It's clearly AMD's turn to milk FOMOs at least until Intel's 11th Gen Rocket Lake Desktop CPUs arrive in Q1 2021. I got great deal on Gigabyte B550 AORUS PRO AC. I'm gonna buy 2nd hand R5 2600 or new R3 3100 until prices come down to normal and then upgrade to 6 or 8 core Zen3 part which should last me for 5-6 years.

ryzen 5600x + msi tomahawk b550 + ninja 5 good?

I don't understand. AMD fanboys have been telling me for years (actually more than a decade) more cores equal gaming future proofing, more cores equal gaming future proofing, more cores equal gaming future proofing. Now they are telling me higher IPC equals gaming future proofing. Will Intel fan boys take up the more cores equal future proofing banner? So confusing...

AnarchoPrimitivCan I ask you a personal question? Were you truly a Black Numenorean before becoming the Mouth of Sauron?

On a less serious note, I think AMD should and needs to charge this much. Let's not forget that Intel STILL has 10x the financial resources that AMD does (which makes it all that more incredible AMD is able to topple them and is now making Nvidia sweat, another company with resources a magnitude larger). Intel WILL answer back eventually, and it's imperative that AMD makes hay while the sun is shinning so that they have the resources to keep their seriously aggressive R&D running at that same rate.

But let's really look at this price increase.... The 1800x debuted at $500, while the 5800x is $50 cheaper and at least 40% faster.... Can anyone else name another time in which a company's CPUs gained as much performance in as little time with a $50 price drop? I can't.

I think everyone was a bit spoiled by Zen2, but if you look at Zen2, that was priced accordingly, as AMD still did not have the single thread crown and realized that, so they had to price more aggressively to gain market share and increase sales volume, and it worked. This time around, AMD is the best at everything for the time being, and the price is going to reflect that, and yet, they're still reasonably priced considering they're undeniably the best.... I mean, $550 for the fastest $12 core! Can you actually buy another twelve core, even a slower one, for that price?

Intel Core / Nehalem

That's a 32% lift on the multi score over the 3600.

WOW.

I'm quite happy with my 3900X, I'm throwing everything at it and it is asking for more, incredible performance since I came from a FX8350 (imagine the jump in performance when I put this beast). Also gaming at 4K (2K sometimes) with a 2080 Super with DLSS and such is still fine (60+s FPS), but I need to upgrade the GPU not quite the CPU at all yet.

Still quite impressed with this new generation of Ryzen, not going to upgrade yet since I have this new PC since April (probably "only" go for a 3080Ti for native 4K) but the future is looking really good. We needed more performance from one side to push the other and so on, and the cores in my opinion are needed because even if you only game I can see newest games using more cores like AC Oddyssey and such, the old days of 4 cores are gone for sure, 8 is the new standard in my opinion, that's why I got 12...just in case. ;)

srsbsnsIntel, the value king. :laugh:

Damn funny right there:roll:

srsbsnsIntel, the value king. :laugh:

It will be ironic since Intel roughly takes double the power for the same performance to Zen 2... The extra power cost the AC in room kicking up more often is a sustained extra cost of ownership to use an Intel rig.

Intel is far from best value especially when they still need a Z board to do basic stuff like Overclocking

I am sorry but this should be made into a meme::laugh:




Literally no one:

dirtyferretI don't understand. AMD fanboys have been telling me for years (actually more than a decade) more cores equal gaming future proofing, more cores equal gaming future proofing, more cores equal gaming future proofing. Now they are telling me higher IPC equals gaming future proofing. Will Intel fan boys take up the more cores equal future proofing banner? So confusing...

dirtyferretI don't understand. AMD fanboys have been telling me for years (actually more than a decade) more cores equal gaming future proofing, more cores equal gaming future proofing, more cores equal gaming future proofing. Now they are telling me higher IPC equals gaming future proofing. Will Intel fan boys take up the more cores equal future proofing banner? So confusing...

FX CPU's were actually quite a bit ahead of their time and did shine in some multicore scenarios, but they also lacked the IPC or single threaded performance that is also needed for a high performance CPU, not too mention there were some inherent flaws with their FX CPU's, noteably the a single FPU was shared across each dual-core "module" which crippled their single core performance even further when it came to certain CPU intensive tasks, Intel at the time were smashing them in gaming and a lot of other tasks that benefitted more from single core performance and their "real" dual/quad cores outperformed AMD Bulldozer with twice the cores a lot of the time, this didn't change until Ryzen when they released a true 8 core desktop CPU that also had single thread performance close behind Intels as well as multithreaded that outperformed Intel in a lot of scenarios, they had also fixed the inherent single FPU per dual core module fiasco that plagued Bulldozer and subsequent FX CPU's, so now they could beat them in things like rendering and encoding whilst coming super close in single threaded performance applications and gaming, which forced Intel's hand to offer more than 4 cores on their mainstream desktop platforms, something that had been reserved for HEDT where Intel commanded huge cost increases in previous generations, even going from a high end i7 quad core to HEDT 6+ core would likely mean close to double the cost for CPU, memory and motherboard, granted it took until Ryzen 3 for them to beat them at all metrics but they have, oh and Intel has also dropped the HEDT moniker, as now you can buy 16c/32t CPU on mainstream platform thanks to AMD. So where AMD had the more cores argument but not the IPC, now they have both and have more IPC and cores than intel. I guess I'm trying to say it doesn't matter which metric you look at, cores/IPC, AMD has them well and truly beaten in both, and don't even dare to mention power consumption and heat output, so you're comment is kind of null and void. Intel is back to highest clocks they can squeeze out of an outdated node, kind of like the pentium 4 era, when an Athlon 64 at half the power consumption and 1/3 less clock speed would beat the pants off the hot, high clocked, slow, old P4 architecture

yoyo2004I am sorry but this should be made into a meme::laugh:




Literally no one:

dirtyferretI don't understand. AMD fanboys have been telling me for years (actually more than a decade) more cores equal gaming future proofing, more cores equal gaming future proofing, more cores equal gaming future proofing. Now they are telling me higher IPC equals gaming future proofing. Will Intel fan boys take up the more cores equal future proofing banner? So confusing...

Except with big little , it Is going there eventually.

In his video he did
4.6 GHz at 1.2v
4.7 GHz at 1.26v

So

5 GHz at ~1.45v ?

R5 5600X > i5-10600K/KF any day. Also, the i5-10600KA being more expensive than the R5 3600X (or same price as the upcoming R5 5600X) over here proved that Intel is no longer the "king of value".

This can't be right can it? Those R15 results are less than 2 times my ancient system with an ancient xenon, a system that also has snail-speed RAM compared to a current system.
And the FPU capabilities alone of a modern zen should make it more like 5 times as fast at least.