I'm probably the only one who is going to mention that, but XT sku might be an awful idea. Stock Ryzen CPUs are already difficult to cool well with good cooling or are very PPT EDC or TDC restricted. Once AMD had to step down with boost on all chips by 150MHz and people went apeshit. It was for durability reasons. Adding more boost clock is kinda pointless without also increasing wattage. And if they increase wattage, heat output will increase. It potentially causes long term durability problems. Another thing is that timing is awful. Ryzen 5000 series lifespan as current product line is ending, next year we are going to have Ryzen 6000, it comes with new socket, new memory type and likely improved chips. 5600XT will do nothing, other than gaining some negative perception about AMD as reviewers will point out that it's poor value chip and that everyone should just buy 5600X instead. It seems that AMD doesn't learn that people don't care about their late refreshes about soon to be obsolete products. RX 590, A10 7890K didn't go so well and 3600XT gained some bad rap. Perhaps it would be better to sell those better chips as 5600X, but with new stepping that ensures that they maintain all core boost longer at higher frequencies and stop making pointless products that nobody should buy. That's even more so true in chip shortage era. And yet AMD this gen didn't have any true value chips, which 5600 should had been. AMD lost quite a bit of sale to i5 11400F (and also because Intel has their own fabs and seemingly aren't affected as badly as AMD in terms of being apply to supply required quantities).
This is factually incorrect as performance on Intel's latest 11000 series CPUs can vary as much as 45% simply based on motherboard selection as HardwareUnboxed recently demonstrated. Mind you clock speed isn't the only factor as the Intel 5775C has proven, aside from of course core clocks. Even when reviewers minimize variables and do multiple runs, there is certainly room for margin of error. If you still question that fact, I suggest you try and seriously benchmark some games following industry protocol. From setting uniform game settings to plotting an in-game benchmark route, to ensuring your software environment is correct, to ensuring your data is valid. I know personally that even with all those steps taken, there is still certainly variance and other reviewers like HWUB frequently express this as well.
This is precisely why margin of error exists. Regardless of who many times you run the test, every game is going to have a level of variances to the results, every CPU a bit different performance, and the test itself is limited in it's resolution.
You are wrong, all those differences existed, because variables weren't reduced and many chips ran "out of spec". Once you set same PL and Tau values, they perform pretty much the same with minimal variation. If you control variables well and ensure that you only test just exactly what you want, margin of error will be small and results will be logical. Higher clock speed n same architecture will always mean higher performance (unless you test high TDPs and CPU already ran out of additional clock speed steps to boost to, then there will be zero performance scaling, but that won't mean that PL values are generally meaningless). Due to Windows background tasks and unequally started benchmark times, thermals and power budget could be affected and slightly affect benchmark results. Still, you are looking at up to 5% variance and not at 45% variance. Also margin of error gets slimmer, if you run same benchmark more times, then you can reliably spot even slight differences in clock speed.
I guess this means no 5600 non X at $180?, ok i'll go back to hibernate.
i5 10400F was great seller and i5 11400F will be. Weird that AMD doesn't care about very profitable CPU tier, more sales to Intel.
