Ryzen 5600X3D coming soon?

[pavle]

At AMD they're getting desperate, sales are slow on all parts so they'll apparently make a x600 X3D, they sure weren't in a hurry to make a 5600 X3D.

 

[freeagent]

5 GHz? on a Zen 3 X3D?

It would be nice.. since they can do it on Zen 4.

i'd rather have more l3 cache than more speed on the cores.

I would rather have both.

The huge L3 of Zen 3 X3D does not super speed up daily stuff.

 

[GerKNG]

5 GHz? on a Zen 3 X3D?

not a big problem. but AMD does not want to cannibalize it's own products. (Zen 4 Ryzen 5 and 7)

 

[Mahboi]

I'm calling BS on this. I see zero reasons for AMD to bother coming back to AM4. Platform's selling like hotcakes already and all their future plans lie with AM5. Zero efforts needed, zero future value.

 

[LabRat 891]

I'm calling BS on this. I see zero reasons for AMD to bother coming back to AM4. Platform's selling like hotcakes already and all their future plans lie with AM5. Zero efforts needed, zero future value.

Could be BS, yes. But, the reasoning you're deriving that from is incorrect:
4/20/23 -

AMD Announces New Ryzen Embedded 5000 Series Processors for Networking Solutions

AMD today announced the availability of its high-performance AMD Ryzen Embedded 5000 Series, a new solution for customers requiring power-efficient processors optimized for "always on" networking firewalls, network-attached storage systems and other security applications. The Ryzen Embedded 5000...

www.techpowerup.com

AMD Ryzen Embedded 5000 Series processors are currently in production with five-year planned manufacturing availability.

So, by AMD's own Press Release, AM4 will not EoL until ~2028.

edit: While conjecture on my part,
AM4 appears to be AMD's Socket 478
(Sold alongside LGA775, longer support for embedded and low-power network appliances)
and
AM5, AMD's Socket T
(Sold alongside S478, less frequently used in embedded and low-power network appliances)

 

[R0H1T]

Well they're still selling server chips so the zen3 chiplets will be made for quite a while.

They might kill the APU's though, a lot sooner than say 5 years?

 

[eidairaman1]

The 5600X3D is in the pipeline since some month ago, but AMD took long to make up their mind. I am unsure if they really give it a go or not. Would be an easy method to get rid of semi defective 58X3D,

I don't believe it will hurt AM5 in any way, since AM5 still has higher platform costs and a X3D is an easy upgrade for an existing build. More or less a drop-in replacement for every Ryzen 1-3xxx 6C. You gain higher performance the easiest possible way.

This is like the 2600 being Relaunched as a 1600 ver 2

 

[Space Lynx]

This is like the 2600 being Relaunched as a 1600 ver 2

i think you are all reading too much into this, they are trying to throw a bone to budget gamers who can't afford 5800x3d nor the am5 upgrade, honestly kind of of cool AMD to do this, again I may eat my words when we saw actual launch day prices, but also maybe I won't eat my words, we will see.

 

[eidairaman1]

A 5800 OEM is fine for all users

 

[LabRat 891]

i think you are all reading too much into this, they are trying to throw a bone to budget gamers who can't afford 5800x3d nor the am5 upgrade, honestly kind of of cool AMD to do this, again I may eat my words when we saw actual launch day prices, but also maybe I won't eat my words, we will see.

Honestly, I kinda felt like that's what the Ryzen 1600 Rev. 2 (Zen+) was.
IIRC, it was released shortly before/around when Ryzen 3000 (Zen 2) was launched, and presented a 'budget' option alongside both Ryzen 2000 and 3000 sales.

A 5800 OEM is fine for all users

This was my intended upgrade path, later on (if 5800X3Ds never lowered in price before becoming 'a premium' on the after-market.)

Problem, though:
Depending on where *exactly* the OEM CPU came from, it could be bricked.
Lenovo is known to use AMD's 'fuse blowing-platform lock', but I've ran across suspicions of other OEMs doing the same.
If the CPU isn't virgin then it may be useless.

Also, the whole 3DVcache tech intrigues and attracts me.
A lot like the short-lived Intel Broadwell w/ eDRAM or HBM-equipped GPUs, it's a 'curio(sity)' to me. (atop the desired performance uplift over my existing h/w)

 

[dgianstefani]

i think you are all reading too much into this, they are trying to throw a bone to budget gamers who can't afford 5800x3d nor the am5 upgrade, honestly kind of of cool AMD to do this, again I may eat my words when we saw actual launch day prices, but also maybe I won't eat my words, we will see.

A R7 5700 would be more useful than a six core X3D with lower clocks, and probably about the same price.

The whole point of X3D is to offer the best gaming CPU, that doesn't compute when combined with a six core.

The 5800X3D makes sense because it's a full eight core so you're not really making any compromises, and the cache brings it to the level of the 12900K.

The 7900X3D doesn't make sense because it's slower than both the 7800X3D and 7950X3D in gaming, this is again, due to six core.

There's gonna be games, I guarantee you, where the hypothetical 5600X3D would be slower than a 5700, due to lack of cores.

 

[eidairaman1]

Honestly, I kinda felt like that's what the Ryzen 1600 Rev. 2 (Zen+) was.
IIRC, it was released shortly before/around when Ryzen 3000 (Zen 2) was launched, and presented a 'budget' option alongside both Ryzen 2000 and 3000 sales.


This was my intended upgrade path, later on (if 5800X3Ds never lowered in price before becoming 'a premium' on the after-market.)

Problem, though:
Depending on where *exactly* the OEM CPU came from, it could be bricked.
Lenovo is known to use AMD's 'fuse blowing-platform lock', but I've ran across suspicions of other OEMs doing the same.
If the CPU isn't virgin then it may be useless.

Also, the whole 3DVcache tech intrigues and attracts me.
A lot like the short-lived Intel Broadwell w/ eDRAM or HBM-equipped GPUs, it's a 'curio(sity)' to me. (atop the desired performance uplift over my existing h/w)

Its funny how AMD released the 5800 OEM later as the 5700X retail, i say go with which 1 costs less. In 2021 I got the 5800 oem for $262 and its been flawless.

@LabRat 891
Oh Trust me I had that chip tested a day after I got it because the jerk online said it was a 5800X and I called him out on it, got ebay involved and he wanted to give 85 back, i turned it down and asked for 100 back so from 362 to 262 it went.

 

[freeagent]

My 5600X still rips, it’s a snappy system

Long live the hexacore

 

[LabRat 891]

My 5600X still rips, it’s a snappy system

Long live the hexacore

Oh, AMD and their non-sequitur core counts...

Funny,
my last AMD before my AM4 build (hexa 3600, then hexa 5600) was a tri-core Phenom II X3 720 BE (though, I did unlock it to a quad)

 

[kapone32]

A R7 5700 would be more useful than a six core X3D with lower clocks, and probably about the same price.

The whole point of X3D is to offer the best gaming CPU, that doesn't compute when combined with a six core.

The 5800X3D makes sense because it's a full eight core so you're not really making any compromises, and the cache brings it to the level of the 12900K.

The 7900X3D doesn't make sense because it's slower than both the 7800X3D and 7950X3D in gaming, this is again, due to six core.

There's gonna be games, I guarantee you, where the hypothetical 5600X3D would be slower than a 5700, due to lack of cores.

What? You are so wrong in your opinion. Is the 5800X3D faster than a 7900X3D? You seem to think that only 8 core single CCD AMD CPUs make sense but you are so wrong you would not be able to see that in no way is a 5800X faster than a 5900X just because they are 2 CCDs mean that AMD have not innovated those chips to perform. They have had more than 5 years with Dual CCD. That is like saying the 5600X is not good for Gaming and would be trounced by a 5700. It doesn't matter though I will go back to my 4K experience with my Garbage 7900X3D and weak 7900XT that only gives me 120 FPS average in all Games.

 

[Tomgang]

My 5600X still rips, it’s a snappy system

Long live the hexacore

Agree. 5600X is a fine little cpu. Fast enough while mostly sipping power and not a heatwave like Zen 4 or intels later gen chips.

But I do also like my 5950X very much. Still a desent beast, that still works for me as a workstation/gaming cpu.

 

[dgianstefani]

What? You are so wrong in your opinion. Is the 5800X3D faster than a 7900X3D?

Is that what was compared?

That is like saying the 5600X is not good for Gaming and would be trounced by a 5700.

The 5700 is noticeably faster, depending on how multithreaded the game is, and if you aren't GPU limited.

Little reminder for you, the 7900X3D is the slowest of the Zen 4X3D chips, that's for a reason

The 5600X can make sense, if you're super budget limited.

Putting the X3D on a six core is what doesn't, because that automatically increases the price, for the price it would be offered at, six cores would be a joke. See 5800X3D being comparable in price to 5900X.

 

[LabRat 891]

The 5700 is noticeably faster, depending on how multithreaded the game is, and if you aren't GPU limited.

Little reminder for you, the 7900X3D is the slowest of the Zen 4X3D chips, that's for a reason

The 5600X can make sense, if you're super budget limited.

Putting the X3D on a six core is what doesn't, because that automatically increases the price, for the price it would be offered at, six cores would be a joke. See 5800X3D being comparable in price to 5900X.

Something I've not seen (explicitly) mentioned about this prospective 5600X3D is "Thermal Density".
The 5600X3D has the potential to perform better on fewer-threaded applications than the 5800X3D. -PBO might have some headroom, due to having fewer cores dumping heat.

 

[dgianstefani]

Only quasi-related to your and kapone's back-and-forth, but:

Something I've not seen (explicitly) mentioned about this prospective 5600X3D is "Thermal Density".
The 5600X3D has the potential to perform better on fewer-threaded applications than the 5800X3D. -PBO might have some headroom, due to having less cores dumping heat.

Seems like a very niche thing, and doubtful, for two reasons.

1. The 5800X3D always sits at it's maximum clock of 4.55 GHz in low threaded scenarios, because it never thermal throttles (typical gaming power draw is around 50 W).
2. The hypothetical 5600X3D has a lower maximum clock.

The X3D chip temperatures have never been hot from TDP or core count, but from the 3DVCache blocking heat transfer, even more than the Zen chips normally do, this wouldn't change in a six core variant, and we don't see the 7900X3D, which is a 6+6 config, displaying this potential advantage.

 

[LabRat 891]

Seems like a very niche thing, and doubtful, for two reasons.

1. The 5800X3D always sits at it's maximum clock of 4.55 GHz in low threaded scenarios, because it never thermal throttles (typical gaming power draw is around 75 W).
2. The hypothetical 5600X3D has a lower maximum clock.

I don't want to go scrounging the forums and search engines, but I can't help but feel the underlined is factually incorrect (at least for some-many 5800X3D owners*).
*IIRC, there was a minor scandal about boards defaulting to overvolting the voltage-sensitive X3D chips. -causing excessively high temps and thus variably lower clocks.

My impressions on the 5800X3D were that it was quite sensitive to temperatures and adjusts clocks faster than most-any application can poll.

Also, I could've sworn I ran across a video showing better frametimes and slightly better overall performance, the cooler an X3D chip was kept.
In other words: a lot like ARM-in-mobile, lower temps = higher average clocks; regardless of what is 'reported in software'.

 

[kapone32]

Is that what was compared?


The 5700 is noticeably faster, depending on how multithreaded the game is, and if you aren't GPU limited.

Little reminder for you, the 7900X3D is the slowest of the Zen 4X3D chips, that's for a reason

6 cores is not a quad core. We are not at a stage where core count is the king. What you are forgetting is that the 5.7 GHz clock is on the 7900X3D too so you can come again. It also runs cooler than those chips and I love what my CPU does for me. You can't gaslight me I have had every AM4 CPU in my hands with the exception of a few. A 5700 is not noticeably faster than a 5600X. Once again I would direct you to reviews of people that actually have a vested interest in the products like Newegg or Amazon reviews.

When you do that you will see that in the negative narrative about the 6500XT is belied by the Gushing User reviews on performance (And those people spent money). Of course it would not sway you but I will leave you with this. I have 24 threads that all run at 5 GHZ. How the hell can that be slow with that number of Gates opening across that many threads? Then we have to remember the I/O die that has been there since the 3900X that is now 6nm. Where is my 386 PC in comparison. It still allows me to have 26 TB of NAND that is quite happy with 24 threads. Actually makes RAM an afterthought as I don't need 6000 MT/s a second to feel the speed of my machine.

Then of course there is the fact that you are staff and you guys have not reviewed the 7900X3D. I will say that I trust Level 1 to give me proper info and guess what they liked the 7900X3D when they reviewed it instead of assuming. When I read reviews of the 7900X3D on Newegg it conforms to my thought process more than yours and those people like me are those that have actually bought the product. If it was as bad as make it seem that would not be the case. These are not $200 I5s but serious CPUs that show how far we have come in Computing.

 

[dgianstefani]

I don't want to go scrounging the forums and search engines, but I can't help but feel the underlined is factually incorrect (at least for some-many 5800X3D owners*).
*IIRC, there was a minor scandal about boards defaulting to overvolting the voltage-sensitive X3D chips. -causing excessively high temps and thus variably lower clocks.

My impressions on the 5800X3D were that it was quite sensitive to temperatures and adjusts clocks faster than most-any application can poll.

I could've sworn I ran across a video showing better frametimes and slightly better overall performance, the cooler an X3D chip was kept.
In other words: a lot like ARM-in-mobile, lower temps = higher average clocks; regardless of what is 'reported in software'.

If it's configured wrong, there can be issues, but this isn't the case, up to six threads, it's locked at 4.55 GHz.

Temperature results are due to these reasons I already outlined, and not due to core counts, clock speeds or anything else.

Seems like a very niche thing, and doubtful, for two reasons.

1. The 5800X3D always sits at it's maximum clock of 4.55 GHz in low threaded scenarios, because it never thermal throttles (typical gaming power draw is around 50 W).
2. The hypothetical 5600X3D has a lower maximum clock.

The X3D chip temperatures have never been hot from TDP or core count, but from the 3DVCache blocking heat transfer, even more than the Zen chips normally do, this wouldn't change in a six core variant, and we don't see the 7900X3D, which is a 6+6 config, displaying this potential advantage.

6 cores is not a quad core. We are not at a stage where core count is the king. What you are forgetting is that the 5.7 GHz clock is on the 7900X3D too so you can come again. It also runs cooler than those chips and I love what my CPU does for me. You can't gaslight me I have had every AM4 CPU in my hands with the exception of a few. A 5700 is not noticeably faster than a 5600X. Once again I would direct you to reviews of people that actually have a vested interest in the products like Newegg or Amazon reviews.

When you do that you will see that in the negative narrative about the 6500XT is belied by the Gushing User reviews on performance (And those people spent money). Of course it would not sway you but I will leave you with this. I have 24 threads that all run at 5 GHZ. How the hell can that be slow with that number of Gates opening across that many threads? Then we have to remember the I/O die that has been there since the 3900X that is now 6nm. Where is my 386 PC in comparison. It still allows me to have 26 TB of NAND that is quite happy with 24 threads. Actually makes RAM an afterthought as I don't need 6000 MT/s a second to feel the speed of my machine.

Then of course there is the fact that you are staff and you guys have not reviewed the 7900X3D. I will say that I trust Level 1 to give me proper info and guess what they liked the 7900X3D when they reviewed it instead of assuming. When I read reviews of the 7900X3D on Newegg it conforms to my thought process more than yours and those people like me are those that have actually bought the product. If it was as bad as make it seem that would not be the case. These are not $200 I5s but serious CPUs that show how far we have come in Computing.

5.7 Ghz isn't on the 3DVCache chiplet, so it's irrelevant to gaming.

I understand you have purchase pride, but your chip is the slowest of the Zen4 X3D trio, this isn't gaslighting, it's a fact, and that fact is due to the six core nature. If core count isn't king, as you say, why would you buy the 6+6 core over the 8 core?

The chip is a compromise, if you want best gaming performance, you get the 7800X3D, if you want the best workstation performance, you get the 7950X, if you want both, you get the 7950X3D.

 

[LabRat 891]

6 cores is not a quad core. We are not at a stage where core count is the king. What you are forgetting is that the 5.7 GHz clock is on the 7900X3D too so you can come again. It also runs cooler than those chips and I love what my CPU does for me. You can't gaslight me I have had every AM4 CPU in my hands with the exception of a few. A 5700 is not noticeably faster than a 5600X. Once again I would direct you to reviews of people that actually have a vested interest in the products like Newegg or Amazon reviews.

When you do that you will see that in the negative narrative about the 6500XT is belied by the Gushing User reviews on performance (And those people spent money). Of course it would not sway you but I will leave you with this. I have 24 threads that all run at 5 GHZ. How the hell can that be slow with that number of Gates opening across that many threads? Then we have to remember the I/O die that has been there since the 3900X that is now 6nm. Where is my 386 PC in comparison. It still allows me to have 26 TB of NAND that is quite happy with 24 threads. Actually makes RAM an afterthought as I don't need 6000 MT/s a second to feel the speed of my machine.

Then of course there is the fact that you are staff and you guys have not reviewed the 7900X3D. I will say that I trust Level 1 to give me proper info and guess what they liked the 7900X3D when they reviewed it instead of assuming. When I read reviews of the 7900X3D on Newegg it conforms to my thought process more than yours and those people like me are those that have actually bought the product. If it was as bad as make it seem that would not be the case. These are not $200 I5s but serious CPUs that show how far we have come in Computing.

Oh, hey...
That's me!

TBCH, the 6500XT was a fine card, and a verifiable (though 'smol') upgrade over a 2-gen earlier card w/ double the VRAM (MSI RX580X 8GB). (Especially, in 'modern' titles like MW5 on UE4)
It was not a good value. It was, however, available when other better-value cards were not.

I snagged one to have a lower-power card on-hand w/ 'recent' technologies. (My oldass G92 cards even 'get use' for testing/troubleshooting occasionally). Also, to eventually slot the 6500XT into an M.2 slot, somehow; just 'cuz
Okay, that's only a half-truth. I bought one largely to salt-mine; precisely because of the negative narrative surrounding the card.
If someone were to present even the slightest evidence that AMD 'reverse-psychology'-marketed the 6400s and 6500s, I'd believe them.

 

[dgianstefani]

Oh, hey...
That's me!

TBCH, the 6500XT was a fine card, and a verifiable upgrade over a 2-gen earlier card w/ double the VRAM (MSI RX580X 8GB).
It was not a good value. It was, however, available when other better-value cards were not.

I snagged one to have a lower-power card on-hand w/ 'recent' technologies. (My G92 cards even get use for testing/troubleshooting occasionally). Also, to eventually slot the 6500XT into an M.2 slot, somehow; just 'cuz
Okay, that's only a half-truth. I bought one largely to salt-mine; precisely because of the negative narrative surrounding the card.
If someone were to present even the slightest evidence that AMD 'reverse-psychology'-marketed the 6400s and 6500s, I'd believe them.

The 6500XT was fine, assuming you plugged it into a PCIe Gen 4 system, the x4 nature of the card wasn't a problem.

If you didn't, and used a Gen 3 system which is still the most common, as would be likely, due to the budget nature of the card making it appealing for those who had cheaper/older systems, you would get the equivalent of PCIe Gen 4 x2, which is a tiny amount of bandwidth, and seriously hurt performance in the order of 10-15%.

 

[kapone32]

The 6500XT was fine, assuming you plugged it into a PCIe Gen 4 system, the x4 nature of the card wasn't a problem.

If you didn't, and used a Gen 3 system which is still the most common, as would be likely, due to the budget nature of the card making it appealing for those who had cheaper/older systems, you would get the equivalent of PCIe Gen 4 x2, which is a tiny amount of bandwidth, and seriously hurt performance in the order of 10-15%.

The only problem with that is that it would be in a full x16 slot. Yes would lose up to 20% vs 4.0 but that would not mean that the card would not perform. Where I agree that you want 4.0 is so that VRR works properly at 1080P as the 6500XT fully supports 120Hz monitors. That is something that neither the 580 or 1660 have as well.