Don't be daft.
The 5600X is not an upgrade to the 3700X - it's a side-grade that's better at ST performance. One single metric.
To be an upgrade it would have to be a jump similar to going from a 2700 to a 3700, or a 2600 to a 3600, etc, etc, etc.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
- Status
The 5600X is not an upgrade to the 3700X - it's a side-grade that's better at ST performance. One single metric.
To be an upgrade it would have to be a jump similar to going from a 2700 to a 3700, or a 2600 to a 3600, etc, etc, etc.
WOT! My first pc cost like £200. That includes everything and it was a top spec 386 with ram to be envy of and The biggest HDD you can buy with reasonable price. It had 5.25 inch and 3.5 inch floppy drives. :O. Positively super-computer standard
you telling me that now a top spec PC should be £200.
crazy.
Was it 2nd hand? Because there's no way a top-end 386 system cost £200
I was there too. You can't just lie through your ass here and not get called on it.I bought a "cheap" 486 system in 1992 or so, which cost £1000+. And that was a low-end Ambra Sprinta (new).
And using apple as an example lol
If we go by just inflation, then the original top spec Iphone launched at $499, in 2008. So in 2020 the top spec should be around $610
source;
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/2008?amount=499
Definitely £200 cos that was how much my paper boy money I saved up to buy the computer. There was no second hand market at the time. Might have sourced that HDD and RAM from my schools IT department tho, being an IT prefect and allWas it 2nd hand? Because there's no way a top-end 386 system cost £200
You said same performance. But how to you think a 6 core 3600 manages to match an 8 core 3700? It’s because it has higher single thread performance. I’m still not seeing the point your making to be fair.
Like I said, a cheap 486 IBM clone in 1992 was over a grand - in a shop.
Prices have not got continually more expensive. Nobody can honesty believe that.
As long as it doesn't fall behind in any metric, more performance in some metrics makes it a net upgrade.
I'm not claiming that it's as good an upgrade as last gen, only that it is still an upgrade.
The psychology of the "stack" argument is fascinating though.
One of my high school economics teachers illustrated this "logic" by bringing in a couple boxes of cereal. The new version had "NOW IN A LARGER SIZE!" (or something to that effect) written across the box and when he placed it next to the previous version it was noticeably bigger.
As it turns out though, there was less cereal in the larger box.
Before falling for stuff that's written on the box, ask yourself what it is you are buying? If you are shopping for cereal boxes, get the bigger box.
However if, like most people buying on that isle of the market, you are shopping for cereal rather than the boxes, get the box that offers the most cereal (inside the box) for your money....and don't feel inferior when the guy in the next checkout line has a box that's clearly larger than yours.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
Er i started my career in IT building pc's for a couple of local computer company's.
386 and 486s mainly, and no matter what spec there is no way you could get a 368, even the piddly 386sx until much much later in there life span.
They did come down but **** cost a fortune back then like now, i remember building one of the first P60s (the one that couldnt count!) and it cost 2grand plus just for board and processor.
386 and 486s mainly, and no matter what spec there is no way you could get a 368, even the piddly 386sx until much much later in there life span.
They did come down but **** cost a fortune back then like now, i remember building one of the first P60s (the one that couldnt count!) and it cost 2grand plus just for board and processor.
I assume you mean the 5600? (because I don't think the 3600 matches the 3700 in ST)
How the 5600 matches the 3700 in MT doesn't concern me. How much it will cost me to get the performance is what I care about.
If AMD were to release a $300 dual core that matched the $3700 in multi-threaded performance and beat it in sing-thread, that's fine too. Everything that AMD puts under the heat spreader is just a means to an end.
The end is performance. Full stop.
How fast?
How much?
The more cores your processor has, the more concurrent applications it can execute without competing for resources which will ultimately degrade the performance.
8-core 16-thread CPU may very well play without a sweat with 16 concurrent processes while 6-core 12-thread CPU may only play with 12 concurrent processes and if you stress it more, there will be inevitable stuttering, lag and all the other unpleasant phenomena.
8-core 16-thread CPU may very well play without a sweat with 16 concurrent processes while 6-core 12-thread CPU may only play with 12 concurrent processes and if you stress it more, there will be inevitable stuttering, lag and all the other unpleasant phenomena.
Yeah I have no idea where he thinks you could buy a 386 for £200, but it wasn't in a shop, lol.
Amusingly I also worked in a PC shop circa 2003 (Time Computers). We sold P4-based systems for well over a grand.
The idea that tech gets more expensive every year - and ALWAYS has done at least at the rate of inflation - is complete nonsense.
Otherwise as said we'd be paying tens of thousand for our PCs today.
Okay, that's fair.
Basically this. The chip topology may affect performance in various scenarios, but that's armchair engineer trivia past a point.
If it performs well, it could be a single core with a hundred separate caches or a 23 core made out of wood, it's all moot if the price and performance are in the right place.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just need to leave it there. In a lot of loads this is much more performance as well.
It's why people still bought the 8700K and 9900K. Otherwise it was a slam dunk contest.
If AMD had Zen 3 in place of Zen 2 (no reason why they couldn't have if they were a bit more lucky in R&D) then Intel would be finished by now.
It would be nice if AMD saw fit to give us even better value, but it's been years since they were on top without caveats. Of all the moments to take some profit, this is it.
Still, they are doing "just enough" to make a legitimate case for value at launch. I hope to see the value proposition improve once the "new" wears off of Zen 3.
Still, they are doing "just enough" to make a legitimate case for value at launch. I hope to see the value proposition improve once the "new" wears off of Zen 3.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,769
- Location
- Planet Earth
Its kind of funny how AMD fans were saying buy a Ryzen 7 3700X over a Core i5 10600K,even though ST performance and gaming performance was less,because it had more cores and more MT performance.
Intel fans were saying MT performance and more cores was not important,but ST performance and gaming performance. Now,the tables are turned,it seems AMD fans are saying ST and gaming performance is more important than more cores. Now Intel Cometlake and Zen2 have more cores for the same price when compared to Zen3,but lower per core performance. So it looks like the arguments will now invert until Intel beats AMD again in ST and gaming performance.
Edit!!
Also another thing.
AMD is basically stating a Ryzen 5 5600X has 13% more performance than a Core i5 10600K(they state both cost the same and the Ryzen 5 5600X has 13% more gaming performance).
The problem with this is that they ignored the cheaper KF models or the fact Intel Cometlake S street pricing is much lower now. Also the Core i5 10600K/10600KF lacks thermal velocity boost,so gains more from manual overclocking than higher end Cometlake S models. We also know AMD CPUs don't gain as much from overclocking. I can see the Core i5 still being quite competitive in absolute gaming performance.
The Core i5 10600KF is currently around £230,which makes it £60~£70 cheaper than a Ryzen 5 5600X with its crappy Wraith Stealth cooler. The difference is more than enough to cover a decent CPU cooler(and still be cheaper overall).
I really hope we see the Ryzen 5 5600 non-X soon!
Intel fans were saying MT performance and more cores was not important,but ST performance and gaming performance. Now,the tables are turned,it seems AMD fans are saying ST and gaming performance is more important than more cores. Now Intel Cometlake and Zen2 have more cores for the same price when compared to Zen3,but lower per core performance. So it looks like the arguments will now invert until Intel beats AMD again in ST and gaming performance.
Edit!!
Also another thing.
AMD is basically stating a Ryzen 5 5600X has 13% more performance than a Core i5 10600K(they state both cost the same and the Ryzen 5 5600X has 13% more gaming performance).
The problem with this is that they ignored the cheaper KF models or the fact Intel Cometlake S street pricing is much lower now. Also the Core i5 10600K/10600KF lacks thermal velocity boost,so gains more from manual overclocking than higher end Cometlake S models. We also know AMD CPUs don't gain as much from overclocking. I can see the Core i5 still being quite competitive in absolute gaming performance.
The Core i5 10600KF is currently around £230,which makes it £60~£70 cheaper than a Ryzen 5 5600X with its crappy Wraith Stealth cooler. The difference is more than enough to cover a decent CPU cooler(and still be cheaper overall).
I really hope we see the Ryzen 5 5600 non-X soon!
Last edited:
We used to import IBM clone xt/at machines. I'm sure they were about 2k and that was cheap.
My first own pc was a 286-12.
I remember upgrading to a 386 dx40 just to play chuck yeagers air combat, and I'm sure that was about £300 just for the cpu alone.
We used to sell dx2/66s for about 400 quid....
My numbers could be sightly off as it was a long time ago, but adjust for inflation and that's shocking..
I remember my first 200mb ide hdd and I though I'd never need another drive. That was probably £200 on its own. Lol.
The 5600X will beat the 10600K in ST, MT and gaming.
Except that it looks like AMD is beating Intel in MT and ST now.
*Edit* Humbug beat me to the point.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
I expect Zen3 to duff up intel in
Single thread - by a far bit depending on clock speeds
Multi thread - by a hell of a lot
Power usage - by a hell of a lot more
Heat production - which will likely be quite a difference.
So everything basically.
Single thread - by a far bit depending on clock speeds
Multi thread - by a hell of a lot
Power usage - by a hell of a lot more
Heat production - which will likely be quite a difference.
So everything basically.
- Status