AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

[Richdog]

bad wording then. I claim it gives absolute fastest performance for those tasks, which can't be achieved by 5600X (even with overclock) and can only be reached by 12 and 16 core, but at a worse value
It is a splitting hairs kind of difference, but definitely not the horrible "DO NOT BUY" GN and HU made it look.

They said it because it is bad value in how it is positioned vs the other models... it's too far priced above the 5600x for having only 2 more cores and too closely priced to the 5900x for having 4 less cores. Hadn't we already established that logic some pages ago?

 

[alec]

They said it because it is bad value in how it is positioned vs the other models... it's too far priced above the 5600x for having only 2 more cores and too closely priced to the 5900x for having 4 less cores. Hadn't we already established that logic some pages ago?

definitely having a deja vu
5600X is also bad value compared to 3600. What, 50% more expensive for only 26% better performance? But 5600X is not a bad CPU. And it should be recommended to anyone looking for an upgrade or new system right now.

Perhaps 5800X should be recommended to anyone building top tier gaming rig, like those fabled competitive gamers. Because going above it doesn't add anything.
Except as I ranted yesterday, it is strangled out of the box for single core boost. And bashed by reviews. So potential buyers will make sure to spend more to not end up with this "horrible value". And where is value in that?

 

[Steampunk]

bad wording then. I claim it gives absolute fastest performance for those tasks, which can't be achieved by 5600X (even with overclock) and can only be reached by 12 and 16 core, but at a worse value
It is a splitting hairs kind of difference, but definitely not the horrible "DO NOT BUY" GN and HU made it look.

I think that the likes of GN made it look bad in a "what's the point of it" kind of way, not because the 5800 is bad per se, but that the 5900 is really good, so if you want the extra cores, why wouldn't you choose that over the 5800? The 5800 is kind of in a no man's land between the 5600 for games, and the 5900 for games and productivity at a good price/performance/futureproofing ratio. The 5950 is out there with it's halo product premium.

 

[Richdog]

definitely having a deja vu
5600X is also bad value compared to 3600. What, 50% more expensive for only 26% better performance? But 5600X is not a bad CPU. And it should be recommended to anyone looking for an upgrade or new system right now.

We are not comparing Zen2 vs Zen3, we are comparing Zen3 vs Zen3 in the same launch lineup. There's no need to change the context of the discussion.

Perhaps 5800X should be recommended to anyone building top tier gaming rig, like those fabled competitive gamers. Because going above it doesn't add anything.
Except as I ranted yesterday, it is strangled out of the box for single core boost. And bashed by reviews. So potential buyers will make sure to spend more to not end up with this "horrible value". And where is value in that?

The value of going above a 5800x is in getting proportionally more cores for not such a significant amount more money. I would rather have a 5600x than a 5800x. The only CPU worth upgrading to as a next step from a 5600x is a 5900x.

Anyway the logic of why the 5800 was criticized is clear and obvious. Just enjoy your CPU, it's a great performer even if it's not great value.

 

[jigger]

I think that the likes of GN made it look bad in a "what's the point of it" kind of way, not because the 5800 is bad per se, but that the 5900 is really good, so if you want the extra cores, why wouldn't you choose that over the 5800? The 5800 is kind of in a no man's land between the 5600 for games, and the 5900 for games and productivity at a good price/performance/futureproofing ratio. The 5950 is out there with it's halo product premium.

The 5800X priced between the two, but also offers performance between the two and has advantages over both.

 

[humbug]

Usual Charlie Fanboyism aside, there is some decent information about where the IPC increases come from in this article:
https://semiaccurate.com/2020/11/07/a-long-look-at-amds-zen-3-core-and-chips/

Sounds like a lot of attention paid, working out what were the limiting factors in Zen/Zen2, and changes made to help relieve those limits

AMD went full nuclear with Zen 3, fixing the gaming issues with Zen 2, adding near 20% IPC on top and a clock speed bump just to be sure.....

From another thread.

When you look at the way AMD did it its not hard to understand.

First they unified the L3 Cache, AMD actually gave us a preview of this in Zen 2 with the 3300X, the 3100 is identical in everyway to the 3300X, the only difference is the 3300X uses a single side of the CCX, so it has a dedicated 16MB L3 vs the 2X 8MB of the 3100.

The result of that alone is a 16% jump in IPC in gaming. its actually 13% ahead of Intel in gaming IPC.

Zen 3 has 32MB 8 core Chips.

On top of that there is an up to 19% boost in per core IPC... and on top of that a small bump in clock speeds.

The end result at the highest level i have seen yet Zen 3 is 48% faster in games than Zen 2.

 

[humbug]

WTF? the most popular CPU, by far is the 5900X, the least popular the 5600X.

 

[clv101]

WTF? the most popular CPU, by far is the 5900X, the least popular the 5600X.

Yeah, I don't understand people. Unless you are focused on heavily multi-threaded stuff (which most of as aren't) then the 5600X is the best deal. Those who are heavily into multi-threaded stuff probably already have a 12 or 16 core 3000 series, little point in upgrading. Who's buying all those 5900X? Guess a win for AMD's marketing department and the successful upselling.

 

[Sleepy Stu]

WTF? the most popular CPU, by far is the 5900X, the least popular the 5600X.

00x

I can only assume that a lot of people are looking to future proof and the 5900x is at a price point people will stretch to if it means they don't need a new CPU for the next 4-5 years? Or is this just a hangover from years of Intel pricing that £500 now seems reasonable for a high end CPU?

 

[eeek]

I can only assume that a lot of people are looking to future proof and the 5900x is at a price point people will stretch to if it means they don't need a new CPU for the next 4-5 years? Or is this just a hangover from years of Intel pricing that £500 now seems reasonable for a high end CPU?

I suspect because its seen to be the cheapest - double the cores of the 5600X but not double the price and often less than £100 more than the 5800X

 

[jigger]

WTF? the most popular CPU, by far is the 5900X, the least popular the 5600X.

Frustrated Ampere customers probably had an impact. The 3900x was a very popular choice too.

 

[G J]

Without other data this doesnt mean much, maybe they had more 5600x's to sell to clear the pre-order backlog.

 

[jigger]

Many people will have had 8 or more cores previously, so it makes sense that the 5900X appeals to a wide audience.

 

[Destination]

Yeah, I don't understand people. Unless you are focused on heavily multi-threaded stuff (which most of as aren't) then the 5600X is the best deal. Those who are heavily into multi-threaded stuff probably already have a 12 or 16 core 3000 series, little point in upgrading. Who's buying all those 5900X? Guess a win for AMD's marketing department and the successful upselling.

I think it is all us folks with the 3600, 3600x, 3700x, realising we can go faster and double our core count to futureproof, when the rest of the system we have is totally suitable, and bought for this purpose.
It is due to x570 b550 being so good.

 

[eeek]

Also if you look at any theory of pricing you will have encountered the theory of decoy pricing. For anyone looking at a powerful computer the small price difference between the 5800X and the 5900X makes the 5800X almost a decoy product encouraging the purchase of the 5900X.

 

[jigger]

I think it is all us folks with the 3600, 3600x, 3700x, realising we can go faster and double our core count to futureproof, when the rest of the system we have is totally suitable, and bought for this purpose.
It is due to x570 b550 being so good.

And people sat on 6-10 core X99/299 systems. X570 and a 5900/5950X is an obvious upgrade.

 

[NinjaCool]

As an 8 core user I would also prefer the 5900X for a more meaningful upgrade, although using 1440p, a graphic card upgrade will likely come first.

 

[Jokester]

Aye, though I'm going to skip this one for Zen3+ if that's going to be last AM4 chip, I'll be going for the "moar cores" chip even if it means sacrificing a little bit of performance today, can see the benefits of the extra cores being more practical longer term.

 

[clv101]

I think it is all us folks with the 3600, 3600x, 3700x, realising we can go faster and double our core count to futureproof, when the rest of the system we have is totally suitable, and bought for this purpose.
It is due to x570 b550 being so good.

Yeah, but why are those people with perfectly decent 3000 systems getting involved in all this launch week nonsense with hiked pricing and delivery uncertainty. Why not wait until things calm down in a few weeks or for new, better value SKUs in the spring.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Yeah, I don't understand people. Unless you are focused on heavily multi-threaded stuff (which most of as aren't) then the 5600X is the best deal. Those who are heavily into multi-threaded stuff probably already have a 12 or 16 core 3000 series, little point in upgrading. Who's buying all those 5900X? Guess a win for AMD's marketing department and the successful upselling.

Sits here whistling while looking at my 3960x.

Cmon AMD, hurry up with that gen 4 Threadripper announcement.