AMD Outs Ryzen 5000XT Processors for Socket AM4, an 8-year Old Socket

[Avro Arrow]

Exactly.

@Avro Arrow - Don't get confused. A new model name doesn't always mean a new product.

You make an excellent point. Maybe these "XT" CPUs are AMD's answer to Intel's "14th-gen". A dead rose by any other name still smells like a dead rose.

 

[R0H1T]

Renaming 5950x to a 5x00xt was really dumb, that model number should always be reserved for the highest bin/best chips!

 

[DaemonForce]

When I see AMD making a sudden regression like that in CPU batches, I think of how FX ended and the note that I sat on for the previous socket.

the highest bin/best chips!

So that's it then. That's the capstone. We don't get any more after this.

 

[wolf]

Hardware Unboxed covers these daft and misleading benchmarks; my thoughts exactly here.

What We Learned

So there you have it, AMD's bad benchmarks are indeed BAD, and frankly unnecessary. AMD should have just announced the 5900XT and 5800XT and left it at that. There's no need to show gaming performance for Zen 3 processors that we've had for three years now. Everyone knows what they are, and without a hefty price cut, they're not worth buying for gaming. The 5900XT might make sense for productivity, assuming it's much cheaper than the 5950X and you're already on the AM4 platform, but for gaming, surely the 5700X3D for $200 makes much more sense than the 5800XT.

As for benchmarking CPUs with low-end GPUs, we hope we're starting to make some headway here with readers who believe testing with an RTX 4090 at 1080p is misleading, inaccurate, or whatever else they come up with. The idea is to see how many frames each part can output, allowing you to compare their performance and determine which one offers the best value at a given price point.

The idea of testing with a "more realistic" GPU might make sense on the surface, but it's a deeply flawed approach that tells you nothing useful and, if anything, only serves to mislead. Pretending that the Ryzen 7 5800X is just as fast as the Core i7-13700K for gaming might make you feel good about the Ryzen processor, but outside of GPU-limited gaming, it's simply not true.

We also found that the Ryzen 7 7800X3D was no faster than the Core i3-12100 when using the Radeon RX 6600, but we're pretty sure you'll find that the Ryzen 7 processor is indeed much faster for gaming, and it won't take you long to discover this. Anyway, this is not the first time we touch on this subject, so for those yet to be convinced, we doubt we got you this time.

As for AMD, this was an embarrassing and unnecessary marketing blunder, and we're most annoyed by the fact that we now have to benchmark these CPUs when they're released. Ideally, we'd just like to ignore them and call them what they are: the 5900XT is a 5950X, and the 5800XT is a 5800X.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Hardware Unboxed covers these daft and misleading benchmarks; my thoughts exactly here.

Oh for the love of mike can we STOP quoting Steve Walton? The guy is a known shill/sellout who's work and testing methods are suspect. He's as bad as LTT.

 

[wolf]

Oh for the love of mike can we STOP quoting Steve Walton? The guy is a known shill/sellout who's work and testing methods are suspect. He's as bad as LTT.

Do you have a problem with him personally, or is his testing flawed? You can point to any faults in the testing he's done here to verify and call attention to AMD's misleading claims if you find them, I'm all ears.

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.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Do you have a problem with him personally

Both. The guy is an arrogant $%&*^# twat.(Yes, I know, somewhat ironic, hush up.)

or is his testing flawed?

There's a long list. Not sure where to start. How about his nit-witted episode on the GTX 1080 he did a few years ago? Nearly EVERYONE else shows that the GTX 1080 was(and still is) standing the test of time for gaming, yet he was pushing a very different narrative, one focused on getting people to buy newer cards, even if they don't really need them. I can keep going with those kinds of examples.

You can point to any faults in the testing he's done here to verify and call attention to AMD's misleading claims if you find them, I'm all ears.

We've been down this road, I'm not rehashing it.

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.

Except that when those results are compared to the result others get, they somehow rarely match up.

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.

 

[wolf]

@lexluthermiester so you can't point to flaws in this test and you don't like the guy, got it.

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.

 

[lexluthermiester]

@lexluthermiester so you can't point to flaws in this test and you don't like the guy, got it.

Are you kidding with that? I don't take him seriously AT ALL, because he has ZERO credibility. End of discussion.

he's certainly made A LOT of pieces that I think are shit

Hot steamy piles. It's like going to "The Verge" and expecting to find anything but drivel. As with everywhere in life, some people/place are worthy of our time and consideration. Some are not. HWUB/Steve Walton is not.

But this thread is about these products and AMD's slides, and boy they cooked it.

We get it, you think they phuq'd up. Quit beating that dead horse. Let's wait for the reviews to see what the actual numbers are. Then we will know if AMD's numbers were nonsense, realistic, or as they usually are, somewhere inbetween. Until then you're just expressing an opinion without qualifying data to support it.

 

[wolf]

Are you kidding with that? I don't take him seriously AT ALL, because he has ZERO credibility. End of discussion.

He has zero credibility and isn't worth consideration at all because you, a random, single person with an opinion on the internet says so, without actually pointing to anything whatsoever objective within the video that actually corroborates why these tests can't be believed? And this is to be an overarching rule that everyone must adhere to? Think about that.

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?

 

[JustBenching]

Do you have a problem with him personally, or is his testing flawed? You can point to any faults in the testing he's done here to verify and call attention to AMD's misleading claims if you find them, I'm all ears.

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.

I can give you some

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.

 

[AusWolf]

Hardware Unboxed covers these daft and misleading benchmarks; my thoughts exactly here.

Out of that long quote, one half of a sentence is actually useful: "the 5900XT is a 5950X, and the 5800XT is a 5800X". The rest of it is typical Youtube sensationalism.

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.

 

[wolf]

I can give you some

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

That's not this video though? and it's still far better than being gpu bound on an RX6600, his CPU limited testing gives far more expected results than AMD's slide that's for sure.

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?

Without AMD's full test methodology he's using educated guesses trying to replicate what one could reasonably assume are the testing scenarios that give a playable experience. Relatively speaking it barely matters, his testing multiple configurations and CPUs with the same settings is sound and demonstrates why using an older entry level gpu is a poor way to show CPU performance.

3) His 1% lows are not 1% lows but minimums. Have no idea why he labels them that way.

What do you mean, pretty sure he knows the difference?

Out of that long quote, one half of a sentence is actually useful: "the 5900XT is a 5950X, and the 5800XT is a 5800X". The rest of it is typical Youtube sensationalism.

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.

Many people have seen and commented on this situation, ergo it matters to them that this happened. It was someone's Q&A question that even put this on HUBs radar.

You say nobody cares, yet people clearly do.

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.

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.

 

[freeagent]

My 3600XT smoked a regular 3600. I bet these new XT's will rip too for people who know how to clock them.

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

 

[DaemonForce]

Does a 3600XT have the signatures of a 3600 or is it a "safe" clocked 3800X/3900X?
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.

 

[Bones]

My 3600XT smoked a regular 3600. I bet these new XT's will rip too for people who know how to clock them.

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

I sure don't.

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.

 

[wolf]

My 3600XT smoked a regular 3600. I bet these new XT's will rip too for people who know how to clock them.

Do you think the 'new' Zen 3 chips will perform much higher than expected based on the specs? I sure don't, especially the 5900XT VS 5950x which is slower and hopefully, a value proposition.

That toober.. haha. Whatever man

He's just pointing out what we already knew and shedding more light on it.

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.

 

[freeagent]

I could probably get one to push 140W like my FX but jury is out on performance detail.

140w is nothing.. barely even getting started.. stock.

 

[DaemonForce]

140w is nothing..

To you. For me it's supposed to be the operating floor.
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.

 

[freeagent]

For me

I would grab some krazy glue from out of the drawer and glue pennies in stacks of five together and then glue them to the VRM.

Ghetto board requires ghetto fixes

o you think the 'new' Zen 3 chips will perform much higher than expected based on the specs?

I think it will be tuned a bit, and it should have a stronger memory controller.

 

[RootinTootinPootin]

That toober.. haha. Whatever man. I do not take advice from any of them. Hope you guys don't either

same. all of them, just there for the views and clicks, content wise, some will or may appreciate the stupid preaching and will/may follow them on the dot..

 

[JustBenching]

That's not this video though? and it's still far better than being gpu bound on an RX6600, his CPU limited testing gives far more expected results than AMD's slide that's for sure.

Without AMD's full test methodology he's using educated guesses trying to replicate what one could reasonably assume are the testing scenarios that give a playable experience. Relatively speaking it barely matters, his testing multiple configurations and CPUs with the same settings is sound and demonstrates why using an older entry level gpu is a poor way to show CPU performance.

What do you mean, pretty sure he knows the difference?

Many people have seen and commented on this situation, ergo it matters to them that this happened. It was someone's Q&A question that even put this on HUBs radar.

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 wasn't talking about this video in particular. I'm talking about all of his reviews. He is using settings arbitrary. If you don't bother to explain why you used medium in this game, ultra in that game, RT on in this game, RT off in that other one, I just assume you are trying to manipulate numbers.

If he knows the difference between 1% lows and minimums then why is he labeling minimums as 1% lows?

 

[gurusmi]

Have i seen that correctly? The 5900XT is a 16 Core-CPU instead of a (like a 5900X) 12 Core CPU?

 

[AusWolf]

Many people have seen and commented on this situation, ergo it matters to them that this happened. It was someone's Q&A question that even put this on HUBs radar.

You say nobody cares, yet people clearly do.

Like I said: YouTube sensationalism. People like being angry even for no reason whatsoever. And they like it when HUB or GN roasts a company. This is what earns the most for these channels.

Check how many people are upset here on TPU. So far, it only seems to be you.

 

[JustBenching]

Like I said: YouTube sensationalism. People like being angry even for no reason whatsoever. And they like it when HUB or GN roasts a company. This is what earns the most for these channels.

Check how many people are upset here on TPU. So far, it only seems to be you.

People like it when youtubers roast intel and nvidia. Not my words, lots of content creators have said it themselves. When they roast amd - people have had to delete their reddit threads because they were getting down voted into oblivion, death threats, have been called names non stop in the comment section. To the point that they have to hide all the troubles they are getting with amd hardware. Again, not my words, lots of big content creators have said this.

That's why you see so much pro amd content. It sells.