AMD Ryzen 9 5900X

[X71200]

Thing is, AMD is practically acting like Intel and Nvidia with their new prices. $450 for 8 cores, $300 for 6 cores, $4000 for HEDT, $1000 for flagship GPU, all of which their loyal foot soldiers were rioting about. The tables have turned. RIP AMD fans.

It's not just with AMD though, most things are more expensive nowadays. Like PSUs, etc. Yes, they have increased their price a noticeable amount, but the product has also improved in other ways. Intel? I had a 7800X, 7820X and a 7900X. They were mostly hot and expensive. The new CPUs are still hot and expensive. The architecture has moved in baby steps on that front. You could meme about this all day honestly.

 

[RedelZaVedno]

There's something wrong with gaming benchmarks:

Tested on DDR4 3200Mhz 14CL, so no difference in ram specs. Maybe MB/bios difference?

 

[robert3892]

A great processor....that you can't buy as there is no stock

 

[birdie]

It's not just with AMD though, most things are more expensive nowadays. Like PSUs, etc. Yes, they have increased their price a noticeable amount, but the product has also improved in other ways. Intel? I had a 7800X, 7820X and a 7900X. They were mostly hot and expensive. The new CPUs are still hot and expensive. The architecture has moved in baby steps on that front. You could meme about this all day honestly.

Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.

What's bad for Intel (charging top dollar) is absolutely OK for AMD because ... because AMD. We get it. Let's see if AMD keeps raising prices for the next Ryzen series (Zen 4/DDR5) and what new crappy excuses AMD fans will come up with.

 

[Frick]

That wouldn't draw as many hits. Hits > organization.

No I mean that the thread/comments would be merged, not the actual review articles. Dunno of possible.

 

[TheDeeGee]

Didnt they say, that it will outperform 10900K in games too?

This seems like just another AMD launch, where the reality is completely different than the promises.

It does in the tests on Guru3D.

 

[X71200]

Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.

What's bad for Intel (charging top dollar) is absolutely OK for AMD because ... because AMD. We get it. Let's see if AMD keeps raising prices for the next Ryzen series (Zen 4/DDR5) and what new crappy excuses AMD fans will come up with.

You have to look at it from global market prices of PC components. The argument that the old CPUs cost less, looks less irrelevant in that case because old GPUs also costed less. They are charging you more, you can not change this fact. It is with regardless of which camp you support.

Maybe go back in time and look at Athlon based AMD products and how better they were compared to some Intel CPUs. Pretty sure you could find similar things there... and this is not a pro-AMD based comment at all.

 

[Frick]

Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.

What's bad for Intel (charging top dollar) is absolutely OK for AMD because ... because AMD. We get it. Let's see if AMD keeps raising prices for the next Ryzen series (Zen 4/DDR5) and what new crappy excuses AMD fans will come up with.

I don't think anyone has said that Intel overcharged their lower tier CPUs (or if they have, whatever) but that suddenly they could release what used to be $1000 parts at half price or whatever it is.

 

[btarunr]

why you guys skipped the 5950x like skipped the 3950x, no enough cooler?

If you bothered to read the conclusion, our 5950X review is hours away.

 

[Alduin]

That 4K gaming vs Intel isn't very promising. First thing i noticed!

Because it's GPU limited

 

[SaLaDiN666]

TPU results contrast with conclusions by computerbase.de (ran on 3080 not 2080Ti... cause why not use the fastest GPU you have to test your CPU, cough):

View attachment 174504

That site was testing Intel with 2666/2933mhz and AMD with 3600mhz or even higher, especially 3900x in their reviews in the past. Their reviews are pointless.

 

[BorisDG]

Intel still king?

 

[RandallFlagg]

That site was testing Intel with 2666/2933mhz and AMD with 3600mhz or even higher, especially 3900x in their reviews in the past. Their reviews are pointless.

Honestly the way TPU does it is the only way. The max JDEC standard for DDR4 is 3200, anything above that it out of standard for DDR. You can use out of spec RAM on any system, and it would indeed be interesting, but 99% of PCs sold - mostly OEMs - will at most use DDR4-3200 because they will not want to go out of the standard and have to pay for the support involved.

It's like a car dealer trying to sell a new Toyota but flashes the car ECU (computer) that hops its performance up another 10%. Your engine blows and the dealer is on the hook for it 100%. Don't do that and the manufacturer is the one who pays. Nobody compares cars that way and no one should be comparing PCs that way without it being an article specifically on the effects of using OC RAM.

 

[B-Real]

Intel still king?

Not really.

"Even the Ryzen 5600X, a CPU that costs $300 beat every single one of Intel CPUs more often than it lost, and where it did lose, it was within a few percentage points. These are all games that are traditionally CPU bound."

 

[Selaya]

3200-C14 isn't JEDEC.
3200-C20/22/24 are.

 

[X71200]

It's like a car dealer trying to sell a new Toyota but flashes the car ECU (computer) that hops its performance up another 10%. Your engine blows and the dealer is on the hook for it 100%. Don't do that and the manufacturer is the one who pays. Nobody compares cars that way and no one should be comparing PCs that way without it being an article specifically on the effects of using OC RAM.

Not the best example as there are cars that are sold with this practice done on out of the factory today. Such as ABT tuned Audis. The engine isn't going to blow with a simple tune, in fact Toyota engines can take a ton of beating mostly. You can however say that, it impacts the turbocharger. Sometimes when they do that, they also toy with other things to compensate for it.

Moreover, OC'ing RAM has nowhere of a similar impact as a chip or tune has on a turbo. RAM has lifetime warranty, good RAM is mostly very reliable. They last a pretty long time without issues. The ICs in the "OC RAM" you spoke about, are already tuned to work at a specific frequency. That can be anything ranging from a high frequency such as 3800 to 4133. In that case, you're not running no JEDEC, but XMP or manual clocks. Custom builders mostly do not buy that kind of very cheap RAM, because faster RAM is only like 15 bucks more expensive. What you said is mostly just applicable for OEM companies such as Maingear, Dell, etc.

 

[r9]

I guess we'll have to keep waiting for the day where AMD will have the fastest gaming CPU.
I thought that gonna happen today but no dice.
AMD does funny perf math.
Things like previous gen is only 5% slower than Intel in games and we are brining 25% improvement and we are still somehow 2% behind.

 

[windwhirl]

Please stop testing 720p for CPUs and magnifying the performance difference that doesn't scale past that resolution. If you're rocking a 720p monitor, you aren't buying the latest gen CPU either.

Though it would be rare or more likely impossible to find an actual user of such high end CPU/GPU combination with a lowly 720p monitor, it is still interesting for the "academic" side of it, so to speak.

 

[B-Real]

I guess we'll have to keep waiting for the day where AMD will have the fastest gaming CPU.
I thought that gonna happen today but no dice.
AMD does funny perf math.
Things like previous gen is only 5% slower than Intel in games and we are brining 25% improvement and we are still somehow 2% behind.

Just a quick tip: check other sites and YT channels too.
"Even the Ryzen 5600X, a CPU that costs $300 beat every single one of Intel CPUs more often than it lost, and where it did lose, it was within a few percentage points. These are all games that are traditionally CPU bound."

 

[repman244]

Intel used to release new substantially faster CPU architectures without doing this: Sandy Bridge, Haswell, Sky Lake were all a lot faster than previous generation CPUs without price hikes and in certain cases even cost substantially less than their predecessors, e.g. the Intel Core i5-2500K was released for $216 while the Intel Core i7-920 cost $305.

They were not really "a lot faster" and most people who bought SB/Haswell didn't bother to upgrade for a long time due to low performance gain.

Of course the 2500k cost less than 920 - you're comparing two very different platforms - the comparison should be socket 1156 to socket 1155. The i7-920 can only be compared to 3820k on socket 2011.

 

[laszlo]

just read this elsewhere and made my day ... ""AMD is gaming king!!! Intel is for poor people who can't afford AMD!!"

 

[HenrySomeone]

It's not an upgrade to Intel users lol.

Yup, just like those of us with realistic expectations were predicting - it still doesn't beat Intel in gaming; in the most popular resolution (and the one that makes most sense for benchmarks - 1080p), even the "lowly" 10700(f) which you can occasionally get for under 300$, is nearly 4% faster on average, which is honestly embarrassing considering their claims. I mean yeah, the performance is now finally close enough for most people, but the fact that you could get the same level at least three years back with 8700k (an to a certain extent or in other words, in games that don't use all that many threads, which are actually still the majority, even more than 5 years back with 6700k) combined with Ryzen now being more expensive (in some cases significantly so) does not bode well for a desktop launch at all...

 

[hurakura]

Intel is dead in the water. They were doing fine when they were on Bridge, but once they dipped down to Lake they drowned.

 

[EarthDog]

Though it would be rare or more likely impossible to find an actual user of such high end CPU/GPU combination with a lowly 720p monitor, it is still interesting for the "academic" side of it, so to speak.

AS a random data set, sure. As something that matters to anyone, not at all. It's blowing up a difference... but to what end? What does it really show us if it isn't applicable anywhere else?

 

[BorisDG]

Not really.

"Even the Ryzen 5600X, a CPU that costs $300 beat every single one of Intel CPUs more often than it lost, and where it did lose, it was within a few percentage points. These are all games that are traditionally CPU bound."

Looking at the gaming tests, 10900K is still in lead.