You're gonna be waiting for a bit - AMD R5 5600 Rumored to arrive next year

[Energycore]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

5600 for 220 dollars would be great. If even say too good to be true. My guess is that it will be more like 250 dollars if they release it at all. 

Yeah agreed. I think if by release date of the 5600X there is no announcement, there might not be a 5600 at all.

 

220 dollars is cheaper than the 3600 launched at if I'm not mistaken.

[Blue4130]

8 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

.. kinda shitty that amd forces you to now either buy the high end x parts  (5800x is just a 5700x). Or wait several months.. 

AMD isn't forcing you to do anything. They made a business decision. You can choose to accept it or not. 

[StDragon]

AMD is on fire with OEMs at the moment. I wonder if the delay is just retail with dibs going to OEM. Anyone able to confirm?

[dizmo]

5 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

true hes doing that wrong however.. comparing them to msrp prices.. eh no he is right.
100 for the 200 msrp of the 3600 to the 5600x 
120 for the 330msrp of the 3700x to the 3800x

and yes. these are the "lower" end models but as bench marks have shown. they are both the same as their counter part (aka 3600 and 3600x and the 3700x and 3800x)
prices are through the roof this time around. at greedy level even. which is a dumb thing. i am still amazed that companies just dont get that if you place your product at a reasonable price people will be happy and your sales go up. its so basic and easy

I don't think it's really greed. It's placing your product properly based on the performance it gives. AMD has a lot of ground to make up financially, and they need all the profit they can get in order to achieve that. I'm hoping the additional profits they make from the new CPUs gets fed into the GPU division and they get more people working on rock solid drivers. They'll have absolutely no problem selling their product, even at the price they launched it at. The performance is there.

 

People always think AMD is some sort of white knight coming to save them from high prices....forgetting that 6 years ago they had a $1,499 flagship GPU.

If AMD can, they'll charge you just as much as Intel or Nvidia do.

[ARikozuM]

Given the beginning of the thread title I was mostly assuming "critical 32-bit error renders chip unusable". 

[Soppro]

Kind of disappointing, would've wished they launch the 5600 preferably before the end of the year 

[VeganJoy]

11 hours ago, dizmo said:

Eh, not surprising, and honestly I don't see it being that cheap. I imagine they'll price it at $249, otherwise the lower end one looks far too enticing.

 

I mean, when you're comparing used prices to new you'll always think they're far too high.

lmao right? i need someone to get a 5800x on nov 5th and put a years worth of use on it real quick to sell it to me 

 

2 hours ago, dizmo said:

People always think AMD is some sort of white knight coming to save them from high prices....forgetting that 6 years ago they had a $1,499 flagship GPU.

If AMD can, they'll charge you just as much as Intel or Nvidia do.

imagine 5 years from now its this exact situation just with the companies reversed lol

[williamcll]

4 hours ago, StDragon said:

AMD is on fire with OEMs at the moment. I wonder if the delay is just retail with dibs going to OEM. Anyone able to confirm?

Well, Lenovo did announce a new PC with AMD CPUs so I guess it should be true.

[Fatih19]

32 minutes ago, williamcll said:

Well, Lenovo did announce a new PC with AMD CPUs so I guess it should be true.

But i thought those OEM chips are the 4xxx series? That's Zen 2, not Zen 3.

[dizmo]

1 hour ago, VeganJoy said:

lmao right? i need someone to get a 5800x on nov 5th and put a years worth of use on it real quick to sell it to me 

 

imagine 5 years from now its this exact situation just with the companies reversed lol

Haha, yeah. I pretty much exclusively buy used parts, and now with COVID and the performance increases on these new gen cards, I have to wait until people realize what their stuff is actually worth before I can build a new system; was going to build it for CyberPunk, now it looks like it'll be February or March.

 

I'm going to go ahead and say that's exactly what will happen, and the fanbois will either finally laud their superior performance over everyone else, or they'll cry rivers of tears as their white knight has betrayed them and turned to the "dark side." Or, you know, they're doing what every business should. Profiting

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, Energycore said:

Yeah agreed. I think if by release date of the 5600X there is no announcement, there might not be a 5600 at all.

 

220 dollars is cheaper than the 3600 launched at if I'm not mistaken.

The 3600 was 199 at launch.

That's why I thought the 5000 series announcement was so disappointing. The price of the 6 core went from 200 to 300 dollars.

[Lord Vile]

33 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The 3600 was 199 at launch.

That's why I thought the 5000 series announcement was so disappointing. The price of the 6 core went from 200 to 300 dollars.

The price of the X model went up 50, wait for the non x version to complain about pricing

[LAwLz]

39 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

The price of the X model went up 50, wait for the non x version to complain about pricing

No it didn't.

The MSRP of the X model went up 50 dollars.

The actual, real world price of the X model went up 90 dollars.

 

Why wait for an unreleased, possibly might not even be released 5600(nonX) to be released before complaining about the price of two different products you can buy today?

When looking at which products to buy, you have to compare the products that are actually available to buy. Right now that's the 3600 ($199), the 3600X ($219) and the 5600X ($299, possibly more depending on demand). Those are your 6 core options from AMD right now. Those are your only options. To someone looking to buy a computer now it doesn't matter that AMD MIGHT release a cheaper 5000 series CPU sometime in the future. By that logic, we shouldn't complain about Intel pricing either (which you have done several times in the past) because "by the year 2022 Intel will have better price to performance than they have today".

We have to make judgements based on what is available to us, not speculating about what might be available to us in some unspecified future.

[hollyh88]

7 hours ago, dizmo said:

I don't think it's really greed. It's placing your product properly based on the performance it gives. AMD has a lot of ground to make up financially, and they need all the profit they can get in order to achieve that. I'm hoping the additional profits they make from the new CPUs gets fed into the GPU division and they get more people working on rock solid drivers. They'll have absolutely no problem selling their product, even at the price they launched it at. The performance is there.

 

People always think AMD is some sort of white knight coming to save them from high prices....forgetting that 6 years ago they had a $1,499 flagship GPU.

If AMD can, they'll charge you just as much as Intel or Nvidia do.

I'm sorry but I disagree on some fronts. Yes I fully support them asking more. They totally should. But the problem here. Is that they jacked up the prices and only release the "high" end cpus first. And will release the "low" end cpus months later. Because they know that those perform probably equal as the ones now. They learned from 3000 series that they should have done it this way too. Because else everyone would just buy the cheaper 5700x and 5600. Because they probably will perform equally. Unless they really nerf them into the ground. So yes that is a greedy action. Doesnt matter if its amd nvidia or intel. Such actions are greedy. And their performance does not justify the price.

 

Also, I dont think that amd is some white knight. They can totally increase the price. But they should have done it properly. Also releasing the 5600 and 5700x at launch and better price the 5600x and 5800x. But they arent doing it. 450 for an 8 core in 2020? When such amounts got you almost 12 last year? Yeah that's bs in my eyes.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, Lord Vile said:

The price of the X model went up 50, wait for the non x version to complain about pricing

The other difference was before the X and non-X were released at the same time, not this time.

[Lord Vile]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

No it didn't.

The MSRP of the X model went up 50 dollars.

The actual, real world price of the X model went up 90 dollars.

What are you basing the "real world" price? Because last I checked MSRP is MSRP.

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

 

Why wait for an unreleased, possibly might not even be released 5600(nonX) to be released before complaining about the price of two different products you can buy today?

When looking at which products to buy, you have to compare the products that are actually available to buy. Right now that's the 3600 ($199), the 3600X ($219) and the 5600X ($299, possibly more depending on demand). Those are your 6 core options from AMD right now. Those are your only options. To someone looking to buy a computer now it doesn't matter that AMD MIGHT release a cheaper 5000 series CPU sometime in the future. By that logic, we shouldn't complain about Intel pricing either (which you have done several times in the past) because "by the year 2022 Intel will have better price to performance than they have today".

We have to make judgements based on what is available to us, not speculating about what might be available to us in some unspecified future.

So the 2600X just doesn't exist to you then? 

[Lord Vile]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The other difference was before the X and non-X were released at the same time, not this time.

Makes sense to release the higher margin chips first if yields are good enough.

[leadeater]

13 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Makes sense to release the higher margin chips first if yields are good enough.

Yes, makes sense for AMD only. The other option is AMD finding a better way to differentiate and give value to the X model over the non-X. Like a much better stock cooler, one you wouldn't want to replace unless you just want an AIO or custom water, or higher TDP/PPT. It's not like there is nothing that can be done to make the X variants actually better, even if it's not performance wise, and release them at the same time.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, dizmo said:

I don't think it's really greed.

16 minutes ago, hollyh88 said:

 So yes that is a greedy action.

The only difference between "greed" and "good business" is whether you like the company and don't want to put them in a bad light, or not.

 

 

 

 

13 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

 So yes that is a greedy action.

I base my "real world prices" on the prices we consumers can buy these products for.

If I want to order a processor today, what amount of money do I have to pay to get a certain processor. That's my "real world prices".

 

14 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

So the 2600X just doesn't exist to you then? 

What does that mean? I assume you mean the 3600X so that's what I will pretend that you wrote.

Yes it exists, and it costs 90 dollars less than the 5600X's suggested price.

I also believe the 3600X was terrible value when it launched. The X basically stood for "donator edition", because it was essentially a way to just give AMD more money without getting anything in return. That's why it sold waaaay less than the 3600 which didn't include a small donation to AMD. I also believe that's why AMD isn't launching the non-X version at the same time this generation.

Because the X processors have always been pointless to buy. They might as well come with a card saying "thanks for the extra money, dumbass".

 

-Signed a 1700X owner

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

They might as well come with a card saying "thanks for the extra money, dumbass".

[hollyh88]

10 hours ago, Blue4130 said:

AMD isn't forcing you to do anything. They made a business decision. You can choose to accept it or not. 

Yeah they do. Same goes with nvidia and everyone else. They are forcing the consumer to now pay a higher premium. Because they didnt release the lower end parts at the same time. 

[Lord Vile]

37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I base my "real world prices" on the prices we consumers can buy these products for.

So the price isn't increasing by 90 because the 3600 and X aren't new. You can't compare MSRP for a product that's older.

37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If I want to order a processor today, what amount of money do I have to pay to get a certain processor. That's my "real world prices".

Then you're being stupid because as things get older they depreciate. 

37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

What does that mean? I assume you mean the 3600X so that's what I will pretend that you wrote.

No I meant the 2600X. That's what I wrote.

37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Yes it exists, and it costs 90 dollars less than the 5600X's suggested price.

Because it's older but I meant the 2600X which is also a 6 core part.

37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I also believe the 3600X was terrible value when it launched. The X basically stood for "donator edition", because it was essentially a way to just give AMD more money without getting anything in return. That's why it sold waaaay less than the 3600 which didn't include a small donation to AMD. I also believe that's why AMD isn't launching the non-X version at the same time this generation.

The X models actually perform better when left to boost on their own 

37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Because the X processors have always been pointless to buy. They might as well come with a card saying "thanks for the extra money, dumbass".

Not really if you run them with Auto OC i forgot the marketing name the X chips perform better.

37 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

 

-Signed a 1700X owner

Who cares

[Lord Vile]

44 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes, makes sense for AMD only. The other option is AMD finding a better way to differentiate and give value to the X model over the non-X. Like a much better stock cooler, one you wouldn't want to replace unless you just want an AIO or custom water, or higher TDP/PPT. It's not like there is nothing that can be done to make the X variants actually better, even if it's not performance wise, and release them at the same time.

X models have a higher TDP which allows them more headroom in the auto OC software. 

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

So the price isn't increasing by 90 because the 3600 and X aren't new. You can't compare MSRP for a product that's older.

 

Of course I can. It's what's on the market right now.

If I go out and buy a processor will I have the option of a $200 3600 or a $300 5600X. Which one was released when doesn't matter. All that matters is what they cost and what performance I get. 

If Intel released a 6 core i5 for 600 dollars in 1 month would you just go "well it's not fair to compare the Intel CPU to this 300 dollar AMD CPU because clearly the Intel CPU was released later and therefore it should cost more!"? It makes no sense.

 

 

12 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Then you're being stupid because as things get older they depreciate. 

 

What do you mean? Are you saying it makes sense that the 3600X is cheaper because it is older and has gone down in price?

1) Why does it matter when a product launched for someone buying a CPU today? All that matters is price, performance and features. How long ago the product was launched shouldn't be some factor in deciding which CPU to get. If a cheap processor from 2015 performed better than an expensive processor released in 2020 would you recommend the expensive one that had less performance because "it's newer so therefore it is better" (assuming everything else was equal)? Of course not, because release date is completely irrelevant.

2) The 3600 was 199 at launch. It hasn't gone down in cost since it was released. It did not depreciate in value because it had such a good value to begin with. The 3600X went down in price because barely anyone sold it, since it was basically like donating 50 dollars to AMD.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

No I meant the 2600X. That's what I wrote.

 

Why are you bringing up the 2600X?

 

18 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Because it's older but I meant the 2600X which is also a 6 core part.

 

Oh I get it. You just wanted to nitpick rather than respond to my point.

Yes, the 2600X is also a 6 core part. So is the 1600X. The reason why I didn't mention them in my 6 core part list is because they are irrelevant. They are not good purchase anymore. Nobody looking to buy a new PC with a 6 core processor should be considering the 2600X or 1600X because they offer very poor value.

 

19 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

The X models actually perform better when left to boost on their own 

 

Yes, but extremely slightly better and it can easily be offset by changing 2 things in the BIOS. My point still stands.

Buying an X part was like donating money to AMD. It was a 50 dollar BIOS settings tweak fee. Horrible, absolutely horrible. Again, barely anyone bought the X models because of that. The non-X models outsold the X models massively, until the X models came down in price to more reasonable levels.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

Not really if you run them with Auto OC i forgot the marketing name the X chips perform better.

 

21 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

X models have a higher TDP which allows them more headroom in the auto OC software. 

Again, it's a 50 dollar fee to have one BIOS setting changed. That's it.

It is basically a donation to AMD where the users gets nothing in return. But keep grasping at that straw buddy.

[Moonzy]

29 minutes ago, Lord Vile said:

X models have a higher TDP which allows them more headroom in the auto OC software. 

actually, the TDP isnt fixed for OC

it's just stock settings afaik

 

and even then, idk how accurate it is.

 

people say 3800x is better binned than 3700x, but i would say it depends on luck

i've seen 3800x with poor OC perf