I ordered 2pm launch day elsewhere and still waiting... This is an epic scale f*up from AMD!
-
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.
RYZEN 5000 SERIES NOW ONLINE - 5950X, 5900X, 5800X & 5600X COMING NOV 5TH AT 5PM **NO COMPETITORS**
- Thread starter Gibbo
- Start date
I ordered 2pm launch day elsewhere and still waiting... This is an epic scale f*up from AMD!
Associate
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 1,096
Cheers for the update. Not the news we were hoping for, but I’ll be sticking around.
Soldato
For you guys waiting for a 5900x, do you really need the extra 4 cores?
If your just gaming, 5800x is better.
If your just gaming, 5800x is better.
Multi use systems. My home lab is my gaming machine. Having a bonus 4 cores means I don't have to shut down the domain controller and similar, for more performance
Soldato
Fair enough.
A 3900X would be a decent alternative.
I'm not sure if I'm honest. I mainly game and do a bit of video editing and encoding, but I tend to keep the core of my system for a long time (I'm still using a 10 year old x58 platform), and my son is 13 and getting into computer studies at school, so not sure what the next few years will require. I am tempted to switch, but equally, when you've made a system last 10 years, what's another 2 months to ensure zero buyer's remorse for the upcoming years.
Soldato
It really depends if the software you use will utilise those extra cores.
Ignoring the "on paper" figures, the real world results are showing 5800x are generally clocking higher and more stable on single and all core over a 5900x, games like the single core speed over 4 more cores.
Games are probably not even using 6 cores now, and most less than that, the single core speeds are most important due to how the main core farms the tasks out to the others.
So for games, you are probably more future proofed with a 5800x anyway.
But, if your have some kind of software that is a lots faster with 12 cores over 8 and it's something you will be using a lot, then fine. The multi thread tasking on a 5800x is slower, not that it does a bad job mind you.
In my opinion, future proof means suitably powerful to fulfill your needs for the timescale you want. We have only recently hit the point where GFX is noticeably bottlenecked by my CPU, thus driving a platform upgrade... really, my main driver is scratching an itch and time for a second rig int he house... my Xeon x5650 and GTX1070 still runs everything pretty well (I'm playing catch up a huge games collection, so I don't have current AAA games).
AM4 maybe EOL, but it's wicked powerful and will be fit for purpose for a long time. A 5900x system will not suddenly become trash when AM5 launches. Lets be honest, games are the main cause for most people "requiring" an update, and that is best addressed with a new GFX card, not upgrading the CPU and mobo. AM4 is mature, and I think AM5 and DDR5 will come with a big price jump for the first year, and I am conscious of performance/£££ ratio.
That was based on the last 10 years where there was a lot of stagnation in the market for both CPUs and Gpus which has kept your old platform relevant but now we have competition in both areas simultaneously which I don't remember there ever being so I expect things to really shift up a gear in terms of progression, there is already talk of RDNA 3 being MCM and up to 100% faster than the current 6900XT.
While the new ryzen CPUs are excellent they have only just managed to overtake the almost 6 year old 14nm Intel architecture on core for core performance.
I think CPU and board prices for next gen will come down as AMD needs to offer a carrot to make people jump from AM4, also since DDR5 runs in dual channel with just 1 dimm it may actually not work out to be much more if any over a current 2 dimm DDR4 configuration.
I agree GFX cards are advancing at a decent pace (though I'll be very surprised by a 100% uplift in the next generation), but I'm not convinced CPU performance will match this... what is the driver to accelerate performance... game development calls for constant gfx power increases, but what is driving a real need to rapid CPU performance increase (at least for home users).
Also, what is the main bottleneck in current systems? Is memory speed the bottleneck, therefore needing DDR5 to get us to the next level (honest question, I don't know the answer)? I think the jump from Zen 3 to Zen 4 will be comparable to the recent uplift with Zen 3, so I see that discussion simply about whether a CPU upgrade is worth it from one generation to the next rather than focus on socket discussion... for me, I would not be upgrading to Zen 3 if I had a Zen 2.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 19 Dec 2017
- Posts
- 720
4000,
The 6900XT is around 80% faster than the 5700XT and if AMD successfully move to MCM then smaller dies could be used which paves the way for more CUs at a much lower cost to produce so I wouldn't rule anything out with the roll AMD are currently on.
Nvidia got caught out this generation and had to resort to brute forcing the power consumption of ampere so they didn't fall behind so I'd expect a strong response from them next generation also.
As cards get faster then so will faster CPUs be required to drive them, in 5 years the 5900X may well struggle with the latest cards but those on AM5 would be able to drop in a newer CPU possibly only a year old by that point if AMD keep going with 3 generations of upgrades on that platform as they did with AM4.
It's all crystal ball gazing!
Soldato
Nah,
It'll be GPUs for years to come, with higher resolution gaming/higher demand for resultion, each time you up 1080,1440,4k etc, its it a massive jump in performance hit, almost all of which, well actually all of it, hitting the GPU NOT the CPU.
IF you play 1440p you dont even need that much fo a modern CPU really its making little difference, even at higher refresh gaming monitors you'll be bottlenecked by the GPU unless you are trying to run some kind of weird 1440p but minimum graphics settings or similar. Even more so at 4k.
At the moment I think the shift is starting to happen from 1080 to 1440 but I still think its 50/50. Actually Id be interested if anyone has any statistics on that, steam hardware survey or similar at what the most common gaming resultion is, I bet its still 1080p.