OcUK Zen3 review thread

[Purgatory]

20% higher framerate vs zen 2 even at 4K in FS (gpu rtx3090)

nope..

10900k and 5950x and 3950x all hit the same frame rate at fs2020 ultra settings.

With a 3080 RTX and a 3950X and 10900k.

With a 3090 RTX and CPUs 5900x and 10900k The results add up the 3090 is 10% faster in fs2020 than a 3080 on average.

Its zero % difference at 4k even with a 3090. It's all in margin of error and different platforms for the different cpus. Actually the 3950x at 2560x1440p is bound by the cpu, but these are resolutions I haven't touched in over 5-7 years. 1080p and 1440p is dead to me, 3440x1440p and 5120x1440p and 4k is all that matters to me and 3440x1440p will be removed too, to update second system to another 49" 5120x1440p which is 1 million pixels less than 4k which is 8 million pixels for 4k. So basically anyone buying high end is going to be using high end resolutions not 1080p 1440p 16:9...


Reality is even with a cpu hog like fs2020 anything 3440x1440p+ and a rtx 3080 or 3090 or 6800xt or 6900xt are going to see little difference. Also this is an extreme example is fs2020 it's really badly coded to use too few cores, find me more examples this bad at 1440p and above.

Thing to remember what I'm saying is look at the resolution you game at and is it maybe better to upgrade your monitor to something nicer and higher resolution than waste money on a cpu where it would be better spent on a monitor upgrade and gpu upgrade for most. BUT there are people who love high frame rates at 1080p and that's a different use case for people that want 240hz and 360hz. Most home users are looking for better quality on their display and that means maybe invest in a new display and gpu instead of a cpu right now. End of the day everything we get from the computer is displayed on a screen to us and if the screen is naff whats the point throwing money on something that won't show much difference.

It all depends on your needs at end of the day and the resolution and frame rates you want to play at. I'm always GPU bound by all my setups as I always have high resolution monitors that are available not the old resolutions that don't matter anymore, some reviews were comical doing 480p, 720p testing too on 5000 series... WHY ? No normal person investing in such a cpu is using these resolutions anymore. Just to show ohh wait new cpu is faster, we know this, but is it in our normal use case on real resolutions people are using ?

 

[~>Dg<~]

at 1080



the real bargin cpu if you gaming is the 10400 ! what a cpu for the money same as a amd 3950x costs £160

infact the 10400f is only £140 !

 

[Scooby-DoobyDoo]

I'm sticking with my 3700x for now and look towards upgrading GPU (1080ti). Game at 4k 60hz. Will look at next gen on new DDR5 boards.

 

[Hotwired]

Honestly I disagree with your view because most people will buy the board & buy the chip and play with it at default. They won't arbitrary lock their power to the TDP because it is what it says on the box. It is the same nonsense about 600/720p gaming. I don't give two hoots about that cause I don't game at that. I want to see numbers on actual hardware setups I game at and the differences there. I am not bothered whom has the higher IPC, whom has the higher Ghz etc. It is just about relative performance. I generally start with what gives the best performance overall, then I will look at the pricing, if it is too high I look at what is slightly down the stack.

At point do I care that at the TDP rating for either brand is being hit or not when I game and when I want an out the box configuration to work with relative ease. The only time the power numbers come into play is again what is the total system load when gaming and what is highest peak recorded so I know what size PSU I should buy. Does this mean every reviewer should test every different mobo manufacture board with the chip to see the difference. Nope cause I can quite happily check what mobo was used and compare to others or when said bencher then does a mobo review I can compare the differences.

Yeah sure a user will do whatever but no one is holding the end user to any standards.

The whole point is to set up an equal playing field not accept some boosted "default" settings on a motherboard because the mobo manufacturer wants their boards to give better numbers.

Such interference overstates the cpu performance, the temps, the power which may be specific to running that cpu in that motherboard. You understand that because you're saying you now need a motherboard review to know the difference.

As a reviewer he should be putting himself above that and running the cpu manufacturers spec which will give results independent of what motherboard anyone uses.

It's bizzare to see a reviewer say they're aware of interference that they could remove and be ok with it.

 

[RavenXXX2]

wow 5600x made the entire i5/i7/i9 comet Lake stack irrelevant.

 

[FoxEye]

wow 5600x made the entire i5/i7/i9 comet Lake stack irrelevant.

Maybe, but not at £330, that's for sure.

 

[Hotwired]

Seeing as the only thing being said before launch about the 5600X was that it was a rip off and that AMD was overpricing it's nice to see there's often quite enormous gains over the 3600 people were comparing its price to.

Maybe, but not at £330, that's for sure.

Ok what about at the 290 on OCUK itself.

 

[FoxEye]

Seeing as the only thing being said before launch about the 5600X was that it was a rip off and that AMD was overpricing it's nice to see there's often quite enormous gains over the 3600 people were comparing its price to.

Ok what about at the 290 on OCUK itself.

For me it's still too high.

There are better value chips out there for less money.

AMD has decided to give up being the value king, and for me that's a sad thing.

However with time prices will drop and we'll see what the situation looks like a few months after release. Can't be fairer than that.

 

[~>Dg<~]

they are way over priced. all of the amd range . they new gouging its to be expected. basically level in games. but dearer than intel chips. great if you do work stuff but the price is too high. its weird that intel are actually better value for money .

as shown 10400 a 140 cpu beating a amd 3950x in majority of games.

5600 for eg is the 3600 replacement its £100 too dear. think about the pricing structure. 2600 , 3600 , 5600. they taking the **** .

5800 the same so are the others.

 

[TNA]

they are way over priced. all of the amd range . they new gouging its to be expected. basically level in games. but dearer than intel chips. great if you do work stuff but the price is too high. its weird that intel are actually better value for money .

as shown 10400 a 140 cpu beating a amd 3950x in majority of games.

But who cares about Intel, the company that milked us for a near decade and still not addressed the security issues? If they had no competition from AMD then £300 would be buying us quad cores ffs.

 

[DeathStorm]

as shown 10400 a 140 cpu beating a amd 3950x in majority of games.

No doubt it'll beat a bunch of super expensive Xeon's too but then that's a pretty stupid comparison to make isn't it?

 

[Nabeshogun]

Gamer's Nexus has their 5800x video out now if anyone cares (but I doubt anyone will for that one, they certainly didn't, haha)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x2BYNimNOU

 

[FoxEye]

Gamer's Nexus has their 5800x video out now if anyone cares (but I doubt anyone will for that one, they certainly didn't, haha)... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x2BYNimNOU

Thanks. There's lots of reasons to be interested both in the 5800X vs the 5900X, and also the 5800X vs the 5600X. Will watch that later.

 

[Joxeon]

they are way over priced. all of the amd range . they new gouging its to be expected. basically level in games. but dearer than intel chips. great if you do work stuff but the price is too high. its weird that intel are actually better value for money .

as shown 10400 a 140 cpu beating a amd 3950x in majority of games.

5600 for eg is the 3600 replacement its £100 too dear. think about the pricing structure. 2600 , 3600 , 5600. they taking the **** .

5800 the same so are the others.

Had Intel released these CPUs then everyone would be saying that they are overpriced and just get zen 2 as they're cheaper but almost as good but now it's AMD on top then people are now saying paying more for that extra few % performance is totally worth it.

 

[RBImGuy]

they are way over priced. all of the amd range . they new gouging its to be expected. basically level in games. but dearer than intel chips. great if you do work stuff but the price is too high. its weird that intel are actually better value for money .

as shown 10400 a 140 cpu beating a amd 3950x in majority of games.

5600 for eg is the 3600 replacement its £100 too dear. think about the pricing structure. 2600 , 3600 , 5600. they taking the **** .

5800 the same so are the others.

Intel has to drop prices as they are not competitive anymore and none wants to buy intel anymore.
Intel charged $1700 for 10 cores 5 years ago.
AMD sold 16 cores today for half of that.
Your opinion is based on intel propaganda

 

[jigger]

Had Intel released these CPUs then everyone would be saying that they are overpriced and just get zen 2 as they're cheaper but almost as good but now it's AMD on top then people are now saying paying more for that extra few % performance is totally worth it.

Maybe read some reviews. AMD are a long way ahead.

 

[Nabeshogun]

Thanks. There's lots of reasons to be interested both in the 5800X vs the 5900X, and also the 5800X vs the 5600X. Will watch that later.

You'll hear the phrase 'oddly positioned' multiple times, haha ... I think the takeaway was if you can shell out an extra $100 and do workstationy stuff get the 900 (or wait for threadripper if that's something you really need), if you're just gaming get the 600 and save some money (or wait for whatever the cheaper cpu amd will inevitably bring out later).

 

[Kamakazie!]

I'm not sure why people are suggesting they are 'way overpriced'.
2 videos now show the 5600X trouncing the 10600K in productivity, comfortably beating it in gaming and costing just £25 more (RRP and including a cooler). Yes, they could be cheaper but they are priced inline with everything else for a variety of use cases.

Sure, above 1440P you start to see little to no difference so if you only game at 4k+ (and do nothing else) then save all that money and get the cheapest 4 core / 6 core you can find from Intel or AMD. But for those with absolutely any other use case and some spare cash, there is now only Zen 2 (3600, 3700X) & Zen 3 (any of them) to choose between.

 

[FoxEye]

You'll hear the phrase 'oddly positioned' multiple times, haha ... I think the takeaway was if you can shell out an extra $100 and do workstationy stuff get the 900 (or wait for threadripper if that's something you really need), if you're just gaming get the 600 and save some money (or wait for whatever the cheaper cpu amd will inevitably bring out later).

The 5800X needs to drop to $300 - $350, really. Really not interested in a 12 core at all (massive overkill).

A $200 5600 non-X would be an option, but I've said all along I'm not much for getting a 6-core this late in the day. I feel 8 core will soon be the sweet spot, if not already.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I'm not sure why people are suggesting they are 'way overpriced'.
2 videos now show the 5600X trouncing the 10600K in productivity, comfortably beating it in gaming and costing just £25 more (RRP and including a cooler). Yes, they could be cheaper but they are priced inline with everything else for a variety of use cases.

Sure, above 1440P you start to see little to no difference so if you only game at 4k+ (and do nothing else) then save all that money and get the cheapest 4 core / 6 core you can find from Intel or AMD. But for those with absolutely any other use case and some spare cash, there is now only Zen 2 (3600, 3700X) & Zen 3 (any of them) to choose between.

Its more like £50 since the KF is around £230. The Ryzen 7 3700X does edge ahead if you need more cores,and that has been cheaper than a Ryzen 5 5600X. The the Ryzen 9 3900 non-X is around £310~£325 as part of bundle deals if you need a lot of cores.

By extension,the Ryzen 9 5900X is not only cheaper per core,but seems relatively better priced. This is why Gibbo has sold 2X more of them than either the Ryzen 5 5600X or Ryzen 7 5800X.

The 5800X needs to drop to $300 - $350, really. Really not interested in a 12 core at all (massive overkill).

A $200 5600 non-X would be an option, but I've said all along I'm not much for getting a 6-core this late in the day. I feel 8 core will soon be the sweet spot, if not already.

AMD might just price it at $250(the X and non-X are typically $50 apart in price IIRC),and if the USD is stronger next year,well expect the UK price to be even higher.