These parts are ultimately pointless. There's a very small market of current AM4 owners who can actually make good use of 16 cores and don't have a need for vcache or higher ST perf than previous gens can offer. For everyone else 5800X3D is still the only reasonable AM4 upgrade route. It's not like they brought out a DDR4 version of Zen 4, the socket is still long dead.

Dr. DroIt's as fantastic as it is wishful thinking. The 5900XT is nothing but a slightly clock reduced 5950X; and having owned a 5950X I can tell you I can't fathom a single situation where it will perform on the level with a Core i7-13700K unless both systems are GPU-bound.

Like a Port Royal benchmark?

Iain SaturnI think this is fantastic

Agreed.

AM4 might be 8 years old, but it still provides an excellent performance platform and thus is still relevant as long as AMD supports it, which it seems to be.

i have a feeling if you don´t badmouth something today even if ya don´t need to buy it then people cannot just go by and say nothing.

percy4209Like a Port Royal benchmark?

3DMark tests tend to heavily favor the GPU for scoring so yes.

bascoi have a feeling if you don´t badmouth something today even if ya don´t need to buy it then people cannot just go by and say nothing.

People can be entitled to an opinion regardless, as long as it's fair and founded in reality.

The facts are that the 5800XT is pointless and offers nothing over buying a X3D model or even the same old 5800X, and the 5900XT is a slightly inferior version of a now four year old processor, it does not carry the X3D enhancement in any form, and in fact may serve to keep prices trending upward even though socket AM4 CPUs are now technologically obsolete and should have become highly affordable by this point in time.

I personally hold a very negative view of these as releases although they're just more of the same as products, there are still plenty AM4 systems that could use the upgrade and these will do just fine... although you really should be buying the 5800X3D instead.

The problem is the high price. When Core i7-13700K sells for 313$ and is faster than the Ryzen 9 5900XT, who in their right mind would buy the latter for 360$? :kookoo::banghead:

The 16-core 5900XT comes with a maximum boost frequency of 4.80 GHz, which is 100 MHz less than that of the 5950X. It has the same 105 W TDP, and a significantly lower $360 price. The Ryzen 7 5800XT, on the other hand, is an 8-core/16-thread chip with 4.80 GHz maximum boost frequency, compared to the 4.70 GHz of the 5800X, and the same 105 W TDP. It's priced around $260.

ARFThe problem is the high price. When Core i7-13700K sells for 313$ and is faster than the Ryzen 9 5900XT, who in their right mind would buy the latter for 360$? :kookoo::banghead:

People who already own a socket AM4 motherboard. Since they are not new processors, they should run on any BIOS that supports Zen 3, so dating back to 2020 or so.

sorry coffee did not kick in yet and i thought these are "7" series cpu´s .
maybe i should take my own advice to heart.

bascosorry coffee did not kick in yet and i thought these are "7" series cpu´s .
maybe i should take my own advice to heart.

Ah the Zen 4 series are done. This is an AM4 re-re-release of Zen 3 that's gonna ship alongside Zen 5.

Dr. DroPeople who already own a socket AM4 motherboard. Since they are not new processors, they should run on any BIOS that supports Zen 3, so dating back to 2020 or so.

It makes no sense, because both the internal and external product competition says you must upgrade either to the intel platform or to AM5, instead.
Ryzen 5 7600X is 205$
B650M board is 120$
DDR5 16GB is 39$
total = 364$

Verdict - not worth it to invest in "*new*" AM4, because the price is extremely, prohibitively high..

ARFIt makes no sense, because both the internal and external product competition says you must upgrade either to the intel platform or to AM5, instead.
Ryzen 5 7600X is 205$
B650M board is 120$
DDR5 16GB is 39$
total = 364$

Verdict - not worth it to invest in "*new*" AM4, because the price is extremely, prohibitively high..

It's not that simple, especially in third world countries. I'll agree the prices are bad but it's because it's 4 year old tech. You can buy second hand 5950Xs for 300 ish no prob.

Well, expected price for the 5900XT in my backyard is about $325, which is almost the same as the 5800X3D at this time. I guess if work is more important than gaming, the extra cores and extra on-die cache would be more useful as compared to the more gaming-oriented CPU. If the 5900XT price drops a bit after a while, I'll definitely look into upgrading my current 5900X (12-core) to a 5900XT (16-core) chip, and put the 5900X into an older x370 motherboard that has an 1800X right now and bring it a little more up-to-date. Having a simple CPU swap option is better than working on a whole new system sometimes. Just saying.

I've got a tried and trusted 3600, a RX 580 bottleneck and shiny new 7900XT to reverse UNO + "hehe boi" that situation...
That is to say the problem isn't eliminated, just becomes CPU bound. There is no chip on socket AM4 that will cancel it out. I went big.
That said it seems like a good idea to bin off and relabel remaining 5950X SKUs errrr limited edition "5900XT" to get stuff moving again.
What's more likely to happen is it's going to move other chips. Similar to the 5800X3D/5700X3D downstep undercutting existing inventory.
It probably doesn't matter. The silicon is there existing...Doing nothing, it's just going to sit and that sitting is EXPENSIVE.
So maybe for those of us still sitting on the fence, we'll get this new chip or it triggers a flash crash on stuff we've considered for a while now.
Even if the end result is the same amount of product sitting, it's a quick quiet liquidation for AMD tech that needed to ship out anyway.

There doesn't appear to be any workload where I need any of these but it just looks like a good thing to have on paper when pushing pixels hard in 1080p144.
I'm not 100% sold on 3D V-cache, don't see a need beyond 12c/16t which is effectively DOUBLE what I have now, but I see the writing on the wall:
Something 5000 series is gonna be the capstone for AM4 and then we move on.

"Spoiled for choice" is the wording for this situation and the 5900XT is most likely gonna last call.
We're just not going to see a 5950X3D or even a 5900V3D, which is significantly closer to what I would have wanted.

Don't really need a ton of L3 but like seeing L2 improvements, also 1MB L1 appearing as a solid stat in the official chart for the first time since the 3950X.
I'm not really pressured for higher clockspeeds since I still subscribe to the old school philosophy of discovering all core clock and pinning as high as desired.
My history with the FX also counts here so 4.0GHz feels like the base minimum and anything near 4.5GHz is just way more exciting than it needs to be.
I'm on 4.0 right now and it looks way easier to do on these newer SKUs so that looks nice.
Memory overclocking is kind of the cool thing here and I really like holding onto these 3200MT DIMMs for as long as I can.
Setting them ↗3600 or ↗3800 is super cool even if the discovery process is the most annoying I've ever seen.
It's possible to push FCLK further on 5000 series but I haven't found concrete evidence of anything more than a non-daily bench setting and seeing the default memory spec disappear from the chart on some of these makes me a little uneasy.



TLDC: 3 spooky 5 me. I'll probably pick up a 5700X3D or something the moment it flash crashes, which is likely the moment the 5900XT hits shelves.
I've been on the 3600 for what, 5 years now? I can wait another month or two.

New SKUs are a cool way of keeping this platform alive, but sure what their point is here. It seems like for any die-hard AM4 upgraders it's only 5800X3D or 5950X that would remain (either you want a gaming focused upgrade or a productivity focused upgrade), otherwise move to AM5.

If they had moved to a newer TSMC process to increase efficiency or brought down some IPC gains it would get interesting.

bascoi have a feeling if you don´t badmouth something today even if ya don´t need to buy it then people cannot just go by and say nothing.

You just described half the nitwits on the internet.

Iain SaturnI think this is fantastic

Like how in 2004, we still had new socket 462 chips, albeit not new models.

Fun fact: My 04 KIXJB T-bred 2400+ OCs better than the 03 AIUHB T-bred 2400+ that I got to test. That 03 AIUHB had an unlocked multi, though. The 03 apparently struggles to do a measly 2.2!
While my 04 will do 2.2 at only 1.70V (that was not much Vcore for back in 2004!) all day and all night long!
In 2004, I was in fact used to putting in 1.8V for Vcore.

This shows that socket AM4 isn't dead in 2024, just like how socket 462 wasn't dead in 2004. I'm broke currently, so getting socket AM5, would be more like getting an Athlon 64 in 2004!

StormLightningSLWell, expected price for the 5900XT in my backyard is about $325, which is almost the same as the 5800X3D at this time. I guess if work is more important than gaming, the extra cores and extra on-die cache would be more useful as compared to the more gaming-oriented CPU. If the 5900XT price drops a bit after a while, I'll definitely look into upgrading my current 5900X (12-core) to a 5900XT (16-core) chip, and put the 5900X into an older x370 motherboard that has an 1800X right now and bring it a little more up-to-date. Having a simple CPU swap option is better than working on a whole new system sometimes. Just saying.

I think AMD has made a misstep. They should have launched the 5900OEM to the regular customer base. They could have marketed the OEM as an efficient Wattage CPU with almost the same performance as a 5900X out of the box at a lesser cost. I own one and it has been an effing great CPU in price, peformance, and wattage.

But I don't think this won't happen anytime soon. IMHO AMD is just modifying old 5900X stock and getting out to a customer base that is NOT moving off of their AM4 board.

Icon CharlieI think AMD has made a misstep. They should have launched the 5900OEM to the regular customer base. They could have marketed the OEM as an efficient Wattage CPU with almost the same performance as a 5900X out of the box at a lesser cost. I own one and it has been an effing great CPU in price, peformance, and wattage.

But I don't think this won't happen anytime soon. IMHO AMD is just modifying old 5900X stock and getting out to a customer base that is NOT moving off of their AM4 board.

There's no mistake here. These are carefully positioned in the product stack. The true objective to this product launch is to keep current SKUs' value while passing on an image of "look, we do care, so don't count on this platform being abandoned!" (read: no cheap chips for your last gen platform just yet!). It's strategically positioned: 5900XT being a slightly weaker 5950X should help keep interest on (and prices) the flagship 5950X high, bundling the Wraith Prism will justify the $360 charged - while the 5800XT being basically a buffed 5800X non-3D poses absolutely no threat to X3D sales, while helping them shift the now-undesirable standard processor stock at a higher price than they would otherwise be able to.

Jesus, when will you people stop trying to put AMD in a benevolent light, assuming that everything they do is in good faith and in the interests of the consumer?

RJARRRPCGPLike how in 2004, we still had new socket 462 chips, albeit not new models.

Fun fact: My 04 KIXJB T-bred 2400+ OCs better than the 03 AIUHB T-bred 2400+ that I got to test. That 03 AIUHB had an unlocked multi, though. The 03 apparently struggles to do a measly 2.2!
While my 04 will do 2.2 at only 1.70V (that was not much Vcore for back in 2004!) all day and all night long!
In 2004, I was in fact used to putting in 1.8V for Vcore.

This shows that socket AM4 isn't dead in 2024, just like how socket 462 wasn't dead in 2004. I'm broke currently, so getting socket AM5, would be more like getting an Athlon 64 in 2004!

IMHO - no platform is truly dead until people largely stop using it for any reason (usually performance no longer being acceptable), and replacement parts become scarce and difficult to obtain.

We're just about reaching the point where socket 775 can be considered "dead", as all you'll find are some overstock bottom tier motherboards that are very hit or miss, and mostly all of the high-end Core 2 parts' stock have exhausted at this point. E8600 and Q9650 CPUs are notably more expensive than the rest, and the Core 2 Extreme chips have quickly become collectibles.

Dr. DroThere's no mistake here. These are carefully positioned in the product stack. The true objective to this product launch is to keep current SKUs' value while passing on an image of "look, we do care, so don't count on this platform being abandoned!" (read: no cheap chips for your last gen platform just yet!). It's strategically positioned: 5900XT being a slightly weaker 5950X should help keep interest on (and prices) the flagship 5950X high, bundling the Wraith Prism will justify the $360 charged - while the 5800XT being basically a buffed 5800X non-3D poses absolutely no threat to X3D sales, while helping them shift the now-undesirable standard processor stock at a higher price than they would otherwise be able to.

Jesus, when will you people stop trying to put AMD in a benevolent light, assuming that everything they do is in good faith and in the interests of the consumer?

Everything you said acts like chips start at the 5800X. Using just those chips and those around them is not a true reflection of the stack. Like the 5700X3D is not real for less money and the 5600X3D for less. Give me a break about AMD being the evil Empire that NVidia has earned with it's business ethics.

kapone32Everything you said acts like chips start at the 5800X. Using just those chips and those around them is not a true reflection of the stack. Like the 5700X3D is not real for less money and the 5600X3D for less. Give me a break about AMD being the evil Empire that NVidia has earned with it's business ethics.

There is no refreshed Ryzen 5 part, so for all intents and purposes, the comparison stack begins with the Ryzen 7 5700X. The 5600X3D would also be a better chip, but that was a limited run and only sold in Micro Centers across the United States, so it's an irrelevant CPU - although probably a better purchase than a non-3D Ryzen 7 in most situations despite only having 6 cores.

AMD is as evil as Nvidia or Intel - their business and corporate ethics are the exact same. Their objective is to make money.

Dr. DroThere is no refreshed Ryzen 5 part, so for all intents and purposes, the comparison stack begins with the Ryzen 7 5700X. The 5600X3D would also be a better chip, but that was a limited run and only sold in Micro Centers across the United States, so it's an irrelevant CPU - although probably a better purchase than a non-3D Ryzen 7 in most situations despite only having 6 cores.

AMD is as evil as Nvidia or Intel - their business and corporate ethics are the exact same. Their objective is to make money.

Blah blah blah I guess Freesync and FSR are so evil because they are open. What happened to Physx or even EVGA being in Nvidia's corner? Just like how they burned a bunch of their users with GPUs costing more than they did during the last mining boom even though it was done. Today a laptop with a 4080 is over $$4000 where I live and a 4090 is $5000.

KellyNyanbinaryDid they test with Intel baseline and on DDR4?

Intel baseline or whatever the lowest power mode is doesnt affect gaming loads much at all, but in the notes they did say that both systems were tested with DDR4 3200Mhz

ARFThe problem is the high price. When Core i7-13700K sells for 313$ and is faster than the Ryzen 9 5900XT, who in their right mind would buy the latter for 360$? :kookoo::banghead:

People on AM4 will buy them. Which was my point the whole time, upgradability costs money. You pay for it included in the CPU price. The only reason the 5900xt is more expensive than the 13700k is because you are paying for upgradability.

fevgatosPeople on AM4 will buy them. Which was my point the whole time, upgradability costs money. You pay for it included in the CPU price. The only reason the 5900xt is more expensive than the 13700k is because you are paying for upgradability.

But you're not paying for a new motherboard and RAM. Hence the cost of upgradability.

kapone32Blah blah blah I guess Freesync and FSR are so evil because they are open. What happened to Physx or even EVGA being in Nvidia's corner? Just like how they burned a bunch of their users with GPUs costing more than they did during the last mining boom even though it was done. Today a laptop with a 4080 is over $$4000 where I live and a 4090 is $5000.

Whenever AMD was in a market dominant position, they didn't waste any time to take advantage of it. Much much quicker than nvidia or intel could ever dream of.

3600 --> 199$
5600x ----> 299$

A 50% increase within a year. Yes yes, that's the X version blabla, that's exactly the point. They didn't release the non X version so they can charge you an extra on top of the price increase. And let's not even talk about the whole x470 fiasco, or the x370 fiasco, or how long I had to wait for my AM4 mobo to get support for zen 3 (2 years to be exact). P

AusWolfBut you're not paying for a new motherboard and RAM. Hence the cost of upgradability.

Depending on market conditions, it might be better to sell your current platform and build one from scratch. Considering Intel still works with ddr4 as well, you can sell your AM4 + CPU and get a 13700k + a brand new mobo with warranty instead of the 5900xt with a probably very old motherboard.

Was in the exact same situation when 5800x 3d released. I could either keep my very old out of warranty b350 and buy an x3d for 450$, or just sell the whole thing and get a 12700 + b660 for 470$. It made no sense to me to go for the upgradability option when it just going to cost more money.