AMD Ryzen 5 5600X: Worth €120 more than the Core i5?

3D rendering: Cinebench, Blender, ...

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

The Ryzen 5 5600X is still the cheapest processor from the Vermeer family, i.e. from the current generation of Ryzen 5000 processors without an integrated graphics core. Although the APU Ryzen 5 5600G (Cezanne) was released recently at a slightly lower price, there may be no question of any alternative. This processor is aimed at a slightly different customer and will not be so advantageous in setups with graphics cards.

AMD is very careful not to compete with its own processors. With the Ryzen 5600X, this is a similar situation as with 8-core processors, of which AMD does not offer any cheaper, lower-clock retail variants. And with great sales of the R5 5600X and limited production capacity, it’s hard to expect a cheaper, lower-clocked non-X model, or something like R5 5500. The Ryzen 5 5600X is doing too well on the market for AMD to risk anything. But maybe I’m wrong and in the end, some cheaper derivative will be released, which will approach the price of the Core i5-11400F. Thus, the price difference corresponds almost to the amount for which the Core i5-10400F is sold.

The 5600X is far from being such a cheap processor as the Ryzen 5 3600, which also got a bit more expensive, but the 5600X is still about a hundred euros pricier and the difference in price is even higher compared to the Ci5-11400F. And yet it is still a hexa-core processor with 12 threads. It is likely true that AMD bets on its Zen 3 architecture for having brought a significant performance improvement over Zen 2, and Rocket Lake is also slower and less efficient, but it is also in another price category, still suitable for low-budget setups. In the tests, we will try to find answers to why a significant surcharge for Ryzen 5 5600X can be justified.

The most attractive comparison will probably be with the Core i5 11400F, which also has 6 cores and no iGPU (although the Ci5-11600K is closer to the R5 5600X in terms of price). The TDP of both processors is 65 W, although the PL2 (154 W) on the Core i5 is set quite more aggressively than the PPT (88 W) on Ryzen 5. What is common is PCI Express 4.0 bus support and added value in the form of a bundled cooler (the R5 comes with Wraith Stealth).

Compared to Ryzen 9, the Ryzen 5 5600X, just like Ryzen 7, has only one 7 nm chiplet (CCD) on the PCB with an area of 80.7 mm². Next to it is another larger 12 nm cIOD chip with 125 mm². It also contains an Infinity Fabric memory controller. Both chips are apparently soldered to the processor’s heat spreader, and the material used is apparently indium-based.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Gaming tests

We test performance in games in four resolutions with different graphics settings. To warm up, there is more or less a theoretical resolution of 1280 × 720 px. We had been tweaking graphics settings for this resolution for a long time. We finally decided to go for the lowest possible (Low, Lowest, Ultra Low, …) settings that a game allows.

One could argue that a processor does not calculate how many objects are drawn in such settings (so-called draw calls). However, with high detail at this very low resolution, there was not much difference in performance compared to FHD (which we also test). On the contrary, the GPU load was clearly higher, and this impractical setting should demonstrate the performance of a processor with the lowest possible participation of a graphics card.

At higher resolutions, high settings (for FHD and QHD) and highest (for UHD) are used. In Full HD it’s usually with Anti-Aliasing turned off, but overall, these are relatively practical settings that are commonly used.

The selection of games was made considering the diversity of genres, player popularity and processor performance requirements. For a complete list, see Chapters 7–16. A built-in benchmark is used when a game has one, otherwise we have created our own scenes, which we always repeat with each processor in the same way. We use OCAT to record fps, or the times of individual frames, from which fps are then calculated, and FLAT to analyze CSV. Both were developed by the author of articles (and videos) from GPUreport.cz. For the highest possible accuracy, all runs are repeated three times and the average values of average and minimum fps are drawn in the graphs. These multiple repetitions also apply to non-gaming tests.

Computing tests

Let’s start lightly with PCMark 10, which tests more than sixty sub-tasks in various applications as part of a complete set of “benchmarks for a modern office”. It then sorts them into fewer thematic categories and for the best possible overview we include the gained points from them in the graphs. We then have the total score for single and multithreaded performance from Geekbench 5. Lighter test tasks are also represented by tests in a web browser – Speedometer and Octane. Other tests usually represent higher load or are aimed at advanced users.

We test the 3D rendering performance in Cinebench. In R20, where the results are more widespread, but mainly in R23. Rendering in this version takes longer with each processor, cycles of at least ten minutes. We also test 3D rendering in Blender, with the Cycles render in the BMW and Classroom projects. You can also compare the latter with the test results of graphics cards (contains the same number of tiles).

We test how processors perform in video editing in Adobe Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve Studio 17. We use a PugetBench plugin, which deals with all the tasks you may encounter when editing videos. We also use PugetBench services in Adobe After Effects, where the performance of creating graphic effects is tested. Some subtasks use GPU acceleration, but we never turn it off, as no one will do it in practice. Some things don’t even work without GPU acceleration, but on the contrary, it’s interesting to see that the performance in the tasks accelerated by the graphics card also varies as some operations are still serviced by the CPU.

We test video encoding in HandBrake and benchmarks (x264 HD and HWBot x265). x264 HD benchmark works in 32-bit mode (we did not manage to run 64-bit consistently on W10 and in general on newer OS’s it may be unstable and show errors in video). In HandBrake we use the x264 processor encoder for AVC and x265 for HEVC. Detailed settings of individual profiles can be found in the corresponding chapter 25. In addition to video, we also encode audio, where all the details are also stated in the chapter of these tests. Gamers who record their gameplay on video can also have to do with the performance of processor encoders. Therefore, we also test the performance of “processor broadcasting” in two popular applications OBS Studio and Xsplit.

We also have two chapters dedicated to photo editing performance. Adobe has a separate one, where we test Photoshop via PugetBench. However, we do not use PugetBench in Lightroom, because it requires various OS modifications for stable operation, and overall we rather avoided it (due to the higher risk of complications) and create our own test scenes. Both are CPU intensive, whether it’s exporting RAW files to 16-bit TIFF with ProPhotoRGB color space or generating 1:1 thumbnails of 42 lossless CR2 photos.

However, we also have several alternative photo editing applications in which we test CPU performance. These include Affinity Photo, in which we use a built-in benchmark, or XnViewMP for batch photo editing or ZPS X. Of the truly modern ones, there are three Topaz Labz applications that use AI algorithms. DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI. Topaz Labs often and happily compares its results with Adobe applications (Photoshop and Lightroom) and boasts of better results. So we’ll see, maybe we’ll get into it from the image point of view sometime. In processor tests, however, we are primarily focused on performance.

We test compression and decompression performance in WinRAR, 7-Zip and Aida64 (Zlib) benchmarks, decryption in TrueCrypt and Aida64, where in addition to AES there are also SHA3 tests. In Aida64, we also test FPU in the chapter of mathematical calculations. From this category you may also be interested in the results of Stockfish 13 and the number of chess combinations achieved per unit time. We perform many tests that can be included in the category of mathematics in SPECworkstation 3.1. It is a set of professional applications extending to various simulations, such as LAMMPS or NAMD, which are molecular simulators. A detailed description of the tests from SPECworkstation 3.1 can be found at spec.org. We do not test 7-zip, Blender and HandBrake from the list for redundancy, because we test performance in them separately in applications. A detailed listing of SPECWS results usually represents times or fps, but we graph “SPEC ratio”, which represents gained points—higher means better.

Processor settings…

We test processors in the default settings, without active PBO2 (AMD) or ABT (Intel) technologies, but naturally with active XMP 2.0.

… and app updates

The tests should also take into account that, over time, individual updates may affect performance comparisons. Some applications are used in portable versions, which are not updated or can be kept on a stable version, but this is not the case for some others. Typically, games update over time. On the other hand, even intentional obsolescence (and testing something out of date that already behaves differently) would not be entirely the way to go.

In short, just take into account that the accuracy of the results you are comparing decreases a bit over time. To make this analysis easier for you, we indicate when each processor was tested. You can find this in the dialog box, where there is information about the test date of each processor. This dialog box appears in interactive graphs, just hover the mouse cursor over any bar.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Methodology: how we measure power draw

Measuring CPU power consumption is relatively simple, much easier than with graphics cards. All power goes through one or two EPS cables. We also use two to increase the cross-section, which is suitable for high performance AMD processors up to sTR(X)4 or for Intel HEDT, and in fact almost for mainstream processors as well. We have Prova 15 current probes to measure current directly on the wires. This is a much more accurate and reliable way of measuring than relying on internal sensors.

The only limitation of our current probes may be when testing the most powerful processors. These already exceed the maximum range of 30 A, at which high accuracy is guaranteed. For most processors, the range is optimal (even for measuring a lower load, when the probes can be switched to a lower and more accurate range of 4 A), but we will test models with power consumption over 360 W on our own device, a prototype of which we have already built. Its measuring range will no longer be limiting, but for the time being we will be using the Prova probes in the near future.

The probes are properly set to zero and connected to a UNI-T UT71E multimeter before each measurement. It records samples of current values during the tests via the IR-USB interface and writes them in a table at one-second intervals. We can then create bar graphs with power consumption patterns. But we always write average values in bar graphs. Measurements take place in various load modes. The lowest represents an idle Windows 10 desktop. This measurement takes place on a system that had been idle for quite some time.

Audio encoding (FLAC) represents a higher load, but processors use only one core or one thread for this. Higher loads, where more cores are involved, are games. We test power consumption in F1 2020, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Total War Saga: Troy in 1920 × 1080 px. In this resolution, the power consumption is usually the highest or at least similar to that in lower or higher resolutions, where in most cases the CPU power draw rather decreases due to its lower utilization.

Power draw limits are disabled for both Intel and AMD processors, unlocked to the PL2/PPT level. As is the case with most motherboards, this is also set in the default settings. This means that the “Tau” timeout after 56 seconds does not reduce power draw and frequencies even under higher load, and performance is stable. We considered whether or not to accept the more economical settings. In the end, we won’t, on the grounds that the vast majority of users don’t do it either and thus the results and comparisons would be rather uninteresting. The solution would indeed be to test with and without power limit, but this is impossible from a time point of view in the context of processor tests. However, we won’t ignore this issue and it will be getting space in motherboard tests where it makes more sense to us.

We always use motherboards with extremely robust, efficient VRM, so that the losses on MOSFETs distort the measured results as little as possible and the test setups are powered by a high-end 1200 W BeQuiet! Dark Power Pro 12 power supply. It is strong enough to supply every processor, even with a fully loaded GeForce RTX 3080, and at the same time achieves above-standard efficiency even at lower load. For a complete overview of test setup components, see Chapter 5 of this article.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Methodology: temperature and clock speed tests

When choosing a cooler, we eventually opted for Noctua NH-U14S. It has a high performance and at the same time there is also the TR4-SP3 variant designed for Threadripper processors. It differs only by the base, the radiator is otherwise the same, so it will be possible to test and compare all processors under the same conditions. The fan on the NH-U14S cooler is set to a maximum speed of 1,500 rpm during all tests.

Measurements always take place on a bench-wall in a wind tunnel which simulates a computer case, with the difference that we have more control over it.

System cooling consists of four Noctua NF-S12A PWM fans, which are in an equilibrium ratio of two at the inlet and two at the outlet. Their speed is set at a fixed 550 rpm, which is a relatively practical speed that is not needed to be exceeded. In short, this should be the optimal configuration based on our tests of various system cooling settings.

It is also important to maintain the same air temperature around the processors. Of course, this also changes with regard to how much heat a particular processor produces, but at the inlet of the tunnel it must always be the same for accurate comparisons. In our air-conditioned test lab, it is currently in the range of 21–21.3 °C.

Maintaining a constant inlet temperature is necessary not only for a proper comparison of processor temperatures, but especially for unbiased performance comparisons. Trend of clock speed and especially single-core boost depends on the temperature. In the summer at higher temperatures, processors may be slower in living spaces than in the winter.

For Intel processors, we register the maximum core temperature for each test, usually of all cores. These maximum values are then averaged and the result is represented by the final value in the graph. From the outputs of single-threaded load, we only pick the registered values from active cores (these are usually two and alternate during the test). It’s a little different with AMD processors. They don’t have temperature sensors for every core. In order for the procedure to be as methodically as possible similar to that applied on Intel processors, the average temperature of all cores is defined by the highest value reported by the CPU Tdie sensor (average). For single-threaded load, however, we already use a CPU sensor (Tctl/Tdie), which usually reports a slightly higher value, which better corresponds to the hotspots of one or two cores. But these values as well as the values from all internal sensors must be taken with a grain of salt, the accuracy of the sensors varies across processors.

Clock speed evaluation is more accurate, each core has its own sensor even on AMD processors. Unlike temperatures, we plot average clock speed values during tests in graphs. We monitor the temperature and clock speed of the processor cores in the same tests, in which we also measure the power consumption. And thus, gradually from the lowest load level on the desktop of idle Windows 10, through audio encoding (single-threaded load), gaming load in three games (F1 2020, Shadow of the Tomb Raider and Total War Saga: Troy), to a 10-minute load in Cinebench R23 and the most demanding video encoding with the x264 encoder in HandBrake.

To record the temperatures and clock speed of the processor cores, we use HWiNFO, in which sampling is set to two seconds. With the exception of audio encoding, the graphs always show the averages of all processor cores in terms of temperatures and clock speed. During audio encoding, the values from the loaded core are given.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Test setup

*Following motherboard BIOS versions are used: v1.14 on MSI MEG Z590 Ace, v1E on MSI MEG X570 and v17 on MSI MEG Z490.

Note: Graphics drivers used at the time of testing: Nvidia GeForce 466.77 and OS Windows 10 build 19043.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

3DMark

We use 3DMark Professional for the tests and the following tests: Night Raid (DirectX 12), Fire Strike (DirectX 11) and Time Spy (DirectX 12). In the graphs you will find partial CPU scores, combined scores, but also graphics scores. You can find out to what extent the given processor limits the graphics card.

---

---

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: low; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Borderlands 3

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Very Low; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: None; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Counter-Strike: GO

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; lowest graphics settings with no Anti-Aliasing, API: DirectX 9; test platform: script with Dust 2 map tour.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; high graphics settings with no Anti-Aliasing, API: DirectX 9; test platform: script with Dust 2 map tour.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; high graphics settings; 4× MSAA, API: DirectX 9; test platform: script with Dust 2 map tour.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; very high graphic settings; 4× MSAA, API: DirectX 9; test platform: script with Dust 2 map tour.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Cyberpunk 2077

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: custom (Little China).

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

DOOM Eternal

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: Vulkan; extra settings: Present From Compute: off, Motion Blur: Low, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: Vulkan; extra settings: Present From Compute: on, Motion Blur: High, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: Vulkan; extra settings: Present From Compute: on, Motion Blur: High, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: on; test scene: custom.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra Nightmare; API: Vulkan; extra settings: Present From Compute: on, Motion Blur: High, Depth of Field Anti-Aliasing: on; test scene: custom.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

F1 2020

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra Low; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off, Anisotropic Filtering: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off, Skidmarks Blending: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA, Skidmarks Blending: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA, Skidmarks Blending: off; test scene: built-in benchmark (Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle).

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Metro Exodus

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Extreme; API: DirectX 12; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Microsoft Flight Simulator

Note: We are not using the results from this game to calculate the average game performance. This is because after the big July update, the performance has changed significantly, as you can see in this test, and we have re-tested only some processors.

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 11; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00 am) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 11; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00 am) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 11; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00 am) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra; API: DirectX 11; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: custom (Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Air Traffic: AI, February 14, 9:00 am) autopilot: from 1000 m until hitting the terrain.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Lowest; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: off; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Highest; API: DirectX 12; extra settings: Anti-Aliasing: TAA; test scene: built-in benchmark.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Total War Saga: Troy

Test environment: resolution: 1280 × 720 px; graphics settings preset: Low; API: DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 1920 × 1080 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 2560 × 1440 px; graphics settings preset: High; API: DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

---

Test environment: resolution: 3840 × 2160 px; graphics settings preset: Ultra; API: DirectX 11; no extra settings; test scene: built-in benchmark.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Overall gaming performance

To calculate average gaming performance, we normalized the Intel Core i7-11900K processor. The percentage differences of all other processors are based on this, with each of the games contributing an equal weight to the final result. To see exactly what the formula we use to arrive at each value looks like, see “New average CPU score measuring method”.

---

---

---

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Herný výkon za euro

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

PCMark

Geekbench

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Speedometer (2.0) and Octane (2.0)

Test environment: We’re using a portable version of Google Chrome (91.0.472.101) 64-bit so that real-time results are not affected by browser updates. GPU hardware acceleration is enabled as each user has in the default settings.

---

Note: The values in the graphs represent the average of the points obtained in the subtasks, which are grouped according to their nature into seven categories (Core language features, Memory and GC, Strings and arrays, Virtual machine and GC, Loading and Parsing, Bit and Math operations and Compiler and GC latency).

---

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Cinebench R20

Cinebench R23

---

Blender@Cycles

Test environment: We use well-known projects BMW (510 tiles) and Classroom (2040 tiles) and renderer Cycles. Render settings are set to None, with which all the work falls on the CPU.

---

LuxRender (SPECworkstation 3.1)

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Adobe Premiere Pro (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe Premiere Pro is 15.2.

---

---

---

---

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

DaVinci Resolve Studio (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests, test type: standard. App version of DaVinci Resolve Studio is 17.2.1 (build 12).

---

---

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Graphic effects: Adobe After Effects

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe After Effects is 18.2.1.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

HandBrake

Test environment: For video conversion we’re using a 4K video LG Demo Snowboard with a 43.9 Mb/s bitrate. AVC (x264) and HEVC (x265) profiles are set for high quality and enoder profiles are “slow”. HandBrake version is 1.3.3 (2020061300).

x264 and x265 benchmarks

---

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Audio encoding

Test environment: Audio encoding is done using command line encoders, we measure the time it takes for the conversion to finish. The same 42-minute long 16-bit WAV file (stereo) with 44.1 kHz is always used (Love Over Gold by Dire Straits album rip in a single audio file).

Encoder settings are selected to achieve maximum or near maximum compression. The bitrate is relatively high, with the exception of lossless FLAC of about 200 200 kb/s.

Note: These tests measure single-thread performance.

FLAC: reference encoder 1.3.2, 64-bit build. Launch options: flac.exe -s -8 -m -e -p -f

MP3: encoder lame3.100.1, 64-bit build (Intel 19 Compiler) from RareWares. Launch options: lame.exe -S -V 0 -q 0

AAC: uses Apple QuickTime libraries, invoked through the application from the command line, QAAC 2.72, 64-bit build, Intel 19 Compiler (does not require installation of the whole Apple package). Launch options: qaac64.exe -V 100 -s -q 2

Opus: reference encoder 1.3.1, Launch options: opusenc.exe –comp 10 –quiet –vbr –bitrate 192

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Broadcasting

Test environment: Applications OBS Studio and Xsplit. We’re using the built-in benchmark (scene Australia, Clear/Dry, Cycle) in F1 2020, in a resolution of 2560 × 1440 px and the same graphics settings, as with standard game performance tests. Thanks to this, we can measure the performance decrease if you record your gameplay with the x264 software encoder while playing. The output is 2560 × 1440 px at 60 fps.

---

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Adobe Photoshop (PugetBench)

Test environment: set of PugetBench tests. App version of Adobe Photoshop is 22.4.2.

---

---

---

Adobe Lightroom Classic

Test environment: With the settings above, we export 42 uncompressed .CR2 (RAW Canon) photos with a size of 20 Mpx. Then we create 1:1 previews from them, which also represent one of the most processor intensive tasks in Lightroom. The version of Adobe Lightroom Classic is 10.3.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Affinity Photo (benchmark)

Test environment: built-in benchmark.

---

Topaz Labs AI apps

Topaz DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI. These single-purpose applications are used for restoration of low-quality photos. Whether it is high noise (caused by higher ISO), raster level (typically after cropping) or when something needs extra focus. The AI performance is always used.

Test environment: As part of batch editing, 42 photos with a lower resolution of 1920 × 1280 px are processed, with the settings from the images above. DeNoise AI is in version 3.1.2, Gigapixel in 5.5.2 and Sharpen AI in 3.1.2.

XnViewMP

Test environment: XnViewMP is finally a photo-editor for which you don’t have to pay. At the same time, it uses hardware very efficiently. In order to achieve more reasonable comparison times, we had to create an archive of up to 1024 photos, where we we reduce the original resolution of 5472 × 3648 px to 1980 × 1280 px and filters with automatic contrast enhancement and noise reduction are also being applied during this process. We use 64-bit portable version 0.98.4.

Zoner Photo Studio X

Test environment: In Zoner Photo Studio X, we convert 42 .CR2 (RAW Canon) photos to JPEG while keeping the original resolution (5472 × 3648 px) at the lowest possible compression, with the ZPS X profile ”high quality for archival”.

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

WinRAR 6.01

7-Zip 19.00

---

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

TrueCrypt 7.1a

Aida64 (AES, SHA3)

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Y-cruncher

---

Stockfish 13

Test environment: Host for the Stockfish 13 engine is a chess app Arena 2.0.1, build 2399.

Aida64, FPU tests

---

FSI (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Kirchhoff migration (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Python36 (SPECworkstation 3.1)

SRMP (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Octave (SPECworkstation 3.1)

FFTW (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Convolution (SPECworkstation 3.1)

CalculiX (SPECworkstation 3.1)

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

RodiniaLifeSci (SPECworkstation 3.1)

WPCcfd (SPECworkstation 3.1)

Poisson (SPECworkstation 3.1)

LAMMPS (SPECworkstation 3.1)

NAMD (SPECworkstation 3.1)

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Memory tests…

… and cache (L1, L2, L3)

---

---

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Processor power draw trend

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Average processor power draw

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Performance per watt

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Achieved CPU clock speed

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

CPU temperature

We’ve already discussed the middle class Intel processors (Core i5) in tests, but so far without comparing it to the equivalent Ryzen 5. We will gradually add these, but before the R5 3600, do not miss the extensive comparison of R5 5600X to Ci5-11400F. It’s a bit of an unequal fight, as the AMD piece is significantly more expensive, but maybe in your eyes it will defend its price in tasks where it is clearly better than the Core i5 Rocket Lake.

Conclusion

We will start the verbal interpretation and evaluation of test results traditionally from the perspective of game performance. The Ryzen 5 5600X in Full HD resolution is on average 6% faster than the competing Core i5-11400F. At higher QHD and UHD resolutions, the difference is negligible (0–1%). This means that if you are hesitant about choosing a processor for your primary gaming computer, the 5600X will help you the most in FHD resolution. But that also depends. For example, in games such as Assassin’s Creed Valhalla, Total War Saga: Troy, the AMD processor gets the short end of the straw, similarly so in Cyberpunk 2077, where the results are practically equal though.

The 5600X achieves negligibly higher performance in Borderlands 3 and in DOOM Eternal (but only in FHD, in higher resolutions the Rocket Lake already takes over). And then there are games where the R5 5600X in 1080p is significantly better—such as in CS:GO (+37%), but we have seen a decent difference as well in F1 2020 (+13%) or in Shadow of the Tomb Raider (+ 9%). In Metro Exodus it makes +4% in favor of the 5600X. A significant increase in performance could also be in Microsoft Flight Simulator, in which the July update dramatically increased performance. It’s just a pity we don’t have Ci5-11400F results with it. In any case, the R5 5600X practically does not lag behind the R9 5900X, but the Ci5-10400F (Comet Lake) and R5 3700X lose by over 20%.

Let me again remind that the comparisons with the Core i5-11400F above are based on a resolution of 1920 × 1080 px, which could be a target resolution in this class. Although it is difficult to estimate whether most users, who pay three hundred euros for a processor, won’t get a monitor with 2560 × 1440 px resolution. From this resolution onwards, the difference in game performance of the processors already fades. This naturally means that the higher the resolution of the monitor, the more the price-performance ratio is gets worse to the detriment of the Ryzen 5 5600X and the only advantage remains in the lower power draw.The AMD processor without power limits is about 24% more energy-efficient in games and the performance per watt coefficient is also significantly more attractive.

However, energy efficiency for most gamers will probably not have a high priority and especially not in the class, where relatively cheap coolers will always be able to cool both the Core i5 and Ryzen 5. The temperature of the R5 5600X is one of the lowest even at high loads of all cores. However, given the low power consumption of up to 76 W, this is not surprising.

The Ryzen 5 5600X has a bigger performance lead in computational tasks rather than in games. In 3D rendering and video encoding, compared to the Core i5-11400F, it has a performance lead of about 10%, with the x265 up to 17%. In most tasks with an overwhelming 22:4 ratio, the Ryzen is also faster in Adobe Premiere Pro. In the alternative video editor, DaVinci Resolve, it is more equal (also in terms of smaller mutual differences), but the dominance is still on the AMD processor side. That is also faster in Adobe Affter Effects, in some tasks even by up to 26%. When working with Motion Blur, it is between 17–19%. With some notable exceptions, the 5600X also dominatesin Photoshop and in Lightroom photo exporting is much faster than the 11400F. One of the few situations where the Core i5-11400F has the upper hand is Topaz Labs AI apps for improving the technical quality of images.

(De)compression and (de)cryption tests, show the dominance of the R5 5600X, like various physical and numerical computations. The only exception is perhaps in Y-cruncher, which uses the AVX-512 instruction set relatively effectively—the Ryzen 5 does not support it and is therefore significantly slower in this discipline. The 5600X is therefore doing quite well in computing tasks, but it is almost never enough to match the older Ryzen 7 3700X. It is usually 10% or more slower. It is therefore a relatively complicated situation for the evaluation, as the Core i5-11400F is much more advantageous for gaming and the Ryzen 7 3700X for non-gaming tasks, which is available practically for the same money.

TL;DR: The 5600X will be like a fish in water in a gaming setup, and at the same time for casual video editing or photo editing. It performs similar to the Ci5-11400F in terms of gaming, but in single-threaded tasks, the R5 5600X usually has the upper hand and sometimes quite significant. For example, we are talking about various filters (in Premiere Pro, DaVinci Resolve, Photoshop, After Effects or also in XnView, which will probably be a more common tool for occasional editing) or audio encoding and there would be many more of those situations. In any case, it is perhaps appropriate to conclude that the big sales of the R5 5600X are probably more due to AMD processors as a whole than to the fact that it would really be as advantageous a purchase as it looks from market statistics.

We’ve got the games for our tests from Jama levova

Special thanks to Blackmagic Design (for a licence to DaVinci Resolve Studio), Topaz Labs (for licences to apps DeNoise AI, Gigapixel AI and Sharpen AI) and Zoner (for a licence to Photo Studio X)

• Contents
• AMD Ryzen 5 5600X in detail
• Methodology: performance tests
• Methodology: how we measure power draw
• Methodology: temperature and clock speed tests
• Test setup
• 3DMark
• Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla
• Borderlands 3
• Counter-Strike: GO
• Cyberpunk 2077
• DOOM Eternal
• F1 2020
• Metro Exodus
• Microsoft Flight Simulator
• Shadow of the Tomb Raider
• Total War Saga: Troy
• Overall gaming performance
• Gaming performance per euro
• PCMark and Geekbench
• Web performance
• 3D rendering: Cinebench, Blender, ...
• Video 1/2: Adobe Premiere Pro
• Video 2/2: DaVinci Resolve Studio
• Graphic effects: Adobe After Effects
• Video encoding
• Audio encoding
• Broadcasting (OBS and Xsplit)
• Photos 1/2: Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom
• Photos 2/2: Affinity Photo, Topaz Labs AI apps, ZPS X, ...
• (De)compression
• (De)cryption
• Numerical computing
• Simulations
• Memory and cache tests
• Processor power draw trend
• Average processor power draw
• Performance per watt
• Achieved CPU clock speed
• CPU temperature
• Conclusion