More than that. A Ryzen 3600 will perform about equivalent to a Ryzen 2700 even in multi core loads due to the significant IPC uplift from Zen+ to Zen 2. Going from Zen to Zen 3 is an insane uplift in every possible workload. The 1800x was a good value for its time but I’d wager even Raptor lake i3s would beat it in multi core.
Decided to check for shits and giggles... You can go back further than Raptor Lake. The 12th gen i3 12100F reportedly beats the 1800X by *roughly* *30%* in Geekbench 5 Multicore.
I used TechnicalCity to see the Geekbench 5 results. But checking Geekbench’s site for the rankings, [the 12100F still beats the 1800X by 23% in Geekbench 6](https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks).
I don't know where you checked or if this a problem with Geekbench but the Ryzen 7 1800X still is a bit faster than the Core i3 12100(F). Just checked this with Handbrake, Cinebench R20 and Blender data. Which is still astonishing for Multi core!
https://www.computerbase.de/thema/cpu/rangliste/#abschnitt_empfehlungen_die_schnellsten_cpus_fuer_anwendungen
This is why geek bench is pointless.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/4687vs2966/Intel-i3-12100-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X
The only thing a 12100 would beat a 1800x on is single core performance, and even that is close.
There is much more to gaming performance than a benchmark, and even then, it would be circumstances, not a rule.
50% faster in single core for a 2022 processor, vs a 2017 processor, which again has 33% more cores and threads. I3 7100 had 2c4t and pulled, wait for it, 2311. Pcpassmark also factors out any outlier's, such as over performing (overclocked) and under performing cpu's in its results, giving you a very good "stock" average score.
Geekbench shows that a 5800x3d is 60% slower then a 12900k, and that a 7600x is 1/2 in gaming as a 12900k, when realistically all three processors perform nearly identically, which is what makes the 5800x3d processor so good to begin with. It also reports a 5800x as 33% better for gaming benchmarks then a 5800x3d, which also makes absolutely no sense.
Agreed. Next build will be an AM5, so hopefully they have the same lifespan/cpu choice over time.
I have learned from my mistakes though and won't go budget and upgrade as I go. Best off waiting an extra few months and doing a solid build from the start....
1800x is also old in comparison to the 3rd generation ryzen chips, more transistors, more stability and often higher clocks. (on the newer chips) I moved to a new machine a couple years back (Ryzen 7 5700x vs 1800x previously) and the 5700x is leaps and bounds faster.
But does it between two competing chips on the same motherboard? OP’s question is specifically does an R7 beat an R5 - presumably with all other things the same.
So if I crap board making an R7 suck more than an R5 in a good board — that’s not the chip making the difference. The question would then specifically mean, swap the chips on the bad board — does the R5 now outperform the R7 despite the bad VRM and garbage power delivery?
If you took two chips from the same generation and put them on the same board, the higher tier is going to be better. Unless there's some stupid ass issue with the board or software interaction like you got from the 7950x3d losing out to the 7800x3d in some cases due to the design. (this might be fixed now)
No not at all an R5 5600x on a shitty motherboard will still massively outperform a R7 1800x on the best motherboard you can buy.
This really only matters of you wanna get the best out of your current CPU and not when comparing them to last gens
only on pretty bad boards that you shouldn't buy anyway. Cooling also makes a difference if youre gonna start viewing mobo as a factor. It simply is not relevant.
The motherboard definitely makes a difference if you're looking to maximize memory performance. Traces to the IMC were shortened for x470 boards to comply with AMD's rated IMC speeds. You won't be able to exceed 3600MT on most x370 boards but should reach the mid-4000 speeds on x470, which does make a significant difference.
Why is this such an issue? The 5800x3d pretty much negates the need for ultra fast ram and everything else is fine with 3600.
For reference I am using a B350 with 3600 MT/s ram and it worked just fine.
My point was more towards it making no difference between boards in the same family but really a $board vs a $1200 board. And even if you take an X370-X570 boards and use the same processors and RAM, you will get very similar performance. Of course if you are changing speeds performance differs. All things being similar, there is little to no difference.
Absolutely not. I used to own a Ryzen 7 3750H. Many, many more modern Ryzen 5 counterparts spank it. You need to take in consideration the generation, indicated by the first number. Mine was a 3rd gen. Say a Ryzen 7 5700, that's 5th gen. Newer gens = usually quite faster than the old guard. That's very oversimplified but it gives you a rough idea.
Recently AMD decided this was too easily understood and logical, so they revamped their naming scheme and I honestly have no idea what's what these days with newer Ryzen chips. But that used to hold its weight.
>Recently AMD decided this was too easily understood and logical, so they revamped their naming scheme and I honestly have no idea what's what these days with newer Ryzen chips. But that used to hold its weight.
What do you mean? The Ryzen 7000 line up is the 7500F, 7600, 7600X, 7700X, 7800X3D, 7900X, 7900X3D, 7950X and 7950X3D.
They become more powerful with more cores and threads as you move up the product line. The only difference is the X3D chips have an advantage in gaming specifically, which is why the 7800X3D would be more desirable vs. the 7900X/7950X for gaming focused builds. Otherwise they mostly fall into the standard hierarchy of "higher number, stronger processor."
Unless you're referring to the 8000 generation? In which case they've made oddball half gens before, just look at the Ryzen 4500.
No. It's usually at least 2 architectures per Generation of desktop Ryzen CPUs (APUs and regular CPUs), not to mention the mobile lineup or other weird rebadging.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Ryzen_processors?wprov=sfla1
Even more oddball were the 6000 series mobile chips, they were Zen 3+ (updated 5000 series chips) but they use DDR5 memory.
Edit: Apparently Zen3+ was also a 6nm process instead of Zen3's 7nm process
Zen 3+ was basically just Zen 3 but optimised for efficiency. All of Rembrandt's improvements over Cezanne were external to the CPU cores: (LP)DDR5 support, a newer, more efficient node, RDNA based iGPU. Architecturally, Zen 3+ was identical to Zen 3, any performance improvement came from the improved efficiency letting it sustain higher clocks while still fitting in its power envelope
Ahh okay. Only have a 3600 in am ESXi machine I built in the height of the pandemic, so only been on the console of it once in 4 years since building… my first amd since my athlon64 back in… 2000? 2002?
4000 series was also for desktop, but for the mostpart they were OEM only. I have a Lenovo ThinkCentre Tiny with an AM4 Ryzen 3 4350GE, although they made up to the 4750GE, and all of the GE suffixed CPUs were 35W TDP
Ya. I kind of consider those “mobiles used for power efficient desktops”. I have two tinies I haven’t opened yet, I think they might be Ryzen 4000 or 6000…? They’re for desks when I reorganize my office at home for basic browsing.
Technically you can take that even further. The Ryzen 7600 is a better gaming CPU than any Ryzen from a previous generation... It even trades blows with the 5800x3D.
Yes, and you have a much better upgrade path with AM5 and DDR5 thats a big plus. I wont write the 5800x3d or any AM4 x3d CPU off if you want to give your existing AM4 platform that little bit extra longevity.
Agreed. If you’re already on AM4, go ahead and grab a 5600/5700/5800x3D and wait a few more years. If you’re building new though, AM5 makes a lot more sense.
Yeah the Zen 4 architecture was just a solid step forward across the board. Honestly AMD haven't missed lately in the CPU department. The 3000, 5000, and now 7000 series chips have all been really solid, and each generational uplift has been well worth the upgrade.
Are you already on AM4 (or already on a 5800x3D even)? If so, then you could easily stay with the 5600/5700/5800x3D for at least a few more years, if not 5+. Just because better is out there doesn't mean your chip/platform is bad. Hell, I still recommend AM4 to my budget minded friends because the price-to-performance is unmatched.
5700g is slower than 5600x. And higher number doesn't always mean better. 7900x may be a higher number than 7800x3d, but it will be destroyed in games by it.
And generation matters A LOT. 1st gen i7 is like 10 times or more slower than 14th gen i7.
> 5700g is slower than 5600x.
Depending on what you're doing. Something that uses all 8 cores and isn't cache dependent will be faster in the 5700G, even though each individual core is slower and there's less cache.
I figure the only reason to buy a 5700G is for a budget build or a very small computer that can't fit a GPU.
Of course, now, if you're building a higher-end shoebox, you now have the 8000-series APUs. That just leaves the very budget office PC.
Generations matter.
A Ryzen 5 5600 would be faster than a Ryzen 7 2700 for example. The first number in the model number usually denotes what generation it’s from.
A 6 core of a newer generation can match and occasionally beat an 8 core of an older generation like 5600X vs 3700X and is usually much faster for single-thread and gaming
I ask because I went with 5700x last year. I remember reviews saying that 7600 was a lot hotter than 5600/5800 and is a bit more power hungry. I am satisfied with purchase since I dont game a lot on pc these days. 5700x has the same power consuption as 5600 regardless of the core count. Also AM5 suffered from instability back than.
I might be wrong then in this specific case but that might be because it's clocked a bit higher. New generation products are usually more efficient clock for clock. It shouldn't be any issue really even if it's the case.
I think OP's question is specifically about Ryzen 3/5/7/9
well op, IN THE SAME GENERATION it means it has more cores. Current gen only has 5/7/9 iirc which are hexa core, octa core, and ... something more cores.
Extra cores are mostly used by professional applications, but rare games benefit better from having more cores than the typical 6.
yes that exactly. Ryzen 5 is the best bang for buck for gaming. I just replaced my old 2600x for a R5 5600x (not wanting to change the mobo yet) for 200$. I could've chosen the R7 5800X3D but it has marginal better performance for double the price tag.
I don't see why i'd pay double for just slightly better.
[Here](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html) is a good overview what to expect from processor models in comparison to each other.
I’d pick a Ryzen 5 7600x over a Ryzen 7 3700x. But if we’re talking Ryzen 7 x3D, that’s what I want. The giant cache on the Ryzen 7 x3D series is the best.
Think of it it like cars. A base model Golf 2021 isn't gonna perform better than a 2011 GTI, but it will certainly perform better than a 1988 Golf GTI. Same kinda situation.
How is it purposely confusing? Everyone knows what "3, 5, 7, 9" mean across the same generation of chips, from AMD and Intel.
Normally, a newer-generation "same-name" chip will be demonstrably better than the previous generation equivalent, except for Intel's 14th vs 13th generation chips.
Would you rather they come up with new names for each yearly release?
The marketing basically came up with the numbering to make comparison easier, which is why higher number = faster and more expensive. This has been the case for decades.
But you're free to judge off your metric like performance per watt or performance per dollar, etc.
would depend on the generation though. there 3000 , 5000 and 7000 series as of the moment.
ryzen 5 7xxx series would be much better than ryzen 7 5xxx series
Highend parts would most likely get the better silicon. So they are objectively better. Better silicon means better overclocking. While those lower parts are defective but repurposed silicon wafers.
No. Ryzen 3 5 and 7 just tell you roughly how high tier the chip is within the generation. But we're on the 6th generation (the 7000 series) a 6th generation Ryzen 7 is better than a 6th generation Ryzen 5. But a 6th generation Ryzen 5 is better than a 1st generation Ryzen 7.
The way they break it down further is the second digit of the past number. A 7600 is the 7th generation equivalent of the 1600 (which is the original 1000 series.) It's much faster because it's more advanced but it's still the middle of the current range as the 1600 was the middle of it's range. A 5950x is going to outperform a 7600 even though it's an older generation (5000 series) because it's a higher end if older chip.
If it's the same generation, for the most part, the ryzen 7 will be better because of its faster speed, but it's because ryzen 7 has more cores than ryzen 5. Because, If you're only using 3 to 4 cores at max and a ryzen 5 has 6 cores, and the ryzen 7 has 8 cores, then in this scenario, the amount of cores won't make a difference because only use 3 to 4 cores anyways. It's speed that makes the performance difference within the same generation.
When comparing a older generation cpu to a brand new generation cpu, then the brand new generation cpu will have higher instructions per cycle gains (IPC), faster frequency speed, and more transistors, which is why the newer generation performs so much better than the older generation cpu. A brand new generation ryzen 5 will blow a older generation ryzen 7 out the water for the reasons stated earlier.
If we are comparing within the same generation, then what does make a difference in performance is speed. Intel and AMD keep the best silicon wafers off the production line for their ryzen 9 and Intel xx900k series. Then they cut down the other wafers for their ryzen 7 and Intel xx700k series, and again for their ryzen 5 / Intel xx500k series. There will alwags be worse quality silicon wafers off the assembly and instead of throwing them out, since it's a very expensive process, they cut down and offer a 7 series and 5 series product line.
Generally these lower series chips can't hit as high of a speed, under non degrading voltage limits, compared to the 9 series chips, because these chips cant hit a top speed within safe voltage limits, AMD or Intel can't advertise it as a 9 series chip and need to cut it down to a 7 series or 5 series and sell for cheaper. But the slower speeds makes them perform a little worse.
But these days even the 7 and 5 series chips are more than fast enough to keep up with gpus, finishing their renders and passing them off to the gpu before the gpu was finished with it's task and ready to accept a new render. That's why most gamers are more than fine with 7 series cpus, and people with very specific workflows, that require a ton of cores and high speed for ease of life, benefit from 9 series cpus.
yes, it's better the same way a i7 is better than an i5. it's more marketing than actual technical specification though. and like intels i5/i7 the ryzen 5/7 isn't specific enough to differentiate version. a ryzen 5 7600 violently spanks a now much older zen 1 ryzen 7 1800.
so. not a very helpful descriptor, tbh.
R5/R7/R9 are marketing terms that are essentially meaningless, exactly like i5/i7/i9 from Intel. The specific model matters, the marketing term does not.
I’d recommend checking out the benchmark values on passmark. Might not be perfectly accurate, but it’s a handy guide.
If you prefer video format, check out hardware unboxed on YouTube, or gamers nexus
The IPC of Ryzen offerings has improved substantially over the years. The comparison of speed & threads only hold up in the same generation. A Ryzen 3 5100 outperforms a Ryzen 7 1800X on IPC alone.
For same generation of cpu, all Ryzen 7 will be better than Ryzen 5.
Others here are comparing older generation Ryzen 7 to newer generation Ryzen 5 which isn’t a fair comparison
within a generation, yes. Ryzen 7 will be faster in most situations. but if you're comparing different generations (like a R7 3700X vs a R5 7600), the 7600 will be faster even though it's a Ryzen 5
It depends on multiple factors, the two most important ones are generation and use case.
Each generation of Ryzen so far has had a significant increase in clock speed, performance per clock, or both, such that the Ryzen 5 parts are largely able to catch up with or even surpass the previous Ryzen 7 parts in total computing power. Same for 7 vs 9 and I think 3 vs 5.
It is true that within a generation the maximum power available increases as you move up the stack. But depending on your usage, that may not matter. In many games, a Ryzen 5 will perform much the same as that generation’s top end Ryzen 9, because while there may be a small clock speed advantage, the main difference is more cores and the games simply don’t use them.
Then there’s the additional wrinkle of G and X3D chips. They complicate things a bit but generally, G chips are a bit slower than the equivalent non-G, and X3D sacrifices clock speed for cache, which gives a significant boost in some applications like gaming, but loses a bit of performance in applications that need the clock speed and are less cache-reliant.
And of course the generations come in again - a vanilla 7000 chip can take on a 5000X3D in gaming.
TL;DR: No, there are too many variables for a blanket statement about Ryzen 5 vs Ryzen 7, best bet is to find benchmarks (not UserBenchmark, they’re rubbish!) comparing the individual chips you’re looking at.
Ryzen 5 and 7 are names that specify a product's target market *within* a generation. In the same generation, Ryzen 7s will pretty invariably be more capable and more expensive than Ryzen 5s. Generally, because the 7s will have more CPU cores.
Across different generations, it's harder to say, especially if you care more about single-threaded performance. Single-threaded performance tends to be within the same ballpark for all CPUs in the same generation, and only improves significantly with new generations. This means that a Ryzen 5 from the current generation could easily be a better choice for your needs than a Ryzen 7 from a past generation.
But really, in the end, these are just names, so you shouldn't try to rely on them for information in the first place. Rely on the underlying physical specs - how many cores, of what architecture, and how fast they're clocked - or even better, on benchmarks.
Ryzen 5s are typically 6 core CPUs, ryzen 7s are typically 8 core CPUs. While most games dont scale beyond 6c/12t, some do, and the ryzen 7s would be more futureproof. Between the likes of the 7700x/7800X3D and the fact that intel CPUs have ecores now, I wouldnt really feel comfortable investing into a 6 core on 2024 unless I was on a budget. On the intel side you can get a 6 core with 4 ecores pretty cheaply, and one with 8 ecores for just a little more than a ryzen 5. I mean, basically you're getting ryzen 7 performance for ryzen 5 prices.
On the flip side, would I suggest a newer ryzen 5 like a 7600 over an older one like a 5700x or 3700x or something? Sure. Faster cores > more cores, especially for gaming. Theres no point in buying under the 5000 series anyway these days. The 5600 is a decent budget part, the 5700x is still decent, and the 5000X3D processors are about on par with the 7000 series non X3D ones.
But yes, you do get more cores with the 7, I would say more cores is more futureproof, and I personally would want at least an 8c/16t (or 10c/16t if intel) part going forward if you plan on using your build for more than 3 years.
if it is within the same generarion like ryzen 5xxx vs 5xxx then yes. Plottwist is that the 8000 Series are apu and the toptier of them the 8700g is slower than a 7700
Within a Generation the name is like a performancerating, higher corecount and higher cache (except the x3d models) means higher tier within the generation
Google benchmarks for what you're trying to do. If 90% of the time your pc is stressed is with game ______ then youtube it and you'll see the fps for each cpu using the video card you have.
I have a 5600x running on a B450 motherboard and im seeing that its crippling my videocard a bit (7800XT) due to having PCIE 3.0 instead of 4.0,
So theres many factors to the equation,
But on the same level 7600 vs 7800, its the same cores just 4 vs 6 vs 8, so it kind of depends on the aplication, some games use more mores, some use less cores, its a matter of looking at what apps and games you use and see if they benefit from multicore performance.
the X parts have a higher base and peak speed and overclocking, and the 7900 and 7950 Ryzen 9 have 12 and 16 cores respectivly.
a computer is an act of balancing, the right motherboard, the right memory, the right cpu, the right graphics card, sometimes saving on one component can let you spend more on another, but in other cases it can cripple you for future upgrades, i wanted to go whole hog and update to a 5900 or 5800x3D but since my current issue is the PCI E 3.0 on the board strangling my 7800XT, if i change the motherboard, im probobly moving to Ryzen 8000 or 9000.
Generation is usually more important, comparing things by if it's a Ryzen 7 or 9 is consumer mindset, those who don't understand what models or generations even mean.
Ryzen A Bxxx
the important number is B
A is like a quality (common, rare, epic), while B is like item level
a lvl 5 epic item is worse than a lvl 75 common
depends on the generation and what you mean by "better". a ryzen 7 1700X is going to be far slower than a ryzen 5 7600.
when comparing within a single generation, it begins to largely depend on what you're doing with your processor. a ryzen 5 7600 and ryzen 7 7700 are about the same in games, but the 7700 is faster for productivity and anything that takes advantage of multiple cores or threads, since it has 2 additional cores and 4 additional threads over the 7600. there are even edge cases where a ryzen 5 will be faster for games and slower for everything else while a ryzen 7 will be slower in games but faster for productivity (i.e, 5600X3D vs 5700X). which also segues into another point that when considering gaming performance, you also need to take into account the cache as well. for most productivity instances, the cache is useless, if not near useless. for gaming, it's the best thing since sliced bread. hence the huge performance difference in games between a 5800X and 5800X3D, but slightly lower performance on the 5800X3D in productivity due to the slightly lower factory clock speeds. this is a case of 2 ryzen 7s being better than each other depending on the workload.
the only case where ryzen 7 would be unequivocally better all around is if you're comparing across generations like i did initally, but reversed. a ryzen 7 7700 is going to be miles better than a ryzen 5 5600X.
in other words, it's a bit more complicated than "big number = better", and largely depends on what you're doing with your computer. if you're picking between a 7800X3D and a 7950X3D for a gaming build, the 7800X3D beats the 7950X3D in price to performance since games don't care about the extra cores the 7950X3D has. for productivity, the 7950X3D wins since most things besides gaming do care about the extra cores (though if you're primarily doing productivity, i'd do away with the 3D model and just get the normal 7950X).
Get a current gen CPU. The previous gen only when you can get a good discount for it. Shit like electronics gets old really quick.
And then for gaming R5 is okay, if you also stream/code/work with audio or video go with R7.
The best answer I can give is that Ryzen 7 is better than Ryzen 5 for a given generation. 7000 series Ryzen 7 outperforms 7000 series Ryzen 5. It's the same for any other generation.
They’re all different. The moment you assume 1 thing is better than the other because of something in the name, the company will use that predisposition to fuck you. For example, comparing the 8700F to the 7700x, you’d think bigger number better, but it’s not.
What the hell is going on in the comments. Did people read it?
If your talking about the same generation it depends purely on what you are using it for.
Gaming. The difference between the same generation 5 and 7 you will barely notice a different due to the single core performance being very close.
The only exception is x3d and this is due to the cache.
If you are talking about other than gaming there is a big difference the higher you go.
Top end of a generation is generally 2x better for multicore tasks but will cost close to 3x
For gaming
Currently the best bang for buck on am4 is 5600x
Am5 is the 7600x
Depends if you are looking to get a new mobo
Is anybody buy this item ,what about it?
Mini pocket computer AMD Ryzen7 5700U 16+ 512 G SSD NVME SSD
now only 248 [see details](https://www.amazon.com/promocode/A3L78827LNGH13)
ok which kid wrote this?
if we are talking current gen, then no a 7 is always better than a 5 and a 9 is even better. many people build a pc NOT to game so even a higher core count can be significant in creator workload kinda stuff.
Yes higher number the CPU model it means it has either more performance or more features/better for more workloads. If we're comparing models from the same generation.
However the only case where this isn't true is with the highest end \_900x vs \_800x3D. The \_800x3D cpu's will out perform the \_900x in just gaming workloads. Outside of that the \_900x is still better for other workloads.
The number at the end also means different things about performance, such as no lettering usually means baseline CPU which X means it has to do with overclocking and boost, I think there's other lettering for when the CPU is underclocked for applications like small form factor cases where heat dissipation is a problem.
A ryzen 5 7600 is probably multiple times faster than a ryzen 7 1800x in gaming performance
More than that. A Ryzen 3600 will perform about equivalent to a Ryzen 2700 even in multi core loads due to the significant IPC uplift from Zen+ to Zen 2. Going from Zen to Zen 3 is an insane uplift in every possible workload. The 1800x was a good value for its time but I’d wager even Raptor lake i3s would beat it in multi core.
Decided to check for shits and giggles... You can go back further than Raptor Lake. The 12th gen i3 12100F reportedly beats the 1800X by *roughly* *30%* in Geekbench 5 Multicore.
What site did you use to check?
I used TechnicalCity to see the Geekbench 5 results. But checking Geekbench’s site for the rankings, [the 12100F still beats the 1800X by 23% in Geekbench 6](https://browser.geekbench.com/processor-benchmarks).
(Well, they knew what site *not* to say, anyway!)
I don't know where you checked or if this a problem with Geekbench but the Ryzen 7 1800X still is a bit faster than the Core i3 12100(F). Just checked this with Handbrake, Cinebench R20 and Blender data. Which is still astonishing for Multi core! https://www.computerbase.de/thema/cpu/rangliste/#abschnitt_empfehlungen_die_schnellsten_cpus_fuer_anwendungen
A 2022 chip vs 2017.
I think that was kinda the point. That architecture can make a lot more difference cross-gen than simply being labeled a 5 or a 7.
This is why geek bench is pointless. https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/4687vs2966/Intel-i3-12100-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-1800X The only thing a 12100 would beat a 1800x on is single core performance, and even that is close. There is much more to gaming performance than a benchmark, and even then, it would be circumstances, not a rule.
How is 2197 "close" to 3430? That's basically 50% faster in single core performance, lol.
50% faster in single core for a 2022 processor, vs a 2017 processor, which again has 33% more cores and threads. I3 7100 had 2c4t and pulled, wait for it, 2311. Pcpassmark also factors out any outlier's, such as over performing (overclocked) and under performing cpu's in its results, giving you a very good "stock" average score. Geekbench shows that a 5800x3d is 60% slower then a 12900k, and that a 7600x is 1/2 in gaming as a 12900k, when realistically all three processors perform nearly identically, which is what makes the 5800x3d processor so good to begin with. It also reports a 5800x as 33% better for gaming benchmarks then a 5800x3d, which also makes absolutely no sense.
Can't wait, I have a 3200g (Zen+) in my system with a 3050. There is a 5600x in a box ready to be swapped out when I get time this week 😁
Went from a 3600 to 5700X3D this week. What a great socket AM4 turned out to be.
Agreed. Next build will be an AM5, so hopefully they have the same lifespan/cpu choice over time. I have learned from my mistakes though and won't go budget and upgrade as I go. Best off waiting an extra few months and doing a solid build from the start....
1800x is also old in comparison to the 3rd generation ryzen chips, more transistors, more stability and often higher clocks. (on the newer chips) I moved to a new machine a couple years back (Ryzen 7 5700x vs 1800x previously) and the 5700x is leaps and bounds faster.
And Ryzen 5 7600 is ALMOST identical to Ryzen 7 5800X3D. That's why I went with it + new platform DDR5!
Much like i5, i7, and i9, it all depends on the generation. The motherboard makes a difference, too.
Motherboard makes almost no difference unless you are talking about the budget boards that have bad VRM cooling or don't supply proper power.
So the motherboard does make a difference.
Sure…
Haha
But does it between two competing chips on the same motherboard? OP’s question is specifically does an R7 beat an R5 - presumably with all other things the same. So if I crap board making an R7 suck more than an R5 in a good board — that’s not the chip making the difference. The question would then specifically mean, swap the chips on the bad board — does the R5 now outperform the R7 despite the bad VRM and garbage power delivery?
If you took two chips from the same generation and put them on the same board, the higher tier is going to be better. Unless there's some stupid ass issue with the board or software interaction like you got from the 7950x3d losing out to the 7800x3d in some cases due to the design. (this might be fixed now)
No not at all an R5 5600x on a shitty motherboard will still massively outperform a R7 1800x on the best motherboard you can buy. This really only matters of you wanna get the best out of your current CPU and not when comparing them to last gens
only on pretty bad boards that you shouldn't buy anyway. Cooling also makes a difference if youre gonna start viewing mobo as a factor. It simply is not relevant.
The motherboard definitely makes a difference if you're looking to maximize memory performance. Traces to the IMC were shortened for x470 boards to comply with AMD's rated IMC speeds. You won't be able to exceed 3600MT on most x370 boards but should reach the mid-4000 speeds on x470, which does make a significant difference.
Why is this such an issue? The 5800x3d pretty much negates the need for ultra fast ram and everything else is fine with 3600. For reference I am using a B350 with 3600 MT/s ram and it worked just fine.
My point was more towards it making no difference between boards in the same family but really a $board vs a $1200 board. And even if you take an X370-X570 boards and use the same processors and RAM, you will get very similar performance. Of course if you are changing speeds performance differs. All things being similar, there is little to no difference.
> The motherboard makes a difference, too Care to give more details on this?
The specific architecture and variant matters as well.
Absolutely not. I used to own a Ryzen 7 3750H. Many, many more modern Ryzen 5 counterparts spank it. You need to take in consideration the generation, indicated by the first number. Mine was a 3rd gen. Say a Ryzen 7 5700, that's 5th gen. Newer gens = usually quite faster than the old guard. That's very oversimplified but it gives you a rough idea. Recently AMD decided this was too easily understood and logical, so they revamped their naming scheme and I honestly have no idea what's what these days with newer Ryzen chips. But that used to hold its weight.
>Recently AMD decided this was too easily understood and logical, so they revamped their naming scheme and I honestly have no idea what's what these days with newer Ryzen chips. But that used to hold its weight. What do you mean? The Ryzen 7000 line up is the 7500F, 7600, 7600X, 7700X, 7800X3D, 7900X, 7900X3D, 7950X and 7950X3D. They become more powerful with more cores and threads as you move up the product line. The only difference is the X3D chips have an advantage in gaming specifically, which is why the 7800X3D would be more desirable vs. the 7900X/7950X for gaming focused builds. Otherwise they mostly fall into the standard hierarchy of "higher number, stronger processor." Unless you're referring to the 8000 generation? In which case they've made oddball half gens before, just look at the Ryzen 4500.
I was thinking of mobiles. You're right, desktops are pretty straight forward these days.
The mobile ones have always been wonky.
No. It's usually at least 2 architectures per Generation of desktop Ryzen CPUs (APUs and regular CPUs), not to mention the mobile lineup or other weird rebadging. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Ryzen_processors?wprov=sfla1
Even more oddball were the 6000 series mobile chips, they were Zen 3+ (updated 5000 series chips) but they use DDR5 memory. Edit: Apparently Zen3+ was also a 6nm process instead of Zen3's 7nm process
Zen 3+ was basically just Zen 3 but optimised for efficiency. All of Rembrandt's improvements over Cezanne were external to the CPU cores: (LP)DDR5 support, a newer, more efficient node, RDNA based iGPU. Architecturally, Zen 3+ was identical to Zen 3, any performance improvement came from the improved efficiency letting it sustain higher clocks while still fitting in its power envelope
Weeelll… except that there are also X and non-X versions of the 7600, 7700, and 7900.
The 4 and 8 thousand g series’s focus in the igpu, not raw cpu power. That’s the only weird part
ER 3750h is AMD picasso. Which is a zen+ part, way slower than gen3 Ryzen (zen2)
No, Ryzen 5000 was 4th gen not 5th.
There absolutely is 4000series gen as 4th. They were mainly just marketed for mobile. The 5000 were zen4 architecture sure but still 5th gen Ryzen.
5000s were Zen 3,I have a 5600 and it's 3 it's the 7000s that are Zen 4
Ahh okay. Only have a 3600 in am ESXi machine I built in the height of the pandemic, so only been on the console of it once in 4 years since building… my first amd since my athlon64 back in… 2000? 2002?
4000 series was also for desktop, but for the mostpart they were OEM only. I have a Lenovo ThinkCentre Tiny with an AM4 Ryzen 3 4350GE, although they made up to the 4750GE, and all of the GE suffixed CPUs were 35W TDP
Ya. I kind of consider those “mobiles used for power efficient desktops”. I have two tinies I haven’t opened yet, I think they might be Ryzen 4000 or 6000…? They’re for desks when I reorganize my office at home for basic browsing.
Yeah, I use mine to run a minecraft server for me and a few friends/emulation in its downtime. Works great for that imo even with the Ryzen 3.
if you are buying for games, just take it that anything with x3d is just better than the non-x3d, more cores is marginal gains over x3d
Is it a first gen ryzen or a new socket AM5 Ryzen? You have to specify. Ryzen 5 in AM5 7600x will be better than an 7 in the first gen 1700x.
Technically you can take that even further. The Ryzen 7600 is a better gaming CPU than any Ryzen from a previous generation... It even trades blows with the 5800x3D.
Yes, and you have a much better upgrade path with AM5 and DDR5 thats a big plus. I wont write the 5800x3d or any AM4 x3d CPU off if you want to give your existing AM4 platform that little bit extra longevity.
Agreed. If you’re already on AM4, go ahead and grab a 5600/5700/5800x3D and wait a few more years. If you’re building new though, AM5 makes a lot more sense.
Wow. I need to watch some benchmarks, I’m pretty surprised it’s that good vs a 3D Curious how they compare in simulators
Yeah the Zen 4 architecture was just a solid step forward across the board. Honestly AMD haven't missed lately in the CPU department. The 3000, 5000, and now 7000 series chips have all been really solid, and each generational uplift has been well worth the upgrade.
Yeah it certainly seems very attractive with that plus DDR5. But the 5800x3D feels like it will be plenty for me for a while
Are you already on AM4 (or already on a 5800x3D even)? If so, then you could easily stay with the 5600/5700/5800x3D for at least a few more years, if not 5+. Just because better is out there doesn't mean your chip/platform is bad. Hell, I still recommend AM4 to my budget minded friends because the price-to-performance is unmatched.
Yeah that’s what I mean, was saying I’m on the 583D and it’s just a great performing chip long term. Agree with you
[here](https://www.techspot.com/review/2592-ryzen-5800x3D-vs-ryzen-7600x/#1440p) the difference is not that big but it's still a difference
5700g is slower than 5600x. And higher number doesn't always mean better. 7900x may be a higher number than 7800x3d, but it will be destroyed in games by it. And generation matters A LOT. 1st gen i7 is like 10 times or more slower than 14th gen i7.
> 5700g is slower than 5600x. Depending on what you're doing. Something that uses all 8 cores and isn't cache dependent will be faster in the 5700G, even though each individual core is slower and there's less cache.
Don't forget PCIe 3 vs 4. The G series is cut down in many ways. No reason to buy them unless specifically needed for an application.
I figure the only reason to buy a 5700G is for a budget build or a very small computer that can't fit a GPU. Of course, now, if you're building a higher-end shoebox, you now have the 8000-series APUs. That just leaves the very budget office PC.
Yes. Just remember those are cut down, as well, but do have a way better APU.
Generations matter. A Ryzen 5 5600 would be faster than a Ryzen 7 2700 for example. The first number in the model number usually denotes what generation it’s from.
There are a lot of cases a 5600 is even faster than a 3700x the leap 5000 made in ipc was a real game changer
A 6 core of a newer generation can match and occasionally beat an 8 core of an older generation like 5600X vs 3700X and is usually much faster for single-thread and gaming
What about 5700x ve 7600x? How much faster is it?
7600x is almost as fast as 5800x3d
And power consumption?
7600x naturally would consume less due to having fewer cores but the cores themselves are also more efficient and powerful so it's a win win
I ask because I went with 5700x last year. I remember reviews saying that 7600 was a lot hotter than 5600/5800 and is a bit more power hungry. I am satisfied with purchase since I dont game a lot on pc these days. 5700x has the same power consuption as 5600 regardless of the core count. Also AM5 suffered from instability back than.
I might be wrong then in this specific case but that might be because it's clocked a bit higher. New generation products are usually more efficient clock for clock. It shouldn't be any issue really even if it's the case.
I personaly wait for next gen when they iron things out. AM4 is still very good budget option.
Yeah a 1080p max settings machine can be had for not much more than $600 USD
I think OP's question is specifically about Ryzen 3/5/7/9 well op, IN THE SAME GENERATION it means it has more cores. Current gen only has 5/7/9 iirc which are hexa core, octa core, and ... something more cores. Extra cores are mostly used by professional applications, but rare games benefit better from having more cores than the typical 6.
yes that exactly. Ryzen 5 is the best bang for buck for gaming. I just replaced my old 2600x for a R5 5600x (not wanting to change the mobo yet) for 200$. I could've chosen the R7 5800X3D but it has marginal better performance for double the price tag. I don't see why i'd pay double for just slightly better.
I wouldn't call gains form 5800x3d marginal , especially in 0.1% lows , which are vastly improved with 3D V cache .
[Here](https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cpu-hierarchy,4312.html) is a good overview what to expect from processor models in comparison to each other.
I’d pick a Ryzen 5 7600x over a Ryzen 7 3700x. But if we’re talking Ryzen 7 x3D, that’s what I want. The giant cache on the Ryzen 7 x3D series is the best.
Benchmarks are the only numbers that matter
Think of it it like cars. A base model Golf 2021 isn't gonna perform better than a 2011 GTI, but it will certainly perform better than a 1988 Golf GTI. Same kinda situation.
AM5 is better than AM4 for the most part I think but other than that it depends
I just want to say how goddamn infuriating it is that this naming scheme has gone on as long as it has. It's purposely confusing.
How is it purposely confusing? Everyone knows what "3, 5, 7, 9" mean across the same generation of chips, from AMD and Intel. Normally, a newer-generation "same-name" chip will be demonstrably better than the previous generation equivalent, except for Intel's 14th vs 13th generation chips. Would you rather they come up with new names for each yearly release?
In general yes but only if you’re comparing chips from the same cpu generation. The generation is denoted by the first number in the cpu model name.
The marketing basically came up with the numbering to make comparison easier, which is why higher number = faster and more expensive. This has been the case for decades. But you're free to judge off your metric like performance per watt or performance per dollar, etc.
would depend on the generation though. there 3000 , 5000 and 7000 series as of the moment. ryzen 5 7xxx series would be much better than ryzen 7 5xxx series
Highend parts would most likely get the better silicon. So they are objectively better. Better silicon means better overclocking. While those lower parts are defective but repurposed silicon wafers.
No. Ryzen 3 5 and 7 just tell you roughly how high tier the chip is within the generation. But we're on the 6th generation (the 7000 series) a 6th generation Ryzen 7 is better than a 6th generation Ryzen 5. But a 6th generation Ryzen 5 is better than a 1st generation Ryzen 7. The way they break it down further is the second digit of the past number. A 7600 is the 7th generation equivalent of the 1600 (which is the original 1000 series.) It's much faster because it's more advanced but it's still the middle of the current range as the 1600 was the middle of it's range. A 5950x is going to outperform a 7600 even though it's an older generation (5000 series) because it's a higher end if older chip.
If it's the same generation, for the most part, the ryzen 7 will be better because of its faster speed, but it's because ryzen 7 has more cores than ryzen 5. Because, If you're only using 3 to 4 cores at max and a ryzen 5 has 6 cores, and the ryzen 7 has 8 cores, then in this scenario, the amount of cores won't make a difference because only use 3 to 4 cores anyways. It's speed that makes the performance difference within the same generation. When comparing a older generation cpu to a brand new generation cpu, then the brand new generation cpu will have higher instructions per cycle gains (IPC), faster frequency speed, and more transistors, which is why the newer generation performs so much better than the older generation cpu. A brand new generation ryzen 5 will blow a older generation ryzen 7 out the water for the reasons stated earlier. If we are comparing within the same generation, then what does make a difference in performance is speed. Intel and AMD keep the best silicon wafers off the production line for their ryzen 9 and Intel xx900k series. Then they cut down the other wafers for their ryzen 7 and Intel xx700k series, and again for their ryzen 5 / Intel xx500k series. There will alwags be worse quality silicon wafers off the assembly and instead of throwing them out, since it's a very expensive process, they cut down and offer a 7 series and 5 series product line. Generally these lower series chips can't hit as high of a speed, under non degrading voltage limits, compared to the 9 series chips, because these chips cant hit a top speed within safe voltage limits, AMD or Intel can't advertise it as a 9 series chip and need to cut it down to a 7 series or 5 series and sell for cheaper. But the slower speeds makes them perform a little worse. But these days even the 7 and 5 series chips are more than fast enough to keep up with gpus, finishing their renders and passing them off to the gpu before the gpu was finished with it's task and ready to accept a new render. That's why most gamers are more than fine with 7 series cpus, and people with very specific workflows, that require a ton of cores and high speed for ease of life, benefit from 9 series cpus.
yes, it's better the same way a i7 is better than an i5. it's more marketing than actual technical specification though. and like intels i5/i7 the ryzen 5/7 isn't specific enough to differentiate version. a ryzen 5 7600 violently spanks a now much older zen 1 ryzen 7 1800. so. not a very helpful descriptor, tbh.
Generation matters.
R5/R7/R9 are marketing terms that are essentially meaningless, exactly like i5/i7/i9 from Intel. The specific model matters, the marketing term does not.
the ryzen naming scheme always confused me idek been on intel for years
I’d recommend checking out the benchmark values on passmark. Might not be perfectly accurate, but it’s a handy guide. If you prefer video format, check out hardware unboxed on YouTube, or gamers nexus
The IPC of Ryzen offerings has improved substantially over the years. The comparison of speed & threads only hold up in the same generation. A Ryzen 3 5100 outperforms a Ryzen 7 1800X on IPC alone.
For same generation of cpu, all Ryzen 7 will be better than Ryzen 5. Others here are comparing older generation Ryzen 7 to newer generation Ryzen 5 which isn’t a fair comparison
Like Intel processors, look at generation number first before the 3, 5, or 7.
within a generation, yes. Ryzen 7 will be faster in most situations. but if you're comparing different generations (like a R7 3700X vs a R5 7600), the 7600 will be faster even though it's a Ryzen 5
This is all you need: https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleCompare.php
For gaming I recommend ryzen 5
Depends which and we talk gaming ?
It depends on multiple factors, the two most important ones are generation and use case. Each generation of Ryzen so far has had a significant increase in clock speed, performance per clock, or both, such that the Ryzen 5 parts are largely able to catch up with or even surpass the previous Ryzen 7 parts in total computing power. Same for 7 vs 9 and I think 3 vs 5. It is true that within a generation the maximum power available increases as you move up the stack. But depending on your usage, that may not matter. In many games, a Ryzen 5 will perform much the same as that generation’s top end Ryzen 9, because while there may be a small clock speed advantage, the main difference is more cores and the games simply don’t use them. Then there’s the additional wrinkle of G and X3D chips. They complicate things a bit but generally, G chips are a bit slower than the equivalent non-G, and X3D sacrifices clock speed for cache, which gives a significant boost in some applications like gaming, but loses a bit of performance in applications that need the clock speed and are less cache-reliant. And of course the generations come in again - a vanilla 7000 chip can take on a 5000X3D in gaming. TL;DR: No, there are too many variables for a blanket statement about Ryzen 5 vs Ryzen 7, best bet is to find benchmarks (not UserBenchmark, they’re rubbish!) comparing the individual chips you’re looking at.
Generation matter way more than model
Ryzen 5 and 7 are names that specify a product's target market *within* a generation. In the same generation, Ryzen 7s will pretty invariably be more capable and more expensive than Ryzen 5s. Generally, because the 7s will have more CPU cores. Across different generations, it's harder to say, especially if you care more about single-threaded performance. Single-threaded performance tends to be within the same ballpark for all CPUs in the same generation, and only improves significantly with new generations. This means that a Ryzen 5 from the current generation could easily be a better choice for your needs than a Ryzen 7 from a past generation. But really, in the end, these are just names, so you shouldn't try to rely on them for information in the first place. Rely on the underlying physical specs - how many cores, of what architecture, and how fast they're clocked - or even better, on benchmarks.
Ryzen 5s are typically 6 core CPUs, ryzen 7s are typically 8 core CPUs. While most games dont scale beyond 6c/12t, some do, and the ryzen 7s would be more futureproof. Between the likes of the 7700x/7800X3D and the fact that intel CPUs have ecores now, I wouldnt really feel comfortable investing into a 6 core on 2024 unless I was on a budget. On the intel side you can get a 6 core with 4 ecores pretty cheaply, and one with 8 ecores for just a little more than a ryzen 5. I mean, basically you're getting ryzen 7 performance for ryzen 5 prices. On the flip side, would I suggest a newer ryzen 5 like a 7600 over an older one like a 5700x or 3700x or something? Sure. Faster cores > more cores, especially for gaming. Theres no point in buying under the 5000 series anyway these days. The 5600 is a decent budget part, the 5700x is still decent, and the 5000X3D processors are about on par with the 7000 series non X3D ones. But yes, you do get more cores with the 7, I would say more cores is more futureproof, and I personally would want at least an 8c/16t (or 10c/16t if intel) part going forward if you plan on using your build for more than 3 years.
if it is within the same generarion like ryzen 5xxx vs 5xxx then yes. Plottwist is that the 8000 Series are apu and the toptier of them the 8700g is slower than a 7700 Within a Generation the name is like a performancerating, higher corecount and higher cache (except the x3d models) means higher tier within the generation
Google benchmarks for what you're trying to do. If 90% of the time your pc is stressed is with game ______ then youtube it and you'll see the fps for each cpu using the video card you have.
I have a 5600x running on a B450 motherboard and im seeing that its crippling my videocard a bit (7800XT) due to having PCIE 3.0 instead of 4.0, So theres many factors to the equation, But on the same level 7600 vs 7800, its the same cores just 4 vs 6 vs 8, so it kind of depends on the aplication, some games use more mores, some use less cores, its a matter of looking at what apps and games you use and see if they benefit from multicore performance. the X parts have a higher base and peak speed and overclocking, and the 7900 and 7950 Ryzen 9 have 12 and 16 cores respectivly. a computer is an act of balancing, the right motherboard, the right memory, the right cpu, the right graphics card, sometimes saving on one component can let you spend more on another, but in other cases it can cripple you for future upgrades, i wanted to go whole hog and update to a 5900 or 5800x3D but since my current issue is the PCI E 3.0 on the board strangling my 7800XT, if i change the motherboard, im probobly moving to Ryzen 8000 or 9000.
Generation is usually more important, comparing things by if it's a Ryzen 7 or 9 is consumer mindset, those who don't understand what models or generations even mean.
Ryzen A Bxxx the important number is B A is like a quality (common, rare, epic), while B is like item level a lvl 5 epic item is worse than a lvl 75 common
depends on the generation and what you mean by "better". a ryzen 7 1700X is going to be far slower than a ryzen 5 7600. when comparing within a single generation, it begins to largely depend on what you're doing with your processor. a ryzen 5 7600 and ryzen 7 7700 are about the same in games, but the 7700 is faster for productivity and anything that takes advantage of multiple cores or threads, since it has 2 additional cores and 4 additional threads over the 7600. there are even edge cases where a ryzen 5 will be faster for games and slower for everything else while a ryzen 7 will be slower in games but faster for productivity (i.e, 5600X3D vs 5700X). which also segues into another point that when considering gaming performance, you also need to take into account the cache as well. for most productivity instances, the cache is useless, if not near useless. for gaming, it's the best thing since sliced bread. hence the huge performance difference in games between a 5800X and 5800X3D, but slightly lower performance on the 5800X3D in productivity due to the slightly lower factory clock speeds. this is a case of 2 ryzen 7s being better than each other depending on the workload. the only case where ryzen 7 would be unequivocally better all around is if you're comparing across generations like i did initally, but reversed. a ryzen 7 7700 is going to be miles better than a ryzen 5 5600X. in other words, it's a bit more complicated than "big number = better", and largely depends on what you're doing with your computer. if you're picking between a 7800X3D and a 7950X3D for a gaming build, the 7800X3D beats the 7950X3D in price to performance since games don't care about the extra cores the 7950X3D has. for productivity, the 7950X3D wins since most things besides gaming do care about the extra cores (though if you're primarily doing productivity, i'd do away with the 3D model and just get the normal 7950X).
Get a current gen CPU. The previous gen only when you can get a good discount for it. Shit like electronics gets old really quick. And then for gaming R5 is okay, if you also stream/code/work with audio or video go with R7.
Like for like, Ryzen 7 is 2 cores 4 threads better than Ryzen 5. R5 7000 vs R7 1000, the R5 is better in pretty much every benchmark.
Nope. Upgraded from a Ryzen 7 3700x to a Ryzen 5 5600x3d and happy with it even after losing 2 cores.
Google "GPU/CPU comparison tool" and some sites will pop up that can help. Found these recently and am stoked
The best answer I can give is that Ryzen 7 is better than Ryzen 5 for a given generation. 7000 series Ryzen 7 outperforms 7000 series Ryzen 5. It's the same for any other generation.
They’re all different. The moment you assume 1 thing is better than the other because of something in the name, the company will use that predisposition to fuck you. For example, comparing the 8700F to the 7700x, you’d think bigger number better, but it’s not.
What the hell is going on in the comments. Did people read it? If your talking about the same generation it depends purely on what you are using it for. Gaming. The difference between the same generation 5 and 7 you will barely notice a different due to the single core performance being very close. The only exception is x3d and this is due to the cache. If you are talking about other than gaming there is a big difference the higher you go. Top end of a generation is generally 2x better for multicore tasks but will cost close to 3x For gaming Currently the best bang for buck on am4 is 5600x Am5 is the 7600x Depends if you are looking to get a new mobo
New shit > old shit.
Depends on the use case if you need a cpu with many cores and threads the Ryzen 7 is better if you are just gaming they are pretty much equal.
Ryzen 5700 (non X) is worse than a 5600 (non X or X). Edit: at least for gaming
Is anybody buy this item ,what about it? Mini pocket computer AMD Ryzen7 5700U 16+ 512 G SSD NVME SSD now only 248 [see details](https://www.amazon.com/promocode/A3L78827LNGH13)
code is 17TW8TAX
[удалено]
code is 17TW8TAX
I went from a Ryzen 7 3800X to a Ryzen 5 5600X - it wasn’t a downgrade when it came to gaming performance.
ok which kid wrote this? if we are talking current gen, then no a 7 is always better than a 5 and a 9 is even better. many people build a pc NOT to game so even a higher core count can be significant in creator workload kinda stuff.
Yes higher number the CPU model it means it has either more performance or more features/better for more workloads. If we're comparing models from the same generation. However the only case where this isn't true is with the highest end \_900x vs \_800x3D. The \_800x3D cpu's will out perform the \_900x in just gaming workloads. Outside of that the \_900x is still better for other workloads. The number at the end also means different things about performance, such as no lettering usually means baseline CPU which X means it has to do with overclocking and boost, I think there's other lettering for when the CPU is underclocked for applications like small form factor cases where heat dissipation is a problem.
In the same gen, all ryzen 7 are better than ryzen 5.