Ryzen 5000 cpus receive possibly permanent price cuts

[Quackers101]

6 minutes ago, cmndr said:

And yeah, life sucks if bad things happen to you and it's very easy to argue that the US has a weak safety net. It's the land of opportunity, not identical outcomes.

"opportunity", where weak become weaker and rich become richer, while allow some opportunities to fewer, then you have those who win the lottery.

[porina]

1 hour ago, cmndr said:

It's pretty easy to argue that OCing mattered a lot more 10 years ago than it did today.

I'd agree with that statement, but it is not the point. That feature may be what a buyer wants. Maybe it isn't so different like for like build level, but there's likely cheaper options on AMD side if that matters.

[Distinctly Average]

2 hours ago, cmndr said:

Disposable income is a pretty good measure of the ability for a person to pay for a CPU. Which, in theory, is the topic of this discussion.

And yeah, life sucks if bad things happen to you and it's very easy to argue that the US has a weak safety net. It's the land of opportunity, not identical outcomes.

 

In a few European countries the percentage of people who only use their company provided computer is quite high. Other countries, disposable income is lower, but because they don’t need to pay for healthcare, child care and a lot more besides they do spend on luxury goods. Despite having lower disposable income, they can risk wasting it all on luxuries like a shiny new cpu. Why, because of very strong employment protection and an excellent safety net. It really is not as simple as you seem to think.

[starsmine]

6 hours ago, Ryan829 said:

The 12600k already beats the 5800x and even 5900x in some scenarios. The 5700x would have to be dirt cheap to compete with a 12600k

I mean, at 300, the 5700x strongly competes with the 12600k, just because of Mobo availability
You are looking at 440 dollars vs 500 in combination. Then with the 12600k you need to buy a cpu cooler, (if you want to be fair and say get after market for both, realize you can get away with a cheaper cooler on the 5700x, the TDP is far lower)

and you can get away with a cheaper PSU because of TDP.

So no I dont think it needs to be dirt cheap to compete. 
Especially when you see the benchmarks and see just how close they are

[cmndr]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

I mean, at 300, the 5700x strongly competes with the 12600k, just because of Mobo availability
You are looking at 440 dollars vs 500 in combination. Then with the 12600k you need to buy a cpu cooler, (if you want to be fair and say get after market for both, realize you can get away with a cheaper cooler on the 5700x, the TDP is far lower)

and you can get away with a cheaper PSU because of TDP.

So no I dont think it needs to be dirt cheap to compete. 
Especially when you see the benchmarks and see just how close they are
 

One bit to note - the "faster" CPUs scale a bit better for productivity workloads.
Also it's effectively a 20-way tie for first place if your system is GPU bound (it usually is).

I suspect that in most tiles my 2080 is the main bottleneck for my CPU. I can live with this. I mostly play 10-20 year old titles anyway at this point so frame rates are mostly ego-porn.

[tim0901]

4 hours ago, starsmine said:

Especially when you see the benchmarks and see just how close they are

You're looking at gaming benchmarks where yeah they are very similar. But as is everything from the 5600X to the 5900X on that graph - they're all within 10FPS of each other and are likely within the margin of error for the test. If all you care about is gaming then you shouldn't be buying the 12600K anyway, go buy a 12400 and save $100 - it's only about 10% slower in gaming and chances are you won't notice that difference thanks to your GPU. Similarly, if all you care about is gaming then don't buy a 5700X and get something cheaper.

 

Production benchmarks? Sure the 12600K is the competitor for the 5700X considering that the 5700X would most likely be an underclocked 5800X. But considering that on average the 12600K beats the 5800X in production workloads (by ~7% according to Toms Hardware) the yet slower 5700X will not be competitive if the platform is the same price as Intel's offering.

4 hours ago, starsmine said:

I mean, at 300, the 5700x strongly competes with the 12600k, just because of Mobo availability
You are looking at 440 dollars vs 500 in combination.

Is Intel motherboard availability really that bad where you are? In the UK it's just straight-up not a problem. Intel motherboards are available on shelves (well, available to add to your basket given we don't really get PC parts in stores here) at a similar price to AMD boards. At most you're talking like, £20/$25 difference for a similar category board. As such here the 5700X does indeed need to be cheap to compete. At $300 for the 5700X vs $290 for the 12600K, I'd be saving the equivalent of about $10-15 on the overall platform - that's not worth it when the 12600K matches the 5800X in gaming and beats it in production workloads. It makes even less sense when you consider that AM4 is a dead platform, while Z690 will most likely support 13th gen.

 

Also you can save $20 by going for the F-SKU on Intel if you really don't want the iGPU - some might consider that a more fair comparison given AMD's non-G offerings don't have them. This basically negates AMD's price advantage from the motherboard if you take it into account. Same price but worse performance? Sorry AMD but that's not gonna cut it.

 

This is of course unless you're planning on overclocking where yes you can get away with a B-series board for AMD, thereby reducing the price of the overall platform. But many (including myself) consider overclocking to be pretty much pointless as there's so little left to obtain from it thanks to turbo boosting. Like, sure I imagine you could overclock the 5700X to match the 12600K in productivity benchmarks, but at that point why bother? You may as well just buy the 12600K to start with unless the fun of overclocking really means that much to you. But if overclocking really is the only place where AMD can claim an advantage then I wouldn't consider AMD's product to be truly competitive in the overall market - it really isn't that popular anymore.

 

(And yes there is a point in buying the 12600K and not overclocking it - the 12600 doesn't get the e-cores).

4 hours ago, starsmine said:

Then with the 12600k you need to buy a cpu cooler, (if you want to be fair and say get after market for both, realize you can get away with a cheaper cooler on the 5700x, the TDP is far lower)

A Hyper 212 would be perfectly adequate for either CPU - and at $25 it's seriously overpriced compared to other options. Unless you're planning on overclocking or using something like PBO, this is a non-issue.

4 hours ago, starsmine said:

and you can get away with a cheaper PSU because of TDP.

According to GN's testing the difference in real-world power consumption (rather than the made-up, baseless number that is TDP) between the 5600X and 12600K is about 50W. And that's under a sustained full-core load. The 12600k consumes 10W less power than the 5800X under the same all-core test. I'd expect the 5700X, being an underclocked 5800X, to fall somewhere in the middle.

 

In a gaming scenario the difference between the two will be even smaller. In fact, according to tests by igorslab, the 12600K uses less power than all of AMD's CPUs with the exception of the 5600X. Alder Lake is seriously efficient, especially compared to the atrocity previously codenamed Rocket Lake.

 

Therefore unless you're planning on overclocking/running PBO or you're trying to buy a really low capacity power supply (which you really shouldn't if you're planning on running all-core loads regularly) this is basically a non-issue, especially with modern GPUs meaning we need 750-850W PSUs anyway.

 

4 hours ago, starsmine said:

So no I dont think it needs to be dirt cheap to compete. 

As such yes, a 5700X does need to be cheap to compete. If it is as expected an underclocked 5800X, it will be 5-10% slower than the 12600K in productivity workloads (and basically equal in gaming) while consuming negligibly less power. With the addition of AM4 being a completely dead platform, the 12600K is the sensible choice unless the 5700X is significantly cheaper. At $300 it just isn't particularly compelling unless you are upgrading an existing AM4 system or you really care about overclocking.

[maartendc]

The 5000 series seems long in the tooth at this point. I would hold off on the new AMD parts or go Intel at the moment. Unless you can snag a 5000 series upgrade for cheap, but then again, it will be cheaper still when the new parts launch...