That's your straw man not mine. My point is architecture is irreverent, just consider the performance in the specific tasks you are interested in.
-
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
That's your straw man not mine. My point is architecture is irreverent, just consider the performance in the specific tasks you are interested in.
I don't think a question can be a straw man...
In any case, the pricing of the 3600 is well known, and I would be quite confident that all of AMD's new <£200 products will be 4 cores, judging by what's come so far.
I'm not the only one who thinks this. It's quite a likely scenario.
Therefore I ask, who would swap 6 cores for 4? In return for 20% better ST perf?
We'll see if it plays out this way, but be prepared for AMD fans to start arguing, "games can't use more than 4 cores anyway" when it does actually happen.
Probably not, because the 20% ST bump likely isn't enough to compensate for the 33% drop in cores in my use case - BUT the decision wouldn't be made on cores, it would be made based on the benchmarks in the tasks I was interested it.
This.
Thank you. So losing cores *can* be a bad thing.
Whether it is a bad thing depends on whether the game is multi threaded and can make use of all the cores in your old CPU.
If it *can* make full use of all the cores in your old CPU, then losing 33% cores for +20% ST perf is *not* a good deal.
So I don't think it's good idea in general to be accepting of "upgrades" where you lose cores in exchange for ST perf.
In an ideal world, you'd upgrade an 8 core CPU to another 8 core CPU with better IPC (etc).
"Upgrading" an 8 core to a 6 core is only a reality this time around because AMD have massively upped the pricing. And that's what I object to.
You're being FORCED to accept less cores through AMD's massive price hikes.
I think the issue is assuming that AMD have £xxx parts... Do we know if they specifically target models to price brackets, or simply have a hierarchy of models that are priced as they wish?
I think it's fairly normal practice that they try to cover most price points. Many consumers will have a budget, be it "under £200" or "under £300" or whatever. If AMD choose not to release a CPU under £200 (for example) then they risk losing customers, because not everyone will simply increase their budget.
Your augment is on the assumption that there will not be a 5600 (non-X) SKU once all the hype does down. Really you should be comparing the 3600X not the 3600 non-X (and you know this). We can all cherry pick SKU's across the stack to make our point.
We know the prices have gone up $50 and they offer less value, we know that, they even said it in their launch presentation. I also agree that in the low-mid range parts that $50 makes a big difference, at the high end, not so much. But it is what happens when you edge ahead of your competition. We can only hope that Rocket Lake brings prices back down a little and that they don't just decide price it slightly ahead of AMD (if its better).
To be clear, no one is forcing you to accept less, you are not required to upgrade...
Upgrading from a 3600 to any 5XXX series CPU's will not really get you anywhere outside of e-sports at 1080P anyway. You'll only get significantly more productivity performance by jumping up the stack.
If your starting from scratch, Intel actually offers better value in the low-mid range currently. Both AMD's and Intel's motherboards are dead end platforms either way if you are starting from scratch now, you might get one pointless (relatively for gaming) CPU upgrade from Intel and nothing from AMD. If you are buying mid-range hardware, not upgrading your CPU every 18 months and ploughing all that money into GPUs or other neglected kit like monitors will get you a better experience.
Last edited:
I would accept that if people didn't insist that the 5600X was the intended upgrade path for the 3700X.
Once people start putting stuff like that on the table then the SKU/model number means nothing, only the price and perf.
I ended up biting the bullet and paying AMDs ransom for the 5800X as I didn't want another 6 core like the 3600 it was replacing and while I'm happy with the performance and all if I was buying from scratch with a motherboard then I would have just went for the 10700K. Also had I foreseen the price rises then I would have just gone with a 9900K instead of the 3600 in the first place and enjoyed the extra performance for a couple more years from the start while paying the same total price.
There is no such thing as an 'intended upgrade path' so I can agree with you there. Everyone's requirements are different and therefore what path they need to take will also be different. What is clear is that AMD's line-up isn't fully fleshed out but I don't think we will see anywhere near as many SKU's this time round. I still standby what I said though, generational CPU upgrades are really not a great use of cash anymore, certainly not like it was 'back in the day'.
The amount they had last time was just wholly unnecessary. Having X and non-X (followed by XT) parts with very little to differentiate them just cannibalised sales of the higher end parts. I suspect we will see a 5600 non-X but it will have SMT disabled, I'm not sure about the 5700, could be an SMT disabled chip or they might just gimp it's all core performance so it doesn't cannibalise 5800X sales.
The amount they had last time was just wholly unnecessary. Having X and non-X (followed by XT) parts with very little to differentiate them just cannibalised sales of the higher end parts. I suspect we will see a 5600 non-X but it will have SMT disabled, I'm not sure about the 5700, could be an SMT disabled chip or they might just gimp it's all core performance so it doesn't cannibalise 5800X sales.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,112
- Location
- Birmingham
Shows how oddly positioned the 5800X and 5600X are in terms of price. Both $100-$150 too expensive in my view. Almost no value improvement (in multithread) over previous generation where they are positioned, whereas the 5900X and 5950 clearly move ahead. Also difficult to see much room for where the 5700X and 5800 non-X would fit.
Looks different in single thread of course, with the new chips clearly showing a generational improvement:
Looks different in single thread of course, with the new chips clearly showing a generational improvement:
Am i reading this right? the 1700x being faster in single threaded perf than the 1800x :/ what lol
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,112
- Location
- Birmingham
According to the passmark table yeah, though there is barely anything in it just like the newer series.
I know but 1800x clocks higher thus single core should be higher. Just basic mistakes tbf but just looks wrong.
I would imagen it looks even worse when you factor in the current zen 2 prices
Shows how oddly positioned the 5800X and 5600X are in terms of price. Both $100-$150 too expensive in my view. Almost no value improvement (in multithread) over previous generation where they are positioned, whereas the 5900X and 5950 clearly move ahead. Also difficult to see much room for where the 5700X and 5800 non-X would fit.
Looks different in single thread of course, with the new chips clearly showing a generational improvement:
My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £278.69 (includes shipping: £8.70)
and around £430 for a 3900x
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,112
- Location
- Birmingham
It doesn't really change the overall visuals of the comparison, which was meant to illustrate the lack of value in some zen3 sku's.
It's amusing to see this visualised, because many people rave about the "fantastic value" of the 5600X. When in fact it's just as bad as the 5800X for value for money. The 5600X also having the worst ST perf of the 5000 series released to date!
Oh no I'm well aware , was just pointing out the flaw is all
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2005
- Posts
- 9,112
- Location
- Birmingham
In price per performance point terms the 5600X does win easily against the 5800X (it has almost same perf in single thread and in multithread about 20% lower performance for proportionally a lot less money)
Its just not good enough though, to have them on the same curves as the previous generation. Where is the progression?
How are we going to be running 15 million pixel displays at 90Hz/120Hz with this kind of progression (same applies to GPUs too - still can't handle 4K 90 fps on ultra)...
A Quest 2 headset at maximum fidelity needs nearly 15 million pixels rendered at 90Hz. It's a £300 headset, yet several thousands of £ worth of CPU and GPU hardware still couldn't do it. But by the time the hardware can do it, the headsets/displays will need 20 million pixels rendered, 25 million. They are never ahead, always chasing.
- Status