News AMD Makes Zen 3 Official: Ryzen 5000 Promises 19% Better IPC, 1080p Gaming Dominance

[Conahl]

i find it funny. people are complain/questioning amd raising its prices, but i dont recall any one doing the same when intel kept raising theirs. funny how that works.
i guess most, if not the majority still see amd as the budget cpu maker, but it looks as if the tables have turned for the time being, and intel is the budget cpu maker.

 

[InvalidError]

i find it funny. people are complain/questioning amd raising its prices, but i dont recall any one doing the same when intel kept raising theirs. funny how that works.

If nobody complains, prices will keep going up. I paid under $170 for my i5-3470 back when that launched and I am very much pissed off that there is nothing I consider worth upgrading to right now unless I pay nearly twice as much. I criticized Intel when it raised its prices a few years ago and I am criticizing AMD now since it is the latest of the two to tell customers to bend over harder.

Thankfully, I am still mostly happy with my old i5, so I can still say "screw the both of 'em" for now. Neither is getting any more of my money until prices come down or I absolutely need an upgrade.

 

[Conahl]

InvalidError, thats just it though, compared to when intel kept raising their prices, to amd doing the same thing now, the complaints/questioning, wasnt as vocal or pronounced.

i have been hearing alot more about amd and their prices now, then i ever did pre Zen, and intel and its prices.

 

[InvalidError]

i have been hearing alot more about amd and their prices now, then i ever did pre Zen, and intel and its prices.

Intel didn't raise prices on its mid-range CPUs by $50 in one shot, it raised them over the course of multiple years and those increases were accompanied by some combination of extra cores and SMT such that newer chips delivered clearly superior performance per dollar across most price points - you get ~50% more bang per buck out of the $256 i5-9600k as you do from a $216 i5-7600k, well worth the extra $40 or 19%, same goes for stepping up to the 10600k where SMT gives you another 30-40% performance for only $10 or 4% more. Not the case with the 5600X where the 20% price increase is on par if not greater than the performance bumps depending on how much of a speedup your games and applications get from monolithic CCX.

Price bumps are much easier to digest when you get more than double the percentile performance increase along the way.

Still a long way from CPUs getting cheaper and faster as they used to until ~10 years ago.

 

[Conahl]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmbvUK93npo

skip to 7:09
going by this, zen 3's pricing seems resonable, all things considered.

 

[spongiemaster]

Only while supplies last. More likely than not, AMD will phase out Zen 2 in a hurry to re-allocate those 7nm wafers to all of the new 7nm stuff it is shipping now or soon. I wouldn't be surprised if Zen 2 parts became practically extinct as far as retail availability is concerned by February next year.

I doubt AMD is going to go with a product stack that has nothing below $300 besides APU's. If 3000 stock runs out in February, AMD will have to have cheaper 5000 series CPU's ready to go. I'm sure Intel will have sub $300 Rocket Lake CPU's, which AMD will need to counter, so just one more reason cheaper 5000's need to be ready in Q1.

 

[spongiemaster]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmbvUK93npo

skip to 7:09
going by this, zen 3's pricing seems resonable, all things considered.

You'll learn more and get more accurate information from watching TMZ than you will from this guy.

 

[InvalidError]

I doubt AMD is going to go with a product stack that has nothing below $300 besides APU's.

I'm not saying there won't be cheaper CPUs later. Don't expect them to be cheap though. AMD wouldn't have raised the 5600X by $50 if it didn't intend to raise the lower-end of its product stack by $25-50 too. Get ready for the $170 4c8t Ryzen 5300X.

 

[spongiemaster]

I'm not saying there won't be cheaper CPUs later. Don't expect them to be cheap though. AMD wouldn't have raised the 5600X by $50 if it didn't intend to raise the lower-end of its product stack by $25-50 too. Get ready for the $170 4c8t Ryzen 5300X.

Is the sub $200 market really that big a deal to begin with? For the OEM market, sure, I bet Dell sells a bunch factoring in discounts they get from Intel, but in retail? On Amazon, you have to go #5 in the rankings to find a CPU below $220. Only 3 of top 10 are below $220.

 

[Conahl]

You'll learn more and get more accurate information from watching TMZ than you will from this guy.

ive seen a few other of his vids, as well as others, and they have been pretty accurate so far on zen 3, ampre, and seems to be ok with what we know of rdna2 as well.

 

[InvalidError]

Is the sub $200 market really that big a deal to begin with? For the OEM market, sure, I bet Dell sells a bunch factoring in discounts they get from Intel, but in retail? On Amazon, you have to go #5 in the rankings to find a CPU below $220. Only 3 of top 10 are below $220.

The 3600 has been listed at places like Walmart for as low as $160 during summer and has bounced back to $200 since. Amazon is currently an outlier on pricing at $220, also $10 above others for the 3600X which is itself $10 more than the last time I looked a few days ago. Looks like the Zen 2 supply is already drying up and causing prices to rise.

On the Steam survey, hex-core CPUs outnumber octos by almost 3:1, so I'd say the $200ish price point hex-cores were selling at for most of the last three years is very much alive.

I bought my i5-3470 new for ~$170 back in 2012. That we still have to pay more than that to get mere hex-cores nearly a decade later is testament to a monumental market failure.

 

[Flayed]

I paid £155 for my 3600 back in March. It is a shame the price of it has now inflated.

 

[ajr1775]

It is a somewhat arbitrary metric although I would say there are two valid reasons to look at 1080p gaming (note they used 'High' settings - which in modern games really means middle options to reduce gpu load):

1: To give a valid CPU comparison you need to avoid the GPU being maxed out, running a 2080ti at 1080p high certainly shifts the focus onto the CPU. If they tested at 1440p Ultra, a more realistic scenario for these machines then you wouldn't see much difference (HW Unboxed are using a 3950X test rig, partly in preparation for the 5000 series and tested it vs their 10900K rig and at 1440p ultra there is only a 5% difference - which would inviably also be the case with the 5000 series as well).

2: High refresh rate 1080p is a thing - the fastest panels are all 1080p (240hz and even 300hz options are available at 1080p, but not typically above that). That is probably the one area where the kind of cpu performance differences AMD are talking about would actually matter. If you are gaming at 1440p or 4k ultra then even a Ryzen 7 2700X will be enough to feed most GPU's to the point it makes little difference.

Good points. I await the day I can run my Odyssey G9 at 240hz with all my settings tuned up to the max.