SteveGrabowski
Diamond Member
- Oct 20, 2014
- 7,121
- 5,998
- 136
Man for all the complaints about Nvidia bumping up gpu prices hugely with Turing it's hard to understand everyone happy to see AMD doing the same on their cpus.
The 1700 was $400, I bought one.....well, it might have been a 1700x that I got,.
To be fair street prices of AMD chips have a history of dropping pretty quickly and staying low then. MSRP is essentially the early adopter price. We will see how that goes with the 5000 series.Man for all the complaints about Nvidia bumping up gpu prices hugely with Turing it's hard to understand everyone happy to see AMD doing the same on their cpus.
See above. I added, the 1700 is so much slower than the 6800x, and its 3 years later(inflation) Its like twice as fastJust going by MSRP
The AMD Zen and Ryzen 7 Review: A Deep Dive on 1800X, 1700X and 1700
www.anandtech.com
Theoretically speaking, AMD's selection of benchmarks IS a random sample of all possible benchmarks out there.No, you have not understood the concept of outliers. It concerns random samples of the same type and this is not random samples, this is a defined set of different games. And some games simply benefit much more from a certain CPU architecture than other. So this is neither random samples nor abnormal results. Therefore these are not outliers that should be removed.
1700 was not Top Dog at 8 core, heck most had issues OCing past 3.9 while 1800X were able so they were better binnedThe 1700 was $329.
Meanwhile 3600X MSRP has been $249. AMD announced the 5600X today. We can't know if and when there will be an 5600 non-X.Ryzen 5 3600 MSRP has always been $200.
No, Amd 1800X was $499, now the 5800X is only $449 so it's actually less expensive.
The lack of a 65W TDP 8c/16t SKU (so 5700X) is an odd omission, especially with all the talk about improved efficiency. But AMD never launched all possible SKUs at once, so personally I fully expect it to announce and launch missing SKUs at a later date.
And 5600X and 5600 don't, while 5800X, 5900X and 5950X will, whereas 3800X, 3900X and 3950X didn't. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Meanwhile 3600X MSRP has been $249. AMD announced the 5600X today. We can't know if and when there will be an 5600 non-X.
How do you translate 'most CPU-bound' to 'games I play most' in your brain? What exactly is going on here???Do you even know how outliers are decided? Here have a read:
"The games I play most are not outliers" attitude is completely wrong.
and the pricing hits like a brick
Ignoring LoL and CS:GO as outliers, the average gaming uplift is ~5% over the 10900K. With a modest all-core OC of 5.1GHz coupled with fast memory the 10900K will have no problems taking the gaming crown, and Rocket Lake will be comfortably ahead if it can clock to ~5GHz. So near
I think this will be AMD taking profits for a while
Geez, a paper launch with availability almost a month away - boo hoo.
Are People Really complaining about price of the 5800X? Let me remind you that the 1800X was priced at $499 and people were very surprised that it was not close to $800 like Intels so it was a Win Win for all.
Now the 5800X is $449 and is somehow is Tyrant and price gauging people?
Meanwhile 3600X MSRP has been $249. AMD announced the 5600X today. We can't know if and when there will be an 5600 non-X.
Theoretically speaking, AMD's selection of benchmarks IS a random sample of all possible benchmarks out there.
Is that what they did with the 1800X and 1700X? They took the 1700 and changed the name a bit?Wow what if they called it 5600Z and charged another $50?
5800X is the successor to the 3700x and 1700x. Those were $399 CPUs. 5900x is the price-point successor of the 1800x and 3900x. Those were $499 CPUs.
Pretty much. Though I'm still curious as to how long AMD has been sitting on Vermeer, it does seem to be that they're going to milk this release for all its worth.
If that's the narrative you get from it, nothing I say would make a difference, so I'll just leave it at that.It's just effectively a big price increase. Wow what if they called it 5600Z and charged another $50?
That's what AMD is essentially doing already, looking at the longevity the 1000 series had and the 2000 series still has. The big question is whether the 3000 series and onward will ever drop significantly below the $100 mark considering the high manufacturing cost.I could see them just leaving the 3000 series on the market, maybe adjusting prices if need be. As mentioned Epyc 2 is going to be on the market for some time so there will be some supply available of that that won't work for Epyc.
Nobody can say for sure that there will not be a 5700X or non-X SKU.So you are ignoring the $329 Ryzen 3700X from the literal previous generation? Huh???
Why are you bringing up a comparison to a launch in 2017 when Intel's 8-core was probably $800 or more?
Of course AMD will release an 8-core model below the 5800X. The point is, at launch (foreseeable future) the entry point for an 8-core processor has increased from $329 to $449. I'm simply stating facts. I would have lined up on launch day for a $350 8-core but now I will be sitting this one out so their decisions obviously will affect some potential buyers.
I really do think its odd we didn't get a lower tier 8-core. Perhaps supplies are limited and they want to increase margin? Or perhaps their research showed people will simply pay more to have the best.
The date code on the 5900X that Lisa held up was 2035 so production wise it hasn't been long.
That's what AMD is essentially doing already, looking at the longevity the 1000 series had and the 2000 series still has. The big question is whether the 3000 series and onward will ever drop significantly below the $100 mark considering the high manufacturing cost.
Nobody can say for sure that there will not be a 5700X or non-X SKU.
First the 5800X is Not on the same Tier as 3700X nor the 1700, but the 5800X like it's 1800X and 3800X predecessors it's Top of the line 8 core processor, best bin(the non x and 700 lines are bottom of the barrel bins) so it's for enthusiasts not peasants trying to score a budget 8 core CPU, if that is you, please get yourself a non-x series Ryzen 2 now or wait for later.So you are ignoring the $329 Ryzen 3700X from the literal previous generation? Huh???
Of course AMD will release an 8-core model below the 5800X. The point is, at launch (foreseeable future) the entry point for an 8-core processor has increased from $329 to $449. I'm simply stating facts.
Do you disagree that there are outliers in AMD's gaming benchmark comparison?Ah, dude - your normally pretty sensible but reading back a few pages your going off on one here.
Step away from the keyboard, grab a beer or two and come back tomorrow. You'll likely cringe!
Where do you get 300MHz all core OC on Matisse? And while the headroom is there for memory OC, you got to admit that on Intel the headroom is much higher on the memory front. Overclocked thermals are still manageable with gaming workloads on Intel 14nm.Others have harped on you for this comment, but I must join then. Even a modest 200-300 MHz all-core static OC with memory tune brings Matisse fps (especially minimums) up, and it will be no different for Vermeer. Intel is running out of OC headroom. There will be a limited handful of people out there willing to deal with the ridiculous thermals from overclocked 14nm CPUs.
Ah damn, you know what I meant!AMD could, but they've been tight lipped lately.