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

[ewitte]

6 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think you're arguing against yourself right now.

When it's a company you like, like AMD, then all of a sudden you think people should be buying from the little (AMD) guy because they "need the money".

But when I point out that you don't always buy from the "little guy" you get defensive and start justifying your purchases by talking about features, performance and price, which is exactly what I said should dictate your purchases.

I need it more than AMD or Intel...

[spartaman64]

8 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

snip

i said they are my bro "right now" didnt I? and i said its because they are forcing intel to be more competitive so where in that did you get that im blindly thinking amd is my friend. im saying the opposite im saying they are my friend because they are helping consumers right now. and no i want amd to crush intel and nvidia right now so they can both be competitive in the long term

 

and when did i say anything about other people or only buying from the little guy or anything about buying at all

im just saying you should want the little guy to do well even if it means a competitiveness disparity in the short term because its better for competitiveness in the long term

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

im saying they are my friend because they are helping consumers right now.

But at the same time you say it is good that they are raising prices so that they make more money and consumers have to pay more...

That doesn't sound like "helping consumers". That sounds like helping themselves at the expensive of consumers.

[spartaman64]

Just now, LAwLz said:

But at the same time you say it is good that they are raising prices so that they make more money and consumers have to pay more...

That doesn't sound like "helping consumers". That sounds like helping themselves at the expensive of consumers.

like i said it helps consumers in the long term because if they dont get more cash for r&d intel is just going to wake back up and crush them again and we are back to the 7nm++++++++++ and be stuck on the same core count.

 

[TOMPPIX]

11 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

like i said it helps consumers in the long term because if they dont get more cash for r&d intel is just going to wake back up and crush them again and we are back to the 7nm++++++++++ and be stuck on the same core count.

 

They have enough cash for r&d already. They didn't win just because of their cash flow. They won because they were smart.

[RejZoR]

8 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

like i said it helps consumers in the long term because if they dont get more cash for r&d intel is just going to wake back up and crush them again and we are back to the 7nm++++++++++ and be stuck on the same core count.

 

AMD is not stopping and you can be assured they have longer term plans for Ryzen. What I worry is how far long term their plans go. We're coming to a point where CCX chiplets are becoming as big as single monolithic chips from few years ago, slowly eroding away the cost saving point of tiny chiplets. They'll have to figure out a way to stack moderately sized chiplets together without the Infinity Fabric penalty. I don't know how they'll solve it, but I hope they have a plan. Coz current method won't work forever.

[Blademaster91]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't pretend like the 3600X doesn't exist. But since people aren't really buying the 3600X I don't see why we should compare the 4600X vs the 3600X.

If AMD had made the 3600X a 600 dollar CPU would you be going "oh look at how great value the 5600X is! The old one was 600 dollars so this is great!"?

 

By the way, the 3600X costs 210 dollars, so even IF we for some God knows why reason were to compare the 5600X to only the 3600X and pretended like the 3600 didn't exist, it would still be 210 vs 300 dollars, which is a 43% price increase for ~20% performance increase. Aka, a bad deal that should not be recommended.

It doesn't matter what people are buying, I'm comparing X cpu that is out now to the 3000 series X cpu.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You're saying the 5600X can only be compared against the 3600X and we should pretend like the 3600 doesn't exist because "we can only compare products which has X in their names or else its unfair".

I tried to make an analogy by saying "we can only compare an i7 with products that also have i7 in their names when determining if they are good value or not"

So you'd compare the i7 K sku to the i7 K sku, not compare it to the non K and go but this non K cpu is cheaper the one replacing it is an awful value.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I don't agree in this particular segment of the market.

The 3600 is already more than enough for what pretty much everyone needs. You don't actually need more performance than that except in very rare scenarios. In those scenarios where you are willing to sacrifice price to performance for overall higher performance beyond what most people need, then I think it is better to just get a higher tier product like an 8 core CPU.

 

You can get a 3700X for the same price as the 5600X.

For the same money you get 2 extra cores.

 

Want even more performance? Get the 3900X. It has 12 cores and is cheaper than the 8 core Ryzen 5800X.

 

The Ryzen 5000 products announced are simply bad in terms of price to performance. You're paying a hefty price premium for higher IPC when you can get more than enough single core performance but better multicore performance for less money by going with Ryzen 3000.

Does that sound familiar by the way? Expensive single core performance vs cheaper and better multicore performance? 

Except AMD got tons of criticism for being just "good enough". The 20% performance increase puts AMD at least on par with Intel, and i'm sure those gaming at high refresh rates will pick Ryzen 5000.

Expensive single core performance? It's a $50 difference and still cheaper than an Intel system, while getting more features. You don't need more cores in most instances either, unless you want more cores to say you have more.

I don't know why people are panicking and assuming there won't be non-X Ryzen 5000 cpu's, other than having to have it right now, even though AMD might announce it after Ryzen 5000 goes on sale November 5th.

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Here is what I think will happen:

1) Zen 3 sells well despite Zen 2 being a better buy for like 90% of all people, and AMD keeps their expensive prices.

2) Zen 3 doesn't sell well because people just keep buying Zen 2 products. If that happens I think AMD will just stop making Zen 2 products and force everyone to buy Zen 3 products.

3) Intel makes a miraculous and very unlikely comeback and forces prices to go down in the same way AMD did with Zen 1.

 

My best is on option 2, sadly.

Option 2 seems the most likely, because AMD doesn't have enough capacity with TSMC to be producing both Zen 2 and Zen 3, and from a cost standpoint it doesn't make much sense to be producing both.

[Blademaster91]

16 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

like i said it helps consumers in the long term because if they dont get more cash for r&d intel is just going to wake back up and crush them again and we are back to the 7nm++++++++++ and be stuck on the same core count.

 

Yeah AMD has done more for the consumer than Intel has since Skylake, after Ryzen Intel woke up and realized they need to do more than keep selling 4c/8t and change the socket at every refresh. I want both companies to compete, but AMD crushing Intel for a while is nice, because Intel has put themselves in that mess of getting stuck on 14nm for way too long.

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

10900k is 650USD on Amazon. 

5900x is 550USD.

 

It beats the competition in basically everything, still 100USD cheaper and people are complaining... Not to mention the cheaper mobos.

 

I don't really get it.

The Ryzen 5000 series is not really competing against Intel. It's competing against the Ryzen 3000 series.

The processor the 5900X is suppose to replace, the 3900X, is 430 dollars. So the 5900X has worse price to performance than the 3900X.

 

New generations of products usually has better price to performance than the old ones. In this case the new products are actually worse value.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

10900k is 650USD on Amazon. 

5900x is 550USD.

 

It beats the competition in basically everything, still 100USD cheaper and people are complaining... Not to mention the cheaper mobos.

 

I don't really get it.

But why are you choosing to compare it to specifically the X CPUs, which by the way are 90% dollars cheaper in the case of the 3600X vs the 5600X?

Why are you pretending like the 3600 doesn't exist?

 

 

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Except AMD got tons of criticism for being just "good enough". The 20% performance increase puts AMD at least on par with Intel, and i'm sure those gaming at high refresh rates will pick Ryzen 5000.

Maybe they got criticism by idiots. I certainly didn't criticize them for it.

 

10 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Expensive single core performance? It's a $50 difference and still cheaper than an Intel system, while getting more features. You don't need more cores in most instances either, unless you want more cores to say you have more.

Please, just stop. I am tired of telling you that you are wrong only to have you cite the wrong numbers over and over again.

1) It's not a 50 dollar difference. It's a 90 or 100 dollar difference depending on if you compare the 3600 or the 3600X.

2) It isn't cheaper than Intel processors.

3) "You don't need more cores" was true back when Intel was only releasing quad cores too. Hell, I'd say that most people don't even need more than a quad core today. But the number of cores are kind of irrelevant. What matters is performance, price and features.

 

25 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Expensive single core performance? It's a $50 difference and still cheaper than an Intel system, while getting more features. You don't need more cores in most instances either, unless you want more cores to say you have more.

Because we can only make judgements on products that have actually been released or announced. What AMD MIGHT release sometime in the FUTURE is kind of irrelevant for people looking to upgrade their computers in the near future.

[RejZoR]

Don't like the new Zen 3 processors? Then buy the bloody 3600 whatever. It's not that hard.

[thechinchinsong]

18 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.

You see it as extra work for the companies, I see it as a win for that tiny minority of customers. I'm sure if they stuck with their original plan, there would have been a lot more negative lasting PR than you think. The pcie 4 thing didn't really carry over that long cause Intel wasn't even on the map with pcie 4, but AM4 compatibility and motherboard combability in general was something that a lot of vocal enthusiasts in tech communities cared about. If you're a 'non-idiot' consumer, you can just buy the cpu gen that matches the motherboard gen, but you at least have the option of being an 'idiot' and read up about AM4 compatibility for your specific motherboard. 

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

New generations of products usually has better price to performance than the old ones. In this case the new products are actually worse value.

Well from Intel and Nvidia that hasn't been true for a long time, Nvidia only just now did this with the 30 series which are very hard to obtain right now. Both those companies generation after generation gave us worse price to performance, and every time I would point this out I was told that if I want more performance then I have to pay more for it.

 

In either case sometimes it does actually cost more to deliver a new generation product that has more performance to offer than the last and necessitates a price increase, sometimes it does not.

 

Factors counting against AMD are that the IOD is completely reused and unchanged, chiplet substraight and packaging process is the same, TSMC node is the same. Factors counting towards AMD increasing price are TSMC capacity is in very high demand and very expensive right now, TSMC could be honoring an existing pricing contract for Ryzen 3000 and that pricing is not one they were offering for Ryzen 5000.

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

2) It isn't cheaper than Intel processors.

3) "You don't need more cores" was true back when Intel was only releasing quad cores too. Hell, I'd say that most people don't even need more than a quad core today. But the number of cores are kind of irrelevant. What matters is performance, price and features.

Well that depends, points 2 and 3 contribute to each other or rather point 3 is a factor for point 2. AMD CPUs don't perform significantly differently across most of the SKUs so if you are a gamer and just looking for that an AMD CPU is cheaper than Intel for premium performance because you do not need to buy either the 5950X, 5900X, 3950X, 3900X etc etc to get it, you can buy 5600X, 3600X, 3600 (insert 5600 if/when it exists) and get it rather than with Intel you have to either buy the 10900K or accept a not statistically insignificant performance reduction and go with a 10700K (which is more than enough though).

 

Then for productivity workloads if you only want to match Intel performance then you can do so with AMD for cheaper.

 

It's not quite a simple as looking at the SKU options currently and stating that each price segment option costs more than Intel because that assumes that those two products actually compete with each other which may not at all be the case. The 5600X at $299 (MSRP) will be able to compete with the 10900K which retails currently for $699, and until we have actual retail pricing the 5800X and 5900X are also cheaper too. The 10700K is however $380 right now so only the 5600X would be cheaper.

 

Main point is there is nothing requiring us to compare price equivalent products to each other at all, it's actually a failure of AMD marketing to not capitalize on that more.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Both those companies generation after generation gave us worse price to performance

I think you are both talking about two different things. You are talking about how one generation gave a 50% performance increase at let's say $500, while in the following generation you only got a 30% increase at $500. While it's a decrease in generational leap, it's still more performance per dollar than any previous generation.

I think what LAwLz is trying to say is that by increasing the price of the lowest tier chip by 50%, the new generation now gives no improvement to performance per dollar what so ever, it might even be worse value. 

Let's take Nvidias worst generation in the last decade as an example, the RTX 20-series. When the 2070 released for $499, the old gen 1080 sold for around $499  at that time. The 2070 was only about 10% faster than a 1080, so the new generation only gave you an abyssmal 10% performance per dollar increase, but still a perf / $ increase.

Now for the 5600X, if we assume AMD numbers are correct, gives about 20% more performance but for a 50% increase in price over the 3600. This means that there is no perf / $ increase at all. Like none. This is abyssmal and unheard of even from Nvidia.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, gabrielcarvfer said:

If the product is not for you, then don't buy it.

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Don't like the new Zen 3 processors? Then buy the bloody 3600 whatever. It's not that hard.

Is that some type of "if you don't like it then don't watch it argument"?

Processors are a very objective thing. We can measure exactly how good they are, and we can see how much they cost. I don't understand why people have such a hard time admitting that this generation from AMD, at their current prices, is a bad product and quite frankly should not be recommended to anyone who cares about price to performance.

 

The problem is that the Ryzen 5000 series isn't just "not for me". It's not for anyone who cares about price to performance. It quite frankly can't be recommended to anyone except those saying "I don't care about price to performance. I just want the latest thing".

 

 

It's not about me "not liking" the AMD 5000 series. They are objectively bad for the price, assuming:

1) AMD's performance projections are correct or worse than their cherry picked benchmarks show (very likely).

2) They don't lower prices before the launch to be more competitive with the other processors on the market (very unlikely).

 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Well from Intel and Nvidia that hasn't been true for a long time

This is wrong. Incredibly wrong. Absolutely, 100% wrong.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Nvidia only just now did this with the 30 series which are very hard to obtain right now

If you think that then you don't understand what I am saying in my posts. Go read them again please.

 

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Both those companies generation after generation gave us worse price to performance, and every time I would point this out I was told that if I want more performance then I have to pay more for it.

No they haven't.

Every generation the performance per dollar has gone up. 

In case you don't understand what price to performance means, it means that the computational power you get for every dollar. If you get 100 FPS when you spend 100 dollars, then with the new generation you might get 110 FPS when you spend 100 dollars, or you might only need to spend 90 dollars to get 100 FPS.

 

With these new Ryzen processors, you are spending about 50% more money and only getting around 20% higher performance.

[Bombastinator]

What I am seeing is that AMD has the price/ performance leader AND the raw performance leader, but they are not the same chip.  Want price/performance buy one, want raw performance buy the other.  Me I’m more interested in price performance than raw performance

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

In either case sometimes it does actually cost more to deliver a new generation product that has more performance to offer than the last and necessitates a price increase, sometimes it does not.

 

Factors counting against AMD are that the IOD is completely reused and unchanged, chiplet substraight and packaging process is the same, TSMC node is the same. Factors counting towards AMD increasing price are TSMC capacity is in very high demand and very expensive right now, TSMC could be honoring an existing pricing contract for Ryzen 3000 and that pricing is not one they were offering for Ryzen 5000.

And me, as a customer, do not give two craps about that.

All I care about (and what you should care about) is what the product costs to us and how they perform. 

 

There can be a billion reasons why AMD raised the prices for the 5000 series but none of that should matter to you or me. The only time that matters is to investors, and if you are invested in AMD then you are clearly biased and can not be trusted to make fair and accurate judgements when it comes to AMD products, and should therefore stay out of discussions regarding them.

(Not directly pointed at you leadeater, but at everyone who talks about these things in general).

 

 

Do you agree that we consumers should not get involved in the politics and financing of these companies and instead be solely focus on "is this a good product to buy"?

I sure hope that's how people making build suggestions on this forum does at least. Pretty sure there are forum rules against shills, and recommending things based on your own financial gains surely is some violation of that rule.

[LAwLz]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

What I am seeing is that AMD has the price/ performance leader AND the raw performance leader, but they are not the same chip.  Want price/performance buy one, want raw performance buy the other.  Me I’m more interested in price performance than raw performance

Yes that is what I am trying to get people to understand, but for some reason people seem to have a hard time understanding that.

Instead of just going "yeah, this new generation isn't that good price to performance wise compared to the old one" they are doing a bunch of stupid mental gymnastics like going "you're not allowed to compare product X to product Y or Z because I said so! and when you don't do that then it's great!". Or people who can't even be bothered to look up the pricing on the old generation stuff. Just look at how many people have misquoted the pricing on the 3600X for example (it's 209 dollars). People don't even bother doing the tiniest amount of research before they open their mouths.

 

Something I would like to add though is that in terms of raw performance, the old generation beats the new one at most price points as well.

The new 6 core costs as much as the old 8 core.

The new 8 core costs as much as the old 12 core.

 

It's only when you:

1) Care more amount single threaded performance than everything else.

or

2) Have an ~800 dollar budget for your CPU

that these new processors actually become a good recommendation. So if your budget is less than ~800 dollars OR you care way more about single threaded performance than anything else then go ahead and buy these new processors. For everyone else that do not fit into those categories, the 3000 series is a way better purchase*.

 

*assuming AMD's performance projections are accurate or exaggerated.

[spartaman64]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

snip

or if you play games

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

or if you play games

Perfect example of why I don’t snip.  There are half a dozen posts this could be referring to.

[spartaman64]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Perfect example of why I don’t snip.  There are half a dozen posts this could be referring to.

also either im blind which is likely at this time of day towards the end of work or they added a point there that negated my reply. ok im not snipping from now on lol

but anyways its the last one

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, spartaman64 said:

also either im blind which is likely at this time of day towards the end of work or they added a point there that negated my reply. ok im not snipping from now on lol

but anyways its the last one

I get the impression there are a bunch of behavior conventions here that were designed for earlier iterations of the website and continue to exist through inertia.  If a reply is too long there’s a little arrow in the top corner of the quote box one can hit to close it.

[LAwLz]

11 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

or if you play games

I don't agree.

The 3600 and the 3600X is more than enough for any game you throw at it today, or in the near future.

 

I guess these new CPUs will appeal to gamers who run their games at 720p with an RTX 3090 GPU... Because in pretty much every other scenario the older 3000 series will be able to keep up and not be a bottleneck for even the highest end GPUs.

If you don't believe me just look at these benchmarks from Gamers Nexus. The 3600 is within margin of error from the best performing CPU (the 9900K) for 1% low and 0.1% low. That means throwing more CPU performance won't actually give you better performance. And that's when they were running the games at lower settings (to remove GPU bottlenecks) with an overclocked 2080 Ti as the GPU.

AKA, in the absolute worst case scenario for the CPU, even the 200 dollar Ryzen 3600 is more than capable of not being a bottleneck for the (at the time) highest end GPU when gaming.

 

 

In fact, I'd say the Ryzen 5000 is especially bad for gaming, because for gaming you want to spend as much money on the GPU as possible. CPU matters very little for gaming, as we can see in the benchmarks linked above. If you buy a Ryzen 5000 CPU over a Ryzen 3000 CPU then that means you have less money to spend on the most important gaming component, the GPU.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Perfect example of why I don’t snip.  There are half a dozen posts this could be referring to.

Or you can do what I do and remove all but the relevant part of the post.

[BabaGanuche]

Here is one question, would you sell something better in every way than your competition for less? AMD had to price their products less than Intel otherwise no one would buy them as they were inferior in at least one way. Now that they are not they do not have to price them lower. Intel has already proven people will pay those prices for that performance.

 

As consumer I would always like lower prices, but understand that companies will only price something as low as they have to. If the supply is decent and they are sold out then we know it was not too high.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I don't agree.

The 3600 and the 3600X is more than enough for any game you throw at it today, or in the near future.

 

I guess these new CPUs will appeal to gamers who run their games at 720p with an RTX 3090 GPU... Because in pretty much every other scenario the older 3000 series will be able to keep up and not be a bottleneck for even the highest end GPUs.

If you don't believe me just look at these benchmarks from Gamers Nexus. The 3600 is within margin of error from the best performing CPU (the 9900K) for 1% low and 0.1% low. That means throwing more CPU performance won't actually give you better performance. And that's when they were running the games at lower settings (to remove GPU bottlenecks) with an overclocked 2080 Ti as the GPU.

AKA, in the absolute worst case scenario for the CPU, even the 200 dollar Ryzen 3600 is more than capable of not being a bottleneck for the (at the time) highest end GPU when gaming.

 

 

In fact, I'd say the Ryzen 5000 is especially bad for gaming, because for gaming you want to spend as much money on the GPU as possible. CPU matters very little for gaming, as we can see in the benchmarks linked above. If you buy a Ryzen 5000 CPU over a Ryzen 3000 CPU then that means you have less money to spend on the most important gaming component, the GPU.

 

 

Or you can do what I do and remove all but the relevant part of the post.

Still creates problems.  Less often but it’s happened.  It relies on the user to know what was relevant which isn’t reliably perfect, and it breaks the referral link.  

[Bombastinator]

30 minutes ago, BabaGanuche said:

Here is one question, would you sell something better in every way than your competition for less? AMD had to price their products less than Intel otherwise no one would buy them as they were inferior in at least one way. Now that they are not they do not have to price them lower. Intel has already proven people will pay those prices for that performance.

 

As consumer I would always like lower prices, but understand that companies will only price something as low as they have to. If the supply is decent and they are sold out then we know it was not too high.

If it costs more it’s not better in every way.

Edited October 9, 2020 by Bombastinator