The 5800x is now a viable price/perf CPU due to the price increases of the 5600x and 5900x...

[Richdog]

With the price of the 5600x rising a futher 10% to £330 and the price of the 5900x rising a further 15% or so to £600, the 5800x has stayed at the £420 MSRP and now finally has a more rational place in the lineup in terms of price/performance.

Calculations made with https://percentagecalculator.net/

• The 5800x at £420 is now only 27% more expensive than the 5600x for 33% more cores.
• The 5900x at £600 is now 43% more expensivr than the 5800x for 50% more cores.

So to summarize, with the recent price increases the 5800x has improved considerably in relative value, while the 5600x is now the worst value of all of the Zen3 CPU's! The 5900x is now only slightly better value than the 5800x.

This is a far cry from the release prices when the 5800x looked like terrible value in it's price positioning and I would assume is in large part due to the lower sales and surplus stock.

TLDR: if you want the best price/performance Zen3 gaming CPU then buy a 5800x before the price increases in line with the 5600x and 5900x.

 

[Richdog]

I think for the comparison over the 5600x it's a 33% increase in cores?

Media definitely lowered demand on the 5800x even though it was a bit of a poor argument. With the major 5900x delays, people who didn't actually need the cores in the first place realised that the 5800x is more than enough for general use and gaming.

Correct thanks mate, that was me being dozy in the morning (and the one thing I didn't use the calculator for, lol) and I have amended the post.

 

[Richdog]

Ryzen 3000 were around the £26-40 per core price point, 5000 seems to now be £50+

ouch

Yes, AMD are certainly not trying to be any kind of value proposition in this generation! They are going for pole position... although I don't think they have had the available stock levels to really take the market share that they could have otherwise done.

 

[Richdog]

5600x £55
5800x £52.50p
5900x £50
5950x £53.57p

I paid £160 for my 3600 which is £26.67, do your own folks

To be fair the 3600x is significantly weaker at gaming (1080p/1440) than the 5600x (up to 50% depending on the game), so if high fps gaming is a persons main concern than it's probably going to be worth spending the extra for the couple of years. There is no doubt that the 3600 IS stonking value though.

Anything can use 12 cores, doesn't mean they need 12 cores. Games certainly don't.

For the sake of your sanity, do yourself a favour and bung him on ignore. He is relentlessly myopic with his views and you will rarely if ever get any kind of engaging discussion.

 

[Richdog]

I think I'll take that advice He clearly isn't very technical and just thinks more is better.

If your primary use case is gaming, a 5800x + RTX 3080 is significantly better than a 5900x + RTX 3070. You don't need a 5900x to run Windows calculator and a couple Firefox tabs.

I ran Windows 10, tabbing in and out of Total War Warhammer etc to browse loads of tabs while viewing YT vids just fine on a 3300x. When CPU power is adequate then RAM is more important for smooth multitasking in this regard.

A 5800x will handle anything you throw at it, though a 5900x will of course be better at specific multi-threaded applications. At launch MSRP the 5900x was good value in the overall lineup, now with the increase it makes less sense.

 

[Richdog]

What is the source for this price increase information? Or are we just talking about gouging here?

The source? The 5600x and 5900x retail prices have already risen at OCUK since release as demand has increased.

 

[Richdog]

Ok so it's gouging then, got it.

Call it whatever you like, it doesn't change the point that the prices of the 5600x and 5900x have risen by 10-15% while the 5800x has stayed static.

 

[Richdog]

To be fair they have raised here again, but elsewhere not so much the case. 5600x you can get for £280 when in stock which I think is a relative bargain. Even the 5800x can be had cheaper, I paid £370 for mine the other month and my friend just got his 5800x last week for £350. 5900x price seems irrelevant at the moment, they don't seem to exist outside of initial allocation lol.

In other words, i wouldn't use OCUK pricing to determine actual costs.

There is no 5600x for £280 in stock... it says in stock on the price search but when you click the link its out of stock. The cheapest in stock is £320.

 

[Richdog]

That's why I said when in stock, they do come back in regularly.

Well I am going to stick to referring to general and average prices at main stores. Its only a matter if time before any store selling at such a lower than market price raises those prices.

 

[Richdog]

Main stores? Other than the rain forest the place selling are bigger than all these PC parts retailers combined... they can afford to be cheaper considering the supply of 5600x and 5800x are steady, unlike GPU's.

In the end I think that we will need to respectfully agree to disagree on this overall perspective, but thanks for the interesting view.

 

[Richdog]

its still over priced also recently seen far cheaper nearer what it should actually be priced at. the funny thing is if the fanboys put the bs out the way with no bias you would see that intel for most things is cheaper and often as quick or quicker in many things for less money. the only real plus point is the actual multitasking side if....you use that many cores which lets be honest 99 percent of people dont, even on here.

for gaming i5s and i7s are still generally better than even the new amd cpus. which many here will be using them for and cheaper. also the prices for new i5s and i7s are pretty good. yet people are paying gouged prices on amd cpus. which most are probably 100 quid over priced.

This is true... the Intel Core i7-10700K is available in my local store for £275 and I paid £380 for my 5800+. For gaming price/performance the intel wins.

I bought my x570 motherboard in advance of the Zen3 release naively believing that AMD wouldn't price gouge and that availability would not be diabolically bad. In retrospect, had I know what was to come I may well have gone with the Intel Core i7-10700K.

Thanks to that bad pricing and appalling availability of Zen3 I don't think that Intel have lost as much market share or reputation as people like to believe.

 

[Richdog]

The 5800x at £420 is NOT 43% cheaper than the 5900x for 50% less cores. The 5800x is 30% cheaper than a 5900x priced at £600 for 50% less cores. The 5900x is 43% more expensive than the 5800x.

Thanks you are right I wrote it the wrong way around. Amended.

 

[Richdog]

I think counting cores on CPU's is like counting cylinders on cars.

Interesting on a spec sheet, but not themselves a metric of performance.

If I'm shopping for peformance, I want the car that's faster around the track, and that's not always the one with the most cylinders.

Thanks Twinz, that was one hell of a scientific analogy. Consider everyone participating in this thread duly educated on the subtleties of CPU architecture and core performance.

Jokes aside, you can of course very easily judge the relative performance of adding more cores or mhz to the same CPU architecture because it is consistent and measurable within the applications that support the extra cores. Thanks to a gazillion reviews and benchmarks online, we know what effect either an increase in mhz or adding 2 or 4 cores has on performance in a wide range of gaming and productivity applications. It's not some kind of esoteric mystical guesswork.

When comparing Intel vs AMD, it's now at the point where single threaded and gaming performance are for all intents and purposes largely similar, but AMD have more cores that aid productivity in the applications that can use them. The end choice often comes down to cost, needs and/or preference.