• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD Outs Ryzen 5000XT Processors for Socket AM4, an 8-year Old Socket

AusWolf said:
There's no point talking about gaming CPUs under GPU-limited conditions. No wonder all gaming tests are done with a 4090 at 1080p.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The CPU can output a certain amount of frames in a given game, irrespective of the output resolution. Knowing that number is useful. Even at 4k it's entirely possible that you'll want to tune your settings for higher frame rates in a given situation. If your CPU can't output your desired frame rate, then you may waste your time. HUB did a good breakdown on this recently:


Of course, a "4k gamer" might reasonably decide to de-emphasize CPU horsepower for the sake of increasing his GPU budget, but ideally that decision should rest on accurate information about the CPUs on offer. You don't get that accurate information unless reviewers remove GPU bottlenecks from their benchmarks. That is why 1080p benches will continue to enjoy relevance for quite some time to come. Personally, I like that Techpowerup goes even a step further, with 720p benches, though I'd understand if W1zzard got tired of hearing endless complaints that "lmao 720p on a 4090 is unrealistic." Realism isn't the point.
 
Wasteland said:
Exactly. The CPU can output a certain amount of frames in a given game, irrespective of the output resolution. Knowing that number is useful. Even at 4k it's entirely possible that you'll want to tune your settings for higher frame rates in a given situation. If your CPU can't output your desired frame rate, then you may waste your time. HUB did a good breakdown on this recently:


Of course, a "4k gamer" might reasonably decide to de-emphasize CPU horsepower for the sake of increasing his GPU budget, but ideally that decision should rest on accurate information about the CPUs on offer. You don't get that accurate information unless reviewers remove GPU bottlenecks from their benchmarks. That is why 1080p benches will continue to enjoy relevance for quite some time to come. Personally, I like that Techpowerup goes even a step further, with 720p benches, though I'd understand if W1zzard got tired of hearing endless complaints that "lmao 720p on a 4090 is unrealistic." Realism isn't the point.
Click to expand...
The point of low res, low settings tests with high-end GPUs is to forecast how a CPU would potentially perform a few years down the line in the newest games after a couple of GPU upgrades. People who run 1440p or higher and value visual fidelity over super high frame rates shouldn't care.
 
Ayhamb99 said:
The 5900XT is basically a downclocked 5950X
Click to expand...
This was a bit of a wake-up call for me. I guess I haven't been paying much attention to the numbers, and just looking at the newest marketing.

The 5950X is about $360 here. That gives me just a little more speed at the top end compared with the 5900XT, whereas the rest of the specs are pretty much the same. So, I have to decide if that extra 8-10% ($30) is worth the 100Mhz top speed difference.

Can anyone point out the difference in performance I am looking at? If it's not much, I would consider the $30. If it's more, then I would go with the 5950X.
 
Wasteland said:
That is why 1080p benches will continue to enjoy relevance for quite some time to come. Personally, I like that Techpowerup goes even a step further, with 720p benches, though I'd understand if W1zzard got tired of hearing endless complaints that "lmao 720p on a 4090 is unrealistic." Realism isn't the point.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Benchmarking is done to show performance numbers. It's not done to show practicality.
 
Hey, Steve released a review of the 5800XT...


Oh wait, what? lmao :roll:
 
68Olds said:
Hey, Steve released a review of the 5800XT...


Oh wait, what? lmao :roll:
Click to expand...

The situation is even worse now. The 3800xt launched before zen3 and the 5000 series, the 5800xt and 5900xt are launching at a time when zen4 has been on the market with a new socket for a good while and is aproaching it in price. You can buy other 5000 series processors for cheaper than this XT versions, even the 5950X was already sold bellow the 350$ the 5900XT was announced at.

When they drop like a rock in price they'll be interesting but as launched they're worthless, you can buy something better for cheaper.
 
StormLightningSL said:
This was a bit of a wake-up call for me. I guess I haven't been paying much attention to the numbers, and just looking at the newest marketing.

The 5950X is about $360 here. That gives me just a little more speed at the top end compared with the 5900XT, whereas the rest of the specs are pretty much the same. So, I have to decide if that extra 8-10% ($30) is worth the 100Mhz top speed difference.

Can anyone point out the difference in performance I am looking at? If it's not much, I would consider the $30. If it's more, then I would go with the 5950X.
Click to expand...
Personally, I would pick the 5900XT purely for reduced heat and cooling requirements.
 
freeagent said:
Forza Motorsport and CP2077 strongly disagree..
Click to expand...

There's always an use case or another that will benefit from having more cores over cache, but those are actually uncommon. 9 out of 10 games will run better on a 5800X3D over a 5900 or 5950X processor. ;)

relative-performance-games-1280-720.png
 
Honestly, this astonishes me. I really did think that AMD was truly done with AM4 and then they do this.

I objectively know that AMD is just a corporation like any other bit I've never seen Intel or nVidia do anything even remotely this awesome, like EVER. This is the definition of above and beyond.

While AM4 technically came out in 2016, Ryzen CPUs didn't come out until very early 2017. Still, SEVEN years on one platform is incredible and let's not forget that AMD was on the precipice of insolvency when they did this. That makes it even more amazing.

There's no question that AM4 is the greatest consumer x86 platform ever made and it's not even close. Regardless, AMD still won't let AM4 die, even though we're already more than a year into the AM5 era. If AMD tastes AM5 as they did AM4, Intel's in some REAL trouble!
 
Avro Arrow said:
Honestly, this astonishes me. I really did think that AMD was truly done with AM4 and then they do this.

I objectively know that AMD is just a corporation like any other bit I've never seen Intel or nVidia do anything even remotely this awesome, like EVER. This is the definition of above and beyond.

While AM4 technically came out in 2016, Ryzen CPUs didn't come out until very early 2017. Still, SEVEN years on one platform is incredible and let's not forget that AMD was on the precipice of insolvency when they did this. That makes it even more amazing.

There's no question that AM4 is the greatest consumer x86 platform ever made and it's not even close. Regardless, AMD still won't let AM4 die, even though we're already more than a year into the AM5 era. If AMD tastes AM5 as they did AM4, Intel's in some REAL trouble!
Click to expand...

It's nice and all, but it remains that these aren't new products, they're just re-releases of existing chips with no improvements. The 5900XT is a 100MHz slower 5950X, the 5800XT is utterly pointless and only serves to keep prices on X3D and 5700X chips trending upwards...

Intel socket 775 went from 90 to 45 nm, from one to four cores, Prescott/Presler through Wolfdale/Yorkfield across three DDR generations? I'd say that's still the longest lived, just about equivalent in number of years ~2004-2011
 
Dr. Dro said:
Intel socket 775 went from 90 to 45 nm, from one to four cores, Prescott/Presler through Wolfdale/Yorkfield across three DDR generations? I'd say that's still the longest lived, just about equivalent in number of years ~2004-2011
Click to expand...

I didn't follow pc hardware back then but did the boards remain compatible? Intel routinely "keeps" sockets for a long time except for the introduction of small keying elements to make boards incompatible.
 
Dr. Dro said:
It's nice and all, but it remains that these aren't new products, they're just re-releases of existing chips with no improvements. The 5900XT is a 100MHz slower 5950X, the 5800XT is utterly pointless and only serves to keep prices on X3D and 5700X chips trending upwards...
Click to expand...
Exactly.

@Avro Arrow - Don't get confused. A new model name doesn't always mean a new product. ;)
 
A new product is something that offers increased performance than the ones previously available. The 5700x 3d is not a new product. Neither are these new cpus. The 5800x 3d was the last am4 CPU.

And as much as I love mobo upgradability, I don't particularly love amd's way of doing it. Having to wait for 2 years for bios updates? Officially saying they will support it, then they remove support, then they take it back due to public pressure. I'd rather not have to deal with this.
 
fevgatos said:
A new product is something that offers increased performance than the ones previously available.
Click to expand...
The 7000-series non-X line would like to have a word. Or Nvidia's entire product stack below the 4090.

In my opinion, the word "new" also carries "different" within it. It can be of higher or lower performance by any means, but it shouldn't be the same as something already available.

fevgatos said:
And as much as I love mobo upgradability, I don't particularly love amd's way of doing it. Having to wait for 2 years for bios updates? Officially saying they will support it, then they remove support, then they take it back due to public pressure. I'd rather not have to deal with this.
Click to expand...
Upgrading with every generation is pointless anyway. By the time your system is actually due for an upgrade, you'll have to swap platforms anyway, whether you're on AMD or Intel.
 
AusWolf said:
The 7000-series non-X line would like to have a word. Or Nvidia's entire product stack below the 4090.
Click to expand...
GPUs are irrelevant since there is no upgradability there. Upgradability refers to the ability to put new CPUs into the mobo you already have.
AusWolf said:
Upgrading with every generation is pointless anyway. By the time your system is actually due for an upgrade, you'll have to swap platforms anyway, whether you're on AMD or Intel.
Click to expand...
Lateral upgrades, largely I agree. Like i5 to i5 etc. But you could go from an i5 12600k to an i7 14700k, and that's a monstrous upgrade. So it all depends.
 
fevgatos said:
GPUs are irrelevant since there is no upgradability there. Upgradability refers to the ability to put new CPUs into the mobo you already have.

Lateral upgrades, largely I agree. Like i5 to i5 etc. But you could go from an i5 12600k to an i7 14700k, and that's a monstrous upgrade. So it all depends.
Click to expand...
With that in mind, you can also upgrade a 2700X to a 5900XT.
 
fevgatos said:
Yeah...? I didn't disagree
Click to expand...
So then the 5900XT is a new product because as you said "a new product is something that offers increased performance than the ones previously available." It's newer than the 3000 or 2000 series, and it can offer the same non-lateral upgrade as your 12600K to 14700K example.
 
AusWolf said:
So then the 5900XT is a new product because as you said "a new product is something that offers increased performance than the ones previously available." It's newer than the 3000 or 2000 series, and it can offer the same non-lateral upgrade as your 12600K to 14700K example.
Click to expand...
But it doesn't offer increased performance, the 5950x has existed for 4 years now. Who the heck got excited by the prospect of putting a 5900xt into their AM4 when the 5950x has been around for years and years???

Imagine Intel in 2040 releasing a 12100k. Who cares? Nobody would claim lga1700 has support for 20 years. It's just silly.
 
fevgatos said:
But it doesn't offer increased performance, the 5950x has existed for 4 years now. Who the heck got excited by the prospect of putting a 5900xt into their AM4 when the 5950x has been around for years and years???

Imagine Intel in 2040 releasing a 12100k. Who cares? Nobody would claim lga1700 has support for 20 years. It's just silly.
Click to expand...
If you're someone who always buys the cutting edge at or around release, then I guess it's hard to understand people who don't. If I had an AM4 system looking for an upgrade right now, I'd gladly choose the 5900XT instead of the 5950X for its lower power consumption and thermals.
 
AusWolf said:
If you're someone who always buys the cutting edge at or around release, then I guess it's hard to understand people who don't. If I had an AM4 system looking for an upgrade right now, I'd gladly choose the 5900XT instead of the 5950X for its lower power consumption and thermals.
Click to expand...
Really? Lower power consumption? How? They have the same TDP, the 5900XT is just a worse bin. I'd argue the 5950x will have better thermals and power consumption. Power levels anyways is something you can change as easily as just enabling XMP, it's really a non argument nowadays. It literally takes 3-5 seconds to change your power limits within the bios or even within windows.

I know some people might disagree, but when I hear about stock TDPs, power limits etc. I kinda imagine people using the same arguments for other devices. "I bought X air conditioner cause it has better out of the box settings", "I bought X TV because the stock brightness is higher than the Y TV" etc. It just doesn't make any sense to me, I just don't get it.
 
fevgatos said:
Really? Lower power consumption? How? They have the same TDP, the 5900XT is just a worse bin. I'd argue the 5950x will have better thermals and power consumption. Power levels anyways is something you can change as easily as just enabling XMP, it's really a non argument nowadays. It literally takes 3-5 seconds to change your power limits within the bios or even within windows.

I know some people might disagree, but when I hear about stock TDPs, power limits etc. I kinda imagine people using the same arguments for other devices. "I bought X air conditioner cause it has better out of the box settings", "I bought X TV because the stock brightness is higher than the Y TV" etc. It just doesn't make any sense to me, I just don't get it.
Click to expand...
Not everybody likes fiddling with their stuff to make it work to their liking. Not everyone is a tech enthusiast. I guess you find this hard to understand, too.

Personally, I don't mind some mild tweaking, but generally speaking, if a product doesn't work as intended out of the box, then it's not a product that's intended for my use case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top