AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The 5600X will beat the 10600K in ST, MT and gaming.

It's also £60~£70 cheaper. The Core i5 10600KF is £230.The Ryzen 7 3700X and Core i7 10700/10700F will bracket the Ryzen 5 5600X in price,and most likely still push ahead in core heavy scenarios.

So its basically the same situation where Intel had less cores than AMD,but faster ones. Also overclocked those Intel six cores could get close to AMD 8 core CPUs.

The situation is the same as before but the companies have flip-flopped and so have people! It reminds me of GPUs!

 

[muon]

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 up to now has been better for games. Anyone who said otherwise was being silly.

However, if you bought a B450 motherboard (which were quite cheap) you are potentially going from Zen+ to Zen 3 on the same board.

I don't think the 10600K can match the MT performance of 3700X? Whilst 5600X can and is better in games than a stock 10600K as well.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Intel up to now has been better for games. Anyone who said otherwise was being silly.

However, if you bought a B450 motherboard (which were quite cheap) you are potentially going from Zen+ to Zen 3 on the same board.

Many were argueing despite Intel being ahead and having less cores,the Zen2 CPUs had more cores,so had more in the tank,etc.

Now you are seeing an inverted situation. Zen3 and its launch models,are core for core much more expensive than Zen2 or Cometlake S. You can get an 8C/16T Ryzen 7 3700X for much less than a Ryzen 5 5600X(let alone a Ryzen 5 5800X) and it comes with the Wraith Prism CPU cooler(not far off a Hyper 212 IIRC),or a Core i7 10700KF for much less than a Ryzen 7 5800X. A Core i5 10700/10700F costs almost the same as a Ryzen 5 5600X(you can probably run it on an all-cores Turbo overclock too) and the Core i5 10600KF is much cheaper too.

Also if you shop around you can get a Ryzen 9 3900 non-X for barely 10% more than a Ryzen 5 5600X. So 12C/24T against 6C/12T.

So the scenario is now reversed. So the question are the same people going to say get a Zen2/Cometlake S CPU over a Zen3 CPU,ie,better MT performance,even if it is worse ST performance?? Because that was the argument with Zen2,or was the argument a number of the Intel chaps were saying,less but more faster cores,the correct way forward?? Because quite a few disagreed with this on here with Zen2 recommendations.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

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.

People dont walk into a shop to upgrade their cerial. Your example is floored.

The 5600X may be an upgrade to the 3700X but it's not a product replacement. The 5700X will be placed on store shelves where the 3700X once was. The 5600X will be placed on store shelves where the 3600X once was.

The fact that the 5700X is slightly faster than the 3700X is irelevant.

 

[LePhuronn]

seems AMD fans are saying ST and gaming performance is more important than more cores.

Nobody at all has said that. AMD "fans" are saying ST was the only thing the Zen architecture has left to improve. And now Zen 3 has done just that, there's nothing left to say other than AMD now have the fastest desktop processors on the market.

 

[Twinz]

People dont walk into a shop to upgrade their cerial. Your example is floored.

The 5600X may be an upgrade to the 3700X but it's not a product replacement. The 5700X will be placed on store shelves where the 3700X once was. The 5600X will be placed on store shelves where the 3600X once was.

The fact that the 5700X is slightly faster than the 3700X is irelevant.

Are you buying names on a box or the performance you expect from the box's contents? There's more performance in a box of "5600 crunch" than there is in a box of "3700 flakes".

And since they are the same price, well...

I want a performance upgrade, I'm not interested in e-peen enhancement.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Nobody at all has said that. AMD "fans" are saying ST was the only thing the Zen architecture has left to improve. And now Zen 3 has done just that, there's nothing left to say other than AMD now have the fastest desktop processors on the market.

Many said it here and have forgotten it conveniently. An example is when some pushed out Star Citizen graphs showing how more cores was the way forward. Or do you want me to find those posts?

A lot of Intel guys on here argued,that core number was not as important as single core performance. So get that Core i5 10600K over a Ryzen 7 3700X,or get that Core i7 8700K over a Ryzen 7 2700X,etc. Get that Core i9 9900K over a Ryzen 9 3900X,etc.

Then the AMD guys would countered,look at these multi-core benchmarks,etc. The AMD CPUs have more cores,and more in the tank,etc.

Now you can get AMD Zen2 and Intel Cometlake S CPUs with more cores,for the same price as AMD Zen3 CPUs with less cores.

Now it appears that all those people who pushed more cores,now seem to have come into alignment with what some of the Intel guys were saying. Less but faster cores is apparently the way forward.

 

[humbug]

It's also £60~£70 cheaper. The Core i5 10600KF is £230.The Ryzen 7 3700X and Core i7 10700/10700F will bracket the Ryzen 5 5600X in price,and most likely still push ahead in core heavy scenarios.

So its basically the same situation where Intel had less cores than AMD,but faster ones. Also overclocked those Intel six cores could get close to AMD 8 core CPUs.

The situation is the same as before but the companies have flip-flopped and so have people! It reminds me of GPUs!

The 3600 is even cheaper

 

[CuriousTomCat]

Are you buying names on a box or the performance you expect from the box's contents?

I want a performance upgrade, I'm not interested in e-peen enhancement.

I'm buying the performance. If the low end 5300X destroys my 2600 for a little over £100 then I would consider it to be an amazing upgrade for me. But that doesn't mean the 5300X has replaced the 2600 in the product stack.

2600 was mid range. 5300X is low end. I'd be happy to do that, even though it's a lower tier. You're saying it like an upgrade = higher tier. Like the 5600X is a higher tier than 3700X. The 3700X is the higher tier, even though it's slower.

 

[Mr Oblong]

The 3600 is even cheaper

And these AMD chips will run cool and quiet, so it's not like only one thing is in AMD's favour.

 

[humbug]

And these AMD chips will run cool and quiet, so it's not like only one thing is in AMD's favour.

Yup.

No matter which way you look at it AMD have all the bases covered, if you want the best its AMD, for those on a budget its still AMD.

 

[Mr Oblong]

Yup.

No matter which way you look at it AMD have all the bases covered, if you want the best its AMD, for those on a budget its still AMD.

If AMD keep Zen 2 in stock until the 5600 and 5700x are in stock, they'll have a very competitive Q4 and Q1. And it only gets better for them when those value focused chips come in.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The 3600 is even cheaper

Its also faster. But the other issue is the Ryzen 5 3600 price has been pushed up now by UK retailers. The Ryzen 5 3600X price at times has been not much more than a Ryzen 5 3600!

So at current UK pricing a Core i5 10600KF is around 25% more expensive,than a Ryzen 5 3600,and the Ryzen 5 5600X is 25% more expensive than the Core i5 10600KF,or 1.6 times the price of the Ryzen 5 3600(and 35% more than a Ryzen 5 3600X). The Ryzen 5 3600 is around 30% more than a Core i5 10400F now.

The Ryzen 7 3700X with its solid Wraith Prism,can be had cheaper than a Ryzen 5 5600X. I can't see a Ryzen 7 3700X being an issue in future games. The consoles use the dual CCX design(Renoir),so it will be less of a problem for the future as games will be code for it. Then when you can get a Ryzen 9 3900 non-X in bundle deals for around 10% more than a Ryzen 5 5600X.

The thing is the Ryzen 9 pricing seems actually better. The Ryzen 9 5900X is actually cheaper per core than the Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 5 5600X.

We really need the Ryzen 5 5600 non-X and Ryzen 7 5700X in the new few months!!

And these AMD chips will run cool and quiet, so it's not like only one thing is in AMD's favour.

The Ryzen 5 5600X comes with the crappy Wraith Stealth. That is a massive step down over the Wraith Spire or Wraith Prism the over £200 models normally get. I found my one would run at close to 90C. I really don't understand that decision - its going to definitely hold back performance. Better they didn't include it(and made the CPU cheaper),or used the Wraith Spire.

 

[Mr Oblong]

Its also faster. But the other issue is the Ryzen 5 3600 price has been pushed up now by UK retailers. The Ryzen 5 3600X price at times has been not much more than a Ryzen 5 3600X!

So at current UK pricing a Core i5 10600KF is around 25% more expensive,than a Ryzen 5 3600,and the Ryzen 5 5600X is 25% more expensive than the Core i5 10600KF,or 1.6 times the price of the Ryzen 5 3600(and 35% more than a Ryzen 5 3600X).

The Ryzen 7 3700X with its solid Wraith Prism,can be had cheaper than a Ryzen 5 5600X. I can't see a Ryzen 7 3700X being an issue in future games. The consoles use the dual CCX design(Renoir),so it will be less of a problem for the future as games will be code for it. Then when you can get a Ryzen 9 3900 non-X in bundle deals for around 10% more than a Ryzen 5 5600X.

The thing is the Ryzen 9 pricing seems actually better. The Ryzen 9 5900X is actually cheaper per core than the Ryzen 7 5800X and Ryzen 5 5600X.

We really need the Ryzen 5 5600 non-X and Ryzen 7 5700X in the new few months!!



The Ryzen 5 5600X comes with the crappy Wraith Stealth. That is a massive step down over the Wraith Spire or Wraith Prism the over £200 models normally get. I found my one would run at close to 90C. I really don't understand that decision - its going to definitely hold back performance. Better they didn't include it(and made the CPU cheaper),or used the Wraith Spire.

You're right about the cooler, I'm not bothered personally as I always go after market but it's another squeeze on value.

 

[FoxEye]

Yup.

No matter which way you look at it AMD have all the bases covered, if you want the best its AMD, for those on a budget its still AMD.

It's hard to make a case for Intel atm, but sadly it's also harder than it should have been to make a case for the 5000 series over the 3000 series.

And that's purely thanks to the price rise.

So yeah the 3000 series wins in VfM, the 5000 series wins for ST perf - it's just a REAL shame that a chip like the 5600 couldn't be winning in both of those metrics.

With the 5600X priced like the 3700X it's a bitter pill to swallow for me personally.

 

[humbug]

If AMD keep Zen 2 in stock until the 5600 and 5700x are in stock, they'll have a very competitive Q4 and Q1. And it only gets better for them when those value focused chips come in.

to this day you can still get 2600's for little over £100, AMD keep making them to fill that budget gap, the 3600 will continue at £180 until the £200 5600, at which point it will drop to £130.

 

[GregI]

French retailer was already selling them by mistake: https://twitter.com/davideneco25320/status/1320027373027397632

So even Europe has stock of these and still November 5th is the release? We can only guess they are just stock piling a bunch over the next ~2 weeks.

 

[Twinz]

The 3700X is the higher tier, even though it's slower.

This illustrates how utterly useless "tiers" are.

How fast?

How much?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

You're right about the cooler, I'm not bothered personally as I always go after market but it's another squeeze on value.

I think its weird really,as its an X variant and it boost quite highly. So either remove it and make it cheaper,or use the Wraith Spire.

It's hard to make a case for Intel atm, but sadly it's also harder than it should have been to make a case for the 5000 series over the 3000 series.

And that's purely thanks to the price rise.

So yeah the 3000 series wins in VfM, the 5000 series wins for ST perf - it's just a REAL shame that a chip like the 5600 couldn't be winning in both of those metrics.

With the 5600X priced like the 3700X it's a bitter pill to swallow for me personally.

The Ryzen 9 3900 non-X is even better value. Not sure for how long though!!

 

[dwskillz]

this going to be another product with hardly any stock?