Blue4130A 4th gen i5 is light years faster than a pentium 4.

Was anyone talking about a Pentium 4? I think I'm lost.

AusWolfWas anyone talking about a Pentium 4? I think I'm lost.

I think it was mentioned a few pages ago.

Saying that Zen 3 is obsolete for regular desktop tasks like browsing is… a take. It’s literally just one generation removed from current tech, considering that for normal workloads there was very little uplift from Zen 4 to Zen 5. I certainly don’t feel any sluggishness from my 5900X. If we get to the point where software is so “bloated” in a year or two that Zen 3 chips will struggle, then we will have a bigger problem on our hands than anything hardware related.
I mean, that suggestion basically implies that one should upgrade every generation or every other generation of CPUs just to keep desktop performance bearable, which just isn’t the case? At all?

OnasiIt would be extremely, extremely slow. And, on earlier P4 models, you wouldn’t be able to run any reasonably modern Windows. I suppose, if one absolutely had to do something like that, a lightweight Linux distro would do in a pinch, but really, the experience would be terrible.
Hell, that made me wonder. I have some ancient P4 PCs lying around back at work. I may try something if time allows, would be curious to see how bad things really would be in terms of UX.

yeah was going to do the same thing but....idk if I have a P4 system here somewhere anymore.
Actually I do have a pentium 3 Laptop at work still with windows 98 on it, which is actually pretty dang fast.

Putting a light weight Linux on that? hmmmm why not.....hmmm will check and post on the forums if I end up finding something.

GrimlingAnd soon i will be able to sell my good old 2600K with 16gig of DDR3 as a "High End Gaming PC"...just wait for it.

Right... If you sell Sandy Bridge with Intel 6 series chipset motherboard, don't forget to state in an advert that modern GPUs will be rather broken in many games, and completely broken on GPUs with 8GB VRAM.

the bottom line is, AMD / Intel and pretty much everyone else don't really care about the DIY market segment, they need the big whales (Dell / HP/ Lenovo and so on) to put orders in for these chips, and like I mentioned before, if those whales put in orders for those chips, then you can bet they already have long term contracts for the memory, so the DIY will still be screwed until the AI bubble bursts

AusWolfHow much performance do you need for web browsing? I have a 4th gen i5 HTPC with DDR3 that can browse the web just fine.

If you're browsing a couple of light pages at the time, it's fine, but if you're using 10+ tabs, some heavy like a YouTube podcast, some news articles, etc., then it doesn't take much before it gets sluggish. Then combine this with some office applications or whatever it is you do on your computer, and there will be a stark difference between let's say a Zen 3 vs. Raptor Lake or newer CPUs. (Perhaps that's still good enough for you, but buyers should be informed that they are missing out on a significant performance leap.)

AusWolfThat also involves buying DDR5 which isn't a very good idea right now.

That's a subjective analysis, and you have your free will. ;)
In my opinion, buying something that's noticeably slower in general usage than current systems is too much of a trade off, since it will be "obsolete" within a couple of years. Assuming someone building a system in the $2000 range, and the desired RAM went from $300 to $1000 (and the SSD probably went +$50), I argue eating that cost is much better than buying an inferior system, since you will get many more years of good use of it before you feel it is too slow.

And let's not pretend like PCs are 3x the price or something. Luckily we are at least still in a window where upper mid-range GPUs are still very obtainable (but may not be for very long). Unlike just a few months ago, RTX 5070 and RX 9070 XT are frequently available sub MSRP, and sometimes even RTX 5070 Ti. Lower mid-range cards like RTX 5060 is frequently far below MSRP, but be aware there's a large performance gap between these. But my point being, there are good options for buying a PC now, gaming or not, and if you're buying now I would recommend looking at Zen 5 and Arrow Lake.

OnasiSaying that Zen 3 is obsolete for regular desktop tasks like browsing is… a take.

I called it semi-obsolete for a reason, as I have a 5900X and a i7-14700K side-by-side in my home office which I use daily, there's a big difference in snappiness between them, and it's become a lot worse in the last two years with both Chrome and Firefox.

OnasiIt’s literally just one generation removed from current tech, considering that for normal workloads there was very little uplift from Zen 4 to Zen 5.

(Then it's literally two generations, if you know what literally means, but I digress.)
It's not the amount of generations (minor or major), it's about which generations are above a certain performance threshold to be satisfiable for a certain task. While Zen 3 is strong when it comes to batch loads (for its era), its weakness lies in the front-end, which means it falls short in logic heavy software, typical for user interactive applications. Zen 4/5 closed in on this gap vs. Intel, which along with better clocks will result in a more responsive user experience. In this regard, even Raptor Lake feels like a "generation" ahead of Zen 3.

OnasiI mean, that suggestion basically implies that one should upgrade every generation or every other generation of CPUs just to keep desktop performance bearable, which just isn’t the case? At all?

No, I'm not suggesting that at all.
It's based on observations of the hardware I have on hand (personally own, family and work), not opinions from a favorite tech YouTuber or synthetic benchmarks. Up until about two-three years ago, all the Skylake family CPUs and even Haswell "good enough" for most use, Sandy Bridge was starting to show its age. Now, Sandy Bridge is far too slow for heavy office use, Haswell is borderline, and Skylake and Zen 3 is usable but noticeably not snappy, which is why I wouldn't recommend anyone buy into those platforms.

If you have one, and can still tolerate it, it might be okay for a couple of years more. But we are talking about people who are buying into it now and expecting to get 5+ years of decent use of it, which probably are going to result in dissatisfaction over time.

efikkanIf you're browsing a couple of light pages at the time, it's fine, but if you're using 10+ tabs, some heavy like a YouTube podcast, some news articles, etc., then it doesn't take much before it gets sluggish.

No it doesn't. I HAVE a 4th gen laptop. It frequently has a ton of things open. Never slows down. The rest of what you said is not something worth reading as your opening statement is lacking factual context and merit.

efikkanIf you're browsing a couple of light pages at the time, it's fine, but if you're using 10+ tabs, some heavy like a YouTube podcast, some news articles, etc., then it doesn't take much before it gets sluggish. Then combine this with some office applications or whatever it is you do on your computer, and there will be a stark difference between let's say a Zen 3 vs. Raptor Lake or newer CPUs. (Perhaps that's still good enough for you, but buyers should be informed that they are missing out on a significant performance leap.)

That's all a matter of RAM. 16 GB should be enough for quite a few tabs and your office apps.
I don't see how you would feel the difference between Zen 3 and Raptor Lake in basic use if I barely feel anything between my Haswell vs Zen 4 setups.

efikkanThat's a subjective analysis, and you have your free will. ;)
In my opinion, buying something that's noticeably slower in general usage than current systems is too much of a trade off, since it will be "obsolete" within a couple of years. Assuming someone building a system in the $2000 range, and the desired RAM went from $300 to $1000 (and the SSD probably went +$50), I argue eating that cost is much better than buying an inferior system, since you will get many more years of good use of it before you feel it is too slow.

We don't know whether it'll be obsolete or not. At the current pace of software development, I'd say you could get way more out of that Zen 3 system than you could get out of any high-end system 10 years ago.

Even if I'm wrong, the price difference will account for that. I just checked, a 5700X is currently £170 at Scan. You're surely not expecting jaw-dropping speed and longevity for that price, right?

efikkanI called it semi-obsolete for a reason, as I have a 5900X and a i7-14700K side-by-side in my home office which I use daily, there's a big difference in snappiness between them, and it's become a lot worse in the last two years with both Chrome and Firefox.

I could call placebo on that, but let me not go that far. Let me just say that our perceptions seem to be be vastly different.

efikkanIt's not the amount of generations (minor or major), it's about which generations are above a certain performance threshold to be satisfiable for a certain task. While Zen 3 is strong when it comes to batch loads (for its era), its weakness lies in the front-end, which means it falls short in logic heavy software, typical for user interactive applications. Zen 4/5 closed in on this gap vs. Intel, which along with better clocks will result in a more responsive user experience. In this regard, even Raptor Lake feels like a "generation" ahead of Zen 3.

I have no clue what you're talking about, and I doubt anyone looking for a Zen 3 CPU anno 2026 do, either.

efikkanNo, I'm not suggesting that at all.
It's based on observations of the hardware I have on hand (personally own, family and work), not opinions from a favorite tech YouTuber or synthetic benchmarks. Up until about two-three years ago, all the Skylake family CPUs and even Haswell "good enough" for most use, Sandy Bridge was starting to show its age. Now, Sandy Bridge is far too slow for heavy office use, Haswell is borderline, and Skylake and Zen 3 is usable but noticeably not snappy, which is why I wouldn't recommend anyone buy into those platforms.

If you have one, and can still tolerate it, it might be okay for a couple of years more. But we are talking about people who are buying into it now and expecting to get 5+ years of decent use of it, which probably are going to result in dissatisfaction over time.

We have Skylake PCs at work, and they feel pretty snappy to me.

AusWolfThat's all a matter of RAM. 16 GB should be enough for quite a few tabs and your office apps.

It's still enough for gaming too. The myth that 16GB of RAM is not enough is just silly. In future, sure it'll be true, but not yet and not in the next couple of years.

I think the problem many of the objectors here are having is that their perceptions are not on par with actual reality. Example?
This...
...and this.
That system is first gen i7 with 16GB and well, it's good enough. I'm not saying first gen i7 is good idea to seek out for people, but for ANYONE to be saying that Ryzen 5000 series CPUs aren't good enough is lacking any and all proper perspective. It's a completely daffy notion without any merit at all.

efikkanI called it semi-obsolete for a reason, as I have a 5900X and a i7-14700K side-by-side in my home office which I use daily, there's a big difference in snappiness between them, and it's become a lot worse in the last two years with both Chrome and Firefox.

That’s nonsense. In no world is a Zen 3 CPU semi-obsolete. It won’t be for a while. I base this on my subjective observations of both my personal and numerous work PCs, running both Windows and Linux and using several different browsers. See, I can play this game too.

efikkanIf you have one, and can still tolerate it, it might be okay for a couple of years more. But we are talking about people who are buying into it now and expecting to get 5+ years of decent use of it, which probably are going to result in dissatisfaction over time.

I sat on a 2600K for a decade. Surprisingly, it was “okay” even by the point I have replaced it. You can easily get a decade from CPUs these days and buying a Zen 3 will absolutely last you 5 years. Is it an optimal decision? Of course not, nobody is saying that. It’s smart to try and save up for a current platform. Or rather - it would be if this was ordinary times. But they are not. If one has a need for a PC and, due to current memory shenanigans, the difference between an AM4 and AM5 platform is close to double, well, then I wouldn’t blame such a person for going for a cheaper option since, objectively, you aren’t getting double the performance. We know this, it’s easily verifiable.

As for your snappiness comment - while the CPU does play a role and it might very well be that if you neurotically compare you might notice a difference, realistically, any CPU from the last… decade, honestly, and definitely 5 years, when paired with an SSD, will provide absolutely acceptable desktop performance for most tasks.

OnasiIs it an optimal decision? Of course not, nobody is saying that.

I am. It is absolutely an optimal choice at the current moment. There is nothing that will not run VERY well on Ryzen 5000. Nothing.

Wait a second... is it even a question whether having more budget-friendly options is a good thing? :confused:

AusWolfThat's all a matter of RAM. 16 GB should be enough for quite a few tabs and your office apps.

16 GB does get you decently far, if used right, but that's not the limiter here. In fact both systems referenced here uses 96 GB, which is mostly a waste for this kind of use for the Zen 3, but not a Raptor Lake or faster, because it lets me do a lot more before it gets sluggish. The gradual slowdown is noticeable even when I'm around 8 GB, and the responsiveness gets noticeably worse long before hitting 32 GB, let alone 96 GB. My Raptor Lake doesn't get too annoying until it starts to swap heavily (when it's almost full), and that's the point; a fast enough system is a system you don't notice - it can keep up with all your inputs. Where this threshold sits is somewhat individual, but when one system can handle much more load and being more responsive than another with less load, it can't be dismissed as placebo, and thinking so would be delusional. On top of ever-increasing performance needs, and bloat, all the various CPU mitigations over the last years have actually hurt the responsiveness of older systems more than pure computational power.

AusWolfEven if I'm wrong, the price difference will account for that. I just checked, a 5700X is currently £170 at Scan. You're surely not expecting jaw-dropping speed and longevity for that price, right?

If you're strictly talking about a user wanting a "cheap" partial upgrade, and throwing in additional qualifiers like a basic bargain motherboard, cheap cooler, possibly even used parts, etc., something that will be okay for a couple of years, then yes, you have a point. And that also depends heavily on what people are coming from, like if someone has an early Skylake etc., they might as well hold on to that a little longer and do a bigger upgrade. And this is why we need more nuance, rather than so many encouraging people to jump on Zen 3 (and DDR4 may increase further soon too).

There is far too much negativity coming especially from Tech channels, like it's the death of PC, while the PC market survived and has thrived through the last decade of mining crazes and everything being hard to buy ~2020-2022. While RAM is very bad right now, CPUs and GPUs are pretty good (for now), so the constructive and intelligent discussion should rather be good upgrade paths. Like for instance, buying a good CPU now and only 16 GB of RAM, and upgrading RAM later vs. buying a slower CPU with cheaper RAM. Or, if someone wants to upgrade CPU and GPU, but perhaps can't afford both right now, it could be wise to do the GPU now, and then possibly the CPU in 8-12 months when Nova Lake and Zen 6 will (likely) be even more compelling. And those who like to complain about everything being bad without suggesting real good solutions, should probably go play somewhere else.

I only need a 5800x3d. That's all.

Saying Zen 3 is slow is an interesting subjective opinion, a Ryzen 5000 series CPU is still very much a modern CPU, no it won't break benchmark records but a 5700X or 5800X3D is more than responsive enough.
And IMO, it's more than just a placebo when someone recommends Raptor Lake, as those CPU's can still degrade. Some really old CPU's are still plenty usable for daily tasks, Sandybridge is just fine as an office system,use an SSD and it'll be enough for most people.

Also the RAMageddon going on is much worse than what happened in 2020 with shortages and the crypto bubble, you could get by without a GPU then, you can't without RAM, when RAM is overpriced or unavailable to a majority of people building or buying a PC, you either have to buy what you can get or settle with what you have, hence AMD considering restarting AM4 CPU production.
Things are so bad in the overall tech market, SI's are selling systems without RAM, OEM systems are going to ship with less RAM, everything with memory in it is going to be significantly more expensive as memory manufacturers have refused to increase production and some are delaying building of new fabs. I think the DIY PC market is in more trouble than it has been in before if these "shortages" go on for several years.
I wouldn't recommend anyone pay $400+ for 32GB of DDR5 at all, vs. buying a Zen 3 CPU+board and looking for a deal on some DDR4 RAM. I simply refuse to pay for price gouged DDR5, also because if people keep paying up for DDR5 at current prices that tells RAM makers you're fine with paying more for memory.

I wonder if those that would welcome this news would likewise welcome the rumoured return of the 3060..

If indeed both are true, and availability / pricing is sane and not inflated considering relative performance, both are good news stories and good for consumers, in a market that it seems the major players are happy enough to neglect them. Decoupling reliance on hyperinflated DDR5 alone helps platform cost.

My 5800X3D is still a damn good CPU in my living room PC. I can only hope for consumers that if this comes to fruition, an X3D will also be offered.

wolfI wonder if those that would welcome this news would likewise welcome the rumoured return of the 3060..

If indeed both are true, and availability / pricing is sane and not inflated considering relative performance, both are good news stories and good for consumers, in a market that it seems the major players are happy enough to neglect them. Decoupling reliance on hyperinflated DDR5 alone helps platform cost.

My 5800X3D is still a damn good CPU in my living room PC. I can only hope for consumers that if this comes to fruition, an X3D will also be offered.

Couple a R5-5600 with a RTX3060 on the cheap and you have a pretty competent gaming machine, especially for emerging economies where 1080p (and lower!) is still very strong. If I'm to be honest though, the 3060 never really disappeared around here, but I can't say about other markets.

If they could revive a 5800X3D for a fair price that'd be great. Beats my latest gen 245K in gaming, even if the multicore is really behind

Even reviving non-X3D chips sounds like it would be great for budget builders. I still see people buy Alder Lake when on a tight budget

efikkan16 GB does get you decently far, if used right, but that's not the limiter here. In fact both systems referenced here uses 96 GB, which is mostly a waste for this kind of use for the Zen 3, but not a Raptor Lake or faster, because it lets me do a lot more before it gets sluggish. The gradual slowdown is noticeable even when I'm around 8 GB, and the responsiveness gets noticeably worse long before hitting 32 GB, let alone 96 GB. My Raptor Lake doesn't get too annoying until it starts to swap heavily (when it's almost full), and that's the point; a fast enough system is a system you don't notice - it can keep up with all your inputs. Where this threshold sits is somewhat individual, but when one system can handle much more load and being more responsive than another with less load, it can't be dismissed as placebo, and thinking so would be delusional. On top of ever-increasing performance needs, and bloat, all the various CPU mitigations over the last years have actually hurt the responsiveness of older systems more than pure computational power.

What use case are we exactly talking about? You kind of lost me when you came to the point of "long before hitting 32 GB RAM usage". I don't think anyone looking for a budget system wants to use that much memory. I think the issue here is that you're expecting much more from your system than a regular user, and assume that everybody has the same mindset. Just a note: having 96 GB RAM isn't the norm.

When I talk about regular users, I have some office apps, a video player, and a web browser with a couple of tabs in mind. Maybe some light gaming. For that purpose, Zen 3 is more than enough.

efikkanIf you're strictly talking about a user wanting a "cheap" partial upgrade, and throwing in additional qualifiers like a basic bargain motherboard, cheap cooler, possibly even used parts, etc., something that will be okay for a couple of years, then yes, you have a point. And that also depends heavily on what people are coming from, like if someone has an early Skylake etc., they might as well hold on to that a little longer and do a bigger upgrade. And this is why we need more nuance, rather than so many encouraging people to jump on Zen 3 (and DDR4 may increase further soon too).

Like I said, the price difference will provide that nuance. Zen 3 isn't coming back for hardcore enthusiasts. It's coming back for people on a tight budget looking for a cheap, but still fairly capable upgrade.

efikkanThere is far too much negativity coming especially from Tech channels, like it's the death of PC, while the PC market survived and has thrived through the last decade of mining crazes and everything being hard to buy ~2020-2022. While RAM is very bad right now, CPUs and GPUs are pretty good (for now), so the constructive and intelligent discussion should rather be good upgrade paths. Like for instance, buying a good CPU now and only 16 GB of RAM, and upgrading RAM later vs. buying a slower CPU with cheaper RAM. Or, if someone wants to upgrade CPU and GPU, but perhaps can't afford both right now, it could be wise to do the GPU now, and then possibly the CPU in 8-12 months when Nova Lake and Zen 6 will (likely) be even more compelling. And those who like to complain about everything being bad without suggesting real good solutions, should probably go play somewhere else.

I agree that the negativity is sickening. But I don't think that having a wider range of budget-friendly options is a bad thing, quite the contrary.

Edit: I think having these budget-friendly options is exactly what we need to dispel the negativity, and show that PC gaming is far from being dead. We need PC gaming for the masses, not just the enthusiast elite.

I remember when the top of the range 5950X debuted for $800 a couple of years ago. Now, you can get its lower clocked sibling, the 5900XT for £280. If one can still get a motherboard and RAM with it as well, I think that's great. No one is trying to sell you the illusion of getting the fastest of the fastest for that price. But I think it makes total sense for the money they're asking for it.

wolfI wonder if those that would welcome this news would likewise welcome the rumoured return of the 3060..

Heck yes I would! 12 GB VRAM in a relatively cheap midrange card with single fan, ITX sized versions available. What's not to like? :)

Beefing up the back-end with unimaginable computing power (as far as it's related to real world results) automatically leads to downsizing the front end is it not?

jesdalsWell they did make a prototype 5950x3d so if they release that I might update the old 5950x

Same. I'm stuck pairing a 5900X with a RTX 5090 and it's kind of egregious to be honest. I'm not really willing to downgrade multithreaded performance to the 5800X3D, but I would upgrade to a decently priced 5950X3D in a heartbeat.

efikkanThe current supply of DDR4 DIMMs are probably mostly based off old stock chips, and the DDR4 prices were already surging before this, so DDR4 isn't going to "save us" for long.

I think the concern is to "save" all the people who own 32GB+ DDR4 in their current AM4, LGA1151, LGA2066, LGA1200 and even some LGA1700 motherboards.
Especially if they bring back X3D chips whose single-threaded performance is relatively immune to slower RAM speeds.

Frank_100A better more powerful AM4 socket cpu would be a no brainer upgrade, but I want 9950x power at least.

I don't think 9950X performance on AM4 is ever going to happen. It would take for AMD to design an IOD that supports DDR4 and Zen4/5 CCDs from the ground up. And even if they did that, the memory bandwidth would likely pull this fankenstein CPU back too much.

ToTTenTranzI think the concern is to "save" all the people who own 32GB+ DDR4 in their current AM4, LGA1151, LGA2066, LGA1200 and even some LGA1700 motherboards.

Or for people on Skylake or older systems who are looking for an upgrade, but can't, or just don't want to swallow the cost of AM5 + DDR5.

ToTTenTranzI think the concern is to "save" all the people who own 32GB+ DDR4 in their current AM4, LGA1151, LGA2066, LGA1200 and even some LGA1700 motherboards.
Especially if they bring back X3D chips whose single-threaded performance is relatively immune to slower RAM speeds.

If reusing spare DDR4 memory is the core motivation here, then those who suggest it should preface it with that, instead of leading uninformed and "panicked" gamers down a path which will sacrifice lots of performance and features in order to save a potentially minor cost.

As for your hope of a reemergence of models like 5800X3D of any significant quantity is essentially hoping for "charity" from AMD. Wafer allocations are booked years in advance, so they would have to pay a hefty premium on extra wafers to boost production, which is made even worse by the already costly X3D die. So unless you're expecting to pay $800 for it, this will be a pretty long shot. Even in the best case scenario, scaling up production will also take 4-5 months to take effect, we'll be "drooling" over Zen 6 by then. And what would be the purpose? If DDR4 really is the requirement then Raptor Lake is still abundant and an overall better performer. As for the rest of the platforms listed, it really isn't much of an upgrade, unless you're specifically talking of people who own lower tier CPUs of the respective platforms. As considering this is a cost saving measure, we have to assume they are not going to run high-end GPUs, so the upgrade (or rather side-grade) will be very hard to justify. They would be much better off waiting a little longer for a worthwhile upgrade if their current one is still working.

No matter how you twist an turn it, buying a new Zen 3 CPU now will only make sense in some edge-cases. A lot of the problem is exaggerated to begin with, as it's the overpriced extreme OC memory "everyone" wants that's too expensive, considering it was 2x the normal price to begin with. I've been saying for years people are overpaying for "junk" memory, with speeds you wouldn't be able to run stable long-term anyways. Since you mentioned 32 GB, which many buyers can "survive" with for a while, they're starting at around $200-250 for DDR4 vs. $350 for DDR5 (NewEgg for reference), so effectively a $100-150 difference depending on other choices (Yeah, DDR4 has also increased in price...). And don't forget shops may offer bundles and discounts. (Back during the GPU shortages I manged to source several GPUs at reasonable prices.) You just need to know where to look and what to look for.

When we're talking about value, a part of that consideration must be the overall feature set and longevity. You're giving up a lot by choosing an old platform; overall performance in most areas (gaming, general responsiveness, productive applications, etc.), efficiency, IO, etc.
Remember, for AM4 it's only the X570 chipset which have PCIe 4.0 lanes to the chipset, while B550 has only x4 3.0 lanes which means a secondary SSD will effectively run at x2 3.0 speed since it's sharing bandwidth with NIC, SATA and USB. And X570 is not particularly cheaper then current gen, while it's the B550 that's the "bargain". So once again, it's sacrificing a lot for a relatively small saving (~$100-150 in our hypothetical example). The current gen. options from both vendors are objectively so much better, so I can't in honesty recommend that route.

As DDR4 supplies are dwindling and prices surging, those should really be prioritized for owners of existing systems. I don't think many fresh AM4 buyers will be happy if they discover replacement DIMMs cost a fortune a short time from now.

efikkanIf reusing spare DDR4 memory is the core motivation here, then those who suggest it should preface it with that,

Reusing spare DDR4 has always been the core motivation.

efikkaninstead of leading uninformed and "panicked" gamers down a path which will sacrifice lots of performance and features in order to save a potentially minor cost.

It's "panicked gamers" who are begging for AMD to start selling X3D Zen3 CPUs again.Not sure who you're trying to protect here.

When questioned about the rock-and-hard-place situation these users are in, McAfee stated that AMD "[is] certainly looking at everything that [it] can do to bring more supply and kind of reintroduce products back into the [AM4] ecosystem to satisfy the demands of gamers that maybe want that significant upgrade in their AM4 platform without having to rebuild their entire system", further adding that he thinks this is "definitely something [AMD is] very actively working on."

efikkanAs for your hope of a reemergence of models like 5800X3D of any significant quantity is essentially hoping for "charity" from AMD.

No one's hoping for charity. AMD will resume Zen3 X3D production if it's profitable to them, period.

They are, after all, counting on a massive hit on AM5 CPU sales because DIYers virtually can't upgrade from older DDR4 platforms without paying for RAM as much as they'd traditionally pay for a high-end GPU.

efikkanWafer allocations are booked years in advance, so they would have to pay a hefty premium on extra wafers to boost production, which is made even worse by the already costly X3D die.

Wafer allocation is booked years in advance (actually more like a year AFAIK), but wafer setup isn't.

efikkanSo unless you're expecting to pay $800 for it, this will be a pretty long shot.

$800 might actually make sense for e.g. a 5950X3D, for people who want/need lots of RAM and already have lots of DDR4.

efikkanEven in the best case scenario, scaling up production will also take 4-5 months to take effect, we'll be "drooling" over Zen 6 by then.

In 4 to 5 months, RAM is probably even more expensive than it is now. Best estimates point to prices "stabilizing" in Q3 and only then they'll go down.

efikkanAnd what would be the purpose? If DDR4 really is the requirement then Raptor Lake is still abundant and an overall better performer.

Raptor Lake ceases to be the better performer when using DDR4 and it's going for 500-600€. Add in a decent motherboard and we're better off just going with Zen3 X3D.

efikkanAs for the rest of the platforms listed, it really isn't much of an upgrade, unless you're specifically talking of people who own lower tier CPUs of the respective platforms.

Yes, it's obviously for people who don't own a Zen3 X3D.

efikkanAs considering this is a cost saving measure, we have to assume they are not going to run high-end GPUs, so the upgrade (or rather side-grade) will be very hard to justify. They would be much better off waiting a little longer for a worthwhile upgrade if their current one is still working.

Define "a little longer".

efikkanNo matter how you twist an turn it, buying a new Zen 3 CPU now will only make sense in some edge-cases.

The Zen3 5500 is currently #2 in Amazon's best selling CPUs and the 5800X is #6. Even without X3D models, the demand is already way above "some edge cases".