26/05 - $62 share price. 23/06/ - $46 share price. Oh no Intel
-
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.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
- Status
The thing that put me off 6 cores instantly was the guys 5600x review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WZAhsMDNZM
First few minute he talks about how Division 2 released at the start of 2019 is already maxing out a 6 core CPU. I hate to think how a 6 core is going to be in 2022.
Soldato
lol it's nowhere near maxed out and that's with it powering a 3080 at 100% use and uncapped FPS, 1080p. He also did a follow up video saying he ****** up and 6 cores is fine.
No PBO 2 for zen 2 chips. Only for zen3I noticed this post today about the new PBO 2 coming to the 5000 series.
Now I don't have a 5000 series chip with no plans to buy one but are they suggesting in this screen shot that it is safe to use scalar 10x?
I played with PBO for a bit back in March and saw about 5% gains. But left it off as the gains wasn't that significant but if they are saying a scalar of 10x is good to go I might just pop it back on.
That has more to do with Apple than AMD.
They literally lost 13% of the entire PC market with that one customer going to ARM. That’s not their own market share, the entire x86 PC market just shrank by 13% and it all came out of intels wedge of the pie. It’s just a massive hit to take in one go and the net effect on intel will be bigger than 13%.
Soldato
Yes. I know that.
I think someone in the YouTube said that to bring it to zen2 it will take a fair amount of work. Ie programming he AGESA. Not sure AMD will really focus on last gen product that much. It is also rumoured only 500 series board will have this and the 400 maybe. Like a maybe to the similar level as zen2 having this option.
AMD got a video for this PBO2 stuff. Dunno I’m that video if they committed to anything. Not watched it myself.
Really sounds like they are catching up to intel’s stepspeed coolnquiet and other power saving features that had been around for years.
Are you referencing the fact that HU intel based systems are using motherboard that aggressively overclocking CPU and have all the motherboard overclock features turned on while the AMD boards just have PBO switched on and otherwise CPU is on stock?
With the RT they have been fairly consistent. They call it unacceptable regardless Nvidia or AMD. In their Radeon reviews they consistently said if you are after RT then no doubt get Nvidia cos Radeon is just worse. 6800XT RT is on par with 3070 and 6800 RT is like 2080ti sort of things. Taking 50% perf hit on RT compared with traditional rasterisation is really crap. And only situation where you can get some kind of FPS that is playable is using DLSS.
But the sneaky intel overclock is a bit dubious.
If you are happy to upgrade again in a year or two then a 6 core is fine but if you plan to keep the CPU for 5 years then I would highly recomend atleast 8 cores minimum and preferably 12.
A 5600x is roughly the same overall performance in multi-threaded apps as an 8 core Zen2 3700x, while providing significantly better single-threaded performance. Is an 8 core Zen2 3700x enough for the next 5 years or do you think someone who has one of those needs to upgrade in 2 years too?
If two processors have the same multi core performance, the one with the least phisycal cores would normally be significantly better at gaming workloads due to its increased single core performance.
There is no concept of ‘you must get 8 cores’, it’s complete nonsense. You need to balance overall power with single threaded performance within the overall package in gaming workloads. That’s because the vast majority of games have a main thread which bottlenecks the entire game and ultimately determines the final performance until you hit a bottleneck elsewhere like GPU.
Just be fore anyone says it, ashes of the singularity is not a game anyone plays or cares about.
A 5600x is a better buy than a 3700x and is significantly faster than what is in the consoles. Consoles are not suddenly going to outpace a 5600x because they have two more cores when they have less overall CPU performance to utilise.
There is no concept of ‘you must get 8 cores’, it’s complete nonsense. You need to balance overall power with single threaded performance within the overall package in gaming workloads. That’s because the vast majority of games have a main thread which bottlenecks the entire game and ultimately determines the final performance until you hit a bottleneck elsewhere like GPU.
Just be fore anyone says it, ashes of the singularity is not a game anyone plays or cares about.
A 5600x is a better buy than a 3700x and is significantly faster than what is in the consoles. Consoles are not suddenly going to outpace a 5600x because they have two more cores when they have less overall CPU performance to utilise.
Associate
A 5600X is going to be viable for many years, you really won't need to replace it in a year or two unless you have money to burn.
It seems that way for the next 12 months.
However I wouldn't make that assumption for the next 18 months to 2 years (or longer). At this time devs will be learning to push next-gen consoles and XBO/PS4 will no longer be a targeted platform for new games.
If you like to hang on to your build for 5-6 years then I would be wary of 6 core.
For just the next 12 months only, and then upgrading again next year, 6 core might be OK for purely gaming context.
Soldato
Many here are compulsive upgraders so will upgrade within two years,so they don't want things to last 5 years. You see the same with VRAM also.
I still remember all the people even two to three years ago saying a Core i5 7600K was a better buy than a Ryzen 5 due to faster cores. Now nobody thinks that. The same lot who said a Core i5 10600K is a better buy than a Ryzen 7 3700X. Or the people who said a Core i7 6700K was a better buy than a Core i7 5820K.
Even going back further experts here were saying an E8400 was a better buy than a Q6600 as the latter had slower cores,yet again it didn't work out longtime. Yet all the defenders ran away by that point!
You should watch the videos from Techdeals and Tech YES City WRT to this.
Basically they said people with older 6 core CPUs,will essentially get a longer lifespan,than someone jumping on now as they already have use of them for a few years. Because in the end,as seen with the Core i5 7600K,no amount of single threaded performance will make up for a lack of threads. So at point it won't matter what 6C CPU you have,it will become threaded limited.
The same as what happened to dual cores,and the same as what happened to quad cores.
People don't understand you have essentially two types of engines - ones made for an earlier era,which only use 3~4 threads,and those which are truly multi-threaded and show scaling to easily double the core count or more.
Remember,when Zen4 comes out and Intel moves to newer nodes,we will see 6C CPUs pushed right down the stack within the next two years.
Just as a 4C/8T CPU is budget £100 level,so will 6C/12T within the immediate future.
Last edited:
Faster cores means very little if a game is optimised to use more than 6 cores, a 7700K has faster cores than a 3600 but still loses in games that can make use of the extra cores.
So just to be clear, you are saying that a game that CAN use 8 threads WILL be faster on a 3700x than a 5600x... is that right? Also then, a 2700x would be faster? You simply simply adopting the now disproven logic that "more cores = faster", even of those cores are slower?
- Status