***OFFICIAL*** Ryzen 5000 / Zen 3 Launch Thread REVIEWS BEGIN PAGE 39

[DrMrLordX]

People forget that Ryzen chips come maxed out to perform.

BS, the 5600x in particular can hit at least 4.6 GHz on air, though from the GN numbers it may not help all that much.

 

[inf64]

AMD did a great job with boost algos on the Zen3 parts, OCing makes sense only for productivity (heavy MT) workloads. For gaming and light workloads best route is to tweak the memory and IF clocks - DDR4- 3600 to 3800 and CL16 (or lower CL if possible) looks to be the sweet spot for best performance. Zen3 is the chip to get for any workload, that is a FACT of life, like death and taxes. Anyone arguing different is living in a parallel universe.

 

[Zucker2k]

So, here are two separate screen grabs from GN. You don't need to count the memory overclock tests for the 10600k. Sometimes, people are hostile for no reason. I'm not saying, and have never said, and will never say the 5600x is a bad cpu. I am only countering those who will say stuff like this:

That's it. No lowres testing, no need for 10600K, 10700K, 10900K, 5800X, 5900X, 5950X.

It is amazes me that people get away with bs like this, but it is what is.

Ring/Cache overclocking, as well as core overclocking, are all possible on Intel. If I'm running the 10600k, all these are options for me to wring out some performance before I start considering any type of upgrade. That is all I'm saying.

 

[lobz]

People forget that Ryzen chips come maxed out to perform. Intel chips have a lot more performance to offer through overclocking.

I think you missed a key event that's happened recently.
AMD has launched the Ryzen 5000 series based on the Zen 3 microarchitecture.

 

[Zucker2k]

I think you missed a key event that's happened recently.
AMD has launched the Ryzen 5000 series based on the Zen 3 microarchitecture.

I haven't missed it at all. I think they're amazing, actually.

 

[tamz_msc]

If we are going to discuss the merits and demerits of overclocking it is better to go balls to the wall and see what happens in that case. Per CCX OC 4.875/4.725 GHz on the 5900X with 3733CL14 and 5.2GHz 10900K with 4400CL17.

Shadow of the Tomb Raider:


The Division 2:


Far Cry New Dawn:


StarCraft II:


DOTA2:


Call of Duty Warzone:


Watch Dogs Legion:


Wolfenstein Youngblood:


Troy: A Total War Saga:


Based on these, it is safe to conclude that when pushed to their maximum, the 5900X and 10900K are dead even - the 5900X slightly ahead in average and the 10900K slightly ahead in 1% lows.

I hope this puts to rest this argument on overclocks.

 

[Whitestar127]

DDR4 memory scaling from HUB.
TLDW; basically he recommends 2x8GB 3600MHz CL16 for maximum bang for buck and no hassle. It's really only in Hitman 2 where you would see any difference (at 1440p) when manually tuning or using 2x16GB dual ranked RAM.

Btw, in the 5600X review he said something I found interesting, regarding 6-core vs 8-core for games:

"Speaking of gaming performance, you’re no doubt going to hear nonsense such as "the Ryzen 5 5600X is a poor choice for gamers as it only has 6 cores," and they’ll probably try and prove that by pointing to the new consoles which feature eight Zen 2 cores.
[...]
Some people also like to confuse how games and cores work. Making statements like games will require 8 cores or something to that effect. Games don’t require a certain number of cores, they never have and they never will. Games require a certain level of CPU performance, it’s really that simple.
[...]
But what about the 6-core, 12-thread Ryzen 5 5600X, how will it age? Our guess is extremely well as the massive IPC increase offered by the new Zen 3 architecture means the 5600X is comparable to previous generation 8-core processors such as the 3700X and 10700K, or the Zen 2 parts used in the next gen consoles, and no one expects those processors to become obsolete any time soon."

 

[Whitestar127]

delete

 

[JoeRambo]

5600X is incredibly poor choice for budget gamers due to 50% price hike vs 3600. AMD is selling said gamer 6C12T in 2021 for $300 when Intel was selling 6C12T 8700 for same money in 2017. Productivity blabla, IPC blabla aside, for your average joe gamer it is horrible deal.
The proper price for 6C in 2021 is 150 for Intel 6C and 200 for AMD 6C. Intel is almost there with 10400-600, except they need unlocked parts and need to stop shooting themselves in the foot with 2666 mem lock on not Z490.

Anyone who believes (or dares to defend) that today $300 is the right price for 6C is simply a fan boy (or more likely AMD shareholder caring about ASP and margin).

6C is plenty for budget gaming, AMD just needs to come out with 5600 and Intel needs 10400K without memory lock.

 

[lobz]

You d

Higher detail will only make the 10600k look better. Plus, all the systems were tested at this resolution. Again, you don't have to invest in expensive memory, but then again, you could do so since expensive memory is gaming memory.
One of the most popular lines around here, not long ago, was no one needs more than an overclocked 10600k for gaming. Well, there's your overclocked 10600k. Why's that a problem now? Overclocking is free performance that people in this category exploit for more performance.
I want to see an overclocked 10600k in the ultra lowres tests too, if you can convince Anandtech to do it, cos I'm sure it'll most likely surpass the 5600x in that test.

Man, do you even think about what your posts mean before you click 'POST REPLY'? It's youtlr 5th post in a row where you're contradicting at least one of your own previous posts from the past 24 h.

 

[Thunder 57]

So, here are two separate screen grabs from GN. You don't need to count the memory overclock tests for the 10600k. Sometimes, people are hostile for no reason. I'm not saying, and have never said, and will never say the 5600x is a bad cpu. I am only countering those who will say stuff like this:

It is amazes me that people get away with bs like this, but it is what is.

Ring/Cache overclocking, as well as core overclocking, are all possible on Intel. If I'm running the 10600k, all these are options for me to wring out some performance before I start considering any type of upgrade. That is all I'm saying.

And I can't believe what bs you get away with. So I can buy a hotter Intel CPU with an aftermarket cooler (doesn't come with one), a Z series board, spend plenty of time tweaking it, and maybe break even with a 5600X at stock (at gaming, losing everywhere else)? What a joke. Face facts, Intel lost this round.

5600X is incredibly poor choice for budget gamers due to 50% price hike vs 3600. AMD is selling said gamer 6C12T in 2021 for $300 when Intel was selling 6C12T 8700 for same money in 2017. Productivity blabla, IPC blabla aside, for your average joe gamer it is horrible deal.
The proper price for 6C in 2021 is 150 for Intel 6C and 200 for AMD 6C. Intel is almost there with 10400-600, except they need unlocked parts and need to stop shooting themselves in the foot with 2666 mem lock on not Z490.

Anyone who believes (or dares to defend) that today $300 is the right price for 6C is simply a fan boy (or more likely AMD shareholder caring about ASP and margin).

6C is plenty for budget gaming, AMD just needs to come out with 5600 and Intel needs 10400K without memory lock.

I'd like cheap/free stuff too. When you have to preempt the logical counterarguments and try to dismiss them, you should know you already lost the argument. You don't determine prices, the market does. AMD could lower prices but the demand will still keep them high. I'd rather that money go to AMD than Amazon.

Nice things cost money. There aren't many Zen 3's around yet. You've always had to pay a premium for being an early adopter. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Or wait until the 5600 comes out in a few months at the rumored $230 price point. I don't care what you do as long as you stop whining. And don't use the word fanboy.

 

[Ajay]

The way you detect a mispredict is by actually computing the correct value, which basically happens on the last pipeline stage. (Or second-to-last, but no-one actually counts writeback.) To get there faster, you need to have fewer stages.

Of course you are correct. I don't know what I was thinking about when I posted this. Glad to see you back posting on ATF CPU.

 

[Makaveli]

5600X is incredibly poor choice for budget gamers due to 50% price hike vs 3600. AMD is selling said gamer 6C12T in 2021 for $300 when Intel was selling 6C12T 8700 for same money in 2017. Productivity blabla, IPC blabla aside, for your average joe gamer it is horrible deal.
The proper price for 6C in 2021 is 150 for Intel 6C and 200 for AMD 6C. Intel is almost there with 10400-600, except they need unlocked parts and need to stop shooting themselves in the foot with 2666 mem lock on not Z490.

Anyone who believes (or dares to defend) that today $300 is the right price for 6C is simply a fan boy (or more likely AMD shareholder caring about ASP and margin).

6C is plenty for budget gaming, AMD just needs to come out with 5600 and Intel needs 10400K without memory lock.

This has been said a million times on here.

The 5600X is not a replacement for the 3600 it is for the 3600X which is only a $50 price increase. You guys keep changing the argument to suit your price increase rants when its wrong.

 

[JoeRambo]

The 5600X is not a replacement for the 3600 it is for the 3600X which is only a $50 price increase. You guys keep changing the argument to suit your price increase rants when its wrong.

50$ is increase for 12, 16C CPUs. That X or no X product segmentation and marketing is irrelevant to budget gamer. For him 6C got 50% increase in dollars or euros. Call it early adopter, fan boy tax, but please stop justifying it.
I have been around here for years ( since Ultra66 modification into RAID controller days lol ) and same arguments were made for Athlon 64 / X2. Did not make entry level 4200 chip more accessible for anyone

 

[moinmoin]

5600X is incredibly poor choice for budget gamers due to 50% price hike vs 3600.

Well of course it's a poor choice for budget gamers since 5600X is the top end 6c processor this gen, whereas 3600 is the budget 6c processor of last gen. The only reason people like you talk about 5600X even being in consideration for anything budget is that among all four premium Ryzen 5000 launch processors 5600X is still the cheapest. But it never has been a budget part to begin with. So you could have saved yourself from spending the time ranting away in the rest of your post.

 

[Kocicak]

Remember, that the price increases are higher, 3800x and 3900x came with a nice usable (for stock operation) cooler, the new gen equivalents come with nothing.

 

[amrnuke]

5600X is incredibly poor choice for budget gamers due to 50% price hike vs 3600. AMD is selling said gamer 6C12T in 2021 for $300 when Intel was selling 6C12T 8700 for same money in 2017. Productivity blabla, IPC blabla aside, for your average joe gamer it is horrible deal.
The proper price for 6C in 2021 is 150 for Intel 6C and 200 for AMD 6C. Intel is almost there with 10400-600, except they need unlocked parts and need to stop shooting themselves in the foot with 2666 mem lock on not Z490.

Anyone who believes (or dares to defend) that today $300 is the right price for 6C is simply a fan boy (or more likely AMD shareholder caring about ASP and margin).

6C is plenty for budget gaming, AMD just needs to come out with 5600 and Intel needs 10400K without memory lock.

1) The 5600X represents a $50 price increase over the chip it replaces, the 3600X/XT. There is no 3600 replacement yet. If someone's in the market for a cheap 6 core from AMD, they have a lot of great choices - including the 3600, 1600AF, 2600, or they could buy the top tier performance 6 core part and pay $299, or wait, like we all did for Zen 3 to begin with, for a likely 5600.
2) The 5600X costs ~$35 more than the 10600K, and total system cost if you want the 10600K to compete with the 5600X means the Intel system will cost more just to break even.
3) Are you suggesting AMD should offer a chip that's FASTER than the 10600K for LESS money than the 10600K?
4) The 8700K was $380 at launch.
5) Your average gamer at 1080p will be fine with a 9400F. We are on a tech forum, not at Walmart, so we are talking already about above-average use cases.
6) Seeing as both the 5600X and 10600K have limited availability due to demand, it appears you are wrong, and the proper price for a 6-core chip right now is at least $265 for a 10600K and at least $299 for a 5600X.
7) If Intel is seeing issues with the 10400 it's not because it needs to be unlocked, it's because the 9400 is cheaper and within 5% at 1080p gaming.
8) $299 is a very reasonable price for a 6 core chip IF that chip has performance to back it up and IF the market buys it. Both cases are true, and I don't need to believe or defend that it's the right price - the fact that it's currently sold out everywhere means it's pure fact, no belief or faith required.
9) Agree with your last point, a 5600 will be nice. But why would AMD abandon an early-adopter cash run? They're a for-profit company. You expect them to abandon margins?

 

[Makaveli]

50$ is increase for 12, 16C CPUs. That X or no X product segmentation and marketing is irrelevant to budget gamer. For him 6C got 50% increase in dollars or euros. Call it early adopter, fan boy tax, but please stop justifying it.
I have been around here for years ( since Ultra66 modification into RAID controller days lol ) and same arguments were made for Athlon 64 / X2. Did not make entry level 4200 chip more accessible for anyone

Its like you are reading these responses and not understanding what people are saying. We get it you are budget gamer and can't afford to spend $300 on a 5600X. Which means you will have to stay on whatever it is you are using until the 5600 model comes out that will meet your budget.

 

[Thunder 57]

50$ is increase for 12, 16C CPUs. That X or no X product segmentation and marketing is irrelevant to budget gamer. For him 6C got 50% increase in dollars or euros. Call it early adopter, fan boy tax, but please stop justifying it.
I have been around here for years ( since Ultra66 modification into RAID controller days lol ) and same arguments were made for Athlon 64 / X2. Did not make entry level 4200 chip more accessible for anyone

Deal with it.

That X2 4200+ blew the doors off of every Intel CPU at the time, while burning way less energy. There's a reason AMD's cheapest dual core was more expensive than Intel's most expensive; Intel could not compete at the time. Nice things cost money. Early adopters paid the price but the rest of us benefitted not too long after with lower prices. Performance costs money. AMD is not the "value brand" anymore.

 

[coercitiv]

So, here are two separate screen grabs from GN. You don't need to count the memory overclock tests for the 10600k. Sometimes, people are hostile for no reason.

I'm starting to think I am hostile for no reason, as you seem genuinely convinced you are right.

So let's look at these two separate screen grabs from GN. Let's put them side by side, and since the FPS measurements don't match between benchmark runs (one is also using a different GPU), let's use 10900K stock results as anchor.

The 4000 C15 10600K overclock is 8% faster than stock 10900K on the left. The 5600X overclock is 19% faster then the 10900K on the right.




The 4000 C15 10600K overclock is roughly on par with 10900K on the left. The 5600X overclock is also close to 10900K on the right. (higher average, lower minimums)



So having seen this, based on the proof you provided, what recommends the overclocked 10600K as a better alternative to 5600X. Better performance? Lower power? Lower system cost? More future proof?

 

[inf64]

There will be cheaper Zen3 parts coming in early 2021, 5600 namely. I suspect that it will have noticeably lower boost so if it clocks as well as 5600X then it might be viable to OC that part. AMD is now in position to price the whole Zen3 range at a premium as these are the best x86 parts on the market. Who wants lower price can easily grab R5 3600, it's a great all around performer.

 

[Veradun]

50$ is increase for 12, 16C CPUs. That X or no X product segmentation and marketing is irrelevant to budget gamer. For him 6C got 50% increase in dollars or euros. Call it early adopter, fan boy tax, but please stop justifying it.
I have been around here for years ( since Ultra66 modification into RAID controller days lol ) and same arguments were made for Athlon 64 / X2. Did not make entry level 4200 chip more accessible for anyone

What makes you think a **budget** gamer needs the latest generation 6c/12t CPU?

A **budget** gamer will buy a 2600 and motherboard at the same price. And this is only true if said budget gamer is a **pc** budget gamer, because that same price buys an Xbox Series S (meaning a **budget** previous gen 8c/16t CPU, a **budget** latest gen GPU, a **budget** 512g SSD, RAM, chassis and PSU

 

[JoeRambo]

Its like you are reading these responses and not understanding what people are saying. We get it you are budget gamer and can't afford to spend $300 on a 5600X. Which means you will have to stay on whatever it is you are using until the 5600 model comes out that will meet your budget.

It's not about me ( as i own 3950 + 10900K and soon testing 5950 ), but about You guys. Look around this thread with all nonsense about 6C CPU for $300 as if it was pinnacle in gaming when paired with 50$ memory and so forth and back on again. It is not, it is overpriced six core positioned and priced cause AMD can do so just like they could in Athlon 64 era. Deal with it.

The way i see budget gamer - it's like Larry from these forums: looking for deals and value and not exactly low on money, but not willing to spend extra money cause AMD or Intel command him to do so.

 

[Space Tyrant]

As as been noted above, the notion that $300 is too much for a 6 core CPU is just silly.

If AMD released the "5600X SOLO" tomorrow, a single core, non-SMT CPU with the compute capacity of a 5600X, what would you pay for it?

It would be far more useful and valuable than a 5600X, wouldn't it? I think $500 would be an amazing price for this fantasy chip!

 

[Thunder 57]

It's not about me ( as i own 3950 + 10900K and soon testing 5950 ), but about You guys. Look around this thread with all nonsense about 6C CPU for $300 as if it was pinnacle in gaming when paired with 50$ memory and so forth and back on again. It is not, it is overpriced six core positioned and priced cause AMD can do so just like they could in Athlon 64 era. Deal with it.

The way i see budget gamer - it's like Larry from these forums: looking for deals and value and not exactly low on money, but not willing to spend extra money cause AMD or Intel command him to do so.

Why was it OK for Intel to charge $300+ for 4C/8T CPU's for almost 10 years? Just stop. And how about responding to me, Mr. Angry? @Makaveli didn't say deal with it, I did.