AMD confirms Ryzen 7 5800X3D launches this spring, Zen4 Raphael in 2H 2022

[Journey]

The 8700k launched the same year as the 1700X/1800X so that's a perfectly valid comparison and anyone who bought that CPU would have enjoyed 3 years of superior gaming performance and similar MT before it was finally surpassed by the 5000 series, then when ADL released they would have then been able to sell the CPU and board for atleast £100 more than what you'd get for just an 1700X/1800X and buy a 12600k + Z690 for £100 more than just a 5800X so in terms of cost there is really no difference yet with Intel you'd have a brand new Z690 vs an old X370 if you were lucky "asrock" and got the bios update.

But we are talking LAUNCH PRICES, not what it should cost 6-8 months later, I asked you what they should have launched them at, the Ryzen parts.

What you are now saying is that as it was only 7 months later that Intel got the 8th Gen out the door, so then people who are looking to buy now should probably now wait for Zen4 or RPL since that its a similar amount of time away potentially, yes?

You have also still not answered the question, do you think AMD should have launched the CPU's at the same price as the equivalent Intel parts on c/t basis that were available when it LAUNCHED???? Look at all the reviews, they compared them to what was out at the time 6800K/6900K/7700K/7600K.

Can you not answer the question, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?

 

[Joxeon]

The HEDT products offer more than just the extra cores though so that should be taken into account when pricing a desktop part with less features which is why AMD priced the 3960X 100% higher than a 3950X despite having just 50% more cores.

So no they shouldn't have been priced equivalent to HEDT chips.

 

[Journey]

The HEDT products offer more than just the extra cores though so that should be taken into account when pricing a desktop part with less features which is why AMD priced the 3960X 100% higher than a 3950X despite having just 50% more cores.

You are refusing to answer the question then? I thought as much. We are discussing the pricing of the Ryzen desktop parts that came out in March/April '17 a 6c/12t processor would have set you back £430+ and an 8c/16t part £899+, if you wanted a system with that many cores/threads. Are you unable to simply say yes, AMD priced them too cheaply and I now spend half my life complaining that they are now the priced what they should have been in 2017, the 5600X if it came out as the 1600X in 2017 at £299 would you have whinged and moaned about the pricing? AMD went in hard and aggressive with pricing, precisely to show what could be done.

If I wanted a system to render out something in Blender in 2017, you'd have come along and said buy the Intel 6900K over the Ryzen 1700X or 1800X? It's only £400 more and you'll get less performance but you'll get some PCI-E lanes you might never use and quad channel RAM. Would you have said that? Tell me and be honest what would you have recommended, the 8th Gen didn't exist.

How come you are recommending people buy Alder Lake systems in spec me threads, if you know RPL and Zen4 are out in the same time frame that the 8th Gen was vs the then best in class 7700K?

If you want to discuss LOL HEDT pricing then you only need to look at the £1900+ 6950X, 10c/20t, nearly 2x the cost or 100% more than the 6900K with 8c/16t, so a whole 2 more cores, and 4 more threads for nearly double the cost. Sorry you were saying AMD took the micky with pricing right?

 

[Joxeon]

You are refusing to answer the question then? I thought as much. We are discussing the pricing of the Ryzen desktop parts that came out in March/April '17 a 6c/12t processor would have set you back £430+ and an 8c/16t part £899+, if you wanted a system with that many cores/threads. Are you unable to simply say yes, AMD priced them too cheaply and I now spend half my life complaining that they are now the priced what they should have been in 2017, the 5600X if it came out as the 1600X in 2017 at £299 would you have whinged and moaned about the pricing? AMD went in hard and aggressive with pricing, precisely to show what could be done.

If I wanted a system to render out something in Blender in 2017, you'd have come along and said buy the Intel 6900K over the Ryzen 1700X or 1800X? It's only £400 more and you'll get less performance but you'll get some PCI-E lanes you might never use and quad channel RAM. Would you have said that? Tell me and be honest what would you have recommended, the 8th Gen didn't exist.

How come you are recommending people buy Alder Lake systems in spec me threads, if you know RPL and Zen4 are out in the same time frame that the 8th Gen was vs the then best in class 7700K?

If you want to discuss LOL HEDT pricing then you only need to look at the £1900+ 6950X, 10c/20t, nearly 2x the cost or 100% more than the 6900K with 8c/16t, so a whole 2 more cores, and 4 more threads for nearly double the cost. Sorry you were saying AMD took the micky with pricing right?

I think you've become a bit sidetracked from the original point that was if the latest ryzen CPUs are £100 more than the equivalent performing core i parts then the value propersition of a drop in upgrade is not as good as it seems.

 

[g67575]

A long socket life is a good thing but only if it's not subsidised by the higher CPU costs as that ends up swallowing any of the savings.

There's always the option of buying a mid end CPU, if the high end is too expensive. Probably go down like a lead balloon here though, considering most ppl here like to overclock.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

A long socket life is a good thing but only if it's not subsidised by the higher CPU costs as that ends up swallowing any of the savings.

I think you've become a bit sidetracked from the original point that was if the latest ryzen CPUs are £100 more than the equivalent performing core i parts then the value propersition of a drop in upgrade is not as good as it seems.

Agreed - I tend to stay on platforms very long(and so do a bunch of mates),but the reality upgrading on any platform only makes sense if the CPUs are priced well,otherwise it actually does not become economic in terms of cost IMHO. You have to consider that everytime you upgrade there is going to be a loss on the purchase price of the previous CPU,so at a certain point its best to just really save up and change everything.

It's also one of the issues which affected being on Intel platforms as the Core i7 CPUs not only didn't drop in price a lot,but secondhand prices kept stubbornly high(as many Core i3/Core i5 users,eventually wanted to upgrade to one) so in the end it really made more sense to just change platforms. I was shocked how much I got for my Core i7 in the end - it paid a significant amount of the cost the Ryzen 5 2600 I bought.

This is also going to affect AM4 IMHO,because it actually was something we saw on socket AM3 with the Phenom II X6 CPUs holding their value surprisingly well for years. Everyone on AM4 will be after the Ryzen 9 5900X/5950X or even the Ryzen 7 5800X. If the new prices stay relatively high,its going to only mean secondhand prices will also be elevated too.

Many here also forgot that many AM4 users are not on 500 series chipsets and are on 300/400 series chipsets. In my case I have one of the best B450 mini-ITX motherboards(Asus B450I Strix),so if anything i should be incentivised to keep it longer. But since it does not do PCI-E 4.0,and I ended up bypassing Zen3(because my Ryzen 7 3700X cost me £70 less than than the Ryze 5 5600X and £150+ than a Ryzen 7 5800X and I needed at least 8 cores),its most likely at current Zen3 pricing I probably won't be upgrading to a Ryzen 9 in a few years(it will hold its value).

It will be more likely I will just change platforms anyway,unless I find a good deal. Yes there is a motherboard and RAM cost involved,but its most likely whatever AMD/Intel CPU under £250 at that point,will be faster in most workloads,plus you get a more forward looking platform and the motherboards will have a longer cycle of BIOS updates.

 

[g67575]

AMD doesn't restrict CPU multipliers like Intel (on locked CPUs), so I think there's just a lot of good reasons to wait for AM5+Zen4.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AMD doesn't restrict CPU multipliers like Intel (on locked CPUs), so I think there's just a lot of good reasons to wait for AM5+Zen4.

TBF,manual overclocking isn't really useful on AM4 - running PBO with a decent cooler does the job,and Intel if you unlock TDP with a decent cooler it does the same. Also with Intel actually moving away from 14NM+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ things will become more competitive from them. The big advantage AMD has is simply having more cores,but AMD isn't going to give you more cores on the cheap like they did before Zen3 so its more relevant for big spenders IMHO.

 

[g67575]

My dad hasn't built a new PC in more than 10 years, he wants a very beefy upgrade from an i7 920!

I'm wondering if he should go the whole hog and get a high end 2TB NVME drive too, but it depends on cost...

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

My dad hasn't built a new PC in more than 10 years, he wants a very beefy upgrade from an i7 920!

I'm wondering if he should go the whole hog and get a high end 2TB NVME drive too, but it depends on cost...

At this point anything will be a huge upgrade,even a £130 Core i5 10400F!

 

[g67575]

He wants DDR5 RAM too lol. He's got a whole year to get some. Might have to fork up for the expensive high frequency stuff...

https://www.techpowerup.com/290751/amd-wanting-to-time-launch-of-am5-platform-with-ddr5-availability

AMD seems concerned about how DDR5 availability could effect their AM5 platform.

Availability of 8GB modules seems particularly bad at the moment.

 

[Journey]

I think you've become a bit sidetracked from the original point that was if the latest ryzen CPUs are £100 more than the equivalent performing core i parts then the value propersition of a drop in upgrade is not as good as it seems.

Nope sorry, so you can't answer a question, since as I've said a similar performing 6850K/6900K was much more expensive at the time of launch. All I asked was a really simple question to which you try to avoid answering.

Should AMD have launched the original Ryzen 1xxx parts at c/t price equivalence of Intel?

Those 'drop in' upgrades for any platform would be way more expensive today if AMD had released their original line-up or parts priced like Intel,as people would not have expected the lower prices today, and the AM4 platform wouldn't have the userbase it now has either. Intel wouldn't have felt the need to complete as aggressively, and prices and c/t counts would be much lower at the lower end. The lauded 10400's etc. certainly wouldn't exist in the pricing space they do now, and probably would still be 6c/6t if they were anywhere near that price.

 

[Journey]

Agreed - I tend to stay on platforms very long(and so do a bunch of mates),but the reality upgrading on any platform only makes sense if the CPUs are priced well,otherwise it actually does not become economic in terms of cost IMHO. You have to consider that everytime you upgrade there is going to be a loss on the purchase price of the previous CPU,so at a certain point its best to just really save up and change everything.

He refused to actually answer the original question though. I've rewritten it below, maybe you aren't afraid to answer it straight.

"In 2017 if they did a like for like with Intel the 1800X/1700X would have launched at £899 to match the 6900K, and the R5 1600X would have been £429 to match the 6850K, with the R5 1500X at £369 to match the 6700K/7700K, and the R3 1300 at £259 to match the i5 6600K/7600K. So yes they would have had worse performance in the 4c/4t and 4c/8t but would have beaten the 6850/6900K but more importantly the prices prices would have been fine, since that is what Intel were charging and people were buying them, right?"

"I mean would you have preferred that, and then reduce the prices over the years?"

The question isn't directed about what you would do, it is about why the prices are the way they are today, and how they actually got there. You likely would have never bought and AMD platform if they were priced like for like with Intel, nor would a lot of people, so you'd be forced to change your motherboard anyhow 'cause Intel, and two generations per socket if we are feeling generous.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

The 8700k launched the same year as the 1700X/1800X so that's a perfectly valid comparison and anyone who bought that CPU would have enjoyed 3 years of superior gaming performance and similar MT before it was finally surpassed by the 5000 series

I think the 3700x may have passed the 8700k in some instances, but Intel certainly had strong performance in games a couple of years before it even came out. In that case getting the performance earlier would've been better than waiting for a response from AMD.

 

[jigger]

The HEDT products offer more than just the extra cores though so that should be taken into account when pricing a desktop part with less features which is why AMD priced the 3960X 100% higher than a 3950X despite having just 50% more cores.

So no they shouldn't have been priced equivalent to HEDT chips.

The 3950X is also a HEDT when compared to Intel.

I think you've become a bit sidetracked from the original point that was if the latest ryzen CPUs are £100 more than the equivalent performing core i parts then the value propersition of a drop in upgrade is not as good as it seems.

I think you are missing the point that the market sets the price of CPU currently. With AMD desktop massively outselling the Intel counterparts it’s seems people are seeing more Ryzen than you had hoped.

 

[Cyber-Mav]

My dad hasn't built a new PC in more than 10 years, he wants a very beefy upgrade from an i7 920!

I'm wondering if he should go the whole hog and get a high end 2TB NVME drive too, but it depends on cost...

im quite sure he could drop in a very cheapo 6 core xeon into that platform and get more life out of it

 

[g67575]

Even a low end AM5 build would be (much) more worthwhile than that - He doesn't mind waiting till the end of the year.

 

[Cyber-Mav]

Even a low end AM5 build would be (much) more worthwhile than that - He doesn't mind waiting till the end of the year.

a Xeon X5650 will cost his £6 delivered to his door. gives him 2 more cores than what hes currently got and adds aes-ni instructions too. cant go wrong for 6 quid. that may be enough for him to want to wait for round 2 of am5 boards and cpus.??

 

[Harlequin]

Even a low end AM5 build would be (much) more worthwhile than that - He doesn't mind waiting till the end of the year.

A520 motherboard with a 5600G would be worlds apart than a 13 year old Xeon

 

[Cyber-Mav]

i got a system with a x3470 xeon which is a first gen i7 870 equivalent. for general web browsing , word , excel minecraft, it works just as well as my 5600x. just depends on use case..