couple of frames ahead at 1440p, and it had a 9%
lead at 1080p, so definitely beating Intel’s best gaming chip.
Microsoft Flight Simulator was tested in the Sydney landing challenge. Again no major
differences between the two here. Basically the same results at 1440p or 4K resolutions, while
the 5950X had a slightly higher 5% lead over the 10900K at 1080p with a higher 7% boost to 1% low.
Assassin’s Creed Odyssey was tested with the games benchmark,
again no major differences here. No valhalla as I had to return the 5950x just before it came
out. The 10900K was one to two FPS ahead at 1440p and 4K, not a difference you’re
actually going to notice, though the 10900K is also $250 cheaper for similar performance.
Death Stranding on the other hand is a game that I’ve found to generally see
nice benefits with Zen 3. At 1080p the 5950X was 7% ahead of the 10900k in average FPS,
then only minor changes at 1440p and both were essentially equivalent at 4K.
Battlefield V was tested in campaign mode, and this was another game where no major differences
were recorded regardless of resolution, however this may be because the game has a 200 FPS cap,
which both processors were reaching at 1080p.
I had to put CS:GO to the test as AMD were claiming some big gains with Zen 3,
and I was seeing this too. This game had the largest improvement with the 5950X out of all 10
titles tested, at 1080p the 5950X was reaching 22% higher average FPS compared to the 10900K,
an impressive result for a game that’s done better with Intel in the past.
Red Dead Redemption 2 was tested with the games benchmark, and unlike CS:GO,
we’re back to seeing no major changes at the higher resolutions.
The 5950X was reaching 7% higher average FPS at 1080p, but was only 1.5% ahead at 1440p.
Rainbow Six Siege was tested using the games benchmark with Vulkan.
Interestingly in this one the 10900K was ahead regardless of the resolution in use,
and this improvement was higher in 1% low performance when compared to the averages.
Far Cry New Dawn was also tested with the games benchmark. This test typically depends
on processor performance, and although the 5950X was ahead in average FPS at 1080p,
the 10900K had a slightly better 1% low. The i9 was actually
otherwise ahead both for average FPS or 1% lows at 1440p and 4K.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare was another with a slight edge to the 10900K,
average FPS was better with Intel here, and 1% lows were also better on the i9 at 1080p
and 1440p, but again like most of the other games, the differences are only small in any case.
On average over these 10 games tested, the Ryzen 9 5950X was almost 5% faster at 1080p. It was slower
in two of the games, but for the most part, the 5950X was doing better, though that CS:GO result
is definitely contributing to the higher overall average - regardless, still a win for ryzen.
Stepping up to 1440p and there’s now basically no difference in terms of average FPS,
performance is quite close one way or the other and even worst case
there’s only a 5% difference in either direction, so pretty similar results.
At 4K the 5950X is around 1% slower than the 10900K, with more games slightly skewing over
towards the Intel side, however given the biggest difference is just 3%, these are unlikely going to
be noticeable differences in practice, so it’s going to depend more on the price difference.
From a cost per frame perspective, the 10900K is offering much better value compared to the 5950X.
It’s around $250 cheaper, which honestly isn’t really worth paying for if you’re just
gaming. Although the 5950X is certainly capable of gaming without any problems,
it’s not worth buying if you’re just gaming, but if gaming is a secondary
tasks and you otherwise need the extra cores, as we saw earlier in the video,
both the multicore and single core performance was a fair bit better than the 10900K.
I’ve also compared the 5950X to the cheaper 5900X, and if you’re gaming that one is a better option
as performance is similar but it’s $550 like the i9, the extra cores from the 5950X aren’t a real
benefit for most games. Honestly if you don’t need 16 cores, the 12 in the 5900X are still
more than what the 10900K has on offer. Basically the 5900X beats the 10900K at the same price,
so the 5950X is really only worth considering if you’re doing serious multicore work.
Let me know which CPU you’d pick and why down in the comments, and if you’re new
to the channel then get subscribed for future CPU comparisons and tech videos like this one.