AMD Ryzen 5 5500 Linux Performance

[birdie]

It's a benchmark of a CPU, it should be representative of the performance of the CPU, not the average joe software configuration.

Similarly, the 5500 was tested on a budget motherboard while other CPUs were tested with high-end motherboards: next time let's use DDR3, USB2 and a refurbished mechanical 250gb hard drive to test a budget cpu because it's "representative" of the kind of setup for a budget cpu.

IMHO these benchmarks lacks accuracy criteria.
Nice numbers, but are not really representative.

Both AMD and Intel has long moved the IMC to the CPU, so the performance of a modern PC does not depend on the class of your motherboard. It depends on cooling and RAM speed. That's it. As long as your systems have the same RAM with the same speed and timings, the results across different motherboards will be indistinguishable no matter the cost.

Again, so many benchmarking "professionals" on Phoronix it's just cringeworthy.



B660 bs Z690: $150 vs $500 motherboards, no difference whatsoever.

[tildearrow]

Can anyone else see the sad face in the 2d barcode on the CPU?

That's the sad face of this processor not supporting ECC.

[rclark]

The 5500 and 5600 do 'start' to fill out the lower end of the AMD line. But just a little late I think. I am still waiting for a 4C/8T with Graphics (maybe a AMD Ryzen™ 3 4300GE? when available???? ) low in part to upgrade my server for the last time on the AM4 platform from the 2200G in it now before AM5 comes along. I want the GPU because there are times I would need to plug in a monitor (for BIOS updates mostly) but doesn't justify adding a graphics card to the system.

That said, for most of us, 'any' of the tested processors above would be enough horse power for general use. But human nature says we want the latest and greatest for 'bragging rights' I suppose . I know, 'cause I have a 5900X in my workstation which is 'way' more than I need.... But I decided to pop for it anyway.... Go figure.

[Linuxxx]

You're one of the kind, I'll give you that. People around me prefer lower power bills and a longer battery life.

And then, funnily or sadly, you do not understand performance and power management for modern ICs (that's "integrated circuits" for the uninitiated: CPU, GPUs, SoCs).

If you enable the performance governor by default it means your CPU is running at full speed at all times with the most amount of power consumption which ultimately means it is spending its thermal (temp) and power (watts) budget needlessly and when you actually need peak performance you will not get it because your CPU is already thermally throttling. If you have a desktop PC and AIO you wouldn't care. If you had a run of the mill laptop you would care a lot.

Actually I do have a desktop PC and in certain benchmarks my Ryzen 7 5800X (oh, God, I've forgotten "I'm an AMD hater" - how could I?) runs faster with the ondemand governor than with the performance governor. Phoronix has demonstrated this as well.

Again, it just shows not only you don't understand performance, you also don't understand benchmarking.

Artem, how come you can talk so confidently while being so wrong at the same time?

You claim I know nothing about modern ICs while proving in the next sentence that it's actually you that has no idea about the improvements done to power-management and instead repeat points that maybe were true about a decade ago:

Any modern CPU will enter sleep-states (i.e. physically shutting down increasingly larger parts of the chip) that save alot more energy & heat than running your CPU at a lower frequency for a longer period of time to complete the same task.

Here's how you can see this for yourself in action:

Playback any software-decoded video and periodically watch the output of:

sudo cpupower monitor

On my Intel CPUs, I can observe all of them still successfully entering even the deepest C-states (that's sleep-states for any uninitiated birds ), constantly alternating between full-speed & deep-sleep!

Another indicator which proves my observation is that my CPUs energy consumption dynamically varies with how heavy the video in question is to decode.
If what you said were true, then my CPUs should always consume the same amount of energy with the performance governor, no matter the amount of load & stress put on them -- alas what you are claiming simply can't be correct!

And one more thing:

Please show me a benchmark where the 'ondemand' governor beats the performance one...

Soon Michael is going to publish benchmarks looking at the various governors with AMD_PSTATE -- I'd appreciate it if you could make a comment there too.

I for one am certainly looking forward to it!

[birdie]

Artem, how come you can talk so confidently while being so wrong at the same time?

You claim I know nothing about modern ICs while proving in the next sentence that it's actually you that has no idea about the improvements done to power-management and instead repeat points that maybe were true about a decade ago:

Any modern CPU will enter sleep-states (i.e. physically shutting down increasingly larger parts of the chip) that save alot more energy & heat than running your CPU at a lower frequency for a longer period of time to complete the same task.

Here's how you can see this for yourself in action:

Playback any software-decoded video and periodically watch the output of:

sudo cpupower monitor

On my Intel CPUs, I can observe all of them still successfully entering even the deepest C-states (that's sleep-states for any uninitiated birds ), constantly alternating between full-speed & deep-sleep!

Another indicator which proves my observation is that my CPUs energy consumption dynamically varies with how heavy the video in question is to decode.
If what you said were true, then my CPUs should always consume the same amount of energy with the performance governor, no matter the amount of load & stress put on them -- alas what you are claiming simply can't be correct!

And one more thing:

Please show me a benchmark where the 'ondemand' governor beats the performance one...

Soon Michael is going to publish benchmarks looking at the various governors with AMD_PSTATE -- I'd appreciate it if you could make a comment there too.

I for one am certainly looking forward to it!

Maybe something has changed in the recent times but in the past there was a significant power use increase when using the performance governor by default. Also I read or maybe misunderstood that keeping the CPU at its highest frequency means using a higher voltage which means an increased power consumption but I've now compared the power consumption for ondemand and performance governors in idle for my 5800X and the difference is barely there. However there's a little bit more pronounced difference between powersave and performance governors (around 1W which is nothing for the 140W 5800X).

I need to ask someone who knows how modern CPU indeed work. Again, I'm perfectly aware of C-states (Linux didn't properly support C-states for my first laptop with a SkyLake mobile CPU for months) but frequency! Voltage! Power!

I also remember my 8800GT (NX8800GT Zilent - an excellent card) which I manually downlocked in order to reduce its idle power consumption (it didn't have the best VBIOS and I didn't want to edit it).

Let me apologize for my previous comment. It was unnecessarily harsh and arrogant. I will try to avoid that in the future. I need to choose words carefully specially when I haven't reverified my statements.

[Luke]

One nuisance that is not AMD's fault is that to use this proc or any other without an onboard iGPU, you need to already posess a discrete GPU. Micro Center won't sell GPU's except to people with credit cards and ID, I have no idea how hard they are to get online as I don't shop online. This won't last forever, but right now if you have no preexisting parts and want to build a system buying everything with cash OR don't have ID, you are limited at least at Micro Center to iGPU chips, as they don't need that "restricted" GPU. Buying a GPU should not be like buying hard liquor, nobody should have to have $200 to a stranger in a parking lot and hope they actually buy and hand over the bottom rung GPU asked for instead of absconding with the money.

[drakonas777]

It was unnecessarily harsh and arrogant. I will try to avoid that in the future. I need to choose words carefully specially when I haven't reverified my statements.

Yeah, just like the remaining 95% comments of yours. Perhaps you should create the third account for normal discussion without that trollish fanboyish bullshit.

[piotrj3]

Both AMD and Intel has long moved the IMC to the CPU, so the performance of a modern PC does not depend on the class of your motherboard. It depends on cooling and RAM speed. That's it. As long as your systems have the same RAM with the same speed and timings, the results across different motherboards will be indistinguishable no matter the cost.

Again, so many benchmarking "professionals" on Phoronix it's just cringeworthy.



B660 bs Z690: $150 vs $500 motherboards, no difference whatsoever.

just to clarify, scores might drop if motherboard VRMs are so bad they overheat, so stuff thermal throttles because of bad mobo. But in that case we talk about stuff like the strongest most power hungry CPUs on weakest and worst motherboards.

[piotrj3]

Yeah, just like the remaining 95% comments of yours. Perhaps you should create the third account for normal discussion without that trollish fanboyish bullshit.

He isn't. You don't realize but on phoronix you have community that is strong in favour of :
- open source,
- good linux support,
- and supporting linux like standards.
Many of you are also quite bleeding edge, you will use or force enable features that are yet to come to mainsteam LTS distro like ubuntu.
And here Nvidia was pretty bad, so it is obvious that anti-Nvidia bias here is dominant and it is understandable why. And surerly i would love it to change.

But here is a thing : how situation changes for less techy users who don't contribute to kernel or aren't well knowdlegable for it. Oh it matters less. What about people who are dual booting and using Nvidia, oh it matters less. What if there are people who use CUDA stack - they have no choice mostly because only Nvidia provided so good gpu compute stack. There are a lot of circumstances where Nvidia isn't as bad as portrayed here, but we have here own personal bias that is so extreme that saying something from "central" point of politics is seen as fanboying for other side.

I am dual booting and sure i would love Nvidia to improve linux side of things. But here is a thing, i am talking often with clients, people from team and guess what is life changer - nvidia broadcast to make your sound from microphone clearer, you can literally mash mechanical keyboard next to mic and people won't hear it. That is life changer for me and that argument will never be used on this forum.

Another issue is that AMD fanboyism to talk even false things as true, is extremly pronounced on this forum. "Intel is consuming more power then AMD" well on Alder lake it changed and all CPUs from Intel from 12100 to 12600k actually consume less power per same performance to AMD, and 12900k is only consuming power power on average in full multicore workloads, in gaming it doesn't. But i bet I will hear that argument 10000 times more on this forum. People will talk about greedyness of Nvidia (fine it exist). But won't talk about greedyness of AMD (first 1000$+ CPU, removing threadripper lineup, increasing prices of Zen 3 straight away the moment they got leadership, the moment they saw GPU shortage, rise MSRP prices for bottom RDNA2 lineup, that even if you get them at MSRP, you actually REGRESS comparing to RDNA1).

Then you have Intel, that comparing to AMD, they did contribute to kernel way longer, they did open source drivers for way longer, support in kernel upcoming stuff ahead of release, they didn't greedly increase prices when they had 10 years of competitive edge. And what do they get - i think i found 0 fanboys on this forum for Intel on top of that they have perception of being the hottest CPUs around when their only argument why they consume more power is that highest model consumes more power in cinebench a workload that each of you maybe do few seconds each day. Maybe. Sure they had some scandals but so did AMD and nvidia.

And there is so many issues for AMD some of them are affecting dual boot, some of them are affecting all users like USB dropouts or PCI-E gen4 issues, or RAM compability Zen 1 and Zen1+ that are giving impression you get sold beta product. RDNA1 at launch had no driver support in Linux at all, and windows was plagued with bluescreens etc. With Intel i didn't hear such issues.

What is the most peculiar is that i never hear people speaking about those issues here, but if i go to technical forums with hardware issues, or even news channels, they are suddenly very common issues. This forum everytime it comes to companys of Nvidia AMD and Intel feels like empty echo chamber, when it is absolutly not in your consumer interest to do so. In your interest should be valuing good parts and shitting on every single company for bad parts. But *you* aren't. You are very selective in what you should shit on.

The most echo chamber stuff i remember here:

- Turing relased with price increase "Fuck nvidia"

- Zen 3 released with price increase or bottom RDNA2 cards, here i am looking around looking where is "fuck amd".

- Not a single mention also about that threadripper normal lineup is gone for you users unless you want to bully super extra money for Threadripper Pro. That for you should be like the most important news, you people who want to compile tons of code fast, or make super workstations or some more affordable servers... No one talks about that? But somehow LinusTechTips did https://youtu.be/h74mZp0SvyE

[drakonas777]

He isn't. You don't realize but on phoronix you have community that is strong in favour of :
- open source,
- good linux support,
- and supporting linux like standards.
Many of you are also quite bleeding edge, you will use or force enable features that are yet to come to mainsteam LTS distro like ubuntu.
And here Nvidia was pretty bad, so it is obvious that anti-Nvidia bias here is dominant and it is understandable why. And surerly i would love it to change.

But here is a thing : how situation changes for less techy users who don't contribute to kernel or aren't well knowdlegable for it. Oh it matters less. What about people who are dual booting and using Nvidia, oh it matters less. What if there are people who use CUDA stack - they have no choice mostly because only Nvidia provided so good gpu compute stack. There are a lot of circumstances where Nvidia isn't as bad as portrayed here, but we have here own personal bias that is so extreme that saying something from "central" point of politics is seen as fanboying for other side.

I am dual booting and sure i would love Nvidia to improve linux side of things. But here is a thing, i am talking often with clients, people from team and guess what is life changer - nvidia broadcast to make your sound from microphone clearer, you can literally mash mechanical keyboard next to mic and people won't hear it. That is life changer for me and that argument will never be used on this forum.

Another issue is that AMD fanboyism to talk even false things as true, is extremly pronounced on this forum. "Intel is consuming more power then AMD" well on Alder lake it changed and all CPUs from Intel from 12100 to 12600k actually consume less power per same performance to AMD, and 12900k is only consuming power power on average in full multicore workloads, in gaming it doesn't. But i bet I will hear that argument 10000 times more on this forum. People will talk about greedyness of Nvidia (fine it exist). But won't talk about greedyness of AMD (first 1000$+ CPU, removing threadripper lineup, increasing prices of Zen 3 straight away the moment they got leadership, the moment they saw GPU shortage, rise MSRP prices for bottom RDNA2 lineup, that even if you get them at MSRP, you actually REGRESS comparing to RDNA1).

Then you have Intel, that comparing to AMD, they did contribute to kernel way longer, they did open source drivers for way longer, support in kernel upcoming stuff ahead of release, they didn't greedly increase prices when they had 10 years of competitive edge. And what do they get - i think i found 0 fanboys on this forum for Intel on top of that they have perception of being the hottest CPUs around when their only argument why they consume more power is that highest model consumes more power in cinebench a workload that each of you maybe do few seconds each day. Maybe. Sure they had some scandals but so did AMD and nvidia.

And there is so many issues for AMD some of them are affecting dual boot, some of them are affecting all users like USB dropouts or PCI-E gen4 issues, or RAM compability Zen 1 and Zen1+ that are giving impression you get sold beta product. RDNA1 at launch had no driver support in Linux at all, and windows was plagued with bluescreens etc. With Intel i didn't hear such issues.

What is the most peculiar is that i never hear people speaking about those issues here, but if i go to technical forums with hardware issues, or even news channels, they are suddenly very common issues. This forum everytime it comes to companys of Nvidia AMD and Intel feels like empty echo chamber, when it is absolutly not in your consumer interest to do so. In your interest should be valuing good parts and shitting on every single company for bad parts. But *you* aren't. You are very selective in what you should shit on.

The most echo chamber stuff i remember here:

- Turing relased with price increase "Fuck nvidia"

- Zen 3 released with price increase or bottom RDNA2 cards, here i am looking around looking where is "fuck amd".

- Not a single mention also about that threadripper normal lineup is gone for you users unless you want to bully super extra money for Threadripper Pro. That for you should be like the most important news, you people who want to compile tons of code fast, or make super workstations or some more affordable servers... No one talks about that? But somehow LinusTechTips did https://youtu.be/h74mZp0SvyE

Valid points. I do not disagree with them. However, my post was more about the mentality of birdie (a.k.a. avem) than the validity of his arguments per se. He denies being a fanboy of any brand. Fine. Why regularly fight/troll/bait FOSS/AMD enthusiast then though? How to explain an internal need to defend a certain company against fanboys/enthusiast of a competing company? OK, perhaps it's not an explicit fanboyism, but at least some implicit bias towards a brand. I do not see how a truly brand neutral person would have a need to "defend" any brand against anyone. By "defend" I mean several things here a) Insulting users of a competing brand (birdie did this on several occasions and even deleted some post (or Michel did IDK for sure)) b) Insert yourself unsolicitedly into comments after an article with some sort of trollish/baitish/whatever comment agains FOS/AMD users, especially framing technically correct/valid statements in such a way, which maximally angry some forum users on purpose (birdie does this regularly) c) Bend/cherry pick/take out of the context some facts to show how FOSS/AMD fanboys/enthusiast are supposedly wrong in that narrow, deliberately constructed logical framework, which has no constructive purpose but to irritate others with different opinion.

That is behavior of birdie/avem I do not like and I call it out time to time. It's like the only goal for him is to irritate people with different opinion, even though that opinion is incorrect on less rational. Basically it's a form of toxicity.

As for technical things - personally I use all of the major brands. My mentality is you select a tool which is a best for a given situation. Sometimes it's NVIDIA, sometimes it's AMD or Intel or something else entirely.