Ryzen 9 5950X and Ryzen 9 5900X Geekbench scores leaked, significantly outpaces Core i9-10900K

Written by Chad Norton on Tue, Oct 20, 2020 4:00 PM

Geekbench scores have a history of leaking out benchmark results before official release, and with the latest announcement of the Ryzen 5000 series from AMD, some Geekbench scores for the Ryzen 9 5950X and Ryzen 9 5900X have been leaked out, and they show a big performance increase over Intel’s Core i9-10900K.

If you’re at all interested in upgrading your processor at the moment, AMD’s Zen 3 lineup is looking pretty promising to say the least, we already got some results recently from another computer analysis software for all 4 CPUs, showing a huge improvement over the Ryzen 3000 series, but Geekbench is a bit more recognizable and therefore easier to compare against other processor performance.

The biggest thing to note about these Geekbench results is that they aren’t engineering samples, as they have the proper names that retailers will list them as. Before, if it was an engineering sample there was a slight expectancy that the results weren’t exactly the most accurate as the processor would still be subject to change by then. But since these are official, we can treat them with much more credibility than usual.

So onto the results, The Ryzen 9 5950X scored a 1575 in Single-Core performance, and a 13605 for the Multi-Core performance. The Ryzen 9 5900X on the other hand got a 1605 Single-Core score and a 12869 Multi-Core score. Looking through the Geekbench database, we can find an average Core i9-10900K performance score to compare, which got a score of 1393 in Single-Core performance and a 10869 Multi-Core result.

CPU Single-Core score Multi-Core sore
Ryzen 9 5950X 1575 13605
Ryzen 9 5900X 1605 12869
Core i9-10900K 1393 10869

This means that, according to the Geekbench results, the Ryzen 9 5900X is roughly 15% faster than a Core i9-10900K in Single-Core performance, and around 18% faster for Multi-Core. The Ryzen 9 5950X on the other hand is 13% faster than a Core i9-10900K for Single-Core performance, and 25% faster for Multi-Core.

When comparing the Ryzen 5900X to the Ryzen 5950X we see that the 5900X actually beats out the 5950X in Single-Core performance, at roughly 2% faster. However, the 5950X takes the lead for Multi-Core performance at nearly 6% faster than the 5900X. So they’re pretty neck and neck really.

After seeing those geekbench results above, let’s take a look at the Ryzen 5000 CPU specs along with the Core i9-10900K to see how the specs compare as well:

CPU Cores Threads Base clock Boost clock Cache TDP Launch price
16 32 3.4GHz 4.9GHz 72MB 105W $799
12 24 3.7GHz 4.8GHz 70MB 105W $549
Core i9-10900K 10 20 3.7GHz 5.3GHz 20MB 125W $500-$550

AMD’s flagship CPU will be the Ryzen 9 5900X CPU clocking in at 12 Cores and 16 Threads, with a base clock speed of 3.7GHz and a boost clock speed of 4.8GHz all for $549. Intel’s flagship is of course the Core i9-10900K right now, which boasts 10 Cores and 20 Threads, with a base clock of 3.7GHz and a boost speed of 5.3GHz, for around $500-$550.

The Ryzen 9 5950X on the other hand, whilst also suitable for gaming, is more focused for content creation and workstation-related production. Nevertheless, it features a massive 16 ores and 32 Threads, a base clock of 3.4GHz and a boost clock of 4.9GHz, for $799.

As for the rest of the Ryzen 5000 lineup, we’ll have to wait and see how they compare against some of Intel’s other processors and see if they’re worth the price for performance.

So looking at those results the Ryzen 9 5900X, whilst around $50 more expensive than the Core i9-10900K is clearly a major contender. But do you think it's worth the price? What about the Ryzen 9 5950X? Are you looking to upgrade your CPU? Let us know!

Login or Register to join the debate

Rep
4
Offline
admin approved badge
07:48 Oct-22-2020

I BET HALF OF YALL DONT EVEN REMEMBER INTEL 5960X

0
Rep
1
Offline
13:56 Oct-22-2020

who doesn't?
I bet that nobody remembers the glorious Athlon 64 3200+ when I got that from my Athlon xp, it was just brutal.
or the glorious phenom x6 1045T in early 2010 for 275$ compared to intel's 980x for 1000$ and the AM3 motherboard was a ton cheaper too.
Or the core 2 duo e6600 1.8ghz overclocked to 4.2ghz

0
Rep
4
Offline
admin approved badge
05:51 Oct-26-2020

I REMEMBER ALL THOSE CPU'S I WAS TRAYING TO FIND A GOOD DEAL ON A OPTERON BACK THEN AND TRYING TO UNLOCK TRIPLE CORES TO QUAD CORES

0
Rep
-19
Online
05:42 Oct-21-2020

"The Ryzen 9 5950X on the other hand, whilst also suitable for gaming, is more focused for content creation and workstation-related production. Nevertheless, it features a massive 16 ores and 32 Threads,"


We are mining cpus now?
im just playing.

3
Rep
8
Offline
05:17 Oct-21-2020

"AMD’s flagship CPU will be the Ryzen 9 5900X CPU clocking in at 12 Cores and 16 Threads" 24 threads not 16

0
Rep
179
Offline
admin approved badge
21:08 Oct-20-2020

At this point I don't think anyone should be surprised. The 5000 series will be good..... but we kinda already knew that.

1
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
19:15 Oct-20-2020

The numbers make no sense!
5950X is 13% faster single-core than 10900K, yet somehow only 25% faster multicore when it has 60% more cores??? (16C vs 10C)
This doesn't even make sense if I assume that the multicore test was run on 10 cores ONLY, to equalize the playing field.
Am I stupid, can someone explain this?

0
Rep
1
Offline
19:31 Oct-20-2020

geekbench doesn't scale well with many cores.

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
21:11 Oct-20-2020

So what's the point of it then?

0
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
21:33 Oct-20-2020

apparently it shows how superior amd has become...

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
10:43 Oct-21-2020

I'd rather take info from a bench that scales properly... geekbench isn't very geeky if the scaling is garbage...

0
Rep
1
Offline
12:48 Oct-21-2020

Most logic is linear or barely parallel, so yeah, geekbench is more realistic than not.

0
Rep
8
Offline
18:30 Oct-20-2020

You should also consider the release date of the intel CPU. If intel's i9 is built in old gen and they're making new gen CPU like amd then the ryzen CPU barely wins the competition. Also don't forget its expensive than intel's, but uses less electricity and the boost clock is above 5%. And as you said in another article inte's new CPU's will be release for PCIe 4.0 i believe it was for.

0
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
17:43 Oct-20-2020

yawn... a cpu with more cores scores more in a multi threaded test than the one with less cores...

0
Rep
20
Offline
17:50 Oct-20-2020

I don't think number of cores really matters. What matters in comparison is pretty much just performance, power consumption and price.

0
Rep
43
Offline
18:15 Oct-20-2020

it actually scores more also on the single-core test...

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
19:16 Oct-20-2020

And nobody is gonna mention the fact that a CPU that scores 13% faster in single-core is somehow only 25% faster in multicore, despite having 60% more cores? The numbers make no sense...

1
Rep
1
Offline
19:31 Oct-20-2020

|Geekbench doesn't scale well with many cores.

0
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
20:17 Oct-20-2020

Most real world stuff doesn't

0
Rep
272
Offline
admin approved badge
21:12 Oct-20-2020

Th real-world stuff that NEEDS many cores - does, such as 3D rendering or video encoding jobs.

0
Rep
1
Offline
12:47 Oct-21-2020

Well yes, but there are very few tasks that scale as close to linearly with many cores, tons of tasks are barely parallel or straight-up linear.

0
Rep
-19
Online
00:22 Oct-21-2020

I could compare these 5000 series CPUs to their predecessors but my takeaway is that geekbench doesn't really scale efficiently above 10c/20t.
at this point, compare single-core performance and just wait for the later benchmarks.

0
Rep
58
Offline
admin approved badge
16:50 Oct-20-2020

Nice...Maybe will get there act together and release a monster!

6
Rep
14
Offline
17:17 Oct-20-2020

DUDE!! I've been thinking this ever since ryzen 2 came out... can you imagine the power of a processor intel has to put out to combat this, not only that they have to do it at competitive prices!!


We live in exciting times man.

2
Rep
80
Offline
admin approved badge
17:22 Oct-20-2020

where the leading one falls behind and has to reduce price to stay relevant and the other one who i starting to get a lead and will slowly start to incress price once it gets far ahead, to me this seems same as it always was nothing exciting about it

6
Rep
37
Offline
07:22 Oct-21-2020

Business as usual. Question is how long until iNtel breaks

1

Can They Run... |

| 30FPS, Medium, 1080p
Core i7-2600K 4-Core 3.40GHz GeForce RTX 2060 MSI Gaming Z 6GB 16GB
| Ultra, 1080p
Core i3-9100F 4-Core 3.6GHz GeForce GTX 1070 Gigabyte Windforce OC 16GB
| 60FPS, High, 1080p
Core i5-6600K 3.5GHz GeForce GTX 1060 MSI Gaming X 3GB 16GB
100% Yes [2 votes]
Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Radeon RX 570 XFX RS Black 4GB 8GB
| 30FPS, Low, 720p
Core i5-2310 2.9GHz GeForce GT 1030 8GB
| 30FPS, Ultra, 1080p
Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz GeForce GT 1030 8GB
100% Yes [1 votes]
| 30FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen R5 1600 Radeon RX 570 Sapphire Pulse 4GB 8GB
0% No [1 votes]
| 30FPS, High, 1080p
Ryzen R5 1600 Radeon RX 570 Sapphire Pulse 4GB 8GB
100% Yes [1 votes]