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

Status
Not open for further replies.
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
So stop gap CPUs which are good for today but won't have any longevity....just like the Core i5 9600K was a while back!
Click to expand...

not really, the new consoles are 8 core no SMT
b0rn2sk8 said:
G = graphics aka an APU.
Click to expand...

G can mean anything. Doesn't have to be an APU.

That's just the letter I chose when making my original response in another thread which everyone batted down.

We already know next gen consoles can run with SMT off for higher clock speeds, I don't see why AMD wouldn't release chips like this advertised as Gaming First
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
G has a clearly defined definition in the AMD line up, if they reused it it would be incredibly confusing.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't.

You're pretending it would be confusing. But again... I am not claiming that they ARE using G. I used it when separating the two potential lines of chips when I originally brought this up.

There still have been no APU's with a high core count.

They could call it whatever they want. I am just trying to show the possible market. Call it 5700S for speed. Or, GF for Gaming First. I don't know and I don't care.
 
Pourma said:
not really, the new consoles are 8 core no SMT
Click to expand...

Not really as the consoles are 8C/16T and only switch off SMT for legacy mode in older games. In newer games the SMT is switched on. This is why the two modes exist.

In the XBox series X the CPU part of the SOC runs at 3.8GHZ in legacy mode,and at 3.6GHZ with SMT enabled. There is no boost algorithm. Its a fixed clockspeed.

71398_20_game-devs-xbox-series-isnt-significantly-more-powerful-than-ps5_full.png


Also it is wrong to say SMT adds no benefits,because again these tests have been done. Some games don't like SMT,but in many cases,extra performance was seen. This is because SMT acts as an additional throughput mechanism.

If SMT had zero usage,then why do the hyperthreaded 4C CPUs such as the Core i7 7700K demolish the Core i5 7600K in certain games?? Even the Core i7 8700K which is 6C/12T is consistently up there with the 8C/8T Core i7 9700K in most games,and even beats it in a few.

Also,many here berated the Core i5 9600K and Core i7 9700K as having not enough threads due to the lack of SMT,and saying the Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 7 3700X would last longer due to them having more threads. Now it seems people are flip-flopping.

I suspect all the people saying SMT is of no use,will conveniently have a CPU with it,or quickly change the CPU out in two years. This is what they did with Intel.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Not really as the consoles are 8C/16T and only switch off SMT for legacy mode in older games. In newer games the SMT is switched on. This is why the two modes exist.

In the XBox series X the CPU part of the SOC runs at 3.8GHZ in legacy mode,and at 3.6GHZ with SMT enabled. There is no boost algorithm. Its a fixed clockspeed.

.
Click to expand...

This is slightly incorrect. The 3.8Ghz mode isn't legacy mode. Nor am I stating that boosting is enabled. I am saying that by disabling SMT you are able to achieve faster clock speeds which for gaming generally provide better performance.

The 3.8Ghz is advertised to developers as the higher performant mode. If they want that tiny bit of boost then they can use this, but have less threaded advantages which at 7 cores (1 reserved for OS) they hardly need anyway.

So as I was saying, AMD may do something similar (or could) release higher base clock chips with SMT burnt out.
 
b0rn2sk8 said:
I didn’t say they wouldn’t release a lower tier SKU, there is clearly a gap for two more before the 3600X. One at £100-£150 and another at around £200-£230 There is also an obvious gap between the 3600X and the 5800X.

What I am trying to say is that I wouldn’t be holding out hope for a 3600 non-X. They just don't need to release a SKU at every £50, particularly when those SKUs are so similar in performance. Very few people shop that way and just buy what is the best value within a £100 range.
Click to expand...
Well if it isn't to be a 5600 non-X, then the £200-£230 chip is going to be a quad core then :D

Ignoring the Asia-only chips, last time the 3600 was $199 and the chip immediately below that was a 4-core 3300X (almost a whole year later too!)

If there is no 5600 non-X, then you've only got the quad cores underneath.

But it will be AWESOME to see the AMD die-hard fans saying, "You only need 4 cores for gaming. A £250 quad core is entirely fair. You just want everything for free!"
 
FoxEye said:
Well if it isn't to be a 5600 non-X, then the £200-£230 chip is going to be a quad core then :D

Ignoring the Asia-only chips, last time the 3600 was $199 and the chip immediately below that was a 4-core 3300X (almost a whole year later too!)

If there is no 5600 non-X, then you've only got the quad cores underneath.

But it will be AWESOME to see the AMD die-hard fans saying, "You only need 4 cores for gaming. A £250 quad core is entirely fair. You just want everything for free!"
Click to expand...

A slower 6 core without SMT is an option which will make a clearly defined price point/tier without cannibalising sales of the 5600X. It will be faster than the 3600X but not be able to be overclocked to 5600x performance levels.

That said a quad core with a unified CCX will be a beast just like the 3000X was for its price.
 
Joxeon said:
Yeah but it's now outclassed on price to performance by Intels cheaper alternative.

My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £378.68 (includes shipping: £8.70)
​
Click to expand...
OCUK price for the 3600 is distorted. you can still buy that CPU as part of a motherboard combo for an equivalent price of around £145. anyway the old argument of overall platform prices. for me, the AMD overall still cheaper considering the cost of a Z-board.
 
pc-guy said:
OCUK price for the 3600 is distorted. you can still buy that CPU as part of a motherboard combo for an equivalent price of around £145. anyway the old argument of overall platform prices. for me, the AMD overall still cheaper considering the cost of a Z-board.
Click to expand...
Likewise you can pick up the 10400F in a bundle also but really there is no need to buy a Z board though as your only losing a couple of fps with a B460 if gaming at 1080P and having the extra for a stronger GPU will easily outweigh that.

Even with a Z490 its only 26 fps behind a £300 5600X or 14fps infront of the 3600 with the option to drop in a 10700K at a later date which performs on par with a 5600X in gaming while having 2 extra cores for futureproofing.

Screenshot-10.png
 
Last edited:
pc-guy said:
OCUK price for the 3600 is distorted. you can still buy that CPU as part of a motherboard combo for an equivalent price of around £145. anyway the old argument of overall platform prices. for me, the AMD overall still cheaper considering the cost of a Z-board.
Click to expand...
Only useful if the motherboard is the one you want :p

e: Nah the bundles are crap. Most come with a cheap-ass B450M motherboard that's almost guaranteed not to be the mobo you actually want.

And the prices are more than you'd be able to source the stuff you actually do want individually.

The bundles are hopeless.
 
Last edited:
Cyber-Mav said:
do compare here: https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=97144,97129
its not just smt.
cpu-compare.png


clock speeds are higher and more cache on the i7.
Click to expand...

The differences in cache and clockspeed,mean diddly squat when the minimums are massively lower on the Core i5 CPUs. Its because the engine needs more than 4 threads.

Also,you don't even need to go that far. Look at the comparison between the Ryzen 5 3600X and Ryzen 5 3500X. Same amount of cache and the same stock cooler but the latter has no SMT. They both have the same base clockspeeds,but only a 100MHZ difference in boost clockspeeds. The Ryzen 5 3500X falls behind a Ryzen 5 3600 massively in a number of games and has noticeably worse minimums when compared to the Ryzen 5 3600 in a number:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1966-amd-ryzen-5-3500x/

EObv1qN.png

G5e7OZp.png

jvjKTqd.png

hzqZ7ry.png


WOFc2sy.png

TF89Zse.png


WZ3O7R4.png

On top of this in that review,the Ryzen 5 3600 also beats the Core i5 9600K too in certain games,despite having slower cores WRT to gaming. Even the Ryzen 5 2600/2600X can be ahead of the Ryzen 5 3500X.

Now look at where the Core i5 7600K is in that chart - the Core i7 7700K is way ahead. In fact even the lowly Ryzen 5 1600 is faster in all but one title. Go back to launch day,and the Core i5 7600K was pushing ahead.

A 6C/6T gaming CPU is not a good long time bet. An 8C/8T one will age a bit better,but still will start to get hammered by the equivalent 8C/16T one down the line within the next 3 years. Remember this an 8T console era,and the next one is 16T.

An 8C/8T Ryzen 7 5700X would be pointless when you can get a Ryzen 5 5600X with 6C/12T for less money.

FoxEye said:
Well if it isn't to be a 5600 non-X, then the £200-£230 chip is going to be a quad core then :D

Ignoring the Asia-only chips, last time the 3600 was $199 and the chip immediately below that was a 4-core 3300X (almost a whole year later too!)

If there is no 5600 non-X, then you've only got the quad cores underneath.

But it will be AWESOME to see the AMD die-hard fans saying, "You only need 4 cores for gaming. A £250 quad core is entirely fair. You just want everything for free!"
Click to expand...

You wait and see. Before all the fans were saying it was MOAR cores,because AMD had MOAR cores than Intel despite being a bit slower in games. It was about AMD having more resources to bear - just look at when many got a Ryzen 5 over a Core i5 7600K due to this(the Core i5 was much faster in launch reviews but aged poorly).

Just look at the charts I posted ahead. The Ryzen 5 3500X despite being clocked 100MHZ lower is significantly slower because of no SMT. That is in an era of consoles only having 8C/8T. Now wait and see what happens in an era of 8C/16T consoles.

A 6C/12T Ryzen 5 5600X for the most part will be close to an 8C/8T Ryzen 7 5700X. So in the end you might as well get the cheaper CPU.

The issue is people don't buy a rig to run games for two years,most people keep a rig for between 3~6 years before upgrading. You always should try and have some extra leeway on PC.

They make the assumption everyone is upgrading their hardware every year or two.

Now AMD is faster in gaming but has less cores,its all about faster cores. The moment Intel pushes ahead with faster cores,it will be back to MOAR cores again. More flp-flop.

Not a single one of these people have learnt the lessons of the past. E8400 vs Q6600,or the Core i7 CPUs vs the Core i5,Ryzen 5 1600/2600 vs Core i5 7600K.

But don't worry they will be quick to change out their 6C/6T and 8C/8T CPUs when Zen4 is out,just like so many Intel fans changed out their Core i5 7600K to something newer.

As much as I don't like the MRSP of the Zen3 CPUs,I would rather save for a bit longer and get the models with SMT rather than the models without SMT.

I honestly hope AMD doesn't do it - I would rather they dropped the clockspeeds by 10% or even lopped a bit of the L3 cache off than remove SMT.
 
Last edited:
Wow wtf... just checked my local store (non-UK) and very unexpectedly they have an updated delivery status of 03.12-05.12 for the 5900x for the same launch price of £450 (non-UK, converted). I ordered one so I hope it comes through... :eek::D
 
Richdog said:
Wow wtf... just checked my local store (non-UK) and very unexpectedly they have an updated delivery status of 03.12-05.12 for the 5900x for the same launch price of £450 (non-UK, converted). I ordered one so I hope it comes through... :eek::D
Click to expand...
Nice. I actually saw a 5800x on the shelf last time I went into the local shop. Too bad it wasn’t a 5900x I’d have snapped that up in an instant.
 
Richdog said:
Wow wtf... just checked my local store (non-UK) and very unexpectedly they have an updated delivery status of 03.12-05.12 for the 5900x for the same launch price of £450 (non-UK, converted). I ordered one so I hope it comes through... :eek::D
Click to expand...

Things are definitely looking hopeful this month! The other place are saying they "expect to be able to clear the pre-order queues of 5950X, 5800X and 5600X before the end of the year with the 5900X queue clear by WC 4th January."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom