Image: AMD

Benchmark scores for AMD’s Ryzen 5 5600X continue to appear ahead of its release. This 6C/12T processor is shaping up to be an amazing value for those who may have been eyeing more expensive options for their gaming and productivity needs. New scores from UserBenchmark have been posted on r/AMD, and they show this $299 processor beating Intel’s $549 offering on average.

Image: UserBenchmark

Many may question the usefulness of a single benchmark tool, as real-world usage is always the final word on how technology should be measured, but the Ryzen 5 5600X has managed to score favorably in three different tests in recent weeks. Yesterday, it managed to edge past the Intel Core i7-10700K in Cinebench. This bench tested both single- and multi-core performance. Before that, it beat the Intel Core i9-10900K for single-thread performance in Passmark. Factor in this latest score from UserBenchmark, and it’s clear that the Ryzen 5 5600X can compete with both mid-level and high-end chips. Those with an AM4 socket motherboard ought to keep a close eye on this one.

Peter Brosdahl

As a child of the 70’s I was part of the many who became enthralled by the video arcade invasion of the 1980’s. Saving money from various odd jobs I purchased my first computer from a friend of my...

Join the Conversation

11 Comments

  1. Wait, the 6 core is the $299 chip now? Well, launch prices anyway. Guess I might be waiting a bit for price drops
  2. This is the same User Benchmark that praises Intel’s core i3 and spits on AMD, nice….

    From a single-core perspective, up to this point, that’d be fair though. Your typical desktop user is fine with two cores, four being plenty, so the speed of those cores is what differentiates them.

  3. From a single-core perspective, up to this point, that’d be fair though. Your typical desktop user is fine with two cores, four being plenty, so the speed of those cores is what differentiates them.

    You may want to read this to familiarize yourself with the scam site known as UserBenchmarks.

    Hardware Unboxed does a great piece on it as well.

  4. UserBenchmark may suck on results, but they have the database/interface thing down.

    You want to compare a C2Q to a Zen3? A 3090 to a 8200? It will let you. I like it for no other reason than I can get some relative performance comparison between older hardware that people are wanting to ugprade, and let them know about how much faster they can expect something to run for their money. Most all other tech review sites only stay within the latest generation or two, so making those comparisons against older hardware is… hard to find.

    I wish I could find a better database that has similar results. Anand used to have something similar, but they hadn’t been keeping up with it for a while.

    Yeah, I know it’s skewed to all hell and back. But I’m not looking for anything absolute – just something high level and relative.

  5. UserBenchmark may suck on results, but they have the database/interface thing down.

    You want to compare a C2Q to a Zen3? A 3090 to a 8200? It will let you. I like it for no other reason than I can get some relative performance comparison between older hardware that people are wanting to ugprade, and let them know about how much faster they can expect something to run for their money. Most all other tech review sites only stay within the latest generation or two, so making those comparisons against older hardware is… hard to find.

    I wish I could find a better database that has similar results. Anand used to have something similar, but they hadn’t been keeping up with it for a while.

    Yeah, I know it’s skewed to all hell and back. But I’m not looking for anything absolute – just something high level and relative.

    I’m with you on this one. Anand used to do it well, but not these days.. :(

  6. Yeah the guys that used to keep their "bench" app updated all seem to have left or no longer care.

    That and Anand himself has been gone for… a decade or so?

    I wish I could find a better database that has similar results.

    That would certainly be nice. Especially if you could narrow down the applications and so on, and if that were representative, then you’d be able to show where more cores might be better than faster cores and vice-versa.

Leave a comment