AMD Loses Value Crown - Best CPUs of 2021, December Edition

[Journey]

SSDD, it's called a 5600X get over it, its rated for 65w TDP get over it, it cost $299, get over it. Joxeon telling people AMD are charging too much, and yet buys a 5800X at full whack a year about £430+ - so you are partly responsible for keeping the prices high, wallets talk right?

How come you aren't saying the 12900K can't be called that and should be like the 1245699000K, as it has a 241w TDP in some cases?

 

[gpuerrilla]

Joxeon telling people AMD are charging too much, and yet buys a 5800X at full whack a year about £430+ - so you are partly responsible for keeping the prices high, wallets talk right?

* mic drop *

 

[MartinPrince]

Both of those comparisons are unacurate though.

The 8700k didn't have a successor atleast not a like for like SKU and the closest part would be the 9700k but really it's a different SKU altogether.

The 5600X is a different SKU to the 3600X as one is a 95w part and the other is 65w yet we had a 65w zen 2 6core SKU and that was the 3600 so the 5600X is the natural successor and was just renamed to the X part in a similar fashion to how AMD the generation before changed the 65w 2700 and 105w 2700X with one becoming a 105w 3800X and the other the 65 3700X which also had the X added to a non X part probably to create more of a differentiation between the parts yet the 5600 was changed to disguise the price jump and let's face it if AMD had called it a 5600 then a lot more people would have complained.

Sorry but that is skewed and misconstrued nonsense. I was comparing the top of the range from each generation which is perfectly logical to do, therefore that is the 8700K and 9900K. The 9700K does not have HT like the 8700K does. There is virtually no difference in single or multithreaded between a 8700K and 9700K which is what you are trying make out as it's successor!

It would seem to most people that the logical generational leap is from 3600X->5600X, 3700X->5800X, 3900X->5900X and 3950X->5950X, so advancements in power efficiency from one to the other do not negate that. Stop mixing things up to make yourself seem more right.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Exactly ^. I knew where you were coming from.

Thing is it was AMD that started to bring in more cores. Intel copies. Ryzen then leaps huge and gets single thread performance, once was intel's crown and you are complaining that this doesn't warrant any price increases Joxeon? Its still quite aligned to the performance increases. While I do not welcome any price hikes, come on man, how uncouth can you be, these along with power consumption things intel overcharged you for and you have completely forgot this was rife.

 

[Joxeon]

Again nothing factual to back up it up just a bunch of fan boyism on display.

 

[humbug]

This video is a wish rather than a fact.

I'm all for trying to drive down prices but they are barking up the wrong tree, its no use making everything best value Intel when AMD are selling everything they make and that 'in retail at least' being a crap tonne more than Intel, its no use trying to pressure AMD with reasoning they know is an utter nonsense.

The only thing AMD are going to react to is a significant drop in sales and the only way that is going to happen is if Intel cut pricing dramatically, its like: i'm selling everything i make and that is more than my competitor! "you have to cut pricing" No, i don't, WFT is wrong with you?

Intel = Value, i like that ring.

This is what AMD had to do to get back in the game, your turn Intel, swallow that pride.

 

[Joxeon]

This video is a wish rather than a fact.

I'm all for trying to drive down prices but they are barking up the wrong tree, its no use making everything best value Intel when AMD are selling everything they make and that 'in retail at least' being a crap tonne more than Intel, its no use trying to pressure AMD with reasoning they know is an utter nonsense.

The only thing AMD are going to react to is a significant drop in sales and the only way that is going to happen is if Intel cut pricing dramatically, its like: i'm selling everything i make and that is more than my competitor! "you have to cut pricing" No, i don't, WFT is wrong with you?

Intel = Value, i like that ring.

This is what AMD had to do to get mack in the game, your turn Intel, swallow that pride.

Isn't that pricing cut imminent when the B660 + F Sku's arrive? Although Intel is already winning on performance per dollar at every price point with the only exception being the 5950X vs 12900k but even thats pretty close.

 

[cliffy]

If you disagree with what I'm saying about AMD then maybe try being constructive about why you think the 5600X is more closely aligned to a 3600X in design rather than just the 3600 other than the X in the name.

No one here has actually brought anything to table to dispute what I'm saying and instead resort to mud slinging.

Well you could attribute the lower TDP of the 5600X over the 3600X to architecture maturity which is an advantage plus they could rightly call it 5600X not just because of the IPC gain but most importantly because the clock speed is up to 4.6Ghz on the 5600X, 400Mhz higher than the 3600 and 200 MHz higher than the 3600x. So based on clock speed a loan it is more like the 3600X. There you go sound logic as to why the 5600X is a successor to the 3600x and not the non x

 

[cliffy]

Isn't that pricing cut imminent when the B660 + F Sku's arrive? Although Intel is already winning on performance per dollar at every price point with the only exception being the 5950X vs 12900k but even thats pretty close.

I expect teh AMD price cuts maybe imminent to as Zen 3D will replace the current SKU's price points with teh current SKU's dropping a level

 

[humbug]

Isn't that pricing cut imminent when the B660 + F Sku's arrive? Although Intel is already winning on performance per dollar at every price point with the only exception being the 5950X vs 12900k but even thats pretty close.

Well clearly they are going to have to get more radical, maybe if the if the cut price SKU's and boards are cheap enough ADL might gain some traction but clearly they ain't winning on the higher priced SKU's.

I'll be honest with you, IMO unless they are dramatically cheaper Intel are not wining any significant mindshare back.

The way AMD won back customers was with CPU's at a dramatically reduced price for what you're getting.
This came from AMD knowing the situation and being humble enough to work for it, now they are reaping the rewards of it.

We are not going to get what we want pretending AMD are still the victim.

Its Intel's turn to eat some humble pie and while we're about as used to that as Intel are just know we're not going to get anywhere ignoring reality, AMD no longer live under Intel's shadow.

 

[jigger]

I expect teh AMD price cuts maybe imminent to as Zen 3D will replace the current SKU's price points with teh current SKU's dropping a level

Hard to say. I don’t think any official price reductions would find to retail in the current market.

Lol at Joxen being Joxen. Give him a break guys. He get’s paid per line of anti AMD vitriol.

 

[Joxeon]

Well you could attribute the lower TDP of the 5600X over the 3600X to architecture maturity which is an advantage plus they could rightly call it 5600X not just because of the IPC gain but most importantly because the clock speed is up to 4.6Ghz on the 5600X, 400Mhz higher than the 3600 and 200 MHz higher than the 3600x. So based on clock speed a loan it is more like the 3600X. There you go sound logic as to why the 5600X is a successor to the 3600x and not the non x

If there was a higher efficiency from Zen 3 which meant a drop in TDP then you would expect this to translate to other Sku's from the stack especially the 5800X which with only 2 extra core but the same TDP as the 12 and 16 core parts yet this didn't drop to a 95w part.

Also the single core boost clocks dont really mean anything as it just depends how high AMD can get away with cranking the silicon the 2600X had the same boost clock as the 3600 but that doesn't mean it's a successor to that SKU which was the 2600 with a boost of 3.9

Hard to say. I don’t think any official price reductions would find to retail in the current market.

Lol at Joxen being Joxen. Give him a break guys. He get’s paid per line of anti AMD vitriol.

I'm not affiliated to either company, I just like to see good products at good prices.

 

[humbug]

If there was a higher efficiency from Zen 3 which meant a drop in TDP then you would expect this to translate to other Sku's from the stack especially the 5800X which with only 2 extra core but the same TDP as the 12 and 16 core parts yet this didn't drop to a 95w part.

That's really easy to explain. the 5950X only runs at about 4Ghz all core in a high workload like Cinebench

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-9-5950x-zen-3-cpu-review/all/1/

The 5600X around 4.2Ghz.

The 5800X around 4.7Ghz

You see how that works?
5600X 4.2Ghz all core: 80 watts package power.
5950X 4Ghz all core: 120 Watts package power.
5800X 4.7Ghz all core: 120 watts package power.

Stock the 5950X score about 28,000 in R23, with PBO about 32,000, that's about +15%, 4Ghz + 15% = 4.6Ghz and about 200 watts
5800X about 16,000 Stock 4.7Ghz X2 = 32,000.

 

[Joxeon]

That's really easy to explain. the 5950X only runs at about 4Ghz all core in a high workload like Cinebench

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/amd-ryzen-9-5950x-zen-3-cpu-review/all/1/

The 5600X around 4.2Ghz.

The 5800X around 4.7Ghz

You see how that works?
5600X 4.2Ghz all core: 85 watts package power.
5950X 4Ghz all core: 120 Watts package power.
5800X 4.7Ghz all core: 120 watts package power.

Stock the 5950X score about 28,000 in R23, with PBO about 32,000, that's about +15%, 4Ghz + 15% = 4.6Ghz and about 200 watts
5800X about 16,000 Stock 4.7Ghz X2 = 32,000.

That's my point, it's not a difference in efficiency between the cores of the different SKUs but rather the all core clocks are limited depending on the TDP, so why did AMD go with just the 65w TDP rather than the 95w? Which even if you believe it's a 3600X replacement would have held back some performance.

 

[humbug]

That's my point, it's not a difference in efficiency between the cores of the different SKUs but rather the all core clocks are limited depending on the TDP, so why did AMD go with just the 65w TDP rather than the 95w? Which even if you believe it's a 3600X replacement would have held back some performance.

The 3600X is a 95 Watt TDP, its the 3600 that's a 65 Watt TDP

The 5600X is also a 65 Watt TDP.

The 5950X and 5800X are higher binned chips, the 5900X and 5600X are lower binned, for example the 5900X actually uses about 10 watts more power despite having 4 less cores and clocking the same as the 5950X.

 

[Joxeon]

The 3600X is a 95 Watt TDP, its the 3600 that's a 65 Watt TDP

The 5600X is also a 65 Watt TDP.

The 5950X and 5800X are higher binned chips, the 5900X and 5600X are lower binned, for example the 5900X actually uses about 10 watts more power despite having 4 less cores and clocking the same as the 5950X.

Yeah the 5600X is bottom of the barrel silicon and AMD didn't want to risk the higher TDP and the more aggressive all core boost clocks that comes with it but they also wanted to set a much higher price premium so the obvious solution was to name it the 5600X so the price rise wouldn't appear so steep but configure the chip like a non X version to ensure they had more dies that hit the binning target.

This is why we never saw the 5600 non X even for OEMs like we did the 65w non X version of the 5800X and 5900X as that part already existed but in a different name which is the point I've been trying to make yet coming up against a brick wall.

 

[humbug]

Yeah the 5600X is bottom of the barrel silicon and AMD didn't want to risk the higher TDP and the more aggressive all core boost clocks that's come with it but they also wanted to set a much higher price premium so the obvious solution was to name it the 5600X so the price rise wouldn't appear so steep but configure the chip like a non X version to ensure they had more dies that hit the binning target.

I agree with that, but AMD had the room to do it, they knew the chip was good when compared with the competition, and it was, so they priced it accordingly using their competitors pricing model.

From Cinebench R20 scores price to performance. MSRP.

10700K: $374, score 4974
10600K: $262, score 3605
5600X: $299, score 4390

5600X cost vs 10600K +14%, performance +22%
10700K cost vs 5600X +25%, performance +13%

So matter what way you look at it AMD had the better price to performance ratio, and yet it was AMD who were labelled the greedy corporate ######.
As i said further up the post its no good treating AMD like they exist under Intel's shadow, it is not AMD's job to metre Intel's pricing, and if as an "influencer" <its what a lot of these narcissistic Youtubers call them selves now; You try to treat them like that you will get a very annoyed cold shoulder from them, which IMO is exactly what happened to Steve Walton which is why he now sees Lisa Sue as some evil corporate, the problem isn't Lisa Sue, the problem is AMD are not the Intel break pedal to be stamped on whenever the Steve Walton's of the tech journalist world are trying to "influence" CPU pricing. As AMD see it there is nothing wrong with their pricing and they are selling everything they make, they are not wrong.
-------------

Anyway, more about the 5600X.

R23 Stock

5600X: 11,268
3600: 9,113

For the same power the 5600X scores 24% higher, that's down to a 5% clock boost and 20% higher IPC.

 

[Joxeon]

While it looked decent up against the opposition though it looked bad vs zen 2 and as you said it had 24% more performance yet came in priced 50% higher which is why it looked like a greedy move and a backwards step in price to performance.

 

[humbug]

While it looked decent up against the opposition though it looked bad vs zen 2 and as you said it had 24% more performance yet came in priced 50% higher which is why it looked like a greedy move.

When you look at it like that yes, and this is how Steve Walton justified his criticism, but that is telling about a mind set, AMD priced it to compete with Intel based on its own merits, its only when you ignore those merits and complain "its more expensive than your last CPU" what that comes across as is "Just make cheap CPU's AMD, that's your job"

If i was AMD i would find that really annoying and disrespectful.

 

[Joxeon]

When you look at it like that yes, and this is how Steve Walton justified his criticism, but that is telling about a mind set, AMD priced it to compete with Intel based on its own merits, its only when you ignore those merits and complain "its more expensive than your last CPU" what that comes across as is "Just make cheap CPU's AMD, that's your job"

If i was AMD i would find that really annoying and disrespectful.

I get why they done it but I still think that a product should also be compared against its previous generation iteration, those sort of comparisons happen all the time in the tech industry and are an important metric to measure price to performance which is the best way to see progression or regression.