Sunday, June 2nd 2024
AMD Outs Ryzen 5000XT Processors for Socket AM4, an 8-year Old Socket
AMD Socket AM4 is now an 8-year-old platform, since its debut back in 2016. AMD objectively went above and beyond for this platform, launching processors powered by the original "Zen," the refreshed "Zen+," the "Zen 2," and the Intel-beating "Zen 3" microarchitecture, including 3D V-cache versions of the "Zen 3" that were competitive even with Intel's 12th Gen Core "Alder Lake" processors in gaming. Those on older processors on AM4 are spoiled for choice with upgrades within the platform, without having to change it, with AMD releasing new processor models every year for the past 8 years. The 2024 launches include the Ryzen 5000XT series.
It's hard to call the Ryzen 5000XT a "series," since there are only two SKUs—the Ryzen 9 5900XT, and the Ryzen 7 5800XT. Neither of the two feature 3D V-cache, but push clock speeds up. The Ryzen 9 5900XT is a 16-core/32-thread part, and is not meant to be confused with the 5900X, which is a 12-core/24-thread part. 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. Both chips include an AMD Wraith Prism RGB cooler that's capable of handling 140 W TDP processors. The Ryzen 9 5900XT is claimed by AMD to offer similar gaming performance to the Intel Core i7-13700K; while the 5800XT is claimed to play games competitively to the Intel Core i5-13600KF. Both chips should be available sometime in July, 2024.
It's hard to call the Ryzen 5000XT a "series," since there are only two SKUs—the Ryzen 9 5900XT, and the Ryzen 7 5800XT. Neither of the two feature 3D V-cache, but push clock speeds up. The Ryzen 9 5900XT is a 16-core/32-thread part, and is not meant to be confused with the 5900X, which is a 12-core/24-thread part. 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. Both chips include an AMD Wraith Prism RGB cooler that's capable of handling 140 W TDP processors. The Ryzen 9 5900XT is claimed by AMD to offer similar gaming performance to the Intel Core i7-13700K; while the 5800XT is claimed to play games competitively to the Intel Core i5-13600KF. Both chips should be available sometime in July, 2024.
208 Comments on AMD Outs Ryzen 5000XT Processors for Socket AM4, an 8-year Old Socket
I certainly have vocally said that HUB can get results they want, because they control the testing methodology, but this one in particular at least seems pretty cut and dry, as he's replicating their test scenario and providing a point of comparison, one in fact that isn't even as bad as it could have been. AMD did the bad misleading thing and HUB have the testing and insight that backs up that notion.
From where I sit, AMD fanboys call him an Nvidia shill, Nvidia fanboys call him an AMD shill, Intel fanboys call him an AMD and/or Nvidia shill, he basically just slings crap wherever he wants when he wants, and generates content based on the scandal du jour. He plays all sides so as a content creator he always comes out on top.
But I can say in this instance, he's absolutely bang on in the testing and commentary as to why this is bad. Not liking him personally is absolutely valid, I don't particularly either, but he also happens to be correct this time at least.
The staff that created and provided this promo material should be sacked, or at least put on a performance improvement plan, this crap does not look good.
Steve Walton is the one of the LAST places anyone should look for impartial & objective information. As I said, right down there with LTT as far as credibility goes.
The rest I agree and disagree to varying extents, he's certainly made pieces that I think are shit, he gets the conclusion he wants because he sets out the test to lead him to them, this is not one of those tests, the conclusion was obvious before proving it, but proving it conclusively also works. I also don't often hang around for his 'opinion piece' at the end of videos, as I don't gel with his personality, but have no genuine reason to doubt the validity of the test data presented in any video. He just has an opinion he always adds.
But this thread is about these products and AMD's slides, and boy they cooked it.
Sometimes AMD just needs to take the L and people don't need to rush to defend the billion dollar company. This is one of those times. Objectively, they screwed up and produced misleading slides, and you don't need to concede that for it to be true, it's still true. You could also not quote me and try to challenge it by attacking the person not their argument if you don't want to rehash it.
If someone you don't like that often says things you don't like, then says something true, does that make it any less true?
There is no way these parts, without 3d vcache, magic up the difference between 13th gen. The 5900XT is slower than a 5950x, so I fail to see how waiting is going to change anything except for make it worse for these claims.
If Intel released a slide showing a 12100 VS a 7800X3D, using an arc a380 and the graphs showed them as the same performance, would you believe the 12100 is as fast as a 7800X3D?
I won't quit beating the dead horse, sorry. You can stop replying and quoting me any time you want, you consistently start this every time, if you think it's all so wrong non credible and implausible, why not ignore it?
1) His video is about amd using gpu bound settings, yet all of his cpu reviews are majorly gpu bound. Yes, he is using a 4090, but still he is running head first into a gpu bottleneck in multiple games. For example, tlou, ratchet and starfield. I can keep on going
2) He is using arbitrary presets for each game with no rhyme or reason. In some games he uses ultra, some games he uses medium, some games he enables rt, some games he disables rt. Why do that unless you are trying to manipulate the results?
3) His 1% lows are not 1% lows but minimums. Have no idea why he labels them that way.
Sure, AMD's review data with a 6600 XT are poor. But to replicate them in a "review" with the sole intention to call them out not on the product, but on bad marketing? C'mon...
As I said earlier, nobody has given, gives, or will give AMD's marketing slides on these CPUs any importance. Ever.
If you're a Youtuber, and you'd like to call yourself impartial, then why not make an actual review on the actual product itself? Hint: it probably wouldn't generate so many views.
You say nobody cares, yet people clearly do.He has committed to when they come out. I'm expecting it to paint the same picture, because all the evidence so far points to that.
I will let you know how it runs :)
That toober.. haha. Whatever man. I do not take advice from any of them. Hope you guys don't either :)
The designation is Matisse 2, an uneventful successor mark but I'm guessing necessary due to possible disabled cores and significantly higher TDP rating.
Is the 5900XT going to be released as a Vermeer 2 model? I could probably get one to push 140W like my FX but jury is out on performance detail.
I'm perfectly fine with the Ryzen 9 3950X I got here a few years ago someone was selling.
I don't need the greatest, just what will get the job done and this one should do for awhile yet.
To that point, the chip I'm currently using in my daily machine now (Ryzen 5 2600) is doing just fine and chugging right along.
Hopefully this leads to AMD being more honest in the future which I believe is the goal, show them we noticed their misrepresentation. I'd argue some of their content has had direct market effects in the past too, so it's good for everyone that this had a light shined on it.
I've got these sweet ass inductors, some SiC639 50A power stages standing by to stand by, ready to go BRRRR.
For the life of it a 65W chip becomes 88W. Not that I need it but this board was clearly built for much bigger in mind.
Kinda want to see that happen someday. A squirrely little 5800X3D, 5900X or 5900XT just might make that happen.
The last time I updated the cooling system was when I took the FX seriously as a full time VR desktop.
A cute entry level R5 3600 obsoleted that in the most underwhelming way possible. Depressing isn't it? (´・ω・`)
The general theory is that this thing is too weak to facilitate the upgrades I have in mind.
Ghetto board requires ghetto fixes :)I think it will be tuned a bit, and it should have a stronger memory controller.
If he knows the difference between 1% lows and minimums then why is he labeling minimums as 1% lows?
Check how many people are upset here on TPU. So far, it only seems to be you.
That's why you see so much pro amd content. It sells.
It's, all their other videos do this, nobody cares, singling me out on one platform, HUB are xyz, seems like deflections, platitudes and anything but directly acknowledging the issue and leaving it at that.