• 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.

AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Soldato
Joined
20 Aug 2019
Posts
3,028
Location
SW Florida
I'll be curious to see if $300 Zen 3 dollars are faster than $300 Zen 2 dollars.

I mean, If the 5600X is faster than the 3700X *at everything* then we have nothing to complain about.

However, if the 5600X gets beat by last gen's $300 CPU *anywhere*, then AMD is not making the kind of progress I want.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2010
Posts
8,220
Location
Leeds
Yeah way off

https://www.kitguru.net/components/cpu/luke-hill/intel-core-i7-5820k-haswell-e-6-core-cpu-review/

Pre-brexit so the pound was worth more, but still £300. You guys don’t use dollars in Leeds do you?

My receipt says £589.99 for a 5930K

This review here says Focussing on today's review of the Core i7-5930K, priced at $583 (£425)... Humm £425 clearly no VAT and the UK rip off prices added on.

https://hexus.net/tech/reviews/cpu/76649-intel-core-i7-5930k-22nm-haswell/


So unless I got ripped off even more from a certain retailer .. which I didn't because I checked prices elsewhere too at the time.

Also here is a history of the prices of the 5930k ignore the fake drops that were never available by fake retailers that didn't exist.

https://pricespy.co.uk/computers-ac...hz-socket-2011-3-box-without-cooler--p2762114


5820K You are right were around the £300 but also went up past £400 too but floated around £350.

The 5930K I never saw sold under £550 unless it was an OEM chip at the time I purchased my system. Any place that had them for £450 never had any in stock and was just a way to bait people to click their site.


The 5960X at the time was stuck at £999.99 and some places did sell them for £900 to £950 and then they had a drop to £899.99 for a while then hopped back up again for the retail version, the OEM went down to £820-£850 guessing because retailers were picking the ones they wanted for high end builds and sold the rubbish chips off that way.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
I'll be curious to see if $300 Zen 3 dollars are faster than $300 Zen 2 dollars.

I mean, If the 5600X is faster than the 3700X *at everything* then we have nothing to complain about.

However, if the 5600X gets beat by last gen's $300 CPU *anywhere*, then AMD is not making the kind of progress I want.
A proper generational jump would be at least double digits tho, so that 5600X had better be 10%+ better than the 3700X - at everything - or it's not a gen-on-gen upgrade at all. I mean just matching the 3700X would be unacceptable. As would +5%.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2003
Posts
14,056
The prices are a bit higher than I had hoped and I'm weighing up if I get the 8 or 12 core.

For those arguing about 6 core prices, I actually paid £444 for a 5820k and a Gigabyte X99M Gaming 5 bundle. So £300-£330 for a 5820k was a price people paid.
 
Soldato
Joined
24 Feb 2013
Posts
4,125
Location
East Midlands
there is no new chipset. it was all speculation and heresay.

there may be reharshed X570 boards coming out without the chipset fan like the ASUS one

This ties in with gigabyte officially naming boards like the aorus elite revision 1.0 on their website. Wondered why they would do this if x670 would be released. No doubt 2.0 on the way without fan and revisions.
 
Soldato
Joined
31 Oct 2002
Posts
9,850
Exactly.

I run an ex-server chip, an X5650 @ 4.4Ghz, went to it from a Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz that was getting CPU bound.

The X5650 chews up any modern multi-cored game with ease, leaving me totally GPU bound.

When it starts to get CPU bound (if ever), I'll change it, otherwise still looking not to upgrade until AMD5 is out.

The idea that a 3900X is suddenly "outdated" overnight! :p

Oh jesus man, you've gotta get real. I owned a X58 Socket 1366 board, both with a i7 920 and later a X5675. The 920 was great back in 2008, then the Xeons extended the socket's lifespan a few years later. Once Haswell launched, they were incapable of driving the fastest GPU's in many games. but still a good budget option. Now days they are absolute trash for games, bested by a modern Ryzen 3 or i3 for gaming. The xeons, when overclocked to 4Ghz+, are also extremely power hungry even at idle, a complete waste when you consider the electricity for the performance gained.

What CPU are you rocking? Even a ancient 980ti will be severely bottlenecked by a x58 xeon, DDR3 based piece of crap.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 May 2007
Posts
18,190
A proper generational jump would be at least double digits tho, so that 5600X had better be 10%+ better than the 3700X - at everything - or it's not a gen-on-gen upgrade at all. I mean just matching the 3700X would be unacceptable. As would +5%.

Intel disagree. 1% gain per 18 months.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Intel disagree. 1% gain per 18 months.
Whatever Intel have been doing doesn't really change the fact that a proper gen-on-gen upgrade is at least double digit improvement.

If Intel haven't been bringing that then that'll be why most people haven't been upgrading their 5-6 year old Intel CPUs, hence Intel making many fewer sales.

I'm not sure if you're advocating that AMD follow Intel's lead here or not? Personally I'd advise not.

And if the 5600X isn't 10%+ better in everything than a 3700X then it isn't an upgrade. Simples.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Jun 2004
Posts
4,657
Location
Blackburn
A proper generational jump would be at least double digits tho, so that 5600X had better be 10%+ better than the 3700X - at everything - or it's not a gen-on-gen upgrade at all. I mean just matching the 3700X would be unacceptable. As would +5%.

Prices aside a gen on gen upgrade would be comparing the 5600x to the 3600x.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 May 2007
Posts
18,190
Whatever Intel have been doing doesn't really change the fact that a proper gen-on-gen upgrade is at least double digit improvement.

If Intel haven't been bringing that then that'll be why most people haven't been upgrading their 5-6 year old Intel CPUs, hence Intel making many fewer sales.

I'm not sure if you're advocating that AMD follow Intel's lead here or not? Personally I'd advise not.

And if the 5600X isn't 10%+ better in everything than a 3700X then it isn't an upgrade. Simples.

In your opinion.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
It would be rather odd to 'upgrade' from a 8c/16t cpu to a 6c/12t cpu though.

The correct comparisons would be
3600x > 5600x
3800x > 5800x
3900x > 5900x

Etc etc
I think we're comparing the 5600X to the 3700X as they have a similar launch price in USD ($300 for the 5600X and $330 for the 3700X).

And also a previous poster said that the 5600X would "obliterate" the 3700X in all metrics.

So there we are :D This is why we're comparing them.
 
Soldato
Joined
23 Jun 2004
Posts
4,657
Location
Blackburn
I think we're comparing the 5600X to the 3700X as they have a similar launch price in USD ($300 for the 5600X and $330 for the 3700X).

And also a previous poster said that the 5600X would "obliterate" the 3700X in all metrics.

So there we are :D This is why we're comparing them.

Comparing them, fair enough. But that's not a gen on gen upgrade as you said
 
Soldato
Joined
20 Aug 2019
Posts
3,028
Location
SW Florida
Prices aside a gen on gen upgrade would be comparing the 5600x to the 3600x.

Real generational progress results in the same money buying more performance than it did the generation before.

Prices are part of the definition of progress.

If Zen 3 money isn't faster than Zen 2 money, it's not real progress IMO.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Comparing them, fair enough. But that's not a gen on gen upgrade as you said
It's a interesting one.

When defining what a "gen on gen upgrade" really means, do you just go by the naming?

I mean, if the 3600 was $200 part and the 5600 was a $300 dollar part, but there was also a $200 5500, then which is "fair game" to compare, and which isn't?

Taking this to extremes, what if you had this scenario:

3600 $200
5400 $200
5500 $300
5600 $400

Which is the correct chip to compare with the 3600? Is it just 100% in the naming? So you can *only* compare the 3600 to the 5600, regardless of price?

In which case, what's in a name?

What if in the above situation, the 5500 was a 15% improvement and the 5600 a 20% improvement?

Again, what's in a name..
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2019
Posts
11,656
Location
Uk
The prices are a bit higher than I had hoped and I'm weighing up if I get the 8 or 12 core.

For those arguing about 6 core prices, I actually paid £444 for a 5820k and a Gigabyte X99M Gaming 5 bundle. So £300-£330 for a 5820k was a price people paid.
So 6 cores costs almost the same today as Intel was offering 6 years ago?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom