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

[RejZoR]

What are people babbling about 50% increase in price for 20% IPC boost. Where the hell are you people getting 50% increase in price?! It's 50-100€. Not 50-100%...

[LAwLz]

6 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

You're insisting we compare product we can buy because its popular?

Yes, because that's what people are actually buying.

 

6 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

How about we compare both X-sku cpus?

Why would we do that? Barely anyone is buying the 3600X because it is not as good of a purchase as the 3600.

 

 

3 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

What are people babbling about 50% increase in price for 20% IPC boost. Where the hell are you people getting 50% increase in price?! It's 50-100€. Not 50-100%...

When comparing the 3600 (199) which is currently the most highly recommended and bought processor, it is a 50% price increase (200 dollars to 300 dollars) and the performance gains seems to be roughly 20% going from the 3600 to the 5600X.

That's where I am getting my numbers from. By comparing currently available and highly recommended products we have been able to buy for a year, vs the new products announced.

Not sure where you got the 100% number from though. I have consistently said 50%, because that's the difference between the 3600 (199) and the 5600X (299).

 

And before someone try to defend the price hikes by going "well it's the non-X vs the X model so it's unfair!", please remember that AMD did not announce a non-X model so I think the only logical thing to do is compare what is on the market today vs what was announced. That seems fair, right? Comparing what you can buy today and how those products perform, vs what was announced.

I don't see why we should for some reason limit our comparisons to some arbitrary naming scheme where we can only compare products with somewhat similar names.

[JuztBe]

8 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

What are people babbling about 50% increase in price for 20% IPC boost. Where the hell are you people getting 50% increase in price?! It's 50-100€. Not 50-100%...

 

 

14 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

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.

 

Why compare X skews when there's better product on a market rigth now. What does it matter how it's called. Amd could've called 5600 GT-R 5G for all we should care.

Can we compare a PRODUCTS?

 

Ryzen CPU 1

199$

 

Ryzen CPU 2

299$

 

Both CPUs will be available at the market.  

By current estimations Ryzen CPU 2 will have ~20% more performance for 50% more price.

 

 

[Blademaster91]

11 minutes ago, JuztBe said:

Why compare X skews when there's better product on a market rigth now. What does it matter how it's called. Amd could've called 5600 GT-R 5G for all we should care.

Can we compare a PRODUCTS?

 

Ryzen CPU 1

199$

 

Ryzen CPU 2

299$

 

Both CPUs will be available at the market.  

By current estimations Ryzen CPU 2 will have ~20% more performance for 50% more price.

Comparing the 3xxx X to 5xxx X cpu is the only fair comparison, the only reason the non-X cpu's are better is because it's a better value, there was really no OC room with Zen 2 so buying the X cpu is a higher boosting cpu with a chance to have a better IMC so you can set the infinityfabric clock higher.

If you don't care about the 20% more performance then yeah Zen 2 is a better value, unless you want every extra FPS it's not worth upgrading if you already have a Zen 2 cpu.

 

[RejZoR]

People comparing 3600 to 5600X. A what?! Also it seems people are comparing prices of 3600 now, not when it was launched. 5600X also won't cost as much as it does on launch 1 or 2 years down the line... But it'll still have the same 20% IPC boost...

[JuztBe]

Just now, Blademaster91 said:

Comparing the 3xxx X to 5xxx X cpu is the only fair comparison, the only reason the non-X cpu's are better is because it's a better value, there was really no OC room with Zen 2 so buying the X cpu is a higher boosting cpu with a chance to have a better IMC so you can set the infinityfabric clock higher.

If you don't care about the 20% more performance then yeah Zen 2 is a better value, unless you're playing games and want every extra FPS it's not worth upgrading if you already have a Zen 2 cpu.

 

What if new line was named 5000 ST? Then comparison to any older gen products wouldn't be fair?

[Rauten]

5600X makes little to no sense to me...

If you're already on a compatible mobo and therefore most likely have a 3600, the performance increase does not justify the cost. At all. This is coming from someone with a 3600.

If you're not already on an AM4 compatible mobo, you can buy a 10600K today for less. Literally. At Spanish e-tailer PcComponentes (largest Pc component store in Spain atm) the 10600K is 254€, and you can bet your ass the 3600X will come in at 300€.

 

Similar story for the 5800X, but even worse?  It's gonna get cannibalized by the already existing 3900X if you need more cores on the cheap, the new 5900X if you can afford it (50% more cores for 22% higher price? and with slightly better boosting? no brainer if the wallet is willing), the 10850K if you can't quite pay 550€ or even the 10700K if you just want 8 cores. And the 3700X, 3800X and 3800XT, of course!

Just... Who is this CPU for?!

[Blademaster91]

4 minutes ago, JuztBe said:

What if new line was named 5000 ST? Then comparison to any older gen products wouldn't be fair?

If it's the naming that replaces the X-skus then I'd compare it to the Zen 2 cpu in the same numbering tier, that might not make sense but I would compare the product in the same tier.

A lot of people defended Nvidia RTX 30 series pricing even though pricing has gone up since the 10 series.

 

[JuztBe]

3 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

If it's the naming that replaces the X-skus then I'd compare it to the Zen 2 cpu in the same numbering tier, that might not make sense but I would compare the product in the same tier.

A lot of people defended Nvidia RTX 30 series pricing even though pricing has gone up since the 10 series.

 

Difference is that RTX 3000 series has better price/performance ratio even with higher prices (not that I like those price hikes).

This AMD part does not have better price/performance ratio.

 

And heck, Nvidia's 2000 series were shat on, when it offered worse or same price/performance ratio. 

[Blademaster91]

2 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

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

A 3800xt isn't worth the price over the 3700X, unless you can find a 3800xt for only a bit more. And a Zen 2xxx cpu is still very good.

I was thinking of getting a 5900X, but i'll at least wait for thorough reviews and benchmarks. 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

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"...

A few complaints of Intel pricing being too high followed by most people defending Intel because they have the best performance in 1080p gaming, or overclocking even though most people never overclock their cpu.

And Nvidia did raise prices, they just moved the product stack around and called the flagship product a titan to make it look like you're getting a good value, Nvidia pricing has gone up since the 10 series lol.

[LAwLz]

21 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Comparing the 3xxx X to 5xxx X cpu is the only fair comparison

No it isn't.

That's an arbitrary rule you put up based on product names for some reason.

Comparing what can be bought today vs what was announced is the only fair comparison.

 

Otherwise I might as well say Intel has the best processors, and you're not allowed to compare them to AMD products because those products doesn't start with i3, i5 or i7 in their names.

 

 

23 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

If you don't care about the 20% more performance then yeah Zen 2 is a better value

This is the only thing you have said that I agree with.

 

23 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

unless you want every extra FPS it's not worth upgrading if you already have a Zen 2 cpu.

This isn't about people upgrading from a Zen 2 CPU to a Zen 3 CPU. It's about people who were thinking of upgrading from whatever, to a new system.

For example my friend who has a 2600K and want to upgrade. I won't recommend any Zen 3 products to him because the 3600 provides far better value (assuming AMD's benchmarks are reliable). That's the problem here. The problem is that I can't recommend pretty much any Zen 3 product because the Zen 2 ones are better buys for most people.

 

 

24 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Also it seems people are comparing prices of 3600 now, not when it was launched.

I think you should do a tiny bit of research before jumping in to defend AMD.

The 3600 launched for 199 dollars. It has since then been on sale for far lower from time to time. But like with all fair comparisons, we are comparing it with its current pricing which is 199. That's what it launched at, and it's what it costs today. If I wanted to be unfair and for some reason compare it with other pricing I could say the 3600 was 180 or 160 dollar CPU because it was possible to buy that chip at that price from Amazon at some point in time. But that's called cherry picking.

If we instead look at things objectively and look at today's pricing then the new 6 core CPU is "only" 50% more expensive.

 

 

 

29 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

5600X also won't cost as much as it does on launch 1 or 2 years down the line... But it'll still have the same 20% IPC boost...

And now you're speculating on future prices or future products.

How about we stick with today's prices and today's products? Otherwise I might as well say Zen 3 is a terrible architecture because by the year 2025 Intel might have something beating it in price and performance. But what the future hold is irrelevant to people looking at buying a computer today.

[RejZoR]

How about if everyone stops trating AMD like a charity? Everyone can hike prices when they release better products, but god forbid AMD asks for aa higher price for their best products ever. Not only that, they are beating Intel's best. This isn't me defending AMD. This is me explaining you basic business.

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour 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.

 

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. 

What you call mental gymnastics and "clever" math (inflation isn't a trick) is just some additional fact-based perspective. It doesn't mean that your belief that the price increase is too much isn't unfounded. But comparing the new lineup prices to the immediately-prior lineup's prices isn't the only useful way to look at things.

 

And just because prices were pretty low for the previous two generations doesn't mean that's where they naturally should be - without additional information, it doesn't confirm anything about proper pricing. Since Zen 1 cost even more than Zen 3, and Zen+ and Zen 2's pricing are the uncommon outliers in CPU pricing, it is a logical hypothesis that AMD's internal plan might have all along been to subsidize the Zen+ and Zen 2 series to undercut Intel to grow their market share rapidly, before capitalizing on their increased market share such as with Zen 3. It's possible that where things are at right now was a part of the reason for Zen 2's lower prices.

 

That's speculation, of course - just as is assuming that this price increase isn't without a sensible explanation.

 

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

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.

I don't have much of an opinion on how much the CPUs should cost, and I'd rather be able to get more performance at a lower cost. But I notice that the Zen 3 prices don't feature an extreme jump in price, that they are still a bit cheaper than AMD's pricing 3.5 years ago (which I see as notable), and they're perhaps marginally cheaper than Intel's pricing while offering a bit more performance.

 

That doesn't all add-up to an obvious all-around abusive move by AMD. And it's certainly not resembling Nvidia's price-hike on their graphics cards from their 1000 to 2000 series ($249 -> $349 for the X060; $379 -> $499 for the X070; $599 -> $699 for the X080) - which Nvidia did while already charging the most for their cards.

[LAwLz]

7 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

How about if everyone stops trating AMD like a charity? Everyone can hike prices when they release better products, but god forbid AMD asks for aa higher price for their best products ever. Not only that, they are beating Intel's best. This isn't me defending AMD. This is me explaining you basic business.

Of course. But then let's also stop treating AMD like they are everyone's best bro and only looking out for the people.

They are a mega corporation that want as much money as possible. Of course they will raise prices if they can. But let's stop with all the mental gymnastics to someone try and make these new products look better than they are.

 

Also, let's stop going "well it's just good business" when one company try to make more money, while at the same time going "company X and Y are so greedy! They are bad companies!" when someone else does it.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

But comparing the new lineup prices to the immediately-prior lineup's prices isn't the only useful way to look at things.

Yes it is. It is the only useful way to look at things for you and me as consumers to look at things when deciding which products to buy.

You might have a point if you're a board member or someone involved in the financial and economical side of AMD. But if you're like me and only care about how good their products are and how much they cost because I want to be able to recommend products to people asking "which CPU should I buy" then the facts I pointed out are the ONLY releventant facts.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

That's speculation, of course - just as is assuming that this price increase isn't without a sensible explanation.

I think thee sensible explanation to the price increase, and the lack of a non-X SKU is sensible.

AMD wants to make more money because they are a "greedy" business and not your friend. Simple as that.

 

 

5 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

and they're perhaps marginally cheaper than Intel's pricing while offering a bit more.

If we're only looking at core count and pricing then AMD's products are more expensive.

It seems like Intel and AMD have switched places now.

AMD is the expensive but high performing option.

Intel is the cheaper but with worse performance option.

 

I suspect that is something that will take time for people to get accustom to though. This whole idea that "Intel = expensive. AMD = cheap" seems very ingrained into peoples' minds.

[Blademaster91]

48 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No it isn't.

That's an arbitrary rule you put up based on product names for some reason.

Comparing what can be bought today vs what was announced is the only fair comparison.

Then you're going to act as if the 3600X doesn't exist?

The only thing that can be compared is pricing, and how the product lineup compares, until we have benchmarks to see if the another 20% performance improvement might be worth another $50-100 to someone.

48 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Otherwise I might as well say Intel has the best processors, and you're not allowed to compare them to AMD products because those products doesn't start with i3, i5 or i7 in their names.

I don't see the correlation here.

48 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

This isn't about people upgrading from a Zen 2 CPU to a Zen 3 CPU. It's about people who were thinking of upgrading from whatever, to a new system.

For example my friend who has a 2600K and want to upgrade. I won't recommend any Zen 3 products to him because the 3600 provides far better value (assuming AMD's benchmarks are reliable). That's the problem here. The problem is that I can't recommend pretty much any Zen 3 product because the Zen 2 ones are better buys for most people.

It really depends what someone is going to do with their new system, I don't like the price increase but I'd definitely value a 20% improvement.

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If we're only looking at core count and pricing then AMD's products are more expensive.

It seems like Intel and AMD have switched places now.

AMD is the expensive but high performing option.

Intel is the cheaper but with worse performance option.

 

I suspect that is something that will take time for people to get accustom to though. This whole idea that "Intel = expensive. AMD = cheap" seems very ingrained into peoples' minds.

I agree most people will think it's unusual that AMD is the more expensive option, now that AMD might be the faster option with more features over Intel I could only see AMD lowering prices if they realize Zen 3 isn't selling well.

[RejZoR]

18 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Of course. But then let's also stop treating AMD like they are everyone's best bro and only looking out for the people.

They are a mega corporation that want as much money as possible. Of course they will raise prices if they can. But let's stop with all the mental gymnastics to someone try and make these new products look better than they are.

 

Also, let's stop going "well it's just good business" when one company try to make more money, while at the same time going "company X and Y are so greedy! They are bad companies!" when someone else does it.

Excuse me, what?! When Intel was best of the best they could ask 3000€ for Core i3 and everyone was like "here is 3000€!!!!". When AMD becomes best of the best, suddenly everyone goes like, but why is this so expensive?! You people are weird. No one asked to treat AMD as best friend, but my god you all behave like you're buying tech stuff for the first time in your life.

 

If AMD is going to get past Intel in every segment and kept the crown, expect them to have same or even higher prices. It's how market and market leadership works. It's not a new thing. It's been like this since forever.

 

Also people are forgetting one thing. Stacking bunch of half working chiplets is cheap. AMD is now stacking 8 core CCX complexes. We're coming to a point where CCX are becoming as big as monolithic CPU's were in their entirety. It'll still be cheaper than a 16c/32t monolithic chip, but that's essentially two 9900K stacked on one die. Price will go up and people should understand that.

[Rauten]

4 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Also people are forgetting one thing. Stacking bunch of half working chiplets is cheap. AMD is now stacking 8 core CCX complexes. We're coming to a point where CCX are becoming as big as monolithic CPU's were in their entirety. It'll still be cheaper than a 16c/32t monolithic chip, but that's essentially two 9900K stacked on one die. Price will go up and people should understand that.

Hrm...

 

What if the 5800X is the new 3300X?

What I mean is, maybe they are charging such a ridiculous price for the 5800X because it's one full powerful CCX, with the advantages that we already know come with that, and later down the line the 5700/X will be 2 CCXs with 4 cores each.

I mean, one has to  assume AMD will want to do SOMETHING with the CCX that can't make the cut to at least 5600X status.

 

And on the same train of thought, will the 5600X be a single CCX? or 2 3-core CCXs slapped together? Or would that be the 5600 non X?

Haven't watched the actual presentation, did they say anything about what the "layout" of the CCXs will be on the 5800X and 5600X?

[porina]

13 minutes ago, Rauten said:

And on the same train of thought, will the 5600X be a single CCX? or 2 3-core CCXs slapped together? Or would that be the 5600 non X?

Haven't watched the actual presentation, did they say anything about what the "layout" of the CCXs will be on the 5800X and 5600X?

Logically the 6 and 8 core Zen 3 parts will be single CCD. That's the only way they get the unified L3 cache. If they use two CCDs with 3 cores each, you have fragmented L3 again like Zen 2. More than 8 core parts will still have split L3 between the CCDs.

 

 

Anyway, only popped in on this thread again to say AMD have a chipset - CPU compatibility table at the bottom of this page: https://www.amd.com/en/chipsets/a520

[lllKUNG_FUlll]

Can someone answer....

 

It seems so much talk centers around the newly announced 5900X. But AMD themselves rightly state the 5950X is even better than the 5900X and significantly so.

 

And since both are better than the numerous i9 -10900 variants (and certainly not nearly as expensive as the better of the priciest of the them $460-$1300) - why does AMD's 5900X get the most discussion?

 

Why isn't the 5950X considered the only flagship given how great it is and cheaper than Intel's best?

Or am I mistaken?

[Rauten]

9 minutes ago, lllKUNG_FUlll said:

Can someone answer....

 

It seems so much talk centers around the newly announced 5900X. But AMD themselves rightly state the 5950X is even better than the 5900X and significantly so.

 

And since both are better than the numerous i9 -10900 variants (and certainly not nearly as expensive as the better of the priciest of the them $460-$1300) - why does AMD's 5900X get the most discussion?

 

Why isn't the 5950X considered the only flagship given how great it is and cheaper than Intel's best?

Or am I mistaken?

I suppose it's because 550$/€ is expensive but still kinda doable for many mortals, so there are a lot of people (to a degree, myself included) mulling it over.

 

800$/€ is getting into "LOL NOPE" territory. Sure it's gonna be better, but most people won't be willing to spend the moolah it takes to buy it.
Same thing happened with the 3900X and 3950X, really. 3950X is better, but the 3900X is the one that became the star of the show.

 

Edited to add the quote.

[lllKUNG_FUlll]

8 minutes ago, Rauten said:

I suppose it's because 550$/€ is expensive but still kinda doable for many mortals, so there are a lot of people (to a degree, myself included) mulling it over.

 

800$/€ is getting into "LOL NOPE" territory. Sure it's gonna be better, but most people won't be willing to spend the moolah it takes to buy it.
Same thing happened with the 3900X and 3950X, really. 3950X is better, but the 3900X is the one that became the star of the show.

 

Edited to add the quote.

 

That's what I'm led to believe. Sadly I'm one of those in the financial city rat/woodland possum territory who's like "Nice! Now hopefully I can get some good scraps!!!". So folks like me wait for the entry level offerings

 

And that's fine. But it's still nice appreciating what's best out there, same as celebrating a moon landing knowing I'll never set foot on the place. 

 

Just wondered why they didn't announce straight away the 5950X in their Oct. 8th video.

Like, if I had a fleet of race cars, I'd be talking about my best car 1st. 

 

[RejZoR]

5950X is for people who buy RTX 3090. The uplift is not that significant, but it is enough for people who do no compromises and want 5fps more than the rest of normies regardless of price.

[GoodBytes]

I have a fantastic idea! Of course it is fantastic, as it is my idea. All my ideas are fantastic!

 

Those who are not happy with the price hike, such as myself, how about you... just wait...

AMD CPUs seems to drop in price quite fast from release. (ie: by March expect the price to lower).

To me, it is clear that AMD just wants to maximize profits as they know they have the best chip. Funny enough, their CPUs prices are the same as Intel now.

 

What I'll say is: I am happy for AMD because:

• They have grown up in terms of marketing their stuff (we will see with their GPUs, but so far with their new CPUs presentation: no bashing Intel, no scratching the bucket for features (like the promise AM4 socket), their charts, while still using unclear charts like the rest of the industry, they are not crazy scaled to show something big when its not, or obviously stretch the truth, or just handicap in some way the competitor system while doing benchmarks to show how better their chip is (assuming the footnotes shown are true).
• They deserve to increase their profits to save money for a cloudy day. For waking up Intel, they deserve this win.
• Hopefully, this increase of saving will allow the company to be able to invest in their GPU department to deliver better quality drivers and better GPUs in the future.

That said:

• AMD isn't a person (or an animal) to be proud about. It is a company, and this is business. You should have not an emotional attachment. Companies have none when they do business decisions, let alone have one for its employees.
• They should have shut up about AM4 socket, or limit their claims to next gen CPU only. I don't think it helped their sales numbers what they said initially. And I think, it hurt the possible performance benefits of the Zen 3 CPU due to the socket limitation. If AMD would be allowed to change their socket, I strongly believe that Zen 3 would have been an even better chip. But those improvements will have to sadly wait for AM5. So while AMD fan rejoice for whatever reason, they hurt themselves from enjoy a better chip as they are forcing AMD to stick to what they said, and use the, now, inadequate AM4 socket... which, honestly, would have sold at the same price regardless. If you have the money to upgrade your CPU every year, you have the money for a new motherboard. Hopefully, they won't promise anything for AM5 socket, this time around. If they push that socket forward, then great, if they need to change, then sure, if it means a better chip. That said, I understand AMD fans... Intel have released new CPU with an extra ground pin, just to force people to a new motherboard/chipset.
• AMD process and operational cost is much less than Intel's. They are a smaller company, and their new chiplet design has help AMD reduce the cost of their chips significantly by reducing waste (which is also good for the environment, sure not much, but anything that helps, helps). This is not being translated into Zen 3 pricing.
• R&D of the Zen 3 seems to be minimal. No groundbreaking advancements. We all knew the possible improvement since Zen2 was released, and we aren't CPU engineers. So it doesn't justify the price increase. It didn't cost more to make either. TSMC got better yields.
• No CPU cooler in the box for 105W TDP variant, and the cheaper non-RGB cooler variant that they have for the 65W version. Price is the same. So the company save an additional 20-30$. While those buying the 105W TDP CPU won't loose sleep at night for the missing cooler, the CPU is still sold not only at the same price, but higher one.
• As a consumer, technology advancements should lead to price reduction.

 

[hollyh88]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

A 3800xt isn't worth the price over the 3700X, unless you can find a 3800xt for only a bit more. And a Zen 2xxx cpu is still very good.

I was thinking of getting a 5900X, but i'll at least wait for thorough reviews and benchmarks.

I mean, yeah currently the 3700x is like 50 bucks cheaper. Which is nice. And me with my 2600x really ain't helping my gaming setup. So a cpu that wouldnt hold back my GPU would be nice. But even if I waited for benchmarks I really dont see my opinion changing.

 

In my opinion they should have released a

6 core 5600x at 260 ish

8 core 5700x at 330 ish

10 core 5800x at 400 - 420ish

12 core 5900x is good value. Cant argue with it. 

 

But they didnt. They jacked up the prices and I admit I'm salty

Especially because a 6 core is just not good to buy new anymore in 2020. 8 cores is the new main. And yeah I know the 3300x is a beast of a cpu but play battlefield on it and it's a stuttering mess. 

 

Guess my only option is to wait for price drops or get the 3700x now and hope I get a new model that is a very good bin. Since newer made models are usually better overclockers. Or bite it and wait another year orso for the new socket but that's gonna cost even more. Since I'll have to upgrade my ram my cpu my cooler and my motherboard then with am5. Instead of simply a cpu swap now since my board can support it. And has the bios already downloaded for it.