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

[hollyh88]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

his 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.

not the same? 

 

eh no they are the same. 
50 isnt much money. its about the value of that money. and its not again 50 bucks. its 100 bucks since again as others and i keep saying. the 3600 and 3600x ARE THE SAME. 
3700x vs 3800x
hey look. same again.

also, basically the same. 

this is what people are pointing to. they did a +50 ON THE PRODUCTS THAT DIDNT HAVE ANY VALUE TO BEGIN WITH. THAT is why people dissagree with the pricing. AND what's even worse, is that they do not give you an option this time around to buy a 5600 model or 5700x BECAUSE THEY KNOW they would again be the same shit as the 5600x and 5800x like last time. THAT is what people do not like about these new cpu's. No one cares that they went up in price. That is normal. But the way how they did it. is bad. 

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, hollyh88 said:

not the same? 

 

eh no they are the same. 
50 isnt much money. its about the value of that money. and its not again 50 bucks. its 100 bucks since again as others and i keep saying. the 3600 and 3600x ARE THE SAME. 
3700x vs 3800x
hey look. same again.

also, basically the same. 

this is what people are pointing to. they did a +50 ON THE PRODUCTS THAT DIDNT HAVE ANY VALUE TO BEGIN WITH. THAT is why people dissagree with the pricing. AND what's even worse, is that they do not give you an option this time around to buy a 5600 model or 5700x BECAUSE THEY KNOW they would again be the same shit as the 5600x and 5800x like last time. THAT is what people do not like about these new cpu's. No one cares that they went up in price. That is normal. But the way how they did it. is bad. 

I disagree that no one cares that they went up in price at well above the rate of inflation.  It’s a minor thing though and does not I think interfere with your point.

[hollyh88]

1 hour ago, porina said:

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.

im in fact probably either going for that or funny enough the 3800x since now it is better priced(20 more in most cases). with a higher silicone results it will probably be able to get better core speeds over the 3700x. seen people hitting 4.5 on it no problem all core. which is interesting to me  but ill still wait and see a bit more results. and hit up a bit more friends.

[hollyh88]

4 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I disagree that no one cares that they went up in price at well above the rate of inflation.  It’s a minor thing though and does not I think interfere with your point.

what i meant is that people expected a price increase which is normal. expecting their performance. just not the amount of price increase they actually went up
aka 100 for the 6 core and 130 ish for the 8 core.

[Blademaster91]

53 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

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.

Why not threadripper for quad channel ram?

43 minutes ago, AlwaysFSX said:

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

 

Fun in 3...

Except a lot less people complained about the 3080, I have pointed out prices have raised since the GTX 10 series and people always defend the 30 series price because performance went up, I've seen the "2x faster" claim get defended too even though the 3080 is only 2x faster in like one or two games. Ryzen 5000 is up to 20% faster yet now everyone is complaining about prices before reviewer benchmarks are even out.

3 minutes ago, hollyh88 said:

what i meant is that people expected a price increase which is normal. expecting their performance. just not the amount of price increase they actually went up
aka 100 for the 6 core and 130 ish for the 8 core.

The 5800X isn't a very good value IMO, but people are comparing Ryzen 3000 sale prices to the Ryzen 5000 launch prices, Ryzen prices have gone down a few months after launch. If you want value the 3900X has gone on sale as low as $399USD before.

[Bombastinator]

4 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Why not threadripper for quad channel ram?

Except a lot less people complained about the 3080, I have pointed out prices have raised since the GTX 10 series and people always defend the 30 series price because performance went up, I've seen the "2x faster" claim get defended too even though the 3080 is only 2x faster in like one or two games. Ryzen 5000 is up to 20% faster yet now everyone is complaining about prices before reviewer benchmarks are even out.

The 5800X isn't a very good value IMO, but people are comparing Ryzen 3000 sale prices to the Ryzen 5000 launch prices, Ryzen prices have gone down a few months after launch. If you want value the 3900X has gone on sale as low as $399USD before.

It’s hard to complain when something gets less awful even if it still sucks.

[Blademaster91]

16 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

It’s hard to complain when something gets less awful even if it still sucks.

I don't disagree with that, yeah the pricing does suck though, I'd spend more for a 5900X. I kind of expected prices to go up because of 8 cores on a single CCX, and Intel has nothing to compete until they get 11th gen out and finally have pci-e 4.0 support.

Although I don't quite get why people are panicked over there not being a non-X sku at launch, if everyone is rushing to buy at launch rather than waiting a few months then you're going to be paying more anyway.  An example the 3600X launched at $249USD, but it's been as cheap as $200USD.

[hollyh88]

25 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

but people are comparing Ryzen 3000 sale prices to the Ryzen 5000 launch prices,

ehm no. 

3600 released at 200

3700x released at 330
which is what im comparing it with. so 100 more for a 5600x and 120-130 more (3700x released here for some reason in NLD at varied prices some at 320 some at 330) for a 5800x.

[hollyh88]

8 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Although I don't quite get why people are panicked over there not being a non-X sku at launch, if everyone is rushing to buy at launch rather than waiting a few months then you're going to be paying more anyway.

thats the thing though. what if there was a ryzen 7 5700x that launched at 360-370. that with a b550 like the aorus pro would cost you all together 519 ish. but.. with something like the 450 5800x it will cost you 609. which is again around a 100 bucks more. buuut you are forced now to do the more expensive one. and lets be honest the 5700x IF it comes will still be on par with the 5800x unless they really nerf it to the ground to avoid another 3700x situation where it 95% of the time in gaming was on par with the 3800x. 

 

So in short people are also upset that they are literally forced into a more expensive built from the start. the choice was taken away from the consumer. 

[Parideboy]

1 hour ago, porina said:

If someone decides they really want 8 cores for cheap(er)

Not to mention that IPC scales better then core count is most work loads. I would not be surprised if the 5600x is in the neighborhood of Ryzen 7 Zen2 performance.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I've seen the "2x faster" claim get defended too even though the 3080 is only 2x faster in like one or two games.

They were telling the truth though? Like, if I hear "Up to 2x the 2080" I know that it won't always be 2x as fast. What's your point?

[porina]

1 hour ago, Parideboy said:

Not to mention that IPC scales better then core count is most work loads. I would not be surprised if the 5600x is in the neighborhood of Ryzen 7 Zen2 performance.

Maybe... let's assume for now we have a 6 core Zen 3 and 8 core Zen 2 at the same clocks (more on that later). Relative total throughput of the 6 core assuming the 19% IPC holds out is 1.19*6/8=0.893. So over 10% down. This would apply to well scaling apps, like Cinebench. 

 

I assumed same clock in part because of the highly variable turbo which changes with workload and temperature. All else being equal, a 6 core would be expected to boost a little further than an 8 core since the power is split over fewer cores. The increase in clock is usually much less than the increase in power though, since it is operating further into the less efficient zone at higher clocks. Another factor might be that the IPC is correct, but turbo clocks are lower. I know, the single core turbo clocks went up, but we don't know about all core which is where it gets more interesting. My thinking for this is that, if the CPU is doing more work per clock, does it take more power to do that more work? If so, Zen 3 may actually run at lower clock than equivalent Zen 2 for a given workload. This is something I hope reviewers will test. I know AMD also said there was an improvement in performance per watt, but there are more complicated nuances there what the actual improvement is in what scenario. Normally this would be at equal power, but that doesn't necessarily mean equal clock.

 

Zen 3 will have some advantage in having unified CCX, but presumably this is already taken into consideration in the claimed IPC increase.

 

 

I really should stop over-thinking things...

[mrdoubtfull]

What if you're building a new PC? Shouldn't you you calculate the entire price of the computer? 

 

Here's a standard build for $1,520.. Agree? 

 

Let's change out the 3700X with the 5800X. That's $154 price difference OR 10.7% more expensive for ~20% more performance.. 

 

Seems like a decent buy for those building a new computer, no? 

 

Building a 3600 computer? Upgrade to a 4600X for a 7.3% higher price tag and get ~20% better performance.. 

 

Or am I just stupid?

[ShinRamen]

4 hours 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...)

Agreed.

 

if you think it‘s too expensive, don‘t buy it, let your wallet speak - they have to and will lower the price.

 

If they don‘t, you are in the minority and most people think it‘s appropriately priced. 

[GreatnessRD]

This thread would've been great with the poll game. To gage where everyone stood on the whole pricing scheme. The more time has passed, the more I'm on the fence for both sides of the argument.

[Craftyawesome]

30 minutes ago, mrdoubtfull said:

What if you're building a new PC? Shouldn't you you calculate the entire price of the computer? 

 

Here's a standard build for $1,520.. Agree? 

 

Let's change out the 3700X with the 5800X. That's $154 price difference OR 10.7% more expensive for ~20% more performance.. 

 

Seems like a decent buy for those building a new computer, no? 

 

Building a 3600 computer? Upgrade to a 4600X for a 7.3% higher price tag and get ~20% better performance.. 

 

Or am I just stupid?

You will get ~20% better CPU performance, but what will your actual performance gain be? 4k and often 1440p gaming will barely change. And if you are only chasing CPU performance, the 3700x has 33% more cores than the _600x. The 5600x will win in single threaded workloads, though.

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

Yeah I misunderstood you, but I don't understand your point.

The 3000 series is better value than the 5000 series regardless of which processor you got today or which processor you are upgrading from.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

I understand what you mean, but I don't think you can look at it that way.

Let's take the 3600 vs the 5600X as an example. It is roughly 50% more expensive (100 dollars) for roughly 20% higher performance. If you're building a 1000 dollar computer then sure, you could say the difference is only 10% for 20% higher performance, but that's not really the case because you are using the generalized budget for the PC, and a specific system metric when measuring performance.

A 20% better CPU doesn't perform to 20% better performance overall. Far from it.

If you are building a gaming PC, a 200 dollar CPU with a 500 dollar GPU is way better for gaming than a 300 dollar CPU with a 400 dollar GPU. That's how you need to look at things.

Every dollar spent on one component, is one dollar you are taking from another component. 

 

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

None of my prices are off. 

All of them are from Amazon at the time of writing, and I also looked all of them up on camelcamelcamel to make sure they didn't have some super special sale going on. All of them have been at their current prices at least a few times in the past. Most of them have even been lower.

If I wanted to be really unfair in my comparisons then I could have said the 210 dollar 3600X could be had for 180 dollars, because it has been that low before. I could also say that we should expect these new 5000 series chips to be sold at higher MSRP because most hardware released recently has been short on supply. So that 300 dollar CPU AMD announced might be more like 330 when customers can actually buy it. But we will see. No point in speculating future pricing when we have nothing to go on, so that's why I base all my comparisons on current prices. Isn't that the fair thing to do? Looking at it from the POV of someone looking to buy a computer today?

 

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

They don't clock higher.

Most of the chips actually has a slightly lower base clock but a slightly higher boost clock. So for short burst or lightly threaded workloads we will probably see slightly more than 19% performance uplift, but in sustained workloads where all cores will be fully loaded, we will probably see less than 19% performance increase.

 

Base clocks:

• 5950X - 3.4GHz (boost 4.9GHz)
• 3950X - 3.5Ghz (boost 4.7GHz)
   
• 5900X - 3.7GHz (boost 4.8GHz)
• 3900X - 3.8GHz (boost 4.6GHz)
   
• 5800X - 3.8GHz (boost 4.7GHz)
• 3800X - 3.9GHz (boost 4.5GHz)
   
• 5600X - 3.7GHz (boost 4.6GHz)
• 3600X - 3.8GHz (boost 4.4GHz)

 

Do you see the pattern? 100Mhz lower base, and 200Mhz higher turbo. I wouldn't say that's "clocked higher".

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

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

The 1660 and 1660 Super were better value than the 10 series though...

The 1660 Super was at the time of release the best value graphics card from Nvidia, of all time. It had 25% higher performance per dollar than the 1060 6GB.

[RejZoR]

And what Ryzen chip has ever ran at only base clock unless it was being cooled by an actual potato?

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, RejZoR said:

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?

I have no problem with that.

People seem to have a problem accepting that these new chips have poor value though. If you look through this thread I have basically just been replying to people telling me "no, these new chips have great value! You're wrong" and then posting incorrect pricing info and other stuff like that.

Even now when you are going "just buy whatever you want", you can help but throw in some opinions on why you think the 5000 series is better than the 3000 series. 

 

 

7 hours ago, RejZoR said:

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.

Yes but it's also a 100MHz lower base clock, which means that in heavily threaded applications the 5000 series CPUs will probably be clocked slightly lower than the 3000 series. But it's such minor differences in clock speed that I don't think it will matter. I think we will see roughly a 20% performance increase in best case scenarios. I wouldn't be surprised if the real world performance benefit is far less than 20%. But that remains to be seen.

 

 

7 hours ago, RejZoR said:

You don't look for those few 10€ difference when it'll perform better long term.

It's more like a 100 dollar difference, which is quite a lot. Especially since that might be the difference where you need to step down to a lower tier of GPU, or a worse and smaller SSD, or something other which I think will have a more meaningful impact on your computer experience.

Also, I'd say the 3000 series chips will perform better in the long term because you can basically get the next tier up for the same price. Instead of buying a 6 core 5000 CPU you can get an 8 core 3000 CPU. Or instead of an 8 core 5000 series CPU you can get a 12 core 3000 series CPU.

 

The 3000 series offers more than enough single threaded performance for what the vast majority needs, and I doubt people will get more depending on single threaded performance as time goes on. If anything, history shows us that things tend to get slightly more heavily threaded as time goes on, or at the very least stay the same. 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

The 5800X isn't a very good value IMO, but people are comparing Ryzen 3000 sale prices to the Ryzen 5000 launch prices, Ryzen prices have gone down a few months after launch. If you want value the 3900X has gone on sale as low as $399USD before.

Are you referring to me?

The MSRP of the Ryzen 3600 has always been 199. It's not a sales price. It has always been that price. In fact, for most of the time on the market has been lower than 199. There were several months where you could get it for 170 dollars.

[mrdoubtfull]

44 minutes ago, Craftyawesome said:

You will get ~20% better CPU performance, but what will your actual performance gain be? 4k and often 1440p gaming will barely change. And if you are only chasing CPU performance, the 3700x has 33% more cores than the _600x. The 5600x will win in single threaded workloads, though.

That's why we need benchmarks.. 

 

Fewer faster cores can be just as good or faster than more slower cores, depending on the workload..

[Bombastinator]

4 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I don't disagree with that, yeah the pricing does suck though, I'd spend more for a 5900X. I kind of expected prices to go up because of 8 cores on a single CCX, and Intel has nothing to compete until they get 11th gen out and finally have pci-e 4.0 support.

Although I don't quite get why people are panicked over there not being a non-X sku at launch, if everyone is rushing to buy at launch rather than waiting a few months then you're going to be paying more anyway.  An example the 3600X launched at $249USD, but it's been as cheap as $200USD.

I don’t think people would have as big an issue if a precedent hadn’t been set by the zen2 stuff.  “X” meant “comes with a cooler that actually works so you don’t have to buy one”. This time “x” means “absolutely nothing.  It’s complete horseshit”. The only cpu that comes with a cooler at all is the 5600x  This sort of makes sense because it’s the only 65w chip, but what it effectively means is the earlier chips at least could run without having to drop another $30-100 on a cooler.  You could still do that, but you didn’t HAVE to.  That was actually part of what made zen2 so good at price/performance.  That seems to be gone.   There IS NO 5800x or 5900x, because Nvidia doesn’t have a cooler to tame them.  They’re 5800 and 5900 with some marketing squished on the end like a wad of discarded gum in the shape of an x.

[porina]

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Base clocks:

• 5950X - 3.4GHz (boost 4.9GHz)
• 3950X - 3.5Ghz (boost 4.7GHz)
   
• 5900X - 3.7GHz (boost 4.8GHz)
• 3900X - 3.8GHz (boost 4.6GHz)
   
• 5800X - 3.8GHz (boost 4.7GHz)
• 3800X - 3.9GHz (boost 4.5GHz)
   
• 5600X - 3.7GHz (boost 4.6GHz)
• 3600X - 3.8GHz (boost 4.4GHz)

 

Do you see the pattern? 100Mhz lower base, and 200Mhz higher turbo. I wouldn't say that's "clocked higher".

Don't know if you saw my post... somewhere, where I speculated if Zen 3 doing more work might mean it will take more power per clock, and do so at a lower clock. Having said that, 100 MHz drop on 3.5 GHz is less than 3% and the other conditions will be lower still. The IPC increase still dominates over that, and perf per watt is claimed to be improved similarly.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, mrdoubtfull said:

What if you're building a new PC? Shouldn't you you calculate the entire price of the computer? 

 

Here's a standard build for $1,520.. Agree? 

 

Let's change out the 3700X with the 5800X. That's $154 price difference OR 10.7% more expensive for ~20% more performance.. 

 

Seems like a decent buy for those building a new computer, no? 

 

Building a 3600 computer? Upgrade to a 4600X for a 7.3% higher price tag and get ~20% better performance.. 

 

Or am I just stupid?

That's one way of looking at it, but I think the problem of looking at it like that is that you won't actually get a flat 20% performance uplift overall.

If you are primarily running tasks that are GPU bound (like gaming) then 20% higher CPU performance might only translate to 5% higher performance in your most commonly run tasks. 

Like I wrote in my other response, every dollar spent on your CPU is a dollar you are removing from your budget on other parts, like your GPU. If you are gaming, spending 154 dollars more on your CPU might result in you getting a worse GPU, which will have a far bigger impact on gaming performance.

 

You also have to consider that the 8 core 5800X costs more than the 12 core 3900X (by 20 dollars). 

Going from the 3700X to a 5800X increases the overall PC's cost by 10.7% for ~20% higher CPU performance.

Going from the 3700X to a 3900X increases the overall PC's cost by 9.4% for ~50% higher CPU performance.

 

Although it's a bit more complicated than that because the first option is 20% higher single and multithreaded performance while the second option is primarily multithreaded performance. But if you're looking at 8 core processors then chances are you are running programs that are mostly multithreaded (or multiple single threaded applications) and can take advantage of the extra cores.

But my point is that you always get better (multithreaded at least) performance for your dollars by going with a 3000 series chip over a 5000 series chip.