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

[FoxEye]

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)

Depends entirely how you interpret that graph.

If you plot the 5600X and the 5800X with the 3000 series CPUs, both are on the save average perf/$ line.

If you plot a line directly from the 5600X to the 5950X, the 5800X is bang in line, and the 5900X is the anomaly. If you plot the 5800X against the average perf/$ line for the 5000 series, the 5800X is pricier than it should be, but not nearly as much of an anomaly as the 3800X was in the 3000 series.

 

[danlightbulb]

Depends entirely how you interpret that graph.

If you plot the 5600X and the 5800X with the 3000 series CPUs, both are on the save average perf/$ line.

If you plot a line directly from the 5600X to the 5950X, the 5800X is bang in line, and the 5900X is the anomaly. If you plot the 5800X against the average perf/$ line for the 5000 series, the 5800X is pricier than it should be, but not nearly as much of an anomaly as the 3800X was in the 3000 series.

I was refering to the basic perf per dollar, where the 5600x does win. However i agree the generational improvement is pathetic.

It seems better in single thread but still, not good enough in my view.

Ill go back what I said earlier, the highest end system we could build right now cannot max out a £300 vr headset. Its a disgrace really.

 

[Richdog]

I was refering to the basic perf per dollar, where the 5600x does win. However i agree the generational improvement is pathetic.

Are you saying that you think the generational performance increase from Zen2 to Zen3 is.... pathetic?

 

[Twinz]

I was refering to the basic perf per dollar, where the 5600x does win. However i agree the generational improvement is pathetic.

It seems better in single thread but still, not good enough in my view.

Ill go back what I said earlier, the highest end system we could build right now cannot max out a £300 vr headset. Its a disgrace really.

I think it's more of a GPU limitation than a CPU bottleneck though.

I agree that price/performance is unimpressive on the CPU front this gen.

 

[Twinz]

Are you saying that you think the generational performance increase from Zen2 to Zen3 is.... pathetic?

Zen 3 money isn't faster than Zen 2 money the way Zen 2 money was over Zen+.

I said this in the Ampere thread when discussing Turing....real progress produces better performance for *a given price point.*

 

[FoxEye]

Are you saying that you think the generational performance increase from Zen2 to Zen3 is.... pathetic?

No, he wasn't. We were both talking about the generational perf/$.

With the two CPUs, 5600X and 5800X being on the same perf/$ line/trajectory as the 3000 series. As shown by the graphs.

 

[danlightbulb]

Are you saying that you think the generational performance increase from Zen2 to Zen3 is.... pathetic?

At the prices specified, yes it clearly is.

The 5900X and 5950X are generationally ahead, at the prices for which they are sold.


And in general terms, since when is 15% improvement sufficient? We should be doubling performance every couple of years.

I think it's more of a GPU limitation than a CPU bottleneck though.

I agree that price/performance is unimpressive on the CPU front this gen.

Yeah it is more the GPU power that is needed for rendering of course, but I think it's highlighting a trend that development is slowing down.

Where do we expect the next real generational leap to come from? Where is the 10x, 100x current performance levels going to come from?

 

[Richdog]

At the prices specified, yes it clearly is.

Ahh so you specifically mean the 5600x, not Zen3 in general.

And in general terms, since when is 15% improvement sufficient? We should be doubling performance every couple of years.

Zen3 is more than a 15% improvement, generally 20%+ and can be significantly higher in gaming. I'd call that at least a reasonable generational upgrade.

Also, you say that CPU performance should still be doubling every couple of years... do you really believe that given that Moore's Law stopped applying around a decade ago?

 

[~>Dg<~]

doesnt matter what improvement it is over past archetecture. the cpus sit in the same market positions and just replace old positions.

a 5600 no matter how you look at it should be 200 quid tops.

 

[HRL]

.

 

[Calin Banc]

Pretty much every gamer, or in fact anyone not spending a lot of time encoding, rendering, compiling etc. The 5600X is the better chip than the 3700X for many/most users.

So gamers would happily trade their 3600 for a quad core 5400X that had ~20% better ST perf?

Really?

I'm a gamer and I sure as hell wouldn't do that.

Bingo! The only caveat is "how fast is it?" totally depends on what you are doing. Gamers and encoders give different answers.

Wasn't there a time when Intel had the faster ST/core performance and were good in some scenarios, but were left behind once games were threaded better?

4 cores, although fast in ST, would remain behind in some games which will require more threads. 6/12 may be ok now, but let's not forget consoles are 8/16. Some games may push the CPU rather hard, in which case higher core count CPUs may have an advantage (probably not much) and be a bit smoother.

Anyway, since people were mad at nVIDIA for price increase, but seem to be ok with AMD, perhaps championing for a certain company isn't good. After all, we pay for these products, are not free, so why not take the consumer side?

Lower count CPUs do well when not many AIs around, but fall flat once you enter the city.

 

[Richdog]

doesnt matter what improvement it is over past archetecture. the cpus sit in the same market positions and just replace old positions.

a 5600 no matter how you look at it should be 200 quid tops.

So prices never rise with new generational products, they stay exactly the same regardless of developments, brand awareness and perceived value? Pretty sure you can't believe this unless you have been living under a rock your whole life because it happens in every industry I can think of and especially with electronics.

 

[Calin Banc]

So prices never rise with new generational products, they stay exactly the same regardless of developments, brand awareness and perceived value? Pretty sure you can't believe this unless you have been living under a rock your whole life because it happens in every industry I can think of and especially with electronics.

As consumer, is my interest to have that rise as low as possible (let's say the same level as inflation). If I own shares of that company or I'm a fanboy (in which case, congrats to that person, she/he has played itself), then I would want them as high as possible.

Why would you be ok to have practically the same performance/$ ?

Going that high in prices, most likely will cause a decline in PC gaming.

 

[Richdog]

As consumer, is my interest to have that rise as low as possible (let's say the same level as inflation). If I own shares of that company or I'm a fanboy (in which case, congrats to that person, she/he has played itself), then I would want them as high as possible.

Why would you be ok to have practically the same performance/$ ?

Going that high in prices, most likely will cause a decline in PC gaming.

Of course we want prices as low as possible but that is often not the reality since some time now. If anything, processors have been getting better value when compared to GPU's, which have suffered outrageous price increases in comparison per the last couple of generations, culminating in the horrific 3090, which even though it costs a ghastly 100%+ more than a 3080 for only 15% more performance, people have bought in droves.

Having a higher price per £ is not great for our wallet (we would all love prices to get cheaper, right?) but it also of course doesn't mean that you are not getting significantly higher performance in real-terms for that same or slightly higher amount of money. New high-performance parts often increase in price and as much as we don't like it we also can't be surprised when a corporation wants to put a mark-up on a new high-performing product that has put them in a market leading position. No-one should need to be told that's how businesses work.

AMD, who is a money making corporation and not your friend, tried to pull a fast one by only launching the X-series of Zen3 CPU's first because they knew that the crazy demand would exceed the lmited supply and they could get away with it. They were right. However, as has already been staed in the thread, and as should be clear to everyone, the value Zen3 parts are inevitably coming (likely in Q1) this year and no-one has been forced to ugrade to anything before these are released. When the 5600 and 5700 are released (making a logical assumption that these wil be among the mainstream parts) then the price per £ wil improve significantly. When supply starts to meet demand, then prices will also start to lower accross the board as businesses start having to compete for sales.

2020 was nuts and many hardware manufacturers and estores have unscrupulously taken advantage of it. We don't have to like it, but that's how it is, and if it has shown anything it is that the PC gaming industry is in anything but decline (and people always seem to say that every time prices increase).

 

[FoxEye]

Of course we want prices as low as possible but that is often not the reality since some time now. If anything, processors have been getting better value when compared to GPU's, which have suffered outrageous price increases in comparison per the last couple of generations, culminating in the horrific 3090, which even though it costs a ghastly 100%+ more than a 3080 for only 15% more performance, people have bought in droves.

Compared to the 3000 series the 5000 series are a total stagnation in perf/$. The graphs above clearly show this, so you'd only be arguing with data everybody can see for themselves.

There's little to no point comparing CPUs to GPUs to make people feel better. CPU stagnation doesn't get to look good just because something else is worse.

In effect, people didn't need to wait for the 5000 series to get a CPU upgrade. Instead of buying the 5600X or the 5800X, they could have bought a 3900X. It's the same perf/$ upgrade.

Because the 5000 series does not represent a perf/$ improvement over the 3000 series.

 

[~>Dg<~]

So prices never rise with new generational products, they stay exactly the same regardless of developments, brand awareness and perceived value? Pretty sure you can't believe this unless you have been living under a rock your whole life because it happens in every industry I can think of and especially with electronics.

its only being low in stock and new and at a time of gouging they are at the price they at. not because they have advanced.

 

[Stu]

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:

This all looks perfectly reasonable to me, though current 3000 prices may skew the graph.

Generally speaking, why do people bother upgrading a single generation unless they properly move up the product line, which means more money. If you really want to get into discussing generation price rises, head over to the gfx forum.

If you are buying new, why would you pick a 3000 over a 5000, unless you really go for the budget option, then get the 3600. After that the 5600x is similar price and MT performance to 3700 and 3800, but 5600 offers much better ST... Get the 5600x. After that, choose 5800x or 5900x based on budget, but 5900x better perf/£... 3900x too similar in price, similar MT, significantly inferior ST performance.

AM4 can be seen as a dead end for a new build, whereas I see it as the pinnacle of the platform, which is tried, tested and optimised. This is where I refer back to my earlier comment about not upgrading every generation, so I don't care if AM5 comes out in 12 months (expensive and not optimised).

 

[FoxEye]

This all looks perfectly reasonable to me, though current 3000 prices may skew the graph.

How do current 3000 prices skew MSRP/RRP?

And no, it's not perfectly reasonable unless you just look at the ST perf. The MT perf shows the 5600X and the 5800X fit into the same perf/$ that the 3000 series offered. They do not improve MT perf/$.

So no, not reasonable.

 

[Journey]

Same old arguments, going on, and on and Ariston.

Seems like they can sell every CPU they are making, wait till the price drops if you don't like it or buy Intel.

 

[humbug]

MSRP of Ryzen 5000 are still out of whack. More retailers are getting stock of the 5600X now and have them up for between £310 and £330, they are still price gouged at that.

GBP to USD is $1.37, that's about $0.15 up from where it was 6 months ago, its no longer a 1:1 conversion, the 5600X is $299 MSRP, in GBP that's £218, +20% VAT = £262. At todays conversion rate the 5600X should be no more than £265. So they are on average 20% or £55 overpriced.