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

AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Takes the Crown of the Fastest CPU in Passmark Single-Thread Results

Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
3,927 (1.55/day)
Location
Texas
System Name SnowFire / The Reinforcer / Portable?
Processor i7 10700K 5.1ghz (24/7) / 2x Xeon E52650v2 / AMD Ryzen 5 3600X
Motherboard Asus Strix Z490 / Dell Dual Socket (R720) / Asrock X570 ITX
Cooling RX 360mm + 140mm Custom Loop / Dell Stock / Noctua L9i (Yes L9i)
Memory Corsair RGB 16gb DDR4 3000 CL 16 / DDR3 128gb 16 x 8gb / Corsair RGB 3200 16gb
Video Card(s) GTX Titan XP (2025mhz) / Asus GTX 950 (No Power Connector) / GTX 970 (Temp)
Storage Samsung 970 1tb NVME and 2tb HDD x4 RAID 5 / 300gb x8 RAID 5 / 2x Samsung 850 Pro 512gb
Display(s) Acer XG270HU, Samsung G7 Odyssey (1440p 240hz) / HP Omen 1080p 240hz
Case Thermaltake Cube / Dell Poweredge R720 Rack Mount Case / Fractal Design Node 202
Audio Device(s) Realtec ALC1150 (On board)
Power Supply Rosewill Lightning 1300Watt / Dell Stock 750 / Brick / Fractal Design 450 Watt Bronze
Mouse Logitech G5
Keyboard Logitech G19S
Software Windows 10 Pro / Windows Server 2016 / Windows 10 Pro
(Raises eyebrow)
Wow, well that maybe an interesting pickup for my portable rig since it has an X570 board. Might want to try it out.

However, I am curious with both being overclocked what the results are and if that changes anything as while both brands are pushing their chips to their limits.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2007
Messages
434 (0.09/day)
Location
Manchester, UK
System Name Colin #2 - the revenge!
Processor Ryzen 9 3900X
Motherboard Gigabyte B550 Aorus Elite V2
Cooling 4x Phanteks SK140 PWM & Arctic Freezer II 280 AIO
Memory 2 x 8Gb Patriot Viper Steel 4000MHz @ 3600 CL14 1.4v 1T 1:1
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 980 Ti Gaming 6G until I can get a 3080(!)
Storage 980 Pro 500Gb + WD SN550 1Tb
Display(s) Acer XB280HK 4K GSYNC
Case Phanteks P500A
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1200 or possibly 1220
Power Supply 750W Corsair RM750
Mouse Zalman ZM GM1
Keyboard Zalman ZM K400G
Software Windows 10 Pro x64
Looks like 5900X will finally take over my 2600k's place, after 10 years of waiting for something good. :)

Wow... You can use it for 10 years!?!o_O

I’m also still running a 2600k! Next year it will be 10 years since i bought the CPU. Next year I will be upgrading
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
2,405 (0.96/day)
Let's wait for proper benchmarks, but 5600X and 5800X will be the two models to watch for most of you.
12 and 16 cores are really only relevant for those who run specific workloads which scales beyond 8 cores. Don't get fixated on synthetic benchmarks or benchmarks which are not relevant to you.

Rocket Lake is coming and will regain that single-threaded performance crown, despite the fact that in a multi-threaded world the single-thread performance DOES NOT matter.
Quite on the contrary; single threaded performance is more important than ever, and is after all the base scaling factor for multithreaded performance.
Single threaded performance also helps "everything", while more cores only helps certain workloads.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
1,099 (0.25/day)
Location
I live in Norway
System Name 3 sys spec seperated by "|"
Processor R9 3900x| R7 1700 @3.75 | 4800H
Motherboard Asrock X570M | AB350M Pro 4 | Asus Tuf A15
Cooling Air | Air | duh laptop
Memory 64gb G.skill SniperX @3600 CL16 | 64GB | 32GB
Video Card(s) XFX RX 6800 Speedster |V64\Quadro P4000 | RTX2060M
Storage MP510 2TB, 660P 2TB, 2x860 evo 1tb | 960 500gb Intel 660P 1tb PM871 4x256gb ++| 1TB 660+ 1tb A1000
Display(s) AOC 28" 4K something + 1440p AOC 144hz something.
Case Phanteks EvolvX M-Atx
Power Supply Corsair RM850
Mouse g502 Lightspeed
Keyboard G915
Software win10,unraid,Manjaro
Benchmark Scores 30000FS, 16300 TS. Lappy, 7000 TS.
From what I see is they fix all intel cpu's at their base speeds and let 5600x run lose at its normal speeds. Because charts certainly does not state they fix 5600x cpu. If that is true, this is one of the worst misleading and false marketing Inhave witnessed from AMD. Taking people as stupid. But perhaps I'm misreading something and refuse to believe my suspicions for now.

It's tests from several sources such as users, it's not in house testing they have control over just like userbenchmark.
They cannot control what users do!!!

The weighting can be found on their forums.
The baselines for each model can be found easily.

Baseline URL.

This is one of the results of a 10600K used for an aggregate which is what you see, Clearly states it turbo'd to 4.8 ghz.
 
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
114 (0.09/day)
Very nice chip, but no way am I paying $300 for 6 cores in 2020/21. I'm gonna wait for 5600 and OC it. 5% more performance at best is not worth 80 bucks more imho.
I get an 8700k 3 years ago for 350, and mine, locked at 4.9 ghz still not bad compared to that new 5600x. Its 3150 single vs 3500. In game probably they will be very close.
8700k on 2017 was really a good cpu for the time.
 

michwoz

New Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2020
Messages
8 (0.04/day)
Not really relevant to the news article, but I wonder how long it’ll take for userbenchmark to change its point system (again) after the launch? Will it become just a memory latency test? XD

I've been wondering the same thing. I also expect that memory latency will suck much less on Zen 3.
 
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
24 (0.09/day)
Looks like 5900X will finally take over my 2600k's place, after 10 years of waiting for something good. :)

What a legendary chip that was. Just like the Celeron 300 I had back in the day. Oh and not to forget the Abit BP-6 I think with the dual celerons and NT 4 playing quake 2 online. Ahhh memories.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
3,799 (2.63/day)
Location
Norwegian, currently in Lund, Sweden
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Motherboard Biostar X370GTN
Cooling Custom CPU+GPU water loop
Memory 16GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C16
Video Card(s) AMD R9 Fury X
Storage 500GB 960 Evo (OS ++), 500GB 850 Evo (Games)
Display(s) Dell U2711
Case NZXT H200i
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Lenovo Compact Keyboard with Trackpoint
Software Windows 10 Pro
From what I see is they fix all intel cpu's at their base speeds and let 5600x run lose at its normal speeds. Because charts certainly does not state they fix 5600x cpu. If that is true, this is one of the worst misleading and false marketing Inhave witnessed from AMD. Taking people as stupid. But perhaps I'm misreading something and refuse to believe my suspicions for now.
That is nonsense. These are crowd-sourced benchmark numbers, they have zero control over the clock speeds of the CPUs in question. That is of course a significant negative and an argument against the reliability of this data, which thankfully they also list prominently on the results page. It's entirely possible that this is an OC score (though highly unlikely given that overclocking Ryzen for the past three generations has actually meant giving up ST performance outright due to the loss of single core boost, in favor of possibly higher multi core performance), but given the amount of 10900k scores we can absolutely know that they are a representative score in that benchmark for that part. Is it representative of real-world performance? Only if the workload resembles this benchmark, as with all benchmarks. If there is a discrepancy in the reported clocks (Intel reported at base clocks and AMD at boost clocks) that is likely down to how the system reports data to the benchmark, and nothing else - those numbers aren't actual measurements of clock speeds while running the benchmark.
 
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
81 (0.02/day)
System Name CyberMania
Processor AMD FX 8350 4.2Ghz
Motherboard ASUS M5A97
Cooling Scythe Ninja 2
Memory KINGSTON VALUE DDR3 2X 8GB 1333MHZ (OC 1866MHZ)
Video Card(s) SAPPHIRE AMD RX580
Storage KINGSTON SSD 128GB WD 4TB + 2 GB
Display(s) 27" Samsung P2770H
Case CM ELITE 430
Audio Device(s) Creative X-FI Titanium
Power Supply CM iGreen Power 600W
Software Windows 10 LTSC 2019
hmm fx8350 for 8 years....so attracted by this cpu...
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
675 (0.30/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i9-10850K
Motherboard Asus Prime Z490M Plus
Cooling Air
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3200 F4-3200C16D-32GVK
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 KO Ultra
Storage Inland Premium 256GB SSD 3D NAND M.2 2280 PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4 + WD Blue 1TB SATA SSD
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Lian Li 205M
Power Supply PowerSpec 650W 80+ Bronze Semi-Modular PS 650BSM
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
What I find most interesting in that chart is how a Tiger Lake 15-28W laptop chip is within 1% of the 5600X in single thread.

It will be on top until the same benchmark is run on the higher-clocked Zen 3 chips, if the Cinebench R20 scores are anything to go by...

 
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
1,099 (0.25/day)
Location
I live in Norway
System Name 3 sys spec seperated by "|"
Processor R9 3900x| R7 1700 @3.75 | 4800H
Motherboard Asrock X570M | AB350M Pro 4 | Asus Tuf A15
Cooling Air | Air | duh laptop
Memory 64gb G.skill SniperX @3600 CL16 | 64GB | 32GB
Video Card(s) XFX RX 6800 Speedster |V64\Quadro P4000 | RTX2060M
Storage MP510 2TB, 660P 2TB, 2x860 evo 1tb | 960 500gb Intel 660P 1tb PM871 4x256gb ++| 1TB 660+ 1tb A1000
Display(s) AOC 28" 4K something + 1440p AOC 144hz something.
Case Phanteks EvolvX M-Atx
Power Supply Corsair RM850
Mouse g502 Lightspeed
Keyboard G915
Software win10,unraid,Manjaro
Benchmark Scores 30000FS, 16300 TS. Lappy, 7000 TS.
What I find most interesting in that chart is how a Tiger Lake 15-28W laptop chip is within 1% of the 5600X in single thread.

Intel laptop designs tend to consume as much power as desktops for 1t loads.
Desktops have more cooling so you can turbo for longer and you have a bigger T delta allowing for slightly higher frequencies.

Tigerlake is atleast some breath of hope..
 
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
675 (0.30/day)
System Name Legion
Processor i9-10850K
Motherboard Asus Prime Z490M Plus
Cooling Air
Memory G.Skill Ripjaws V 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4-3200 F4-3200C16D-32GVK
Video Card(s) EVGA GeForce RTX 2060 KO Ultra
Storage Inland Premium 256GB SSD 3D NAND M.2 2280 PCIe NVMe 3.0 x4 + WD Blue 1TB SATA SSD
Display(s) Acer K272HUL 1440p / 34" MSI MAG341CQ 3440x1440
Case Lian Li 205M
Power Supply PowerSpec 650W 80+ Bronze Semi-Modular PS 650BSM
Mouse Logitech MX Anywhere 25
Keyboard Logitech MX Keys
Software Lots
Intel laptop designs tend to consume as much power as desktops for 1t loads.
Desktops have more cooling so you can turbo for longer and you have a bigger T delta allowing for slightly higher frequencies.

Tigerlake is atleast some breath of hope..

References for that power comment? Only the i7-10750H and higher pull up 65W, and that only for ~30 seconds, just like the Renoir Zen 2 laptop chips. And they only do that in multi-core, not single core. Then they drop back to their rated 45W unless you change that in the BIOS. The 5600X is 65W TDP meaning that is most likely its sustained PL1 power draw, I would imagine like most chips (Intel and AMD) its PL2 turbo is probably more like 95W. Not sure how much more wrong you could be here.

Tiger Lake will pull around 54W PL2 for a short time, like 30s, then pull back down to sustained power draw PL1 = 28W. Cinebench is not a short benchmark, so you are talking about a chip that draws around or less than half the power of the 65W TDP 5600X. And it scored within 1% on single thread Cinebench of that 5600X. Hence my comment.

To that point, the Ryzen 4900HS in the Asus Rog G14 - the flagship high performance model for the Ryzen, probably about the fastest you could get 3 months ago - got smoked by in an Ars review of the Tiger Lake based MSI Summit.

Capture.JPG
 
Last edited:

ARF

Joined
Jan 28, 2020
Messages
1,333 (3.02/day)
Quite on the contrary; single threaded performance is more important than ever, and is after all the base scaling factor for multithreaded performance.
Single threaded performance also helps "everything", while more cores only helps certain workloads.

Why don't you try to work with a single-core processor if the single-thread performance is so important?
The applications are thread-count starved - we all need more cores because we are always limited by the speed of execution of a single thread, the only way to overcome this limit is to use more cores.

Oh, and to be honest - this PassMark thread is heavily AMD optimised.

Next time try with Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, WinRar compression, Super Pi and other beautiful benchmarks where AMD CPUs get slaughtered.
 
Joined
Apr 9, 2018
Messages
670 (0.61/day)
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 5600X
Motherboard Asus B550-F Gaming (Wi-Fi)
Cooling Noctua NH-U9S
Memory 32GB G.Skill Ripjaws V 3600MHz CL18
Video Card(s) Asus GTX 1060 Dual 6GB
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Evo M.2 NVMe
Display(s) Asus VS248H 1080p and Benq GW2255 1080p
Case Antec Three Hundred U3
Power Supply Be Quiet! Straight Power 11 650W Platinum
Mouse JSCO JNL-101k
Keyboard Logitech G710+
Why don't you try to work with a single-core processor if the single-thread performance is so important?
The applications are thread-count starved - we all need more cores because we are always limited by the speed of execution of a single thread, the only way to overcome this limit is to use more cores.

Ah, single-threaded performance must mean nothing then. Gotcha.

Anyone know where I could buy a 128 core processor to improve my computer's performance by 3000%?
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
2,405 (0.96/day)
Why don't you try to work with a single-core processor if the single-thread performance is so important?
Despite being so active in these deeply technical subjects, you clearly don't know what "single threaded performance" means.
You should think of single threaded performance as performance per core, because that's what it really is, and forms the theoretical upper limit of multithreaded scaling; cores * performance per core.

All workloads split over multiple cores will encounter diminishing returns with increased core count, as synchronizing more cores is inevitably going to take more time. This overhead might not be significant if you're doing a large batch job that takes minutes or even hours, but if it's an interactive application or a game, then you have a very critical time limit before the application becomes laggy and non-responsive. Since there is an overhead cost with each thread you synchronize, balancing how threads share data and the size of work chunks is essential for good multithreaded performance. In such cases faster cores will lead to better utilization and less stalls and lag, essentially you can scale to more cores before performance gains become negligible.

As I said in my previous post, single threaded performance helps "everything". Whether an application uses 1 or 128 threads, an increase in single threaded performance is nearly always going to benefit a computational workload, and sometimes even help multithreaded performance even more due to less overhead.

The applications are thread-count starved - we all need more cores because we are always limited by the speed of execution of a single thread, the only way to overcome this limit is to use more cores.
If an application is in fact starved for more threads, then more threads are good.
But applications have to be carefully designed to scale well. Large batch jobs are "easy", while applications like Phoshop etc. are harder. That's why you often see with such applications that more cores helps a little up to a point, but faster cores always help.
Unless an application benefits from thread isolation (which some web server tasks do), faster cores are always going to perform better than more cores. If you have the option between a CPU that has 50% more cores or one that's 50% faster per core, the latter will nearly always win.

Oh, and to be honest - this PassMark thread is heavily AMD optimised.
Typical rookie mistake.
There are really no such thing as "AMD optimized" or "Intel optimized".
Just because a piece of software is performing better on one specific piece of hardware, doesn't mean it's "optimized" for it. In 99.9% of cases it simply comes down to the resource balance. The exception are the few cases where unique ISA features are utilized, or the application intentionally runs a slower code path for certain hardware.
 
Joined
Oct 15, 2019
Messages
194 (0.36/day)
References for that power comment? Only the i7-10750H and higher pull up 65W, and that only for ~30 seconds, just like the Renoir Zen 2 laptop chips. And they only do that in multi-core, not single core. Then they drop back to their rated 45W unless you change that in the BIOS. The 5600X is 65W TDP meaning that is most likely its sustained PL1 power draw, I would imagine like most chips (Intel and AMD) its PL2 turbo is probably more like 95W. Not sure how much more wrong you could be here.

Tiger Lake will pull around 54W PL2 for a short time, like 30s, then pull back down to sustained power draw PL1 = 28W. Cinebench is not a short benchmark, so you are talking about a chip that draws around or less than half the power of the 65W TDP 5600X. And it scored within 1% on single thread Cinebench of that 5600X. Hence my comment.

To that point, the Ryzen 4900HS in the Asus Rog G14 - the flagship high performance model for the Ryzen, probably about the fastest you could get 3 months ago - got smoked by in an Ars review of the Tiger Lake based MSI Summit.

View attachment 173130
The highest bin tiger lake consumes about 30W @4,8GHz on a medium intensity 1T load according to anandtechs fairly comprehensive tests. In contrast zen2 can’t really use more than 18W per core (max 20W on renoir with uncore etc, matisse is not really power optimized and a lot of power goes to IF & IO die).

Rocket lake is going to be the juice king. 5GHz all core around 320W in cinebench like loads, prime95 will be higher.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
968 (0.33/day)
I know AMD fans are super excited but I'd love to shit on your parade. You know why? AMD has finally outperformed an Intel uArch from ... 2015. This might sound like a great achievement but honestly it's just because Intel has completely f*ed up their 10nm transition. Yeah, their latest 10nm++ node (first - Cannon Lake, second - Ice Lake and now Tiger Lake) allows to boost to 4.8GHz at the expense of insane power consumption and they've made changes to the Willow Cove Core architecture which sometimes translate to a lower performance than Ice Lake:



In short Intel has turned from an indisputable x86 performance leader to something else entirely and AMD has quickly seized the opportunity to significantly increase their prices. An entry level Ryzen 5000 CPU, Ryzen 5 5600X, is now 50% (!) more expensive than its Ryzen 3000 counterpart, Ryzen 5 3600. There's nothing to be excited about. One struggling monopoly has been replaced by another.
 
  • Like
Reactions: _L_
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,188 (3.71/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC alive since Aug 18th 2019
Processor Ryzen 5 3600 (PBO Enabled)
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro, BIOS F32
Cooling Corsair H110i 280mm (Liquid metal for TIM)
Memory Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 2x8GB 3466MHz @3667MHz CL16-18-18-18-36 1T, B-die A0
Video Card(s) MSI RX 5700XT Gaming X
Storage Samsung NVMe: 970Pro 512GB (2019, OS drive) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB SSD (2015) 860Evo 1TB SSD (2020)
Display(s) 24" EIZO FlexScan S2411W 1920x1200, 16:10 60Hz samsung S-PVA 14-bit (16.7M/1.06B colors), 6ms G2G
Case None
Audio Device(s) Sound Blaster Z <--optical link--> Logitech Z5500 5.1 500W, Logitech G35 headset
Power Supply Corsair HX750i
Mouse Logitech MX Master (Gen1)
Keyboard Logitech G15 (Gen2)
Software Windows 10 Home 64bit (20H2)
I know AMD fans are super excited but I'd love to shit on your parade. You know why? AMD has finally outperformed an Intel uArch from ... 2015. This might sound like a great achievement but honestly it's just because Intel has completely f*ed up their 10nm transition. Yeah, their latest 10nm++ node (first - Cannon Lake, second - Ice Lake and now Tiger Lake) allows to boost to 4.8GHz at the expense of insane power consumption and they've made changes to the Willow Cove Core architecture which sometimes translate to a lower performance than Ice Lake:



In short Intel has turned from an indisputable x86 performance leader to something else entirely and AMD has quickly seized the opportunity to significantly increase their prices. An entry level Ryzen 5000 CPU, Ryzen 5 5600X, is now 50% (!) more expensive than its Ryzen 3000 counterpart, Ryzen 5 3600. There's nothing to be excited about. One struggling monopoly has been replaced by another.
The only thing you’re trying to Sh1t on, is our intellect. But ain’t happening... you can keep them by your bedside

Intel has done this to it self because it was sitting on the big throne for years and didn’t do anything really to innovate the consumer market. Only trying to get user’s money. I guess you liked paying for an i7 and get an i3 all those years.

The 5600X is not an entry level CPU. A CPU that out performers all previous Zen CPUs and most probably Intels also on single thread and match a lot of middle parts with maybe more cores, even Intels, in multi thread, for 300$...
5600X is not replacing 3600nonX
Core count does not determine level of products. Performance does.

Thank fully AMD has now offerings that shifted the entire market and Intel has woken from the eternal sleep and trying put its act/sh1t together, unlike you...

So before you say anything about a +50$ in price for top line products remember how Intel cut 500$ to try to match AMD’s
You would still pay 1000$ for 500$ CPU.

So keep your act and shit together and to your self...
We don’t need that here.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
968 (0.33/day)
Core count does not determine level of products. Performance does.

This is exactly why Ryzen 1000/2000 CPUs got popular in the first place - MOAR cores than Intel at a reasonable price. How fast AMD fans have forgotten everything.

The 5600X is an entry level CPU as AMD hasn't yet announced anything cheaper/simpler. And it's not just $50 more expensive, it's $100 more expensive, or 50%. If Intel had done anything like that for their entry level CPUs people would have torn them apart! And being marginally faster in lots of workloads than Sky Lake from 2015 allows them to dictate insane prices? I don't want to participate in this discussion any longer. It's just dirty. One corporation ripping off it's customers while offering the highest performance? Bad, bad, bad! An underdog now ripping off their customers by offering the highest performance? That's totally OK. F it.
 
Joined
May 2, 2017
Messages
3,799 (2.63/day)
Location
Norwegian, currently in Lund, Sweden
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 1600X
Motherboard Biostar X370GTN
Cooling Custom CPU+GPU water loop
Memory 16GB G.Skill TridentZ DDR4-3200 C16
Video Card(s) AMD R9 Fury X
Storage 500GB 960 Evo (OS ++), 500GB 850 Evo (Games)
Display(s) Dell U2711
Case NZXT H200i
Power Supply EVGA Supernova G2 750W
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Lenovo Compact Keyboard with Trackpoint
Software Windows 10 Pro
I know AMD fans are super excited but I'd love to shit on your parade. You know why? AMD has finally outperformed an Intel uArch from ... 2015. This might sound like a great achievement but honestly it's just because Intel has completely f*ed up their 10nm transition. Yeah, their latest 10nm++ node (first - Cannon Lake, second - Ice Lake and now Tiger Lake) allows to boost to 4.8GHz at the expense of insane power consumption and they've made changes to the Willow Cove Core architecture which sometimes translate to a lower performance than Ice Lake:



In short Intel has turned from an indisputable x86 performance leader to something else entirely and AMD has quickly seized the opportunity to significantly increase their prices. An entry level Ryzen 5000 CPU, Ryzen 5 5600X, is now 50% (!) more expensive than its Ryzen 3000 counterpart, Ryzen 5 3600. There's nothing to be excited about. One struggling monopoly has been replaced by another.
This is exactly why Ryzen 1000/2000 CPUs got popular in the first place - MOAR cores than Intel at a reasonable price. How fast AMD fans have forgotten everything.

The 5600X is an entry level CPU as AMD hasn't yet announced anything cheaper/simpler. And it's not just $50 more expensive, it's $100 more expensive, or 50%. If Intel had done anything like that for their entry level CPUs people would have torn them apart! And being marginally faster in lots of workloads than Sky Lake from 2015 allows them to dictate insane prices? I don't want to participate in this discussion any longer. It's just dirty. One corporation ripping off it's customers while offering the highest performance? Bad, bad, bad! An underdog now ripping off their customers by offering the highest performance? That's totally OK. F it.
Just because it's the lowest tier product launched as of now does not make it "entry level" - by that logic the RTX 3080 is an entry level GPU ...
Just like previous generations, we can expect a 6c12t 5600 non-X (likely in the $230 range), a 6c6t or 4c8t 5500(X), and so on.

Beyond that, while there is a smidgen of truth to what you're saying, you're twisting it way past what's reasonable. Some issues:
-Zen 2 already surpassed Skylake and its derivatives in terms of IPC, beating them by ~7% in AnandTech's testing. Latency-sensitive workloads like gaming was one area where Intel still had the upper hand, but it was also the only area.
- Intel is already hitting >5GHz on 14nm, so saying their 10++ node allows for 4.8GHz is ... a bit weird? You're also skipping over the fact that Ice Lake improved IPC over Skylake by ~18%, which Tiger Lake carries forward (though with much improved clocks thanks to the improved 10++ node), both of which Zen 3 should now handily surpass again. So Zen 3 isn't surpassing an architecture from 2015, but one from 2020.
- Intel's issues don't just stem from their messed up 10nm node, but also their architectural development plans and their failure to improve upon Skylake for far too long when they knew 10nm wasn't panning out. (And especially that it took them five years to backport a newer core design to 14nm.)

As for saying "One struggling monopoly has been replaced by another" - please come back in five or more years. Taking a leading market position (which AMD still doesn't have, just to be clear), does not make you a monopolist. Far from it. Your arguments here are ridiculously simplistic.

I understand your frustrations regarding the higher prices, but there's also reason behind that. AMD has sold themselves as the value option with Ryzen 1000-3000. Now, with Ryzen 5000, they see no reason to present themselves that way, instead selling themselves as the overall performance champion. Thus they have no reason to price themselves lower than Intel - the value comes with the better performance, not the lower price. Does this suck for end users now accustomed to cheap many-core CPUs from AMD? Of course it does! But it is nowhere near a reasonable threshold for being called a ripoff. You're getting your money's worth, after all. It's not like they are returning to $400 4c8t CPUs like we had before Ryzen...
-
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
968 (0.33/day)
Just because it's the lowest tier product launched as of now does not make it "entry level" - by that logic the RTX 3080 is an entry level GPU ...

All three vendors AMD, NVIDIA and Intel have a naming scheme they follow closely. XX80 products from NVIDIA have always been top tier, starting with GeForce4 4800Ti. Ryzen XX60 CPUs have always been entry-level, Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 5 2600, Ryzen 5 3600 and now Ryzen 5 5600X. Again, if Intel had done anything like that, people would have torn them apart and they had the performance crown for more than a decade.

The Core i3 6100, much faster in single-threaded mode than anything from AMD at that time was sold for $117.
The Core i3 4130 before it, $122.

Why didn't Intel sell the Core i3 6100 for $183? It was the fastest entry level CPU at that time!

Double effing standards and hypocrisy from AMD fans all the effing time even when their idol starts ripping off (Ryzen 5 3600 $200, Ryzen 5 5600 with the same number of cores $300).

Now, with Ryzen 5000, they see no reason to present themselves that way, instead selling themselves as the overall performance champion.

Even the most evil company in the world, Intel, didn't allow itself to do that as indicated earlier. F it and I'm out.

Speaking of monopolies. Yes, AMD is playing like a monopoly. They've got the highest performance and they've started dictating prices which indicate they have no competition. Again, refer to my example at the beginning of the post: Intel did not allow itself to increase prices between generations for similar products, except when they started to offer significantly more cores. AMD has increased the price of their entry level CPU by whopping 50%, not $50 you keep mentioning.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 2, 2017
Messages
3,747 (2.66/day)
System Name Best AMD Computer
Processor AMD 5600X
Motherboard MSI X570 Unify
Cooling Silverstone IceGem 280
Memory ADATA D60 3600MHZ 32 GB
Video Card(s) MSI 6800XT Gaming Trio X
Storage Seagate 520 1Tb, Adata SX8200 2TBx2, Kingston 2 TBx2, Micron 8 TB
Display(s) GIGABYTE 32QC
Case PHANTEKS ENTHOO PRO 2
Audio Device(s) Corsair Void Pro, Logitch Z523 5.1
Power Supply Corsair HX1200!
Mouse Logitech g7 gaming mouse
Keyboard Logitech G510
Software Windows 10 Pro 64 Steam. GOG, Uplay, Origin
Benchmark Scores Firestrike: 24955 Time Spy: 13500
hmm fx8350 for 8 years....so attracted by this cpu...
Prepare to have a smile on your face every single time you press the power button.
 
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,188 (3.71/day)
Location
Thessaloniki, Greece
System Name PC alive since Aug 18th 2019
Processor Ryzen 5 3600 (PBO Enabled)
Motherboard Gigabyte X570 Aorus Pro, BIOS F32
Cooling Corsair H110i 280mm (Liquid metal for TIM)
Memory Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 2x8GB 3466MHz @3667MHz CL16-18-18-18-36 1T, B-die A0
Video Card(s) MSI RX 5700XT Gaming X
Storage Samsung NVMe: 970Pro 512GB (2019, OS drive) / SATA-III: 850Pro 1TB SSD (2015) 860Evo 1TB SSD (2020)
Display(s) 24" EIZO FlexScan S2411W 1920x1200, 16:10 60Hz samsung S-PVA 14-bit (16.7M/1.06B colors), 6ms G2G
Case None
Audio Device(s) Sound Blaster Z <--optical link--> Logitech Z5500 5.1 500W, Logitech G35 headset
Power Supply Corsair HX750i
Mouse Logitech MX Master (Gen1)
Keyboard Logitech G15 (Gen2)
Software Windows 10 Home 64bit (20H2)
This is exactly why Ryzen 1000/2000 CPUs got popular in the first place - MOAR cores than Intel at a reasonable price. How fast AMD fans have forgotten everything.

The 5600X is an entry level CPU as AMD hasn't yet announced anything cheaper/simpler. And it's not just $50 more expensive, it's $100 more expensive, or 50%. If Intel had done anything like that for their entry level CPUs people would have torn them apart! And being marginally faster in lots of workloads than Sky Lake from 2015 allows them to dictate insane prices? I don't want to participate in this discussion any longer. It's just dirty. One corporation ripping off it's customers while offering the highest performance? Bad, bad, bad! An underdog now ripping off their customers by offering the highest performance? That's totally OK. F it.
All three vendors AMD, NVIDIA and Intel have a naming scheme they follow closely. XX80 products from NVIDIA have always been top tier, starting with GeForce4 4800Ti. Ryzen XX60 CPUs have always been entry-level, Ryzen 5 1600, Ryzen 5 2600, Ryzen 5 3600 and now Ryzen 5 5600X. Again, if Intel had done anything like that, people would have torn them apart and they had the performance crown for more than a decade.

The Core i3 6100, much faster in single-threaded mode than anything from AMD at that time was sold for $117.
The Core i3 4130 before it, $122.

Why didn't Intel sell the Core i3 6100 for $183? It was the fastest entry level CPU at that time!

Double effing standards and hypocrisy from AMD fans all the effing time even when their idol starts ripping off (Ryzen 5 3600 $200, Ryzen 5 5600 with the same number of cores $300).



Even the most evil company in the world, Intel, didn't allow itself to do that as indicated earlier. F it and I'm out.

Speaking of monopolies. Yes, AMD is playing like a monopoly. They've got the highest performance and they've started dictating prices which indicate they have no competition. Again, refer to my example at the beginning of the post: Intel did not allow itself to increase prices between generations for similar products, except when they started to offer significantly more cores. AMD has increased the price of their entry level CPU by whopping 50%, not $50 you keep mentioning.
Yes yes, RTX3070 anounced by nVidia is the entry level GPU that replaces GTX 1650 and has a price bump of 300%.

Are we in kindergarden here?

The 1600/2600/3600/5600 is the entry level CPUs of AMD... Right...!!!
And the 1200/1300/1400/1500/3100/3300 what exactly are? Sub-entry level or non existent CPUs?
You can cry all you want. 5600X is replacing 3600X and has price bump of 50$. That is a +20% on MSRP with at least the same performance uplift and most probably performs faster than any 6core.

Please... you can try harder than this.
 
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
968 (0.33/day)
Yes yes, RTX3070 anounced by nVidia is the entry level GPU that replaces GTX 1650 and has a price bump of 300%.

Are we in kindergarden here?

The 1600/2600/3600/5600 is the entry level CPUs of AMD... Right...!!!
And the 1200/1300/1400/1500/3100/3300 what exactly are? Sub-entry level or non existent CPUs?
You can cry all you want. 5600X is replacing 3600X and has price bump of 50$. That is a +20% on MSRP with at least the same performance uplift and most probably performs faster than any 6core.

Please... you can try harder than this.

I'm ignoring your posts from now on. You've failed to address the fact that Intel doesn't allow itself to raise prices when they release faster better products. You're trying to compare the 5600X to the 3600X which wasn't the entry level CPU, it was the 3600 which cost $200, so the difference is not $50 but $100, i.e. whopping 1.5 times. Good luck with AMD a-licking and vindicating their monopolistic behavior (because it is what is is). What's bad for Intel and NVIDIA, is totally OK for AMD. I get it, now I have nothing else to talk with you about.
 
Top