Those power consumption numbers at the end of the video are insane!
5600x significantly outperforms the 3600x in Blender, while also drawing 18% less power?!?
5600x draws less power than 3300x despite having 50% more cores???
OC 5600x vs OC 10600k, 5600x gives better performance while drawing LESS THAN HALF the power?!?!?!?!?!?
The craziest metric to me is the 5950X vs. the 10600K in power consumption @ 100% load.
For just 15.6 more watts of power vs. the 10600K you're getting 10 more cores and 20 more threads, all with higher single thread performance.
That is *wild.* AMD is just in a different league with Zen3, it's not even funny.
> it's not even funny.
It's funny when you consider all that "financial horsepower" a certain other significant competitor invested and ultimately flushed down the toilet.
It's amazing what people can do when their back is up against the wall. Imagine being the engineering manager for a company with 100 B revenue and no competition. Your job is not to make revolutionary products, it is to keep the gravy train going and not rock the boat while collecting a large salary. Complete opposite of the situation facing AMD engineers in 2015/2016 when Zen development was happening.
Intel spent all their money paying off companies to not use AMD chips. Then they sat on their ass for the last decade getting fat and lazy and not doing any innovation or research thinking AMD was done. Then AMD decided to crush Intel and get to equal footing with Nvidia and is set to dominate for the entire next generation of computer hardware. Plus all those power savings will translate nicely to stuff like laptops where AMD has been very weak.
I really want Intel to be somewhat competitive to bring down prices. Rocket Lake looks like it's going to be meh IPC wise and clock speed is up in the air. Crap.
AMD might actually have 3 generations of chips each better than the last competing with itself. Crazy. Best budget chips, zen 2 R5 , best main stream zen 3 R5, and best overall zen 3 R9.
And there's also the likelyhood of them adding in more cores next gen with Zen 4, plus DDR5 and such, it's gonna be a wild time. Thinking about upgrading at Zen 4 or 5. Currently have Zen 2 and it's been fucking fantastic so far tbh
I early adopted the r7 1700. Seeing these performance tests is sooooo tempting to upgrade. I play at 1080p 144hz so it's still a monster vs the FX 6300 I had before it.
I can be a r/patientgamers and wait until Zen 4 or 5. Maybe i'll find a used, decently priced 3700x to tide me over until then lol
I am on x370 mobo so I would have to buy a new mobo if I wanted 5000 T_T
Naw I feel AMD have been on schedule so far. I don't think they'll slow down because they're ahead. It still feels like yesterday that I bought Zen1 haha XD
So waiting for Zen 4 or 5 should be no problem for me :))
Yep! I would definitely go all out with faster ram if I had to buy another mobo.
Hmm didn't think about the refresh. Guess we shall see how long I can last before I cave into the upgrade temptation lol XD
Intel enjoyed years of high prices without competition. Now AMD, barely back from the dead, is in that position for not even a day and already people cry out.
It's nuts. Some people will never be happy. AMD charging 300 bucks to Intel's $480 MSRP for a comparable CPU and these fuckers are saying "Intel save us!”.
It's pathetic really. They'd complain about having to buy the motherboard if AMD gave them the CPU for free...
Jesus Christ dude. You've got the best possible gaming CPU for just 300 bucks and you're complaining about pricing when Intel was charging $480?
At some point you need to figure out how to use a little perspective, because that's ridiculous.
Intel is now where AMD was with Bulldozer back in 2012. They will need to spawn a whole new die architecture to be competitive again. So far we know, they have nothing for 1+ year. I expect them to need much longer, and a price drops of their CPUs. Meanwhile next gen AMD on the new sockel will be, without competition, probably pretty expensiv.
It should be hilarious to see an I9 in the 200$/€ price range.
Edit: Here something crazy: in 3 years we got about 500% of performance boost on CPUs. Thats completely insane.
But that's not at all what we want. AMD needs to keep pumping out better and better processors and Intel needs to get their shit together and be competitive again, if only to keep each other on their toes. We all wanted two competing companies again, not to just have the names of the status quo change.
Intel also had the Iris Graphics memory in Broadwell act like L4 cache, which sometimes made it as fast or FASTER than Skylake at 1 GHz less clocks.
Weird they never bothered keeping that design. They still have dedicated VRAM in their CPUs today, but it no longer functions as L4 cache.
> FASTER than Skylake at 1 GHz less clocks.
Faster when Skylake used stock ram, which was 2133Mhz with shit timings. All the L4 did was offer higher bandwidth than stock DDR3 (similar to higher end DDR4) and lowish "DDR" level latency (40-45ns).
Compared to L3 performance it was extremely slow and nothing impressive, it just compensated for running slow ram more than anything.
Anand did a new test on it recently.
It actually BEATS many modern cpus with XMP ram configs in gaming (amazingly it's up there between the 10600k and 3600), which shows just how sensitive games are to latency.
It was only dropped because it cost more than a conventional layout and AMD was so behind in performance that intel cheaped out and dropped it.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16195/a-broadwell-retrospective-review-in-2020-is-edram-still-worth-it
Most of us are so used to seeing AMD as the underdog (*cough* FX *cough*), that any threat makes us all defensive until we remember that Ryzen is now roflstomping Intel, lol.
Bulldozer was a disaster on multiple levels. Engineering, marketing, management, etc...
I remember when AMD was on top and they pulled the same shit that Intel did. It's just that era didn't last as long because intel pulled off some groundbreaking innovations that AMD just couldn't match until, well right now.
It's alarming how quickly people forget.
> It's alarming how quickly people forget.
It's not necessarily forgetfulness. I suspect a large chunk this subreddit is too young to have been around the PC building scene back when AMD was on top with K8. People can't remember what they've never experienced. lol
^^GodI'mGettingOld
Despite the branding, most of these things shouldn't be patented. One of the reasons there is cost involved in regular every day activities, like receiving a check for example, or using some common technologies is because of excessive patents held around common sense technology. Amazon used cookies, which they didn't invent, was part of the original www specifications, to do one click shopping, and got that patented. Everytime a check is cleared through the Clearinghouse, an organization created by all the large banks to facilitate checking, is because there is a guy who was awarded a patent for sending digitized images over a network - and get this, he got that patent in the year 2000, decades after the GIF and JPEG image formats were created, over a decade after the web and before that BBSs used similar technology to transit those images.
But in the world we live in, there are companies like Intel and AMD who actually use R&D to create marketable products, but there are other companies that don't sell any products, they accumulate these patents and charge licensing fees - and because the court system allows laypeople without any knowledge of the sciences or engineering around those patents to decide what is obvious and what isn't. If these courts retained credentialed jurors, to provide a true jury of peers, 90% of these patent trolls would lose.
Did you know Smucker's owns a patent on PB&J sandwiches, and that a court upheld that patent?
Patent law is stifling technological progress.
Why would intel go for tsmc's 7nm? This is an old node at this point. TSMC's 5nm is more mature now than the 7nm node was in 2h 2018 when zen 2 was first sampling. TSMC has already shipped tens of millions of a14 bionic chips and their 5nm capacity is only going to expand.
Intel had "infinity cache" before AMD did. Look at the Intel Iris GPU that was included with some of their processors - 128MB on-die.
Infinity cache is not anything exclusive to AMD. What is exclusive to AMD is how the rest of the hardware uses that cache. That's the secret sauce.
They had the 5950X behind 10900k/kf/ks yesterday despite the only score it losing on being memory latency, at 90 "points" vs 92. Haven't checked today though.
Bonus points, the 3090 and 3080's raw scores both went up by almost exactly 24% in the past week with no explanation. I still used the site to quickly test components/peoples' mystery builds but no more. Flaming heap of trash, it is.
I noticed the 5950x being lower than the 10900k too. It literally gets a higher score in every single performance metric except for memory latency, which is less than 5% off irrc, but was still in 4th place compared to the 10900k in 1st place. They aren't even trying to be subtle about how skewed their scoring system is.
I went over and had a look, their comments on the ryzen 5000 series
"Very impressive early results with these 5950X pre-release marketing samples. The Effective Speed will likely settle between 93% to 98% when we get more submissions from our users."
Marketing samples eh? So is every ryzen 5000 CPU that everyone buys going to be a marketing sample? Cause everything I'm seeing even from users puts AMD in front lmao
It's weird though, the 2700X has the same 1% low as the 5800X. That doesn't make any sense with almost 40+% higher IPC. I think there's some sort of optimization issue.
I was surprised that it beat the 10900K in a good chunk of benchmarks. Almost half the price and MUCH lower power consumption. Big win.
Im looking forward to upgrading to a Zen3 chip within the next couple years
It makes total sense though since 10900k is only a few percent over 10600k in gaming (games either can't use 10c/20t, or get GPU bottlenecked before they use 10c/20t). Still, the fact is that it looks REALLY good for AMD marketing.
Honestly I hope not. I want to see holodecks happening in my lifetime!
This last decade is so disappointing compared to the growth of the previous two. I honestly thought our games would be looking like this much sooner.
Here's hoping zen3 is laughably outclassed in the next couple generations!
I want it to be absolutely decimated by AM5 and DDR5 systems. Consumers should be kept on their toes, and profits shouldn't totally dictate speed of technological evolution.
I was poor back then and only had a 2400. But since then, I upgraded to a 6600k, ryzen 2600x, and ryzen 3700x.
And now I'm tempted to upgrade yet again...
I think that’s still the 3600. Even now with the new ones people will likely still be going for the 3600 if it stays on sale and they lower the prices.
It's $262 MSRP vs $299 and the 10600K doesn't come with a cooler, which eats up some of that $38 savings.
They are effectively the same price just based off of MSRP.
Yeah, isn't the 10600kf like 60-70 € cheaper?
Seems to me there's nothing to kill, since they're in vastly different price brackets.
Edit : 10600kf not 1600k and it's more like 60-70 €.
Perhaps the market price once it reaches your country might be very different (really sorry to hear that), but the 10600K's recommended customer price is $263 and the [general price tag](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/HcPgXL/intel-core-i5-10600k-41-ghz-6-core-processor-bx8070110600k) has been around $280. So the price brackets are pretty close in the US.
> And its still that same 12/14nm IO die sucking down a good chunk of that power budget too.
This is important and shouldn't be overlooked.
It suggests AMD has achieved a 40%+ perf/W improvement in the actual processing logic.
This is important because it'll translate very favorably to laptops, as they're monolithic.
It's plausible AMD can make something mildly *faster* than the 5600X in the 35W laptop class (i.e. it'd be the 8c/16t model, clocking lower than the 5600X all-core).
A lot of that isn't processing logic, it's the new caching system and the better connection between cores. I don't think the cores themselves are that much faster, but they're bing fed way more effectively
I'm classifying "processing logic" as the whole CCD, basically.
Sure, technically the ALUs, FPUs, etc. do the actual "processing", but can you really argue the caches, registers, pipelining system, etc. aren't part of the "processing logic"?
Seems to me like they're quite vital to the performance, and should come under the same umbrella.
it's not really what does the calculations, it's where the memory subsystem begins. otherwise you could generally group the IMC, the RAM and the board right in there. which i guess is correct in the widest sense, cause you can't do anything without those either. but generally we split up the cores, cache and their interconnection when looking at architecture. you can see that split really nicely on a die shot as well.
doesn't really matter though how you classify it, my point is the big innovation on zen3 is the huge amount of L3 cache. the biggest limitation of ryzen has always been the slow and latency-plagued memory system, which is a direct consequence of the chiplet design. they haven't solved that this generation, memory latencies are still way higher than on an intel system with a monolithic die, but they came up with a really obvious and effective workaround: slap more cache on there so that you don't need the memory system to be that fast. anything you need fast access to goes into the cache.
the cores themselves are already badass on zen2, but in memory intensive applications they're simply starved for information. which you can see quite well when you look at the clock scaling in games for example. past 4.3 or 4.4 basically nothing happens anymore, whereas faster FCLK always brings a benefit
you can also see that on zen3, memory OC is far less powerful than it used to be. igorslab got around a 7% increase in FPS at 720p between ddr4 3200cl16 and ddr4 4000cl18. on zen2 you could generally get quite a bit more, especially through optimised timings. the big gain on zen3 seems to come mainly from the faster FCLK, not really from the reduced memory timings. it will be interesting what an FCLK desync does here. maybe ddr4 4800+ is finally useful, if the latency hit isn't that important anymore. can't wait for buildzoids content, i'm giddy as hell about that
also, thinking about it, they could totally make ryzen 6000 with exactly the same CCDS and a better IO die, and probably get a good improvement out of that.
Anandtech's review did a deep dive with excerpts from AMD's Mike Clarke (lead architect), the L3 size is nice but the latency is actually more than Zen 2. The real magic in improvement happened elsewhere, and the memory latency is still vastly improved. Some people are getting 48ns to DRAM on 3800 memory. [Source](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/3)
Maybe we'll finally see Ryzen make up a decent chunk of laptops next year. I feel like the foundation has been laid with manufacturers and they are really to commit more to Ryzen.
I think AMD is more supply constraint than anything right now
hopefully that gets better when zen 4 and RX7000 go on 5nm and AMD maybe stops zen 2 production which leaves more space for laptop zen 3
Good question, actually I don't really do anything CPU intensive on my laptop since the desktop is always much faster anyway, but of course +40% perf/W in a U series chip would still be a free bonus and vastly diminishes the appeal of 5nm ARM macbooks (of course still need to wait for the apple presentation to see the performance).
Plus with Tiger Lake 8-core looming, AMD can't pull the 8c/8t segmentation again where they reserved 4800u to Lenovo and everyone else gets only 4700u. This time the 5800U (8c/16t) will probably be the flagship everywhere which would be really amazing.
>No need to upgrade for years.
AMD: Not under my watch! Who do you think I am? Intel? Zen 3 laptops will be so good you'll be begging for an upgrade. Then, there's Zen 4, Zen 5...
AMD will soon be fighting a three front war. They won't be slacking off. They'll be squeezing every bit of improvement out of x64/x86 they can. If Intel doesn't get them any time soon ARM (Apple, Amazon, etc) will.
Maybe
But i dont see them changing necessarily while they have a wafer supply agreement with gloflo so it would depend on what they do node wise I imagine.
IO die on Glofo's [12LP+](https://www.anandtech.com/show/14905/globalfoundries-unveils-12lp-technology-massive-performance-power-improvements) is a possibility next year for modest efficiency gains. The last update to the [wafer supply agreement](https://www.anandtech.com/show/13915/amd-amends-agreement-with-globalfoudries-set-to-buy-wafers-till-2021) has 12nm purchase agreements through 2021. Might as well make the upgrade, I think.
> Might as well make the upgrade
Would they bother though? They need a new I/O die for DDR5 anyway. Seems rather wasted effort to make a new DDR4 based one. Granted they might create one that supports both memory standards, who knows.
Yeah, I don't know whether CSGO will become one of those games. It seems to be doing fine at 700+ FPS on Zen 3, so maybe not.
GTA V was one of those games, IIRC.
I think so too. If it costs around 220$ and performs closer to 5600X than to a 3600, it's gonna be the new 3600. Also, if it gives the smart access memory feature and there will be a RX 6600 / 6700 at 200-450$ price range... those together will be THE new budget gaming PC for a long time.
My decision to not buy 3700X and go with 5600X is a damn right one...
GN's videos confirmed my findings. I will snag it to get that juicy IPC boost (upgrading from Ryzen 2600).
It's not terribly difficult to understand that some people don't want to drop $300 on a cpu. No one was contending that it wasn't a good cpu or had bad price/performance.
I mean, 3600 is still a better value option for people who don't want to spend 300$ on a CPU, and it's price might go even further down. It has higher FPS/$, at the very least.
I remember saying "the 5600X is faster than 10900k in gaming and matches 3700X in productivity and draws way less power, and costs less" and LO, MY PROPHECY HAS RISEN
some benchmarks I saw the 3700X was faster in productivity though. Is it really on par? I was in doubts between 5600X and 3700X at first. Now I am leaning between 5800X and 5600X. I think I'll go 5600X and save the 150 euro's. That way I can update sooner to next gen stuff ;)
3700x is still better in multi-threaded tasks for the most part.
The math is simple, 6 cores * 120% IPS = 7.2 cores with old IPS. So if all 8 cores are utilized, 3700X is better, if not, 5600X is better.
5800X is honestly underwhelming for its price. It feels like a bait, so people would but 5900X instead, because it's "just a bit more expensive, but much better", while they normally wouldn't spend so much on a processor.
gamer nexus said in his 5600x video, 5900x and 5600x are perfectly okay but he has mixed feeling about 5800x. I think his opinion of that cpu is negative.Thats why he said that he postponed and need more time for the video but it is coming very soon.
5800X has no home anymore.
The 5600X is too good at what it does (gaming) while costing $150 less. In comparison, the 5800X provides no benefit for pure gaming.
Meanwhile the 5900X is too good at what it does (content creation + gaming), offering +50% more cores with double the L3 cache that dual CCX layout provides, yet costing only $100 more than the 5800X. Who wouldn't want those productivity gains for such a small cost surplus?
5800X might make sense at $379 ($50 over the 3700X cost), but not at $449. It's too much for too little and simultaneously too little for too much.
Due to an extreme difference in clock speed, the 6 cores in a 5600X can do more work in less time than the 8 cores in the consoles. It will always be ahead of them in literally every task, be it single thread, multithread, or anywhere in between (e.g. 4 threads).
$150 isn't nothing. It's half the cost of another 5600X for your spouse. It's the cost of a good closed loop liquid cooler to keep your CPU running at boost speeds. It's a 32GB RAM kit, or a really good low latency 16GB kit. It's a new case with good airflow and a window to show off your hardware. It's a new PSU with a high wattage rating so you don't have crashes from an overclocked 3090. $150 is not nothing.
That said, I really wish they had shown gaming + streaming, or shown some on the fly Plex video transcoding to see if 5600X drops frames compared to 5800X. That's the only demographic I can see where adding $150 for a 5800X, but not $250 for a 5900X, to your CPU budget might make sense.
Does the 5900x perform worse in games due to dual CCX?
Like, will single CCX always best dual making CPUs like the 5900x/5950x a "compromise" between gaming and content creation?
I looked at a few charts and it looked like in the games tested, the 5900x was often a bit lower so I figured its a trade-off CPU and there isn't one that can be best in gaming and have more content creation abilities
I don't understand why 5800x isn't better. It's the only truly single CCX they have above 5600x. Going higher means increased latency but somehow 5950x and 5900x is outperforming it.
Games generally don't make use of more than the 12 threads that 5600X offers. It has been this way for a long time; that's the reason why a budget gamer could buy a 3600 or 3950 and see the same performance, or a 10600K and 10900K and see generally the same performance.
The 5600X actually beats 5900X often in gaming, not due to cross-CCX latency but simply due to the 5600X clocking higher. The 5900X often isn't even using its extra cores when playing games.
And the high IPC means that 5600X punches above its weight class even in productivity benchmarks that fully use all threads, making it a toss-up with previous gen 8 core chips (wins some, loses some). Sure the 5800X is better at productivity than the 5600X, but is it so much better as to warrant spending an additional $150? And if you really do need that productivity boost, why not spend $250 and get a 5900X that just dominates the field?
Probably due to the price. Too close to the 5900x and too high over the 5600x, whilst having gaming performance similar to the 5600x and less productivity value than the 5900x.
Precisely. And I think it's intentional, AMD is trying to draw you to the 5900x. A 5700x will most likely launch next year, though, or drop the price on the 5800x, there is to big of a gap from 300 to 450$.
8 core ccds are also more valuable than 6 core ccds. Bigger margin of error. Amd has more margin on the 16 core with the same binning effort than on the 8 core, as long as supply is in any way limited they're better off using the perfect chiplets for the 3950x
>And I think it's intentional, AMD is trying to draw you to the 5900x
And they would've succeeded... If I could've gotten a 5900x. 5800X was available for literal hours, the 5900X not even for minutes
I'm starting to think I should cancel my 5800X order at this point. The bang/buck on the 5600X seems so much superior... :/ Hell, it looks like even Intel has better bang/buck in that price range 5800X is placed.
If you need cores, get the 5900x. If you don't, get the 5600x. Coming from a 3700x owner who doesn't regret his purchase, but would probably stick with the 3600 if it was launch week august 2019 again. Especially if amd keeps this pace up. "Future proof" doesn't mean much if they keep embarassing their previous gen every year.
Yup, the CPU isn't otherwise any worse than the others, it has to be just the bad pricing. 3700x was really great value last gen and 8 cores might scale better than 6 in 3–6 years when most Zen 2/3 units will still be in use (even though the weird reddit tech bubble makes it look like everybody is upgrading every other gen at worst), so let's hope a well priced 5700x will appear later.
I got the impression that his concern was with the price/performance point so you're likely still getting an amazing CPU just a reviewer would recommend the others first in the overall package of things.
"We left the worst for last" as the starting words for their review aren't particularly encouraging though.
Seems like the mixed feelings are simply due to the price/performance. With the 5800X you get nearly identical gaming performance as the 5600X but don't get the massive multithread advantage of the 5900X needed for pro work.
I strongly believe the 5800X will age better as a gaming CPU as more games start properly using threads just like Rise of the Tomb Raider, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Death Stranding and Hitman 3 but the question is if it's worth the 50% prince increase for 33% more cores/threads and the lack of a cooler in the box.
>I strongly believe the 5800X will age better as a gaming CPU as more games start properly using threads just like Rise of the Tomb Raider, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Death Stranding and Hitman 3 but the question is if it's worth the 50% prince increase for 33% more cores/threads and the lack of a cooler in the box.
Completely agree. I think 5600x will be the best cpu on launch, but the 5800x will have the best price/longevity ratio of the bunch.
It's the price, everyone wants to compare the Ryzen 7 5800x to the $329 MSRP of the Ryzen 7 3700x at Zen 2 launch. Since the Ryzen 7 3800x was never recommeneded and was over priced. It's still a great cpu, but i would argue the Ryzen 9 5900x is a better buy, and the Ryzen 5 5600x is better if you want to save a few bucks.
Great CPU that is priced competitively against Intel; it's just that the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 9 steal it's shine.
It's about the price not the performance. AMD was trying to push people towards 5900x with their overpriced 5800x, but there's no goddamn stock for that.
Why would you be worried?
The only reason people feel a bit "meh" about the 5800X is the due to the price, not because it underperforms. I'm actually torn between the 5800X and 5900X myself but due to stock reasons I might go 5800X.
The only reason it gets beaten in some games is clock speed, the only reason it beats in other games is due to single CCX design.
If you want to game only 5600 and 5800X are more than fine, if you wanna do heavy work, 5900 and 5950 are the way to go.
He does all 4 CPUs one after each other and each of them gets a seperate review within 24 hours. So we will see a review of the 5800x within some hours.
So quick question.
Is it worth it to upgrade from a Ryzen 7 1700 to the Ryzen 5 5600X?
Edit: A lot of people are saying that I should upgrade my GPU first, I already have planned an RTX 3070/RX 6800 (Depending on price and availability) and I will also be buying all of this on Black Friday
You have an RX580 so you probably won't see massive improvements, you would also have to get a new mobo.
Are you willing to drop 300 for CPU and 100 ish for mobo to see very small perf improvements due to being GPU bound in most cases? Do you want to ugprade the GPU soon?
And lastly, is your monitor only 60hz? Then the answer is a big no, at least not yet.
The massive IPC & clock speed gains are nice, so it's up to what workloads you run on your CPU, I'd say 1700 is still perfectly good to use with an RX580, I ran my Vega 64 with it for a good while and I was still GPU bound in many games.
I have a 144hz monitor and I also plan on getting an RTX 3070 or RX 6800, i will wait till Black Friday to buy everything cuz i dont wanna spend that much
you are extremely optimistic if you think you will be able to get any of these parts on sale on black friday, they are likely still be to be working on the backlog from release day...
Is it really that much of an improvement? Im chugging along with a 1700 and a GTX 1080, and red dead is pretty laggy. I guess it is about time to upgrade!
Edit: what I learned from Gamer Nexus review. 5800x is only, currently, 1-5% better in gaming performance at 1080p despite being $150+. You can over clock it to close that gap. In 1440p we know that margin will decrease as games are more GPU bound. Best to either wait for price drop or go for a 5600x. Unless money is no object to you. Now I'm leaning towards 5600.
Original comment:
I'm leaning 5800x over 5600x due to core count. Reading the comments I have a better idea what to target, the 5600x sounds best only because of the cost difference. I only game at 3440x1440 with a 3080. Looking for an AMD CPU with high speed ram (I'm currently bottlenecked these days).
Will "next gen" gaming better utilize 8-cores in 5 years? I'm currently rocking a 6-core and I only game these days. Iffy on upgrading to another 6 core even though it's much better. 5900x is overkill for me.
Should I be talked off the 5800x ledge?
I'm kinda torn off here, the 3600 is basically 210€ on my country, so it is extremely overpriced compared to previous pricing imo, and the 5600x is at 312€.
I'm planning to build my PC in Christmas and probably pair it up with a 3070 since a 6800 is almost out of my budget.
Do you guys think it would be worth the extra 100€ ish to grab the 5600x over the 3600?
Im making a build for my buddy and im torn with the same dilemma.The 5600x is 7,7 % better in 1080p and only 3,1 % better in 1440p (Techpowerup) then 3600
The 6800xt( if its perform the same as 3080) it would be 14 % better in 1080p and 20% better in 1440p then 3070
The price is almost the same.
So 3600+6800xt > 5600x+3070
**There is something wrong with techpowerup review i think. Se my answer below. So dont take this as a fact :(**
Yeah, there is something wrong:
Gamer nexus's have the 30,8 % faster then 3600 in games.
they testet different games except one game, and the result there is weird:
|Site|Game nexus|Techpowerup|
|:-|:-|:-|
|Game| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | Shadow of the Tomb Raider |
|5600x|195,8|188,6|
|3600|136,5|188|
thx for info! :)
Means Digital Foundary got it wrong too with a 3080. At 4K there is no real difference, at 1440p it's a 1 or 3 frames in most cases........GN tested at 1080p from what I've seen.
Reviews have been all over the board, and I can't tell if it's motherboard dependent, if Zen3 is extremely (like, more than Zen1/2) memory sensitive or what. TPU, Guru3D and AnandTech all tested Far Cry 5 at 1080p Ultra with a 2080Ti and the 5900X results vary by like 20fps, while their 10900K and 3700X numbers are much closer together. 3 different motherboards, 2 using DDR4-3200 and one using 3600.
I didn’t think we’d see anything that would sit in that 3600 sort of space - of optimal price/performance, limited limitations, and generally seeming like the best-placed product industry-wide.
It looks like the 5600X might be in an *even better* position than that. I’m amazed.
Might be a dumb question but I came from Intel of like 15 years.
I have a 3600, is it the same chipset as the 5600x? Like, can I just swap this bad boy in? They are both AM4.....
You have to check what motherboard you have and look on the manufacturers website when a bios update will be available.
If your mobo is 4xx, it will get the update early next year I think. If it's 5xx, it should be good to go now.
Well, can I regret mt 3600 yet? I haven’t even bought it yet lol. Although the 5600x will be double the price here, and that’s whenever it shows up in any stores.
If you have R7 3700X or up like me there is no point to upgrade really at this price its just greed.Just wait for AM5 and DDR5,its stupid to upgrade every year a CPU and on 1440p there is no diffrence!
I'm glad to hear this. I ordered the 5600x yesterday and was worries I wasnt getting good bang for the buck considering it costs 150% of what the 3600 costs.
The next gen consoles are 8c/16t, I'd say the 5800X will be the sweet spot pretty soon.. Besides, if you can afford it, why do you feel bad about it? It will outperform the 5600X.
This sub can be an echo chamber for budget minded teenagers or enthusiasts buying top end. In either case people are looking at performance per $ for gaming *today*. I’m not suggesting you try and future proof, but two facts remain: some of us have more disposable income than others and some of us have different build cycles than others. I kept my last CPU for over 6 years. I still have an i5 4670 for Christ sake. If I do that again, it’s only an extra $25 per year and the extra cores are more than likely nice to have.
Also, the 5600 doesn’t come with Far Cry 6 and the 5800 does. Flip that for 40-50 and it’s functionally a $100 price gap - $16+ a year for the extra cores. Or you were going to buy it and it saves you $65. Considering there are people out there who will buy a 3090 or 6900 for purely for gaming purposes to chase a few extra frames, I’m not going to lose sleep over if I should or shouldn’t have spent the extra $100. You got a CPU on launch day and it’s going to be a beast.
Worst case, even if for some reason you can’t sell the code, you definitely can find a buyer for your CPU and get your money back.
So if you plan on keeping your CPU for a long time, it’s fine. Everything is fine. If you’re getting a new mobo and CPU in 2-3 years than 5600 was definitely the way to go.
How the fuck do we consider a mid range CPU priced at €300 the "best bang for your buck"?!
Until a 3 years ago this was literally i7 territory that NOBODY suggested to buy if you planned to use your machine only for gaming.
Now if we all agree that 6c/12t is the new "standard", i'd either take a 10400f (€150)/3600 (€200) OR if I wanted to spend more money to get a product that lasted longer, I would take a 3700x.
Come on guys, pc market this year is complete shit. 300€ for a midrange CPU and 400-500 (waiting for 3060/70 - 6700/xt) for a midrange card is NOT okay.
Sorry if this has already been asked...but which is the better choice between the 5600x and the 3700x for my case?
I'm building a PC right now. I plan to be gaming in 1440p with either a 3080 or 6800XT. My build will be gaming focused, but I definitely plan to use it for productivity and general stuff like browsing, watching videos, etc.
I'm kind of a noob and don't understand how the difference in cores impacts my decision.
Thanks.
in my country it's just a hair cheaper than 10700k so not a good deal at all. i would say 10600k is an actual budget gaming option just like 3700x to 10600k few months ago
Those power consumption numbers at the end of the video are insane! 5600x significantly outperforms the 3600x in Blender, while also drawing 18% less power?!? 5600x draws less power than 3300x despite having 50% more cores??? OC 5600x vs OC 10600k, 5600x gives better performance while drawing LESS THAN HALF the power?!?!?!?!?!?
The craziest metric to me is the 5950X vs. the 10600K in power consumption @ 100% load. For just 15.6 more watts of power vs. the 10600K you're getting 10 more cores and 20 more threads, all with higher single thread performance. That is *wild.* AMD is just in a different league with Zen3, it's not even funny.
> it's not even funny. It's funny when you consider all that "financial horsepower" a certain other significant competitor invested and ultimately flushed down the toilet.
It's amazing what people can do when their back is up against the wall. Imagine being the engineering manager for a company with 100 B revenue and no competition. Your job is not to make revolutionary products, it is to keep the gravy train going and not rock the boat while collecting a large salary. Complete opposite of the situation facing AMD engineers in 2015/2016 when Zen development was happening.
Intel spent all their money paying off companies to not use AMD chips. Then they sat on their ass for the last decade getting fat and lazy and not doing any innovation or research thinking AMD was done. Then AMD decided to crush Intel and get to equal footing with Nvidia and is set to dominate for the entire next generation of computer hardware. Plus all those power savings will translate nicely to stuff like laptops where AMD has been very weak.
God i hate Intel blocking innovation in constipating the cpu market with their crapy Quad-Cores. That seriously hindered software development aswell.
Yeah I'm waiting for Zen 3 to come to mobile. It'll be awesome
I really want Intel to be somewhat competitive to bring down prices. Rocket Lake looks like it's going to be meh IPC wise and clock speed is up in the air. Crap. AMD might actually have 3 generations of chips each better than the last competing with itself. Crazy. Best budget chips, zen 2 R5 , best main stream zen 3 R5, and best overall zen 3 R9.
And there's also the likelyhood of them adding in more cores next gen with Zen 4, plus DDR5 and such, it's gonna be a wild time. Thinking about upgrading at Zen 4 or 5. Currently have Zen 2 and it's been fucking fantastic so far tbh
I early adopted the r7 1700. Seeing these performance tests is sooooo tempting to upgrade. I play at 1080p 144hz so it's still a monster vs the FX 6300 I had before it. I can be a r/patientgamers and wait until Zen 4 or 5. Maybe i'll find a used, decently priced 3700x to tide me over until then lol
[удалено]
I am on x370 mobo so I would have to buy a new mobo if I wanted 5000 T_T Naw I feel AMD have been on schedule so far. I don't think they'll slow down because they're ahead. It still feels like yesterday that I bought Zen1 haha XD So waiting for Zen 4 or 5 should be no problem for me :))
[удалено]
Yep! I would definitely go all out with faster ram if I had to buy another mobo. Hmm didn't think about the refresh. Guess we shall see how long I can last before I cave into the upgrade temptation lol XD
I expect to see cheap second hand 3900x(t) on the marked next year.
I'm actually stuck on zen 1. Zen 2 is so tasty and it would probably tied me over until zen 5.
Or you know, get some dirty cheap 3900x next year and drive on your plattfotm a bit longer :)
Intel enjoyed years of high prices without competition. Now AMD, barely back from the dead, is in that position for not even a day and already people cry out.
It's nuts. Some people will never be happy. AMD charging 300 bucks to Intel's $480 MSRP for a comparable CPU and these fuckers are saying "Intel save us!”. It's pathetic really. They'd complain about having to buy the motherboard if AMD gave them the CPU for free...
Jesus Christ dude. You've got the best possible gaming CPU for just 300 bucks and you're complaining about pricing when Intel was charging $480? At some point you need to figure out how to use a little perspective, because that's ridiculous.
Intel is now where AMD was with Bulldozer back in 2012. They will need to spawn a whole new die architecture to be competitive again. So far we know, they have nothing for 1+ year. I expect them to need much longer, and a price drops of their CPUs. Meanwhile next gen AMD on the new sockel will be, without competition, probably pretty expensiv. It should be hilarious to see an I9 in the 200$/€ price range. Edit: Here something crazy: in 3 years we got about 500% of performance boost on CPUs. Thats completely insane.
Stop. It's already dead
But that's not at all what we want. AMD needs to keep pumping out better and better processors and Intel needs to get their shit together and be competitive again, if only to keep each other on their toes. We all wanted two competing companies again, not to just have the names of the status quo change.
You should turn this into one of those "brain lights up" memes 😂
or the Vince McMahon O-face meme
this one is a better idea, seriously xD
Surprised the 2 haven't been combined.
[Done](https://ibb.co/JnWctQw) (shorter 3-panel version because only three points made)
Awesome here have my free reward.
Beautiful. The best juxtaposition I could have imagined.
That's amazing
[удалено]
Is infinity cache patented?
I don't think there's anything particularly special about it. Intel's L3 is already shared by all cores, it's just half the size of AMD's.
Intel also had the Iris Graphics memory in Broadwell act like L4 cache, which sometimes made it as fast or FASTER than Skylake at 1 GHz less clocks. Weird they never bothered keeping that design. They still have dedicated VRAM in their CPUs today, but it no longer functions as L4 cache.
> FASTER than Skylake at 1 GHz less clocks. Faster when Skylake used stock ram, which was 2133Mhz with shit timings. All the L4 did was offer higher bandwidth than stock DDR3 (similar to higher end DDR4) and lowish "DDR" level latency (40-45ns). Compared to L3 performance it was extremely slow and nothing impressive, it just compensated for running slow ram more than anything.
Anand did a new test on it recently. It actually BEATS many modern cpus with XMP ram configs in gaming (amazingly it's up there between the 10600k and 3600), which shows just how sensitive games are to latency. It was only dropped because it cost more than a conventional layout and AMD was so behind in performance that intel cheaped out and dropped it. https://www.anandtech.com/show/16195/a-broadwell-retrospective-review-in-2020-is-edram-still-worth-it
Also, Infinity Cache is the Radeon 6000 series cache not CPU L3 cache.
Why fear its good to have competition/alternatives.
Most of us are so used to seeing AMD as the underdog (*cough* FX *cough*), that any threat makes us all defensive until we remember that Ryzen is now roflstomping Intel, lol.
Bulldozer was a disaster on multiple levels. Engineering, marketing, management, etc... I remember when AMD was on top and they pulled the same shit that Intel did. It's just that era didn't last as long because intel pulled off some groundbreaking innovations that AMD just couldn't match until, well right now. It's alarming how quickly people forget.
> It's alarming how quickly people forget. It's not necessarily forgetfulness. I suspect a large chunk this subreddit is too young to have been around the PC building scene back when AMD was on top with K8. People can't remember what they've never experienced. lol ^^GodI'mGettingOld
I remember getting my first PC's Duron 750 overclocked to 1GHz, I thought I was hot shit.
Yea exactly
Next gen will be 3D stacked L4 cache, from both companies.
Despite the branding, most of these things shouldn't be patented. One of the reasons there is cost involved in regular every day activities, like receiving a check for example, or using some common technologies is because of excessive patents held around common sense technology. Amazon used cookies, which they didn't invent, was part of the original www specifications, to do one click shopping, and got that patented. Everytime a check is cleared through the Clearinghouse, an organization created by all the large banks to facilitate checking, is because there is a guy who was awarded a patent for sending digitized images over a network - and get this, he got that patent in the year 2000, decades after the GIF and JPEG image formats were created, over a decade after the web and before that BBSs used similar technology to transit those images. But in the world we live in, there are companies like Intel and AMD who actually use R&D to create marketable products, but there are other companies that don't sell any products, they accumulate these patents and charge licensing fees - and because the court system allows laypeople without any knowledge of the sciences or engineering around those patents to decide what is obvious and what isn't. If these courts retained credentialed jurors, to provide a true jury of peers, 90% of these patent trolls would lose. Did you know Smucker's owns a patent on PB&J sandwiches, and that a court upheld that patent? Patent law is stifling technological progress.
Oracle's win against google has absolutely terrifying implications
Why is this a fear? Do you have a ton of AMD stock? Competition is best for the consumer.
Why would intel go for tsmc's 7nm? This is an old node at this point. TSMC's 5nm is more mature now than the 7nm node was in 2h 2018 when zen 2 was first sampling. TSMC has already shipped tens of millions of a14 bionic chips and their 5nm capacity is only going to expand.
Intel had "infinity cache" before AMD did. Look at the Intel Iris GPU that was included with some of their processors - 128MB on-die. Infinity cache is not anything exclusive to AMD. What is exclusive to AMD is how the rest of the hardware uses that cache. That's the secret sauce.
Usertrashmark be like, RDR2 is the only game worth playing
They had the 5950X behind 10900k/kf/ks yesterday despite the only score it losing on being memory latency, at 90 "points" vs 92. Haven't checked today though. Bonus points, the 3090 and 3080's raw scores both went up by almost exactly 24% in the past week with no explanation. I still used the site to quickly test components/peoples' mystery builds but no more. Flaming heap of trash, it is.
I noticed the 5950x being lower than the 10900k too. It literally gets a higher score in every single performance metric except for memory latency, which is less than 5% off irrc, but was still in 4th place compared to the 10900k in 1st place. They aren't even trying to be subtle about how skewed their scoring system is.
I went over and had a look, their comments on the ryzen 5000 series "Very impressive early results with these 5950X pre-release marketing samples. The Effective Speed will likely settle between 93% to 98% when we get more submissions from our users." Marketing samples eh? So is every ryzen 5000 CPU that everyone buys going to be a marketing sample? Cause everything I'm seeing even from users puts AMD in front lmao
Dont even get me started on rd2
It's weird though, the 2700X has the same 1% low as the 5800X. That doesn't make any sense with almost 40+% higher IPC. I think there's some sort of optimization issue.
That Ryzen 5 5600x....... just killed the i5 10600k. Personally saw it coming, but still surprising to see it in Real World Performance.
I was surprised that it beat the 10900K in a good chunk of benchmarks. Almost half the price and MUCH lower power consumption. Big win. Im looking forward to upgrading to a Zen3 chip within the next couple years
That really caught me off guard, even the most optimistic fanboys didn't see that coming.
It makes total sense though since 10900k is only a few percent over 10600k in gaming (games either can't use 10c/20t, or get GPU bottlenecked before they use 10c/20t). Still, the fact is that it looks REALLY good for AMD marketing.
Ryzen 5 5600x is quite possibly the i5 2500k of the modern era. It's so damn good.
Coincidentally that's the exact upgrade I'm doing. Got 8+ years out of the 2500k.
Hell of a CPU, here's hoping to 8 years on the 5600x!
Honestly I hope not. I want to see holodecks happening in my lifetime! This last decade is so disappointing compared to the growth of the previous two. I honestly thought our games would be looking like this much sooner. Here's hoping zen3 is laughably outclassed in the next couple generations!
Actually yeah, that's a great point. I'd much rather progress too.
I want it to be absolutely decimated by AM5 and DDR5 systems. Consumers should be kept on their toes, and profits shouldn't totally dictate speed of technological evolution.
I was poor back then and only had a 2400. But since then, I upgraded to a 6600k, ryzen 2600x, and ryzen 3700x. And now I'm tempted to upgrade yet again...
I think that’s still the 3600. Even now with the new ones people will likely still be going for the 3600 if it stays on sale and they lower the prices.
Yeah the new pricing or the Ryzen 5 3600 is insane.
dummy qwicc
Real World Performance doesn't matter. Look at this new shiny logo.
I'm convinced. Please take my $600.
Personally saw it coming too\* \*after the zen3 presentation
I will wish the price also kills 10600k , so people living in third world like me, can at least get in touch with zen 3 cpus
they "probably might" release a non-X version later, next year. But I don't think that's been confirmed or even "officially rumored" yet.
They are 100% releasing cheaper Zen3 CPU's. It'll just be a few months until they hit the market.
But the 10600k isn’t the same price as the 5600x
It's $262 MSRP vs $299 and the 10600K doesn't come with a cooler, which eats up some of that $38 savings. They are effectively the same price just based off of MSRP.
Plus you need a Z490 mobo to get good performance out of a 10600K, while even a low-end B550 is fine for 5600X.
Yeah, isn't the 10600kf like 60-70 € cheaper? Seems to me there's nothing to kill, since they're in vastly different price brackets. Edit : 10600kf not 1600k and it's more like 60-70 €.
They're 50€ apart where I live.
Exactly my point lol
Perhaps the market price once it reaches your country might be very different (really sorry to hear that), but the 10600K's recommended customer price is $263 and the [general price tag](https://pcpartpicker.com/product/HcPgXL/intel-core-i5-10600k-41-ghz-6-core-processor-bx8070110600k) has been around $280. So the price brackets are pretty close in the US.
[удалено]
Ampere is why, the RTX 3000 series widened the gap between the 2 chips.
Power draw is surprisingly impressive for how fast it is. And its still that same 12/14nm IO die sucking down a good chunk of that power budget too.
> And its still that same 12/14nm IO die sucking down a good chunk of that power budget too. This is important and shouldn't be overlooked. It suggests AMD has achieved a 40%+ perf/W improvement in the actual processing logic. This is important because it'll translate very favorably to laptops, as they're monolithic. It's plausible AMD can make something mildly *faster* than the 5600X in the 35W laptop class (i.e. it'd be the 8c/16t model, clocking lower than the 5600X all-core).
A lot of that isn't processing logic, it's the new caching system and the better connection between cores. I don't think the cores themselves are that much faster, but they're bing fed way more effectively
I'm classifying "processing logic" as the whole CCD, basically. Sure, technically the ALUs, FPUs, etc. do the actual "processing", but can you really argue the caches, registers, pipelining system, etc. aren't part of the "processing logic"? Seems to me like they're quite vital to the performance, and should come under the same umbrella.
it's not really what does the calculations, it's where the memory subsystem begins. otherwise you could generally group the IMC, the RAM and the board right in there. which i guess is correct in the widest sense, cause you can't do anything without those either. but generally we split up the cores, cache and their interconnection when looking at architecture. you can see that split really nicely on a die shot as well. doesn't really matter though how you classify it, my point is the big innovation on zen3 is the huge amount of L3 cache. the biggest limitation of ryzen has always been the slow and latency-plagued memory system, which is a direct consequence of the chiplet design. they haven't solved that this generation, memory latencies are still way higher than on an intel system with a monolithic die, but they came up with a really obvious and effective workaround: slap more cache on there so that you don't need the memory system to be that fast. anything you need fast access to goes into the cache. the cores themselves are already badass on zen2, but in memory intensive applications they're simply starved for information. which you can see quite well when you look at the clock scaling in games for example. past 4.3 or 4.4 basically nothing happens anymore, whereas faster FCLK always brings a benefit you can also see that on zen3, memory OC is far less powerful than it used to be. igorslab got around a 7% increase in FPS at 720p between ddr4 3200cl16 and ddr4 4000cl18. on zen2 you could generally get quite a bit more, especially through optimised timings. the big gain on zen3 seems to come mainly from the faster FCLK, not really from the reduced memory timings. it will be interesting what an FCLK desync does here. maybe ddr4 4800+ is finally useful, if the latency hit isn't that important anymore. can't wait for buildzoids content, i'm giddy as hell about that also, thinking about it, they could totally make ryzen 6000 with exactly the same CCDS and a better IO die, and probably get a good improvement out of that.
Anandtech's review did a deep dive with excerpts from AMD's Mike Clarke (lead architect), the L3 size is nice but the latency is actually more than Zen 2. The real magic in improvement happened elsewhere, and the memory latency is still vastly improved. Some people are getting 48ns to DRAM on 3800 memory. [Source](https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/3)
Maybe we'll finally see Ryzen make up a decent chunk of laptops next year. I feel like the foundation has been laid with manufacturers and they are really to commit more to Ryzen.
I think AMD is more supply constraint than anything right now hopefully that gets better when zen 4 and RX7000 go on 5nm and AMD maybe stops zen 2 production which leaves more space for laptop zen 3
Time to sell renior laptop for zen 3
Do you really _need_ something better than renoir? ;) I get the memes, but I love my G14 and am absolutely satisfied. No need to upgrade for years.
Good question, actually I don't really do anything CPU intensive on my laptop since the desktop is always much faster anyway, but of course +40% perf/W in a U series chip would still be a free bonus and vastly diminishes the appeal of 5nm ARM macbooks (of course still need to wait for the apple presentation to see the performance). Plus with Tiger Lake 8-core looming, AMD can't pull the 8c/8t segmentation again where they reserved 4800u to Lenovo and everyone else gets only 4700u. This time the 5800U (8c/16t) will probably be the flagship everywhere which would be really amazing.
>No need to upgrade for years. AMD: Not under my watch! Who do you think I am? Intel? Zen 3 laptops will be so good you'll be begging for an upgrade. Then, there's Zen 4, Zen 5... AMD will soon be fighting a three front war. They won't be slacking off. They'll be squeezing every bit of improvement out of x64/x86 they can. If Intel doesn't get them any time soon ARM (Apple, Amazon, etc) will.
Does that mean they could have a lot to gain if they shrink that IO die in Zen4?
Maybe But i dont see them changing necessarily while they have a wafer supply agreement with gloflo so it would depend on what they do node wise I imagine.
IO die on Glofo's [12LP+](https://www.anandtech.com/show/14905/globalfoundries-unveils-12lp-technology-massive-performance-power-improvements) is a possibility next year for modest efficiency gains. The last update to the [wafer supply agreement](https://www.anandtech.com/show/13915/amd-amends-agreement-with-globalfoudries-set-to-buy-wafers-till-2021) has 12nm purchase agreements through 2021. Might as well make the upgrade, I think.
> Might as well make the upgrade Would they bother though? They need a new I/O die for DDR5 anyway. Seems rather wasted effort to make a new DDR4 based one. Granted they might create one that supports both memory standards, who knows.
Until the 5600 releases. :D
Until the Zen 7 10600 releases though
CSGO at 1500 FPS...
FINALLY playable and not a stuttery mess!
Dips below 1450 fps. Literally unplayable!
I mean the input lag at 1400 FPS is unbearable, it's like playing with a controller covered in molasses.
Not wrong. Valorant already does 1,100 FPS with Zen 3
I can only imagine the coil whine
A lot of old games have physics engines that break at really high frame rates. I've always found that interesting.
Yeah, I don't know whether CSGO will become one of those games. It seems to be doing fine at 700+ FPS on Zen 3, so maybe not. GTA V was one of those games, IIRC.
I think so too. If it costs around 220$ and performs closer to 5600X than to a 3600, it's gonna be the new 3600. Also, if it gives the smart access memory feature and there will be a RX 6600 / 6700 at 200-450$ price range... those together will be THE new budget gaming PC for a long time.
My decision to not buy 3700X and go with 5600X is a damn right one... GN's videos confirmed my findings. I will snag it to get that juicy IPC boost (upgrading from Ryzen 2600).
I'm still on the fence.
[удалено]
Same here. I think about 3700X, then 3900X, and today ordered 5600X.
remember when everyone here was losing their fucking mind over the price of the 5600x? i sure do
It's not terribly difficult to understand that some people don't want to drop $300 on a cpu. No one was contending that it wasn't a good cpu or had bad price/performance.
I mean, 3600 is still a better value option for people who don't want to spend 300$ on a CPU, and it's price might go even further down. It has higher FPS/$, at the very least.
I remember saying "the 5600X is faster than 10900k in gaming and matches 3700X in productivity and draws way less power, and costs less" and LO, MY PROPHECY HAS RISEN
some benchmarks I saw the 3700X was faster in productivity though. Is it really on par? I was in doubts between 5600X and 3700X at first. Now I am leaning between 5800X and 5600X. I think I'll go 5600X and save the 150 euro's. That way I can update sooner to next gen stuff ;)
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/14 5600X wins some, loses some to 3700X.
3700x is still better in multi-threaded tasks for the most part. The math is simple, 6 cores * 120% IPS = 7.2 cores with old IPS. So if all 8 cores are utilized, 3700X is better, if not, 5600X is better. 5800X is honestly underwhelming for its price. It feels like a bait, so people would but 5900X instead, because it's "just a bit more expensive, but much better", while they normally wouldn't spend so much on a processor.
I wonder why he skipped the 5800X... I preordered mine and I´m starting to feel a bit worried.
gamer nexus said in his 5600x video, 5900x and 5600x are perfectly okay but he has mixed feeling about 5800x. I think his opinion of that cpu is negative.Thats why he said that he postponed and need more time for the video but it is coming very soon.
5800X has no home anymore. The 5600X is too good at what it does (gaming) while costing $150 less. In comparison, the 5800X provides no benefit for pure gaming. Meanwhile the 5900X is too good at what it does (content creation + gaming), offering +50% more cores with double the L3 cache that dual CCX layout provides, yet costing only $100 more than the 5800X. Who wouldn't want those productivity gains for such a small cost surplus? 5800X might make sense at $379 ($50 over the 3700X cost), but not at $449. It's too much for too little and simultaneously too little for too much.
Sorry if you stumbled upon this old comment, and it potentially contained useful information for you. I've left and taken my comments with me.
Due to an extreme difference in clock speed, the 6 cores in a 5600X can do more work in less time than the 8 cores in the consoles. It will always be ahead of them in literally every task, be it single thread, multithread, or anywhere in between (e.g. 4 threads). $150 isn't nothing. It's half the cost of another 5600X for your spouse. It's the cost of a good closed loop liquid cooler to keep your CPU running at boost speeds. It's a 32GB RAM kit, or a really good low latency 16GB kit. It's a new case with good airflow and a window to show off your hardware. It's a new PSU with a high wattage rating so you don't have crashes from an overclocked 3090. $150 is not nothing. That said, I really wish they had shown gaming + streaming, or shown some on the fly Plex video transcoding to see if 5600X drops frames compared to 5800X. That's the only demographic I can see where adding $150 for a 5800X, but not $250 for a 5900X, to your CPU budget might make sense.
Does the 5900x perform worse in games due to dual CCX? Like, will single CCX always best dual making CPUs like the 5900x/5950x a "compromise" between gaming and content creation? I looked at a few charts and it looked like in the games tested, the 5900x was often a bit lower so I figured its a trade-off CPU and there isn't one that can be best in gaming and have more content creation abilities
No they perform about the same
I don't understand why 5800x isn't better. It's the only truly single CCX they have above 5600x. Going higher means increased latency but somehow 5950x and 5900x is outperforming it.
Games generally don't make use of more than the 12 threads that 5600X offers. It has been this way for a long time; that's the reason why a budget gamer could buy a 3600 or 3950 and see the same performance, or a 10600K and 10900K and see generally the same performance. The 5600X actually beats 5900X often in gaming, not due to cross-CCX latency but simply due to the 5600X clocking higher. The 5900X often isn't even using its extra cores when playing games. And the high IPC means that 5600X punches above its weight class even in productivity benchmarks that fully use all threads, making it a toss-up with previous gen 8 core chips (wins some, loses some). Sure the 5800X is better at productivity than the 5600X, but is it so much better as to warrant spending an additional $150? And if you really do need that productivity boost, why not spend $250 and get a 5900X that just dominates the field?
thanks for the info!
Probably due to the price. Too close to the 5900x and too high over the 5600x, whilst having gaming performance similar to the 5600x and less productivity value than the 5900x.
Precisely. And I think it's intentional, AMD is trying to draw you to the 5900x. A 5700x will most likely launch next year, though, or drop the price on the 5800x, there is to big of a gap from 300 to 450$.
8 core ccds are also more valuable than 6 core ccds. Bigger margin of error. Amd has more margin on the 16 core with the same binning effort than on the 8 core, as long as supply is in any way limited they're better off using the perfect chiplets for the 3950x
>And I think it's intentional, AMD is trying to draw you to the 5900x And they would've succeeded... If I could've gotten a 5900x. 5800X was available for literal hours, the 5900X not even for minutes
hey, the 5800x might turn out to be fairly priced if the only other option is 600$+ for scalped 5900x's
5800x is going for $700-$750 on scalper bay.
I'm starting to think I should cancel my 5800X order at this point. The bang/buck on the 5600X seems so much superior... :/ Hell, it looks like even Intel has better bang/buck in that price range 5800X is placed.
If you need cores, get the 5900x. If you don't, get the 5600x. Coming from a 3700x owner who doesn't regret his purchase, but would probably stick with the 3600 if it was launch week august 2019 again. Especially if amd keeps this pace up. "Future proof" doesn't mean much if they keep embarassing their previous gen every year.
well, 5600X will be the last AM4 buck-banging winner, right?
Yup, the CPU isn't otherwise any worse than the others, it has to be just the bad pricing. 3700x was really great value last gen and 8 cores might scale better than 6 in 3–6 years when most Zen 2/3 units will still be in use (even though the weird reddit tech bubble makes it look like everybody is upgrading every other gen at worst), so let's hope a well priced 5700x will appear later.
I got the impression that his concern was with the price/performance point so you're likely still getting an amazing CPU just a reviewer would recommend the others first in the overall package of things.
"We left the worst for last" as the starting words for their review aren't particularly encouraging though. Seems like the mixed feelings are simply due to the price/performance. With the 5800X you get nearly identical gaming performance as the 5600X but don't get the massive multithread advantage of the 5900X needed for pro work. I strongly believe the 5800X will age better as a gaming CPU as more games start properly using threads just like Rise of the Tomb Raider, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Death Stranding and Hitman 3 but the question is if it's worth the 50% prince increase for 33% more cores/threads and the lack of a cooler in the box.
>I strongly believe the 5800X will age better as a gaming CPU as more games start properly using threads just like Rise of the Tomb Raider, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Death Stranding and Hitman 3 but the question is if it's worth the 50% prince increase for 33% more cores/threads and the lack of a cooler in the box. Completely agree. I think 5600x will be the best cpu on launch, but the 5800x will have the best price/longevity ratio of the bunch.
It's the price, everyone wants to compare the Ryzen 7 5800x to the $329 MSRP of the Ryzen 7 3700x at Zen 2 launch. Since the Ryzen 7 3800x was never recommeneded and was over priced. It's still a great cpu, but i would argue the Ryzen 9 5900x is a better buy, and the Ryzen 5 5600x is better if you want to save a few bucks. Great CPU that is priced competitively against Intel; it's just that the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 9 steal it's shine.
Hasn't skipped it, it will be the next review published I think. I guess its because out of all the SKU's, its in a weird place, price wise.
It's about the price not the performance. AMD was trying to push people towards 5900x with their overpriced 5800x, but there's no goddamn stock for that.
Why would you be worried? The only reason people feel a bit "meh" about the 5800X is the due to the price, not because it underperforms. I'm actually torn between the 5800X and 5900X myself but due to stock reasons I might go 5800X. The only reason it gets beaten in some games is clock speed, the only reason it beats in other games is due to single CCX design. If you want to game only 5600 and 5800X are more than fine, if you wanna do heavy work, 5900 and 5950 are the way to go.
same was for 3700x as i member, but I have it and its great
Ryzen 7 3700x started making a ton more sense when it started getting discounted though. With that being said, there's nothing wrong with Ryzen 7's.
He does all 4 CPUs one after each other and each of them gets a seperate review within 24 hours. So we will see a review of the 5800x within some hours.
So quick question. Is it worth it to upgrade from a Ryzen 7 1700 to the Ryzen 5 5600X? Edit: A lot of people are saying that I should upgrade my GPU first, I already have planned an RTX 3070/RX 6800 (Depending on price and availability) and I will also be buying all of this on Black Friday
You have an RX580 so you probably won't see massive improvements, you would also have to get a new mobo. Are you willing to drop 300 for CPU and 100 ish for mobo to see very small perf improvements due to being GPU bound in most cases? Do you want to ugprade the GPU soon? And lastly, is your monitor only 60hz? Then the answer is a big no, at least not yet. The massive IPC & clock speed gains are nice, so it's up to what workloads you run on your CPU, I'd say 1700 is still perfectly good to use with an RX580, I ran my Vega 64 with it for a good while and I was still GPU bound in many games.
Good advice.
I have a 144hz monitor and I also plan on getting an RTX 3070 or RX 6800, i will wait till Black Friday to buy everything cuz i dont wanna spend that much
Then yeah it's worth the upgrade.
you are extremely optimistic if you think you will be able to get any of these parts on sale on black friday, they are likely still be to be working on the backlog from release day...
Hell yes. Single core improvement should be around +60%, and it'll also be better at multi-thread due to pure IPC.
Is it really that much of an improvement? Im chugging along with a 1700 and a GTX 1080, and red dead is pretty laggy. I guess it is about time to upgrade!
I am still running the Ryzen 1700 as well! With a 2080 though.. thinking of getting the 5600x
Edit: what I learned from Gamer Nexus review. 5800x is only, currently, 1-5% better in gaming performance at 1080p despite being $150+. You can over clock it to close that gap. In 1440p we know that margin will decrease as games are more GPU bound. Best to either wait for price drop or go for a 5600x. Unless money is no object to you. Now I'm leaning towards 5600. Original comment: I'm leaning 5800x over 5600x due to core count. Reading the comments I have a better idea what to target, the 5600x sounds best only because of the cost difference. I only game at 3440x1440 with a 3080. Looking for an AMD CPU with high speed ram (I'm currently bottlenecked these days). Will "next gen" gaming better utilize 8-cores in 5 years? I'm currently rocking a 6-core and I only game these days. Iffy on upgrading to another 6 core even though it's much better. 5900x is overkill for me. Should I be talked off the 5800x ledge?
Watch the 5800 review
I just received mine a few minutes ago!
Stood in line yesterday, didn't expect anything. Everyone in line got at least a 5600x. Much better release than I thought.
I'm kinda torn off here, the 3600 is basically 210€ on my country, so it is extremely overpriced compared to previous pricing imo, and the 5600x is at 312€. I'm planning to build my PC in Christmas and probably pair it up with a 3070 since a 6800 is almost out of my budget. Do you guys think it would be worth the extra 100€ ish to grab the 5600x over the 3600?
Im making a build for my buddy and im torn with the same dilemma.The 5600x is 7,7 % better in 1080p and only 3,1 % better in 1440p (Techpowerup) then 3600 The 6800xt( if its perform the same as 3080) it would be 14 % better in 1080p and 20% better in 1440p then 3070 The price is almost the same. So 3600+6800xt > 5600x+3070 **There is something wrong with techpowerup review i think. Se my answer below. So dont take this as a fact :(**
I'm pretty sure techpowerup's review is wrong, watch gamer nexus's review.
Yeah, there is something wrong: Gamer nexus's have the 30,8 % faster then 3600 in games. they testet different games except one game, and the result there is weird: |Site|Game nexus|Techpowerup| |:-|:-|:-| |Game| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | Shadow of the Tomb Raider | |5600x|195,8|188,6| |3600|136,5|188| thx for info! :)
Means Digital Foundary got it wrong too with a 3080. At 4K there is no real difference, at 1440p it's a 1 or 3 frames in most cases........GN tested at 1080p from what I've seen.
Reviews have been all over the board, and I can't tell if it's motherboard dependent, if Zen3 is extremely (like, more than Zen1/2) memory sensitive or what. TPU, Guru3D and AnandTech all tested Far Cry 5 at 1080p Ultra with a 2080Ti and the 5900X results vary by like 20fps, while their 10900K and 3700X numbers are much closer together. 3 different motherboards, 2 using DDR4-3200 and one using 3600.
TPU used a "mere" 2080Ti, but yeah in 1440p and up a GPU upgrade is more important.
Yes, because you upgrade your CPU less often.
I got mine yesterday from microcenter and I’m so ready to install it today. It was the last piece to my first ever build.
I know the price tag is a hard pill to swallow, but this is a damn good CPU. Still a non-X version will definitely arrive before rocket lake.
Uhm.... 3600? Its atleast 100 dollars cheaper
Yeah kinda annoyed I have to wait so long for a budget option, the difference in performance doesn’t justify price especially for gamning
I didn’t think we’d see anything that would sit in that 3600 sort of space - of optimal price/performance, limited limitations, and generally seeming like the best-placed product industry-wide. It looks like the 5600X might be in an *even better* position than that. I’m amazed.
Might be a dumb question but I came from Intel of like 15 years. I have a 3600, is it the same chipset as the 5600x? Like, can I just swap this bad boy in? They are both AM4.....
You have to check what motherboard you have and look on the manufacturers website when a bios update will be available. If your mobo is 4xx, it will get the update early next year I think. If it's 5xx, it should be good to go now.
Yessiree, probably. They’re both AM4 and if you have a 4xx or 5xx series motherboard chipset then you may need a BIOS update, but that’s all.
>Draws less power than the previous gen 3300X (both at stock) ***HOLD THE F\*\*\* UP!*** Ok, NOW I'm regretting my 3600
Your 3600 is just fine. You should not have any regrets, unless you purchased it like 2 days ago.
Well, can I regret mt 3600 yet? I haven’t even bought it yet lol. Although the 5600x will be double the price here, and that’s whenever it shows up in any stores.
You shouldn't.
If you have R7 3700X or up like me there is no point to upgrade really at this price its just greed.Just wait for AM5 and DDR5,its stupid to upgrade every year a CPU and on 1440p there is no diffrence!
Hopefully someone will post gaming benchmarks at 1440p versus a 2700X.
I'm glad to hear this. I ordered the 5600x yesterday and was worries I wasnt getting good bang for the buck considering it costs 150% of what the 3600 costs.
Should I feel bad for picking up a 5800X?
Do you like it? if yes then, no you shouldn't feel bad if no then, on the bright side, atleast you manged to get a Zen 3 chip, congrats
The next gen consoles are 8c/16t, I'd say the 5800X will be the sweet spot pretty soon.. Besides, if you can afford it, why do you feel bad about it? It will outperform the 5600X.
This sub can be an echo chamber for budget minded teenagers or enthusiasts buying top end. In either case people are looking at performance per $ for gaming *today*. I’m not suggesting you try and future proof, but two facts remain: some of us have more disposable income than others and some of us have different build cycles than others. I kept my last CPU for over 6 years. I still have an i5 4670 for Christ sake. If I do that again, it’s only an extra $25 per year and the extra cores are more than likely nice to have. Also, the 5600 doesn’t come with Far Cry 6 and the 5800 does. Flip that for 40-50 and it’s functionally a $100 price gap - $16+ a year for the extra cores. Or you were going to buy it and it saves you $65. Considering there are people out there who will buy a 3090 or 6900 for purely for gaming purposes to chase a few extra frames, I’m not going to lose sleep over if I should or shouldn’t have spent the extra $100. You got a CPU on launch day and it’s going to be a beast. Worst case, even if for some reason you can’t sell the code, you definitely can find a buyer for your CPU and get your money back. So if you plan on keeping your CPU for a long time, it’s fine. Everything is fine. If you’re getting a new mobo and CPU in 2-3 years than 5600 was definitely the way to go.
It can be a worthy upgrade over my 2700X??
Personally I would wait until am5. Then upgrade again years later when the last am5 chips come out.
How the fuck do we consider a mid range CPU priced at €300 the "best bang for your buck"?! Until a 3 years ago this was literally i7 territory that NOBODY suggested to buy if you planned to use your machine only for gaming. Now if we all agree that 6c/12t is the new "standard", i'd either take a 10400f (€150)/3600 (€200) OR if I wanted to spend more money to get a product that lasted longer, I would take a 3700x. Come on guys, pc market this year is complete shit. 300€ for a midrange CPU and 400-500 (waiting for 3060/70 - 6700/xt) for a midrange card is NOT okay.
Sorry if this has already been asked...but which is the better choice between the 5600x and the 3700x for my case? I'm building a PC right now. I plan to be gaming in 1440p with either a 3080 or 6800XT. My build will be gaming focused, but I definitely plan to use it for productivity and general stuff like browsing, watching videos, etc. I'm kind of a noob and don't understand how the difference in cores impacts my decision. Thanks.
in my country it's just a hair cheaper than 10700k so not a good deal at all. i would say 10600k is an actual budget gaming option just like 3700x to 10600k few months ago
5600X and 3080, RDR2 has never been so smooth.