Ryzen 9 5900x vs Ryzen 7 5800x

Yep, I would get 5600x for gaming, it is also much easier to cool

The 5800x is the highest power consumption per core of any Zen3 part at roughly 14.5w/core at full load vs the 5600x/5900x/5950x that are all 10w or less (via anandtech). This means more heat density in a single chiplet even if power consumption is the same across the package. You can limit the max power (142w at stock) of the 5800x with 95w eco mode or even better, adjust PPT/TDC/EDC manually with PBO to be more in line with the other CPUs and only take a small hit to multicore performance.

120w PPT is still roughly +36% power limit vs the 88w PPT limit of the 5600x but it is -15.5% less than the 142w PPT limit at stock so it should show large temperature drops while still delivering enough power to the cores for high multicore loads. Dial in a nice undervolt via curve optimizer or play it safe with -5 across the whole chip for another small boost.

Slap a Scythe Fuma 2 for $60 on it and you have a very well cooled CPU.

I can't relate - I have 4x480mm rads outside my computer attached to a 500mm box fan 😛

Alright so if I buy this year I’ll get 5800x. Do you think I should wait for 6000 series? Or would they be too much for a itx build

I would say no, it's not worth the wait, but that's really up to you, if you can live with what you currently have now for that long or not.

Also it's still unclear what the "6000 series" is going to be for desktops. Whether they are going to use it for Zen 3D/3+ or Zen 4.

Good to see people are starting to realize the 5800X is truly the sweet spot of this gen. It is extremely rare that a consumer would be running anything heavy enough on an even semi-regular basis to where they would even get use out of the additional cores, let alone need them.

I have been saying since the beginning that the entire Vermeer price scheme was a scam to manipulate consumers into thinking that the 5900X is a better deal. Hilarious. Paying $100 more now for something that:

Will run inherently hotter (so likely loss in frames in CPU intensive games)

Will only run optimally under a 360 rad, which will add $50+ to the cost of the build if you don't already have one

Will suck more energy, especially over 5y

Won't ever use all the cores at the same time, because even when running discord, a YouTube video, a twitch stream, a AAA game and all the tabs of chrome in the world you don't need 12 cores. There's a good chance you don't even need 8.

You're paying $100 more now which could be a critical upgrade in the bottleneck of your system, so that you can have extra cores of which will not be worth $100 more in long-term future when you actually need them. That could just be $100 towards your next far off tune up or future build, etc.

I spent a lot of time modding a large tech sub-discord during the release of these chips and SO many people were convinced to a level of hostility that the 5900X is the supremely better value and 5800Xs are a ripoff etc etc (meanwhile they're running like 16gb of 3200c16 ram in this same system where they think they need a 5900X, but I digress).

Also, just a reminder that 5800Xs require a perfect CCX 8/8. While 5900Xs may have the "better cores enabled" between the two complexes, at the end of the day both of those CCXs had test and be ruled too inferior to be 5800X/5950X before they could then be put into a 59. You get every dollar you pay for with the 5800X despite the less favorable core/dollar ratio because the silicon is verified fuego otb. It's like buying a diesel party bus instead of a sports car you want, because while the bus is a little more expensive, it will be more reliable when it's older so that's now your daily commute vehicle. Pretty silly tbh.

Sorry for the rant but tldr, those who know they need the cores aren't wasting their breath to debate it, and the 5800X is the best overall chip in the 5000 series don't @ me!!!

Most of the arguments I've heard is that a 5600X is all anyone is going to need. Which as things stand in the present day is pretty fair, but now that consoles have CPUs that are no longer woefully outdated at launch, the landscape is shifting. The extra money for 8 cores over 6 is definitely going to be worth it if you can afford it.

if you are thinking of bang for buck then neither 5600x, 5800x or 5900x are. Actually intel had best bang for buck cpus for a while, locked 10400(f,)11400(f),10700(f) or 10850k are best bang for buck cpus. 5900x is best sweetspot for ultra high end pc's or for users who want max longevity without spending even more on 5950x. 5600x in vast majority of cases is extremely overpriced and can be recommended only for esports players who want max fps at reasonable price (without spending on higher end zen3 cpus). 5800x is a weird one since its neither good value neither the fastest. id say 5800x is for people who are not aiming at max longevity but want very high and smooth framerate in current games. Its okay but its basically no mans land cpu. now for your statements, my opinion:

Will run inherently hotter (so likely loss in frames in CPU intensive games)

Will only run optimally under a 360 rad, which will add $50+ to the cost of the build if you don't already have one

Thats nonsense, zen 3 cpus are hot in general and all of them runs hotter than previous generations regardless its 5800x or 5900x, 360mm is not required and good air cooler will be enough, from then, its up to you, depends how sensitive you are in computer fan noise.

Will suck more energy, especially over 5y

Won't ever use all the cores at the same time, because even when running discord, a YouTube video, a twitch stream, a AAA game and all the tabs of chrome in the world you don't need 12 cores. There's a good chance you don't even need 8.

-you are right, however clearly, OP has plans on keeping his platform for at least 5 years, so you are comparing yesterdays games and claim that nothing will change in that upcoming 5 year period. Its safe to say with upcoming cpus and current console market that current cpu utilization is going to change and market will and are slowly shifting to 8core/16 thread in cpu demanding games(obviously there will always be games that will use less)

You're paying $100 more now which could be a critical upgrade in the bottleneck of your system, so that you can have extra cores of which will not be worth $100 more in long-term future when you actually need them. That could just be $100 towards your next far off tune up or future build, etc.

-well its hard to say, we are going into specifics, currently he is not that budget sensitive since we and he are considering between terrible bang for buck-5800x and not so terrible bang for buck - 5900x. This is 2k gaming pc so that 100$ is not as big of a factor as lets say in ~1k budget build where you have much less wiggle room in component quality and its tiers.

Tl;dr: Almost none of this is correct.

In order:

5900X runs cooler than the 5800X. This is due to the relative area per core being higher on the 5900X. It has 6 cores per CCX instead of the 8 on the 5800X.

If heat is causing you to lose performance that’s a user problem. Zen 3 does not start throttling until you’re over 90°C+, you should not be getting anywhere near that while gaming, even on the 5800X or 5950X, which are the hottest Zen 3 chips. If you’re under that there will be zero performance loss, this isn’t 1998, if the chip is not throttling heat is irrelevant to performance.

You do not “need” a 360 AIO to keep the 5900X cool. As long as you’re not thermal throttling, you could even get away with air cooling.

The difference in peak power draw is literally on the order of a dollar or two at most per year. If you can’t afford $10 over the course of five years what in the flying hell are you doing building an enthusiast grade PC.

With reference to all cores not running at the same time, that’s just objectively incorrect, I don’t even know what else to say to that. It’s just patently false. Most modern games will hit all 8 cores, and productivity tasks have absolutely no issue hitting every single thread.

For gaming the price is a Fair point, however if you do anything productivity related you will absolutely get use out of those extra four cores.

With regards to chip manufacturing, that whole paragraph is baseless, meritless, and false. That’s not how chip fabrication works at all. Yes 5950X chips that have defects can be fenced off to make a 5900X, but that has objectively zero impact on the reliability, stability, or level of performance of the resulting CPU. This is how it has worked for decades, guess what the graphics card you have right now, whatever it is, has things fenced. Even the mighty RTX 3090 or 6900 has parts of the chip fenced off. It’s to increase yield, unless you would like to pay a premium on every GPU for “golden samples.”

Please try to at least get some facts straight before you attempt to pass off your “opinion” as fact.

I see a lot of this has been debunked already so I'll just focus on the misunderstanding of how CPU binning occurs.

When it comes to how much of the chip is active, that is largely a segmentation issue, however binning for quality hinges on the power and voltage characteristics of the chip, it is in fact possible for a chip to be a really good bin but with either defects or disabled parts. Defects are largely a matter of luck based on positioning on the die and have nothing to do with the performance potential of the silicon. So a chiplet with 2 disabled cores can still be a very good bin.

When you actually look at the performance characteristics of the chips, the difference between the 5800x, 5900x, and 5950x in terms of power draw was pretty marginal across most reviews, the fact that a 5800x needs almost as much power as a 5950x actually identifies it as a pretty poor bin

That aside, you do not need a 360 AIO to cool the 5900x or 5950x, at around 140 watts or so power draw it is well within the capabilities of a high end tower air cooler. As a final side, with comparable power draw but 2 chiplets, the R9 parts will be less thermally dense and therefore run cooler, not hotter than the 5800x, which is actually fairly well known for having temperature issues.

wtf why is that text so big

WE might see a new AM4 cpu launch later, but it's still unclear.

To be honest i really, REALLY doubt there are going to be any high end new cpus for am4 platform. I can see the possibility of new chipset in old am4 socket but i doubt that. Im pretty confident that amd is done with am4, its most likely that next cpu will be on new socket, ddr5 and pcie 5, at least that would make most sense for them, especially considering that intel is going to be on ddr5/pcie5 in few months time.

This is good advice also considering that production of dual-rank 16GB sticks is on the decline.

I went 4x8 for my build but I'm not using an ITX board = P

280mm aio support, handle bc I travel a lot, three slot gpu support and good airflow are my main reasons. Do you think I should get something else?

there is zero benefit of any thing higher than 5600x. the cost is too much, for zero benefit, in gaming.

I heard this argument so many times throughout the years and its always not true when we and OP are discussing decent longevity of your platform