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

[MageTank]

1 minute ago, cj09beira said:

i agree, except for the 5600x, on that one 50 bucks is quite a bit

on the low end its a bit much, on the other ones sure

i would bet dezember- january and we will get the rest of the lineup

all they try to do is to have better perf/dollar than the competition, this doesn't change that, they simply didn't give us a bone.

there should be lower end parts coming, they need them to be able to use all their mediocre yielding parts

zen 2's imc is already quite good, and there is always the chance that they improved something just by tweaking the imc's microcode, after all that is what zen + was

Zen 2's IMC is okay, but it's still far from where it could be, and is one of the main issues that has plagued my adoption of Zen in spite of the pricing and overall platform features. I've had my hands on pretty much every Zen processor under the sun, from first gen Ryzen to the Threadripper 3990X and my experience is always the same. Latency is horrible for my specific needs. Now this cache re-design might significantly change that for the better (and my fingers are still crossed) but physical distance from the IO die to the two chiplets has always been an issue as well. A dual IMC design would have been a fantastic way to address this, at least on paper, but I'll hold my official opinion until I get my hands on one.

 

I also want to point out that I am not complaining about bandwidth here. All things considered, Ryzen offers plenty of memory bandwidth and I vastly prefer their cache size philosophy over Intel's, but memory latency still needs to be addressed. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Isn't the price increase just 50 USD over Zen 2 MSRP

Yes if you compare ****X models with ****X models. The thing is in the past, we also had non-X models at launch. And those were $50 cheaper while offering very very similar performance. While it's +$50 on paper, it's +$100 in reality

[Sorenson]

2 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Isn't the price increase just 50 USD over Zen 2 MSRP?

 

3600X - $249

3800X - $399

3900X - $499

 

5600X - $299

5800X - $449

5900X - $549

 

Price increases suck, but that seems like a modest increase to me, given how good a deal Zen 2 reportedly was, and that Zen 3 supposedly offers a 19% IPC increase, a 2x decrease of memory latency, 105 TDP (for the 5800X and 5900X), and the fastest single-core performance among consumer CPUs.

My biggest issues is no 5600 or 5700x right now. It’s hard to justify that price when you can get a 3700x for $270 from micro center. Once they drop the price in a couple months they’ll be great.

[porina]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

Isn't the price increase just 50 USD over Zen 2 MSRP?

The problem for the short term line up is the lack of a 5700X. Hardly anyone bought a 3800X, with most opting for the 3700X at MSRP $329. A hypothetical 5700X at $379, at 65W TDP and slightly lower clocks, I think would be the sweet spot. It'll probably come out in a 2nd wave.

[JuztBe]

3 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Isn't the price increase just 50 USD over Zen 2 MSRP?

 

3600X - $249

3800X - $399

3900X - $499

 

5600X - $299

5800X - $449

5900X - $549

 

Price increases suck, but that seems like a modest increase to me, given how good a deal Zen 2 reportedly was, and that Zen 3 supposedly offers a 19% IPC increase, a 2x decrease of memory latency, 105 TDP (for the 5800X and 5900X), and the fastest single-core performance among consumer CPUs.

If we include non-X skews into comparison it gets much worse.
It's whopping 50% increase for 6 core

3600 - $199

5600x - $299

 

3700 - 329$

5800x - 449$

 

Non X skews performed few percent's worse than X ones. Value wise 3600 is still probably better deal, which is unfortunate. 

[PocketNerd]

3 hours ago, kewtz said:

I mentioned this in LTT Discord...I've been waiting for 6 months it seems for the "right time" to upgrade...

Had to wait for new Ryzen, then new Nvidia, then new Ryzen again...but I can't get the new Nvidia for another few months.
By that point it will be wait for new Intel?

 

I'm hoping to see better single thread performance, overall.

IPC increases are also nice.

You're basically playing a fools game waiting for the "right time". Better to just lock-in with whatever is best at X time.

 

I bought a 3700X only a few weeks ago and I aint even mad.

[Red Hardware]

Really interested to see 5600.

As a current 3600x owner, i have no plan to upgrade but if I wanted to build a new system, i would have defiantly waited for non X variants as you can always easily OC them and get the same lvl of performance. 

Also we need to see something new from intel, the first sign of having less competition is this 50$ price jump.

[porina]

6 minutes ago, MageTank said:

All things considered, Ryzen offers plenty of memory bandwidth and I vastly prefer their cache size philosophy over Intel's, but memory latency still needs to be addressed. 

I laugh at dual channel being "plenty"  I will give that caches since Zen 2 are big enough for it to be much less of a problem than it otherwise would be.

 

I think Intel haven't increased cache sizes on desktop yet since they're still constrained by 14nm process. Hypothetically, let's say they bought out Tiger Lake on desktop. You get 1.25MB/core L2 and 3MB/core of L3, non-inclusive. Wouldn't that be fun to try out? Compared to Zen 2 (and now Zen 3?)'s 0.5MB/core L2 and 4MB/core L3, exclusive. Pretty much the same per-core amounts.

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, porina said:

I laugh at dual channel being "plenty"  I will give that caches since Zen 2 are big enough for it to be much less of a problem than it otherwise would be.

 

I think Intel haven't increased cache sizes on desktop yet since they're still constrained by 14nm process. Hypothetically, let's say they bought out Tiger Lake on desktop. You get 1.25MB/core L2 and 3MB/core of L3, non-inclusive. Wouldn't that be fun to try out? Compared to Zen 2 (and now Zen 3?)'s 0.5MB/core L2 and 4MB/core L3, exclusive. Pretty much the same per-core amounts.

I don't know, I personally haven't found myself saturating 60GB/s of bandwidth before running into an IO or thread bottleneck for my various use cases, but I suppose it would be possible for a very niche workload, though I'd argue that would be beyond the original scope of the processors intended market. The issue I have with adding additional memory channels is yet again the latency penalty and overhead that gets introduced as a result. This is still very much an issue on Intel's X series platforms as well as AMD's own Threadripper lineup. Bandwidth only really matters if you don't have enough of it. Having more than what you need serves no purpose. Latency on the other hand, always scales.

[LAwLz]

I am pretty disappointed by this announcement and it's entirely because of the pricing. 

It seems like price to performance is about the same or even worse than Zen 2 products. 

 

The 3600 is the most popular CPU right now. It costs 199.

The CPU that replaces it, the 5600X, costs 299.

That's a 50% increase in price for like a 20% increase in performance. No thanks... 

 

 

Edit: And that's a 50% price increase for 19% higher performance IF (big if) we take AMD's claims as the truth.

Let me remind everyone that first party benchmarks always try to make their product as good as possible. Don't be disappointed or surprised if we get less than a 19% uplift in most programs. 

If you want examples of this go back and watch the Nvidia 30 series benchmarks. It happens every launch. 

[ewitte]

29 minutes ago, Medicate said:

Yes if you compare ****X models with ****X models. The thing is in the past, we also had non-X models at launch. And those were $50 cheaper while offering very very similar performance. While it's +$50 on paper, it's +$100 in reality

Or leaving out the 3700x/3700 completely that is a $150 difference.

[soldier_ph]

5950X = my new CPU 

[Blademaster91]

The 3600X is $249, 5600X is a $50 increase, yeah a price increase sucks, but for an architecture refresh with 19% better IPC and improved memory latency, the value might still be decent.

[xg32]

amd had room for 50 or 100usd increase and they chose 50, i guess they are saving the other half for when they blow intel even further away lol. Waiting for ampere benchmarks with zen 3 to decide what to do.

[LAwLz]

2 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

The 3600X is $249, 5600X is a $50 increase, yeah a price increase sucks, but for an architecture refresh with 19% better IPC and improve memory latency, the value might still be decent.

See my post above. It's at best a 50% price increase for a 20% performance increase. Zen 2 is a lot better value. 

[GDRRiley]

15 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am pretty disappointed by this announcement and it's entirely because of the pricing. It seems like price

to performance is about the same or even worse than Zen 2 products.

give it time this is only the higher end SKUs amd tends to drop prices fast.

and 3000 chips should still be around some. they'll keep the 3600, 3330x until they have replacements at those prices

[porina]

20 minutes ago, MageTank said:

very niche workload

Prime95-like

 

20 minutes ago, MageTank said:

though I'd argue that would be beyond the original scope of the processors intended market

Indeed. AMD in particular is moving away from my high performance needs, Intel is at least trying with AVX-512 as slow as it is moving into mainstream.

 

20 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Latency on the other hand, always scales.

At least, for predictable workloads latency is more easily masked and bandwidth remains the limiting factor. While no mention was made of it, I assume the IF connections in Zen 3 still have the half-bandwidth writes like Zen 2. Single CCD models can't even max that out.

[MageTank]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am pretty disappointed by this announcement and it's entirely because of the pricing. 

It seems like price to performance is about the same or even worse than Zen 2 products. 

 

The 3600 is the most popular CPU right now. It costs 199.

The CPU that replaces it, the 5600X, costs 299.

That's a 50% increase in price for like a 20% increase in performance. No thanks... 

I personally welcome the price increase, for a few reasons.

 

#1. It shows that AMD is now taking themselves seriously again, and no longer perceives themselves as the "cheaper option".

#2. Intel won't be able to charge for a more expensive product now, so we may see the script get flipped entirely.

#3. It removes the biggest excuse used to silence valid criticism against AMD. This last one might be petty, but it's the sad reality that most of us already knew. A lot of people defended AMD and excused their shortcomings simply because of their cheaper pricing. This removes that defense, and forces those that hid behind this logic to abandon ship, or accept valid criticism against AMD's decisions.

 

It will be interesting to see how people react to AMD's pricing decision, as history has shown that some of the more... die-hard AMD fans can be pretty polarizing when it comes to their opinions on AMD's financial/marketing based decisions. I am sure we all remember the chipset compatibility fiasco that occurred around the Ryzen 3000 series launch and how people nearly demanded AMD's head on a pike over that one. AMD is in a situation where they've built this strong loyalty from fans that favor value above all else, and deviating from that even a little results in a pretty aggressive response (though, 50% is by no means a little number, I am merely speaking in general at this point).

 

Either way, it will be interesting to see how AMD handles the lens they've put themselves under with this pricing decision. 

 

 

[Zandvliet]

A bit of a side track, but I did expect new MBs coming with the 5000 series, I guess I was wrong. Probably going with a MSI MAG B550M MORTAR and 5900X, coming from Z270 and 7700K.

[cj09beira]

12 minutes ago, porina said:

Prime95-like

 

Indeed. AMD in particular is moving away from my high performance needs, Intel is at least trying with AVX-512 as slow as it is moving into mainstream.

 

At least, for predictable workloads latency is more easily masked and bandwidth remains the limiting factor. While no mention was made of it, I assume the IF connections in Zen 3 still have the half-bandwidth writes like Zen 2. Single CCD models can't even max that out.

didn't amd said they were waiting for ddr5 before wasting die space on avx512?

3 minutes ago, MageTank said:

I personally welcome the price increase, for a few reasons.

 

#1. It shows that AMD is now taking themselves seriously again, and no longer perceives themselves as the "cheaper option".

#2. Intel won't be able to charge for a more expensive product now, so we may see the script get flipped entirely.

#3. It removes the biggest excuse used to silence valid criticism against AMD. This last one might be petty, but it's the sad reality that most of us already knew. A lot of people defended AMD and excused their shortcomings simply because of their cheaper pricing. This removes that defense, and forces those that hid behind this logic to abandon ship, or accept valid criticism against AMD's decisions.

 

It will be interesting to see how people react to AMD's pricing decision, as history has shown that some of the more... die-hard AMD fans can be pretty polarizing when it comes to their opinions on AMD's financial/marketing based decisions. I am sure we all remember the chipset compatibility fiasco that occurred around the Ryzen 3000 series launch and how people nearly demanded AMD's head on a pike over that one. AMD is in a situation where they've built this strong loyalty from fans that favor value above all else, and deviating from that even a little results in a pretty aggressive response (though, 50% is by no means a little number, I am merely speaking in general at this point).

 

Either way, it will be interesting to see how AMD handles the lens they've put themselves under with this pricing decision. 

 

 

it will all come down to: Do non X parts exist, if not then this price is too high, at least for the 6 core, though is not in a much better position, if there are non X parts then it should be mostly fine.

there is also the possibility that zen 2 cpus will be sold along side zen 3, but i don't believe there is much chance of it happening as both are likely made on the same line, and amd wont want to waste wafers on zen 2

[cj09beira]

3 minutes ago, Zandvliet said:

A bit of a side track, but I did expect new MBs coming with the 5000 series, I guess I was wrong. Probably going with a MSI MAG B550M MORTAR and 5900X, coming from Z270 and 7700K.

asus did announce a small refresh for a few boards others might do the same before the cpus are on sale

https://www.overclock3d.net/news/cpu_mainboard/asus_rog_reveals_two_new_zen_3_ready_motherboards_-_the_dark_hero_and_strix_xe_gaming/1

[Rohith_Kumar_Sp]

Welcome to the 5000 series, the 4th generation of Ryzen, known as Zen 3

[Blademaster91]

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

See my post above. It's at best a 50% price increase for a 20% performance increase. Zen 2 is a lot better value. 

It's really not much different than when the Ryzen 3000 series came out, 3xxx cpu's had a performance improvment, and much better IMC, but 2xxx cpu's were a much better value.

You compared a non-X cpu to the X sku cpu, not really a fair comparison price wise, I don't like the $50 pricing increase however I understand AMD is going to increase prices if they can get close or beat Intel at performance. I doubt there will just be X CPU's, it just might be a while until there are non-X CPU's.

I really don't see people complain about Intel pricing even though they've been using 14nm+++++++++++++++++++ and always require a new socket.

[porina]

4 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

didn't amd said they were waiting for ddr5 before wasting die space on avx512?

I'm not aware of that. If you got a reference I'd be interested.

 

Before Zen 2, AMD have severely lagged Intel in FPU back to... I think their last "good" CPU was the X6-era? Even the first two iterations of Ryzen were more Sandy Bridge era performance. Zen 2 finally managed to not only catch up but slightly pass Intel's mainstream offerings, but not their higher parts. As I'm not going to try getting one around launch, someone else will have to run the benchmarks but I don't expect Zen 3 to be significantly different from Zen 2 in that respect. Not the 19% average for sure, if anywhere on the lower end of that.

 

Feeding AVX-512 has been a problem though. DDR5 could go some way to help with that, but fundamentally I'd like to see more channels on upper-end consumer systems.

[imreloadin]

29 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

give it time this is only the higher end SKUs amd tends to drop prices fast.

and 3000 chips should still be around some. they'll keep the 3600, 3330x until they have replacements at those prices

This is what kills me about all the complaining here. It's like the Ryzen 5000 series isn't going to JUST be 4 CPUs

Yet here everyone is losing their shit comparing the 3600 to the 5600X...The X SKUs were never worth the price premium from a cost/performance perspective, even within the same generation.

 

Everyone just needs to chill the fuck out, the non-X SKUs will be here eventually.