Don't forget Nvidia will likely be on the same node as AMD next time if they do go with TSMC5nm and for Nvidia it will be like a jump of 2 nodes from the lacklustre Samsung 8nm with far higher clocks and much better efficiency.
-
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.
The CPU determines GPU performance. On Nvidia anyway.
- Thread starter jigger
- Start date
After experiencing Ampere I can say Nvidia has pushed it cards way past the limit and exposed it architectural weakness.
If I had to some up Ampere in one word it would be tardy.
Soldato
AMD have been applauded. I think they have done a good job in the CPU division. However the latest release of the 5000 series was another notch up in price so I think the consumers have every right not to be backslapping them and call them out for it.
Word it however makes you ok with praising them. Just saying intel makes them look better this time round rather than any massive improvements to their lineup over the 3000 series.
Word it however makes you ok with praising them. Just saying intel makes them look better this time round rather than any massive improvements to their lineup over the 3000 series.
Intel tried to come back at AMD, but AMD just kept beating Intel and never stopped opening up the gap since.
Caporegime
We are back on nodes again.
Zen 1 had near half the power consumption at the same performance as Intel's CPU with the same number of cores, Intel was on a mature 14nm, AMD was on a brand new 14nm (GloFo). explain that.
Last edited:
Caporegime
AMD are a business, not a charity. if the CPU's are too expensive they don't sell.
They are selling, a lot more than Intel.
The trouble is not enough PC users understand the price performance metric when judging a product so while a CPU like the 5600X looks good the reality is it actually offers less performance than a 3600 for the money spent.
Soldato
Exactly this, which is why I didn't think the 5600 with a 15% uplift generally speaking yet cost 20% more than the 3600 did. Maybe only @CAT-THE-FIFTH would agree with me on the AMD change in direction then?
I'd imagine that if Alderlakes 12600K or even the 12400F which should have 6/12 + 4 handily beats the 5600X which it should do then AMD will bring it down to sub £200 which is where it should be IMO.Exactly this, which is why I didn't think the 5600 with a 15% uplift generally speaking yet cost 20% more than the 3600 did. Maybe only @CAT-THE-FIFTH would agree with me on the AMD change in direction then?
Maybe they will also release a 3D stacked version in its place at the £280 price point although I have a feeling that these will be reserved for the higher end parts as 3D stacking can't be cheap.
One thing we have learned though lately is AMD are just as happy as Nvidia and Intel to overcharge consumers when given the chance.
Last edited:
Soldato
We knew once they announced they no longer wanted to be a budget brand things were not going to be the same. However I think we all didnt expect AMD to jump up to intels premium so fast.
The low end got hit especially hard with the 5600X going for more than Intels 6 core K parts the previous 2 years when they had the performance lead.
Soldato
Yeah I picked up my 3600 on release and it was on the top end of what I would normally pay for a CPU. As they didnt offer a 5600 regular it forced you to get the X which was rather naughty IMO.
Caporegime
Exactly this, which is why I didn't think the 5600 with a 15% uplift generally speaking yet cost 20% more than the 3600 did. Maybe only @CAT-THE-FIFTH would agree with me on the AMD change in direction then?
It was costing more than a Ryzen 7 3700X which also came with a much better cooler too. I found the flip-flop really weird with Zen3. People were saying how Zen2,even though it lost in per core CPU performance(and gaming performance),offered you more cores for the same price than Intel. Hence,Intel wasn't worth the premium per core.
The moment AMD eeks out Intel in single core performance(and gaming performance),that all went out the window,and nobody cares about price/performance.....apparently. Something like the Core i5 10400F/Core i5 10600KF/Core i5 11400F all at various times have offered much better value than a £250~£280 Ryzen 5 5600X. Once Intel brought the B560,and you had decent ones like the MSI B560M PRO-VDH for £90~£100,even the argument you needed a very expensive Intel motherboard was not quite true anymore.
But because it was all AMD,so many just forgot about the Core i5 10400F - I got a Core i5 10400(the one with an IGP) for only £100. With some tweaking its probably as fast as my Ryzen 7 3700X in many games.
Also,last time I checked overall Intel sells far more desktop CPUs than AMD does,especially when you look at sales marketshare.
The Ryzen 5 5600X was the Ryzen 5 3600 replacement. Same 65W TDP and same Stealth Spire CPU cooler. AMD never really released a Ryzen 5 3600X replacement at 95W TDP.
They also at the same time,never really replaced the 95W Ryzen 3600X.
Last edited:
Soldato
So its reinforced my stance on the matter. Not quite sure why you would answer in this fashion tbh:
Zen 2 > 3 just wasn't so lauded and if I recall some of the big channels like HUB said similar too.. for the consumer it was not as good value.
Zen 2 > 3 just wasn't so lauded and if I recall some of the big channels like HUB said similar too.. for the consumer it was not as good value.
Caporegime
Exactly this, which is why I didn't think the 5600 with a 15% uplift generally speaking yet cost 20% more than the 3600 did. Maybe only @CAT-THE-FIFTH would agree with me on the AMD change in direction then?
It offers up to 50% better performance but i know what you're saying and in that sense you're right its true, you're not going to use that performance, yet or unless you're an eSports gamer.
Another thing is 90% of reviewers don't show you the true difference in performance between these CPU's, least of most HUB but they are far from alone in deliberately making it about the GPU while telling you its about the CPU, which is why your point also stands.
In any case the 5600X is not competing with the 3600, that's the 11400F.
Back in the day the CPU that majority of people wanted was the i5, the K SKU always around £200 to £220, the i5 was always nearly as good as the i7, which was the best and always around £300 to £350, so people wanting the best but couldn't quite stomach the £300+ price went for the second best.
You see HUB were wrong, the i5 was never the budget option, the 3600 may have been the budget option but that was not the i5, that was the i3 or the Pentium G, the i5 was always the 3080, not the 3090 but the 3080, the 5600X is the 3080.
Soldato
If a 5000 comes at the right price I would no doubt be tempted to replace the 3600. I only have a b450 board and its VRM isnt the best so better board would be ideal to squeeze it hard. That said as I have a 4k monitor the GPU tends to bear the brunt of all my games so while nice to pair with a stronger CPU I just cannot throw cash when its hardly justifiable when its likely single figure % improvements. 1440p and definitely 1080p high fps would be a different story!
Even going from a 3600 to a 5800X with a 3080 @1440p was only about 10% at best case and certainly not worth the 400 quid I paid. On the other hand £650 I paid for the 3080 was about a 120% boost over my old GTX 1070ti so well worth the cash.
The move to 14/12nm to 7nm was always going to push the price of Zen3 up, and the difference in performance and power use relative to Intel was always going to increase demand of the 5000 chips.
Im not sure your numbers are correct TBH or in what context, but if what you say is true a properly tuned 1600AF system would perform within 5-10% of a 5800X for less than half the price.
It didn't push up the price of zen 2 though even though that was also on 7nm and you would think as the process matures and yields increase that the costs to manufacture the CPUs would get become cheaper.
The 3600 is faster than a 1600AF.