If this means AMD is gonna drop the prices of 7900X and 7950X then that'd be awesome. I might be able to grab a discounted non v-cache soon afer all.
Yes, from a game's perspective, this is absolutely correct. The 5600 provides enough oomph even for the most demanding games. This might change in a few years, though, but even then most games will offer settings making them playable with older hardware.From the 1600 to the 5600 there's a telling difference, it's over double the FPS and the 5600 is just $100 at eBay right now. But from the 5600 to the 7600 or even 7900X3D? I bet you guys that gaming wise, at ultra settings, we won't have 20% plus fps even at 1080p. Set the res at 4K and there won't even be a difference..There's surely a difference from paying $100 vs $600, but not with 20% plus fps at 1080p. Get a 5600+6800 for around $550, that's the real deal right now, or if you are going cheap the 5600+2060 is around $300
I read somewhere that 13th Gen non-K SKU will be based on Alder Lake, not Raptor Lake. So maybe they wont be much better than 12th Gen.But 14th gen means new motherboards. So they will be in the same boat that AMD is in now.
Not to mention we haven't yet seen 13th gen non-K skus. If cost is your primary focus, then none of these products are for you.
Ryzen 7600 or i5-13400 when they come out are the mid-range CPUs.
The overhead for scaling up in resolution usually falls on the GPU not the CPU.All the arguments about the X3D cpus being too much even for 4k gaming are fine, but only if you consider 60 fps as the target. >120 Hz monitors are common now, and if anyone wants to play at high refresh rates they must have a very fast CPU.
Also, if they exist, future games will demand more CPU, as it has always been.
These are not value propositions, they are about maximum performance. It's not very valid to compare them to i5's, because their competitors are top-tier CPUs.
Indeed. I do still run a dell vostro computer from 2011 with a Sandy bridge Core i7 CPU. Admittedly, over the years, I have put 2 new ssds, a new GPU and a new power interface in it, and this thing still purrs like a happy cat and is perfectly usable for 90% of tasks including everything office, even for demanding photo-editing, for all things multimedia, for occasional light video editing etc.I think I finally see a worthy CPU upgrade.
My 4790 has served me very well for almost 9 years now, but is ready to retire (although it still runs every game I throw at it!)
Nailed it.If the 5800X3D can keep up with 13th gen most of the time, a 7800X3D will do just fine as the top gaming CPU. 12 and 16 cores, yeah, probably not the best bargain. But there will still be people who want to game fast and then go do productive work, so there is a market.
Still using a old 2698v3 @ 3.7ghz, trying to build. 8275cl to use optane dimms 😄 try processo lasso, set the right amount cores to do the workNailed it.
I like to game, and would love to get the benefit of 3D cache, but i also need core count and crap loads of RAM for network emulation.
I can go for 5800x3d for gaming and a used 96core xeon server to fulfill my needs, but this comes with a lifetime license of divorce from my wife. It's incredibly stupid how difficult it is to have a machine that can do both gaming and professional work.
Current/Last gen Intel? I cant make use of E-Cores.
HEDT? Practically dead or workstation oriented.
I do however wish AMD can squeeze a few more PCIe lanes, and Quad Channel memory. Having 128GB in AM5 is...horrible. I'm not holding my breath on it though.
While you are absolutely right that it makes exactly zero sense, unfortunately, there are enough stupid people out there who would actually buy it... and who genuinely believe thwy need more than 8 cores for gaming already.Granted I think AMD is stupid enough to launch a 3D cache consumer chip with more than 8 cores, I don't think they're stupid enough to ACTUALLY put a 3D cache consumer chip with more than 8 cores on shelves. Games struggle to use 8 cores, more cores means more heat which means lower clock speeds realized, and more than 8 cores means a higher chance of more than one CCX involved, not to mention the insane cost.
Do you think a large part of PC buyers/users use their PC for gaming exclusively?While you are absolutely right that it makes exactly zero sense, unfortunately, there are enough stupid people out there who would actually buy it... and who genuinely believe thwy need more than 8 cores for gaming already.
Is there actually a 5950X3D?AMD is in a bind. Raptor Lake mopped the floor with Zen 4, can take advantage of lower priced motherboards and significantly cheaper DDR4, and was reasonably priced. New 3D skus will need to be priced knowing these factors. If they come out with a premium price like 5950X3D they will continue to lose market share.
yea right . I bet your wife can get her own 7950X3D after she divorces you for this comment and take your moneyRubbing my hands greedily. The 7950X3D would be a great replacement for my 7950X in games...give my 'old' cpu to my wife for a rig and 3d v-cache for me. Happy happy joy joy!
The problem with AMD is not the CPU price but the motherboard price.I was mostly commenting on someone saying they are too expensive and that 14th gen will be out soon. There are cheaper CPUs which is kind of my point. Bottlenecking was not part of the answer.
If you don't want the expensive CPU, then you aren't looking at the expensive GPUs either, so throwing in a 4090 doesn't make a lot of sense.
Yes, and also lack of DDR4 support. I was planning on replacing a 4670 with Zen 4 (I have a 1080, so it has held up pretty well). However the cold math eliminated AMD from consideration. AMD has a $75 motherboard premium for equivalent features and a $100+ premium for having to buy pretty spendy DDR5 to provide equivalent speed to DDR4 3600 CL16. For less total money than any Zen 4 setup I could get a 13600k that will pound it.The problem with AMD is not the CPU price but the motherboard price.
Maybe not, but they also don't do workloads on them that actually needs anything like a 7950X or a 13900K. The vast majority of PCs are office PCs that will rarely, if ever, perform anything worse than handling some Excel sheets, a web browser with a couple open tabs, or maybe some database requests. At my workplace, a mobile 10th gen i7 is the height of CPU power dor most people. In fact, I'm sitting at one of exactly 4 actual workstations at my job, in a building with over 100 people in it, and guess what, they don't run on those CPUs either, they run on Xeons; aka workstation CPUs. The rest uses laptops with CPUs appropriate for office use. Meanwhile, my dad uses his computer for web browsing exclusively and runs an R5 3500U. That is what the majority of all computers looks like.Do you think a large part of PC buyers/users use their PC for gaming exclusively?
Yes, we do. Although the 13900k would not be logical if core count is the use case. I cant list you many usecases where one would do professional work and game. Let me know if you need that list.Maybe not, but they also don't do workloads on them that actually needs anything like a 7950X or a 13900K.
I am both. I am 40y, i do professional work, and i game. How hard is that to understand?Now, of course there are some people that can make use of a CPU like a 7950X or a 13900K, but they are professional users and professional users only.
It can substitute one, very well. It can be for both.This class of CPUs is not, never was and never will be, a gaming CPU.