Where Gaming Begins: Ryzen 5000 Series Reviews

[JoeCoke]

Would have been a much stronger launch if they had released non X models, or just did away with non X and priced these X models well. It's exciting to see AMD finally grab the gaming performance crown for sure, but this is not exciting at all from a price-performance standpoint. Now we know there will be price cuts (as there usually are), especially considering Rocket Lake next year, but this launch still could have been much better. A 5600 for 200$ would have been mind blowing. Let's see if AMD does it down the line.

[Brooksie359]

11 hours ago, TVwazhere said:

Tip #1: Dont get your facts from LTT. 

 

Tip #2: If you dont need the best of the Best, Get last gen. AMD has historically slashed prices of the previous gen CPU's after launch of the current gen. I was getting 2600's for $150  months after the 3600 launched.

Even before the launch I could find the 3600 for steals alot of the time. Helped a family member with a 3600 build and he got his for 160 on sale. I imagine prices will go down in about a year and you could probably pick up a 5000 series cpu for quite a bit less than you can now. 

[mrthuvi]

Can't wait for the 5300x. That would be freaking killer.

[SteveGrabowski0]

Can't see spending $300 on the R5 5600X for 20% better performance when cpu bound than the $200 R5 3600. Hopefully there will be an R5 5600 but probably shouldn't hold my breath for it.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

Well done AMD! Now for the same price I got my i7 8700 I could get an AMD 5700 and get two extra cores and a double digit performance improvements :3

 

Total Wars: Warhammer 2 would benefit from the extra CPU power, but other games I play not so much. For AI training It's CUDA all the way, so CPU matters only for compile time and I can wait the extra 20%/30% time. My CPU can still bring out most of the power of my Asus 3080 TUF, so I'm in no rush to update.

 

I am really looking forward to Intel 12th/13th gen and Ryzen 7000/8000 with DDR5 support in maybe two years time. Who knows, Intel may finally have figured out the Intel 10nm/Intel 7nm processes and compete with TSMC 7nm and TSMC 5nm processes.

 

I don't remember the last time there was meaningful choice for both CPU and GPU at the same time :3

[RejZoR]

2 hours ago, SteveGrabowski0 said:

Can't see spending $300 on the R5 5600X for 20% better performance when cpu bound than the $200 R5 3600. Hopefully there will be an R5 5600 but probably shouldn't hold my breath for it.

People are so funny. When Intel held the gaming crown, everyone was "but muh gaming". Now that AMD is literally better and asks some more for their absolutely superior CPU's in every single way, everyone is like "yeah, but the price".

[LAwLz]

19 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

People are so funny. When Intel held the gaming crown, everyone was "but muh gaming". Now that AMD is literally better and asks some more for their absolutely superior CPU's in every single way, everyone is like "yeah, but the price".

1) People were absolutely NOT going "but muh gaming". Have you been living under a rock? People have been shitting and making jokes at Intel for years now. Barely anyone is buying Intel CPUs. These people you are referring to only exist in your head.

 

2) A 50% price increase at the most popular price point is an issue. How much shit did Nvidia get for increasing prices on their cards? Why shouldn't AMD get the same treatment when they raise prices? I have seen quite a few users who were bashing Nvidia for the pricing now defend AMD for their pricing.

 

3) AMD are competing with themselves. I don't think many people in this thread are going "wow the AMD 5000 CPUs are expensive so I'll buy Intel instead". They are going "wow these new AMD CPUs are expensive so I'll buy the previous gen AMD instead". People seriously need to stop with these terrible comparisons where they deliberately cherry pick poor value parts (like basically any Intel CPU, or the AMD X model) to make the value of the 5000 series seem better. It's stupid.

[RejZoR]

Literally everyone was in agreement that Ryzen is great, but not quite in gaming. Now they took even that crown. By a HUGE margin even compared to Intel.

 

50% price increase? Relative to what? Old gen? Or Intel? They are making better products across the board and they charge more for it. If you feel it's bad value, then buy some older version. I just can't stand whiners who endlessly bitch about the price. It's simple economics. If you have the best thing, you can charge whatever you want for it. And AMD didn't even go batshit crazy on it even if everyone is going OH NOES 50%.

 

3600X is 199€. 5600X is 330€. That's not even 50% already and we're comparing old "outdated" parts that had prices slashed with time itself. Compared to product just hitting the shelves. Buying new system now and sticking 3600X in it is frankly silly. Especially if you're buying it for next 5+ years...

[CarlBar]

2 hours ago, LAwLz said:

1) People were absolutely NOT going "but muh gaming". Have you been living under a rock? People have been shitting and making jokes at Intel for years now. Barely anyone is buying Intel CPUs. These people you are referring to only exist in your head.

 

Nope they where everywhere. I'm not saying everyone was saying that, but it was VERY common, or at least being very vocal, which in perception terms is just as important.

 

Also GN has their 5600x video out, not sure if it's been added to the OP yet so dropping it here in case.

 

 

 

 

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Literally everyone was in agreement that Ryzen is great, but not quite in gaming. Now they took even that crown. By a HUGE margin even compared to Intel.

I think people who argued that Ryzen wasn't great for gaming was:

1) A very small minority

2) Ill-informed

 

If you look at PC build suggestions on this forum, Reddit or any other forum you will rarely find anyone recommending an Intel CPU in the last couple of years. And when they do, there are a dozen people telling them they are wrong for recommending an Intel CPU.

 

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

50% price increase? Relative to what? Old gen? Or Intel?

To their previous generation.

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

They are making better products across the board and they charge more for it.

Yes but the price increase does not seem proportionate to the performance increase.

Intel got crapped on for the same reason before Zen was released, but in their case the price increases were smaller (like 10 dollars instead of 50) and the performance increases were smaller too (maybe like 5%). I didn't see many people jumping in defending Intel increasing prices when that happened, nor have I seen many people defend Nvidia increasing prices with justifications like "they have the best product so they can charge a premium". Even if that was the case, companies charging premiums is bad for us customers. Remember, we do not work for AMD. We should want the best products for the lowest prices. When a company suddenly increases prices we shouldn't just go "good for them, this multi-billion dollar company surely need more money from me". 

 

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

If you feel it's bad value, then buy some older version.

That's probably what I will do. That's probably what I will recommend others do too, but I will read some more reviews before fully making my mind up. Right now, it seems like for most builds it might be better to go with the older gen stuff though, and that's simply because of the prices of these new chips.

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I just can't stand whiners who endlessly bitch about the price. It's simple economics. If you have the best thing, you can charge whatever you want for it.

"Baww stop attacking this company I really like!"

That's what you sound like. People are free to whine about products if they want. I didn't see you defending Nvidia and Intel during the time people were endlessly bitching and moaning about their price increases so I don't understand why you are so eager to jump in and defend AMD now that the positions have switched.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

And AMD didn't even go batshit crazy on it even if everyone is going OH NOES 50%.

I think they did.

Their new 6 core costs as much as their old 8 core.

Their new 8 core costs as much as their old 12 core.

 

Imagine if Nvidia had released the 3070 for the same price as the 2080 and the 3060 for the same price as the 2070.

I am 100% sure the forum would be full of people shitting on Nvidia if they did that. But now that AMD has done essentially what I described above, people religiously defend them with silly arguments like "they can set whichever prices they want and people should not complain!".

 

 

2 hours ago, RejZoR said:

3600X is 199€. 5600X is 330€. That's not even 50% already and we're comparing old "outdated" parts that had prices slashed with time itself. Compared to product just hitting the shelves. Buying new system now and sticking 3600X in it is frankly silly. Especially if you're buying it for next 5+ years...

The 3600 was 199 at launch and is regularly sold for less than that.

The 5600X is 299 if you can even get one.

 

199 to 299 is a 50% increase, and that's without any discounts or rebates. If we start taking into account price slashes the difference is more than 50%.

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

Nope they where everywhere. I'm not saying everyone was saying that, but it was VERY common, or at least being very vocal, which in perception terms is just as important.

Source?

Please note that AMD had the top 7 spots on Amazon's best sellers list.

 

Even IF it was "very common" like you claim it was, AMD still sold far and beyond 8 times more CPUs than Intel. So in a "worst case scenario", we're talking like a ~10% recommendation rate. Looking through the build log and build suggestion threads on this forum, I'd say 10% is very generous. It's probably not even 5% of posts recommending Intel.

Even the people I saw that recommended Intel went something along the lines of "if you ONLY play games then Intel, but if you do anything else as well as play games then Ryzen", which is not exactly what I would say is an "Intel recommendation".

 

 

Here are some statistics from the "New Builds and Planning" forum.

I went through 13 number of threads, all which were created during the first 3 days of October (so before the Ryzen 5000 announcement).

 

Number of times AMD was suggested: 29

Number of times Intel was suggested: 3

 

If OP says "hey I want to buy this computer" which has an Intel CPU, and then two people recommend buying a Ryzen CPU instead then I count that as 1 suggestion for Intel and 2 suggestions for AMD. If someone posts a build containing an Intel CPU and someone replies with "everything looks fine" then I count that as 2 suggestions for Intel, and vice versa.

Basically, anytime someone mentions buying something containing an Intel or AMD, or suggests changing something to one or the other, I count it as suggested.

I didn't count the same person suggesting the same CPU over and over multiple times. If user1 suggested OP change to an AMD CPU, OP said it was too expensive and user1 then suggested a cheaper AMD CPU then I only count that as 1 suggestion.

 

Another interesting thing, two of the Intel suggestions were an OP saying they wanted to buy it, and then people replied with "get AMD instead". I only ever saw someone say "get Intel instead" once and even then it was "if you only care about gaming performance".

[Fatih19]

They're purposefully holding back the non-X part, they'll play that hand later to undercut Intel's 11th gen if it turns out to be competitive.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Please note that AMD had the top 7 spots on Amazon's best sellers list.

That's only fairly recently, Intel was still being recommended and still top sellers during Ryzen 1000 and Ryzen 2000. Things really only changed mid/early mid cycle of Ryzen 3000. Intel is for games very much was a common thing during those times, and you still encountered it a bit up until a few months ago but was less prevalent than it was a year ago.

[LAwLz]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

That's only fairly recently, Intel was still being recommended and still top sellers during Ryzen 1000 and Ryzen 2000. Things really only changed mid/early mid cycle of Ryzen 3000. Intel is for games very much was a common thing during those times, and you still encountered it a bit up until a few months ago but was less prevalent than it was a year ago.

Yes I know. But that's because Intel were still competitive during the Ryzen 1000 and 2000 series. Ever since the 300 series were released I can pretty much count the number of Intel recommendations I have seen on one hand, and I read an unhealthy amount of build logs and recommendation threads.

Recommendations for Intel hasn't really been a thing since the 3000 series, and during the 1000 and 2000 series Intel were recommended more often because they were simply more competitive, not only in gaming but overall.

[ravenshrike]

So now that GN has released their 5600x video, we see that performance when not gpu/engine bound, the advantage over the 3600/x is 16-50% depending on the exact game.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

 

46 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

So now that GN has released their 5600x video, we see that performance when not gpu/engine bound, the advantage over the 3600/x is 16-50% depending on the exact game.

Not really a fan of those benchmarks, because he is turning down settings a lot to get like 200+ FPS in games. 

I don't think that is an accurate representation of how people will use their computers.

 

It's good if you want to measure CPU performance, but those tests do not match at all what people buying these CPUs for gaming will do.

 

The truth of the matter is that when you remove the GPU bottleneck then yes, the 5600X performs a lot better than the 3600. But the problem is that in most cases, games are heavily bottlenecked by the GPU so those benchmarks are not accurate representations of real world performance.

 

 

 

I do like that Steve agreed with me on the 3600(X) comparison though.

Quote

It's a 300 dollar part [the 5600X]. It's suppose to be replacing the 3600X except, no one really feels that way because nobody bought the 3600X and if you did, sorry. But most people bought the 3600. The 3600X made more sense when they tanked the price to be 10 dollars more than the 3600. The is a reason they did that is because they couldn't sell any of them. So when everybody, including us for the last 3 years now told buyers of AMD "don't buy the X-SKU CPUs. Buy the non-X ones, spend literally 5 minutes in the BIOS and you can get it to the X-SKU performance for 50 dollars cheaper", AMD's response to nobody is buying the X-CPU was to literally only make X-CPUs and kill everything else.

 

[Blademaster91]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

1) People were absolutely NOT going "but muh gaming". Have you been living under a rock? People have been shitting and making jokes at Intel for years now. Barely anyone is buying Intel CPUs. These people you are referring to only exist in your head.

No, people were recommending Intel over Ryzen 1000 and 2000 series because of gaming, it wasn't until Ryzen 3000 people started recommending AMD for gaming, yet most were were still recommending Intel because of a difference around 10% in gaming, and there are still people recommending Intel because of overclocking or clock speeds.

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

2) A 50% price increase at the most popular price point is an issue. How much shit did Nvidia get for increasing prices on their cards? Why shouldn't AMD get the same treatment when they raise prices? I have seen quite a few users who were bashing Nvidia for the pricing now defend AMD for their pricing.

What is this 50% price increase? The price increase was $50 over the 3600X.

Nvidia deserves the criticism with the RTX 3000 series launch, Nvidia is the market leader so if they increase the prices it affects the whole market, and in order for AMD to compete they have to raise prices or end up looking like the lower quality brand.

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

3) AMD are competing with themselves. I don't think many people in this thread are going "wow the AMD 5000 CPUs are expensive so I'll buy Intel instead". They are going "wow these new AMD CPUs are expensive so I'll buy the previous gen AMD instead". People seriously need to stop with these terrible comparisons where they deliberately cherry pick poor value parts (like basically any Intel CPU, or the AMD X model) to make the value of the 5000 series seem better. It's stupid.

Intel is still competing, according to techpowerup the 10900K is still slightly faster overall in gaming. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-5900x/18.html

So an extra $50 is a terrible value to you on an entire build,  IMO the better value is in spending a bit more on a CPU that will give better performance if the main use is gaming, rather than buying last gen parts.

Edited November 6, 2020 by Blademaster91

[ravenshrike]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

 

The truth of the matter is that when you remove the GPU bottleneck then yes, the 5600X performs a lot better than the 3600. But the problem is that in most cases, games are heavily bottlenecked by the GPU so those benchmarks are not accurate representations of real world performance

Which is why it's not worth it if you already have a 2600 or 3600. But if you're building a new computer, spending the extra money now means a genuinely significant uplift over the 3600 in 2-4 graphics card generations without having to replace your cpu. Graphics cards are drop in replacements. CPUs require significantly more time to replace.

[WhitetailAni]

23 hours ago, TVwazhere said:

Tip #1: Dont get your facts from LTT. 

 

Tip #2: If you dont need the best of the Best, Get last gen. AMD has historically slashed prices of the previous gen CPU's after launch of the current gen. I was getting 2600's for $150  months after the 3600 launched.

I was hoping for the same thing with a Ryzen 5 3600.

It "went on sale" for $190, from a base price of $205.

It's now at $200 again, what it was for months.

Look!

https://www.newegg.com/amd-ryzen-5-3600/p/N82E16819113569?Description=ryzen 5 3600&cm_re=ryzen_5 3600-_-19-113-569-_-Product

[TVwazhere]

11 minutes ago, ragnarok0273 said:

It's now at $200 again, what it was for months.

Look!

I know, I'm keeping an eye out for Black Friday pricing 

[WhitetailAni]

Just now, TVwazhere said:

I know, I'm keeping an eye out for Black Friday pricing 

Why didn't I think of that...

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

No, people were recommending Intel over Ryzen 1000 and 2000 series because of gaming, it wasn't until Ryzen 3000 people started recommending AMD for gaming, yet most were were still recommending Intel because of a difference around 10% in gaming, and there are still people recommending Intel because of overclocking or clock speeds.

What world do you live in? In the real world, the world I live in, barely anyone recommended Intel processors over the Ryzen 3000 series. Do you have any kind of evidence to support these outrageous claims you're making? In the post you're quoting I actually went to the LTT build forum and counted the number of times people recommend AMD over Intel. AMD was recommended more than 10 times as often.

There is a tiny, minuscule minority of people that were buying Intel processors over Ryzen processors. Not a majority like you're claiming.

 

Your claims are ridiculous. Absolutely out of touch with the world.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

What is this 50% price increase? The price increase was $50 over the 3600X.

The 3600X was a ripoff at 249 dollars. That's why barely anyone bought it.

Stop comparing the 5600X with the garbage 3600X just to make the 5600X look better. Compare it with the 3600 instead which people ACTUALLY BOUGHT.

Or let me cite Steve from GN:

Quote

It's a 300 dollar part [the 5600X]. It's suppose to be replacing the 3600X except, no one really feels that way because nobody bought the 3600X and if you did, sorry, but most people bought the 3600. The 3600X made more sense when they tanked the price to be 10 dollars more than the 3600. The is a reason they did that is because they couldn't sell any of them. So when everybody, including us for the last 3 years now told buyers of AMD "don't buy the X-SKU CPUs. Buy the non-X ones, spend literally 5 minutes in the BIOS and you can get it to the X-SKU performance for 50 dollars cheaper", AMD's response to nobody is buying the X-CPU was to literally only make X-CPUs and kill everything else.

 

If you bought the 3600X then you got ripped off by AMD. The 3600 was just way better.

The 3600X was shit. It was terrible. Stop making ridiculous comparisons to make the 5600X look better than it really is. You don't have to resort to these dishonest tactics to make it look good.

 

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Nvidia deserves the criticism with the RTX 3000 series launch, Nvidia is the market leader so if they increase the prices it affects the whole market, and in order for AMD to compete they have to raise prices or end up looking like the lower quality brand.

What are you on about?

Why are you making a distinction in how you treat Nvidia vs how you treat AMD? Either "they are the market leads so they can do whatever they want with pricing" is valid for all companies or no companies. You can't say it is OK for AMD to raise prices but not Nvidia. It's hypocritical and fanboy-ish.

 

 

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

Intel is still competing, according to techpowerup the 10900K is still slightly faster overall in gaming. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-5900x/18.html

You gotta be kidding me.

They are within margin of error. That chart literally shows a 530 dollar processor (the i9-10900K) being 1.2% faster than the 199 dollar 3600 and you call that a win? Nobody gives a crap about 1% here or there. Price is far more important for gaming builds because every dollar spent on the CPU is a dollar not spent on the GPU (which is what really matters for gaming).

 

 

 

37 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Which is why it's not worth it if you already have a 2600 or 3600. But if you're building a new computer, spending the extra money now means a genuinely significant uplift over the 3600 in 2-4 graphics card generations without having to replace your cpu. Graphics cards are drop in replacements. CPUs require significantly more time to replace.

According to whom? You're making bold and completely unfounded predictions about how "future proof" a CPU will be.

I say, buy the performance you need today and don't worry about what performance you might need in 7 years or whatever.

 

Let me illustrate how silly your argument sound.

4 graphics card generations ago was the 700 series from Nvidia. That was almost 8 years ago (7 years and 9 months). It was about that time Intel released Haswell. The argument you are making today, is as if someone made the argument in 2013 that "buy the 4770K over the 4690K". Do you really think that little extra performance have mattered that much? The 4690K and 4770K would both have been replaced at the same time. They were both equally "future proof", and my guess is that both the 3600 and 5600X will be equally "future proof" as well when we look back at them in 2028.

 

 

35 minutes ago, ragnarok0273 said:

It "went on sale" for $190, from a base price of $205.

The MSRP of the 3600 is and has always been $199.

[WhitetailAni]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The MSRP of the 3600 is and has always been $199.

I got mine for $179.99 base price back in July.

I know that that is $20 below MSRP, but I'm not getting my second until it's that or below because I know it can now.

[SolarNova]

If, and this isnt the case, but if i was to build myself an entire new system instead of just replacing my GPU, i'd probably get a 5900X ~£550, the 5800X is more in line price wise as my 3930k was, but im not sure it will clock as high as the 5900x on average even though its a single chiplet design.

Double the core count of my 3930k with the 5900x and a massive boost single thread performance would be nice..

 

That paired up with a 6800XT GPU, maybe a Asus Strix x570 E motherboard, a kit of 4x8 4000mhz CL 18 ram, a 1tb NVME SSD, a solid 750W PSU and an air cooler like a DRP4 or D15, should cost in the region of £1900, and be a beast of a machine.

Ofc u dont need to buy high end motherboard, so could probably do it for just under £1800 if need be.

 

Still.. since im personally aiming for 4k gaming i dont think ill be needing to replace my 3930k system yet, a 6800XT isnt going to be pushing FPS high enough at 4k to expose any significant 'bottlenecking' from the CPU. Why spend £1900 when u can just spend ~£600. Especially since ill be likely forking out another £1200-1400 on a OLED at the same time.

[ravenshrike]

33 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

The argument you are making today, is as if someone made the argument in 2013 that "buy the 4770K over the 4690K"

In what games did the 4770k see a 50% performance uplift over the 4690k?