News Watch AMD's Zen 3 Ryzen 5000 'Where Gaming Begins' Livestream Here October 8 at 9am PT

[drivinfast247]

I do not agree of course. A CPU is a CPU. You can do anything with it (well, according to Mr Turing).
In my field nobody is using a Threadripper category of CPU. There is something called a "budget" in scientific research and analysis

So what is it the 5900x or 5950x can't do for you in your field?

 

[InvalidError]

So what is it the 5900x or 5950x can't do for you in your field?

He was complaining about the lack of scientific benchmarks in an event titled "where gaming starts", not about Zen 3 not being able to handle whatever it is he does.

 

[thepersonwithaface45]

You're comparing a 16-core processor against a 10-core processor. For anything but heavily-multithreaded applications that fully utilize all cores, it makes more sense to compare it with the 8 and 12-core parts.

I compared the prices of the two because thats what AMD compared, 10900k and the 5950x.

 

[Jim90]

Ouch, $300 for the 5600X, ~40% higher price for 20% better overall performance.

...but!!! you're comparing to non-X version and that's not a fair comparison.

Irrespective:-
Always...always...ALWAYS remember $ntels pricing before Zen2 ripped them a new a-hole - AMD forced them to severely slash pricing across all sectors. AMD's Zen3 pricing IS STILL WAAAAY below what Intel was then and would have been charging now !!!

 

[punkncat]

So, color me a bit confused.

I was of the impression that the "smaller process" was going to lead to less TDP at higher clocks. It seems than, rather than focus on bringing up clock speed they focused on core count at the expense of energy and heat? According to comments the pricing may be out of line as well?

This is fairly disappointing after all the building up that's been going on. Door just opened for Intel to have a comeback instead of the nail being driven to shut it.

I would say my chief complaint will come a bit later when 'suddenly' anything under an eight core is nothing but browser trash.

 

[InvalidError]

...but!!! you're comparing to non-X version and that's not a fair comparison.

Nope, the Ryzen 3600X is available for $210 on Amazon.com, so $300 for the 5600X is 45% more than the 3600X' current street price. It is the current street price that people will have to contemplate when making their choice between a 3600X or 5600X for a new build or upgrade from an older CPU on an eligible platform.

 

[InvalidError]

I was of the impression that the "smaller process" was going to lead to less TDP at higher clocks.

Zen 3 uses the same 7nm process as Zen 2, no change there, so no reason to expect substantial gains in clocks or improvements in TDP. AMD reduced base clocks to bump boost clocks a little within the same TDPs, that's about it clocks-wise.

 

[cryoburner]

So, color me a bit confused.

I was of the impression that the "smaller process" was going to lead to less TDP at higher clocks. It seems than, rather than focus on bringing up clock speed they focused on core count at the expense of energy and heat? According to comments the pricing may be out of line as well?

This is fairly disappointing after all the building up that's been going on. Door just opened for Intel to have a comeback instead of the nail being driven to shut it.

I would say my chief complaint will come a bit later when 'suddenly' anything under an eight core is nothing but browser trash.

I take it you didn't actually watch the presentation, but aside from the already-mentioned fact that Zen3 is still on 7nm (which has been known for a long time) and that core counts were not increased at all, AMD improved performance and efficiency across the board with a ~19% IPC uplift, and should now even outperform Intel's top offerings at most lightly-threaded tasks like gaming, if the presentation's data is to be believed. They suggested a 26% gaming performance uplift on average across the games they tested compared to Zen 2, at least at 1080p using a 2080 Ti. And that performance increase apparently doesn't come at the expense of higher power draw, as they claimed around a 20% efficiency uplift over Zen 2, which should keep the power draw roughly similar to their current models, and supposedly around 2.8x more efficient than a 10900K.

So, from a hardware standpoint, it looks like they may be outperforming Intel on every front for the time being. About the only real downside of the presentation was that they decided to charge more for that performance, with a $50 price increase over the previous top Zen2 parts at each core count. And they didn't announce lower-priced non-X parts at the presentation, although that doesn't necessarily mean they won't be there at or near launch, as they similarly didn't put the 3600 in last-year's Zen 2 announcement.

 

[InvalidError]

About the only real downside of the presentation was that they decided to charge more for that performance, with a $50 price increase over the previous top Zen2 parts at each core count.

Which puts it in a similar ballpark to Nvidia's RTX2000 series: price increases that are on par or exceed performance gains (at least at the lower end, especially if you include the currently missing and possibly never-to-exist non-X and 5700 models) so upgrading makes no sense from a performance-per-dollar point of view - at least not with the launch lineup at launch prices.

 

[cryoburner]

Which puts it in a similar ballpark to Nvidia's RTX2000 series: price increases that are on par or exceed performance gains (at least at the lower end, especially if you include the currently missing and possibly never-to-exist non-X and 5700 models) so upgrading makes no sense from a performance-per-dollar point of view - at least not with the launch lineup at launch prices.

To some extent, though they are not entirely comparable. For one, the GTX 10-series was a longer-than-normal generation, yet the performance gains after nearly 2.5 years were much smaller than people were expecting. Zen 3, on the other hand, is coming less than 1.5 years after Zen 2, as has been normal for Ryzen, with relatively large performance gains compared to what people have come to expect for CPUs.

Another thing to consider, is that for heavily-multithreaded tasks, the total amount of available performance tends to be more relevant than the precise number of threads available. So while a 5600X is at a core deficit compared to the similarly-priced 3700X, it's per-core performance improvements are likely to negate a good chunk of that difference for such tasks actually utilizing all available threads. The 3700X might still be a better choice for one who cares primarily about performance in certain heavily-multithreaded workloads, but for those care more about light to moderately-threaded performance as is seen in the vast majority of applications and games, the relatively large IPC uplift is likely to be more relevant. With graphics cards, lightly-threaded performance doesn't come into play, whereas its the norm for CPUs.

And again, we don't know for certain if other, lower-priced parts are coming, but I would expect it. If not at launch, maybe a month or two later. And if they happen to be anything like their 3000-series counterparts, then they might come close in performance while being priced at least $50 less. AMD probably didn't want to focus on those "value" parts for their presentation to help them push the higher-margin models, but they seem almost certain considering the large price gaps in their lineup.

 

[InvalidError]

Another thing to consider, is that for heavily-multithreaded tasks, the total amount of available performance tends to be more relevant than the precise number of threads available. So while a 5600X is at a core deficit compared to the similarly-priced 3700X, it's per-core performance improvements are likely to negate a good chunk of that difference for such tasks actually utilizing all available threads.

I could turn that point around and say that if the more expensive 5600X is only marginally better than the 3700X, then it clearly does not deserve a price hike that takes it anywhere near the 3700X's MSRP.

I'm going to say the same thing I have been saying for nearly 10 years: if performance per dollar does not go up by a meaningful amount between generations, then the market has failed. The 5600X's MSRP is 25% higher than the 3600X's launch MSRP and 45% higher than current street price for 20% more performance, which is a net loss in performance per dollar.

With AMD positioning the 5600X where the 5700X should have landed to keep the gap between the 5600X and 5800X seemingly reasonable, it seems AMD has gone full-greedy mode.

 

[shady28]

Have to say, from a pure performance perspective AMD did well. If their benchmarks are truly representative, Intel has nothing to compete with the 5900X and 5950X.

However at these prices, the comparisons for lower SKUs are not clear at all. AMD has us looking at 5900X vs 10900K, but for the other skus the price comparison looks more like this :

5600X vs 10700 non-k
5800X vs 10900 non-k vs 10850K

In those comparisons Intel now has more cores / threads than AMD.

This may actually turn Intel into the value proposition, with the 10400, 10600, 10600K coming in below the cost of any Zen 3 CPU. AMD really needs more breadth in their lineup.

 

[InvalidError]

However at these prices, the comparisons for lower SKUs are not clear at all.

That's what happens when you have an oligopoly: a regression instead of progression in consumer value per dollar because all vendors are making themselves comfortable with jacked up prices.

 

[TerryLaze]

That's what happens when you have an oligopoly: a regression instead of progression in consumer value per dollar because all vendors are making themselves comfortable with jacked up prices.

AMD was barely turning a profit with ZEN, they had to increase prices and drop value (missing cooler) it's insane that they didn't do that much sooner.
Also the question is if these prices even stick since AMD drops prices for their CPUs pretty quickly.

 

[Flayed]

While I don't really need a new CPU I'm thinking about a 5900X to replace my 3600 when AMD release their Zen 4 Ryzen. Hopefully, when they launch new chips the Zen 3 ones will see a price reduction.

 

[InvalidError]

AMD was barely turning a profit with ZEN, they had to increase prices and drop value (missing cooler) it's insane that they didn't do that much sooner. Also the question is if these prices even stick since AMD drops prices for their CPUs pretty quickly.

To me, the really insane part is that mid-range CPUs are now launching at $300, up from $170 back in 2010, much like how enthusiast media call $500 a mid-range price point for GPUs, up from $250. The Zen 3 chiplets are about the same size as Zen 2 and AMD is reusing the same IOD, so there is next to no change in manufacturing costs to help justify the prices.

Hopefully the ridiculous launch prices are only because AMD is on a tight wafer supply and will come down soon. However, I have a feeling AMD will maintain its hikes for a while longer than usual this time around: unlike Zen 1/1+ where AMD had to continue making its old chips just to burn through its wafer commitments on older processes while Zen 3 uses the same 7nm as Zen 2, so AMD will be phasing out Zen 2 pretty quick to free up wafers for Zen 3 starts or catch up on back-orders of any of the other stuff it also makes on 7nm. People won't get to choose between 3000 and 5000 for long, so no internal competition to worry about either.

 

[Flayed]

I suppose they need the extra cash to fund their purchase of Xilinix

 

[shady28]

To me, the really insane part is that mid-range CPUs are now launching at $300, up from $170 back in 2010, much like how enthusiast media call $500 a mid-range price point for GPUs, up from $250. The Zen 3 chiplets are about the same size as Zen 2 and AMD is reusing the same IOD, so there is next to no change in manufacturing costs to help justify the prices.
...

I think you hit it on the head with the Oligopoly comment, or perhaps duopoly is more accurate.

Consider the 10850K, initially one of the most puzzling releases this year as it is an ever so slightly de-tuned 10900K for about 30% less than a 10900k. Now that we see this release, I would bet that Intel knew exactly what price AMD would ask for the 5800X, which will now be in direct competition with that 10850K at $450. With the 10700 already at ~$300 vs the 5600X at $300, basically the scene was set and the lines drawn well before this release. Oddly, Intel now becomes the source of more cores and threads for your dollar.

A lot of AMD buyers are value buyers though, this is AMDs fan base and with good reason. Ultimately those fans may not be too happy with this turn of events.

 

[cryoburner]

I could turn that point around and say that if the more expensive 5600X is only marginally better than the 3700X, then it clearly does not deserve a price hike that takes it anywhere near the 3700X's MSRP.

It might be argued that being around 25% faster in CPU-limited games and around 20% faster in most applications in general is more than just a "marginal" improvement though. Sure, performance of the 3700X will still likely be a little better in heavily-multithreaded applications due to that processor having 33% more cores, but the use of such applications tends to be relatively uncommon for most.

With AMD positioning the 5600X where the 5700X should have landed to keep the gap between the 5600X and 5800X seemingly reasonable, it seems AMD has gone full-greedy mode.

I suppose another way to look at it is that they priced these processors according to what they felt made sense in light of what demand for them is expected to be like. Sure, they could have launched them at lower price points, but if demand is substantially higher than the 3000 series, they might have ended up not being able to keep up with supply. Nvidia's 30-series cards are a good example of that, where they gave them lower than expected MSRPs relative to the performance they provide, so as a result they are extremely difficult to get at anywhere near those prices, and likely will be for months. AMD doesn't have the production capacity of Intel, so if they tried positioning the "fastest gaming CPUs on the market" at similar price points as their previous generation models that didn't hold that title, they might have had a similar situation on their hands. I agree that the launch pricing is a bit much, but that will likely improve, in time.

In any case, there are now rumors that a Ryzen 5600 will be coming at around a $220 price point, though it sounds like it might not be launching until early 2021. If its clock rates end up close to the 5600X (within a few percent or so), then that should greatly improve the value proposition of the Ryzen 5000 series. And I suspect we will see a better value 8-core model launching around the same time as well, and if it sees a similar price difference per-core compared to the 5800X, that might place it around the 3700X's $330 launch price. Or maybe closer to $350 if they want to keep a bit more room between it and the 5600X, though they are probably going to need to be a bit more competitive with pricing against Rocket Lake.