Three times the charm - New AMD CPU announcement + big Navi Teaser

[hollyh88]

11 hours ago, Delicieuxz said:

Isn't the price increase just 50 USD over Zen 2 MSRP?

 

3600X - $249

3800X - $399

3900X - $499

 

5600X - $299

5800X - $449

5900X - $549

 

It's not for 2 of them.

3600 and 3600x are comparable. 

Thus 100 more for a 6 core.

 

3700x and 3800x are comparable. 3800x was a waste of money.

Thus 120-130 more for an 8 core. 450 for a fucking 8 core man. 

 

The only good one here is the 3900x and 5900x that is 50 more. 

 

These prices are way to high. 

If they increased the core count it would be great. But they didnt. So these prices suck. Really really suck.

 

 

[hollyh88]

8 hours ago, BuckGup said:

I have no idea what you are smoking. A $50 price bump is nothing considering how long Intel milked everyone's wallet

I have no idea what YOU are smoking.

It's not 50.

100 more for a 6 core

3600 is the same as 3600x

 

120-130 more for an 8 core.

3700x was better value and equal performing vs the 3800x.

 

Its. Not. 50. More. They make you think it is. But its not. 

[Bombastinator]

The complication seems to be the number 50 being used as both a percentage and a dollar amount.  

[hollyh88]

1 hour ago, Rohith_Kumar_Sp said:

The 5800X is upselling at it's worst tbh. $450 for an 8-core making $550 for the 12-core look good value
$450 for an 8-core, 16-thread chip?

Yep it's stupid. If it had a core increase on the entire stack then yeah. But this is just stupid pricing.

 

[hollyh88]

1 minute ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

Considering they always drop prices a few months after release, wait if you can, or buy Zen2/Intel if you need it now.

I have a 2600x wanted to upgrade to a new 8 core. But sadly 450 is just shit pricing in my opinion I'm not going to spend that amount for an 8 core.

 

So I may as well buy a 3800xt which is currently 120 bucks cheaper then that new 5800x.

 

This whole pricing bs is just shitty

[stewtrain]

6 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

I'm also curious if the 5950x falls behind in gaming like the 3950x did.

I never owned a 3950 but I know in the higher end TR's they give you the option to disable some of the cores in BIOS specifically for gaming (I think it's called gaming mode?).  I wonder why they dont give you the option to disable half the cores and drop to 8 so on CCX is operating for gaming.

 

I also don't know much about how all that actually works so it may be out of the realm of possibility.

[stewtrain]

17 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

 wait if you can

That's my plan.  I just threw a 3600x I got for 150$ in my system.  Once they drop the prices I will try to snag a 5950x.

[Soppro]

I hope they don't spend too much time ducking around and launch the non-X variants sooner rather than later, preferably before 2021

[LAwLz]

6 hours ago, porina said:

It's not the majority of customers, just a tiny number of very vocal ones. For a tiny amount of positive PR that no one will remember, AMD have given themselves and their partners a ton of pain to deal with. If they did nothing at all it would have blown over in no time.

 

Edit: there was the PCIe 4.0 thing on 400 chipset. That was unpopular also, but they stuck with it that time.

Well in that particular case AMD had literally lied about the future proof-ness of their chipsets, and considering how many people mentioned future proof-ness as a reason for getting AMD over Intel I'd say their marketing strategy was very successful.

I don't blame the vocal minority at all for demanding that AMD does what they promised. I put 100% of the blame on AMD for promising stuff they maybe shouldn't have, and pushing the whole "needing a new motherboard for a CPU upgrade is horrible!" thing.

 

From day one I've been telling people that replacing your motherboard when you upgrade the CPU is no big deal since you shouldn't be upgrading s frequently anyway. When the time comes that you actually need a new CPU, your motherboard will probably be outdated and need an upgrade anyway. But nope! The fanboys saw an opportunity to hate on Intel and praise AMD so they did. Then when it turned out AMD had been selling their products under false pretenses people got rightfully pissed.

 

You can even put the blame for having that "very vocal minority" group on AMD because that is the group their marketing has constantly been trying to cater to.

 

[RejZoR]

Everyone comparing prices and just straight up ignoring big IPC uplift entirely... Yeah, it costs more. Because I performs better. Why do I keep seeing such idiocy only in AMD threads where everyone just expects AMD to literally give shit away for free, but when Intel asks more money for their stuff, I never see anyone whining for god damn 50€ difference. :rolleyes:

[porina]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

I put 100% of the blame on AMD for promising stuff they maybe shouldn't have, and pushing the whole "needing a new motherboard for a CPU upgrade is horrible!" thing.

While I agree in general, this is a tricky area. I think AMD said one thing, and parts of the fandom heard something else, which lead to that... understanding gap.

 

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

From day one I've been telling people that replacing your motherboard when you upgrade the CPU is no big deal since you shouldn't be upgrading s frequently anyway. When the time comes that you actually need a new CPU, your motherboard will probably be outdated and need an upgrade anyway.

Big agree on this. IMO one generation is the most you should go with CPU relative to chipset. 400 chipset was already a generation behind for Zen 2. AMD took far too long to release B550 which doesn't help.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, porina said:

While I agree in general, this is a tricky area. I think AMD said one thing, and parts of the fandom heard something else, which lead to that... understanding gap.

 

Big agree on this. IMO one generation is the most you should go with CPU relative to chipset. 400 chipset was already a generation behind for Zen 2. AMD took far too long to release B550 which doesn't help.

It seems like a situational rule with exceptions.  I went from z77 to z97 with the same chip and it worked out great.  I wouldn’t call it an everyday thing thing though.  It tends to be dependent on what part of what advances and how important that advance is when and to whom.  Storage, I/o, cpu design, all advance at their own rate, but a motherboard contains all of them.  For example, B450 people don’t seem to be bothered so much by no pcie4 atm,  but the lack of thunderbolt and USB3.2 could be an issue. 

[LAwLz]

12 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Everyone comparing prices and just straight up ignoring big IPC uplift entirely... Yeah, it costs more. Because I performs better. Why do I keep seeing such idiocy only in AMD threads where everyone just expects AMD to literally give shit away for free, but when Intel asks more money for their stuff, I never see anyone whining for god damn 50€ difference. :rolleyes:

The problem is that the price increases is larger than the performance increase.

50% higher price for 20% higher performance is not a good generational jump (when looking at the currently best selling CPU from AMD vs the currently announced replacement from AMD).

 

And seriously, you don't hear people on this forum complain about Intel's pricing? Are you for real? It happens all the time. You can not read a single thread that mentions Intel or AMD without seeing at least a couple of people say something along the lines of "Intel CPUs cost too much!".

 

If Nvidia had raised prices for the RTX 30 series by 50% and only provided a 20% performance increase then I doubt many people would be saying what you're saying. But with Nvidia we got a bigger performance uplift and lower prices. And for some reason people still think of AMD as their buddy and Nvidia as "greedy"...

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, porina said:

While I agree in general, this is a tricky area. I think AMD said one thing, and parts of the fandom heard something else, which lead to that... understanding gap.

In the case of the AM4 support it was actually more along the lines of "AMD said one thing, realized they fucked up and then started saying another thing".

They literally went back on their word and changed their marketing statements a couple of years later. First they said they would support AM4 until the end of 2020, and then they changed their words to "until 2020".

AMD deserved all the shit they got for lying to their customers and then trying to brush it under the rug.

[Blademaster91]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

For example, B450 people don’t seem to be bothered so much by no pcie4 atm,  but the lack of thunderbolt and USB3.2 could be an issue. 

The most useful feature with pci-e 4.0 is faster storage, not really necessary for most people although consoles could change that. I'm not sure with usb 3.2, but thunderbolt compatible devices tend to be expensive, if you need thunderbolt then I think a high end x570 board with thunderbolt and USB 3.2 would make sense.

[porina]

 

19 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I went from z77 to z97 with the same chip and it worked out great.

Is that even possible? If I'm not mistaken Z77 supports Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge (2nd, 3rd gen), and Z97 supports Haswell and Broadwell (4th and 5th gen) desktop CPUs.

 

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

They literally went back on their word and changed their marketing statements a couple of years later. First they said they would support AM4 until the end of 2020, and then they changed their words to "until 2020".

It doesn't mean every AM4 CPU will work in every AM4 mobo. That's the understanding problem.

 

Anandtech even had to create a chart to list the CPU vs chipset possibilities and compatibilities.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15807/amd-to-support-zen-3-and-ryzen-4000-cpus-on-b450-and-x470-motherboards

Keep in mind this was created much earlier in the year.

 

 

Edit: here's AMD's own version, presumably before they changed their mind on 400 series chipset support.

 

[Bombastinator]

15 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The most useful feature with pci-e 4.0 is faster storage, not really necessary for most people although consoles could change that. I'm not sure with usb 3.2, but thunderbolt compatible devices tend to be expensive, if you need thunderbolt then I think a high end x570 board with thunderbolt and USB 3.2 would make sense.

Most x570 won’t even do thunderbolt.  You have to pick a specific board and then also buy a thunderbolt card for it that is designed for only that board.  There are b550 boards that have thunderbolt though: 

[Bombastinator]

21 minutes ago, porina said:

 

Is that even possible? If I'm not mistaken Z77 supports Sandy Bridge/Ivy Bridge (2nd, 3rd gen), and Z97 supports Haswell and Broadwell (4th and 5th gen) desktop CPUs.

 

It doesn't mean every AM4 CPU will work in every AM4 mobo. That's the understanding problem.

 

Anandtech even had to create a chart to list the CPU vs chipset possibilities and compatibilities.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15807/amd-to-support-zen-3-and-ryzen-4000-cpus-on-b450-and-x470-motherboards

Keep in mind this was created much earlier in the year.

 

 

Edit: here's AMD's own version, presumably before they changed their mind on 400 series chipset support.

 

Maybe I Meant z87? I remember it being z77.  I’ve been known to misremember though.  I have a 4770k. 

[Blademaster91]

12 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Most x570 won’t even do thunderbolt.  You have to pick a specific board and then also buy a thunderbolt card for it that is designed for only that board.  There are b550 boards that have thunderbolt though: 

Yeah I know Gigabyte and Asus have boards that are compatible with thunderbolt,but it's weird it isn't onboard. I'd probably recommend B550 over X570 though because B550 still has pci-e 4.0 on the first X16 slot and M.2 slot, and no chipset fan is better imo as one less possible thing to break.

[Delicieuxz]

37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The problem is that the price increases is larger than the performance increase.

50% higher price for 20% higher performance is not a good generational jump (when looking at the currently best selling CPU from AMD vs the currently announced replacement from AMD).

The announced Zen 3 CPUs are still priced overall the same as their Zen 1 counterparts, according to this record:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation_microarchitecture)#Desktop_processors

 

1600X - $249

1800X - $499

1900X - $549

 

3600X - $249

3800X - $399

3900X - $499

 

5600X - $299

5800X - $449

5900X - $549

 

The X600X costs $50 more, while the X800X costs $50 less. On average, Zen 1's and Zen 3's prices are the same.

 

 

So, the prices went down before going back up. But Zen 1's prices adjusted for 2020's inflation from 2017 would be:

 

1600X - $264.03

1800X - $529.12

1900X - $582.14

 

The average price of the listed Zen 1 CPUs in 2020 dollars would be $458.43. The average price for Zen 3 is $432.33.

 

It's been 3.5 years since Zen 1 released. I think that Zen 3 is still cheaper than Zen 1 was is a good sign.

[porina]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Maybe I Meant z87? I remember it being z77.  I’ve been known to misremember though.  I have a 4770k. 

80 series was the first for Haswell so that makes sense. As was often the case with Intel, they did two chipset and CPU generations that inter-operate with each other. If you got the first of the two you had one generation forward.

 

BTW please don't quote the entire post when it is long, just cut it to the relevant bit you're replying to.

[LAwLz]

21 minutes ago, porina said:

It doesn't mean every AM4 CPU will work in every AM4 mobo. That's the understanding problem.

Yes but that's what people believed and AMD never did anything to clarify it until it was too late.

Saying something that makes people believe something that isn't true, and never correcting peoples' beliefs, is essentially lying and that's what AMD did. They did it either on purpose or by backing themselves into a corner by making unfounded promises in the early days (of Zen) that they couldn't keep later.

 

In any case, AMD said things that made people believe one thing, AMD never corrected the misconceptions because it helped them sell more products, and then when they absolutely had to confess people got justifiably mad.

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, porina said:

Anandtech even had to create a chart to list the CPU vs chipset possibilities and compatibilities.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15807/amd-to-support-zen-3-and-ryzen-4000-cpus-on-b450-and-x470-motherboards

-chart-

Keep in mind this was created much earlier in the year.

That chart was created AFTER all the AMD statements that caused the controversy and after all the information AMD dumped on people.

People did not have the information present in that chart when they were saying "buy AMD because Intel will force you to buy a new motherboard when you upgrade and AMD won't". That's the problem.

 

 

29 minutes ago, porina said:

Edit: here's AMD's own version, presumably before they changed their mind on 400 series chipset support.

-snip-

Again, that chart was created AFTER people had been mislead. Like I said earlier, AMD changed their official statements on support all of a sudden, probably when they realized the technical difficulties of keeping what they promised several years earlier. It's all described in the GN video I linked earlier, with sources for AMD's official statements about AM4 support. The same statements that made people go "yeah buy AMD instead of Intel because then you won't need a new motherboard".

That's the whole problem, and the reason why AMD deserve every single ounce of shit they got.

If AMD had made fewer promises in the beginning this would not have been a problem. But they didn't. Then they never felt the need to clarify the misconceptions they themselves and others were spreading because it helped them make more money.

[Bombastinator]

11 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Yeah I know Gigabyte and Asus have boards that are compatible with thunderbolt,but it's weird it isn't onboard. I'd probably recommend B550 over X570 though because B550 still has pci-e 4.0 on the first X16 slot and M.2 slot, and no chipset fan is better imo as one less possible thing to break.

I also find choices between b550 and x570 problematic. X570 has flexibility b550 doesn’t, but to get an x570 board that will do the things a b550 will a lot of money needs to be spent.

[LAwLz]

15 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

The announced Zen 3 CPUs are still priced overall the same as their Zen 1 counterparts, according to this record:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation_microarchitecture)#Desktop_processors

 

-snip-

How about we compare the products we can buy today with the newly announced products? Doesn't that make a lot more sense?

If I had a time machine and were forced to buy only the new products or products released in 2017 then I would get your point, but that's not the world we live in.

Ryzen 5000 has to stack up against AMD 3000 in order to be a good buy.

 

The by far most popular CPU on the market today is the Ryzen 5 3600. 

Ryzen 5 3600:

6 cores

12 threads

3.6GHz clock

65W TDP

199 dollars

 

This is the new product announced by AMD yesterday:

Ryzen 5 5600X:

6 cores

12 threads

3.7GHz clock

65W TDP

299 dollars

 

 

This mental gymnastics and "clever" math people are trying to do to downplay the price hike is really starting to piss me off.

Don't you agree that it is kind of ridiculous to go to Wikipedia and compare products on the market from 3 years ago, and doing tricks with inflation to try and justify the prices, when we can just compare what's actually available and being bought on the market today with what was just announced? Isn't that the far more reasonable thing to do?

The fact of the matter is that, by the looks of it, the 5600X is a bad product compared to the 3600 which we have been able to buy for over a year now. 

 

When these newly announced products hit the market people will have the choice of continuing to buy the 3600 (again, the most popular CPU right now, and have been for about a year) for 199, or this new processor for 299. That's a fact.

Like I said earlier, I don't think paying 50% more to get what seems to be roughly 20% higher performance is a good deal, and neither should you.

 

Until AMD announces more products in the Ryzen 5000 series, the Ryzen 3000 series will be a much better buy for the majority of people (assuming a ~20% performance increase).

When the price to performance ratio doesn't go up with new launches then I think the company behind the launch has fucked up. That seems to be the case with this launch. I have no interest in buying these new products because the old products are better (when price is a factor). At least for the SKUs that people are actually buying.

The 800 dollar part might be better price to performance than what is currently available but let's not pretend like a lot of people actually buy those products.

[Bombastinator]

14 minutes ago, porina said:

80 series was the first for Haswell so that makes sense. As was often the case with Intel, they did two chipset and CPU generations that inter-operate with each other. If you got the first of the two you had one generation forward.

 

BTW please don't quote the entire post when it is long, just cut it to the relevant bit you're replying to.

There are issues both ways.  Editing makes it complicated for one.  I could see hiding a quoted post but at least half the time someone cuts a post to reply there are problems.   There are several forms of house rule requirements demanded of others by various users that  could be implemented in the forum if they were popular enough, but aren’t.   It becomes a question of following all of them or none of them. 

[Blademaster91]

9 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

How about we compare the products we can buy today with the newly announced products? Doesn't that make a lot more sense?

If I had a time machine and were forced to buy only the new products or products released in 2017 then I would get your point, but that's not the world we live in.

Ryzen 5000 has to stack up against AMD 3000 in order to be a good buy.

You're insisting we compare product we can buy because its popular? How about we compare both X-sku cpus?

According to camelcamelcamel the 3600X launched at $249USD, 5600X is a $50USD price increase, it's fair enough for a 20% performance increase, and Ryzen cpu's have usually dropped in price a few months after release.

To get that kind of performance increase from going to 8th gen Intel to a 10th gen Intel, you'd also have to spend another $250-300 on a motherboard.