***OFFICIAL*** Ryzen 5000 / Zen 3 Launch Thread REVIEWS BEGIN PAGE 39

[Makaveli]

Almost all companies given no competition start to stagnate, raise prices for their products/services and kill/slow down progress significantly (NVIDIA is a notable exception but then Jensen is smart enough to understand that AMD has Microsoft/Sony backing and he cannot rest on his laurels). It's not about appreciation - it's there, it's about apprehension.

When you are a publicly traded company you have shareholders to answer to also not just your consumers. When you have a product that looks to be superior to your competition you are going to under charge for it?

How do you think that next shareholder board meeting is going to go?

 

[moinmoin]

looking for deals and value

Nobody aside scalpers are doing that for budget reasons at launches.

 

[Kenmitch]

I believe I have explained that.

The original statement was somewhat deceptive. Explaining it afterwards could be construed as being caught in a lie....Just saying.

No harm no foul in the end.

 

[AtenRa]

I can't see the point either.

Higher price
Lower performance
Higher power consumption

Than a 5600x

This is true cooler or not since both the 10700 and the 5600x include a cooler that is basically crap.

Both 10700 (non K) and 5600X are 65W TDP

For default usage both coolers are fine, especially for gaming were the CPU is not working at full load all the time.

 

[lobz]

It's not about me ( as i own 3950 + 10900K and soon testing 5950 ), but about You guys. Look around this thread with all nonsense about 6C CPU for $300 as if it was pinnacle in gaming when paired with 50$ memory and so forth and back on again. It is not, it is overpriced six core positioned and priced cause AMD can do so just like they could in Athlon 64 era. Deal with it.

The way i see budget gamer - it's like Larry from these forums: looking for deals and value and not exactly low on money, but not willing to spend extra money cause AMD or Intel command him to do so.

I wonder why can't I remember you complaining about the 10600K being such a horrible choice for a budget gamer when it was released.

 

[amrnuke]

The 6600X seems less hypothetical than the 5600 at this point because companies love to make a killing ;-)

I have to agree that the 6600X having SMT4 and defeating, e.g. the 5800X in multithreaded scenarios by a decent margin warrants a probable $350 price, however as it's the case now, the 3700X is faster in pure MT workloads and costs less than the 5600X and comes with a significantly better cooler.

The 3700X MSRP is $329 (10% more than the 5600X), and in MT workloads loses in some tests to the 5600X, on average is ~ around 10% faster in MT workloads, and is worse at gaming and lightly-threaded workloads than the 5600X. I'd pick a different lodestar. The 5600X is cheaper and a better purchase for most users than the 3700X.

And speaking of an early adopter tax - it's OK with me as long as we are not talking about cash, especially lots of of cash Remember how people resented RTX 2000 NVIDIA cards and NVIDIA offered something not seen before - hardware raytracing acceleration. The Ryzen 5000 series on the other hand offers nothing new aside from a 19% performance uplift.

Time is money. And many of those examples involved a great deal of cash put forward for unknown/unproven items. With respect to the Zen3 chips you already know what you're getting. And $50 is not "lots of cash" especially in the case of the 5950X which offers 19% performance uplifts for 6.6% price increase.

As for GeForce 20 series, I didn't resent anything about it. It offered 20-30% more speed, and speed comes at a price, and price scales nonlinearly with speed (cf Ferrari vs Fiat). If you want someone who's going to complain about companies pricing their parts high in exchange for better performance, you won't find it with me.

As for AMD Ryzen 5000 series "offers nothing new aside from a 19% performance uplift", what are you expecting, a coffee maker? What do CPUs do besides perform calculations, and how else would you assess that value besides performance uplifts?

This would be funny if it weren't such a tragedy of common sense.

 

[JoeRambo]

I wonder why can't I remember you complaining about the 10600K being such a horrible choice for a budget gamer when it was released.

Why would i complain when they released obviously better choices in 10400F @155 eur and 10700F @320 eur ? Takes true AMD fan to slot in 5600X @ 340 eur and also call it a value when 3600 also exists in budget choices.
But i remember complaining and hoping Intel unlocks memory speed for lower rank chipsets. That did not happen and i hope Intel's bottom line will burn for that.

 

[AtenRa]

The original statement was somewhat deceptive. Explaining it afterwards could be construed as being caught in a lie....Just saying.

No harm no foul in the end.

Ehm, personally I believe that Core i7 10700 (non K) @ 349$ is much better gaming CPU vs Ryzen 5600X @ 299$ today.

10700 is a 8C 16T at 65W TDP , also comes with a heat-sink and gaming performance is almost identical between the two.

I know, I just wanted to emphasize that no need to spend extra for the 10700 non K and the price difference is only $50 between the two.

This looks deceptive and construed as being caught in a lie ???

Anyway, that was not my intent

 

[Veradun]

Both 10700 (non K) and 5600X are 65W TDP

For default usage both coolers are fine, especially for gaming were the CPU is not working at full load all the time.

Only of you are fine with a rave party in your case.

Anyways that wasn't the point of my post.

The point is 10700 is worse than 5600x in power consumption, performance and features and the cooler is irrelevant to the discussion since both include one.

 

[krumme]

Both 10700 (non K) and 5600X are 65W TDP

For default usage both coolers are fine, especially for gaming were the CPU is not working at full load all the time.

Just buy 10700 then muhaha.
Serious. The damn problem is
1. Ryzen is faster
2. Z490 prices (beefier psu, cooler for k and oc)
=
3. Intel total is just to expensive.
I run 8700k now. Why in the sane world should i choose a Intel pricessor now ?
For every workload even.....
The stock 3600/5600x coller is fine for gaming. Have 2 for the kids. No probs as its never loaded 100%. If you are rendering you would never choose Intel anyways.

 

[AtenRa]

Just buy 10700 then muhaha.
Serious. The damn problem is
1. Ryzen is faster
2. Z490 prices (beefier psu, cooler for k and oc)
=
3. Intel total is just to expensive.
I run 8700k now. Why in the sane world should i choose a Intel pricessor now ?
For every workload even.....
The stock 3600/5600x coller is fine for gaming. Have 2 for the kids. No probs as its never loaded 100%. If you are rendering you would never choose Intel anyways.

1. barely, the difference is just +- 5% (for gaming) at 1080p
2. No need for Z490 boards, H410/B460 should do just fine (Im talking about 10700 non K)
3. The only price difference is the CPU at +50$

for +50$ you get +2 more cores (4 threads total) , a little less gaming performance at 1080p or same performance at 1440p/4k , same power consumption , same motherboard prices etc etc.

Its not that the 10700 is that good, its the 5600X price that make the 10700 better

 

[shady28]

Sure but we are talking about $50 price difference here.

Nope. A 3600 about 3-6 months ago was ~$170 and the 3600X was ~$200. You could literally buy a 3600, motherboard, and 16GB of RAM for about what the 5600X costs. Or, get a 3600X for about $30 more.

The "Halo effect" has driven up all the AMD CPU prices. Right now, for someone trying to replatform who wants 6 cores under $300, their only real option is a 10400.

 

[lightmanek]

I've watched this video on YT today and found it quite interesting:

This channel specializes in SimRacing, a different and previously Intel dominated gaming niche due to either old engines relying on ST performance or new engines doing lots of high frequency physics calls.
The video has a lot of bar graphs for single and tripple-screen gaming on RTX 3090 and goes into details on streaming as well, but for lazy one among us here are few of them:

Quite staggering jump in performance!

 

[shady28]

None of this matters.

Major topics of 2021:
AMD and Intel Plan Merger to Combat Apple
and
TSMC Becomes Worlds Most Valuable Company by Market Cap

 

[Makaveli]

Nope. A 3600 about 3-6 months ago was ~$170 and the 3600X was ~$200. You could literally buy a 3600, motherboard, and 16GB of RAM for about what the 5600X costs. Or, get a 3600X for about $30 more.

The "Halo effect" has driven up all the AMD CPU prices. Right now, for someone trying to replatform who wants 6 cores under $300, their only real option is a 10400.

Then go buy an intel system and good luck.

 

[Veradun]

1. barely, the difference is just +- 5% (for gaming) at 1080p
2. No need for Z490 boards, H410/B460 should do just fine (Im talking about 10700 non K)
3. The only price difference is the CPU at +50$

for +50$ you get +2 more cores (4 threads total) , a little less gaming performance at 1080p or same performance at 1440p/4k , same power consumption , same motherboard prices etc etc.

Its not that the 10700 is that good, its the 5600X price that make the 10700 better

I'm lost. At the same performance (slightly less, but let's call this a tie) and same everything else (let's also ignore PCIe4, let's say we don't care today, like with the performance difference) why should one pay more?

 

[shady28]

Then go buy an intel system and good luck.

Nah my next box will probably be an M1.

 

[rbk123]

Gaming performance is roughly the same, +- 5%

Remember when Zen2 was +-5% Intel in gaming? No Intel owner worth his salt would deign to lower themselves and say they were roughly equal. Ahh, this is a beautiful thing to behold.

On the other hand 10700 will get a new Rocket Lake in Q1, so maybe there will be a better upgrade gaming path for the i7.

You don't think that will require a new mobo? That would be very un-Intel-like if so.....

The real crux is, by the time the 2 missing cores on the 5600x will matter, both CPU's will have aged sufficiently that both owners would want to upgrade them. Not really sure how paying $50 more for a worse CPU is a better buy, but to each their own.

 

[AtenRa]

I'm lost. At the same performance (slightly less, but let's call this a tie) and same everything else (let's also ignore PCIe4, let's say we don't care today, like with the performance difference) why should one pay more?

As i said before, only just +50$ for 2C 4T more.

 

[Veradun]

As i said before, only just +50$ for 2C 4T more.

And less performance. Remember Bulldozer?

 

[AtenRa]

You don't think that will require a new mobo? That would be very un-Intel-like if so.....

No, socket 1200 will also get the new Rocket Lake.

 

[AtenRa]

And less performance. Remember Bulldozer?

I dont see any relevance between Bulldozer and 10700 in gaming performance.

 

[rainy]

Nope. A 3600 about 3-6 months ago was ~$170 and the 3600X was ~$200.

To be fair, even 6 months ago 3600 wasn't a brand new product like 5600x - it was on the market for about 10 months.
I'm pretty much sure, that for a couple months (probably before release of Rocket Lake) price of 5600x will drop and we will see also 5600/5700x.

Major topics of 2021:
AMD and Intel Plan Merger to Combat Apple

No chance for this from theoretical and practical point of view.

 

[AtenRa]

Not really sure how paying $50 more for a worse CPU is a better buy, but to each their own.

I wonder why people were buying the 3700X at 329$ when the cheaper Core i5 10600K was faster

 

[Veradun]

I dont see any relevance between Bulldozer and 10700 in gaming perofrmance.

The relevance is number of cores is irrelevant. What matters is performance and 10700 has less at 50 bucks more.