AMD's Ryzen 7 5800X 8 Core & 16 Thread completely crushing the Intel Core i9-10900K

[Thunderball]

The only thing I'll agree on is that 5600X should've been $250. 5900X seems justified going on their synthetics. 5800X... hard to tell until benchmarks are up.

They want to finally start making money with their CPUs, and you cant really blame them. It was pretty obvious with XT chips. The days of cheap AMD CPUs are over.

[mrgreenthump]

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.

Then your argument has no point, because they never said best value gaming CPU either.

[InfernalDark]

Intel 4 life, never liked AMD.

[Sorshen]

Then your argument has no point, because they never said best value gaming CPU either.

It's a great pitch from AMD realistically, cause they now own the best value option (3600, maybe even 3300X or 3700X depending on current offers/budget) and they can claim they have the best performance with Zen3, for the demographic that usually goes the way of intel.

[Shakadam]

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.

Why though?

I mean look at it from AMD's perspective. They have the better product. Why should they price it lower than the competition? AMD has very clearly for a while now wanted to move away from being the cheaper option, because to lots of people that means the more expensive Intel option is seen as the premium, better option. Psychology is funny like that.


Ontopic though; I was impressed with the event. Straight to the point, no bullshit, no wasting of time with some stupid influencers or the like (looking at you Nvidia...). Here are the changes, here's roughly how much better it's going to be, here's the specs, here's the price, availability in stores on this date. Done.

Thumbs up for that.

Gonna wait for benchmarks to see how much of an improvement it will be from my current 3600.

[thunterman]

What AMD says doesn't really matter too much. Nvidia claimed 100+% performance gain from a 2080ti to a 3080, and it was like.. 30%.

But what AMD said was ~19% IPC gain from what I know

Edit: GN video if anyone cares: https://youtu.be/n-AanO3Axzk

Nvidia's 100% increase had asterisks. Those asterisks were ; Minecraft RTX with RTX enabled. This was true. This is what marketing is, you can't lie, but you can bend the truth and imply allot to trick people. Everyone watching should of known something was up the second they put that slide up. The AMD slides for the 5900X for example, have no asterisks. I double checked to be sure, and there are none. The stats are 1080p high settings, where it beats the 3950X and i9 10900k - what this means for 1440p/4k is anyone's guess, but seeing how the gap is so close before Zen3, it's perfectly believable that Zen3 is going to be ahead, as they claim. Frankly, they deserve to be at this point. If the figures shown aren't true, then what they've said is a straight up lie, not just shady marketing.

AMD have earned a lot of trust from me in the CPU department, they are killing it, and even if their numbers are bullshit, it's still a no-brainer purchase over Intel regardless.

[kaelleria]

Why though?

I mean look at it from AMD's perspective. They have the better product. Why should they price it lower than the competition? AMD has very clearly for a while now wanted to move away from being the cheaper option, because to lots of people that means the more expensive Intel option is seen as the premium, better option. Psychology is funny like that.


Ontopic though; I was impressed with the event. Straight to the point, no bullshit, no wasting of time with some stupid influencers or the like (looking at you Nvidia...). Here are the changes, here's roughly how much better it's going to be, here's the specs, here's the price, availability in stores on this date. Done.

Thumbs up for that.

Gonna wait for benchmarks to see how much of an improvement it will be from my current 3600.

They have the better product... but its not that much better. They also raised prices significantly.

This also gives intel a chance to come back with RocketLake.

[mrgreenthump]

Nvidia's 100% increase had asterisks. Those asterisks were ; Minecraft RTX with RTX enabled. This was true. This is what marketing is, you can't lie, but you can bend the truth and imply allot to trick people. Everyone watching should of known something was up the second they put that slide up. The AMD slides for the 5900X for example, have no asterisks. I double checked to be sure, and there are none. The stats are 1080p high settings, where it beats the 3950X and i9 10900k - what this means for 1440p/4k is anyone's guess, but seeing how the gap is so close before Zen3, it's perfectly believable that Zen3 is going to be ahead, as they claim. Frankly, they deserve to be at this point. If the figures shown aren't true, then what they've said is a straight up lie, not just shady marketing.

AMD have earned a lot of trust from me in the CPU department, they are killing it, and even if their numbers are bullshit, it's still a no-brainer purchase over Intel regardless.

You can't lie but you can tinker around with the setups so they show you in the best possible light. Intel has done it multiple times over the past 2-3 years.

[Shakadam]

They have the better product... but its not that much better. They also raised prices significantly.

This also gives intel a chance to come back with RocketLake.

Yep, but it's still better. It makes no sense for AMD to undercut Intel at this point. The Ryzen 3000 series has sold like hotcakes and AMD is completely dominating the DIY market with it. There's nothing to gain for AMD by lowering prices at this point because they're already dominating sales in this category and probably selling everything they can make.

Rocket lake is still months away and may very well re-take the crown, but AMD is no stranger to lowering prices to compete when it's needed, they've done that with all Ryzen CPU's this far. Intel generally keeps the same price through the lifespan of the product.

[kaelleria]

Yep, but it's still better. It makes no sense for AMD to undercut Intel at this point. The Ryzen 3000 series has sold like hotcakes and AMD is completely dominating the DIY market with it. There's nothing to gain for AMD by lowering prices at this point because they're already dominating sales in this category and probably selling everything they can make.

Rocket lake is still months away and may very well re-take the crown, but AMD is no stranger to lowering prices to compete when it's needed, they've done that with all Ryzen CPU's this far. Intel generally keeps the same price through the lifespan of the product.

The 3000 series sold like hotcakes because you could buy a 6 core 12 thread part for $200. That same chip with the 5000 series is now $300. Most people do not buy high end chips. This is going to hurt them.

[willtron]

I'll wait for benchmarks.

[mrgreenthump]

The 3000 series sold like hotcakes because you could buy a 6 core 12 thread part for $200. That same chip with the 5000 series is now $300. Most people do not buy high end chips. This is going to hurt them.

You can still buy a 3600 though. Nothing is stopping you. And frankly with 5600x being roughly 20-25% better, for budget builds, you should get a 3600 still. Now we don't know if they'll launch a $250 5600 at a later point. They did skip x700 nomenclature as well.. So would expect a cheaper 8 core at some point.

[GreenJesus]

But what game needs such a high-end CPU anyway?

All that really matters is Price/performance for their mid level CPU's.

[Shakadam]

The 3000 series sold like hotcakes because you could buy a 6 core 12 thread part for $200. That same chip with the 5000 series is now $300. Most people do not buy high end chips. This is going to hurt them.

We don't yet know if there will be a cheaper "Ryzen 5600" at some point. The 3600X has an MSRP of $249 so it's $50 more for the 5600X.

The 10600K is also at $265 but requires a more expensive motherboard than the AMD option so the total price will be basically the same.

I don't really see how there's anything that would hurt AMD here. Lower overall sales maybe? But with higher prices for each sale it's whatever in the end. Companies generally like higher product margins instead of higher overall volume of sales. I mean, are people going to go "Nah these new AMD cpu's are too expensive, I'll buy an Intel system instead, for the same money (and likely) slightly worse performance? Who does that other than fanboys?

[Yayeet]

They want to finally start making money with their CPUs, and you cant really blame them. It was pretty obvious with XT chips. The days of cheap AMD CPUs are over.

They need to make money, they are running at a loss right now with their current prices if you take their R&D into account.

You can't survive on a 100% profit margin as a tech company, they're really fortunate and smart that they don't make their own CPU's.

Intel has already thrown $100 billion at their 10 and 7nm product lines, and now they might even skip 7nm for 5nm, throwing even more money into it.

- - - Updated - - -

The 3000 series sold like hotcakes because you could buy a 6 core 12 thread part for $200. That same chip with the 5000 series is now $300. Most people do not buy high end chips. This is going to hurt them.

Most people of that group won't upgrade their cpu's for another 5 years though. So it doesn't matter.

People need to stop complaining about tech prices, they're expensive, get used to it.

[mrgreenthump]

Most people of that group won't upgrade their cpu's for another 5 years though. So it doesn't matter.

Dunno DDR5 will get a lot of people to upgrade, which should be out late 2021 or early 2022.

[MrMatticus]

Yep, but it's still better. It makes no sense for AMD to undercut Intel at this point. The Ryzen 3000 series has sold like hotcakes and AMD is completely dominating the DIY market with it. There's nothing to gain for AMD by lowering prices at this point because they're already dominating sales in this category and probably selling everything they can make.

Rocket lake is still months away and may very well re-take the crown, but AMD is no stranger to lowering prices to compete when it's needed, they've done that with all Ryzen CPU's this far. Intel generally keeps the same price through the lifespan of the product.

Dominating what now? Comparing the 10900k to the 3950x, Intel wins out on all points including price.

Now after watching the AMD announcement for Zen 3, the 5950x having barely any increased performance over the 10900k, and it also being $200 more, Intel still wins.

[mrgreenthump]

Dominating what now? Comparing the 10900k to the 3950x, Intel wins out on all points including price.

I may want a explanation of this reasoning. I know we dont trust AMD numbers, but entertaining the thought that they are true.. How on earth would Intel leading be in anything when Zen 3 launches?

[Sorshen]

Dominating what now? Comparing the 10900k to the 3950x, Intel wins out on all points including price.

Now after watching the AMD announcement for Zen 3, the 5950x having barely any increased performance over the 10900k, and it also being $200 more, Intel still wins.

I think you need to doublecheck your numbers. Also, 3950X is not competing with 10900K.

[kaelleria]

Dominating what now? Comparing the 10900k to the 3950x, Intel wins out on all points including price.

Now after watching the AMD announcement for Zen 3, the 5950x having barely any increased performance over the 10900k, and it also being $200 more, Intel still wins.

The benches were for the 5900x, not the 5950x. AMD does win out vs the 10900k...barely.

Intel will probably come back with RocketLake in gaming, but Zen 4 will probably beat that.