Trust me, You dont want to mention 10700 or 10400 or 3600 in this thread. 5600X has the most amazing value when combined with $50 memory around here. Period.
They both come with an heatsinkEhm, personally I believe that Core i7 10700 (non K) @ 349$ is much better gaming CPU vs Ryzen 5600X @ 299$ today.
10700 is a 8C 16T at 65W TDP , also comes with a heat-sink and gaming performance is almost identical between the two.
I'm not saying everyone should be thrilled with the increased price, but jeez people are blowing it way out of proportion. Compare the ~$500 AMD SKU today versus the $500 1800x SKU from 3 years ago or the $500 Intel SKU from Intel 2 years ago and compare how much progress AMD has made in performance to how much Intel made through 6 years when they had the undisputed performance lead. It's not even close.
Look at the audience that is being addressed. Majority of us has been advanced computer users for 20 years+ now. This isn't a best buy or amazon comment section. These post about it being a poor value isn't going to change one's mind here.
Preaching to the wrong crowd.
I will not argue with that, that's obvious. What's far from obvious is whether Intel manages to successfully compete with AMD any time soon and whether AMD decides to raise prices even further now that they are the ultimate performance leader (and looks like they will retain the lead with Zen 4). That's probably why so many people are not at ease with this seemingly benign price hike. You really don't want a market where there's just one player even if the said player was an underdog just a few years ago.
Yea, testing at low resolution vs overclocking at commonly used resolutions seem like totally different issues to me.I don't understand your vitriol. Overclocking is basically free performance within grasp of any gamer. You don't have to buy expensive memory or God knows what. Don't panic.
It's 2020, not 2021 and I understand your concern about 6 versus 8 cores. But when the 6 cores has such a large IPC lead and very similar frequencies, do the extra 2 cores really make the more expensive part worth it?
They both come with an heatsink
This is very much debatable since the 5600X can be replaced with the massively faster 5950X (I'm not talking about games but about tasks like video encoding or even image editing) and the slightly faster 10900K would be your absolute limit.
Im not giving 300$ for 6 cores in 2021, again I believe the Core i7 10700 at just $349 is the better CPU that will mature much better than 5600X.
I know, I just wanted to emphasize that no need to spend extra for the 10700 non X and the price difference is only $50 between the two.
You are the one that is confusing the issue. Bottom line is that overclocking gives increased performance at commonly used resolutions (assuming you are not gpu limited), while low resolution testing (especially at 360p like Anand did) gives data for a situation that no one is likely to use. Two totally different scenarios.My vitriol stems from you faking ignorance to promote a talking point even though you know better:
I'm all for debates and even playing devil's advocate, but I will not stand anybody deliberately deceiving others.
- that overclocking scales because the memory subsystem is aggressively scaling as well, they're using a very fast and very expensive memory kit and custom timings to make the overclock scale well into 10900K territory and make up for the smaller L3 cache.
- the performance results are obtained at unrealistic detail settings which is in direct contradiction with your previous gripes with low res gaming. Does 1080p Medium settings sound like something one would use on 3070/3080 class GPU?
We are just 1.5 months away from 2021
The only reason I would consider the 5600X is just for high refresh Monitors at 1080p as you said. But, I dont know many that need more than 144fps so this is just a niche segment. For the vast majority of 1080p gamers up to 144fps, the Core i5 10400 and Ryzen 3600 is way better alternatives.
My preference to the Core i7 10700 comes because of the close price points between the i7 and 5600X. And for 50$ more I believe that 10700 is the all around better product, for now.
For people aiming at 1440p and 4K and on a low budget its better to go with the 10400/3600 and spend the extra for a faster GPU. No point spending extra on the CPU at those higher resolutions.
That's whataboutism. You say to me: "you've vehemently hated Intel and NVIDIA", so I'd like you to point me to my posts where I have vehemently hated Intel and NVIDIA. (And regardless, Intel's issue hasn't been price increases, it's been performance stagnation. In fact, Intel's prices have dropped for similar parts. Re: Nvidia, they've had the best mid and top tier graphics cards for years now, and those cards have had stable prices for almost a decade despite massive increases in performance. Same with AMD's mid-tier GPUs.)So, Intel had a performance lead for well over a decade (2005-2017) and never attempted to pull such a stunt, i.e. deliberately "forget" to announce lower tier CPUs and release only higher tier CPUs at quite a hefty price hike, while it's OK for AMD. Got it! Everything you've vehemently hated Intel and NVIDIA for has suddenly become OK for AMD, i.e. an early adopter tax, fat margins, price increase, high prices, etc. etc. etc.
What I find especially amusing is that people keep referring to ephemeral 5600 and 5700X CPUs despite zero leaks about their existence. And given AMD's spotty history it's easy to imagine they will not release these CPUs at all if Intel fails to deliver with Rocket Lake. That would be laughable when a year from now you'll keep defending their fantastic profits, margins and ASP (which is going to be huge) while customers will collectively moan. Ah, those sweet Athlon FX-63 days - how quickly the tables have turned.
And then when Zen 4 gets released an Ryzen 5 6600X becomes a $350 CPU it's gonna get really interesting if not horrible. An entry level six-core CPU. "A fantastic value! Only $150 more expensive than a comparable Intel CPU." // b.
I would actually be very surprised at someone buying a 10700K or 5600x and not using an aftermarket coolerI know, I just wanted to emphasize that no need to spend extra for the 10700 non K and the price difference is only $50 between the two.
I would actually be very surprised at someone buying a 10700K or 5600x and not using an aftermarket cooler
Perhaps, but the consoles also are programmed to use CPU resources more efficiently than a PC, so I think 8 cores will be the sweet spot going forward vs the new gen of consoles.DDR4 memory scaling from HUB.
TLDW; basically he recommends 2x8GB 3600MHz CL16 for maximum bang for buck and no hassle. It's really only in Hitman 2 where you would see any difference (at 1440p) when manually tuning or using 2x16GB dual ranked RAM.
Btw, in the 5600X review he said something I found interesting, regarding 6-core vs 8-core for games:
"Speaking of gaming performance, you’re no doubt going to hear nonsense such as "the Ryzen 5 5600X is a poor choice for gamers as it only has 6 cores," and they’ll probably try and prove that by pointing to the new consoles which feature eight Zen 2 cores.
[...]
Some people also like to confuse how games and cores work. Making statements like games will require 8 cores or something to that effect. Games don’t require a certain number of cores, they never have and they never will. Games require a certain level of CPU performance, it’s really that simple.
[...]
But what about the 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 5600X, how will it age? Our guess is extremely well as the massive IPC increase offered by the new Zen 3 architecture means the 5600X is comparable to previous generation 8-core processors such as the 3700X and 10700K, or the Zen 2 parts used in the next gen consoles, and no one expects those processors to become obsolete any time soon."
If they both come with arguably inferior heatsinks why would you include it as aplusmention it at all?
From what I've seen, the 5600x should outperform the 10700 in gaming and productivity so I don't see how you can say the 10700 is the better all around chip.
But the 3600x was generally considered a poor value relative to the 3600, no? IMO 3600x was basically a worthless price grab (performance increase sometimes within margin of error). The 5600x at least gives a significant performance upgrade for the price increase.This has been said a million times on here.
The 5600X is not a replacement for the 3600 it is for the 3600X which is only a $50 price increase. You guys keep changing the argument to suit your price increase rants when its wrong.
As for the 6600X (hilarious, by the way, that you're talking about this hypothetical, but you dismiss arguments regarding a possible 5600), if they jack the price to $349, and people buy the chip at that price, then that's a fair market price. Not my opinion, just fact. But, again, I'd rather have AMD or Intel or Nvidia making the money than Amazon or scalpers, since the companies are the ones pushing raw performance up competitively. So as long as they can't keep up with demand, they should price accordingly. If AMD release a 6600X with SMT4 that runs as fast as a 10900K in MT workloads at same or lower power usage (as the 5600X does in SPEC 2017 MT FP performance), what would you say then? Is it worth $349?
Point is, 5600x is the only six core available, while in previous releases the non-x processor was available at release as well.Well of course it's a poor choice for budget gamers since 5600X is the top end 6c processor this gen, whereas 3600 is the budget 6c processor of last gen. The only reason people like you talk about 5600X even being in consideration for anything budget is that among all four premium Ryzen 5000 launch processors 5600X is still the cheapest. But it never has been a budget part to begin with. So you could have saved yourself from spending the time ranting away in the rest of your post.
People who have money that wasn't the result of a silver spoon scenario always look for good value in my experience. 20+ years, yeah me too, my first custom build was a 286 12Mhz. But, I do plan to retire shortly after hitting 55, and unless you're an exec with a golden parachute that requires financial discipline.
But the 3600x was generally considered a poor value relative to the 3600, no? IMO 3600x was basically a worthless price grab (performance increase sometimes within margin of error). The 5600x at least gives a significant performance upgrade for the price increase.
Gaming performance is roughly the same, +- 5%
But in many productivity applications the 8C 16T Core i7 10700 will have a small lead.
Also thing about it, there is no upgrade path for the 5600X for gaming. All other Ryzen 5xxx are not much of an upgrade if you only care about Gaming performance.
On the other hand 10700 will get a new Rocket Lake in Q1, so maybe there will be a better upgrade gaming path for the i7.
If ya don't appreciate what AMD's achieved then go buy something else. No one cares that you think its tooo expensive, changes exactly nothing.
I can't see the point either.He's talking about the 10700, not the 10700k.