ratirtThere's been more gens between 6700k and 2700k. You might have missed that.

Uhmm...no there haven't been more gens, and even if there were who cares? See you realized that amd stagnates more than amd and you are dodging making up excuses so you don't have to admit it

The amount of fanboyism when it comes to amd is absurd. Not even facts are enough to change your mind..

So now your argument is that amd did indeed give us less performance increase than a stagnated intel, but thats because of chip shortages. Okay, fine, at least you acknowledge it even though you still make excuses. Im content with that

But let me ask you a question. Back in 2017, when amd released an 8 core cpu for 300 euros, if i told you that 4 years down the line theyll release a 6 core for the same amount of money that is at most 35% faster in MT performance, would you have believed it? Wouldn't you have called that stagnation? Cause thats what amd did...

fevgatosThe amount of fanboyism when it comes to amd is absurd. Not even facts are enough to change your mind..

I saw this on TPU mostly about the time i got my ADL setup. I guess i will just have to live with it until i join the red camp myself.

TiggerI saw this on TPU mostly about the time i got my ADL setup. I guess i will just have to live with it until i join the red camp myself.

I am in the red camp. I have a 3700x and an r5 1600. Got the 3700x in December of 2020, cause the price of the 5600x was absolutely rediculous and to add insult to injury, it was in fact slower than the 3700x in mt performance. But no stagnation whatsoever lads

fevgatosI am in the red camp. I have a 3700x and an r5 1600. Got the 3700x in December of 2020, cause the price of the 5600x was absolutely rediculous and to add insult to injury, it was in fact slower than the 3700x in mt performance. But no stagnation whatsoever lads

Thought you was blue, going by you specs.

fevgatosThe amount of fanboyism when it comes to amd is absurd.

Yes I know. I'm talking to one now and it is irritating to be honest.
You can always call someone a fanboy when they dont agree with you when you give skewed arguments.

TiggerThought you was blue, going by you specs.

Got 2 pcs, the one in the sig and one with 3700x

ratirtYes I know. I'm talking to one now and it is irritating to be honest.
You can always call someone a fanboy when they dont agree with you when you give skewed arguments.

I dont give arguments, I give numbers. By the review you posted, the 6700k is 50% faster than the 2600k in cinebench. How much faster is the 5600x compared to the 1700 in cinebench? 35%.

With these 2 numbers you conclude that intel stagnates but amd didnt, and you dont think its warranted to be call a fanboy?

fevgatosGot 2 pcs, the one in the sig and one with 3700x


I dont give arguments, I give numbers. By the review you posted, the 6700k is 50% faster than the 2600k in cinebench. How much faster is the 5600x compared to the 1700 in cinebench? 35%.

With these 2 numbers you conclude that intel stagnates but amd didnt, and you dont think its warranted to be call a fanboy?

These are arguments which are taken out of context. Compare 5600x to a 1600x which have the same core number and see the result.
Yes it is and you are a fanboy. I can do nothing about it sorry.

I think i will be buying a AM5 setup to play with and to compare to my ADL, i will try and get something comparable to my 12700k.

TiggerI think i will be buying a AM5 setup to play with and to compare to my ADL, i will try and get something comparable to my 12700k.

I'd really would want to get 12700K since I think it is the best CPU from Intel's lineup but I dont have time to play and I need money since baby is coming soon. A lot of expenses. I will need to postpone any purchases.

ratirtThese are arguments which are taken out of context. Compare 5600x to a 1600x which have the same core number and see the result.
Yes it is and you are a fanboy. I can do nothing about it sorry.

Thats the comparison amd wants you to make but why would i? Its completely irrational. Lets say for the sake of argument the 5600x was price at 1000 euros msrp. Would you still suggest it should be compared to the 1600x?? The names are meaningless, you are just getting caught into the trap amd set up for you.

Its the same kind of nonsense Intel pulled with their 9th gen, naming the 9900k as an i9 to pretend there was no price hike. I blasted them for it so its only fair to blast amd as well for pulling the same shenanigans

fevgatosThats the comparison amd wants you to make but why would i? Its completely irrational. Lets say for the sake of argument the 5600x was price at 1000 euros msrp. Would you still suggest it should be compared to the 1600x?? The names are meaningless, you are just getting caught into the trap amd set up for you.

Its the same kind of nonsense Intel pulled with their 9th gen, naming the 9900k as an i9 to pretend there was no price hike. I blasted them for it so its only fair to blast amd as well for pulling the same shenanigans

What you are saying is irrational. Price changes happen due to variety of reasons. We've had a crazy mayhem with chips and shortages and other crazy things that has influenced price increase. You have to look at this in a broader range. It is not like black and white. It is more complex than that in the industry and there are so many variables involved.
I really don't care about naming.
Even if you keep insisting on comparing 1700x to a 5600x in terms of price, which in my eyes is not fair a comparison since these are different products, you have to also compare general performance. As it is so, even though 5600x has 2 cores less, the performance gap between those two is as big as the Grand Canyon itself.
That is one thing that I totally do not understand what you are trying to prove.
Meantime.
You guys have 3090's or 3080 TI's or 3090 TI's with astronomicaly high prices and it's fine for you to pay that price since the performance is higher than the 2000 series equivalent by a lot. I know it is GPUs but still. Justifying it as 2x faster than the price is 2x higher not to mention power consumption to the roof but same thing, faster so power is higher. With AMD you say it is a 1700x vs 5600x because the price for the 5600x is higher and it has less core so reduction over generation? That's just simply wrong and flawed thinking.
It's literally cherry picking situation which is best to prove your point and it doesn't make sense to me.

ratirtWhat you are saying is irrational. Price changes happen due to variety of reasons. We've had a crazy mayhem with chips and shortages and other crazy things that has influenced price increase. You have to look at this in a broader range. It is not like black and white. It is more complex than that in the industry and there are so many variables involved.
I really don't care about naming.
Even if you keep insisting on comparing 1700x to a 5600x in terms of price, which in my eyes is not fair a comparison since these are different products, you have to also compare general performance. As it is so, even though 5600x has 2 cores less, the performance gap between those two is as big as the Grand Canyon itself.
That is one thing that I totally do not understand what you are trying to prove.
Meantime.
You guys have 3090's or 3080 TI's or 3090 TI's with astronomicaly high prices and it's fine for you to pay that price since the performance is higher than the 2000 series equivalent by a lot. I know it is GPUs but still. Justifying it as 2x faster than the price is 2x higher not to mention power consumption to the roof but same thing, faster so power is higher. With AMD you say it is a 1700x vs 5600x because the price for the 5600x is higher and it has less core so reduction over generation? That's just simply wrong and flawed thinking.
It's literally cherry picking situation which is best to prove your point and it doesn't make sense to me.

You are never going to hear me say how good of a GPU the 3090 is though. That's the difference. I fully aknowledge that, for the money, it's absolute garbage. As is the 5600x. It's freaking slower than the 3700x that released a year ago for the same money. That's absurd - and probably the first time it EVER happened in the history of CPUs. Then of course Intel copied that as well with the 11th gen, but again - the whole freaking internet was mad over intel for doing that, while NOBODY complained when amd did the exact same shit a couple of months before.

You can argue chip shortages all you want but that didn't seem to effect the MSRP price of Nvidia or AMD gpus.

fevgatosYou are never going to hear me say how good of a GPU the 3090 is though. That's the difference. I fully aknowledge that, for the money, it's absolute garbage. As is the 5600x. It's freaking slower than the 3700x that released a year ago for the same money. That's absurd - and probably the first time it EVER happened in the history of CPUs. Then of course Intel copied that as well with the 11th gen, but again - the whole freaking internet was mad over intel for doing that, while NOBODY complained when amd did the exact same shit a couple of months before.

You can argue chip shortages all you want but that didn't seem to effect the MSRP price of Nvidia or AMD gpus.

www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-ryzen-5-5600x.274267/
check this and W1zzard's conclusion in the review and tests. So I guess your accusations debunked.
now I still would really like to see those numbers you were telling me you always show. Talking about the 5600x pricing being 50% higher than a previous gen 3600x? You still haven't shared any info on that though.

ratirtwww.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/amd-ryzen-5-5600x.274267/
check this and W1zzard's conclusion in the review and tests. So I guess your accusations debunked.
now I still would really like to see those numbers you were telling me you always show. Talking about the 5600x pricing being 50% higher than a previous gen 3600x? You still haven't shared any info on that though.

I dont care about his conclusion, i care about his numbers. The 5600x loses, even when overclocked, to all of the mt benchmarks

The 1600 2600 and 3600 all were at 200 msrp. The 5600x was at 300 msrp. 300 is 50% higher than 200.

Now of course you are going to go back and start arguing about names even though you admitted you dont care about the naming. Anyways, it's irrelevant, the 5600x is priced closer to the 3700x so thats what it should be compared to to figure out the gen 2 gen improvements.

fevgatosI dont care about his conclusion, i care about his numbers. The 5600x loses, even when overclocked, to all of the mt benchmarks

The 1600 2600 and 3600 all were at 200 msrp. The 5600x was at 300 msrp. 300 is 50% higher than 200.

Now of course you are going to go back and start arguing about names even though you admitted you dont care about the naming. Anyways, it's irrelevant, the 5600x is priced closer to the 3700x so thats what it should be compared to to figure out the gen 2 gen improvements.

Of course you dont since you are an ignorant and no arguments get through.
3600x MSRP was $249 at launch 5600x was $299 so that means the 5600x is 20% more expensive if you compare MSRPs. Non X versions were released later for either generation of ryzen, so if you compare non x version's MSRP's perhaps you should compare those to non X equivalents. 5600 non x MSRP is $199. You calculation is correct but you using wrong numbers and cherry pick price between processors.
Again it is relevant and 5600x is compared to 3600x and in that comparison it is way faster for 20% more price which is justified since the 5600x is much faster than any given previous gen ryzen even 3800x in general performance is slower and every single review tells you that but you choose to be an ignorant and don't knowledge that arguing about core count. Between 2 processors like 3700x and 5600x which are simply different tier of products. So basically what I'm saying is comparisons are bullshit and cherry picked comparisons to prove your arrogant attitude towards AMD lineup of products.

ratirtOf course you dont since you are an ignorant and no arguments get through.
3600x MSRP was $249 at launch 5600x was $299 so that means the 5600x is 20% more expensive if you compare MSRPs. Non X versions were released later for either generation of ryzen, so if you compare non x version's MSRP's perhaps you should compare those to non X equivalents. 5600 non x MSRP is $199. You calculation is correct but you using wrong numbers and cherry pick price between processors.
Again it is relevant and 5600x is compared to 3600x and in that comparison it is way faster for 20% more price which is justified since the 5600x is much faster than any given previous gen ryzen even 3800x in general performance is slower and every single review tells you that but you choose to be an ignorant and don't knowledge that arguing about core count. Between 2 processors like 3700x and 5600x which are simply different tier of products. So basically what I'm saying is comparisons are bullshit and cherry picked comparisons to prove your arrogant attitude towards AMD lineup of products.

So you did exactly what I predicted, you are stuck at comparing names. I don't care about what name AMD or Intel decides to give to their CPU, the 5600x cost 300 msrp and the closest price competitor from previous gen is the 3700x. That'a just a fact.

fevgatosSo you did exactly what I predicted, you are stuck at comparing names. I don't care about what name AMD or Intel decides to give to their CPU, the 5600x cost 300 msrp and the closest price competitor from previous gen is the 3700x. That'a just a fact.

names? I compare products tiers not names. Names are given only to distinguish one product form the other. it is laughable what you say seriously. You should consider your reputation here on TPU with all that crap you say.
And if you compare 3700x to 5600x maybe you should compare prices as well? You cherry picked price comparison with a same tier CPU and performance with a higher tier CPU and you argue this is a valid a valuable comparison? 5600x is in general faster than a 3700x and it is cheaper.

ratirtnames? I compare products tiers not names. Names are given only to distinguish one product form the other. it is laughable what you say seriously. You should consider your reputation here on TPU with all that crap you say.
And if you compare 3700x to 5600x maybe you should compare prices as well? You cherry picked price comparison with a same tier CPU and performance with a higher tier CPU and you argue this is a valid a valuable comparison? 5600x is in general faster than a 3700x and it is cheaper.

What separates product tiers? As far as I know it's pricing. That's why im comparing the 5600x to the 3700. Cause they belong in the same pricing tier ---> product tier. And sadly the 5600x gets embarrassed in everything that's multithreaded by the 3700.

fevgatosWhat separates product tiers? As far as I know it's pricing. That's why im comparing the 5600x to the 3700. Cause they belong in the same pricing tier ---> product tier. And sadly the 5600x gets embarrassed in everything that's multithreaded by the 3700.

Now compare 5600 with a 3600 and see how that's will go.
Bullshit about that embarrassing. 5600x is in general faster than a 3700x and every review will tell you that. Stop talking crap man it is starting to be annoying.

ratirtNow compare 5600 with a 3600 and see how that's will go.
Bullshit about that embarrassing. 5600x is in general faster than a 3700x and every review will tell you that. Stop talking crap man it is starting to be annoying.

Sure, let's compare the 5600 to the 3600. The 5600 is around 15 to 20% faster in MT workloads. So basically, after 3 years, that's around 5 to 7% MT performance increase per year. But Intel stagnated back in 2012 :D:eek:

Come on man, it's time to face the music. Zen 3 was the biggest stagnation we've ever seen in the CPU market ever. That is just...a fact. AMD literally gives you 5% performance increase per year at the 200€ space and here you are applauding. GJ man

fevgatosSure, let's compare the 5600 to the 3600. The 5600 is around 15 to 20% faster in MT workloads. So basically, after 3 years, that's around 5 to 7% MT performance increase per year. But Intel stagnated back in 2012 :D:eek:

Come on man, it's time to face the music. Zen 3 was the biggest stagnation we've ever seen in the CPU market ever. That is just...a fact. AMD literally gives you 5% performance increase per year at the 200€ space and here you are applauding. GJ man

My advice is. Don't embarrass yourself any further. Honestly.

ratirtMy advice is. Don't embarrass yourself any further. Honestly.

Yeah, that's the exact reply id give if I had nothing else to say. What exactly was wrong from the post you just quoted. I'm listening ;)

fevgatosThe 5600x was launched in 2020,yet it was slower than the 3700x that was launched in 2019 for a similar price. So if intel followed amds tactics, yes the 13600k should be slower in mt performance compared to the 12600k

Coming from a 3700X to a 5600X I can assure you the 5600 canes the 3700 in ST and there’s literally a margin of error difference in MT with the 3700 scoring less than 100 points more.
Edit; Just did a quick dirty run...

INSTG8RComing from a 3700X to a 5600X I can assure you the 5600 canes the 3700 in ST and there’s literally a margin of error difference in MT with the 3700 scoring less than 100 points more.
Edit; Just did a quick dirty run...

Τhat's what im saying. 1 year later, similar price point, loses in total performance. Amd innovating as usual :cool:

fevgatosΤhat's what im saying. 1 year later, similar price point, loses in total performance. Amd innovating as usual :cool:

LOL it's beating it with 2 less cores so I don't quite understand your reasoning here?:wtf: