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

[Abwx]

Rocketlake is still 14 nm.

They will be constrained by TDP, Willow cove is huge compared to SKL uarch, not counting higher pipeline latencies to accomodate a higher IPC that will cut in the max frequency.

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 yet so far.

There s already fast memory in those numbers, both set ups use 3600MHz RAM, dunno if the 10900K officially support this frequency, as for even higher frequencies not sure that it would gain more than the 5900X..

Besides 5.1 fixed clock wont be better than stock boost at 5.3 given that the chip can use 180W...

 

[YBS1]

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 yet so far.

It really doesn't matter, we all know in here more performance can be ringed from both of these platforms. What matters is just how much of a jump in single thread performance AMD has managed, you seem to be leaving out how badly AMD was already beating Intel in multicore performance work loads and it just got worse. AMD cleanly and clearly has the best all around processor for the moment.

 

[tamz_msc]

There s already fast memory in those numbers, both set ups use 3600MHz RAM, dunno if the 10900K officially support this frequency, as for even higher frequencies not sure that it would gain more than the 5900X..

Besides 5.1 fkixed clock wont be better than stock boost at 5.3...

3600 MHz isn't fast by Intel standards. 5.1GHz all core is better than stock. Check GamersNexus benchmarks.

 

[inf64]

They probably will have an IPC advantage in non gaming workloads but it seems that there are other bottlenecks still that keep the core from reaching it's potential in games.

I disagree, let's see how it goes. I think AMD will have no issues being in the lead even with rocketlake out there.

 

[tamz_msc]

It really doesn't matter, we all know in here more performance can be ringed from both of these platforms. What matters is just how much of a jump in single thread performance AMD has managed, you seem to be leaving out how badly AMD was already beating Intel in multicore performance work loads and it just got worse. AMD cleanly and clearly has the best all around processor for the moment.

Not necessarily in gaming, best in everything else. That's all that matters to those folks who are in the market for the best gaming CPU.

 

[Elfear]

Man I was looking forward to Ryzen 5 5600. But I'm not going to pay historical i7 prices for straight midrange performance. Probably just go Intel with an i5-10400f instead.

If the new 5600 doesn't seem worth the price premium, the 3600 is also a really solid choice at $180-200. Compared to the 10400f with a Z490 board and fast ram, gaming performance is only slightly behind but you're also paying more for the Intel setup. If you opt for a cheaper B460 Intel board and slower ram, the gaming performance is neck and neck but the 3600 is ~20% in with productivity usage.

 

[coercitiv]

*ignoring two of the most commonly played games*

Competitive games are not real-world workloads.

 

[Head1985]

Also, they raised pricing across the board? 8C/16T now starts with 449 vs 329 previously ?

Yeah and i dont like that 40% price increase on 8/16T part.Cheapest 8/16T on zen2 was 3700x and you could buy it for 320usd.Now cheapest 8/16T cpu will cost 450USD!!!40% more.Crazy.

 

[IntelUser2000]

not counting higher pipeline latencies to accomodate a higher IPC that will cut in the max frequency.

What does this even mean?

Sunny/Willow doesn't have higher pipeline latencies compared to Skylake in any way shape or form.

 

[tamz_msc]

Competitive games are not real-world workloads.

Just like Intel's ML benchmarks - they're outliers and should be considered as such.

 

[Elfear]

Yeah and i dont like that 40% price increase on 8/16T part.Cheapest 8/16T on zen2 was 3700x and you could buy it for 320usd.Now cheapest 8/16T cpu will cost 450USD!!!40% more.Crazy.

Launch the higher margin parts first and then throw in the 5700X in a few months. Not totally unexpected.

 

[dr1337]

Does anyone know what they mean by being the market leader in "backwards compatibility"?

edit: lol yeah motherboards, duh.

 

[inf64]

I doubt there will even be a 5700X, let's see.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Does anyone know what they mean by being the market leader in "backwards compatibility"?

Cool new processor runs on a couple of generations of older motherboards.

 

[tamz_msc]

Does anyone know what they mean by being the market leader in "backwards compatibility"?

Motherboard support?

 

[Arkaign]

The 10900k was a horrible value for gamers. The 5900X joins that club.

Check Gamers Nexus, the 10600k with extremely modest tuning (literally all core 5.1, tuned DDR4 4000) blows by the 10900k at a fraction of the price, and aside from ancient game engines that can fit inside cache (think early 2000s stuff like LoL and CSGO), there really isn't anything more to gain from that tier at this point.

I think this will be AMD taking profits for a while, just as we saw in the Athlon 64/X2 heydey of 2003-2005. People don't like to remember, but they went drastically up in price, and that is not a dig, it's capitalism 101. And for anyone that needs lots of fast cores, AMD is the only game in town.

But yeah, it's a weird time, because for probably 95% of people, either a 3600 to 3700x level makes sense for mixed/non gaming just on sheer price and value proposition, along with 10600k for gamers.

Buying a 10900k just went from merely stupid to outright wasteful with this launch though, but I didn't expect AMD to join the sort of dumb party. It sucks how they tier their clock speeds. They could easily offer a $299 6C/12T 4.9 or even 5Ghz part, but nope, if you want fast cores, you have to buckle down and get a 12 or 16 core part for north of half a grand.

Welcome, new boss. Same as the old boss. 🤣😭

 

[Markfw]

Does anyone know what they mean by being the market leader in "backwards compatibility"?

You can put Zen 3 in a 400 or 500 chipset I bet.

 

[tamz_msc]

The 10900k was a horrible value for gamers. The 5900X joins that club.

Check Gamers Nexus, the 10600k with extremely modest tuning (literally all core 5.1, tuned DDR4 4000) blows by the 10900k at a fraction of the price, and aside from ancient game engines that can fit inside cache (think early 2000s stuff like LoL and CSGO), there really isn't anything more to gain from that tier at this point.

I think this will be AMD taking profits for a while, just as we saw in the Athlon 64/X2 heydey of 2003-2005. People don't like to remember, but they went drastically up in price, and that is not a dig, it's capitalism 101. And for anyone that needs lots of fast cores, AMD is the only game in town.

But yeah, it's a weird time, because for probably 95% of people, either a 3600 to 3700x level makes sense for mixed/non gaming just on sheer price and value proposition, along with 10600k for gamers.

Buying a 10900k just went from merely stupid to outright wasteful with this launch though, but I didn't expect AMD to join the sort of dumb party. It sucks how they tier their clock speeds. They could easily offer a $299 6C/12T 4.9 or even 5Ghz part, but nope, if you want fast cores, you have to buckle down and get a 12 or 16 core part for north of half a grand.

Welcome, new boss. Same as the old boss. 🤣😭

The 10900K is irrelevant IMO. The 10850K is more widely available and is cheaper, though still lacking in value.

 

[Hitman928]

I was a bit disappointed in no non-x CPUs or 3700x, but it could be that those will just be launched at a later time. Hopefully that will be clarified by launch.

 

[In2Photos]

I doubt there will even be a 5700X, let's see.

There's quite a price difference without the 5700X. I, for one, hope there is a 5700X.

 

[Heartbreaker]

I was a bit disappointed in no non-x CPUs or 3700x, but it could be that those will just be launched at a later time. Hopefully that will be clarified by launch.

Corporation on Top, will always expect fatter profit margin for being there.

 

[Markfw]

When Intel was in the lead in gaming, thats all we ever heard of from that group. Now that they are NOT in the lead its "well, you can OC them, and they might be even" or "well the Intel 10xxx is cheaper".

Not to mention they still use way more power.

 

[Shivansps]

You can put Zen 3 in a 400 or 500 chipset I bet.

They cant claim that on 400 because AMD do not officially supports it.
Same applies to 300 chipsets and Zen2, it works but is not supported officially.

 

[Hitman928]

Corporation on Top, will always expect fatter profit margin for being there.

Even still, this would break from AMD's patterned lineup since Zen1. Not saying they can't do that, just that it would be unexpected. This is clearly not the full lineup either. My guess is that because of the supply/demand being crazy weighted to demand right now, AMD is releasing their highest margin parts at first because they're going to sell out regardless. Once the demand calms down a bit and they can get more supply going, they'll launch the full product stack.

 

[CP5670]

This looks quite impressive. We haven't seen a big boost in single-threaded performance in years, and that's what matters for games.
The 5800X seems like a good sweet spot despite the price increase. I was thinking of waiting for this launch but got a 10700K in the summer (since that's when I had free time to do an upgrade), and will just stick with that for a few years now.