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

[KungFuSpaghetti]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[~>Dg<~]

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.

 

[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.

 

[KungFuSpaghetti]

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.

I don't think £280 is that bad a price, suppose it depends on whether this is a fresh build from scratch. You're ignoring that there will be a lot of people simply doing a drop in upgrade.
If I was building a PC from scratch I'd go with the value option, which is Intel in this case... but AMD I think have been pretty clever offering long support on the AM4 socket, as they have priced above Intel yet still can't make enough CPU's to meet demand.

Clearly people have bought into the eco system. I'm on my original AM4 motherboard, it's on its 3rd CPU, so if it costs a bit more than a similar performing Intel, it's still a way cheaper upgrade (and faster for gaming ). I paid £370 for my 5800x, had I waited another week I'd have only paid £350... I'm happy paying either price for the gaming uplift.

 

[Stu]

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 5800x at £420 is now 43% cheaper than the 5900x for 50% less 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.

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.

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

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

Your analysis is very circumstantial. The 3600 launched at £189, which is £31.50 per core. Many still have a 5900x on back order at £510, and some retailers still list at £510, which is £42.50 per core... I obviously can't deny the price per core has gone up, but not as dramatic as the picture you present, and arguably justified considering the performance increase and the tax for buying "the best" with AMD overtaking Intel right now.

I had a chance to buy the 5800x at £350 recently, which is almost the same £/core as the 5900x at rrp, which made me seriously think about cancelling my 5900x order. 5900x will not stay at £600, and the current price is irrelevant because there is zero available stock.

I probably should get a 5800x rather than a 5900x, but I'm likely going to skip AM5, so I'll be getting longevity out of this build. £160 difference isn't a deal breaker, and I'm getting what I pay for in terms of £/core with the 5900x compared to a 5800x. However, like many others, I can't stomach the price gouging going on, and spending money to get no more than I could have at rrp, for example comparing a 3080 FE to an MSI Suprim or similar. It's crazy how much prices are changing... the 8Pack RAM that I paid £180 for is now £260 (+44%), and Gibbo has indicated the price might be heading towards £400 with the next batch!!!

 

[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.

 

[Stu]

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

Actually, I just realised I got it wrong earlier too... The 5800x is 30% cheaper than a 5900x priced at £600 for 50% 33% less cores.

 

[LeMson]

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.



Your analysis is very circumstantial. The 3600 launched at £189, which is £31.50 per core. Many still have a 5900x on back order at £510, and some retailers still list at £510, which is £42.50 per core... I obviously can't deny the price per core has gone up, but not as dramatic as the picture you present, and arguably justified considering the performance increase and the tax for buying "the best" with AMD overtaking Intel right now.

I had a chance to buy the 5800x at £350 recently, which is almost the same £/core as the 5900x at rrp, which made me seriously think about cancelling my 5900x order. 5900x will not stay at £600, and the current price is irrelevant because there is zero available stock.

I probably should get a 5800x rather than a 5900x, but I'm likely going to skip AM5, so I'll be getting longevity out of this build. £160 difference isn't a deal breaker, and I'm getting what I pay for in terms of £/core with the 5900x compared to a 5800x. However, like many others, I can't stomach the price gouging going on, and spending money to get no more than I could have at rrp, for example comparing a 3080 FE to an MSI Suprim or similar. It's crazy how much prices are changing... the 8Pack RAM that I paid £180 for is now £260 (+44%), and Gibbo has indicated the price might be heading towards £400 with the next batch!!!

sure, just a quick dirty calc using ocuk prices

welp anyone still in a queue for one, what's it been 4 months? lol

#paperlaunch

 

[Twinz]

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.

 

[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.

 

[mikehhhhhhh]

sure, just a quick dirty calc using ocuk prices

welp anyone still in a queue for one, what's it been 4 months? lol

#paperlaunch

I ordered one for £565 yesterday and it’ll be here Friday.

 

[Stu]

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.

Ignoring overclocking and silicon lottery, the 5900x has more cores and is faster round the track compared to a 5800x. Furthermore, since I don't game at 1080p, the difference between the 2 in games will be close to zero unless a game can utilise >8 cores, in which case the 5900x pulls ahead. Really the 5900x wins in everything compared to a 5800x except price. I am one of those poor sods (along with ~ 500 others) waiting for launch day orders, and at the time the £90 difference was something I can easily absorb and forget about later (I realise not everyone can).