Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by bit-tech, 5 Nov 2020.
Cracking job from AMD right there!
The 5800X getting so close to a 10900k with two less cores (and less clock speed IIRC) is quite telling.
Single core R20 though....
Should also be noted that the 5950X "stock" breaks past my old 7980XE at 4.4Ghz all core in R20 as well (scored around 10k flat).
Unlikely to upgrade right now as I have no need but for anyone building right now its quite hard to recommend anything from Intel (maybe the 10850k or 10600k if the price is right and you only game?)
Now bring on Zen 3 Ripper...
Very happy I didn't buy a 3900X in June now. Now the question is whether or not to got a 5800X or spring the extra for the 5900X, which depends on whether the 5900X retains the seemingly silly but actually brilliant 65W eco mode the 3900X and 3950X had.
Tom got a 5900x. May help you decide
Good to see there is finally parity with Intel in the games space, perhaps the smallest margin to the 10900k but beats Intel hands down on the whole package.
It only really tells me what I already know (5900X is bloody fast), the thing I want to know most is whether or not Eco Mode is still as good. On the two Ryzen 9 39XX chips 65W mode gave you 85% of the multi core performance and more less 100% of single threaded, but at 60% power and thermal load. It's the difference between my PC running totally silently except for the HDDs spinning and it making some noise. It won't be a total deal breaker, but I do like my silence.
Do they go on sale today as well?
A big step forward in single core performance, although power consumption and pricing is moving up to match Intel. Looking forward to seeing what the more mainstream 5600 will do.
Power consumption has stayed identical or dropped a tiny bit according to most reviews I saw, including the graphs in this review...
Look at the chart on the bottom right:
Zen 3 absolutely obliterates everything Intel has in regards to energy efficiency.
Totally forgetting that when multi threading the 5950x is up to 77% faster.
This isn't Top Trumps mate. You can't just pick power consumption and ignore every other metric on the CPU.
The thing is, "if" this was Intel, and they had no competition for a similar product, this would be 1300 - 2000 I am sure.. So for me, considering how good this product is, I think pricing is VERY fair.. They have worked hard, taken some very tough times and losses and they are reaping the benefits now. Good on them... This is not Intel pricing at all.... I wont be getting one as I am happy with what I have but if I was in the market for a new chip, it would be a simple case of choosing which AMD CPU I bought... Well done AMD, really impressed....
Sure you can. It is why my old 486 is better than any machine made today. It didn't even NEED a CPU fan!
Neither does a Raspberry Pi... and one of those will stomp a mudhole in a 486.
I want a 5950X. But I have no real use for it, as a 5800X would probably do better for a mostly-gaming rig. Now, to wait and see if a BIOS comes out for my motherboard which means I can drop a Zen 3 chip in it, or just upgrade the whole lot and get a B550/X570 board...?
Would love to see 5950X and RX 6900 XT using that shared GFX memory trick, versus whatever would be the best of a mix of Intel, Nvidia and AMD.
Can you air cool it? Probably not very well, hence my comment
Looks at reply that picks 1 metric and plays top trumps....
I just pointed out that as a potential buyer the increases in cost and power consumption aren't great. Two of AMD's advantages were their cheaper costs and their lower power consumption meaning for example I could just use a simpler cheaper air cooling setup.
The 5950X draws the same or less than the 3950X in every chart.
So I am not looking at this from the point of winning some fanboy argument, I am looking at this from the point of view of someone looking at new cpu's to buy and stick in my son's and my machines.
Just looking at the bit-tech graphs the 5800 has moved up quite a bit in power usage vs 3800. I could air cool a 3800 with a big air cooler, but the 5800 has really passed that boundary and is onto requiring water (blender 158W vs 191W). Water means more complexity, cost, needs a compatible case, etc. In addition the chip has gone up in cost, as has the motherboard (B550 vs B450). Hence I could have afforded say a 3800X with a B450 and re-used my case/air cooler etc, but I really can't stretch to a 4800X as I'll need to spend more on the cpu + motherboard, get a decent water cooler and probably a case too match.
Really I feel some people are a bit too defensive around here - it's ok to point out the downsides as well as the upsides.
I posted a picture that shows the power use. Which is what you said is creeping up to Intel. Failing to realise it's a 16 core CPU, not a 10 core. It's also overclocked in those graphs.
As for the price creeping up toward Intel? not that either mate. £799 for a CPU that plays ball with one costing £150 more and uses tons less power.
And that only costs £950 because of AMD. Their last HEDT chip that was worth having before AMD came along was the 6950x. $1700+ at launch.
Separate names with a comma.