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

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The fact is (and it's a shame) we're only talking this way because AMD decided to price their new 65W 6-core the same as their previous gen 100W 8-core

Otherwise many of us would not even be thinking about 6 core.

You mean 65W TDP 8 core with a significantly better stock cooler(which is close to a Hyper 212). They are charging it because they beat Intel,just like Intel charged more per core,because they beat AMD. Wait until Intel manages to beat AMD again,we can have a £350 6 core,and quad cores will be the new mainstream gaming CPU again!!

The worst thing for months there were deals on the Ryzen 9 3900 non-X and Ryzen 9 3900X for £310~£380.

In the end for most people a Ryzen 5 3600,and a faster GPU makes more sense if you are on a budget. If you are spending £600 on a GPU with a Ryzen 5 5600X and want it to last 5 years,then honestly find the extra money to buy a Ryzen 7 5800X or Ryzen 9 5900X,unless all you do is run games based on older engines. As much as I loathe to spend more on PC hardware than I need to,it makes more sense longterm.

The ones proclaiming less cores will be best for the next 5 years won't be keeping their CPUs for 5 years. They will ditch them long before then for a CPU with more cores. This is what I have seen historically over the last 11 years on here.

Faster cores means very little if a game is optimised to use more than 6 cores, a 7700K has faster cores than a 3600 but still loses in games that can make use of the extra cores.

The low cores crowd always ignore this. You had people saying to buy an E8400 over a Q6600,saying HT on a 4C was a waste of money,a Core i7 6700K was a better buy than a Core i5 5820K,etc. Its been proven time and time again,if you want to keep a CPU for a decent amount of time,giving up some single core performance for more MT performance makes sense.

Also the resale value of the higher core count CPUs will be better. 6C will be where 4C at some point. Its why I considered the Core i5 10600K a crap purchase overall. So what if it beat a much cheaper Ryzen 5 3600. Big deal.

But as usual like the low VRAM crowd,they always get it wrong a few years down the line,and end up having to pay double.

If anything they also seem to have forgotten one little fact here. The consoles use Zen2. ATM,many games with older engines are not as well optimised for Zen2 due to the quad core CCX, However,literally EVERY multi-platform game will have to be coded to run well on Zen2 topology CPUs. Zen2 will be the R9 290 of CPUs - it will age perfectly fine. If people were so obssessed about single core gaming performance,no one on here would have bought a Zen2 CPU for a gaming rig over the equivalent Intel CPUs,which often were faster in that regard,but they lacked sufficient cores IMHO. They were relatively poor buys in my view.

Expect when Intel manages to win again in single core performance,for people to flip-flop to more cores are better!

The thing that put me off 6 cores instantly was the guys 5600x review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WZAhsMDNZM

First few minute he talks about how Division 2 released at the start of 2019 is already maxing out a 6 core CPU. I hate to think how a 6 core is going to be in 2022.

Agreed,and also if you like game streaming the Ryzen 5 5600X has issues:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQgX9tSxQdI&t=534

 

[Joxeon]

So just to be clear, you are saying that a game that CAN use 8 threads WILL be faster on a 3700x than a 5600x... is that right? Also then, a 2700x would be faster? You simply simply adopting the now disproven logic that "more cores = faster", even of those cores are slower?

I think this highlights how faster but less cores lose against slower cores but higher core counts.

As you can see the 9600K and 7700K perform worse than a ryzen 5 3600 but add 2 core cores/HT and 8700K pulls a considerable lead even though its using the same cores as the 9600K and 7700K, Also notice how the 1% lows are much worse on these two CPUs even vs a much slower 2700X.

Also notice how the 7600K right down at the bottom gets easily beat by the 1600 which has almost double the 1% low performance despite much slower cores.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

@Joxeon Look at how much even a lack of HT did. Many were saying HT was pointless for a 4C CPU years ago,yet now see how just adding HT makes a huge difference. Remember there were people saying 6C/6T was fine and it was all about the single core performance. Yet the 6C Zen CPUs with HT have better minimums than the Core i5 9600K,which has higher PPC,through higher IPC and higher clockspeeds.

 

[Joxeon]

@Joxeon Look at how much even a lack of HT did. Many were saying HT was pointless for a 4C CPU years ago,yet now see how just adding HT makes a huge difference. Remember there were people saying 6C/6T was fine and it was all about the single core performance. Yet the 6C Zen CPUs with HT have better minimums than the Core i5 9600K,which has higher PPC,through higher IPC and higher clockspeeds.

Yeah the difference between just the 9600K and 8700K just goes to show how much difference 6 threads can make even with CPUs on the same architecture.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Your comparing two completely different platforms, that argument only holds weight when comparing intel vs Intel and AMD vs AMD. There are other things which effect overall performance on that platform.

We’re also comparing a 6c 12t part with a 8c16 thread part with a significantly higher inter core latency and slower single core performance. Those intel parts are 6c 6t vs 6c 12t parts, it’s a completely different comparison can’t just be lifted and applied to the AMD argument.

 

[FoxEye]

Why don't we compare the 5600x to the 5800x wrt to people who want to keep their systems for 5+ years.

Traditionally the PC as a platform has always needed more powerful hardware to match the console experience (or better it).

So under those circumstances I'd be much more inclined to opt for a 5800X (or possible future 5700X) vs the 6core 5600X.

Only if you know you will upgrade in 1-2 years anyhow, would the 5600X be worth it.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

I think it’s more the case that PC people vastly over spec the CPU required to play console games at console quality settings (this is the key part).

You don’t generally need more powerful hardware to run a game at console quality settings on a PC. The key difference is that on a PC no one wants to run a AAA game rendered at 720p/900P upscale to 1080P at 30fps. They want native 1080p at 60+ which is why you need more hardware.

Even these next gen ‘4K 120’ consoles are really rendering games at a much lower resolution, up scaling and 30fps at high quality. To get the 60 FPS they have to massively lower the quality.

It tends to be the PC specific games that really stretch the CPU like RTS or simulation games. Total war, civilisation, cities skylines, flight sim etc.

 

[Joxeon]

Your comparing two completely different platforms, that argument only holds weight when comparing intel vs Intel and AMD vs AMD. There are other things which effect overall performance on that platform.

We’re also comparing a 6c 12t part with a 8c16 thread part with a significantly higher inter core latency and slower single core performance. Those intel parts are 6c 6t vs 6c 12t parts, it’s a completely different comparison can’t just be lifted and applied to the AMD argument.

So a 3300X vs 3600 both AMD and one with unified cache and also higher clock speed still loses when the extra cores are made use of even against the lower IPC and clocks of a 2700X

Of course we can't do the comparison of the 5600X vs the 3700X when the games start making use of the extra cores because we're not there yet and this will probably happen a couple of years from now but what it does show is that more slower cores will beat less faster cores when games can make use of them.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

So a 3300X vs 3600 both AMD and one with unified cache and also higher clock speed still loses when the extra cores are made use of even against the lower IPC and clocks of a 2700X

Of course we can't do the comparison of the 5600X vs the 3700X when the games start making use of the extra cores because we're not there yet and this will probably happen a couple of years from now but what it does show is that more slower cores will beat less faster cores when games can make use of them.

Your missing the point, the 3600 has significantly more overall performance available with very single thread performance loss.

If two CPUs has the same overall power, one had 6 cores, the other had 8, the 6 core part would generally perform better in gaming workloads. It would beat the 8 core part in single and equal it in multi. The closest we have to that being true is a 3700 and 5600 but there are still architectural differences.

You also need to balance that against overall system performance. A 3609 isn’t going to be any faster in games if you only have a 1050 GPU.

 

[Joxeon]

Your missing the point, the 3600 has significantly more overall performance available with very single thread performance loss.

If two CPUs has the same overall power, one had 6 cores, the other had 8, the 6 core part would generally perform better in gaming workloads. It would beat the 8 core part in single and equal it in multi. The closest we have to that being true is a 3700 and 5600 but there are still architectural differences.

You also need to balance that against overall system performance. A 3609 isn’t going to be any faster in games if you only have a 1050 GPU.

But when you look at the 3300X compared to the 3100 you can see lead in gaming performance of around 20% which is about what zen 3 has over zen 2 but even this isn't enough to beat a CPU with the same CCD configuration of the 3100 but with 2 extra cores.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Exactly, you’ve just proven the point I was making. The 3600 can simply do more work than a 3300X so I don’t even know why it’s even in the conversation.

The number of cores, like the ghz is a red herring when considering performance. All that matter is how much overall work can the CPU do and how much does it need to break the tasks down to do that work (e.g per core).

The less it needs to break those tasks down across cores the faster it will be where there is a single task that limits performance like in most games.

For example, if AMD released a 4 core CPU tomorrow that could do the same overall work as a 5800X it would beat it in games unless there was another system bottleneck elsewhere. The fact the other part has 8 cores is irrelevant.

Back to 8 old cores against 6 new cores. The fact the 6 new cores can do about the same overall work as 8 old core part should be enough to tell you the fact one has 2 more cores is irrelevant and there is nothing future proof about getting the older 8 core part.

 

[Joxeon]

Exactly, you’ve just proven the point I was making. The 3600 can simply do more work than a 3300X so I don’t even know why it’s even in the conversation.

The number of cores, like the ghz is a red herring when considering performance. All that matter is how much overall work can the CPU do and how much does it need to break the tasks down to do that work (e.g per core).

The less it needs to break those tasks down across cores the faster it will be where there is a single task that limits performance like in most games.

For example, if AMD released a 4 core CPU tomorrow that could do the same overall work as a 5800X it would beat it in games unless there was another system bottleneck elsewhere. The fact the other part has 8 cores is irrelevant.

Back to 8 old cores against 6 new cores. The fact the 6 new cores can do about the same overall work as 8 old core part should be enough to tell you the fact one has 2 more cores is irrelevant and there is nothing future proof about getting the older 8 core part.

No different to how the 3700X or 3800X does more work than a 5600X.

 

[Richdog]

No different to how the 3700X or 3800X does more work than a 5600X.

Cinebench R20 is not a game, of course a 3700x is going to perform better than a 5600x in a very multi-threaded application specifically designed to use the full potential of each core to grind through those tasks. Anyway look at the results, the 5600x is almost as fast with 6 cores... how is that proving your argument? We already said that the 5600x is roughly similar with 6 cores as the 3700x with 8 and you are just validating that. It's within spitting distance compared tot he 3600x.

Overall, a 5600x provides way better performance when gaming is taking into account.

 

[Joxeon]

Overall, a 5600x provides way better performance when gaming is taking into account.

For now it does but once games can leverage all the cores then it will start to fall behind especially in the 1% lows just like the other CPUs did in an earlier post.

 

[Richdog]

For now it does but once games can leverage all the cores then it will start to fall behind especially in the 1% lows just like the other CPUs did in an earlier post.

It won't fall far behind a weaker 8-core for the reasons stated above. The 5600x is a gaming monster and performs roughly the same as the 5900x and 5950x in even modern titles. At higher resolutions you are really exaggerating, based on speculation, the performance impact that 2 extra cores will have.

 

[MegaPinches]

By the time it matters you would have moved on, same with GPU's and ray tracing stuff, by the time people can actually use RT without it hammering performance current cards be ancient. Get the 5600x if just gaming, its a beast, better than 5800x in its current state if you ask me, I wouldnt want that furnace.

 

[Joxeon]

It won't fall far behind a weaker 8-core for the reasons stated above. The 5600x is a gaming monster and performs roughly the same as the 5900x and 5950x in even modern titles. At higher resolutions you are really exaggerating, based on speculation, the performance impact that 2 extra cores will have.

The 8 core is stronger when all the cores are used so in the future when that is the case the 5600X will fall behind and history tells us this just like the faster 4690K fell behind the the slower 2600k.

By the time it matters you would have moved on, same with GPU's and ray tracing stuff, by the time people can actually use RT without it hammering performance current cards be ancient. Get the 5600x if just gaming, its a beast, better than 5800x in its current state if you ask me, I wouldnt want that furnace.

Like I said its fine if you want to keep the CPU for a couple of years but if you keep hold of a CPU for 5+ years without upgrading then avoid a 6 core.

 

[alec]

Get the 5600x if just gaming, its a beast, better than 5800x in its current state if you ask me, I wouldnt want that furnace.

5800X is not a furnace. More like a soldering iron.
It gets hot on a very small area.

(also when tweaked it is THE fastest gaming cpu)

 

[Richdog]

The 8 core is stronger when all the cores are used so in the future.

Awesome, I guess now we can all go out and buy a 1700x and 2700x and wait '5+ years' before can enjoy those sweet frames! Just... lol...

 

[Joxeon]

Awesome, I guess now we can all go out and buy a 1700x and 2700x and wait '5+ years' before can enjoy those sweet frames! Just... lol...

You would likely get higher FPS with either of those vs a 5600X at 4k if you put the saving into a better GPU.