AMD Ryzen 5000 Builders Thread

Page 83 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

B-Riz

Golden Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,482
612
136
Last edited:

Rigg

Senior member
May 6, 2020
472
979
136
That's a bit too low. Something like 4.0/4.7 would be better or maybe 3.9/4.5.

Sorry, I forgot the 7600X was hitting such high clocks.
3.6 GHz matches 7700 so about where it would need to be for 65W TDP. The 5800X3D clocks 400 MHz higher than 5700X3D. 3.8/4.6 is 7800X3D clocks -400MHz. I think it's moot anyway. I don't see much incentive for them to launch a 7700X3D with Zen 5 right around the corner on AM5. They'd more likely just discount 7800X3D and try for a more agressive 9800X MSRP.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
28,664
21,172
146
3.6 GHz matches 7700 so about where it would need to be for 65W TDP. The 5800X3D clocks 400 MHz higher than 5700X3D. 3.8/4.6 is 7800X3D clocks -400MHz. I think it's moot anyway. I don't see much incentive for them to launch a 7700X3D with Zen 5 right around the corner on AM5. They'd more likely just discount 7800X3D and try for a more agressive 9800X MSRP.
Here's a question for you: Is the Zen 3 situation unique? Or could they be building up an inventory of CPUs that didn't "cut the mustard" to be sold later, the way the 5600X3D and 5700X3D are?

I'd say it was off topic, but we are directly comparing it to Zen 3. Hell, we rarely get anyone asking for 5000 series build advice anymore. And the refusal of the platform to go quietly into retirement is what keeps the thread going. If someone does need advice or help, this keeps the thread readily visible without the need of a sticky too.
 

Rigg

Senior member
May 6, 2020
472
979
136
Here's a question for you: Is the Zen 3 situation unique? Or could they be building up an inventory of CPUs that didn't "cut the mustard" to be sold later, the way the 5600X3D and 5700X3D are?
I think the Zen3/AM4 situation is very unique. Releasing fresh SKU's on a 7 year old platform (long after it's successor has been released) seems pretty unprecedented. Clearly there is still a huge market for them. They need something to compete with highly discounted Alder Lake and LGA 1700 DDR4 platforms. AM4 is a readily available and inexpensive platform (especially used), and has a huge installed user base primed for an easy upgrade. It makes sense to keep churning out new SKU's with more attractive prices. Especially X3D since it holds its own with vanilla Zen4 in gaming.

I'm not totally convinced that the 5700X3D (or any of these newer SKU's) uses silicon that didn't cut the mustard. It seems likely that late into production, and with the low clock requirements, that virtually all 3D V cache zen 3 dice make the 5800X3D bin. Obviously that is pure speculation on my part and I don't have any unique insight. I suspect the 5700X3D is purely a product segmentation SKU and doesn't use silicon that wouldn't otherwise make a fine 5800X3D. Maybe they have some stock piles from earlier production that didn't cut the mustard, but I imagine that 5700X3D is mostly just a down clocked 5800X3D with a more attractive price and not necessarily (at least purely) a dumping ground for bad X3D bins.

7600X3D probably wouldn't happen since 7900X3D already uses the defective 6 core dice. It probably doesn't need to exist anyway with 6 core Zen5 coming to market.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bononos

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,057
3,715
136
Kudos to him for simulating a 7600X3D!

For me, the summary of the video seems to be, 7900X3D is bad value. 5800X3D, while hated by Hogwarts and Spiderman games, generally punches above its weight class and often beats the 7950X, especially in minimum fps so smoother gameplay.

I do think that instead of a 7600X3D, AMD should create a 7700X3D with the same clocks as a 7600X or slightly higher, just enough to not cannibalize sales of its 7800X3D, so people have a good and cheap reason to go with AM5 instead of getting the older AM4/5800X3D if building a new gaming system. 7700X3D also because 8C/16T seems to be what most current and future games are making good use of.

Looking at german retailer Mindfactory s sales there s a clear trend.

AM5 MBs sell about 2x more than AM4, but AM5 CPUs sell only 10% more than AM4 ones, so it look that an overhelmingly majority of AM4 CPUs are sold to people who already own an AM4 system and are upgrading the CPU to replace a previous Zen 1-2 CPU.

This is obvious when one notice that the more sought AM4 CPUs are the 5800X/5800X3D/5700X, the ones who make new builds are likely doing so to get the lower possible price for a whole PC and are mainly buying 5700X/5600/5600X/5600G parts.

At the bottom of the market the CPU + 32GB RAM + MB price difference amount to 150-160€ lower price for an AM4, that s about the cost, if not more, of all other parts for a whole PC.

Edit : I forgot the GPU for whom look for games, the most sold "cheap" GPUs are in order the 6800/3060/6600/6750XT/6650XT/7600, guess that the lowish AM4 CPUs i mentioned can easily drive those cards.
 
Last edited:

Seba

Golden Member
Sep 17, 2000
1,495
144
106
The recommendations from that video are not valid for all markets. For instance, he discards the 5800X3D in favor of 5700X3D saying that the later is only 4% slower on average, but almost $100 cheaper. For me, the prices would be about 300 euro vs. 265 euro (current cheapest prices - including VAT - at reputable shops). No way I would pick 5700X3D over 5800X3D at that price difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lightmanek

Noid

Platinum Member
Sep 20, 2000
2,381
190
106
New BIOS for my MSI board ...

- AGESA ComboAm4v2PI 1.2.0.C update.
- Fix D-Sub port can't be work properly with 3000G CPU.

hmmm
 

Noid

Platinum Member
Sep 20, 2000
2,381
190
106
Was looking for the details ...


This article says it's a another security update.
( Some complaints of performance loss in different configurations on Reddit. )

DESKTOP

Mitigation details
Update to versions listed or higher
AMD Ryzen™ 3000 Series Desktop Processors
(Formerly codenamed)
“Matisse”
AMD Ryzen™ 4000 Series Desktop Processors with Radeon™ Graphics
(Formerly codenamed)
“Renoir” AM4
AGESA™ firmwareComboAM4v2PI_1.2.0.C
1.2.0.C
(2024-02-07)
ComboAM4PI
1.0.0.B
(Target March 2024)
ComboAM4v2PI_1.2.0.C
(2024-02-07)
 
Last edited:

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
28,664
21,172
146
At Amazon U.S. the number 1 selling board is still that dirt cheap Asus Prime B450M and 3 of the top 5 boards are AM4 1,2, and 4. 6 of the top 10 CPUs are Zen 3. Buyers here are not just doing drop in upgrades, they are building fresh AM4 PCs. The 2 AM5 boards in the top 10 are probably both for the 7800X3D since it is still number one 6 months later. It had that brief moment of the 5600 taking the top spot but that didn't last long. I doubt many spend $200 or more on a board for a 7600X.

The 5800X only being $40 less than the 5700X3D but being much more popular is a bit derp. You don't buy either for productivity, and the 3D merks it for gaming.
 

SteinFG

Senior member
Dec 29, 2021
458
521
106
You would be better off with Zen 4.
Yes, but in a limited budget, it's better to use more money on the GPU
If you went the Zen 3 route. A 5700x is what you would want for a budget build.
No, 5600, maybe even 5500. 2 extra cores do nothing in a budget gaming build.
3600mhz memory for the Zen 3 build is a must.
Not really. Costs more for marginal benefit (unless you run a good 700+ dollar card)
 
Jul 27, 2020
16,824
10,772
106
With AM4 they can jump to 7800XT
I suppose that's doable for someone who absolutely wants to focus on GPU and doesn't care about future upgrades or obsolescence. Though with AM4, they can still get an X3D upgrade to eke a year or two more out of it before it starts to feel old in new games. For me personally, I would invest the extra $84 in AM5, use the onboard GPU to bide my time till I save enough for the GPU of my dreams. Patience is always more rewarding, especially for those who put themselves through crap for better days.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
30,619
8,331
136
I have an AM4 build which I'm really pleased with (5800x3d, 6950xt, 64gb 3600 ram) but if I was buying now I'd absolutely get the AM5 just for an upgrade path (and the little extras like pcie x5, more high speed usb sockets, etc).
You'll be using it for years so that extra £50 won't be noticeable and you'll get a longer lifespan out of a newer platform.
 

Rigg

Senior member
May 6, 2020
472
979
136
IMO the min-max build strategy is dumb. Especially when making serious compromises to save $100-200 on a $1000+ build. If that $200 is going to make or break your build, you can't afford to spend that kind of money on a gaming PC in the first place. This concept looks interesting on paper, but quickly falls apart when considering individual component values. Strict total budgets can lead to penny wise & pound foolish component choices on a gaming PC.

Just because an individual component is less expensive than another doesn't mean it's a better value. It makes no sense to buy a 5600 for $145 when a 5700x is $170. It makes no sense to buy a piece of garbage A520/B450 motherboard for $70 when you can buy a good B550 for $100. It's questionable to buy a 2x16 3200 C16 kit for $55 when 3600 C16 is $80. Larger capacity SSD's are less $/GB. Bottom tier parts are almost always a terrible value.

I don't think that you are always better off biasing a gaming system toward the GPU. While this may be true in a lot of scenarios, it's far from a universal truth. It depends on the game and on the settings. Many modern AAA single player games (where a GPU biased system would usually shine) are way more CPU intense then they used to be. Especially with ray tracing. 1% lows and smooth frame pacing are often just as important as avg FPS in these types of games. A faster CPU often helps in these scenarios. Competitive shooters, strategy, and simulation type games are going to generally favor a CPU biased system.
 
Last edited:

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
28,664
21,172
146
IMO the min-max build strategy is dumb. Especially when making serious compromises to save $100-200 on a $1000+ build. If that $200 is going to make or break your build, you can't afford to spend that kind of money on a gaming PC in the first place. This concept looks interesting on paper, but quickly falls apart when considering individual component values. Strict total budgets can lead to penny wise & pound foolish component choices on a gaming PC.

Just because an individual component is less expensive than another doesn't mean it's a better value. It makes no sense to buy a 5600 for $145 when a 5700x is $170. It makes no sense to buy a piece of garbage A520/B450 motherboard for $70 when you can buy a good B550 for $100. It's questionable to buy a 2x16 3200 C16 kit for $55 when 3600 C16 is $80. Larger capacity SSD's are less $/GB. Bottom tier parts are almost always a terrible value.

I don't think that you are always better off biasing a gaming system toward the GPU. While this may be true in a lot of scenarios, it's far from a universal truth. It depends on the game and on the settings. Many modern AAA single player games (where a GPU biased system would usually shine) are way more CPU intense then they used to be. Especially with ray tracing. 1% lows and smooth frame pacing are often just as important as avg FPS in these types of games. A faster CPU often helps in these scenarios. Competitive shooters, strategy, and simulation type games are going to generally favor a CPU biased system.
Excellent argument; the big bold sentence is especially on point. I have made that mistake myself. Not paying the extra $110 for the 4790K was one of the worst decisions I made 10yrs ago. My son could have gotten 3 more years out of that platform. Could not drop one in when the 4690K hit the wall because the used market for the i7 was still full derp.

5 series boards and CPUs on the other hand are ubiquitous now, both new and used. Aussie Steve says multiple retailers and suppliers have told him the 5600/x is the best selling CPU ever. No hyperbole; ever. I don't doubt it.