***OFFICIAL*** Ryzen 5000 / Zen 3 Launch Thread REVIEWS BEGIN PAGE 39

[TheGiant]

Are you suggesting AMD chose to showcase their new gen cpu launch with something other than their best gaming chip in the gaming benchmarks? Haven't you learned anything from previous launch presentations?

I am not convinced by AMDs gaming slide
I've seen this with my 3900X to be pretty on par with 9900K, now it looks so much worse
which is a dream far away, I had a 9900K for 2 weeks and it is another league, gaming benches don't show it, because they test more of general gameplay than gaming critical scenes
we need lots of reviews to get the picture right
about the MT througput apps I don't have slightest doubt the increase is as big as AMD tells us now
however, the posts here....like fanatical herd..WTB that material....

 

[DrMrLordX]

The 3700X was $329!

Hmm actually you're right. 3800x was at the price point of the 1700x, while the 3700x was at the price point of the 1700.

The date code on the 5900X that Lisa held up was 2035 so production wise it hasn't been long.

Interesting. I have to reconsider my position a bit. It may be that AMD isn't chugging along as quickly as I thought they were.

The positive (LoL-CS:GO) and negative (BFV) outliers have any easy explanation judging by my own stock 3900X. The positive ones are low threaded (and CS:GO loved Zen 2 big cache already) and the negative is heavily threaded. My stock, AIO cooled 3900X, in low threaded games (every DX9 title pretty much) boosts between 4375 and 4525MHz. But BFV acts as if it has AVX and the clocks drop all the way down to 4125MHz. So these benchmarks to me seem as an indication of what turbo clocks Zen 3 achieves. I wouldn't be surprised if LoL runs around 4.7GHz, with reduced latency and a massive IPC over skylake, intel cpus won't get close no matter what. But BFV probably runs around what I would guess is 4.3GHz, which means a 5.0-5.1GHz all core intel could match or surpass it.

Quoted for posterity. And:

Where do you get 300MHz all core OC on Matisse?

See above. I share the same experiences as Kuiva maa in that games with more than about three threads can bring my 3900x @ default to around 4150 MHz (give or take). I can static OC and game at 4400 MHz constantly, for a nice 250 MHz OC. That single-core boost of 4600 MHz does nothing, and PBO doesn't do anywhere near enough to compare to what I can do with static OC.

You may recall that this has now become Intel's strategy to spend the bulk of their time naming and talking about their competitors, while ignoring their own products lol.

Honestly can you blame them? I wouldn't to talk up my own failures either.

@DAPUNISHER

Cute but misguided. AMD was making good money selling their 8c flagship for $499 in 2017, just as they were making good money selling their 12c flagship in July 2019 for the same price. AMD would do very well selling the 5900X for $499. That's not a "fire sale price".

 

[coercitiv]

Are you suggesting AMD chose to showcase their new gen cpu launch with something other than their best gaming chip in the gaming benchmarks? Haven't you learned anything from previous launch presentations?

I'm not rushing anywhere, I'll wait for Nov 5 reviews even for game performance and ST performance validation.

FYI though, this launch presentation was unlike anything AMD ever made.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I'll wait for Nov 5 reviews

Shouldn't the NDAs lift on review sites before then?

 

[coercitiv]

Shouldn't the NDAs lift on review sites before then?

I don't know, let's call it review day instead.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

@DAPUNISHER

Cute but misguided. AMD was making good money selling their 8c flagship for $499 in 2017, just as they were making good money selling their 12c flagship in July 2019 for the same price. AMD would do very well selling the 5900X for $499. That's not a "fire sale price".

Misguided? It's a parable.

2017 may as well be a different century; it is in no way analogous to the present environment. The pandemic has altered the market radically. We watch prices spike, yet there is still not enough to meet demand. Leveraging that to increase profits is the smartest thing AMD can do right now. If Intel is any indication; no amount of ill will keeps the consumers away for very long. And most have very short memories or squirrel hard. So there won't be any long term fallout worth considering.

 

[DrMrLordX]

I don't know, let's call it review day instead.

Good enough for me.

Misguided? It's a parable.

It's still misguided, based on essentially broken ideas. Nobody's asking AMD for fire sale prices. They're mostly just asking AMD to not take advantage of a temporary performance monopoly.

Leveraging that to increase profits is the smartest thing AMD can do right now.

That's great for AMD, but not necessarily great for consumers. AMD is past the point where they are in danger of dissolution or even falling off on product development. They seem mostly funded across the board. At this point they're just making shareholders happy. Which, you know . . . doesn't excite me all that much?

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Were you ever in the market for the six-core X parts from AMD? Because many people here considered them low value. The 1600X launched at $249 MSRP and guess what -> it came without a cooler! Talk about bad value right there.


Make the effort to stay reasonable, the 10700K is a $375 part without a cooler, add a cheap cooler and you're at $400. You overreacted because 5600X is $50 more expensive than historical prices, yet less than 24 hours later you're willing to spend $100 more for 2 extra cores with lower IPC and higher power consumption?!

FYI the 5600X will likely tie the 10700K in gaming. So that's $100 dollars you save towards a new GPU.

If you want value

1. acknowledge this is not a good time for PC prices as there's a global pandemic that keeps people indoors and buying games and computer parts
2. wait for the cheaper 5600
3. buy the $160-180 10400F and feel good about yourself until you realize you just bought 2017 levels of performance
4. buy the $380 10700K and make sure you don't tell us about it so we don't compare your purchase on November 5

Way to compare 5600X to the worst Ryzen 5 chips instead of the $200 R5 3600 which the $300 R5 5600X replaces. And why is 8C/16T laughed off when the consoles are 8C/16T and thus everything is going to be optimized for such a setup? I don't trust 6C/12T to age well when it's lower than console spec so it sucks having a jump in price that pushes AMD's 6c/12t offering out of being a budget cpu.

 

[coercitiv]

Way to compare 5600X to the worst Ryzen 5 chips instead of the $200 R5 3600 which the $300 R5 5600X replaces.

As I said, go ahead and buy the 10400F or 10700K. Let's see how your value purchase stacks up in until the end of this year.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

As I said, go ahead and buy the 10400F or 10700K. Let's see how your value purchase stacks up in until the end of this year.

Don't really think 5600X is going to age all that gracefully being 6C/12T when the consoles are 8C/16T.

 

[TheGiant]

Don't really think 5600X is going to age all that gracefully being 6C/12T when the consoles are 8C/16T.

I think we will need 10+cores to age well on PC (if someone wants to keep the CPU longer)
Consoles have 8C so the design focus is done, but PCs have lots of bloatware...

 

[Zstream]

Way to compare 5600X to the worst Ryzen 5 chips instead of the $200 R5 3600 which the $300 R5 5600X replaces. And why is 8C/16T laughed off when the consoles are 8C/16T and thus everything is going to be optimized for such a setup? I don't trust 6C/12T to age well when it's lower than console spec so it sucks having a jump in price that pushes AMD's 6c/12t offering out of being a budget cpu.

You do realize that not all cores are dedicated to gaming? I suspect the six core to still be the sweet spot for gamers.

 

[coercitiv]

Don't really think 5600X is going to age all that gracefully being 6C/12T when the consoles are 8C/16T.

Wait, so you weren't interested a 6-core at all. All this talk and all you wanted was an 8-core?

 

[DrMrLordX]

As I said, go ahead and buy the 10400F or 10700K. Let's see how your value purchase stacks up in until the end of this year.

Intel isn't exactly offering viable alternatives at this point.

 

[SteveGrabowski]

Wait, so you weren't interested a 6-core at all. All this talk and all you wanted was an 8-core?

Don't put words in my mouth. I was looking to upgrade to a 3600 successor knowing it would be a budget cpu that would be pretty good now but likely wouldn't age all that well. But the 3600 successor isn't a budget cpu any more at $300.

 

[coercitiv]

Don't put words in my mouth. I was looking to upgrade to a 3600 successor knowing it would be a budget cpu that would be pretty good now but likely wouldn't age all that well. But the 3600 successor isn't a budget cpu any more at $300.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You openly declared you would rather buy the 10400F or 10700K instead of the 5600X. I invited you to do so, to which you replied that you "don't really think 5600X is going to age all that gracefully being 6C/12T when the consoles are 8C/16T ".

So which is it? You want a budget 6-core or console equivalent 8-core that will age gracefully? Because if it's just a 6-core, then your initial reply about consoles was just goalpost shifting. Pick your poison.

 

[AtenRa]

Way to compare 5600X to the worst Ryzen 5 chips instead of the $200 R5 3600 which the $300 R5 5600X replaces. And why is 8C/16T laughed off when the consoles are 8C/16T and thus everything is going to be optimized for such a setup? I don't trust 6C/12T to age well when it's lower than console spec so it sucks having a jump in price that pushes AMD's 6c/12t offering out of being a budget cpu.

Don't put words in my mouth. I was looking to upgrade to a 3600 successor knowing it would be a budget cpu that would be pretty good now but likely wouldn't age all that well. But the 3600 successor isn't a budget cpu any more at $300.

Once again, 5600X is not the 3600 successor.
If you want to buy the 3600 successor you will have to wait for the 5600 to be released.

As of now AMD have six core CPUs from $150 up to $300
2600 @ $150
3600 @ $200
3600XT @ $250
and 5600X @ $300

 

[Zucker2k]

Once again, 5600X is not the 3600 successor.
If you want to buy the 3600 successor you will have to wait for the 5600 to be released.

As of now AMD have six core CPUs from $150 up to $300
2600 @ $150
3600 @ $200
3600XT @ $250
and 5600X @ $300

All these posts about waiting for 5600 and 5700x assume AMD is sticking to earlier release cadences where they had two hexacores and two octacores in their lineup. I think the cpu landscape has changed enough in the last two years that I won't be surprised if that doesn't happen.

 

[AtenRa]

All these posts about waiting for 5600 and 5700x assume AMD is sticking to earlier release cadences where they had two hexacores and two octacores in their lineup. I think the cpu landscape has changed enough in the last two years that I won't be surprised if that doesn't happen.

Intel will launch more than 3 CPUs in Q1 2021, are you suggesting AMD will stay with only those three CPUs ??

 

[Shivansps]

Guys the problem with pricing is not about this specific SKU (the 5600X at $300). Is about the 6C prices in general going up (there is no way for the 5600 to be at $200), when they should be going DOWN. It remains to be seen once AMD launches the rest of the lineup, but if this continues even 4/8 are going to go up, and this is not OK, no matter if is AMD, Intel or Cyrix.

AMD plan may be to use APUs for <250. Not Renoir, but maybe Cezanne.

 

[coercitiv]

Intel will launch more than 3 CPUs in Q1 2021, are you suggesting AMD will stay with only those three CPUs ??

Yes, they will bin their chips to 4.6Ghz+ and everything else will be buried rather than sold to peasants at a discount.

AMD essentially built their desktop marketshare using the X600 and X700 SKUs, but no more. What consumers really want is to pay $449 for a mainstream CPU that can deliver console gaming performance.

 

[Shivansps]

What consumers really want is to pay $449 for a mainstream CPU that can deliver console gaming performance.

The times were a console was more expensive than the best desktop CPU avalible are really behind, thank you for remaining me of this.

 

[AtenRa]

Yes, they will bin their chips to 4.6Ghz+ and everything else will be buried rather than sold to peasants at a discount.

AMD essentially built their desktop marketshare using the X600 and X700 SKUs, but no more. What consumers really want is to pay $449 for a mainstream CPU that can deliver console gaming performance.

If AMD will not release the 5600 or any other cheaper 4C 8T ZEN 3 CPUs before or after Intel release its new RocketLake Desktop CPUs in Q1 2021 , they will have problems competing with the old Ryzen 2xxx and Ryzen 3xxx.

Not to mention that availability of Wafers will be better in Q1 for more CPU capacity due to lower Console demand in that period.

 

[Shivansps]

If AMD will not release the 5600 or any other cheaper 4C 8T ZEN 3 CPUs before or after Intel release its new RocketLake Desktop CPUs in Q1 2021 , they will have problems competing with the old Ryzen 2xxx and Ryzen 3xxx.

Not to mention that availability of Wafers will be better in Q1 for more CPU capacity due to lower Console demand in that period.

Thats probably why they want to get Cezanne out ASAP. Both for desktop and mobile. To me everything below 250 is Cezanne...

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You openly declared you would rather buy the 10400F or 10700K instead of the 5600X. I invited you to do so, to which you replied that you "don't really think 5600X is going to age all that gracefully being 6C/12T when the consoles are 8C/16T ".

So which is it? You want a budget 6-core or console equivalent 8-core that will age gracefully? Because if it's just a 6-core, then your initial reply about consoles was just goalpost shifting. Pick your poison.

If I buy a 6-core I know it's not aging gracefully over the entire next console gen, which is fine if it's a budget processor. Not so good a deal if it's not budget priced. If I'm paying $300 I might as well spend the extra $80 and go octacore. Or pay $180 and get a little less performance but still have a 6C/12T that will likely age similarly.

Sorry if I'm not doing cartwheels over AMD increasing the price of midrange cpus from $200 to $300 just like it was annoying when Nvidia shifted midrange gpus from $250 to $350 with Turing.