• 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

Twinz said:
That's why I was happy when Intel got back on top. I'm happy that AMD dropped prices to compete, (Even picked up a discounted 5950X) and I look forward to AMD and Intel going after each other with the next-gen stuff.

I'm a little disappointed that AMD isn't offering an improved "no-compromises" 12 and 16-core part on AM4, but the price cuts on the existing stuff was a decent consolation prize.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "no-compromises 12 and 16-core part on AM4" ?

A 3D Cache 5900/5950X is pointless as the extra cache doesn't help much outside of gaming.

The PGA socket has a 142 watt power limit so they can't really push them any harder, its probably one reason they are shifting to an LGA socket, given that 200 Watt + CPU's are now normalised AMD will be taking a leaf out of Intel's book, Zen 4 power consumption will go up as they will be pushed much harder out of the box.
 
Twinz said:
You should ask AMD. It was their marketing language when touting the 5950X.
Click to expand...

Given that back in 2020 that CPU was by far the best mainstream CPU money could buy.

I'll put it this way, at the time the fastest CPU Intel had 'Full Stop' was the 18 core 36 thread 10980XE, it scores around 24,500 in R23, the 5950X scores around 27,500.

Ignoring all of AMD's own HEDT parts it was the most powerful CPU on earth, package power consumption was 130 watts. Less than an Intel CPU half as fast.

If anyone is ever to be allowed to use hyperbolic marketing language to describe a product then IMO the 5950X was it.
 
humbug said:
Given that back in 2020 that CPU was by far the best mainstream CPU money could buy.

I'll put it this way, at the time the fastest CPU Intel had 'Full Stop' was the 18 core 36 thread 10980XE, it scores around 24,500 in R23, the 5950X scores around 27,500.

Ignoring all of AMD's own HEDT parts it was the most powerful CPU on earth, package power consumption was 130 watts. Less than an Intel CPU half as fast.

If anyone is ever to be allowed to use hyperbolic marketing language to describe a product then IMO the 5950X was it.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim it was inaccurate. I am pointing out that AMD no longer offers such a part.

When they had a CPU that outperformed the competition in gaming *and* productivity, they made "no compromises" part of their marketing. Now that they can't do that....well then, now that's unimportant.
 
Twinz said:
I didn't claim it was inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Can you clearly define and outline what is and isn't a suitable in order to use the term "no compromises". I am actually asking you to clarify this, what you think it means that covers every single possible outcome of every CPU from any company, past or present.
 
Journey said:
Can you clearly define and outline what is and isn't a suitable in order to use the term "no compromises". I am actually asking you to clarify this, what you think it means that covers every single possible outcome of every CPU from any company, past or present.
Click to expand...

What do you think AMD meant when they marketed the 5950X with it?

At the time, the 5950X outperformed Intel's competing CPU(s) in gaming *and* productivity.

It no longer does that. In fact nothing AMD offers does that.

Best gaming, or best productivity. Chose one and compromise on the other...this is where we are with AMD if their 5800X3D does what they claim.
 
Twinz said:
What do you think AMD meant when they marketed the 5950X with it?

At the time, the 5950X outperformed Intel's competing CPU(s) in gaming *and* productivity.

It no longer does that. In fact nothing AMD offers does that.

Best gaming, or best productivity. Chose one and compromise on the other...this is where we are with AMD if their 5800X3D does what they claim.
Click to expand...

Do you want AMD to go back two years and / or retrospectively retract their marketing because now Intel have a CPU that is arguably better?
 
humbug said:
Do you want AMD to go back two years and / or retrospectively retract their marketing because now Intel have a CPU that is arguably better?
Click to expand...

Because beating the 12900k at gaming *and* productivity is just too much to ask?

AMD demonstrated a dual-CCD CPU with vcache and then they gave us a single CCD CPU. It's disappointing.

At least they cut prices, so that is a legitimate way to compete.

If they could nail down the scheduler, a dual-core CCD wouldn't even need two pierces vacache. -Just different packaging.
 
Last edited:
Twinz said:
Because beating the 12900k at gaming *and* productivity is just too much to ask?
Click to expand...

I'm genuinely bamboozled by WTF are you on about? Yes it is too much to ask, the 5950X is today what it was in 2020, it can beat it, look at the R23 thread, there are several 5950X's above the highest 12900K, but those guys are pulling about 2X 5800X, essentially that is what they are because they are two 8 core dies running at about 4.8Ghz, they have been overclocked and pushing way over 200 watts, over 100 watts for each 8 core (5800X) die.

Remember i told you the PGA socket is limited to 142 watts, that's not a hard limit, it doesn't go bang when you push it past 200 watts but its not designed to do that as a reliable piece of hardware with a warrenty, AMD have to stick to with in design limits, hence the switch to LGA.
 
humbug said:
I'm genuinely bamboozled by WTF are you on about? Yes it is too much to ask, the 5950X is today what it was in 2020, it can beat it, look at the R23 thread, there are several 5950X's above the highest 12900K, but those guys are pulling about 2X 5800X, essentially that is what they are because they are two 8 core dies running at about 4.8Ghz, they have been overclocked and pushing way over 200 watts, over 100 watts for each 8 core (5800X) die.

No kidding the 5950X is what it is. I'm talking about the hope I had after AMD demonstrated a DUAL-CCD CPU with vcache......I never expected the 5950X magically gain double-digit gaming performance. AMD demonstrated that they could get a DUAL-CCD CPU to perform better in games with vcache....that's what got my hopes up.

Remember i told you the PGA socket is limited to 142 watts, that's not a hard limit, it doesn't go bang when you push it past 200 watts but its not designed to do that as a reliable piece of hardware with a warrenty, AMD have to stick to with in design limits, hence the switch to LGA.
Click to expand...

The 5950X beat intels chips in gaming AND productivity when it was released. Then intel came out with the 12900k and that beats the 5950X in gaming while effectivly matching it in productivity.

When AMD demonstrated a dual-CCD CPU, they looked poised to offer a dual-CCD chip that would match or beat the 12900K in gaming and hold the line on productivity performance. Then many months later they announced a SINGLE-CCD CPU and no longer appear to be in a position to challenge Intel on both fronts with a single CPU.

The dual-CCD vache demo made me optimistic that AMD could pull it off, but it was, dissapointingly, not to be.

I never expected standard 5950X to compete with the 12900k in games and productivity. However, after AMD demonstrated a dual-CCD CPU with vcache, I thought a dual-CCD CPU with vcache just might get the job done.

Crazy, I know.
 
Last edited:
Twinz said:
The 5950X beat intels chips in gaming AND productivity. Then intel came out with the 12900k and that beats the 5950X in gaming while effectivly matching it in productivity.

When AMD demonstrated a dual-CCD CPU, they looked poised to offer a dual-CCD chip that would match or beat the 12900K in gaming and hold the line on productivity performance. Then many months later the announs a SINGLE-CCD CPU and no longer appear to be in a position to challenge Intel on both fronts with a single CPU.

The dual-CCD vache demo made me optimistic that AMD could pull it off, but it was, dissapointingly, not to be.
Click to expand...

The Dual CCD 3DVache CPU doesn't do anything for consumers outside of gaming, they are Milan-X dies, Server dies and there the performance of them is very good but its not Blender, or Adobe Premier or Handbreak....

I think it was a mistake on AMD's part to use a Dual CCD 3DVache CPU to demo, it got everyone, including me thinking that's what we would get, even asking the question "will there be a 5800X version?" I don't know why AMD did that, maybe that was the intention all along but at some point someone at AMD realised Dual CCD 3DVache CPU's are not a good idea for consumers as they have no benefit out side of games, for that you don't need them to be Dual CCD 3DVache, in fact they are wasted and probably too expensive to justify.
 
humbug said:
The Dual CCD 3DVache CPU doesn't do anything for consumers outside of gaming, they are Milan-X dies, Server dies and there the performance of them is very good but its not Blender, or Adobe Premier or Handbreak....

I think it was a mistake on AMD's part to use a Dual CCD 3DVache CPU to demo, it got everyone, including me thinking that's what we would get, even asking the question "will there be a 5800X version?" I don't know why AMD did that, maybe that was the intention all along but at some point someone at AMD realised Dual CCD 3DVache CPU's are not a good idea for consumers as they have no benefit out side of games, for that you don't need them to be Dual CCD 3DVache, in fact they are wasted and probably too expensive to justify.
Click to expand...
I think it's a combination of cost and power limitations since a dual CCD chip would need double the cache so would likely see the clocks reduced to around 4.2ghz to make it fit the TDP which would end up making it slower the a 4.5ghz 5800X3D while also costing in the region of £600.

I think early on AMD thought they could make the 5900X3D work which is why they demonstrated it but in the end it never worked out.
 
Joxeon said:
I think it's a combination of cost and power limitations since a dual CCD chip would need double the cache so would likely see the clocks reduced to around 4.2ghz to make it fit the TDP which would end up making it slower the a 4.5ghz 5800X3D while also costing in the region of £600.

I think early on AMD thought they could make the 5900X3D work which is why they demonstrated it but in the end it never worked out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, something like that, its that PGA socket again, if you're already at its limit 10 watts might as well be 100 watts.

Edit: scratch that last bit it doesn't make any sense, you get what i mean...
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Lisa says Zen 3dont overclock.

Click to expand...
As i said it will be more optimised for Zen 4. Kudos to AMD for the innovation, it can significantly boost gaming performance without architectural changes, i can't wait for Zen 4 to see it, ofcourse it all depends how good RPL is, if RPL fail then they won't need to release special 3d version.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Lisa says Zen 3dont overclock.

Click to expand...


Good to know, so yeah no pbo, no manual OC, no undervolt and no curve optimizer for 5800x3d


though someone mentioned previously that overclocking could still be done in some 3rd party windows software but based on what Ian says it sounds like trying to change anything could break it - will be interesting to see what can be done outside the bios!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom