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 ASUS x570's are generally regarded as good boards, like the TUF.. as they were reviewed well for their price, don't see how that means it's a "terrible motherboard"You've chosen a terrible motherboard and a cooler that won't be able to hold a 5ghz+ overclock at good temps. Good try though I guess. Genuinely think you're a troll.
In many applications (Office, Photoshop, Premiere, MP3 encoding, Super Pi, etc...) it will still be lagging behind Intel's CPUs - this is the reason why every single OEM and corporation uses Intel for its office PCs and notebooks.
I know they are, I put the Asus X570 in my basket originally. The change by other poster was for the good Z490 from Asus to terrible MSI.The ASUS x570's are generally regarded as good boards, like the TUF.. as they were reviewed well for their price, don't see how that means it's a "terrible motherboard"
You'll have to explain what you mean by that. By a few metrics the 5900X is the best value.And yes at first glance the 5900x seems the best priced product strangely. Or at least without working out the maths it seemed like you was getting more cores/threads for less % additional £££.
Compared to what? Because the 5600X is not better value compared to the 3000 series.AMD are better than Intel now, yet they still offer better value, including the 5600X.
There is no chance you would get anywhere near 5ghz on all cores with ryzen, you would be lucky to get an all core of 4.4
hopefully, when the NDA lifts someone will compare it for you, till then -Compared to what? Because the 5600X is not better value compared to the 3000 series.
At the absolute best it's +19% perf for +25% money. At the absolute best.
And if the 5600 SKU never materializes then it's a fair to say it's a crapload *worse* value than the 3600.
Compared to what? Because the 5600X is not better value compared to the 3000 series.
At the absolute best it's +19% perf for +25% money. At the absolute best.
And if the 5600 SKU never materializes then it's a fair to say it's a crapload *worse* value than the 3600.
Don't even need to wait for reviews. The 5600X isn't going to be anywhere near +25% perf in games at 1080p or 1440p.hopefully, when the NDA lifts someone will compare it for you, till then -
4.4Ghz sounds about right, should still beat a 5Ghz Intel
And also worse value than the 5900X. Hey, we may be getting somewhere here at lastSo its 6 percentage points worse value. for the best 6 core CPU on earth and still better value than Intel's equivalent.
AMD are better than Intel now, yet they still offer better value, including the 5600X. Its unreasonable to expect AMD to continue to operate like they are the Pound World of chip makers.
Don't even need to wait for reviews. The 5600X isn't going to be anywhere near +25% perf in games at 1080p or 1440p.
So it's always going to be worse value every day of the week.
idc what anyone says, a 6 core for £290 is not VFM and is worse than what intel offered in the 10600k over the 3600 in gaming vs the 10600k vs the 5600X in gaming.
idc what anyone says, a 6 core for £290 is not VFM and is worse than what intel offered in the 10600k over the 3600 in gaming vs the 10600k vs the 5600X in gaming.
I'm not so sure it will win in gaming since the higher clocked 5900X was only around 5% ahead in most titles and that was vs the stock Intel CPU.That is true, i would compare the 5600X to the 10700K now, it will be a lot closer to the 10700K than the 10600K, actually beating the 10700K in everything but maximum thread applications. And even then its going to be a token victory to the 10700K in something like Cinebench R20 MT.