fevgatosWhenever 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

Guys, why the AMD vs Nvidia battle? It has been said many times that these companies are not your friends. They aren't your enemies, either. They are businesses trying to make money, which they will by hovering on the boundary of what purchase makes sense and what doesn't. If you don't like a product, or its price, then don't buy it. Prices will eventually regulate themselves unless we all turn into mindless consumers, ready to pay any price for the next shiny new toy (as the 4090 demonstrates).

fevgatosDepending 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.

Yeah, it didn't make sense in your case, as you got a brand new system while saving by selling the old one, which is awesome. Personally, if I was on an old AM4 platform, I would buy a 5700X3D and call it a day.

AusWolfGuys, why the AMD vs Nvidia battle? It has been said many times that these companies are not your friends. They aren't your enemies, either. They are businesses trying to make money, which they will by hovering on the boundary of what purchase makes sense and what doesn't. If you don't like a product, or its price, then don't buy it. Prices will eventually regulate themselves unless we all turn into mindless consumers, ready to pay any price for the next shiny new toy (as the 4090 demonstrates).

Well that's why the whole argument keeps on going. Cause some people, lots of them - believe that AMD is their bud. Brand loyalty is cancerous to say the least, especially when talking about megacorps.

fevgatosCause some people, lots of them - believe that AMD is their bud.

Who told you that ?

ARFWho told you that ?

Just read the previous page

Lads - if you had a burger van, selling basic burgers for $15 a piece, and people were buying them like hotcakes, earning you a buttload of cash, would you lower your prices just to be nice? I damn wouldn't.

ARFWho told you that ?

Some people want to live in a World of 4 core updates with platform changes every 6 months. In the CPU space there is Open War now and you can buy 4 to 128 cores from AMD today. AM4 is also almost 9 years old and getting new CPUs, that would be like Intel releasing CPUs for Z170 in 2024. Today we have Intel use the same socket for 2 years +. The best result of the CPU war is that the consumer wins. Both Companies are in the Game to do the same thing but AMD is objectively more holistic than Nvidia or Intel in this space. History does not look well on AMD for business practices but foolish decisions while the others are so entrenched in the Spy vs Spy (Mad Magazine) narrative that when a post was made that Jensen suggested to TSMC to charge more and someone said the thread should be locked for further comments.

From an objective standpoint buying a 13700K in a brand new system seems foolish when in about 2 months a brand new socket will be out for Intel. (you can show it but not say what it is NDA). With the backdrop of even faster AM5 chips coming at the same time. With the focus on USB4 on X870 an X670E board like the Carbon or Strix E will be better and more flexible if USB4 is not your thing. That means you get MB support for new CPUS until 2027. That is just summarily a smarter upgrade path than getting a 13700K by getting rid of AM4. So what if you get to keep DDR 3200. With upcoming speeds and densitys pressure will be on DDR5 5200 32GB modules anyway.

Another thing is if you can wait Black Friday and Cyber Monday are the best times to build an entire system with the cheapest prices across the stack and Newegg has bundles where they offer you the CPU and MB choice for less.

I honestly don't see the point in these CPUs, The 5900XT is basically a downclocked 5950X, Yippie i guess? The 5900XT being released at $360 while the 5950X is currently $360 also means like what's even the point. Why wouldn't one just get the 5950X right away if he/she wanted to upgrade and there is little to no price difference between them.

The 5800XT is the real blunder though, who in their right minds would go for that when the 5700X3D or 5800X3D exists?

I mean...Coming from the 3600 I would go for a 5800X if I were completely distrusting or in disbelief of X3D and 8c/16t was the standard target system for developers churning out new product.
Oh you don't have 16+MB of cache and the game keeps crashing while just trying to cram everything? Welp, guess we gotta do CODE OPTIMIZATIONS.
That horse left the barn YEARS ago. We aren't seeing programmer accountability with unoptimized code and it stays gone thanks to X3D.
The point of the 5950X/5900XT is basically core+thread smashing apps, which is a great strat but at the same time, I'm not a multi-monitor user running several compilers every few minutes or doing a bunch of super slow CPU encode ops.

The only times I even breach 30% CPU is when running benchmarks, an antique PS2 emu, starting Steam or any browser, some web games that use hardware acceleration or loading a gigantic VR map. Old single core optimized games don't necessarily apply. Compiling my .NET websites in Visual Studio is kind of overdoing it. Running anything SQL is fine. Like, it's fairly obvious only modern gaming is going to actually test my need for good CPU and even then I still subscribe to the old path of minimal core count with high core clocks. Couldn't get that out of the Athlon or Phenom II but the FX can do it, which is one good reason I keep it around. There are still some things it does better than Ryzen.

When I open taskman right after boot to desktop I see 0%/2%/0%/0%/0% after everything loads.
If my next AMD build does any worse than that then it's a failure. You just know it's gonna be a precious $$$ build too.
Just fartin around with a stream or two reduced to 480p and a dozen sleeping YT tabs, this is fine. I imagine that's what it's like for the majority too.



Does it run a little warm? Yeah. Not my problem. How would the 5800X3D or 5900XT be different?
Somewhat higher locked clocks, few more cores, significantly more threads, higher cache and thermals.
Yeah I'm good, for now.

Ayhamb99I honestly don't see the point in these CPUs, The 5900XT is basically a downclocked 5950X, Yippie i guess? The 5900XT being released at $360 while the 5950X is currently $360 also means like what's even the point. Why wouldn't one just get the 5950X right away if he/she wanted to upgrade and there is little to no price difference between them.

The lower clocks might be coupled with lower voltages that result in lower thermals, making it more suitable for weaker cooling or SFF.

Ayhamb99The 5800XT is the real blunder though, who in their right minds would go for that when the 5700X3D or 5800X3D exists?

Non-gamers maybe?

AusWolfThe lower clocks might be coupled with lower voltages that result in lower thermals, making it more suitable for weaker cooling or SFF.

The 5950X was already an efficiency powerhouse that didn't really run that hot so to be honest i don't see the point.

AusWolfNon-gamers maybe?

Then the 5700X would be the obvious choice, currently the chip is around $100 cheaper than what the 5800XT is gonna cost. so unless the XT is gonna outperform it by like 10% or something, I doubt it'll be worth it.

Ayhamb99Then the 5700X would be the obvious choice, currently the chip is around $100 cheaper than what the 5800XT is gonna cost. so unless the XT is gonna outperform it by like 10% or something, I doubt it'll be worth it.

It can't, they're all the same chip with different settings, if you overclock your 5700X you will get a 5800XT maybe at a slightly higher power because of silicon lotery and product segmentation. Maybe you don't care for overclocking, you won't care for the 5 to 10% either.

But alas we're still discussing it, which is the real point, these 2 cpus are about making headlines and keeping shelves full of different products.

Ayhamb99The 5950X was already an efficiency powerhouse that didn't really run that hot so to be honest i don't see the point.

That's your opinion. There might be systems out there that could use a bit more efficiency, for which this CPU might end up being perfect.

Ayhamb99Then the 5700X would be the obvious choice, currently the chip is around $100 cheaper than what the 5800XT is gonna cost. so unless the XT is gonna outperform it by like 10% or something, I doubt it'll be worth it.

At a $100 price gap, I agree. But at least it'll make the 5800X look like the cheaper alternative, which will make it more attractive even with no price reduction.

Sometimes these chips don't make much sense to us, but they do to their maker, kind of like Intel's "KS" CPUs, or Nvidia's hundred different SKUs within 5% performance gap from one another.

Iain SaturnI think this is fantastic

100% agree! This is most excellent! :toast: :rockout:

Dr. DroThe 5900XT is nothing but a slightly clock reduced 5950X

And? There's nothing wrong with that.

trsttteWait a minute, the 5900XT is a 16 core part!? That was very sneaky!

Still cool though, especially if the price pans out as projected.

lexluthermiesterAnd? There's nothing wrong with that.

Not in itself, but to claim it's as fast or faster than the i7-13700K is delusional at best and fan fiction at worst

Dr. DroNot in itself, but to claim it's as fast or faster than the i7-13700K is delusional at best and fan fiction at worst

Well, show us benchmarks that support your statement and we'll take it on tick. Oh wait...

lexluthermiesterWell, show us benchmarks that support your statement and we'll take it on tick. Oh wait...

Since the 5900xt is a downclocked 5950x - and the 5950x already is way behind the 13700k in gaming, why do you even need benchmarks?

fevgatosSince the 5900xt is a downclocked 5950x - and the 5950x already is way behind the 13700k in gaming, why do you even need benchmarks?

I was being a smart-a$$. Maybe that was too subtle..

Ayhamb99who in their right minds would go for that when the 5700X3D or 5800X3D exists?

Do you honestly believe the 57X3D and 58X3D are the best CPU's for AM4 right now?

News flash.. they aren't.

freeagentDo you honestly believe the 57X3D and 58X3D are the best CPU's for AM4 right now?

News flash.. they aren't.

They are the best gaming CPUs for AM4.

freeagentDo you honestly believe the 57X3D and 58X3D are the best CPU's for AM4 right now?

News flash.. they aren't.

I would think they're the best CPUs to pick if someone is going for a gaming oriented build........

Unless one wants to do non-gaming workloads then we can have that conversation about which CPU is the best for AMD lol.

AusWolfThey are the best gaming CPUs for AM4.

Ayhamb99I would think they're the best CPUs to pick if someone is going for a gaming oriented build........

Under 4K, sure I guess.

freeagentDo you honestly believe the 57X3D and 58X3D are the best CPU's for AM4 right now?

News flash.. they aren't.

For gaming, they are for a mile, 4K or not. The 3D cache really makes a difference. Overall the 5950X (and this new 5900XT) should be the best chips but they will post worse gaming benchmarks than the X3D's, leaving the 5700X at the budget end. The 5900X (6+6, non-3D) is not worth buying anymore under almost any circumstance except if you can score an used one for below 200, and the 5800X/5800XT will have a pricing problem. They aren't worth the price of admission.

Zen 3 CPUs are over 4 years old now, so they are no longer competitive overall, it's just an assessment of what's worth purchasing within the AM4 platform for a daily use system. IMO it'll depend on what you do but it's pretty much narrowed down to:

5800X3D or 5700X3D (maximum gaming performance)
5950X or 5900XT (maximum productivity performance, better multitasking)
5700X (cost-efficient)
5600X3D (cheap gaming chip if available for you)
5700G or 5600G (if graphics are needed)

IF heavily discounted, consider this a tier B:

5900X (inefficient topology for >6 core applications, no 3D cache, basically obsolete in the lineup, buy only if cheap and productivity is favored)
5800X or 5800XT (too expensive, not worth the asking price, wait for a discount)
3950X (older Zen 2 processor, should hold its own against the 5900X since it's fully enabled, buy only if cheap and productivity is favored)

Avoid the 3900X/3900XT (3+3+3+3 topology), 3800X/3800XT should only be considered if you can get them for peanuts at this point.

freeagentUnder 4K, sure I guess.

There's no point talking about gaming CPUs under GPU-limited conditions. No wonder all gaming tests are done with a 4090 at 1080p.

AusWolfNo wonder all gaming tests are done with a 4090 at 1080p.

Lol and you don’t think that’s a little ridiculous? 1080p is so 480p :D

Edit:

How quaint :D

freeagent1080p is so 480p :D

You say that, but 1080p is still the most dominant resolution being used today, by far. 1440p is only edging into mainstream PC gaming in the last 2 years.