Where Gaming Begins: Ryzen 5000 Series Reviews

[RejZoR]

@LAwLz
 

Quote

 

"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.

 

On what bloody planet?! Have you just woken up from 300 years of hibernation? The new CPU's have 20% better IPC compared to 3000 series and they clock higher across the board compared to 3000 series while consuming even a bit less power. They also have larger single uniform cache and they support Smart Access Memory for additional boost with RX 6000 series graphic cards. You're acting like I'm defending my favorite company for some stupid reason. Where in reality I'm explaining you WHY there is increase in price. You make product better than the last one and also your main competitor and you're somehow not allowed to charge more for that? That's what YOU'RE acting like. "Nope, can't charge more coz reasons." It's like you people haven't seen PC hardware market for the last freaking 20 years. AMD made outstanding product and they are allowed to charge accordingly for it. You don't like it, fine. But don't act like AMD owes you a damn thing. Just because they were inferior before and all they could do is compete on the price front, these are new times and they are releasing state of the art products now. They can and they will charge accordingly. Freaking everyone does, but you all expect AMD to be some sort of exception and literal charity by giving away superior products. It doesn't mean they'll charge more across the board, but it can happen and I'm not going to act like some of you are because I understand these changes. I just don't know why you can't.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Good shit from AMD. Now here's to hoping this is the first Zen launch without serious random bugs/stability issues that show up. 

 

Okay, serious is a bit of a stretch, but still a bit worried about all that, ngl. Side note... can we please get a Zen3 APU soon and not a year from now? iGPU is actually really important to me these days when stuff inevitably goes wrong. I was happy to see that Zen 2 APUs did hit desktop not too far after the laptops, but still hoping that things speed up that way this time.

 

[I basically never build systems with dGPUs for family these days, and even for myself, I'd rather have the fall back after my experiences with x99 and Zen+ platforms.]

 

 

Edit: I am rather disappointed by price creep particularly at the actual sweetspot 5600x, the increase at the top end seems very reasonable and perfectly fine. But it's not surprising and not a huge deal.

[Devilish]

im gonna stick with my 3600x until there is better stock probably a few months down the line but dannnng nice.

[CarlBar]

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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

 

Erm relevant how? Where discussing what people where saying roughly 12-18 months ago, (i agree with @leadeater that it's fallen off a lot over the later half of the 3k series lifetime), not what people actually did or recommend once they got into helping people build. You only have to go back and check the reviews from the original release to hear the commentary around it. People where seriously disappointing about it and acting, at least in reaction terms like that was all that mattered.

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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).

Could we stop using TechPowerUp and 4K test results to compare CPUs? For what ever reason their tests show much less difference in performance between CPUs across all the resolutions from what I can tell and 4K is purely useless for CPU performance comparisons.

 

And it may not even take more than 3 years for a decent performance margin to start growing between the 3600 and 5600X (other reviews already show it as decent btw), a time frame more than acceptable to be thinking about and spending a small amount more on over total system cost so you will actually have that performance when that time comes.

 

We've already seen it now, in the last few years games have already started to significantly favor CPUs with a few more cores than before and we are getting a new generation of consoles with actually equivalent CPU performance that can be found in gaming PCs (not ones from 10+ years ago) which will impact game design.

 

Some people will be happy to spend ~1100 instead of ~1000 so they will feel less pressured sooner to upgrade again because their performance delta between what they actually have and what is new on the market is less. This should be the reason for considering an upgrade, not because new things exist, but rather a performance evaluation of what you have now and what you can get and if that which you have you feel is not adequate. If you buy a 3600 today rather than a 5600X that time will come sooner, that is hard to dispute.

 

This doesn't make a 3600 a bad purchase today but it also doesn't make it a significantly superior purchase either.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

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

The 5600X is not 50% better than the 3600 in gaming.

I am not even sure it is 50% better in any game with reasonable settings (so no 3080 and running at 720p low quality). If it is then it's maybe like one game out of a hundred.

 

 

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

You're acting like I'm defending my favorite company for some stupid reason.

I think you are.

 

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Where in reality I'm explaining you WHY there is increase in price.

You are also telling me I am not allowed to complain that they increased prices.

 

 

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

Freaking everyone does, but you all expect AMD to be some sort of exception and literal charity by giving away superior products.

I don't expect that. I totally understand why AMD as a for profit company will try to make as much money as possible. That doesn't mean I have to just sit here and suck their dick as if I am fine with it.

If they raise prices too much I complain. Simple as that.

 

 

 

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

It doesn't mean they'll charge more across the board, but it can happen and I'm not going to act like some of you are because I understand these changes. I just don't know why you can't.

I completely understand why they do it. Stop saying I don't understand it because I do very well. AMD wants to make as much money as possible, so they charge as much money they think they can get away with. It's as simple as that.

But I as a consumer shouldn't just let companies stomp all over me and smile back. AMD increases prices A LOT this generation. They basically moved their pricing up one entire tier. Their new 8 core costs as much as they used to price their 12 core. Their 6 core costs as much as their old 8 core. That's not good for you and me. It's good for AMD because they make more money, but it's not good for us consumers to see a company quite quickly charge a lot more as soon as they are in the lead.

That's what Nvidia did when they started dominating AMD in the GPU space. Luckily for us it seems to only have lasted a little while and AMD might be competitive again. But AMD are now acting just like Nvidia did and for some reason people seem to defend AMD for it.

 

The difference between "greedy soulless company" and "smart business decision" is whether you feel that you like the company or not. I see all companies as the greedy soulless companies they are so I don't get why people are defending AMD for taking advantage of their dominant position as soon as they can.

I can understand why they are doing it, but I can't for the live of me understand how people are such massive cucks that they not only praise AMD for it but even tell others to not be upset when AMD kicks them in the teeth.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, CarlBar said:

Erm relevant how? Where discussing what people where saying roughly 12-18 months ago, (i agree with @leadeater that it's fallen off a lot over the later half of the 3k series lifetime), not what people actually did or recommend once they got into helping people build. You only have to go back and check the reviews from the original release to hear the commentary around it. People where seriously disappointing about it and acting, at least in reaction terms like that was all that mattered.

12 months ago we had the 3000 series and it was extremely popular. Barely anyone has recommended Intel for the past year.

If you want to talk about Ryzen 1000 and 2000 then I agree, people were recommending Intel far more during those times than they are now. I don't see how that's relevant though because I have never disagreed with the claim that people were recommending Intel CPUs for gaming back in the 1000 and to a lesser extent the 2000 series.

This is what I said:  

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

 

 

I don't even get why you are arguing against people vastly recommending Ryzen 3000 over Intel. I find it actually laughable that you are even trying to make such an argument because it is clearly out of touch with the real world.

Barely anyone gave two shits about Ryzen 3000 being slightly worse than Intel for gaming. This fantasy that people were recommending Intel left and right because of gaming performance is simply not true. I think people WANT that to be true because now that AMD has the best gaming performance it is apparently the most important thing ever, but it isn't. Slightly worse gaming performance doesn't matter. Gaming isn't even CPU intense to begin with. Even these benchmarks where the 5600X beats the 3600 are hilariously bad and irrelevant. They are showing numbers like "yeah the 3600 gets 160 FPS but the 5600X gets 190 FPS so clearly it is better!" as if you need those extra 30 FPS when you're already getting 160.

 

 

Also, I can't find reviews where people were "seriously disappointed" with the 3000 series.

I just went through 11 pages of comments on Anandtech and not a single person has said they were disappointed with the results from the 3000 series. In fact, a lot of the comments are just what I remember, people laughing at how AMD absolutely crushed Intel and how Intel was now irrelevant. There are still 30+ pages of comments to go through but I am getting bored of trying to validate inane claims made by people misremembering events from the past.

Next time you make ridiculous claims I would like to see some proof. I went through and counted AMD recommendations and Intel recommendations by hand in build threads. I expect the same due diligence from you next time you make claims like "it was VERY common for people to recommend Intel over the 3000 series".

[Orange1]

13 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.

"When Intel held the gaming crown, everyone was "but muh gaming"

 

 

 

 

23 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

the amount of mistakes in LTT videos is crazy its like 2-3 a video

You still watching his videos?

 

 

 

[GDRRiley]

4 minutes ago, Orange1 said:

You still watching his videos?

near the end of my stack and usually at 2x right before I switch to watching hours of heavy machines do work

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Could we stop using TechPowerUp and 4K test results to compare CPUs? For what ever reason their tests show much less difference in performance between CPUs across all the resolutions from what I can tell and 4K is purely useless for CPU performance comparisons.

Totally agree. 4K test results are useless for CPU benchmarks because you will in 99% of cases be severely bottlenecked by the GPU. In fact, I'd say most gaming benchmarks are useless as indicators of CPU performance because it rarely matters which CPU you got. You're almost always bottlenecked by the GPU, and in the cases you aren't bottlenecked by the GPU you're getting like 150 FPS anyway, so who cares if one CPU performs better when it doesn't even matter?

 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

And it may not even take more than 3 years for a decent performance margin to start growing between the 3600 and 5600X (other reviews already show it as decent btw), a time frame more than acceptable to be thinking about and spending a small amount more on over total system cost so you will actually have that performance when that time comes.

I think people should buy the performance they need today rather than try to "future proof" their systems by buying more expensive stuff.

Disagreeing with that is essentially gambling. "I pay more today and I might benefit for it in the future, if I'm lucky".

Historically, buying what you need when you need it has always been the most financially sound action. I don't see that changing with this generation.

 

If you are like me and stick with the same build for many years then the 3600 and 5600X will most likely start hitting their limits around the same time.

If you are one of the people who constantly upgrade their PC then saving 100 dollars for use towards Zen 4 is probably a better idea.

 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

We've already seen it now, in the last few years games have already started to significantly favor CPUs with a few more cores than before and we are getting a new generation of consoles with actually equivalent CPU performance that can be found in gaming PCs (not ones from 10+ years ago) which will impact game design.

And those CPUs are about as powerful as the 3600... So I am not sure what your point is.

Most games will most likely not be designed for higher performing CPUs than what is found in consoles. But now we're speculating and gambling again.

 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

If you buy a 3600 today rather than a 5600X that time will come sooner, that is hard to dispute.

I don't agree.

I think that, just like with let's say the 4770K and the 4690K, they will reach their EOL about at the same time. In 8 years, do you really think the ~20% extra performance from the 5600X will make it so that you stay one more generation on the same platform? 

Since 2014, performance in CPUs at the ~250 dollar level has increased by around 200%.

If it keeps going at the same phase, this is how CPUs will look in 2026 when someone buying a processor today might need to upgrade again.

 

Ryzen 3600 - 3,563

Ryzen 5600X - 4,517

Ryzen 2026 edition - 14,093

 

Do you really think someone will go:

Quote

It's a good think I bought the 5600X instead of the 3600. My current CPU is only 32% as powerful as this new one which is fine, but if I had bought the 3600 it would only have been 25% as powerful. Those 7 percentage points of performance really are what makes me able to hold out for one more generation!

 

I don't think so. I don't think people with a 4690K were able to hold out much longer than the people with the 4770K either. Technology moves so fast that 6 years down the line the new CPUs will be so much more powerful that the performance difference we see today will be regarded as minuscule by the future's standards. That's how it has always been with computer hardware and I don't think that will change during the next decade either.

[leadeater]

56 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think that, just like with let's say the 4770K and the 4690K

Except the gaming performance between your example and the 3600 vs 5600X is a lot more. And the 4690k is bad example to use anyway as it's impacted by the games that outright tank in performance on Intel CPUs without HT regardless of how high end  or low end or generation they are. There is no need to limit your comparison to those types of CPUs or ones that close in generation on the Intel side. All the matters is the performance difference you get in your workload so it's perfectly legitimate to pick CPU example to compare from Intel of the same core count and both having HT from any generation you wish. So long as you are comparing similar performance difference between the two as is with the 3600 and 5600X.

 

56 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Those 7 percentage points of performance really are what makes me able to hold out for one more generation!

Except in games it really is not 7%, not at all. Like I said stop using TechPowerUp, what ever they are showing you isn't even close to other reviews.  Hardware Unboxed 11 game average is 20% performance difference between Ryzen 3000 and Ryzen 5000 generations, so yes you will be glad in 3-5 years time you went with Ryzen 5000 if you did not want to upgrade sooner than that and your upgrade desire was GPU only at that point.

 

56 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

In 8 years, do you really think the ~20% extra performance from the 5600X will make it so that you stay one more generation on the same platform? 

As a person with a 4930K from 2013, yes, yes I do.

 

56 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

And those CPUs are about as powerful as the 3600... So I am not sure what your point is.

Which CPUs? The ones in the consoles? Like hell they are, those are actually trash. The upcoming generation, different story, way different story.

 

And it doesn't matter how much you try and argue the pure cost of the CPU, end of the day if I can spend 10% more total cost to get on average 20% more performance in games then I'll spend 10% more.

[mwagen]

Dude, LAwLz, give it a rest. You're acting like people are too stupid to interpret benchmarks or decide how to spend their money. Everybody has different needs, wants, and bank accounts. Some will budget $xxx for a cpu, look up some benchmarks, and then get whatever fits their needs. Others will reference benchmarks to see which cpu performs best for their needs and just get the cheapest one. In any case, none of it should matter to you. 

[wako7654]

3 hours ago, mwagen said:

Dude, LAwLz, give it a rest. You're acting like people are too stupid to interpret benchmarks or decide how to spend their money. Everybody has different needs, wants, and bank accounts. Some will budget $xxx for a cpu, look up some benchmarks, and then get whatever fits their needs. Others will reference benchmarks to see which cpu performs best for their needs and just get the cheapest one. In any case, none of it should matter to you. 

Pretty much this lol, i mean i get the frustration but can we move along? This seems to have turned to a complaint thread

[xAcid9]

Finally i can afford a 2nd hand r5-3600.... Maybe. 

Seems like 5600x is the one to go to over 3700x if gaming performance is more of your concern over productivity and you own one of those high end GPU and play at over 100fps. 

3600/3300x/i5-10400f is still the best budget CPU for gamer imo.

 

In Wendell's review he show 5900x get lower CPU score in Timespy compare to 10900k but higher GPU score, both using 2080 Ti. I wonder what's that about. 

 

Regarding TPU weird performance number. 

[CarlBar]

@LAwLz I'm arguing against what people where recommending because that is not what we are discussing. This started as an argument about peoples reactions to 3k vs their reaction to 5k vs their reaction you the last few intel CPU launches. How people reacted isn't tied to what they then went a did. I'm not saying your wrong about what people where recommending, i honestly don't have enough data to make any informed judgement there, i'm arguing that what people recommended and bought isn't relevant to the discussion where having.

 

As an aside in your argument with @leadeater i think your forgetting two key things. First not everyone upgrades their GPU at the same time as their CPU, Second it's much cheaper several years down the line to replace a GPU than the CPU, especially with Zen 3 as AMD will be moving to a new socket next gen, and my bet is that they'll go DD% at the same time because AFAIK going DDR5 is going to require a new socket compared to DDR4 anyway and they probably don't want to switch sockets with Zen 5 after having just done it with Zen 4. They got enough bad press over X470 that i think they'll be cautious of courting that kind of reaction again for a while. Also some people do have 144Hz monitors.

[leadeater]

24 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

especially with Zen 3 as AMD will be moving to a new socket next gen

This is a big reason why I would go Ryzen 5000, probably will be. Since I know it's the end of the line for that platform the CPU I buy is the only one I will be, I'm not going to buy Ryzen 3000 then at some later date Ryzen 5000. No I would just replace the entire platform instead and I'm personally not happy with spending a fair decent amount of money on a PC with an intentional limited usage period, I just don't do that.

 

It makes zero sense to me to buy an entire system and then buy a previous generation CPU with known significant performance implications compared to the current/later CPU generation, then later spend yet more money to upgrade the CPU when/if that new generation is cheaper or more better value SKUs have been released. Why would I be worrying about an extra $100 on a CPU when buying a Ryzen 3000 then later a Ryzen 5000 which would result in a greater than $100 expenditure difference than if I had just gone with Ryzen 5000 in the first place. The other situation being buying Ryzen 3000 then switching to Ryzen 6000 sooner which is again a higher expenditure difference than $100.

 

So I dunno if you are going to cheap out in the name of value just get something like a 3300X and a stupid imbalanced high end GPU, pump the graphics settings and ride that until Ryzen 6000 and then dump the platform for that and have spent less. Hell just flip the system for what ever you can get for it, you'll get almost as much as you would if it were a 3600 because the price floor on the used market just works that way.

 

TL;DR A single part having a better price to performance ratio doesn't automatically make it the better choice.

[ewitte]

Got the 5900x from MC yesterday.  Most of the reviews focus on lower GPU settings but surprisingly with nearly everything maxed out in Watchdogs Legion and "High" RTX I went from 61fps average on the benchmark to 73fps at 3440x1440!  I've got my GPU undervolted and capped to 1890Mhz (862mv) I'm sure I can get more now that I'm at 100% GPU limited vs 89%.

[ewitte]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

Since I know it's the end of the line for that platform the CPU I buy is the only one I will be, I'm not going to buy Ryzen 3000 then at some later date Ryzen 5000. No I would just replace the entire platform instead and I'm personally not happy with spending a fair decent amount of money on a PC with an intentional limited usage period, I just don't do that.

Yeah this will probably be the longest I'm on a Ryzen CPU I've upgraded every time it was improved (I've had almost 10 different Ryzen processors between multiple systems) but its not going to be as easy when there is a requirement to get new MB and RAM.  But now I'm pretty much 100% GPU limited so there isn't a real good reason anyway.

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

Except the gaming performance between your example and the 3600 vs 5600X is a lot more. And the 4690k is bad example to use anyway as it's impacted by the games that outright tank in performance on Intel CPUs without HT regardless of how high end  or low end or generation they are. There is no need to limit your comparison to those types of CPUs or ones that close in generation on the Intel side. All the matters is the performance difference you get in your workload so it's perfectly legitimate to pick CPU example to compare from Intel of the same core count and both having HT from any generation you wish. So long as you are comparing similar performance difference between the two as is with the 3600 and 5600X.

The performance difference between the Haswell i5 and i7 was about 10-15%, including in certain games like Battlefield 3 (very popular game at the time). So a bit less than the difference between the 3600 and the 5600X but my point still stands. Both processors are seen as outdated and slow by today's standard. It's not like one is perfectly fine and the other one isn't. They both got outdated roughly around the same time. I don't see any reason to believe that there will be any different with the 3600 and the 5600X.

 

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

Except in games it really is not 7%, not at all. Like I said stop using TechPowerUp, what ever they are showing you isn't even close to other reviews.  Hardware Unboxed 11 game average is 20% performance difference between Ryzen 3000 and Ryzen 5000 generations, so yes you will be glad in 3-5 years time you went with Ryzen 5000 if you did not want to upgrade sooner than that and your upgrade desire was GPU only at that point.

Read my post again because you don't understand where I got 7% from. Read it very carefully, especially the part where I talk about a theoretical "Ryzen 2026 edition".

I am not citing TechPowerUp.

 

 

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

As a person with a 4930K from 2013, yes, yes I do.

So you have a 4930K, and I presume you are going to buy a Ryzen 5000 series CPU. Correct? Even if you aren't, let's pretend you are going to.

Are you really going to tell me that since you have a 4930K you need to upgrade to a Ryzen 5000 CPU, but if you had bought a 3930K instead you would have needed to upgrade to Ryzen 3000 instead? But now, thanks to having the 4930K instead of the 3930K you were able to hold out one more generation?

In other words, if your 3930K had been 20% faster would that really have been the difference between upgrading and not upgrading for you?

I don't think it would have been. 

The 3930K is trash by today's standards, and the 5600X will probably be trash by the standards of 2027. 20% extra on top of "trash" won't really matter.

 

 

13 hours ago, leadeater said:

Which CPUs? The ones in the consoles? Like hell they are, those are actually trash. The upcoming generation, different story, way different story.

I am talking about the upcoming consoles, yes.

Their CPUs are as powerful as the 3600. The consoles got 2 more cores, but quite a bit lower clock speed, and they are the same architecture.

 

If the new console generation will have any impact on PC game optimizations, then it will be that they are designed with 3600 performance in mind. So I don't think the new consoles will somehow make the 5600X and even better buy than the 3600 is today.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, mwagen said:

You're acting like people are too stupid to interpret benchmarks or decide how to spend their money.

That is legitimately what I think, yes. 

 

 

13 hours ago, mwagen said:

In any case, none of it should matter to you. 

By the same logic, what I think shouldn't matter to you. Yet here we are, responding to reach other.

"Stop arguing, just let people have different options" goes both ways.

[LAwLz]

4 hours ago, CarlBar said:

@LAwLz I'm arguing against what people where recommending because that is not what we are discussing. This started as an argument about peoples reactions to 3k vs their reaction to 5k vs their reaction you the last few intel CPU launches. How people reacted isn't tied to what they then went a did. I'm not saying your wrong about what people where recommending, i honestly don't have enough data to make any informed judgement there, i'm arguing that what people recommended and bought isn't relevant to the discussion where having.

That might not be what you want to discuss, but that's what the discussion you jumped in to was about.

I was having a discussion with someone else about how many people were recommending Intel CPUs over AMD CPUs because of gaming performance. Someone else in this thread said that Intel CPUs were being highly recommended over AMD CPUs because of gaming performance. I said I hadn't seen anything like that since the 3000 series launched. That was the discussion you jumped in to was about.

 

 

4 hours ago, CarlBar said:

As an aside in your argument with @leadeater i think your forgetting two key things. First not everyone upgrades their GPU at the same time as their CPU, Second it's much cheaper several years down the line to replace a GPU than the CPU, especially with Zen 3 as AMD will be moving to a new socket next gen, and my bet is that they'll go DD% at the same time because AFAIK going DDR5 is going to require a new socket compared to DDR4 anyway and they probably don't want to switch sockets with Zen 5 after having just done it with Zen 4. They got enough bad press over X470 that i think they'll be cautious of courting that kind of reaction again for a while. Also some people do have 144Hz monitors.

Maybe I am dumb right now but I genuinely do not understand your argument.

I don't see how anything I've said relates to anything you just said.

 

If you're buying a new computer today then picking between the 3600 and a 5600X probably means you have to compromise on the GPU in some way. Those products are not for people with stupid money. More people also have an easier upgrade path to the 3600 because first and second gen Ryzen motherboards support that CPU, while fewer motherboards support the 5600X CPU. For example if I, as a first gen Ryzen owner want to upgrade to the 5600X, I need a new motherboard. I don't need that for the 3600.

 

If you are going to buy a new motherboard anyway, then platform doesn't matter. Regardless of whether you go with a 3600 or a 5600X you are buying into a dead platform. So again, I don't understand how that relates to anything I said. I don't think your argument makes any sense.

 

As for the "some people do have 144Hz monitors" argument, have you looked at the benchmarks? leadeater mentioned Hardware Unboxed's video so I'll use that. Sadly they don't have the 5600X tested but let's say it performs 20% better than the 3600.

Far Cry New Dawn: 110 FPS vs 132 FPS

Rainbow Six Siege - 415 FPS vs 498 FPS

Watch Dogs: Legion - 93 FPS vs 111 FPS

F1 2020 - 211 FPS vs 253 FPS

Horizon Zero Dawn - 125 FPS vs 150 FPS

Borderlands 3 - 149 FPS vs 178 FPS

Death Stranding - 149 FPS vs 178 FPS

Tomb Raider - 121 FPS vs 145 FPS

Hitman 2 - 114 FPS vs 136 FPS

Star Wars Squadrons - 244 FPS vs 292 FPS

Serious Sam 4 - 82 FPS vs 98 FPS

 

Please note that this assumes 20% scaling on all games, which does not seem to be the case at all. For example Borderlands saw next to no improvement.

 

In those tests, the average FPS in games would be 172 FPS for the 3600 and 206 FPS for the 5600X.

 

That is what we are debating about here. Paying 50% more for your CPU, to go from 172 FPS to 206 FPS. I think those 100 dollars are better spent either on a GPU, or saved for future upgrades.

The 3600 is waaaay more CPU power than pretty much anyone who games needs, even if you got a 144Hz monitor.

 

 

I don't think people understand how little CPU matters for gaming, and how well even a mid range CPU performs.

Do not focus on CPU if gaming is the primary thing you do. If you are regularly doing CPU intense tasks like scientific calculations, simulations, encoding, rendering etc, then I totally understand caring for CPU performance. But for gaming? To me that seems like people just trying to find justifications for spending money on stuff they don't actually need.

Buy a 5600X if you want it, but don't try and bullshit me with stuff like "I need it for gaming because the 3600 isn't powerful enough!".

[CarlBar]

   

22 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That might not be what you want to discuss, but that's what the discussion you jumped in to was about.

I was having a discussion with someone else about how many people were recommending Intel CPUs over AMD CPUs because of gaming performance. Someone else in this thread said that Intel CPUs were being highly recommended over AMD CPUs because of gaming performance. I said I hadn't seen anything like that since the 3000 series launched. That was the discussion you jumped in to was about.

 

No somebody else was saying that people where saying and i quote:

 

On 11/6/2020 at 7:23 AM, 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".

 

It was never about what people where recommending but about what people where saying.

 

 

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Maybe I am dumb right now but I genuinely do not understand your argument.

I don't see how anything I've said relates to anything you just said.

 

If you're buying a new computer today then picking between the 3600 and a 5600X probably means you have to compromise on the GPU in some way. Those products are not for people with stupid money. More people also have an easier upgrade path to the 3600 because first and second gen Ryzen motherboards support that CPU, while fewer motherboards support the 5600X CPU. For example if I, as a first gen Ryzen owner want to upgrade to the 5600X, I need a new motherboard. I don't need that for the 3600.

 

If you are going to buy a new motherboard anyway, then platform doesn't matter. Regardless of whether you go with a 3600 or a 5600X you are buying into a dead platform. So again, I don't understand how that relates to anything I said. I don't think your argument makes any sense.

 

My argument is that 2-3 years from now someone could upgrade their GPU. if they go with the 3600 they're going to have to replace their CPU,. MB and memory to make it work, with a 5600x they won't.

[RejZoR]

And that's the point I made. Don't be cheap on platform because it's the only thing you can stick with for ages and not have to replace a thing. Problem with upgrading platforms is that you basically have to do it all otherwise it's just pointless. And you often just can't. Either CPU sockets change, memory type changes and then you're looking 1000-1500€ upgrade coz you have to replace 3 parts that depend on each other.

 

If you buy a really capable thing, something like Ryzen 5900X now. You can be guaranteed it'll last you 5+ years easily without feeling any lack of performance. You'll have plenty of single thread performance and plenty of threads. You drop in 32GB RAM now and you won't have to chase compatible memory later. I have doubts that 32GB will become a standard in 5 years given how 16GB has sort of just become a more common thing where most casuals still go with 8GB and it still works fine. And coz you have a great platform, only thing you'll probably be upgrading is the graphic card. Graphic card is independent of the rest of the system and is much easier to swap. And being newer PCIe standard isn't a problem coz it's backwards compatible unlike RAM which isn't.

[leadeater]

14 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If you're buying a new computer today then picking between the 3600 and a 5600X probably means you have to compromise on the GPU in some way

No it does not.

 

14 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If you are going to buy a new motherboard anyway, then platform doesn't matter. Regardless of whether you go with a 3600 or a 5600X you are buying into a dead platform. So again, I don't understand how that relates to anything I said. I don't think your argument makes any sense.

And because I know that is the case that is why I would be buying Ryzen 5000, not something older. If you are only buying a CPU then your value argument makes the most sense, if you are anything other than that then it doesn't. Not everyone is you with an existing AM4 motherboard that does not support Ryzen 5000.

 

14 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Hardware Unboxed's video so I'll use that. Sadly they don't have the 5600X tested but let's say it performs 20% better than the 3600.

Think they said it will be out today.

 

15 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Are you really going to tell me that since you have a 4930K you need to upgrade to a Ryzen 5000 CPU, but if you had bought a 3930K instead you would have needed to upgrade to Ryzen 3000 instead?

No because there wasn't a 20% performance difference between those two CPUs. In games the difference wasn't above margin of error so statically insignificant. Now if you had used an i7 960 the answer would be yes, which btw is the very CPU I upgraded from to the 4930k.

 

And if it weren't for Intel screwing up the entire HEDT product line I would have upgrade by now, but they did so I haven't. That would conversely mean I would not be considering Ryzen 5000 at all.

 

Now for the example of why it matters:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9HV9V5nzOc

For gaming my 4930k is on average a bit slower than 4770k as it's an other architecture generation, mine pulls ahead on anything that better utilizes more cores. Either way my current CPU is at the bottom of this chart, and all the other ones in the video (if it were on it).

 

So right now if I brought a new GPU it is highly likely I could not adequately utilize the increased performance so there is little point in doing so without a platform upgrade. This is the very same situation you could be in if you go with a 3600 today over a 5600X.

 

How much slower the CPU options of today are to what will exist in 3-5 years time is not as important as if what you purchased today would actually necessitate or be more logical to upgrade, in the same way I am right now with my 4930k, in the same was it was true when I had my i7 960.

 

P.S. My older i7 960 would be even lower on these graphs, a lot lower.

 

14 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Buy a 5600X if you want it, but don't try and bullshit me with stuff like "I need it for gaming because the 3600 isn't powerful enough!".

That is not what is being said, it might be what you are hearing but it's wrong.

[leadeater]

17 hours ago, LAwLz said:

I am talking about the upcoming consoles, yes.

Their CPUs are as powerful as the 3600. The consoles got 2 more cores, but quite a bit lower clock speed, and they are the same architecture.

No the upcoming consoles are Zen 3 architecture not Zen 2.

 

Edit:

When you don't notice you are reading a Verge article and it's wrong 

[Craftyawesome]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

No the upcoming consoles are Zen 3 architecture not Zen 2.

No?

https://www.xbox.com/en-US/consoles/xbox-series-x#specs

https://www.techradar.com/reviews/ps5

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

16 hours ago, LAwLz said:

If you're buying a new computer today then picking between the 3600 and a 5600X probably means you have to compromise on the GPU in some way

No it does not.

If you have some sort of budget, the $100 has to come from somewhere.

I do at least somewhat agree. It's much harder to increase framerate if you are CPU bound.