Image: AMD

Benchmarks for AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800X have surfaced (via APISAK) at the Ashes of the Singularity benchmarking site. The discovery not only confirms that red team is skipping a beat and adopting the 5000 Series nomenclature for its Zen 3 processors, but that its 8-core “Vermeer” SKUs may perform even better than Intel’s 10-core offerings.

According to comparisons shared by Hexus, the Ryzen 7 5800X manages to hit 167 FPS in the Crazy 4K preset (normal batch). Intel’s Core i9-10900K, on the other hand, only achieves 136 FPS. While there are many factors at play (e.g., memory capacity and speed), we’re seeing optimistic estimates of up to 20 percent higher performance for the Ryzen 7 5800X.

Crazy 4K BatchRyzen 7 5800XRyzen 7 3800XCore i9-10900K
Normal167fps125fps136fps
Medium135fps111fps119fps
Heavy110fps87fps96fps

We’ll point out again that AMD’s Ryzen 7 5800X is an 8C/16T processor, while Intel’s Core i9-10900K is a 10C/20T one. Intel is going to be in even bigger trouble if these benchmarks are an accurate representation of how the CPUs compare.

Don’t Miss Out on More FPS Review Content!

Our weekly newsletter includes a recap of our reviews and a run down of the most popular tech news that we published.

Join the Conversation

10 Comments

  1. [QUOTE=”LazyGamer, post: 19387, member: 1367″]
    I have a 9900K, and not being that ‘hardcore’ of a gamer, I really can’t see a clear upgrade on the market.
    [/QUOTE]
    Probably the best, most sensible CPU intel has released in years. I like the 10900 stuff but the 9900K pretty much covers it. However, both were outside of my budget and I really wanted to be ready for PCIe 4.0. I will say that after coming from nearly ten years of using Intel “i” series I’ve been extremely happy with my 3700x. Really was a ‘plug-n-play’ kind of build. I was nervous but after one BIOS update to top it off things just work. I have not had a single issue since the build was done last November.

  2. I’ve only really recommended AMD lately outside of those that insist on having the ‘fastest’ CPU for gaming. I picked up my 9900K early in its release cycle before we really knew whether the issues seen with the 1000- and 2000-series with regards to stuff like UEFI releases and memory compatibility would be repeated.

    But with stability out of the box figured, and chipset / board issues likely to not be a lasting concern, I’m really interested in what AMD does next!

  3. [QUOTE=”Eduardo_Domingot, post: 19336, member: 246″]
    Juicy Juicy Juicy rumors and only rumors, but I still expect to see AMD deliver a walloping with its CPU lineup.
    [/QUOTE]

    Not really. This is literally the worst “gaming benchmark” to judge a CPU by. It’s interesting that it beats Intel’s Core i9-10900K here, but it isn’t an indication that we’ll see the same thing in other games and game engines.

  4. [QUOTE=”Dan_D, post: 19470, member: 6″]
    Not really. This is literally the worst “gaming benchmark” to judge a CPU by. It’s interesting that it beats Intel’s Core i9-10900K here, but it isn’t an indication that we’ll see the same thing in other games and game engines.
    [/QUOTE]
    Yeah I am not stating that we will. Its just a rumor as I said and I am only trying to say I have high expectations for this CPU lineup. I know you have more of a luke warm expectation and that’s OK. Neither one of us actually knows whats coming up in terms of performance.

  5. [QUOTE=”Eduardo_Domingot, post: 19482, member: 246″]
    Yeah I am not stating that we will. Its just a rumor as I said and I am only trying to say I have high expectations for this CPU lineup. I know you have more of a luke warm expectation and that’s OK. Neither one of us actually knows whats coming up in terms of performance.
    [/QUOTE]

    I’m expecting a definite improvement on the performance front. I’m expecting more than Intel’s bullshit 7-11% performance increases which always came out to 0-3% in reality. 15% or more seems like a reasonable expectation. I don’t believe rumors about 5.0GHz boost clocks. If they are [I]”true”[/I] it will likely be more of the same. That is, the boost clocks do reach those levels, but do so infrequently enough that it doesn’t really count.

  6. I’m more interested in real world performance. Not forced boost clocks that almost no one will ever see under specific conditions.

  7. [QUOTE=”Dan_D, post: 19501, member: 6″]
    I’m expecting a definite improvement on the performance front. I’m expecting more than Intel’s bullshit 7-11% performance increases which always came out to 0-3% in reality. 15% or more seems like a reasonable expectation. I don’t believe rumors about 5.0GHz boost clocks. If they are [I]”true”[/I] it will likely be more of the same. That is, the boost clocks do reach those levels, but do so infrequently enough that it doesn’t really count.
    [/QUOTE]
    Yeah the 5GHz thing I dont believe either. I am thinking maybe we will see a sustained 4.6 or 4.7 this time around. I would love to be wrong.

  8. [QUOTE=”Eduardo_Domingot, post: 19560, member: 246″]
    Yeah the 5GHz thing I dont believe either. I am thinking maybe we will see a sustained 4.6 or 4.7 this time around. I would love to be wrong.
    [/QUOTE]

    Each iteration of Zen seems to have gone up 100MHz. A boost clock of 4.8GHz on the top model I could believe. Although, I think it would be more clock speed shenanigans like what we see with Zen 2.

  9. AotS is a useless benchmark that has always overwhelmingly favored AMD.

    AotS should never be used in any benchmark. It is utterly useless in predicting performance in anything except AotS it’s a total outlier.

    Anyone who benchmarks with AotS is just trying to sell an agenda, not tryong to provide an honest representation of performance.

Leave a comment