OcUK Zen3 review thread

[FoxEye]

Its more like £50 since the KF is around £230. The Ryzen 7 3700X does edge ahead if you need more cores,and that has been cheaper than a Ryzen 5 5600X. The the Ryzen 9 3900 non-X is around £310~£325 as part of bundle deals if you need a lot of cores.

By extension,the Ryzen 9 5900X is not only cheaper per core,but seems relatively better priced. This is why Gibbo has sold 2X more of them than either the Ryzen 5 5600X or Ryzen 7 5800X.

Yeah, a number of us have already said the 5900X is actually a good value chip in the line-up.

And GamersNexus repeatedly said the 5800X is terrible value, so much so that they struggled to find a single use case where you wouldn't be better off (due 100% to pricing) with a 5900X or a 5600X. In their opinion (and ours) the 5800X has priced itself to sit on shelves (after the initial rush).

The 5600X is also too expensive, and relative to its 3000 series price, had the biggest % increase of all of them (thanks to a flat $50 extra across the board at all SKUs).

 

[Joxeon]

Maybe read some reviews. AMD are a long way ahead.

About as far ahead now as Intel were on zen 2 which is my point.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yeah, a number of us have already said the 5900X is actually a good value chip in the line-up.

And GamersNexus repeatedly said the 5800X is terrible value, so much so that they struggled to find a single use case where you wouldn't be better off (due 100% to pricing) with a 5900X or a 5600X. In their opinion (and ours) the 5800X has priced itself to sit on shelves (after the initial rush).

The 5600X is also too expensive, and relative to its 3000 series price, had the biggest % increase of all of them (thanks to a flat $50 extra across the board at all SKUs).

Well its technically even worse with the Ryzen 5 5600X. If you look at the TDP and cooler included,it seems more like a Ryzen 5 3600 successor. I suspect the non-X model has been split into the non-X and X 65W TDP SKUs,and we might see a 95W TDP model,ie,a Ryzen 5 5600XT which is the true Ryzen 5 3600X successor. But it also means the Ryzen 5 5600 non-X will probably be really junk sillicon,ie,it wouldn't surprise me if it cannot match the clockspeeds of the Ryzen 5600X when overclocked. For the most part the Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 5 3600XT overclocked to similar amounts.

 

[Joxeon]

Intel has to drop prices as they are not competitive anymore and none wants to buy intel anymore.
Intel charged $1700 for 10 cores 5 years ago.
AMD sold 16 cores today for half of that.
Your opinion is based on intel propaganda

Tbf people brought zen 1 and zen + and they weren't competitive to Intel.

 

[jigger]

About as far ahead now as Intel were on zen 2 which is my point.

Point? Zen 2 was miles ahead too. AMD have opened more of a gap.

Seriously read some reviews.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Tbf people brought zen 1 and zen + and they weren't competitive to Intel.

Even Zen2 wasn't quite there in gaming. Yet people were saying it was all about price/performance per core,ie,AMD had more cores for the same price than Intel. Intel buyers were saying more cores wasn't important but per core performance.

Now it seems the positions have now flipped. I wonder how long before it flips around again?? Its like power consumption in GPUs. One day its important the other day it isn't!

 

[~>Dg<~]

I'm not sure why people are suggesting they are 'way overpriced'.
2 videos now show the 5600X trouncing the 10600K in productivity, comfortably beating it in gaming and costing just £25 more (RRP and including a cooler). Yes, they could be cheaper but they are priced inline with everything else for a variety of use cases.

Sure, above 1440P you start to see little to no difference so if you only game at 4k+ (and do nothing else) then save all that money and get the cheapest 4 core / 6 core you can find from Intel or AMD. But for those with absolutely any other use case and some spare cash, there is now only Zen 2 (3600, 3700X) & Zen 3 (any of them) to choose between.

the problem is its a mid range part. they charging you way over the normal just cause its new. look where it sits. its where the 2600 was the 3600 was its the 3600 replacement. look at the launch prices of those cpus then look at the 5600 launch price. they are over priced and being milked.

 

[jigger]

Even Zen2 wasn't quite there in gaming. Yet people were saying it was all about price/performance per core,ie,AMD had more cores for the same price than Intel. Intel buyers were saying more cores wasn't important but per core performance.

Now it seems the positions have now flipped. I wonder how long before it flips around again?? Its like power consumption in GPUs. One day its important the other day it isn't!

Huh?

The odd Intel chip kind of/maybe made some sense if* you paired it with a £1200 graphics card and sub 2 megapixel display. But you had to be happy buying into a lesser platform and suffer worse performance in every other workload while paying a premium.

AMD won on many levels.

 

[~>Dg<~]

AMD have done amazingly well its just the pricing is a joke.

 

[Kamakazie!]

Its more like £50 since the KF is around £230. The Ryzen 7 3700X does edge ahead if you need more cores,and that has been cheaper than a Ryzen 5 5600X. The the Ryzen 9 3900 non-X is around £310~£325 as part of bundle deals if you need a lot of cores.

Until the initial wave of release is over it is unfair to compare retail prices so you can only go on RRP which is where I got the £25 (Gamers Nexus quoted it in dollars so I just made an assumed conversion). We'll see where it settles but suspect it might settle on £50 because no ones gonna want the 10600k anymore.

the problem is its a mid range part. they charging you way over the normal just cause its new. look where it sits. its where the 2600 was the 3600 was its the 3600 replacement. look at the launch prices of those cpus then look at the 5600 launch price. they are over priced and being milked.

Except it's way faster than both of those at everything. On par with a 10900k in gaming, and faster than a 10600k in everything.
I'm struggling to see by what definition it is overpriced in the current market. Comparing with the 3600 that basically cut the legs off the 3600X or something 2 generations old is not really relevant because the lack of competition from Intel and their inability or unwillingness to cut prices further means these AMD chips are priced (except for the 5800X) exactly where they should be.

I want a 5900X for £300 but it doesn't mean it is overpriced. I'm probably going to wait for the 5800X to get a price correction next year then go with that, but being realistic, the 5600X is gonna sell out consistently until Intel lowers prices further and that means it's not too expensive.

 

[Captain]

AMD have done amazingly well its just the pricing is a joke.

It’s £50 more than the last gen, stop over reacting.

 

[~>Dg<~]

It’s £50 more than the last gen, stop over reacting.

its not over reacting its stating fact. forget about performance. it doesnt matter what its the same as intel wilse. its where it sits in the product line. its just a replacement for the 3600. so its over priced. you cant argue debate that because its true. the new amd cpus are great but all over priced from where they sit.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Until the initial wave of release is over it is unfair to compare retail prices so you can only go on RRP which is where I got the £25 (Gamers Nexus quoted it in dollars so I just made an assumed conversion). We'll see where it settles but suspect it might settle on £50 because no ones gonna want the 10600k anymore.

The Core i5 10600KF is £230 right now in the UK and the Core i5 10600 is £210,and the Ryzen 5 5600X is between £275~£290 as people already own them on this forum. £275 is what the RRP with VAT would be.

Also ATM there seems to be some additional price gouging by some retailers with the Zen3 CPUs,which is not helping,but that is not to be blamed on AMD.

That is the UK street price now.The Core i5 10600K has integrated graphics which the Ryzen 5 lacks and nobody really needs.

Also next year,things might get worse in price,if we have extra importation costs,although that will affect all the CPUs. So we can only go by what is available now. Next year if AMD has cheaper models,we can then the pricing metric gets reassessed. ATM,AMD hasn't clearly stated when the Ryzen 5 5600 non-X is out so it could be two months or 6 months later.

 

[RavenXXX2]

AMD are selling every Zen 3 they ship, pricing might be too cheap.

 

[4K8KW10]

AMD are selling every Zen 3 they ship, pricing might be too cheap.

Yes, let's put the 2000 price tag to the Ryzen 9 5950X, so that it collects the shelf dust

 

[Joxeon]

Point? Zen 2 was miles ahead too. AMD have opened more of a gap.

Seriously read some reviews.

Zen 2 wasn't ahead in gaming yet most people recommended these for gaming builds over faster Intel chips based on the cheaper price yet now people are saying pay more and to get the faster zen 3 chips.

It's the other way around with Intel bring the value as the 10400F is only 17% behind the the £750 flagship 5950X in gaming performance @1080p with a £1500 GPU yet half the price of the 5600X.

AMD are selling every Zen 3 they ship, pricing might be too cheap.

Your could say the same about the RTX 3090 then.

 

[Devious]

Maybe, but not at £330, that's for sure.

Glad I paid £220 for mine.

 

[DeathStorm]

Zen 2 wasn't ahead in gaming yet most people recommended these for gaming builds over faster Intel chips based on the cheaper price yet now people are saying pay more and to get the faster zen 3 chips.

This gets brought up repeatedly, perhaps you should take it up with the people who did that rather than a catch all argument to fend off either view?

It's the other way around with Intel bring the value as the 10400F is only 17% behind the the £750 flagship 5950X in gaming performance @1080p with a £1500 GPU yet half the price of the 5600X.

No one who cares about value for money gaming is making the choice between a budget Intel chip and a workstation chip, comparing them only highlights the lack of an argument.

 

[Grim5]

at 1080



the real bargin cpu if you gaming is the 10400 ! what a cpu for the money same as a amd 3950x costs £160

infact the 10400f is only £140 !

no one should buy 3950x for gaming, try doing some rendering or streaming on the 10400

also as HU admitted in its tweet yesterday, hardware unboxed lets Intel CPUs overclock while AMD is get stock, not really fair but w/e

 

[jamman]

Yeah, a number of us have already said the 5900X is actually a good value chip in the line-up.

And GamersNexus repeatedly said the 5800X is terrible value, so much so that they struggled to find a single use case where you wouldn't be better off (due 100% to pricing) with a 5900X or a 5600X. In their opinion (and ours) the 5800X has priced itself to sit on shelves (after the initial rush).

The 5600X is also too expensive, and relative to its 3000 series price, had the biggest % increase of all of them (thanks to a flat $50 extra across the board at all SKUs).

It out performs the i9 10900k at times at half the price. Not sure thats too expensive unless you are only comparing it against the 3000 version.