| Cores Threads | Base Freq | Turbo Freq | L3 Cache | TDP | MSRP | |
| Ryzen 9 5950X | 16c/32t | 3400 | 4900 | 64 MB | 105 W | $799 |
| Ryzen 9 5900X | 12c/24t | 3700 | 4800 | 64 MB | 105 W | $549 |
| Ryzen 7 5800X | 8c/16t | 3800 | 4700 | 32 MB | 105 W | $449 |
| Ryzen 5 5600X | 6c/12t | 3700 | 4600 | 32 MB | 65 W | $299 |
3.6 GHz matches 7700 so about where it would need to be for 65W TDP. The 5800X3D clocks 400 MHz higher than 5700X3D. 3.8/4.6 is 7800X3D clocks -400MHz. I think it's moot anyway. I don't see much incentive for them to launch a 7700X3D with Zen 5 right around the corner on AM5. They'd more likely just discount 7800X3D and try for a more agressive 9800X MSRP.That's a bit too low. Something like 4.0/4.7 would be better or maybe 3.9/4.5.
Sorry, I forgot the 7600X was hitting such high clocks.
Here's a question for you: Is the Zen 3 situation unique? Or could they be building up an inventory of CPUs that didn't "cut the mustard" to be sold later, the way the 5600X3D and 5700X3D are?3.6 GHz matches 7700 so about where it would need to be for 65W TDP. The 5800X3D clocks 400 MHz higher than 5700X3D. 3.8/4.6 is 7800X3D clocks -400MHz. I think it's moot anyway. I don't see much incentive for them to launch a 7700X3D with Zen 5 right around the corner on AM5. They'd more likely just discount 7800X3D and try for a more agressive 9800X MSRP.
I think the Zen3/AM4 situation is very unique. Releasing fresh SKU's on a 7 year old platform (long after it's successor has been released) seems pretty unprecedented. Clearly there is still a huge market for them. They need something to compete with highly discounted Alder Lake and LGA 1700 DDR4 platforms. AM4 is a readily available and inexpensive platform (especially used), and has a huge installed user base primed for an easy upgrade. It makes sense to keep churning out new SKU's with more attractive prices. Especially X3D since it holds its own with vanilla Zen4 in gaming.Here's a question for you: Is the Zen 3 situation unique? Or could they be building up an inventory of CPUs that didn't "cut the mustard" to be sold later, the way the 5600X3D and 5700X3D are?
Kudos to him for simulating a 7600X3D!
For me, the summary of the video seems to be, 7900X3D is bad value. 5800X3D, while hated by Hogwarts and Spiderman games, generally punches above its weight class and often beats the 7950X, especially in minimum fps so smoother gameplay.
I do think that instead of a 7600X3D, AMD should create a 7700X3D with the same clocks as a 7600X or slightly higher, just enough to not cannibalize sales of its 7800X3D, so people have a good and cheap reason to go with AM5 instead of getting the older AM4/5800X3D if building a new gaming system. 7700X3D also because 8C/16T seems to be what most current and future games are making good use of.
Probably a bug. 3000G is a unique cpu (Dali die, only 3000G uses it)New BIOS for my MSI board ...
- AGESA ComboAm4v2PI 1.2.0.C update.
- Fix D-Sub port can't be work properly with 3000G CPU.
hmmm
| Mitigation details Update to versions listed or higher | AMD Ryzen™ 3000 Series Desktop Processors (Formerly codenamed) “Matisse” | AMD Ryzen™ 4000 Series Desktop Processors with Radeon™ Graphics (Formerly codenamed) “Renoir” AM4 |
| AGESA™ firmware | ComboAM4v2PI_1.2.0.C 1.2.0.C (2024-02-07) ComboAM4PI 1.0.0.B (Target March 2024) | ComboAM4v2PI_1.2.0.C (2024-02-07) |
Poor bastards. That's a horrendous motherboard. The extra $30 on that MSI B550M PRO-VDH WIFI a bit further down the list is money well spent IMO.At Amazon U.S. the number 1 selling board is still that dirt cheap Asus Prime B450M
Going by Pcpartpicker numbers, 6-core AM4 build (ram + cpu + board) is 277 dollars, while 6-core AM5 build is 385 dollars. It's often better to spend less on the CPU and more on the GPU.Buyers here are not just doing drop in upgrades, they are building fresh AM4 PCs.
What were the specs/parts you compared?Going by Pcpartpicker numbers, 6-core AM4 build (ram + cpu + board) is 277 dollars, while 6-core AM5 build is 385 dollars. It's often better to spend less on the CPU and more on the GPU.
https://pcpartpicker.com/list/jgFCKX and https://pcpartpicker.com/list/9wHQcHWhat were the specs/parts you compared?
You would be better off with Zen 4. If you went the Zen 3 route. A 5700x is what you would want for a budget build. 3600mhz memory for the Zen 3 build is a must.
Yes, but in a limited budget, it's better to use more money on the GPUYou would be better off with Zen 4.
No, 5600, maybe even 5500. 2 extra cores do nothing in a budget gaming build.If you went the Zen 3 route. A 5700x is what you would want for a budget build.
Not really. Costs more for marginal benefit (unless you run a good 700+ dollar card)3600mhz memory for the Zen 3 build is a must.
I suppose that's doable for someone who absolutely wants to focus on GPU and doesn't care about future upgrades or obsolescence. Though with AM4, they can still get an X3D upgrade to eke a year or two more out of it before it starts to feel old in new games. For me personally, I would invest the extra $84 in AM5, use the onboard GPU to bide my time till I save enough for the GPU of my dreams. Patience is always more rewarding, especially for those who put themselves through crap for better days.With AM4 they can jump to 7800XT
Beast of a system but there's gotta be a game/application you hate that brings it to its kneesI have an AM4 build which I'm really pleased with (5800x3d, 6950xt, 64gb 3600 ram)
Its a bit of a ship of theseus, it started off with a 1700x, 16b ram and a (I think) 1080gtx. I think that the only original bits are probably the MB and the case! (maybe the samsung nvme drive as well)Beast of a system but there's gotta be a game/application you hate that brings it to its knees
Excellent argument; the big bold sentence is especially on point. I have made that mistake myself. Not paying the extra $110 for the 4790K was one of the worst decisions I made 10yrs ago. My son could have gotten 3 more years out of that platform. Could not drop one in when the 4690K hit the wall because the used market for the i7 was still full derp.IMO the min-max build strategy is dumb. Especially when making serious compromises to save $100-200 on a $1000+ build. If that $200 is going to make or break your build, you can't afford to spend that kind of money on a gaming PC in the first place. This concept looks interesting on paper, but quickly falls apart when considering individual component values. Strict total budgets can lead to penny wise & pound foolish component choices on a gaming PC.
Just because an individual component is less expensive than another doesn't mean it's a better value. It makes no sense to buy a 5600 for $145 when a 5700x is $170. It makes no sense to buy a piece of garbage A520/B450 motherboard for $70 when you can buy a good B550 for $100. It's questionable to buy a 2x16 3200 C16 kit for $55 when 3600 C16 is $80. Larger capacity SSD's are less $/GB. Bottom tier parts are almost always a terrible value.
I don't think that you are always better off biasing a gaming system toward the GPU. While this may be true in a lot of scenarios, it's far from a universal truth. It depends on the game and on the settings. Many modern AAA single player games (where a GPU biased system would usually shine) are way more CPU intense then they used to be. Especially with ray tracing. 1% lows and smooth frame pacing are often just as important as avg FPS in these types of games. A faster CPU often helps in these scenarios. Competitive shooters, strategy, and simulation type games are going to generally favor a CPU biased system.