Basically you can’t read or tell lies. You should take your own advice, but here is my advice for you. Read and understand context.
-
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 confirms Ryzen 7 5800X3D launches this spring, Zen4 Raphael in 2H 2022
- Thread starter Dave2150
- Start date
Basically you can’t read or tell lies. You should take your own advice, but here is my advice for you. Read and understand context.
Soldato
Agreed.
Soldato
"Price per core" seems like a bit of a distraction.
Cores are just a means to an end. That "end" is performance.
1)How does it perform?
2) What does it cost?
Cores, clock speed, cache, process node....all that is nice to geek-out on, but we are buying *performance*. (Well, usually at least)
Cores are just a means to an end. That "end" is performance.
1)How does it perform?
2) What does it cost?
Cores, clock speed, cache, process node....all that is nice to geek-out on, but we are buying *performance*. (Well, usually at least)
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2017
- Posts
- 1,901
don't bring sense to this conversation.
Soldato
Caporegime
That's not bad, the 5600X is a bit over but the 5800X is a bit under.
Soldato
You BOTH literally didn't even bother to read the comment trail did you?? It was a discussion over someone suggesting a £320 Ryzen 5 5600X(which is the OcUK price) over a cheaper ADL Core i5 or a Ryzen 7 5800X(which could be had for not much more) which are cheaper per core,and generally faster.
So are you telling me a £320 Ryzen 5 5600X is going to be as relevant as a £350 Ryzen 7 5800X in a few years,or a £260 Core i5 12600K which all have more cores/threads and as fast/faster threads whilst being cheaper per core??
For most people who actually keep stuff more than 5 seconds,there are additional factors:
3.)CPU Longevity which is dependent on things such as thread count(not core count)
4.)Platform longevity(ease of upgrades and platform features)
5.)What class of dGPU you intend to use and how often(faster dGPUs can show up issues quicker IMHO)
Many on here upgrade so quickly it doesn't matter for them.All the people including reviewers such as Gamersnexus and Hardware Unboxed who suggested the Core i5 7600k was going to have issues earlier over a Ryzen 5 due to lack of cores/threads were proven right,even if it "won". It was much cheaper,and had more resources overall. Gamersnexus and Hardware Unboxed repeatedly thought the Ryzen 5 3600 was a better buy over a more expensive Core i5 9600K because even though it was slower,the extra threads,and better upgrade path was going to be more cost effective.
And the same people on B350/X370 can now upgrade to a Zen3 Ryzen apparently so ultimately is "day one" performance really useful as a metric? It isn't unless you play the same games for years which never change. The Core i5 7600K costed more than the Ryzen 5,but now is worth less secondhand since its not a great CPU for modern games.
More cores on the same generation has always lasted longer,so if a Ryzen 7 5800X costs £350 and a Ryzen 5 5600X costs £320,the obvious choice is the Ryzen 7 as with 33% more cores and it will last longer. It will also end up selling for more secondhand when you upgrade,as its a more desirable CPU. If you don't believe come back in 3 years.The only time it doesn't work is if the IPC difference is so huge,it doesn't matter,ie,FX8350 vs Core i7 2600K. But in this case the discussion was about the same generation(an FX6300 lasted less longer than an FX8300 and a Core i5 2500K less than a Core i7 2600K,which is reflected in resale values).
Some of us have seen this trend over the last decade plus. People dunked on the Q6600/Q8400 vs the E8400,Core i7 2600K/3770K/Xeon E3 vs Core i5 and so on. Day 1 reviews don't always give an indication of how long performance will stay consistent over time. People keep platforms for 5~6 years on average like most people I know,so short termism doesn't factor into the equation.
I tried looking for the Ryzen 7 5800X at that price and couldn't find it,but anyway at that price a Ryzen 5 5600X is not worth it IMHO.
The Ryzen 7 5800X will simply last longer(especially as RT games apparently seem to prefer more cores according to some here),and it will always be a sought after CPU on the AM4 platform. I expect over time the Ryzen 5 5600X value will plummet,not so much for the Ryzen 7. For £42 more its money very well spent.
Last edited:
agreed. People are making the same mistake that hardware unboxed called out many times - often you'll hear people say you need X number of cores for games, productivity or whatever and it's simply not true - the only thing that matters is performance and number of cores does not equal an absolute measure of performance. 1+1 will always be 2 but 1 core != 1 core.
You can see perfect evidence of this concept in Intels newest CPUs - people last year and the year before said quad core CPUs were dead and not good enough for gaming, yet Intel now has a quad core that beats all ryzen 3000 CPUs including the 16 core 3950x in gaming
Soldato
Both you and him,didn't even bother to read why I said it - he was literally saying cores don't count in the SAME GENERATION. He also took one part of a discussion with zero context.
The discussion was about defending a person on here who was bought a £320 Ryzen 5 5600X over a cheaper Intel offerings which were as fast/faster,cheaper per core,etc and paired it with a £225 motherboard. You can get a ADL Core i5 for less money and a Ryzen 7 5800X for slightly more money. People suggested it to them in that thread and they ignored it. Some are defending that here.
People look at the Ryzen 5 5600X as a mythical beast and they are trying their best to defend a £320 Ryzen 5 5600X when a Ryzen 7 5800X can be had for similar money. It is better value as it is cheaper per core,faster in every way,will remain relevant for longer and have better resale value. This is the mistake people make - they don't keep up to date with pricing,or what the competition has and fall into lazy recommendations so end up giving people bad advice. HUB literally have said the Ryzen 5 5600X is overpriced now.
Most on here go for more cores anyway. Even Humbug got a Ryzen 7 5800X! Even you believe it as you got a Ryzen 9 5950X over a Ryzen 5 5600X.
About Hardware Unboxed - they literally recommended the Ryzen 5 1600 over the Core i5 7600K,when the latter was quicker?
HUB said:
Then they repeat the same mantra with the faster Core i5 9600K against the Ryzen 5 3600. The Core i5 was slightly ahead but they literally said that it had more threads so was a better choice.
HUB said:
Last edited:
You agree someone should come up with a complex formula for calculating the monitory value of a piece of hardware?
If memory serves the 3600 was vastly quicker multi, so is/was the obvious choice on a perf scale. Don't remember the prices ect
Caporegime
Gaming isn't the only thing people do with their CPU, i did my research and the 5800X is literally as fast as a 10900K in MT rendering and encoding while using half the power and being much cheaper.
I got the CPU and a Motherboard for the cost of the 10900K alone.
Caporegime
CAT @Joxeon at the time got himself a 5950X because it was by a long way the best mainstream CPU on the market./
We are comparing a 2 year old CPU to the very latest, as i keep saying Zen 3 CPU's are over priced as they are right now, i Even had the same complaint when they were new 2 years ago but the reason i was no anywhere near as visceral back then as others was because they were better CPU's than the competition.
No one complained anywhere near as viscerally about the 10700K or the 10900K against the 5600X or 5800X, those being better gaming CPU's, better for productivity, much more efficient and cheaper. Its because we as consumers have this mindset that we expect Intel to be priced high while AMD's job is to meter Intel's pricing, so we get really angry when AMD aren't just knocking out cheap crap.
That is not a business model, if AMD make a good product why should they not be rewarded for it? otherwise what's the point? where is the incentive?
We are comparing a 2 year old CPU to the very latest, as i keep saying Zen 3 CPU's are over priced as they are right now, i Even had the same complaint when they were new 2 years ago but the reason i was no anywhere near as visceral back then as others was because they were better CPU's than the competition.
No one complained anywhere near as viscerally about the 10700K or the 10900K against the 5600X or 5800X, those being better gaming CPU's, better for productivity, much more efficient and cheaper. Its because we as consumers have this mindset that we expect Intel to be priced high while AMD's job is to meter Intel's pricing, so we get really angry when AMD aren't just knocking out cheap crap.
That is not a business model, if AMD make a good product why should they not be rewarded for it? otherwise what's the point? where is the incentive?
Last edited:
It was almost impossible to make a case for the Intel platform. I’d have taken an AM4 part even if it was little slower and more expensive.
Soldato
It was pipped by the Core i5 9600K overall in gaming,but as HUB said the extra threads were something which would give it extra flexibility in gaming(they even said this). You could see this is non-gaming scenarios where HT added a lot of performance,so the Ryzen 5 had room to grow,but the 6C/6T Core i5 was as good as it got.
Gamersnexus also recommended the Ryzen 5 3600 as their mainstream gaming CPU,because that HT(and 2X the number of threads) made it far more flexible CPU,especially as games will over time make more use extra threads(but the Core i5 9600k was above it). In the end this has been shown time and time again,as more consistent low FPS in demanding scenarios. So it's why when people say cores/threads are not important it does play apart because if you are keeping the CPU for a few years,and upgrading to faster and faster dGPUs,having a bit extra in the tank makes sense. Is single core performance importance - yes it is! But its not the only thing that needs to be taken into consideration.
My original post was more about the choices in the AMD range not about Intel in reality. If you had a Ryzen 5 5600X for £200 and a Ryzen 7 5800X for £400,the former is just better value for money. Its why the Ryzen 5 3600 at £150 was so much better value than a Ryzen 7 3700X which rarely went under £250.
But if it's like a £40~£50 difference in price between the 6 core and 8 core of the same range you are literally paying a relatively small amount more for 33% more cores,and better clockspeeds. Say if that Ryzen 5 5600X is OK for three years before it starts showing issues in games,but the Ryzen 7 5800X lasts you another 1 year to 18 months extra. In the scheme of things paying that little bit extra over 4 years is actually more cost effective.
That person in the other thread paid £320 for a Ryzen 5 5600X and £225 for an X570 motherboard. That would have easily paid for a Ryzen 7 5800X(or even a Ryzen 9 5900X) and a £100 B550 motherboard. So think how much longer a Ryzen 7 5800X or Ryzen 9 5900X would last over a Ryzen 5 5600X? Its why people who keep saying core count isn't important(or cost per core in the stack),are missing the whole picture IMHO. This is why I said even you got one despite preferring value,because there were deals on the Ryzen 7 5800X which pushed it very close to £300,and its a well rounded CPU. The consoles have 8 cores,and each of those Zen3 cores are faster than a console Zen2 core. You know for the most part it should give you a fairly decent lifespan.
Last edited:
@CAT-THE-FIFTH
Would you say £40 per core +/- 5% is about what people should be aiming for.
Maybe add +5% for availability and another +5% for high demand parts.
Potentially a little more based on retailer preference.
Would you say £40 per core +/- 5% is about what people should be aiming for.
Maybe add +5% for availability and another +5% for high demand parts.
Potentially a little more based on retailer preference.
Soldato
I tend to judge it along the stack. So when the Ryzen 5 3600 was £150~£160,a Ryzen 7 3700X at say £300 wouldn't look so hot. But OTH if the Ryzen 5 is £270 and the Ryzen 7 was £320,I would rather stump up the extra cash and get the Ryzen 7.
But going by the fact you can get a Ryzen 7 5800X fairly easily for £330(and apparently others say around £300),the Ryzen 5 5600X should really be more around £240. In line with the Intel competition(£180 Core i5 12400F),if we say you need to add an extra £40 for an Intel motherboard,then probably around £220~£230 at least at current relative motherboard prices to be similar value(I think the number Humbug came up with).
Only thing is AMD really needs something under £200 - I think the rumours are its a Zen2 APU with no IGP?
Soldato
lol so explain the context of you recommending a £320 5600x.