• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.
  • The forums have been upgraded with support for dark mode. By default it will follow the setting on your system/browser. You may override it by scrolling to the end of the page and clicking the gears icon.

AMD Said to be Releasing no Less Than Four New Ryzen 5000-Series Chips in March

Why now?
What's the point.

After a few months there will be AM5...
At current RAM prices, no AM5 part would make sense for a budget build.
Now, grabbing a 5500 instead of a 3100 makes a lot more sense.
 
Considering the 5600x has such insane performance in gaming, and only falls behind in MT testing - the 5700x might be a big winner


the lower TDP models could also fill in the gap we have with AMD's budget lineup, if pricing and supply is good
 
And no garbage "efficiency" cores. I just won't build a PC around those, so I might well go Ryzen for my next build, even if the gaming performance is lower. We'll see.
AMD is basically going the same route. Not completely different core archs but some cores will run off a different power island/management system than the others.
 
AMD is basically going the same route. Not completely different core archs but some cores will run off a different power island/management system than the others.
If sources are correct Zen 5's little cores will actually be Zen 4c cores and should be a lot more powerful than Gracemont.

Any way, the E-cores in Alder Lake are far from garbage IMO.
 
Less than 12 US States have a Microcenter store and those deals are walk in only.
It was more about the person I replied to trying to point out that places outside the US were cheaper, which usually never happens.
All I know about Microcenter is that they seem to have a lot of specials on CPUs and that they're famous for the deals.
I just so happened I had seen that tweet an hour or two before, so it was something easy to link to.
 
Last edited:
If sources are correct Zen 5's little cores will actually be Zen 4c cores and should be a lot more powerful than Gracemont.

Any way, the E-cores in Alder Lake are far from garbage IMO.
I haven't heard that. I thought initial reporting was cores using different power islands to save on power to make up the big+little cores. but maybe they are also using specifically different cores as well. Would make sense.
 
I haven't heard that. I thought initial reporting was cores using different power islands to save on power to make up the big+little cores. but maybe they are also using specifically different cores as well. Would make sense.
The so called 4c cores are meant to be some kind of lower power Zen 4 cores, but not much are known about them.
 
Why now?
What's the point.

After a few months there will be AM5...
As usual, the first batch of the 5nm CPUs from AMD will be the most expensive and strongest ones alongside the most expensive boards and chipset (as happened for months with X570 vs B550 that released much later) to make the marketing that Zen4 is the fastest CPUs ever made. After a few months (2-3) the less expensive will arrive but will not have the quantities to stay on the shelves for long. So, the people that don't want to spend much will still havea good option by getting Zen3 CPUs. Also, the market share of AMD in the CPU market is declining for a few months now and they need to get some of that back. As you can see, multiple reasons to release cheaper Zen3 CPUs.
 
So AMD made cheap CPUs because Intel, forces them, not because people wanted it since the start of the 5000 series... And that on the end of life on this platform...
It's disappointing, nothing more.
 
One question, what is X570 missing that matters?
Question, why does buying into AMD's dead end platform make any more sense then Intel's platform which will recieve another CPU generation, is PCIe 5 ready, and uses DDR5 (and doesnt have that tiny annoying fan)? AMD fans have spent the last 5 years harping on intel motherboards being dead ends and how amazing AM4 is yet justify spending cash on a second AM4 motherboard because AMD isnt actually any better then intel at upgrading.
 
So AMD made cheap CPUs because Intel, forces them, not because people wanted it since the start of the 5000 series... And that on the end of life on this platform...
It's disappointing, nothing more.
I told people AMD would get comfy and pull an Intel, but they didn't listen. AMD is apparently a godsend to them, not just another company who wants to maximize profits and doesn't give a rat's ass about your existence.
 
Last time I checked, there were 50 US States. btw no idea how much fuel cost in your neck of the woods but I can only guess how much it cost to drive across state lines in order to shop a Microcenter ... that is if you live in or near one of those 9 US States that have a Microcenter store.

50-states-capitals-final.png
Don't need a history lesson bud. Don't get @ me because microcenter decided to be an actual brick n mortar. I'm quite sure they've done their research in deciding what their business model would be. You don't know yet you assume. Your budget and my budget is not the majority. What you deem tolerable, may not be so for me, same goes for others.
 
Don't need a history lesson bud. Don't get @ me because microcenter decided to be an actual brick n mortar. I'm quite sure they've done their research in deciding what their business model would be. You don't know yet you assume. Your budget and my budget is not the majority. What you deem tolerable, may not be so for me, same goes for others.
Dont suggest that micro center is a viable alternative when the majority of the country isnt even remotely close to a store or doesnt even HAVE a store in their state. You said:
Does it really matter? Microcenter has been more reliable and accessible especially since the pandemic started. Also not every microcenter is deep within each state that they're located in... some are minutes from a neighboring state.
And you got rebuted. for it. Dont get mad when someone counters your argument.
 
Question, why does buying into AMD's dead end platform make any more sense then Intel's platform which will recieve another CPU generation, is PCIe 5 ready, and uses DDR5 (and doesnt have that tiny annoying fan)? AMD fans have spent the last 5 years harping on intel motherboards being dead ends and how amazing AM4 is yet justify spending cash on a second AM4 motherboard because AMD isnt actually any better then intel at upgrading.
Buying a CPU for the multimillion owners of an AM4 board is the main customer-target of AMD with those new budget-friendly Zen3 CPUs. My 5c. And if they are good enough in vfm, they might even get more market share in the OEM market also, which is big money.

So AMD made cheap CPUs because Intel, forces them, not because people wanted it since the start of the 5000 series... And that on the end of life on this platform...
It's disappointing, nothing more.
So, Intel made AL CPUs less expensive than all of their previous CPU gens once AMD got to 90% share of the DIY market. It's disappointing, nothing more. :toast:
 
So, Intel made AL CPUs less expensive than all of their previous CPU gens once AMD got to 90% share of the DIY market. It's disappointing, nothing more. :toast:
Before 6-12 months would be very cool.
Now is just at the middle of nowhere.

I am very curious about 5800x3D but the lower teirs...
 
So looks like great news for 5000 series in end of its production period. I can see myself sticking a 5xxx in my ryzen rig in the next few months, probably either a 5600x or 5600. 5700x outside possibility if pricing is favorable.
 
I guess you didn't see the tweet above where Microcenter in the US has the 5600X for $189 and the 5800X for $249?
Hi,
Why not just screen shot the tweet or seeing it's limited text content just copy and paste/ quote it.
Links alone aren't supposed to be allowed.
 
So AMD made cheap CPUs because Intel, forces them, not because people wanted it since the start of the 5000 series... And that on the end of life on this platform...
It's disappointing, nothing more.
I think its too late for AMD, since the 10100F goes to 75€ there wasnt anything from AMD as counterpart up to 250€.
Now with Alder Lake intel have a full lineup from celeron up to i7 with DDR4 and 5 support and PCIe 5.0.


The 5500 for 150€ is useless, cause not the I3 is the counterpart its the i5 12400F.
I3 12100F 95€
I5 12400F 165€
 
Cores outperform threads by a long ways in most scenarios. If I’m remembering correctly hyper-threading adds something like 20% performance per core. So a 4/8 would be roughly the performance of 5 cores. Obviously it’s going to vary across work load, but I’d say take the 6 “true” cores if given the option. :)
While this is true in general, at least some games seem not to care about physical cores as long as they have enough threads. Here's 4c8t vs. 8c8t using the same GPU (the 6600xt on the right is overclocked). The 3300x on the left is also overclocked, and both CPUs post similar scores in CPU-Z ST bench.

You'd expect the 9700f to be far ahead due to having twice as many cores, but here it's only 8% faster on average in the game metric (which directly translates to fps). On the other hand, the octa is on average 34% faster than the quad in the render metric, so 4c8t would translate to 6 physical cores in such case:

sottr.jpg
 
Last edited:
I think its too late for AMD, since the 10100F goes to 75€ there wasnt anything from AMD as counterpart up to 250€.
Now with Alder Lake intel have a full lineup from celeron up to i7 with DDR4 and 5 support and PCIe 5.0.


The 5500 for 150€ is useless, cause not the I3 is the counterpart its the i5 12400F.
I3 12100F 95€
I5 12400F 165€
Remember that Intel motherboards cost quite a bit more, where I live cheapest B550 is 80usd, while cheapest B660 is 140usd. I`m quite sure the 5500 will outperform the 12100 like the 5600X outperforms 12400F in most scenarios by a few percent. Once you tweak them 5600X is even faster (5-10%) since ram is limited to 3400-3600 in gear 1 on 12400.

I would say the upcoming 5600 will probably offer more bang for bucks vs 12400F, the 12100 and 5500 is about equal due to expensive MB on 12100. As for 5700X it is no match for the 12600KF. It is cheaper due to MB, but performs about 10-15% worse.
 
While this is true in general, at least some games seem not to care about physical cores as long as they have enough threads. Here's 4c8t vs. 8c8t using the same GPU (the 6600xt on the right is overclocked). The 3300x on the left is also overclocked, and both CPUs post similar scores in CPU-Z ST bench.

You'd expect the 9700f to be far ahead due to having twice as many cores, but here it's only 8% faster on average in the game metric (which directly translates to fps). On the other hand, the octa is on average 34% faster than the quad in the render metric, so 4c8t would translate to 6 physical cores in such case:

View attachment 239070
That's an interesting comparison, but remember that not all SMT is equal. It's quite well documented that AMD's Ryzen SMT delivers a significantly higher per-core increase than Intel's HT (about +40% vs +25% IIRC). So it's quite likely that if the configurations were swapped (I.e. Something like a 7700K vs a 3700X with SMT disabled or similar) we would see quite different results.
 
I'll pass everything until Nova Lake arrives. ;) I want a monumental performance boost.
Interesting. Please tell about Nova Lake. What reliable performance metrics do you have access to? You could be waiting for nothing. In my opinion it's best to wait for the release and review of a product and then work out whether it will work for you.
 
In my opinion it's best to wait for the release and review of a product and then work out whether it will work for you.
Which is exactly what I'm doing thank you, this 5900X needs no upgrade for years.
 
Hi,
Love it the amd 3d middle finger release to Intel :laugh:
 
Back
Top