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

Hanuki · 11 Jan 2022 at 14:00

Im not sure how I feel about this

g67575 · 11 Jan 2022 at 14:01

I'd probably recommend a 12100F + B660 if we were gonna go with a cheapo build. Even that would provide well over a 100% performance improvement on each core, based on these results:
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/cpu_benchmark-cinebench_r23_single_core-15

Hard to compare with the 1st Core gen though, the 2nd gen is as far back as it goes...

An AM5 + Zen 4 system should be over a 200% performance gain, per core, considering the difference between a 2nd gen CPU and the 12900K...

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 11 Jan 2022 at 14:33

Journey said:
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.

I think what AMD actually did in terms of pricing and socket compatbility,and providing decent coolers was fantastic and a great strategy. So yes value was the reason me and people around me went to AMD. I tend to start with a lower end CPU on the platform and then a few years later get a better one with an upgraded design,when I have upgraded my dGPU(which I did previously with my previous platform),so AM4 was music to my ears. It was the same reason why I went AM4 instead of getting a Core i7 8700 non-K,because it was £140 Ryzen 5 2600 against a £300 Core i7 8700 non-K with similar margins in performance(at least in the stuff I cared about). With me selling the Ryzen 5 2600 and getting a Ryzen 7 3700X for nearer £200,it meant my total upgrade cost for both CPUs was a shade under what a Core i7 8700 non-K would have cost me,so I think I did OK. So I might have lost some performance initially,and in some older games I play I still think a Core i7 8700 might pip the Ryzen 7,but in most cases the Ryzen 7 will be faster.....hence I still did the strategy worked for me.

I just think,that things started go a bit south in 2020,when AMD realised Intel had to backport Rocketlake to 14NM instead of 10NM/7NM,and Alderlake was delayed. So AMD changed tact and prioritised the higher end,because they were the best. In my case I had actually budgeted more for a Zen3 CPU,but when the Ryzen 7 5800X ended up being £400+ at the time I was upgrading,it was worth spending nearly £200 more for 20~30% extra performance(in the scenarios I was looking at),which was pretty much the same situation I had with not choosing the Core i7 8700 non-K. So if anything I will just upgrade a bit earlier in my case. But I think I will skip Zen4/Alderlake,since DDR5 is still a bit immature,and the 2nd generation kits in 2024 hopefully will have better specs and better prices.

Journey · 11 Jan 2022 at 14:39

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I think what AMD actually did in terms of pricing and socket compatbility,and providing decent coolers was fantastic and a great strategy. So yes value was the reason me and people around me went to AMD. I tend to start with a lower end CPU on the platform and then a few years later get a better one with an upgraded design,when I have upgraded my dGPU(which I did previously with my previous platform),so AM4 was music to my ears. It was the same reason why I went AM4 instead of getting a Core i7 8700 non-K,because it was £140 Ryzen 5 2600 against a £300 Core i7 8700 non-K with similar margins in performance(at least in the stuff I cared about). With me selling the Ryzen 5 2600 and getting a Ryzen 7 3700X for nearer £200,it meant my total upgrade cost for both CPUs was a shade under what a Core i7 8700 non-K would have cost me,so I think I did OK. So I might have lost some performance initially,and in some older games I play I still think a Core i7 8700 might pip the Ryzen 7,but in most cases the Ryzen 7 will be faster.....hence I still did the strategy worked for me.

I just think,that things started go a bit south in 2020,when AMD realised Intel had to backport Rocketlake to 14NM instead of 10NM/7NM,and Alderlake was delayed. So AMD changed tact and prioritised the higher end,because they were the best. In my case I had actually budgeted more for a Zen3 CPU,but when the Ryzen 7 5800X ended up being £400+ at the time I was upgrading,it was worth spending nearly £200 more for 20~30% extra performance(in the scenarios I was looking at),which was pretty much the same situation I had with not choosing the Core i7 8700 non-K. So if anything I will just upgrade a bit earlier in my case. But I think I will skip Zen4/Alderlake,since DDR5 is still a bit immature,and the 2nd generation kits in 2024 hopefully will have better specs and better prices.

So, just to answer the question I asked above, would you have not bought into AM4 if the pricing was set the same as Intel's chips that were in market at the time of release in March/April 2017?

I'm trying to understand where people think we'd be today if that had happened, if AMD chose not to compete on price (or performance in some segments) how much would the 12900K be, and would it actually exist, would it be £1199, or £999, or less or more? It's easy for people to complain when they've had their cake and ate it, but as soon as the new slice isn't as cheap or tasty as the last they throw their toys out the pram and forgot how we got to where we are now.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 11 Jan 2022 at 14:59

Journey said:
So, just to answer the question I asked above, would you have not bought into AM4 if the pricing was set the same as Intel's chips that were in market at the time of release in March/April 2017?

I'm trying to understand where people think we'd be today if that had happened, if AMD chose not to compete on price (or performance in some segments) how much would the 12900K be, and would it actually exist, would it be £1199, or £999, or less or more? It's easy for people to complain when they've had their cake and ate it, but as soon as the new slice isn't as cheap or tasty as the last they throw their toys out the pram and forgot how we got to where we are now.

Price is only the factor that matters to me for the last 20 years - its why I have flipped-flopped between companies. Be it AMD,Intel or Nvidia - pricing and performance for the price is the number one metric on the spreadsheet,followed by power consumption,cost of cooling,lifespan,etc.

When you are a mainstream buyer you have to - £100 here,£100 there can either mean a better dGPU,or more storage,etc.

It's true if AMD hadn't done what they did the market would be worse,but the reality is that was then and this is now. Its been 5 years now! Companies exist for their shareholders,but consumers exist for themselves. Even Nvidia which is called all sorts of names on here,at one point did produce brilliant value products(TI4200,6600GT,8800GT,etc) but we saw what happened when their fans defended moves like the Titan which lead to the era of £1000+ dGPUs and mainstream prices tending upwards. But the sad thing is for most of the current generation of dGPUs,Nvidia has been easier to find nearer RRP because of the dire supply situation in the UK(as the AMD partner won't ship over here) before the 6600XT appeared on the market.

Almost the entirety of my mates(and me included) just look at price/performance and move on from there. We have been here before. When the Athlon launched on socket A,etc AMD had by far better CPU/socket compatibility but when we got to socket 939/AM2 prices rose and people defended it because they were the leader and because Intel did it too.

When Intel launched the Core2 they were better value and faster than AMD and nobody expected Intel to pull that move in terms of prices. So Intel was driving the market forward in value for money at that point,but then all their idiot fans started defending their segmentation moves,removing overclocking,locking motherboards,jacking up prices because they were the "leader" and we ended up with a useless market until AM4. People think Sandy Bridge was the highlight - I actually think it was the time we got screwed,because previous to that we could overclock any Intel CPU even on a £60 B/H series motherboard.Its why still given similar prices I would rather go AMD.

This is why as much as I do understand why AMD did increase prices,and want to make hay while the sun shines,I am just a bit concerned where things will eventually head. We are already seeing the near extinction of the mainstream dGPU under £300,and I am concerned with DDR5 whether we will see the same. You can see that with the price of the Intel DDR5 motherboards which are insane.

So even Intel being "generous" with some of their mainsteam Core i5 parts,means nothing if both AMD/Intel decide to not really compete that strongly with each other WRT to price in the near future,which also jacks up the secondhand price of stuff. It makes me wonder whether we are slowly seeing the death of the desktop in favour of laptops,consoles and game streaming services.

Twinz · 11 Jan 2022 at 15:21

AMD's CPU's are seeing price cuts more and more regularly lately.

They seem to spend more time "on sale" than at full retail lately, so while we aren't getting official price cuts, price cuts are happening.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 11 Jan 2022 at 15:26

Twinz said:
AMD's CPU's are seeing price cuts more and more regularly lately.

They seem to spend more time "on sale" than at full retail lately, so while we aren't getting official price cuts, price cuts are happening.

Well we do sort of need a proper sub £200 replacement for the Ryzen 5 3600 - Intel has flooded the market with the Core i5 10400F,Core i5 11400F and Core i5 12400F which are between £120~£180. I am kind of surprised we don't have a sub £200 Ryzen 5 5600G derivative with the IGP disabled! I would think by now they should have enough faulty APUs!

Journey · 11 Jan 2022 at 15:27

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Price is only the factor that matters to me for the last 20 years - its why I have flipped-flopped between companies. Be it AMD,Intel or Nvidia - pricing and performance for the price is the number one metric on the spreadsheet,followed by power consumption,cost of cooling,lifespan,etc.

Thanks so what you are saying is in that if AMD launched the 1800X at £899 the same as an 6850K, another 8c/16t part, and you were in the market at that segment you would have bought what gave you the most performance per £ spent, regardless of the brand.

I know all the rest of it with regards to what you said, and I don't want to muddy the point here, since it seems a lot of people are struggling with what has been achieved to get the CPU market to where it is now vs where it was in 2017.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I am concerned with DDR5 whether we will see the same. You can see that with the price of the Intel DDR5 motherboards which are insane.

The motherboards in general for LGA1700 are very high, be that DDR5 or DDR4 vs the older socket 1200 and AM4 boards of almost the same specification. A 10400f/B560/16GB combo at sub £300 is a much better deal than a 15-20% faster 12600K that costs the same just for the CPU (and a tube of thermal paste), anmd I am targeting the folk who aren't using an RTX 3090 here.

jigger · 11 Jan 2022 at 15:28

Journey said:
So, just to answer the question I asked above, would you have not bought into AM4 if the pricing was set the same as Intel's chips that were in market at the time of release in March/April 2017?

I'm trying to understand where people think we'd be today if that had happened, if AMD chose not to compete on price (or performance in some segments) how much would the 12900K be, and would it actually exist, would it be £1199, or £999, or less or more? It's easy for people to complain when they've had their cake and ate it, but as soon as the new slice isn't as cheap or tasty as the last they throw their toys out the pram and forgot how we got to where we are now.

I think the market would have been very different. Traction in the market would have been much slower and Intel could have probably pushed 6 cores as flagship parts for at least another generation or two.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 11 Jan 2022 at 15:39

Journey said:
Thanks so what you are saying is in that if AMD launched the 1800X at £899 the same as an 6850K, another 8c/16t part, and you were in the market at that segment you would have bought what gave you the most performance per £ spent, regardless of the brand.

I know all the rest of it with regards to what you said, and I don't want to muddy the point here, since it seems a lot of people are struggling with what has been achieved to get the CPU market to where it is now vs where it was in 2017.

Yes,it is the price/performance metric. Anyway I rewarded AMD for what they did,because I think they deserved it - TBF,I still have a preference from them if all is equal anyway being the smaller of the two. I just hope their dGPUs next generation are easier to get(well the 6700 class ones).

Journey said:
The motherboards in general for LGA1700 are very high, be that DDR5 or DDR4 vs the older socket 1200 and AM4 boards of almost the same specification. A 10400f/B560/16GB combo at sub £300 is a much better deal than a 15-20% faster 12600K that costs the same just for the CPU (and a tube of thermal paste), anmd I am targeting the folk who aren't using an RTX 3090 here.

I do hope the H610 single channel thing is a typo,because Intel really are shooting themselves in the foot there IMHO. Looking at the Core i5 12400 it seems to run well under its stock cooler,so having to spend £40 to £50 extra on a B660 motherboard does start to eat into the value for money calculation. If AMD can cut the Ryzen 5 5600X RRP closer to £230,it probably is enough IMHO. Although I am sure they were close to that price during the summer - prices seemed to have gone up recently??

The Core i5 11400F can be had for £140 which is not too bad as the connectivity is better,but I found from my experience of the Core i5 10400 it seems to benefit less from better cooling.

Twinz · 11 Jan 2022 at 15:49

It seems like AMD have enough margin on the 5800X and up to adjust to Intel's latest offerings (with price cuts) but I have yet to see the 5600X anywhere near the price of Intel's offerings that outperform it.

This makes me think the 5600X costs too much to make vs the performance it offers. (vs Intel.)

Journey · 11 Jan 2022 at 15:53

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
I do hope the H610 single channel thing is a typo,because Intel really are shooting themselves in the foot there IMHO.

It is, it's one DIMM per channel, but still dual channel.

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
If AMD can cut the Ryzen 5 5600X RRP closer to £230,it probably is enough IMHO. Although I am sure they were close to that price during the summer - prices seemed to have gone up recently??

Thing is though you can drop a 5600X in an A320 that cost sub £40 and still get the same performance from it due to the low power draw, even if the board have no features at all. Especially those people who 'only' play games, there is no benefit in a £250 motherboard with a crap ton of never used slots and ports. Not that I am saying you should do that but it's better than paying ASUS £200 for a B660 board.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 11 Jan 2022 at 16:17

Journey said:
It is, it's one DIMM per channel, but still dual channel.

Thing is though you can drop a 5600X in an A320 that cost sub £40 and still get the same performance from it due to the low power draw, even if the board have no features at all. Especially those people who 'only' play games, there is no benefit in a £250 motherboard with a crap ton of never used slots and ports. Not that I am saying you should do that but it's better than paying ASUS £200 for a B660 board.

If the H610 is dual channel it would be viable for usage on the Core i5 12400 then!

jigger · 11 Jan 2022 at 17:23

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
If the H610 is dual channel it would be viable for usage on the Core i5 12400 then!

Not sure, H610 is very trimmed back. I think Intel might need something better on the chipset front.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 11 Jan 2022 at 18:23

Apparently the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is a limited edition:
https://www.pcgamer.com/amds-upcoming-ryzen-7-5800x3d-may-end-up-as-a-limited-edition/

jigger said:
Not sure, H610 is very trimmed back. I think Intel might need something better on the chipset front.

If we are comparing it to a Ryzen 5 5600X on an A320 based motherboard,then the feature set is similar AFAIK. So say £265 for a Ryzen 5 5600X and a £40 A320 would be around £305. The Core i5 12400F is £180,and the cheapest H610 I can see is £85,so that is £265. So if the Ryzen 5 5600X say drops to around £230,the Intel system does not have a value advantage anymore IMHO.

jigger · 11 Jan 2022 at 18:27

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Apparently the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is a limited edition:
https://www.pcgamer.com/amds-upcoming-ryzen-7-5800x3d-may-end-up-as-a-limited-edition/

If we are comparing it to a Ryzen 5 5600X on an A320 based motherboard,then the feature set is similar AFAIK. So say £265 for a Ryzen 5 5600X and a £40 A320 would be around £305. The Core i5 12400F is £180,and the cheapest H610 I can see is £85,so that is £265. So if the Ryzen 5 5600X say drops to around £230,the Intel system does not have a value advantage anymore IMHO.

A520.

Journey · 11 Jan 2022 at 18:27

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Apparently the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is a limited edition:
https://www.pcgamer.com/amds-upcoming-ryzen-7-5800x3d-may-end-up-as-a-limited-edition/

Better off linking the source than a click bait magazine/publishing article though, right? No words were mentioned to do with limited and edition.

Joxeon · 11 Jan 2022 at 18:38

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Apparently the Ryzen 7 5800X3D is a limited edition:
https://www.pcgamer.com/amds-upcoming-ryzen-7-5800x3d-may-end-up-as-a-limited-edition/

I wouldn't be supprised at this considering most the production will go towards the higher margin enterprise chips and if the 5800X3D is scarce then AMD will be able to charge a fortune for it to make it worthwhile.

jigger · 11 Jan 2022 at 18:49

Journey said:
Better off linking the source than a click bait magazine/publishing article though, right? No words were mentioned to do with limited and edition.

Seems to say the opposite TBH. Talks about AMD’s first production gaming focused part and plans for ramping production.

jigger · 11 Jan 2022 at 18:50

Joxeon said:
I wouldn't be supprised at this considering most the production will go towards the higher margin enterprise chips and if the 5800X3D is scarce then AMD will be able to charge a fortune for it to make it worthwhile.

Gamers got to game. Hating is bad. Gamers need some love too.