• 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
6 Oct 2009
Posts
3,991
Location
London
Is there a good 2x16GB Ram choice with great P/P these days? Seems like prices suddenly become astronomical after 3600Mhz.

I have TeamGroup 3000MHz CL16s but I feel these are inadequate for AMD (fine for my old Intel).
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,379
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
According to AMD, Ryzen 7 1800X was the top part in the Performance tier: $500.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen#Ryzen_1000

Ryzen 7 2700X was the top part in the Performance tier: $329.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen#Ryzen_2000

Ryzen 7 3800X/XT was the top part in the Performance tier: $399.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen#Ryzen_3000

Ryzen 7 5800X is the top part in the Performance tier: $449.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen#Ryzen_5000


According to AMD, even today everything that has more than 8 cores is Enthusiast tier.
Ryzen 1000 had no Enthusiast tier MSDT - only HEDT Threadrippers.

:eek: :confused:

:(

There comes a point where its just easier to put you on ignore. I don't have anyone on ignore but damn you're hard-work.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 May 2007
Posts
18,190
Its kind of funny how AMD fans were saying buy a Ryzen 7 3700X over a Core i5 10600K,even though ST performance and gaming performance was less,because it had more cores and more MT performance.

Intel fans were saying MT performance and more cores was not important,but ST performance and gaming performance. Now,the tables are turned,it seems AMD fans are saying ST and gaming performance is more important than more cores. Now Intel Cometlake and Zen2 have more cores for the same price when compared to Zen3,but lower per core performance. So it looks like the arguments will now invert until Intel beats AMD again in ST and gaming performance.

Edit!!

Also another thing.

ac627d7a-374d-4bf1-81df-acc6368c1850.jpg


AMD is basically stating a Ryzen 5 5600X has 13% more performance than a Core i5 10600K(they state both cost the same and the Ryzen 5 5600X has 13% more gaming performance).

The problem with this is that they ignored the cheaper KF models or the fact Intel Cometlake S street pricing is much lower now. Also the Core i5 10600K/10600KF lacks thermal velocity boost,so gains more from manual overclocking than higher end Cometlake S models. We also know AMD CPUs don't gain as much from overclocking. I can see the Core i5 still being quite competitive in absolute gaming performance.

The Core i5 10600KF is currently around £230,which makes it £60~£70 cheaper than a Ryzen 5 5600X with its crappy Wraith Stealth cooler. The difference is more than enough to cover a decent CPU cooler(and still be cheaper overall).

I really hope we see the Ryzen 5 5600 non-X soon!

I think people bought AMD over Intel for a host of reasons.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
There comes a point where its just easier to put you on ignore. I don't have anyone on ignore but damn you're hard-work.

This is pure cavil. What exactly do you find wrong in the post and why don't you at least try to mention some serious arguments against? :eek:
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
There comes a point where its just easier to put you on ignore. I don't have anyone on ignore but damn you're hard-work.
He's got a point tho. You said that the 5000 series was not more expensive.

Just about all 3000 series SKUs were $50 cheaper at launch.

So gen-on-gen, the 5000 series is more expensive?
 
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
7,412
Location
South West
He's got a point tho. You said that the 5000 series was not more expensive.

Just about all 3000 series SKUs were $50 cheaper at launch.

So gen-on-gen, the 5000 series is more expensive?
I’m baffled I don’t think I’ve ever had a disagreement with him and I’ve watched him bash Intel and Nvidia on a daily basis and rightfully so. That was a weird response.

Anyway like I said this is a strange release from Amd and the decision to release limited sku’s at inflated prices has over shadowed what should have been Amd’s crowning triumph. We now have those who were criticising Intel for taking advantage of a leadership position now defending Amd for doing the same. Strange times.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
I’m baffled I don’t think I’ve ever had a disagreement with him and I’ve watched him bash Intel and Nvidia on a daily basis and rightfully so. That was a weird response.

Anyway like I said this is a strange release from Amd and the decision to release limited sku’s at inflated prices has over shadowed what should have been Amd’s crowning triumph. We now have those who were criticising Intel for taking advantage of a leadership position now defending Amd for doing the same. Strange times.

FoxEye didn't speak about you but about me.
 
Associate
Joined
3 May 2006
Posts
1,448
Anyway like I said this is a strange release from Amd and the decision to release limited sku’s at inflated prices has over shadowed what should have been Amd’s crowning triumph. We now have those who were criticising Intel for taking advantage of a leadership position now defending Amd for doing the same. Strange times.
Seriously ? Intel held 4-core chips as the top mainstream offering for 8 years, with gradually ascending prices & a 5% performance increase gen-to-gen.
AMD might have started charging something close to what their products are worth, but they blew the absolute doors off the mainstream core-count & are delivering 10-20% performance increase gen-on-gen.
Look, I had a 3930k, maybe Intel's last really great value chip & year after year there was nothing worth upgrading to. I got a 16-core AMD in January & looking at their new 16-core going 'hmm..it could be worth it...?' (The answer is no, this time, but props to them that it's even a consideration).
There's years to go before the 2 positions would be comparable.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Seriously ? Intel held 4-core chips as the top mainstream offering for 8 years, with gradually ascending prices & a 5% performance increase gen-to-gen.
AMD might have started charging something close to what their products are worth, but they blew the absolute doors off the mainstream core-count & are delivering 10-20% performance increase gen-on-gen.
Look, I had a 3930k, maybe Intel's last really great value chip & year after year there was nothing worth upgrading to. I got a 16-core AMD in January & looking at their new 16-core going 'hmm..it could be worth it...?' (The answer is no, this time, but props to them that it's even a consideration).
There's years to go before the 2 positions would be comparable.

Different times, though.
Intel held quad core design for a decade but only next month we will move up from the terrible Bulldozer derivative consoles APU.

When the new consoles launch, you will very quickly start to look for the 12-core and 16-core CPUs.

Not to mention that the PC storage subsystem is also slow compared to the PlayStation 5 state-of-the-art SSD that loads games very fast.
 
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2016
Posts
7,412
Location
South West
Seriously ? Intel held 4-core chips as the top mainstream offering for 8 years, with gradually ascending prices & a 5% performance increase gen-to-gen.
AMD might have started charging something close to what their products are worth, but they blew the absolute doors off the mainstream core-count & are delivering 10-20% performance increase gen-on-gen.
Look, I had a 3930k, maybe Intel's last really great value chip & year after year there was nothing worth upgrading to. I got a 16-core AMD in January & looking at their new 16-core going 'hmm..it could be worth it...?' (The answer is no, this time, but props to them that it's even a consideration).
There's years to go before the 2 positions would be comparable.
Yes you are right I was making an exaggerated point.

But upon just pulling slightly ahead they have raised prices and people are accepting it just like they did for Intel back in the day. What happen if Amds next release pulls further ahead of Intel. Does that mean people will be happy to pay even more? And what if the release after that and so on. We could in the near distant future see Amd completely dominating just like Intel were and the passive acceptance of price increases could well end up costing a lot of money.

I hope I’m wrong, I hope this is a one off and Amd deserve all the plaudits it’s getting imo but I’m not willing to pay over the odds for any pc component. So rather than just passively accepting I will take issue with it even if it’s only £50 now. It may not be in the future.
 
Associate
Joined
3 May 2006
Posts
1,448
Yes you are right I was making an exaggerated point.

But upon just pulling slightly ahead they have raised prices and people are excepting it just like they did for Intel back in the day. What happen if Amds next release pulls further ahead of Intel. Does that mean people will be happy to pay even more? And what if the release after that and so on. We could in the near distant future see Amd completely dominating just like Intel were and the passive acceptance of price increases could well end up costing a lot of money.

I hope I’m wrong, I hope this is a one off and Amd deserve all the plaudits it’s getting imo but I’m not willing to pay over the odds for any pc component. So rather than just passively accepting I will take issue with it even if it’s only £50 now. It may not be in the future.

All fair points, but I'm not too worried. AMD must know from previous experience that their window of competitive advantage is not infinite. They'll be determined not to let it slip away without laying down long-term foundations, like they did with the A64. That's borne out by their aggressive roadmap & so far good delivery on that roadmap. I can't expect that Intel will stay floundering for ever, either. Sooner or later, they'll come back with something decent. I almost think it's more relevant whether ARM can actually manage to compete at the top end - maybe they both get side-swiped ? (I kind of hope not, because I love x86 & how long it's lasted). Also, 'pulling slightly ahead' ? You must be referring to gaming only. Outside of gaming they have annihilated Intel.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2018
Posts
2,710
Different times, though.
Intel held quad core design for a decade but only next month we will move up from the terrible Bulldozer derivative consoles APU.

When the new consoles launch, you will very quickly start to look for the 12-core and 16-core CPUs.

Not to mention that the PC storage subsystem is also slow compared to the PlayStation 5 state-of-the-art SSD that loads games very fast.

Yeah but the new consoles are 6 core Zen 2. They're even clocked lower than a 3600.

The 5600 will destroy the console CPU. Then in a years time they'll release the 6600 which will destroy the 5600. Then the 7600 in another 12 months.

PC users will get a new 6 core CPU year on year. The consoles will get incredibly far behind.
 
Associate
Joined
3 May 2006
Posts
1,448
Different times, though.
Intel held quad core design for a decade but only next month we will move up from the terrible Bulldozer derivative consoles APU.

When the new consoles launch, you will very quickly start to look for the 12-core and 16-core CPUs.

Not to mention that the PC storage subsystem is also slow compared to the PlayStation 5 state-of-the-art SSD that loads games very fast.

Fair enough, but I don't really consider gaming very relevant to the CPU performance discussion. In gaming, any old tat (exaggeration, I know) has been good enough for years & years. So much so that benchmarks have to choose stupid resolutions & CPU/ GPU pairings that nobody will ever use in order to make it even look like it matters a bit.
A fast Ryzen 8-core or Intel equivalent will keep pace with the new console gen for the entirity of their life, I expect.
The console loading thing might be neat, but PC still holds many advantages, from large amounts of additional system RAM, upgrading & modding, more control schemes & a whole host of genres like sims & strategy games that only really thrive there. Plus cheaper game prices & a 30-year catalogue that sooner-or-later offers almost everything except Nintendo's games.
This is a total side-topic, but for people who think PC gaming's job is to run generic multi-plats at higher settings than the current console ? Probably just go console ? you're already missing out on all the things that are great about PCs anyway.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom