I don't understand 5600X pricing.

[Taraquin]

I can buy an Asrock B660M Pro RS + 12400F for $320, or the equivalent 5600X + B550M Pro 4 for $420.

On top of the $100 price advantage the B660M platform is newer and holds the possibility of future upgrades, which would appear not to exist with the B550M. Ok, technically the 5600X might be 2% faster, but it's questionable whether you'd pay any more $ for it at all.

More relevantly I could get a 12600KF+mobo for the same $420, which has 10 cores and is quite a lot better.

I guess AMD has good credibility at the moment?

Prices where I live:
Cheapest B660 cost 140usd+220usd for 12400F=360usd
Cheapest B550 cost 80usd+320usd for 5600X=400usd
Cheapest Z690 cost 220usd+320usd for 12600KF+basic cooler 40usd=580usd

In general gaming I would say 5600X is 2% faster stock and up to 10% once properly tuned with pbo+co and ram oc on 12400F is very limited due to SA voltage being locked (ram max at 3400-3600 vs 3733-4000 on 5600X), 12600KF seems to be 10% faster stock and tuned. For me atm 5600X seems to give most bang for bucks, but if you go for 12600KF you can get a 13700KF down the line and your platform lives on

 

[thelawnet]

I wouldn't bother with 12th gen less than the 12600KF. The extra 4 EE cores are definitely not worth skimping out from IMO.

depends what your use case is.

10 cores is better than 6, but 6 is also better than 4, and pcie4 is better than pcie3.

So if you're building a PC right now, then it makes a lot of sense to look at the 12100f, because the only other cheap(ish) pcie4 CPU is the 11400f, which is a bit of an abomination of a CPU given the excessive heat on cheap mobos.

Right now I'm seeing, in my market (Asia):

* 10100f + h510m = $145
* 10400f + h510m = $200
* 11400f + h510m = $230 (likely to throttle), $275 with a better mobo
* 12100f + h610m = $210
* 12400f + h610m = $280
* 12600kf + h610m = $380, but realistically you'd want a better mobo so more like $420 with a half-ok b660m

and then GPUs:

* 1030 GT GDDR5 - $100
* 1050 Ti - $220
* 6500 XT $275
* 1650 GDDR6 $280
* 1650 Super $350
* 3050 $470
* 6600 $530
* 6600 XT $630

A lot of people pair the 10100f with the 1030, for $245. If your budget is strictly limited then honestly you want as much GPU as you can, so the next step is 1050 Ti, 1650, etc..

The 11400f is obviously a poor choice at this point, and the 10400f doesn't make a lot of sense either for must people, so it's pretty much 10100f vs 12100f vs 12400f vs 12600kf, plus as much GPU as you can buy.

It's not really clear to me given +$60 for 12100f vs 10100f (faster, newer, PCIE 4.0), +$70 for 12400f vs 12100f (6 cores so more future proof), +$100 for 12600kf vs 12400f, why the 12600kf would be the obvious choice out of all of those, especially given that the you could just go for $55 more and get the 12700f.

I mean, the last CPU I bought (besides laptop) was a i5-4460, and at the time that was obvious in that it was 4 cores rather than two, twice as much power. It's no longer very obvious even between 12T/6C and 8T/4C, let alone between 6+4c vs 6c, or indeed 8+4c vs 6c. My son runs the i5-4460 and it's in fact fast (with his 1060 6GB), despite being only 4C/4T; sure I know there are specific games where 4C/4T throttles now badly, but the fact that for certain applications the 4460 no longer works well, doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded if you aren't personally hitting those bottlenecks.

If you check the 12400F 720p benchmarks https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-i5-12400f/15.html

then the 12600K only makes a big difference on Civ 6, the others it doesn't do much beyond the extra MHz. OTOH, the frame rate is already so high, then it's not really clear the use.

If you have something very highly threaded, i.e. not gaming, then probably you should just buy the 12700F anyway, because if you really need 6+4 cores, why not just makes it 8+4.

 

[Palladium]

Could be worse, like the one guy I saw buying 11400F instead of 12400F in a DIY shop when both are at the same price.

I really have no idea how anyone can be *this* stupid. I mean dude, the benchmarks are right there after a 10 sec google search.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

Good contributions all. Ok, so going by TPU's own testing, there's a 6-10% performance delta (ignoring 4K game results). What's surprising to me is that delta translating into a 20% or greater price gap.

The PCIe 4 v. 3 is an excellent point, but I feel like an IGP should offset that for the majority of buyers. But then, I don't have the market data in front of me to say what proportion of PCs have a dGPU. And in that case, how many are rocking a dGPU where either the bus or choice of G v. X makes a significant difference?

I suppose it ultimately doesn't matter. The gap in current ASP basically mirrors that of the RRP, so the market seems to have agreed with AMD what the value of each is relative to the other, so I'm just over here having an "Old Man Shakes Fist at Cloud" moment. Or something.

Could be worse, like the one guy I saw buying 11400F instead of 12400F in a DIY shop when both are at the same price.

I really have no idea how anyone can be *this* stupid. I mean dude, the benchmarks are right there after a 10 sec google search.

They're not the same socket, so if he's already got the board, it's not really a choice, is it?

 

[Palladium]

Nope, it was a full system build.

The entry level mobos for both were the same price too.

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

* 1050 Ti - $220

Same as my GTX 1060 3 GB on November 5, 2016, IIRC.

 

[thelawnet]

Good contributions all. Ok, so going by TPU's own testing, there's a 6-10% performance delta (ignoring 4K game results). What's surprising to me is that delta translating into a 20% or greater price gap.

The PCIe 4 v. 3 is an excellent point, but I feel like an IGP should offset that for the majority of buyers. But then, I don't have the market data in front of me to say what proportion of PCs have a dGPU. And in that case, how many are rocking a dGPU where either the bus or choice of G v. X makes a significant difference?

I suppose it ultimately doesn't matter. The gap in current ASP basically mirrors that of the RRP, so the market seems to have agreed with AMD what the value of each is relative to the other, so I'm just over here having an "Old Man Shakes Fist at Cloud" moment. Or something.

It makes some sense as noted if you assume most people are building PCs with nice cooling, motherboard, power supply, etc., in which case the 5600X is nice, and the 5600G is basically an overpriced NUC-type of product.

The problem of course with that scenario is that if you were building this PC with good cooling, good RAM, etc., it's not clear why you wouldn't just get an Alder Lake.

 

[Splinterdog]

I've built several customer PCs recently for people who never game and are never likely to, which is why I chose 5600G in each case. They get the best of both worlds to an extent - excellent performance in every general task and superb video output, especially should they want to hook up the PC to a TV, for example.
Throwing a GPU into any PC build nowadays completely throws the budget for a non-gaming machine. I'm a big fan of IGPUs.

 

[seth1911]

Amd dont care about retail customers, they need them till ryzen 2.
After that they could do what they want.

The entry for an AMD CPU its very high with a dirty old Ryzen 3 1200 (R20 1200) without HT for about 81€, 10100F (R20 2280) 76€

AMD Pricechart till 270€:
1200 81€
3600 198€
5600G 239€
5600X 269€

Intel Pricechart till 270€:
Celeron G6900 42€
Pentium G6405 58€
10100F 76€
12100F 121€
10400F 126€
11400F 143€
12400F 189€
10700F 242€
11700F 267€

At the end i can get a 12400F 189€ + Board H610 89€ = 278€ and its still faster than a 5600X 269€ only

 

[freeagent]

I would think Intel is big enough to undercut AMD by a good margin to build their customer base back up. They could probably afford to do that. My 5900X has dropped almost 200 bucks since I bought it for 808 bucks. I paid 449 for my 5600X and right now you can buy a 5800X for the same price.. my 5600X is now 349. ADL is nice.. but I will wait for what comes after ADL. You guys can fight over ram

 

[Palladium]

I would think Intel is big enough to undercut AMD by a good margin to build their customer base back up. They could probably afford to do that. My 5900X has dropped almost 200 bucks since I bought it for 808 bucks. I paid 449 for my 5600X and right now you can buy a 5800X for the same price.. my 5600X is now 349. ADL is nice.. but I will wait for what comes after ADL. You guys can fight over ram

Intel just weren't attractive enough until B560 mobos with unlockable mem OC showed up.

Also they are smart enough to not force DDR5 down our throats, at least for the first round of LGA1700.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

I don't understand why it's more expensive than the 11400F, though.

Honestly 5600X should have been 50usd less. Since MB is wsy cheaper than Intel it somewhat makes up for it. 12400F+B660 is a bit cheaper, but also a bit slower, that is the closest competition atm.

It sells fine at the current price, if they want to sell more than they are selling now they will lower the prices.

ram oc on 12400F is very limited due to SA voltage being locked

Can you link me to some thread or something showing that?

 

[Palladium]

It sells fine at the current price, if they want to sell more than they are selling now they will lower the prices.


Can you link me to some thread or something showing that?

I was able to hit 3600 on stock SA/IO non-XMP volts on my old 8700K.

Besides, nobody is expecting entry i5s to do amazing OCs anyway.

 

[freeagent]

Besides, nobody is expecting entry i5s to do amazing OCs anyway.

I always expect that.. I expect every OC to be amazing.. the bitter taste of disappointment never gets easier to swallow

 

[AusWolf]

Prices where I live:
Cheapest B660 cost 140usd+220usd for 12400F=360usd
Cheapest B550 cost 80usd+320usd for 5600X=400usd
Cheapest Z690 cost 220usd+320usd for 12600KF+basic cooler 40usd=580usd

In general gaming I would say 5600X is 2% faster stock and up to 10% once properly tuned with pbo+co and ram oc on 12400F is very limited due to SA voltage being locked (ram max at 3400-3600 vs 3733-4000 on 5600X), 12600KF seems to be 10% faster stock and tuned. For me atm 5600X seems to give most bang for bucks, but if you go for 12600KF you can get a 13700KF down the line and your platform lives on

Does that matter, though? I mean, a 10% RAM overclock isn't something you notice in real life.

 

[Taraquin]

It sells fine at the current price, if they want to sell more than they are selling now they will lower the prices.


Can you link me to some thread or something showing that?

https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?threads/msi-intel-600-series-beta-bios.362343/#post-2105177 I've talked to 5 others and none are able to change SA voltage on locked CPUs on D4 MBs for now, :/

Does that matter, though? I mean, a 10% RAM overclock isn't something you notice in real life.

Currently I'm running 3600 on my 12400F and 4000 on my 5600X, in SOTTR that is about 5% faster vs running 3600 on 5600X when CPU bound, pbo+co adds another 5%. One could argue that the 10% going from 5600X to 12600KF don't matter either If it doesn't matter to you, then go 12400F and save a few bucks

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

Simple answer, APUs are for niche products. The 5600x is a mainstream offering at the best price : performance ratio.

More complicated, AMD doesn't control pricing. They do control market segmentation by tailored offerings. The 5600G as a CPU may be similar to the 5600x...but it's placed very differently. The sooner you can ignore the paper specifications, and see the intended user/purchaser, the sooner the pricing scheme will make sense.

 

[AusWolf]

Currently I'm running 3600 on my 12400F and 4000 on my 5600X, in SOTTR that is about 5% faster vs running 3600 on 5600X when CPU bound, pbo+co adds another 5%. One could argue that the 10% going from 5600X to 12600KF don't matter either If it doesn't matter to you, then go 12400F and save a few bucks

Do you actually notice the difference without an FPS counter on screen?

I saved more than a few bucks with my 11700 non-K and B560 board.

It sells fine at the current price, if they want to sell more than they are selling now they will lower the prices.

That's true. Although, I think it's selling fine because of the Ryzen hype train and the relatively cheap B550 boards - and not because it's better than the competition.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

Although, I think it's selling fine because of the Ryzen hype train and the relatively cheap B550 boards - and not because it's better than the competition.

I don't disagree, but personally I'm disinclined to jump on LGA1700 ATM given the situation with coolers, expensive motherboards, and hit and miss BIOSes.

Also, I think there is a perception that you *need* windows 11 to run ADL, which is obviously BS but it's kinda Intel's fault for making a big deal about W11...

Not to mention there's quite a lot of people on older Zen stuff, and Vermeer BIOS support on B450 is getting quite a lot better now (though I personally think it's more of a minefield than LGA1700). Either way, there is a perception of sunk cost attached to that, and "making use of the upgrade path"

 

[Taraquin]

Do you actually notice the difference without an FPS counter on screen?

I saved more than a few bucks with my 11700 non-K and B560 board.


That's true. Although, I think it's selling fine because of the Ryzen hype train and the relatively cheap B550 boards - and not because it's better than the competition.

Honestly no, but I bought the 5600X a year back. Today I would have bought it instead of 12400F again since it only cost marginally more and perform slightly better, also 5600X rocks at compress/decompress and I do a lot of that. I also like to tweak/oc, and 5600X has more to offer there.

If I still use the 5600X a few years from now I will notice the difference between 54 and 60fps in games

Today the ultimate bang for bucks would be a 100usd B560+11400F(150usd)+30usd cooler=280usd. You then get 90-95% of 5600X performance in games stock without pwr limit (85-90% ram oc/tuned), but powerconsumption is not good.

 

[thelawnet]

I don't disagree, but personally I'm disinclined to jump on LGA1700 ATM given the situation with coolers, expensive motherboards, and hit and miss BIOSes.

What's the situation with coolers exactly?

 

[Deleted member 24505]

what is with the hit and miss BIOSes for lga1700? is there some problems i don't know about as not had a single problem with my Asus z690-a D4

 

[Taraquin]

what is with the hit and miss BIOSes for lga1700? is there some problems i don't know about as not had a single problem with my Asus z690-a D4

Many with Samsung DDR5 struggle a lot.

 

[80-watt Hamster]

It makes some sense as noted if you assume most people are building PCs with nice cooling, motherboard, power supply, etc., in which case the 5600X is nice, and the 5600G is basically an overpriced NUC-type of product.

I don't assume such, and would tend to assume the opposite, that most PCs are built primarily with budget in mind, with inexpensive parts and stock cooling. But whatever the actual sitiuation, the above position I struggle to wrap my head around. What makes the 5600G overpriced relative to the 5600X? It's nearly as fast, and is appreciably less expensive. In the current market, the IGP is "worth" over $100 (what a GT 1030 will cost you) on its own.

Simple answer, APUs are for niche products. The 5600x is a mainstream offering at the best price : performance ratio.

More complicated, AMD doesn't control pricing. They do control market segmentation by tailored offerings. The 5600G as a CPU may be similar to the 5600x...but it's placed very differently. The sooner you can ignore the paper specifications, and see the intended user/purchaser, the sooner the pricing scheme will make sense.

I didn't mean RRP/MSRP, but current retail pricing. The gap is about the same, though; around USD40. And I don't agree that the G is niche and the X mainstream; that's PC enthusiast perspective talking. IMO.

 

[eidairaman1]

the 5600G has a big niche for people who are genuinely on restricted budgets (the 5700G doesnt really have a good reason to exist)

here the most common build is 10100f/10105f ($75) + gt 1030 2gb gddr5 ($100).

a 5600g is $265, and a 12100f is $120

the gt 1030 has no competitors, and the 5600g is a bit faster than it

I'm not seeing much interest in 5600x at all, because it doesn't deliver any compelling value: if you want a 6c/12t then the 12400f is MUCH cheaper ($100), newer platform, and 98% of the performance, and then there is the 11400f and 10400f as well for less, and if you want a fast CPU then even the 12600KF is $20 cheaper and obviously much better.

in the real world of expensive GPUs, the 5600G makes a deal of sense and not just for itx HTPCs - lots of people game on very old GPUs in tower cases because that's all they can afford

I got a 5800 OEM for 262 on ebay.