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

[porina]

1 hour ago, GoodBytes said:

If we compare the 5800X with the 5600X, we can see that the 5800X is a 8 core CPU, and the 5600X is a 6 core, but despite this, the 6 core has the full L3 cache of the 5800X, minus 1 MB. That 1MB less, is probably to give them room to encounter for the CCX which might have <=1MB of its L3 cache faulty. They can cut the space out, where ever it is on the memory segment of the chip, and sold as the 5600X. We can also see that the speed is 100MHz less. This is probably done on purpose, just to have a tier separation, or/and give them more room to pick faulty chip that would run super stable if they are 100MHz less.

AMD have been stating total L2+L3 cache quantities, since they don't duplicate data between them like Intel mainstream desktop CPUs do. That 1MB difference is from having 2 fewer cores, each core would have attached 0.5MB of L2 cache. It is still full L3 cache.

 

[GoodBytes]

22 hours ago, porina said:

AMD have been stating total L2+L3 cache quantities, since they don't duplicate data between them like Intel mainstream desktop CPUs do. That 1MB difference is from having 2 fewer cores, each core would have attached 0.5MB of L2 cache. It is still full L3 cache.

 

Thank you for the correction, I have corrected my post.

[LAwLz]

On 10/11/2020 at 4:18 AM, leadeater said:

True, also due to those actually having market competition too. Geforce 16 series was also introduced as well because of how badly value 20 series was in general. The problem is however the pricing you could actually buy these at, if you look at reviews and MSRP it looks a lot better than it actually was. For someone actually looking to buy the majority of the time the listed prices were driving down that performance per dollar, and for a generation where it was borderline increase of that it was more often below than above.

Again, you can't blame Nvidia for supply issues causing the retail price to go higher.

Nvidia = Designed and price a product to be better than last gen, but Corona screwed the supply chain over causing retailers to increase prices making it bad value.

AMD = Designed and price a product to be worse than last gen, and then Corona might increase prices even further but that remains to be seen.

 

There is a very big difference between a company going "we want this product to be better value than our previous product" but then outside circumstances changing that, and a company deliberately reducing value for consumers for their own personal gains.

 

You're also arguing against yourself now, by saying the 16 series were introduced to increase price to performance (value) over the 20 series, despite you saying the value wasn't better for several generations.

 

 

On 10/11/2020 at 4:18 AM, leadeater said:

Why, it's very much what this forum cares about. There is zero reason for a customer looking to buy a CPU for gaming to care at all the performance per dollar of say the 9900K is better than the 8700K is for Blender, it is for that customer irrelevant. And lets not also ignore the primary target for those CPUs that the marketing is very much targeted towards, gamers.

You know very well that this forum and other customers do not think this way.

How often have you heard Linus or other people on this forum say it is worth taking a hit to gaming performance for better multithreaded performance? It has constantly been said.

I can probably bring up 100 build suggestion threads where people do not recommend Intel CPUs with superior gaming performance to people saying they want to game on their PCs.

People have been recommending AMD CPUs not because they are the best at gaming, but because taking a small hit in gaming performance is worth it if it means other tasks become better by a significant margin.

If gaming was the only thing that mattered, like you say, then Intel processors would have been the most highly recommended CPUs up until Ryzen 5000 is released, because Intel have had the performance crown in gaming up until now. But you know just as well as I that AMD have been the de facto recommendation.

Have you noticed how often Cinebench has been used as a benchmark on this forum to say AMD is better than Intel? Cinebench is about as far from gaming you can get, and yet people put a ton of importance on that when recommending CPUs.

Also, gamers do not need good CPUs. CPU is very irrelevant to gaming. Like I showed earlier, even a 200 dollar CPU is more than enough to be within margin of error of a 1000 dollar CPU for gaming. It's just not important, except in a handful of games.

If you are going to game, buying a cheap CPU and an expensive GPU is far better than buying an expensive CPU and a cheaper GPU.

The AMD 5000 series is especially bad for gamers when compared to the AMD 3000 series because it steals valuable dollars from the GPU budget.

 

 

 

On 10/11/2020 at 4:18 AM, leadeater said:

However if you are not a current Ryzen system owner or 300 series owner you really only have two options that actually make sense. The first is do not buy anything and wait for more Ryzen 5000 products to be announced or if you need to purchase now for what ever reason then Ryzen 5000 purchase simply does make the most sense. It does not make sense to buy in to the end of life of a platform and while doing so buy a generation old product, you are never going to upgrade that CPU. The difference in total system cost doing so is minimal and unless you plan to upgrade as soon as Ryzen 6000 comes out that 5000 will be a better purchase later when it will matter.

I don't get what you're talking about. The way I see it, people really should only upgrade their computers when they actually need to upgrade them. I get that a lot of people just like wasting money and will buy the latest for the purpose of flushing money down the toilet and bragging rights, but trying to apply logic to those people is impossible so let's ignore them.

So who is this product for exactly?

If you're a Ryzen 3000 owner then if you ask me, you shouldn't upgrade your PC. If you are a Ryzen 3000 owner and want to upgrade your PC then you're either terrible with money or you didn't do enough research when you bought your current processor and should probably think things through before making the same mistake again.

 

If you have a processor older than Ryzen 3000 or for some reason really need an upgrade (maybe your CPU broke) then you might not have time to wait for new products to get announced. If you can wait then clearly "way longer and you get a better product" is true. You should always wait for as long as possible before upgrading anything IMO.

 

But that only really leaves one group of people left that should upgrade their computers. Those people who can't wait and really need a new processor now. Those are in my opinion pretty much the only people who should upgrade their computer (outside of business users).

That's the group of people I am arguing to and for. Those people are interested in buying a computer today or in a few weeks at most. Those people do not have the option to wait and hope that AMD will launch cheaper 5000 series chips sometime in the unforeseeable future so they have to evaluate their options based on products that actually exist. But isn't that the rational thing to do anyway? Actually compare existing products vs other existing products?

Why does Ryzen 5000 make sense to those people? You get less performance per dollar if you get the Ryzen 5000 series than if you get the Ryzen 3000 series.

Why do you think it makes sense to spend more money than you need and get less value for your dollars?

 

 

On 10/11/2020 at 4:18 AM, leadeater said:

I will not pass judgement when I do not have the information on architecture improvements and I do not have independent reviews.

If you don't make judgement then why do you make statements like the 5000 series being a better buy than the 3000 series? Seems like you have made a judgement when you said this:

On 10/11/2020 at 4:18 AM, leadeater said:

if you need to purchase now for what ever reason then Ryzen 5000 purchase simply does make the most sense.

 

 

On 10/11/2020 at 4:18 AM, leadeater said:

So far only significantly so for the 5600X and does it not seem odd to declare the entire generation a dud off of a single SKU?

No it's across the board.

 

On 10/11/2020 at 4:18 AM, leadeater said:

5950X: ~7% increase for a claimed performance gain greater than this

5900X: ~10% increase for a claimed performance gain greater than this (3900 is OEM only)

5800X: ~13% increase (3800X) or 37% increase (3700X), nobody should be buying the 3800X so we'll go with the 3700X here. Most of AMD's comparisons for this one were with the 10700K but I'll go with value reduction on this one compared to what people were actually buying, the 3700X.

5600X: ~20% or 50% increase, both most likely a value reduction, one certainly.

Where are you getting these numbers from?

Which prices are you using and which products are you comparing them against?

 

*All numbers below are assuming a 20% IPC increase which is currently unproven and might be a best case scenario, never trust first party benchmarks*

 

The 5950X stands on its own because it's the top of the line. People buying this don't care about price.

 

The 5900X ($550) is competing against the 3900X ($430).

That's a 28% price increase and we can expect roughly 20% higher performance. This product has worse price:performance ratio.

 

The 5800X ($450) can be compared against the 3900X ($430) because they are both in the same price range (this is how consumers shop, despite what some marketing team might want you to think)

That's a 5% price increase and we can expect the 3900X to outperform the 5800X in terms of raw performance by about 25%.

So you're paying 5% more, for 20% lower performance.

 

The 5800X ($450) can also be compared against the 3800X ($330).

In this case the price increase is 36% but the expected performance increase is only 20%. So again, way worse value.

 

The 5600X ($300) can be compared against the 3600 ($200).

In this case it's pretty clear that the 50% higher price of the 5000 series, for the estimated 20% performance increase is a bad deal. Some people have (for some reason) compared the 5600X against the 3600X but since they have made no research before opening their mouths they have incorrectly assumed the 3600X costs 250 dollars and not the 310 dollars it is actually selling for. The value of the 5600X goes up slightly if you compare it to the 3600X but that's only because the 3600X is strictly a worse deal than the 3600 non-X (or at least used to be).

 

 

So as we can see, the 5000 series reduces value all across the board. The only area where it might improve is at the top end, but people buying 800 dollar CPUs for a consumer platform usually don't care about value.

 

 

On 10/11/2020 at 4:18 AM, leadeater said:

Seems to me it's more accurate to say the 5600X is a worse value than the previous generation, not the entire 5000 series. But who really knows, I don't have reviews yet to look at.

If we assume AMD are to be trusted (they aren't but it's the best we got) in their 20% IPC increase then we can fairly easily calculate that the 5900X, 5800X and 5600X are all bad value compared to the CPUs we have been able to buy for over a year now, namely the 3000 series.

Clock speeds and core counts have not changed dramatically between the 3000 and 5000 series (new series has slightly lower base clocks and slightly higher turbo), and things like the memory interface hasn't changed either so we can't really expect anything more than the 19% IPC number AMD has given us. That 19% number should also be taken with a grain of salt since it is most likely the number AMD got in their best case scenario and that might not be an accurate representation of real world performance. 

[RejZoR]

You all complaining about value are... excuse my french, stupid. Why would they charge the same as old series when these are not the same? And if they just renamed them everyone would be like "but they just renamed it". Also directly comparing IPC uplift % to price %, that's like comparing apples to fucking kumquat. Where is any rule that 19% IPC uplift should only result in 19% price increase? There is none. And often pulling out extra % of performance requires exponentially more R&D than what you get out in the end and that reflects in the price too. When was the last time Intel gave you 19 freaking % performance uplift through IPC improvements and not just jacking up the clocks and compensating it with that? Yet no one felt like complaining for fucking 17 pages how their 800€ CPU is "not a good value". 5600X has higher boost clocks and up to 19% higher IPC yet some of you feel entitled that it should cost the same as 3600 (not even fucking X) at launch. What were you all, born yesterday? Better products cost more. Period. And 5000 series are better products all around. And they cost accordingly. People bitch and complain like they replace their platforms every year. My ancient 5820K was around 450-500€ back when it was new, don't remember how much exactly. It's around 6 years old now and it has been serving me amazingly through these long years and it's still doing great, but I just want something new again. 50 or 100€ more when it'll last you for longer as a result is NOTHING. It's less than entire depreciation of system through years where you lose the most and it's in the end worth next to nothing. But the entire time you had it, it delivered great performance.

 

It's not on AMD to keep prices low, it's on Intel to make sure about that. By offering competitive products that force AMD to do even better at even lower prices. Stop pretending AMD is a charity and not a for profit business. No one does that for Intel, but everyone seems to do it for AMD. They released new better product and they charge more for them. That's the end of it.

[Blademaster91]

A lot of people seem to be complaining about value because they expect AMD to keep prices the same even though they have improved their product, and maybe even have a performance advantage over Intel. Do you want a 20% faster CPU for for gaming? If no then grab a Ryzen 3xxx cpu if you want value, if you need a 20% faster CPU for work then it'll pay for itself. And really $50-100 more isn't that much of a difference if you're already on an AM4 platform and can upgrade by updating the bios and swapping in a new CPU. I think Ryzen 5000 is worth it if you want more performance now and want to hold off on building a system with DDR5, because I would expect DDR5 to be expensive at launch as DDR4 was when it replaced DDR3.

[Morgan Everett]

The launch would have been exciting had AMD been offering an 8 core for around the price of the 3600. As for me, gaming at 4k60 means there's nothing for me here. 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Why would they charge the same as old series when these are not the same?

Because usually when new products gets released the price to performance improves. That's how it always is with technology. If it weren't then we would still be stuck in the 90's with single core 1GHz processors in ~2000 dollar computers.

But luckily for us, technology tends to get better and cheaper as time goes on.

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

And if they just renamed them everyone would be like "but they just renamed it".

Who said anything about renaming things?

I expect new products to be better than the old ones. Right now I honestly can't recommend the 5000 series to anyone because the previous generation is clearly the superior product to buy.

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

Also directly comparing IPC uplift % to price %, that's like comparing apples to fucking kumquat. Where is any rule that 19% IPC uplift should only result in 19% price increase? There is none.

The core count, memory interface and frequency are roughly the same between Zen2 and Zen3. The increased IPC is the only thing AMD has mentioned that means we will get higher performance. Therefore, 19% higher IPC = 19% higher performance.

If you got a single core processor running at 1GHz, and another single core processor running at 1GHz but with a better architecture resulting in 19% higher IPC, then you can expect the second mentioned processor to be 19% better. It's quite simple maths.

 

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

And often pulling out extra % of performance requires exponentially more R&D than what you get out in the end and that reflects in the price too.

No it doesn't. If that was the case then technology would never increase. Newer generations of products typically offers better value than the previous generation stuff did at the time of launch. Denying this is completely illogical because if that wasn't true then we would not have increased price to performance at all, but we clearly have over the decades.

The Intel i7-980X was 1000 dollars back in 2010.

The Intel Intel i9-9960X is 930 dollars today. 

Which one offers the better value? If price to performance didn't typically go up each generation, they would offer the same performance. But they don't. The newer chip, despite costing the same or less, offers way more performance.

Same goes for the Nvidia 30 series. The 30 series graphics cards are cheaper and yet offers higher performance than the older cards.

The idea that prices goes up as performance goes up goes against the entire history of computers. As time goes on the performance goes up and the prices of performance equal to older hardware goes down.

If 100 dollar gives you 100 FPS today then in a few years you would be able to get 120 FPS for the same 100 dollars, or 100 FPS by only spending 80 dollars (for example).

 

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

When was the last time Intel gave you 19 freaking % performance uplift through IPC improvements and not just jacking up the clocks and compensating it with that?

Why are you bringing up Intel? Seems like you're trying to shoehorn in some whataboutism into the thread. Run out of arguments to defend AMD with? Try to shift the discussion to be about how bad Intel is!

Also, Intel has done that several times in the past. So has AMD. Last time Intel did it was in 2019. Sunny Cove offered an 18% IPC uplift and did not cost more than previous gen.

 

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

5600X has higher boost clocks and up to 19% higher IPC yet some of you feel entitled that it should cost the same as 3600 (not even fucking X) at launch.

I am not entitled. All I am saying is that AMD has put out a product that has terrible value and people should not buy it if they care about price to performance.

I don't understand why you are so upset about this.

 

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

What were you all, born yesterday? Better products cost more. Period.

No? Newer products usually offers better price to performance than the old products. If this weren't the case then the price to performance ratio would never have gone up. A 500 dollar product released 10 years ago would perform the same as a 500 dollar product released this year. This is clearly not the case, right? So clearly newer products usually increase the value we as consumers gets per dollar spent. In this case, AMD has gone backwards and are now offering us less per dollar.

 

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

And 5000 series are better products all around.

They are not better products if you take the cost into consideration, which people typically do. If you take cost into consideration, they are appear to be significantly worse.

 

 

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

It's not on AMD to keep prices low, it's on Intel to make sure about that. By offering competitive products that force AMD to do even better at even lower prices. Stop pretending AMD is a charity and not a for profit business. No one does that for Intel, but everyone seems to do it for AMD. They released new better product and they charge more for them. That's the end of it.

What I think is funny is that I am not the one pretending like AMD is a charity. I am the one who is saying they released a bad product because they want to make more money and everyone seems to loose their shit over that.

I am well aware that AMD is a greedy company that has one goal in mind and that goal is to make as much money as possible. That's why I as a consumer only cares about what products they push out and how much they cost to me.

I am not sure if you have seen the other replies I have responded to but there are people in this thread mad at me for saying AMD is not their friend. A few pages ago someone said they thought of AMD as their friend. I am not the person you should be lecturing about "AMD is a company that wants to make money". It's the people I am arguing against that needs to hear that.

[hollyh88]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

You all complaining about value are... excuse my french, stupid. Why would they charge the same as old series when these are not the same? And if they just renamed them everyone would be like "but they just renamed it". Also directly comparing IPC uplift % to price %, that's like comparing apples to fucking kumquat. Where is any rule that 19% IPC uplift should only result in 19% price increase? There is none. And often pulling out extra % of performance requires exponentially more R&D than what you get out in the end and that reflects in the price too. When was the last time Intel gave you 19 freaking % performance uplift through IPC improvements and not just jacking up the clocks and compensating it with that? Yet no one felt like complaining for fucking 17 pages how their 800€ CPU is "not a good value". 5600X has higher boost clocks and up to 19% higher IPC yet some of you feel entitled that it should cost the same as 3600 (not even fucking X) at launch. What were you all, born yesterday? Better products cost more. Period. And 5000 series are better products all around. And they cost accordingly. People bitch and complain like they replace their platforms every year. My ancient 5820K was around 450-500€ back when it was new, don't remember how much exactly. It's around 6 years old now and it has been serving me amazingly through these long years and it's still doing great, but I just want something new again. 50 or 100€ more when it'll last you for longer as a result is NOTHING. It's less than entire depreciation of system through years where you lose the most and it's in the end worth next to nothing. But the entire time you had it, it delivered great performance.

 

It's not on AMD to keep prices low, it's on Intel to make sure about that. By offering competitive products that force AMD to do even better at even lower prices. Stop pretending AMD is a charity and not a for profit business. No one does that for Intel, but everyone seems to do it for AMD. They released new better product and they charge more for them. That's the end of it.

They should absolutely charge more. However. They should charge more fairly. Charging 50 bucks more over the 3600x when the 3600 is literally the same is stupid.

 

Not releasing a 5700x is also a pretty shitty move from them. They saw that the 3700x was better than the 3800x so they literally took it out of the starting lineup to force people to buy the 5800x if they want a new 8 core cpu. Which is very greedy. Especially since the 3700x and 3800x (it's a 3700x and the 3700x is a 3700)were and are virtually the same. Yet they charge 130 more because screw you. 

 

But yes. Nothing to complain about here. You are perfectly right. Not. 

 

 

 

[hollyh88]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

If you have a processor older than Ryzen 3000 or for some reason really need an upgrade (maybe your CPU broke) then you might not have time to wait for new products to get announced. If you can wait then clearly "way longer and you get a better product" is true. You should always wait for as long as possible before upgrading anything IMO

I have a 2600x. It's fine. Of course. But it's not helping me much gaming wise. I do not get the perf I can get. Which atm isnt a problem. But will be a problem in a year. Newer games are going to take more horsepower. And the extra 2 cores will help me in my daily it tasks too. however. I can wait for a 5700x. But.. no news about it. So we do not know if it is in 6 months or 1 month after launch. And frankly I feel forced now to upgrade to something like a 3800xt which is funnily enough 100 bucks cheaper here in NLD then the 5800x would release at. And will probably be around maybe 5% slower at 1440p which isnt so bad. So.. either wait or just get that. thing is. If I want the 5800x or 5700x I'll need a new mobo so add another 163 euros to that amount. Which now I dont need. So I even think it's more sensible for ryzen 2000 owners or below to just save money and get a 3000 and wait 2-3 years and get an am5 socket build orso. 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

A lot of people seem to be complaining about value because they expect AMD to keep prices the same even though they have improved their product, and maybe even have a performance advantage over Intel.

I simply expect new products to be better than the old ones, including value.

If they don't do that then I will say the product has bad value and shouldn't be recommended except in edge cases. Simple as that. I really don't see why so many people feel the need to try and arguing against me when I have simply said "the last gen stuff offers better price to performance. People should buy that instead".

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

I think Ryzen 5000 is worth it if you want more performance now and want to hold off on building a system with DDR5, because I would expect DDR5 to be expensive at launch as DDR4 was when it replaced DDR3.

I don't agree. I think that if you need high performance then it is better to buy the higher tier 3000 series chips.

For example you can get a 12 core 3000 series for cheaper than the 8 core 5000 series chip. The 12 core will perform better in applications that actually need that much CPU horsepower.

 

The only people on this forum who should be recommended the Ryzen 5000 series are the same people who were recommended Intel CPUs before because of they needed the highest possible single core performance above all else. The ones that would gladly sacrifice 30% multicore performance for 10% higher single core performance.

Everyone else that got recommended the 3000 series from AMD should continue to get Ryzen 3000 series chips recommended to them.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Again, you can't blame Nvidia for supply issues causing the retail price to go higher.

I can when they have showed they have been able to take measures to control it, I don't blame Nvidia for prices outside of retailers but they have been for a while now much better at making sure retail prices are closer to the stated MSRP by Nvidia(themselves). But this is hard for them but they are doing much better than they were, so credit to that.

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If you're a Ryzen 3000 owner then if you ask me, you shouldn't upgrade your PC. If you are a Ryzen 3000 owner and want to upgrade your PC then you're either terrible with money or you didn't do enough research when you bought your current processor and should probably think things through before making the same mistake again.

I think you might have misunderstood? I was meaning 300 series chipset owners who can't buy 5000 series at all. If for some reason you need to upgrade a 500 chipset series motherboard and 5000 series CPU makes the most sense for them, unless you do not intend to keep the computer for long then spending the least possible is better.

 

If you only isolate the CPU cost and don't factor the difference over the entire system and the performance increase that value proposition changes, Linus and other contestants have made the same mistake on Scrapyard Wars. Spending overall total say 5% more for 15% more performance makes sense, even if that CPU by itself seems to make less sense.

 

There is another problem too though, Nvidia knows this well. It can not matter at all if the performance per dollar goes up if the price itself goes up, there is a point where people are unwilling to buy. This is where the 20 series ran in to issues an so will the 5600X, there are pricing brackets customers will buy within and will not outside of.

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

So as we can see, the 5000 series reduces value all across the board. The only area where it might improve is at the top end, but people buying 800 dollar CPUs for a consumer platform usually don't care about value.

A lot of your prices are off, or short term deals. Much of what I checked you listed I only found a single retailer selling at the price, everyone is higher. But I guess if you are buying right now that's where you should be buying from if you can.

 

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

*All numbers below are assuming a 20% IPC increase which is currently unproven and might be a best case scenario, never trust first party benchmarks*

I didn't simply use IPC gain, these new CPUs clock higher but I'm also not counting on higher than 20% performance gain anyway.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

You're also arguing against yourself now, by saying the 16 series were introduced to increase price to performance (value) over the 20 series, despite you saying the value wasn't better for several generations.

You could still buy 10 series, 16 series being better value than 20 series doesn't also make it better value than 10 series.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If you don't make judgement then why do you make statements like the 5000 series being a better buy than the 3000 series? Seems like you have made a judgement when you said this:

Simple, that's not an assessment on the performance to come to that conclusion. Most of the products are priced close enough and like I have pointed out total system cost changes that value assessment and it is also simply more logical to buy in to the current generation than the old unless there is something more significant not to, 5600X being the only one I'd classify under that.

[RejZoR]

This thread is helpless... If you all like 3600 (not even X) so damn much, then buy the damn 3600. Jesus, is that so hard? Also no, 3600 and 3600X are NOT the same. There is 200MHz turbo boost difference. Which means 3600X will be consistently better in single threaded performance as well as more consistently hit higher all core clocks. If 50€ or whatever through 5 years means so damn much then you're in the wrong hobby. Either coz 50€ is apparently so much money on a 1000€ build price (it's not) or you're replacing it every year or two which is also silly. If I'm buying a new system for next 5+ years which is what I do with my platform as upgrading it in between doesn't make much sense, especially not on Intel side of things, I'm just gonna apply the same for AMD. Just smack that 5900X into my system and be good for next 5 years. You don't look for those few 10€ difference when it'll perform better long term.

[Avocado Diaboli]

I'm inclined to agree with @LAwLz. I get where they're coming from here, the lower tier models aren't worth buying as long as the corresponding previous generation versions are still available and especially if the higher tier from the last generation outperforms a lower tier from the current generation for less money. From a customer's point of view it makes no sense to cheer for a corporation to charge more for a new product. @LAwLz are right that a new version shouldn't just cost more than the previous version just because it performs better or had more R&D poured into it, because the (relative) obsolescence of the old version should also impact its price, therefore freeing up the original price tier for the new product to be slotted into. As of right now it does simply look like AMD know they have the performance crown on all fronts and therefore it's time to increase the profit margins for as long as possible until Intel manages to catch up. And yes, that is a wise business move to some extent, but as we've seen with nVidia it can also massively backfire with the 20 series where they commanded such a lead over AMD that they dictated the entire top tier space and people just didn't buy their stuff (at least according to the Steam hardware survey). But again, I'm not inclined to argue for a multi-billion dollar corporation to increase their prices at my expense.

 

If you can get a 3900X for $450 at the time when a 5900X launches for $550 (which you can do right now), the price to performance ratio between the two largely evens out to not quite 0 (22% higher price for a claimed 19% better performance) it's worth looking at those numbers and calculate if it makes sense to upgrade to a 5900X. Everything below that makes no sense. And I'm actually right now in that situation where I'm considering the 3900X vs. 5900X, because I'm looking to replace a 5-year-old machine and I'm not yet certain which way I'll go. And I'm not just looking into it for gaming, it'd be ludicrous to buy a 12-core CPU when half of that would still do perfectly fine in most titles. But I'm also looking for performance regarding productivity where the added performance of the 5900X might come in handy, but that's far from a given. Yes, on paper it absolutely performs better, but does it make that much of a difference for a computational task that I can just leave running over night if I save half an hour or so? And yes, it's just a $100 in a build that'll probably end up costing $2500 in total or 4% of the entire budget, but it's still money that could go towards something else and since I personally don't make any money off of my private PC, I'm not inclined to just pay more so that I can claim I have the most current consumer CPU on the market for half a year.

[porina]

1 hour ago, RejZoR said:

This thread is helpless... 

The best line in the last few pages. Arguments are going around in circles. Buy it. Don't buy it. Life moves on. (I don't even know which product people are talking about any more...)

[RejZoR]

3 minutes ago, porina said:

The best line in the last few pages. Arguments are going around in circles. Buy it. Don't buy it. Life moves on. (I don't even know which product people are talking about any more...)

It's helpless in terms that people literally don't want the best processors AMD has released to date because they cost few 10€ more than their older, inferior parts. If you're building new system now it would be stupid to put last gen CPU inside. Especially since evolution is quite significant now. Between Ryzen 1000 and Ryzen 2000 series I'd be much more forgiving since differences were more subtle. But with 3000 vs 1000/2000 and 5000 vs 3000, there is just no question. Get 5000 series. Higher clocks and higher IPC on top of already higher clocks and higher IPC of 3000, it makes a significant upgrade even for Ryzen 1000 series owners, but more importantly for people with even older stuff like me wit ancient 5820K. Up till now I didn't even feel like any upgrade was really worthy. That's not the cae with Ryzen 5000 anymore and I'm seriously considering it. Then again, don't guys. Don't buy 5000 series. So I'll have easier time buying it

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

It's helpless in terms that people literally don't want the best processors AMD has released to date because they cost few 10€ more than their older, inferior parts. If you're building new system now it would be stupid to put last gen CPU inside. Especially since evolution is quite significant now. Between Ryzen 1000 and Ryzen 2000 series I'd be much more forgiving since differences were more subtle. But with 3000 vs 1000/2000 and 5000 vs 3000, there is just no question. Get 5000 series. Higher clocks and higher IPC on top of already higher clocks and higher IPC of 3000, it makes a significant upgrade even for Ryzen 1000 series owners, but more importantly for people with even older stuff like me wit ancient 5820K. Up till now I didn't even feel like any upgrade was really worthy. That's not the cae with Ryzen 5000 anymore and I'm seriously considering it. Then again, don't guys. Don't buy 5000 series. So I'll have easier time buying it

Depends.  If all you want to do is play video games at a usable frame rate ryzen2 will do it.  Ruzen3 is better of course, but if best possible is not the goal it becomes an issue.  Price/performance and raw performance are different things.  The two goals are occasionally found in one product.  Generally those products sell extremely well.  Jaguar xj12 was like that when it came out.   It sold so well a company got built off it. 

[porina]

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

If you're building new system now it would be stupid to put last gen CPU inside.

Argh! I'm letting myself get dragged in...  

 

I think most of the complainants directed at Zen 3 comes from only the higher parts at each core count will be initially offered. If someone decides they really want 8 cores for cheap(er), I think the 3700X is still a great choice. I'm doing exactly that. I'm not buying a new one, but I'm moving parts around and my next gaming system will have the 3700X in it. I was hyped up ready to buy a 5700X, but I'm not waiting for that to happen.

 

I do think the 5800X will be the best CPU overall for gaming for the next year or so, since it is a single CCX and don't have extra cores taking up share of the power budget like you do on the 5900X and above.

 

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Don't buy 5000 series. So I'll have easier time buying it

Likewise, everyone please buy big navi so I can get the 3080 sooner.

[Avocado Diaboli]

15 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

but more importantly for people with even older stuff like me wit ancient 5820K.

What made you choose the 5820K to begin with, back when you built your system?

[RejZoR]

13 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

What made you choose the 5820K to begin with, back when you built your system?

Core count and quad channel memory. I had Core i7 920 before and it had 4c/8t and triple channel memory. Going 6c/12t and quad channel memory was almost natural move as I was again looking at the build long term. Core i7 920 platform lasted me for 5-6 years. I got around that much out of current one. I'm projecting the same life out of 5900X build. Reason I took the lower end parts out of those series in both cases was because of overclocking. You bought the cheapest one and overclocked the hell out of it. These days that's not really a thing since CPU's boost to max on their own anyway. I'm just gonna relax the power restrictions on 5900X, gave it good cooling and let it do its thing.

[AlwaysFSX]

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

You all complaining about value are... excuse my french, stupid. Why would they charge the same as old series when these are not the same? And if they just renamed them everyone would be like "but they just renamed it". Also directly comparing IPC uplift % to price %, that's like comparing apples to fucking kumquat. Where is any rule that 19% IPC uplift should only result in 19% price increase? There is none.

Pack it up everyone, now you can't complain that the RTX 3080 costs $700.

 

Fun in 3...

[RejZoR]

3 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

Pack it up everyone, now you can't complain that the RTX 3080 costs $700.

 

Fun in 3...

Well, it was their fault to stupidly price the first gen RTX so high. Then again 700€ and 1200€ is quite a difference. 500€ or 600€ is rather insignificant. Not to mention platform, when picked correctly will last you 5 years easily. Graphic card lasting 5 years is very optimistic. If you buy top end and you're have something like 1080p or 1440p display then maybe. If you're banking on 4K, it'll struggle with new games after 2 years. Not so much on CPU side.

[Guest]

Is price to performance really that irrelevant? I mean the gaming performance that the new Ryzen 5000 seems to offer, the 0%-5% faster than the 10900k (at 1080p), has been available for gamers for half a year now. Why is AMD launching a chip that is around Intel's performance hailed, but Intel having that chip being ignored? AMD isn't cheaper, so why is it better? If you really wanted that performance, you could've gotten it for months now. I really don't see the appeal.

I understand why the Ryzen 3000 series was so appealing and heavily recommended on this forum compared to the Intel 10-series. But it seems like those benefits don't mean anything anymore in this thread.

[AlwaysFSX]

2 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Well, it was their fault to stupidly price the first gen RTX so high. Then again 700€ and 1200€ is quite a difference. 500€ or 600€ is rather insignificant. Not to mention platform, when picked correctly will last you 5 years easily. Graphic card lasting 5 years is very optimistic. If you buy top end and you're have something like 1080p or 1440p display then maybe. If you're banking on 4K, it'll struggle with new games after 2 years. Not so much on CPU side.

All of that is wholly irrelevant to the point of you being wrong and that @LAwLz is correct to bring up the problem of price/performance here with this release compared to what's already on the market.