Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
... LastLast
  1. #21
    Legendary!
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    6,380
    About time Intel gets the kick in the ass they so desperately need. Good on you AMD.

  2. #22
    Doesn't beat the intel chips in gaming as much as I thought it would.

    This means intel has a chance to come back with Rocket Lake.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by thilicen View Post
    About time Intel gets the kick in the ass they so desperately need. Good on you AMD.
    i mean, the 5800x is ~65 bucks more than the 10900k, and the 5950x is more than 250 dollars more. For the supposed performance gain over the 10900k nowhere isnt in line with the price difference. And this is only on 1080p, above that the difference will be even lower.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzony View Post
    i mean, the 5800x is ~65 bucks more than the 10900k, and the 5950x is more than 250 dollars more. For the supposed performance gain over the 10900k nowhere isnt in line with the price difference. And this is only on 1080p, above that the difference will be even lower.
    They screwed up their pricing structure. Their product stack doesn't make any sense anymore... I'm pretty sure they just lost their enthusiast and gaming mindshare...

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzony View Post
    i mean, the 5800x is ~65 bucks more than the 10900k, and the 5950x is more than 250 dollars more. For the supposed performance gain over the 10900k nowhere isnt in line with the price difference. And this is only on 1080p, above that the difference will be even lower.
    Got to remember that you can't look at a 12 and 16 core by only their gaming performance. They'll be absolute beasts in multithreaded performance.

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    They screwed up their pricing structure. Their product stack doesn't make any sense anymore... I'm pretty sure they just lost their enthusiast and gaming mindshare...
    Well, the 5900X will absolutely dominate intel i9s for at least 5? months. For $50? more.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by mrgreenthump View Post
    Got to remember that you can't look at a 12 and 16 core by only their gaming performance. They'll be absolute beasts in multithreaded performance.
    Their biggest buzzword and selling point was "the best gaming processor" through the presentation.

  8. #28
    Please wait Temp name's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Under construction
    Posts
    14,631
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzony View Post
    i mean, the 5800x is ~65 bucks more than the 10900k, and the 5950x is more than 250 dollars more. For the supposed performance gain over the 10900k nowhere isnt in line with the price difference. And this is only on 1080p, above that the difference will be even lower.
    The 10900k is a 630 dollar CPU atm. Though MSRP is ~500. The 5800x is 450, which means it's ~50 dollars cheaper, not 65 more expensive. Were you looking at the 5900x?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzony View Post
    Their biggest buzzword and selling point was "the best gaming processor" through the presentation.
    Because they already won everything else with Zen2. They just need to take the gaming crown

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzony View Post
    Their biggest buzzword and selling point was "the best gaming processor" through the presentation.
    If that R20 score is true, they have the right to use the 'buzzword', cause they just dethroned intel in every single workload for desktop cpus by a reasonable margin.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorshen View Post
    If that R20 score is true, they have the right to use the 'buzzword', cause they just dethroned intel in every single workload for desktop cpus.
    Their $/perf isn't close to what it was with Zen 2+

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    Their $/perf isn't close to what it was with Zen 2+
    That's ok, cause their 3000 series cpus are almost always on offer now (3900X is putting 10700K to shame cause of that, etc.), and they'll continue to be reasonable choices if intel keeps their pricing scheme for the next 5 months. Which they probably will, based on history.
    People that want 'the absolute best' will just stop looking at intel.

  12. #32
    Ok, so the prices are in, it's exactly what I expected. It's safe to say that 5000 series wont have a value CPU for a while, so it's pretty safe to buy 3600/3600X right now.
    R5 5600X | Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme | MSI MAG B550 Tomahawk | 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4-3600/CL16 | MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X | Corsair RM650x | Cooler Master HAF X | Logitech G400s | DREVO Excalibur 84 | Kingston HyperX Cloud II | BenQ XL2411T + LG 24MK430H-B

  13. #33
    They've promised this since the first Ryzen chips.

    Until there's actual benchmarks, save your excitement. AMD chips are fast on synthetic benchmarks, but always seem to be slower in games where single thread performance counts.

  14. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    Their $/perf isn't close to what it was with Zen 2+
    That's the point of the problem indeed. First time in a decade they can put out a CPU thats a bit better than the Intel one, and shitting the bed with the atrocious pricing. The 5950x should be in line with the 10900x on pricing to actually win over people, and the lesser ones should be in line with the i7/i5 ones.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by kaelleria View Post
    Their $/perf isn't close to what it was with Zen 2+
    Technically depending on workload it's better on the top end at least. 5800x price is a bit high, but assuming they'll release a 5700 at some point.

  16. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by thilicen View Post
    About time Intel gets the kick in the ass they so desperately need. Good on you AMD.
    Nothing is going to change. OC'd Intel chips are still going to beat AMD, unless games would suddenly start working properly with 12 cores.
    R5 5600X | Thermalright Silver Arrow IB-E Extreme | MSI MAG B550 Tomahawk | 16GB Crucial Ballistix DDR4-3600/CL16 | MSI GTX 1070 Gaming X | Corsair RM650x | Cooler Master HAF X | Logitech G400s | DREVO Excalibur 84 | Kingston HyperX Cloud II | BenQ XL2411T + LG 24MK430H-B

  17. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by Puzzony View Post
    That's the point of the problem indeed. First time in a decade they can put out a CPU thats a bit better than the Intel one, and shitting the bed with the atrocious pricing. The 5950x should be in line with the 10900x on pricing to actually win over people, and the lesser ones should be in line with the i7/i5 ones.
    What are you on about. 5950x will probably be 1.5x faster than the 10900k on multithreaded loads. It's totally worth it's money in applications it's suited for. Gaming isn't one of them though as the 6 and 8 cores will likely be almost as good.

  18. #38
    The only thing I'll agree on is that 5600X should've been $250, so they can go toe to toe with i5-10600K.
    5900X seems justified going on their synthetics.
    5800X... hard to tell until benchmarks are up.

  19. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by mrgreenthump View Post
    What are you on about. 5950x will probably be 1.5x faster than the 10900k on multithreaded loads. It's totally worth it's money in applications it's suited for. Gaming isn't one of them though as the 6 and 8 cores will likely be almost as good.
    I repeat, their selling pitch was "best gaming cpu yada yada", so your argument has no point. We are talking here about purely on a gaming standpoint, since they were trying to sell it as so.

  20. #40
    they look great, great prices too, not sure why ppl complain about a few hundred dollars

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •