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

[JuztBe]

29 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

thats exactly what allows you to compare the cost of a system to the performance of a cpu if everything else remains the same. 

would you rather buy a 900 dollar computer with a 3300x or a 970 dollar computer with a 3600 given only the cpu changes

Thing is, you can't generalize data like that in any shape or from.  What price do we pick to be the baseline? $500 build or $5000 build? Maybe let's pick it based on core count lol. 

Personally I already have rest of the system, so it literally would be decision between one cpu or another, with other parts not coming into equation.

 

I agree that a person in his specific scenario should consider product in relation to whole budget.

But running around and saying how it's only 1% more expensive when you buy $5000 machine is not productive /hyperbole. 

 

[spartaman64]

8 minutes ago, JuztBe said:

Thing is, you can't generalize data like that in any shape or from.  What price do we pick to be the baseline? $500 build or $5000 build? Maybe let's pick it based on core count lol. 

Personally I already have rest of the system, so it literally would be decision between one cpu or another, with other parts not coming into equation.

 

I agree that a person in his specific scenario should consider product in relation to whole budget.

But running around and saying how it's only 1% more expensive when you buy $5000 machine is not productive /hyperbole. 

 

whatever pc the person want to build. and if you already have a pc then obviously its not worth it to get a new cpu or gpu every generation so im talking about people building new pcs.

[The Benjamins]

7 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

whatever pc the person want to build. and if you already have a pc then obviously its not worth it to get a new cpu or gpu every generation so im talking about people building new pcs.

if a person actually cares in great detail of Price/Performance they would be getting the cheapest Case, MB, PSU, RAM. and as I said these parts and prices do not massively effect what CPU/GPU you will be buying so the cost is not reinvent in a CPU or GPU comparison. all that you are doing is making the Performance over cost number smaller by adding cost of irrelevant components to the performance equation.

If you want to squeeze EVERY cent out of you budget you should evaluate the whole package but a review testing CPUs or GPUs can't possible do it all in 1 review, they can possibly give you some extra metrics like Ram capacity and speeds in a CPU comparison, but the cost of the PSU shouldn't be part of the CPU reviews metrics. the BUYER is the one that takes the reviews information and adds in the rest of there build to do the final evaluation.

[thechinchinsong]

If we're talking value, then Zen 2 > Zen 3 > Intel right now. It's a shame that AMD felt the need or the urge to price Zen 3 so high since it makes the previous gen so attractive but at the same time turns off potential new buyers and people coming from Zen 2. It's a big dilemma since I think many people who traditionally have bought AMD in the past 3 or so years bought Zen precisely for the excellent price to performance. This paradigm shift is quite jarring this generation regardless if its the right thing to do for consumers and/or for the company. There's quite understandable complaints from traditional AMD fans who AMD themselves have built a reputation up for being good price/performance, but ultimately, there's also a need for AMD as a company to move beyond the "budget" moniker into more premium and higher margin markets like Intel (although hopefully not in the same manner).

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

you only have to compare system cost in a CPU  test setup if the CPUs motherboard does not have a similar cost version for the other CPU, but typically they do.

 

and if I am builind a system there are some cost I can't avoid like motherboard, ram, PSU, Case they stay nearly static no matter what CPU I am buying. so in the end of the day Price to Performance in games comes down to GPU and CPU cost.

Case perhaps.  Am4 motherboards vary in cost from ~$70 to ~$1000.  Ram is ~$70-$170 which is pretty close to PSU costs.  A case while of variable price, can generally hold whatever though.  

[The Benjamins]

1 hour ago, Bombastinator said:

Case perhaps.  Am4 motherboards vary in cost from ~$70 to ~$1000.  Ram is ~$70-$170 which is pretty close to PSU costs.  A case while of variable price, can generally hold whatever though.  

but do you get more FPS from a different MB and Ram (at the same speeds), remember this is a CPU benchmark

[Bombastinator]

35 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

but do you get more FPS from a different MB and Ram (at the same speeds), remember this is a CPU benchmark

Heh.  That’s the thing.  Is it?  The point seems to be that the cpu is part of a system.  Makes “At the same speed” a weird requirement.  More motherboard VRM would allow more overclock, ram speed would make a more fps and more total ram could matter depending on the app. If you’ve got a cpu with a lot of overclock headroom you can get MUCH greater FPS from it but you need a more powerful motherboard to realize that.   The new CPUs are 105w.  The old CPUs were lower watt, so a heftier motherboard is needed just to run them.  There are b450 boards for example  that could power a 3700 but not a 5700

[The Benjamins]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Heh.  That’s the thing.  Is it?  The point seems to be that the cpu is part of a system.  Makes “At the same speed” a weird requirement.  More motherboard VRM would allow more overclock, ram speed would make a more fps and more total ram could matter depending on the app. If you’ve got a cpu with a lot of overclock headroom you can get MUCH greater FPS from it but you need a more powerful motherboard to realize that.   The new CPUs are 105w.  The old CPUs were lower watt, so a heftier motherboard is needed just to run them.  There are b450 boards for example  that could power a 3700 but not a 5700

so your telling me that when a person does a CPU review, they should test 5 different CPUS in 50+ different MB combinations and 20 RAM combinations to show 5000 system configurations in a graph to do a CPU review?

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

so your telling me that when a person does a CPU review, they should test 5 different CPUS in 50+ different MB combinations and 20 RAM combinations to show 5000 system configurations in a graph to do a CPU review?

*sigh* where is this concept of  CPU reviews even coming from? A cpu review is not TCO.  A CPU review is done because the results can effect figuring out what TCO is.  TCO is part of the equation for price/performance.  It isn’t really part of the equation for raw performance
 

It could be interesting for reviewers to see how cheap a motherboard they can run a given CPU on and still have it work well.  For 5800s any b550 would do the job, so it would only matter for some lower end b450 boards.  It would likely matter for almost all a320 boards if they even had code written for them.  They don’t though so it doesn’t matter.  There could be some very low end x570s that it might not be safe to run a 5800 on.  I don’t know.

Edited October 13, 2020 by Bombastinator

[Parideboy]

Some interesting considerations

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Parideboy said:

Some interesting considerations

If the 1800x was the only 8 core chip AMD would have launched this would be indeed impressive.

But you can't just go ahead and ignore the existance of the 1700 or 1700x which launched along the 1800x. The 1700 launched at $330 and was just a few percent slower, with manual OC even just as fast. 
Also that launch was over 3 and a half years ago. The new processor being faster than a 1700 isn't impressive, it's expected.

[Parideboy]

1 hour ago, Medicate said:

If the 1800x was the only 8 core chip AMD would have launched this would be indeed impressive.

That's not the point. You either get the best performance or the best price. Can't have both.

That's why lower SKUs exist. And those are the best buys.

1 hour ago, Medicate said:

But you can't just go ahead and ignore the existance of the 1700 or 1700x which launched along the 1800x. The 1700 launched at $330 and was just a few percent slower, with manual OC even just as fast.

You can. They were both the best performers, with no competition whatsoever. Emphasis on performers.

Of course it's not worth spending x more dollars over the cheaper option to get the best of the best.

That doesn't mean that the pricing of the top tier is "unfair". You want the best? You pay more.

From a cost to performance perspective, is it worth it? Of course not.

 

Intel did the same, and no one seemed to care, so I really don't understand where the problem is.

 

AMD announced only the top tear SKUs, slightly slower CPUs will be announced and those will have a better price to performance ratio. That's not in question.

1 hour ago, Medicate said:

Also that launch was over 3 and a half years ago. The new processor being faster than a 1700 isn't impressive, it's expected.

Don't tell Intel lol but again, that wasn't the point.

[JuztBe]

9 minutes ago, Parideboy said:

Intel did the same, and no one seemed to care

But people did, they were trashing Intel for their pricing for ages now. Especially a lot of AMD fans, who somehow switched their stance this release. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Parideboy said:

That's why lower SKUs exist

Well that's the thing. They don't exist anymore. So now the 5600x is the successor to the 3600 and 3600x. The 5800x is the successor to the 3700x and 3800x. 

 

4 minutes ago, Parideboy said:

AMD announced only the top tear SKUs, slightly slower CPUs will be announced

According to people who spoke with AMD, AMD has no plan on releasing lower tier SKUs. That's the issue. We don't know if and when they'll release. Which is opposite to every other Zen release so far.
 

 

12 minutes ago, Parideboy said:

that wasn't the point

Then what was the point of the video you linked. He said that the price of the 5800x is reasonable compared to the 1800x. That I agree with. 
What I don't agree with is framing it as if the 1800x was a good buy back then. It wasn't. Everyone with a bit of care what they spend their money on got a 1700 to get the same top of the line Intel crushing multicore performance. 

[leadeater]

8 minutes ago, Medicate said:

According to people who spoke with AMD, AMD has no plan on releasing lower tier SKUs. That's the issue. We don't know if and when they'll release. Which is opposite to every other Zen release so far.

I highly doubt that, their wording was "We are not going to talk about other products right now". That's not a statement of not doing to do lower ones, they just aren't going to talk about anything that could impact potential sales of the announced ones, that would be a bit silly. If AMD starts talking about a 5600 or 5700X people are just not going to buy and wait, they should anyway but any talks about cheaper parts of very similar performance will 100% stifle sales.

[Parideboy]

2 minutes ago, JuztBe said:

But people did, they were trashing Intel for their pricing for ages now. Especially a lot of AMD fans, who somehow switched their stance this release. 

Those were the people that weren't buying the best CPU, myself included. If someone was spending 6/700$ before on Intel, I don't see why AMD needs to get trashed for it

2 minutes ago, Medicate said:

Well that's the thing. They don't exist anymore. So now the 5600x is the successor to the 3600 and 3600x. The 5800x is the successor to the 3700x and 3800x.

If that's the case, Zen 2 isn't suddently slower. It's price to performance hasn't changed. If it was a best buy a month ago I don't see why it isn't now.

7 minutes ago, Medicate said:

Then what was the point of the video you linked. He said that the price of the 5800x is reasonable compared to the 1800x. That I agree with. 

What I don't agree with is framing it as if the 1800x was a good buy back then. It wasn't. Everyone with a bit of care what they spend their money on got a 1700 to get the same top of the line Intel crushing multicore performance. 

Completely agree with you. I'm not saying Zen 3 is a best buy right now, I'm just sying that it is reasonably priced for what it's offering

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Parideboy said:

If that's the case, Zen 2 isn't suddently slower. It's price to performance hasn't changed. If it was a best buy a month ago I don't see why it isn't now.

That's one of my issues I have personally with this release. New tech release not improving on value is never a good thing imo. Be it a cpu, gpu, phones, SSDs, you name it. There may be stagnation due to multiple factors (no competition is one of them) but it should never be just worse.

Let's take Intel as an example. During the 6 years of Intel dominance with their i7 processors (2011-2017) they only improved the performance from the 2700k to the 7700k by ~30%-35%. Not great for 6 years. But the MSRP never changed. It's always been $340-$350. So even if you only got a 5%-10% performance increase each "gen", the new processor was never just a worse buy than the old one. 

So AMD did something that not even Intel did. They raised their prices for some tiers by up to $120 (3700x to 5800x).

It's understandable why they did it. They're just a company trying to maximize profits. But I also think people are allowed to think that this release is not great for a lot of people. 

Intel was rightly criticised in the past for their prices. Paying $340 in 2016-2017 for a 4 core processor was mostly a scam. But people are also allowed to criticise AMD if they start going the same way that Intel has been going. Intel / Nvidia doing anti-consumer things should never give AMD a free pass for doing similar things.


I don't even know why I'm still rambling on. In the end a lot of people with money will buy Ryzen 5000. A lot of people with not so much money will not buy it.

[Parideboy]

1 hour ago, Medicate said:

So AMD did something that not even Intel did. They raised their prices for some tiers by up to $120 (3700x to 5800x).

Yes and no. Let's take AMD numbers for granted for the sake of it, an all core boost (and assume math has somewhat sense).

Using the boost clocks as comparison, the 5800x should be ~25% faster than the 3700x and costing 36% more.

 

If AMD kept the same price to performance ratio, the 5800x would have been priced at about 410$, 10% cheaper.

Comparing the 5800x to the 3800x, it should be ~22% faster while costing ~7% less.

 

On the 5600x the price to performance ratio is the same compared to the 3600x (~20% faster, 20% more expensive)

The 5900x seems "a bargain" compared to the 3900x, being ~25% faster and costing 75$ less.

 

So the MSRP did change, but the price of performance ratio stayed most likely the same, considering AMD started from a position where had to fight to compete.

It's not great, but it's better than having to change motherboard for a 5% increase in price to performance.

Having similar MSRP with this jump in performance was not feasible imho, that would have butchered the entire Zen2 lineup, and unless there isn't a competitor pushing, no company will pull off a "Nvidia 3000 series launch" just for fun.

 

I agree that CPUs are getting expensive tho.

 

This is probably wrong and difference in performance would be less so take it for what it is, a dude rambling on the internet.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Medicate said:

But the MSRP never changed. It's always been $340-$350

Sort of, that was basically true up until the 9900K which jumped to $499 MSRP. 9700K was still $385 MSRP but the problem there is it wasn't the equivalent product to the ones before it, would have been if HT wasn't disabled but then the 9900K would of had no reason to exist.

 

4770K -> 6700K = Price decrease

6700K -> 7700K = No price change

7700K -> 8700K = Price increase (small)

8700K -> 9900K = Price increase (big, $129)

 

It's pretty well the only reason why/how the 9900K can be worse value in some workloads than previous generation, obviously still outright faster though. But either way Intel has done the same on consumer desktop before, recently and way in the distant past. They've also done it on HEDT and worse so, as an HEDT owner I care about that but I don't expect others to.

[Bouncewasp]

Appreciate the majority of chat is about the 5000 series CPUs but on the big navi piece, what's peoples thoughts on AIB partner offerings being available before xmas? I really like the teaser and whilst taken with a pinch of salt it looks set to be a decent GPU based on what I've seen so far, but I honestly hate the look of it!!

[LAwLz]

55 minutes ago, Bouncewasp said:

Appreciate the majority of chat is about the 5000 series CPUs but on the big navi piece, what's peoples thoughts on AIB partner offerings being available before xmas? I really like the teaser and whilst taken with a pinch of salt it looks set to be a decent GPU based on what I've seen so far, but I honestly hate the look of it!!

Looks like any other GPU to me.

The performance numbers seems great but I taking any first party benchmark with a truckload of salt, especially from AMD's GPU division.

Less than 2 weeks left before the big announcement! It has been confirmed that the 6000 series GPUs from AMD will feature hardware accelerated decoding of AV1 which I am pretty stoked about.

[Bouncewasp]

4 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Looks like any other GPU to me.

The performance numbers seems great but I taking any first party benchmark with a truckload of salt, especially from AMD's GPU division.

Less than 2 weeks left before the big announcement! It has been confirmed that the 6000 series GPUs from AMD will feature hardware accelerated decoding of AV1 which I am pretty stoked about.

I dunno, rightly or wrongly I put a lot of stock in the aesthetics side of my build, appreciate this perhaps putting form before function but to me it just looks like a horrendous plastic box from the 80s?! If I'm spending decent money on this stuff I want my rig to be a desktop show off piece too, like an oil painting for the 21st century haha! Maybe I just like rgb too much...sigh.