-
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.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
- Status
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,248
3700x was $330
5800$ was $450.
just lol.
5800$ was $450.
just lol.
That's interesting as the 5900x is the best value in the lineup (price per core) and the 5950x is basically a complete waste of money if you are not doing HEAVY productivity tasks (waiting hours for tasks to finish, not minutes) that take advantage of the additional 6 cores over the 5900x. Otherwise, the 5900x is the best of both worlds.
The 5600x is very powerful but the longevity due to the 6 cores is in question and I would not buy a CPU with less than 8 cores if I was not planning on upgrading for 3 or so years (which I'm not).
Would be the wrong way to look at it. Don't consider the cores, consider the performance. There's nothing intrinsically good about having lots of cores, a smaller number of fast cores is better than a large number of slower cores.Nah £300 for a 6 core is taking the **** and I'm not getting on that train.
£200, sure. £300 for a 6 core? AMD can do one
It's not the wrong way to look at it if you are buying a CPU now for the next few years and trying to decide which to buy in the Zen3 lineup. Then, cores are still a valid concern. It would be the wrong way to look at it if you were trying to decide between a 5600x and a 3800x, where the 5600x performs better even with less cores. However, for cores of equal power then I would personally not be getting anything less than 8 cores in the Zen3 lineup.
Don't forget that the 5700x/non-x will be coming this year (likely in Q1) and that will mean 8 cores at more sensible prices. People seem to overlook that AMD purposefully released their high-end x-lineup first this time around in order to milk the demand and that the non-x parts will perform very similarly for a lot less cash. I think only the 5900x will retain its value as there will be no retail 5900 non-x to challenge it, whereas the 5800x is going to seem even worse value that it already is very soon when the 5700x/non-x is released and provides the majority of the real-world performance for cheaper.
It really depends on the use case. For PassMark and Cinebench more cores scale better and give higher performance than less cores and higher per thread performance.
In gaming where the coding is very different - it depends but the performance you can get may shift over time and a slower CPU can become faster later in its life cycle.
More cores means more workers and less latency when the software shifts the load between the cores compared to when there are less cores which shift rapidly.
Well another way of looking at it is that the 3600 was £150 to £200. And that the 5600x is 20% faster
For, let's be generous, 50% extra cost.AMD can still do one at that price
Where have you found a 5900X for £405? That's £299 * 1.35.
Where have you found a 5900X for £435, even? That's 1.45x.
Appologies my math is completely up the wall. This is what happens after hogmanay and a bottle of whisky the night before. Ill see myself out.
AMD's 5000 offerings are arguably overpriced, but I don't think we should get caught up in core-counts and such.
Cores are just a means to an end, just like clock speeds. Sure, when everything else is equal more cores is better than less cores. The same goes for clock speed etc.
*However* when comparing architectures between generations and/or manufacturers all things are almost never equal.
If AMD or Intel creates a single-core, 1ghz CPU that performs better that a 16-core 5ghz CPU, then who cares about the number of cores or the clock speed?
I think we should focus on performance and how much money manufactures want us to part with for a given amount of performance. It's fun to geek-out on the inner workings of these architectures to gain a better understanding of how these parts do what they do, but it's *what they do* that matters in the end.
Focusing on cores or clock speed in CPU's is like focusing on engine displacement or max RPM on a race car instead of paying attention to lap times.
Cores are just a means to an end, just like clock speeds. Sure, when everything else is equal more cores is better than less cores. The same goes for clock speed etc.
*However* when comparing architectures between generations and/or manufacturers all things are almost never equal.
If AMD or Intel creates a single-core, 1ghz CPU that performs better that a 16-core 5ghz CPU, then who cares about the number of cores or the clock speed?
I think we should focus on performance and how much money manufactures want us to part with for a given amount of performance. It's fun to geek-out on the inner workings of these architectures to gain a better understanding of how these parts do what they do, but it's *what they do* that matters in the end.
Focusing on cores or clock speed in CPU's is like focusing on engine displacement or max RPM on a race car instead of paying attention to lap times.
Nah £300 for a 6 core is taking the **** and I'm not getting on that train.
£200, sure. £300 for a 6 core? AMD can do one
yeah just cause of the current low stock gouging and time of year the prices are a joke. the 5600 should be £200 tops. like all the other 2600 3600 series in which it sits in.its just a 6 core replacement for those.everything is atleast £100 too dear at the moment.
You'd rather have an 8-core replacement for an 8 core predecessor, all other things being equal as you say.
A 6-core replacement for an 8 core predecessor is AMD saying, "We're going to give you less than before. Less than you've come to expect."
This is the first time that a £300 8 core part has been "replaced" by a £300 6 core part. It's less than ideal.
Should the 6300X be a 4-core £300 part, I'd be making the same complaint, regardless of whether it matched its predecessor in one or more metrics.
It's the other way round, when everything else is equal (GFLOPS, price, power consumption etc) the fewer cores and the lower frequency the better.
Again, if one car is faster around the track than another, complaining about whatever perceived deficiencies sit under the hood of the faster car is silly.
Faster is faster. Full stop.
Now, the fact that the 5600 fails to be faster than the 3700 in *all* metrics opens the door to criticism, but the core count itself is merely interesting trivia.
Yep and people can brag about how all the advances AMD do with their chiplets, how cheep they are to produce, the yields and the tech they have etc... and they come to market more expensive then the competion with the 5600X and yeah I'm not buying that and going to wait.
Nothing to lose now waiting for what Rocketlake brings.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,582
- Location
- Rutland
Chiplets only really improve yields on high core count CPUs. On a single chiplet CPU they probably increase manufacturing cost due to the increased complexity.
If cores are irrelevant, tell me, if I offered you a free 5600X or a free 5800X, which would you take?
Obviously the 5800x because it is overall more powerful and faster, not specifically because it has more cores.
Your question is not helping your position!
- Status