CyberJunk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2005
- Messages
- 4,242
Is the Memory support for 5900X still 3200mhz native ? or is it natively offical support 3600mhz?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The key is similarly spec'd.At no time have I ever bought a TV with more features at launch than the TV it replaced for cheaper. Now maybe after it's been on the market for a while. But at launch? Nope.Intel was exploiting its highly dominant market position and consumers grumbled more with each generation because Intel was increasingly failing to deliver with each new generation. If it wasn't for Zen, I would not be surprised if most of Intel's main line of desktop CPUs were still either 4c/4t or 4c/8t.
Outside of the specialty $30K-$100K+ TVs, each generation of TV offers very real improvements for the price points, this is in some combination of panel upsize, improvements to panel tech, lightning tech, processor upgrades, or other meaningful improvements. As an example, the Samsung TV in my family room originally listed for about $4K (not that I paid that much) in 2014. In each year since, a TV with similarly speced features has moved down in price point by about $500 per year so that now my TV is equivalent to the ones with an original MSRP of around $1,000 to $1,250-ish before accounting for any sales.
As I set forth in an earlier post, I think the the 5900x still looks like decent value for the money.
The 5900x is faster, has more cores than the 10900k Intel and uses way less power.
I think we need to have a serious discussion about if gamers actually care about power consumption, which took an up inordinate amount of time in the presentation. These CPUs have basically zero price advantage over current Intel offerings. I thought the whole point of AMD having a huge advantage in process was to hammer Intel on price with higher margins? Maybe they can't make as many of these chips or there's some other issue going on with the architectural changes which makes harvesting for lower tiers harder (hence the missing SKUs).
Per GN, it sounds like it's still 3200 Mhz native.Is the Memory support for 5900X still 3200mhz native ? or is it natively offical support 3600mhz?
You have a point with the 5900x, but in a price thread, I think the other SKUs are also fair game here. If you don't care about power, how is this launch better than 10700K or 10600K rig you could have had for months? Great, they caught up? Today is a day for investors to celebrate. I'm a little more measured.Taking out the power usage part. How is a 5900x 12c/24t CPU at $549 not a price advantage over an intel 10x/20t CPU at $730?.....I mean if that isn't hammering the price compared to Intel, I don't think you would be ever satisified.
I mean saving almost $200, while having 2c/4t more and (according to AMD) have more gaming performance....I am not sure what is value to you then.
You have a point with the 5900x, but in a price thread, I think the other SKUs are also fair game here. If you don't care about power, how is this launch better than 10700K or 10600K rig you could have had for months? Great, they caught up? Today is a day for investors to celebrate. I'm a little more measured.
For sure. I have some decisions to make here. I already have a B550 so it's just a question of what chip to buy because I do care about heat, power, and competition. I'm just not breaking out the pom poms over what has been universally acknowledged today as a $50 price hike across the board.Again, we need to wait for benchmarks from independent reviews first.
The 5800x most likely has one premium binned chiplet with 8 cores, while the 5900x and 5950x, like the original 3800x and 3950x maybe with one good chiplet and one shitlet. The 5600x has 2 of the cores disabled so the chiplet is basically a shitlet but more usable with the worst cores hacked off. That to me explains the price differences per core.Typically, with processors, the more cores you add, the more the law of diminishing returns applies with cost/performance. Not so much with these Zen 3 prices:
5600X - $299 ($50/core)
5800X - $449 ($56/core)
5900X - $549 ($46/core)
5950X - $799 ($50/core)
Jumping up $150 to go from 6 cores to 8 cores seems a little steep to me, but not terrible. In typical fashion, the cost per core increases. Then, you look at the 5900X, giving you 4 more cores (50% more!) for only $100. It almost seems like if you're going to get the 5800X, why not just spend another $100 and get the 5900X. Then, the 5950X brings the cost back up to the baseline of $50/core. Not a bad deal at all.
Now, I probably wouldn't have even brought this up, but the 5600X price is bugging me. That should be a $249 processor, at $42/core. With the current pricing on 3600/3600X processors, it's just not a good value to upgrade to that CPU, given that it's been 18 months since the 3xxx series launched.
the 5600x, the 'worst' cpu announced, has a boost clock of 4.6GHz. That makes me a little confident in OCing potential, since it pretty much means every CCX they make has at least one core good enough to do 4.6GHz, since if they didn't, they wouldn't be good enough for any CPU, and be a ton of waste. So I'm guessing all core OC will be not far below that 4.6 number. Maybe I'm just being hopeful, but really I'm hoping the boost algorithm works well enough that I leave it at stock.The 5800x most like has one premium binned chiplet with 8 cores while the 5900x and 5950x maybe like the original 3800x and 3950x with one good chiplet and one shitlet. The 5600x has 2 of the cores disabled so the chiplet is basically a shitlet but more usable with the worst cores hacked off. That too me explains the price differences per core.
As per price and performance - it looks like it smacks Intel for both.
What did you want to see performance wise in your budget? A 5800x should be about 37% faster than your 2700x.I would like to also complain. I am extremely excited to replace my 2700x with a 5800x... however at these prices i have myself thinking about a 3700x at $214, a 3900x at $379 or just going for a 5900x. I do some video encoding so i dont want a 6 core part...
No. They took a page out of how to run a profitable business. AMD is not a charity. Their primary concern is to make money. Expect them to go even higher if Intel doesn't compete. I don't see Intel next cpu to be much better then the 10900k. AMD is going to be king for the next two years at least if all their claims are true.I was expecting the 5800X to cost around the same as the current 3800X but it looks like AMD has taken a page out of Intel's playbook and raised prices across the board for the new processors...
Those prices are making Intel competitive if all you care is gaming.
umm it's ok i didn't need to buy a new motherboard. the 3000 series will be cheaper now and the XT models.Well, mates, what did you think was going to happn when amd is the true leader is performance and highly computerized applications?
AMD is power! AMD is strength! AMD is future!!
No. They took a page out of how to run a profitable business. AMD is not a charity. Their primary concern is to make money. Expect them to go even higher if Intel doesn't compete. I don't see Intel next cpu to be much better then the 10900k. AMD is going to be king for the next two years at least if all their claims are true.
I mean if they were going to act like Intel they would of priced the 5900x closer to $700 imo.I get it but I'm going according to how AMD has operated in the past...they always were priced much more competitively...so now that they have a CPU that can stand toe to toe with Intel they are starting to act like Intel...
Because the barrier to entry for a 6-core CPU is $300. How are they going to price a quad core? Anything over $100 is going to be tough, with Intel having their 10100 for sale at $99 at various retailers.If the performance data supplied by AMD is consistent with what 3rd party reviewers find, I don't see how anyone could honestly be upset at the pricing for these CPUs.
IF the numbers are to be believed the AMD CPU's are still great value. The 5900x is faster, has more cores than the 10900k Intel and uses way less power. The 5900x will be priced $549, yet the 10900k is around the $730-750 mark? Neither CPU will have a heatsink as well.
So I mean how is that not still value? Sure it isn't as cheap as the 3900x/3900xt, but Zen 3 is still the fastest CPU's you can get (according to AMD).
You do realize they haven’t released the non x variants of the CPU’s yet? There is plenty of room for more CPU’s at a lower price point.Because the barrier to entry for a 6-core CPU is $300. How are they going to price a quad core? Anything over $100 is going to be tough, with Intel having their 10100 for sale at $99 at various retailers.
While using more power, and having less cores/threads.No, and besides, the 10850K is $449 and basically the same thing as the 10900K ... and everyone, if they want can get 5.1 to 5.3ghz on a 10900K / 10850k .. for the record
Uh remember the FX CPUs? They were $1000 over a decade ago. AMD priced ryzen where it needed it to be to win market share.I get it but I'm going according to how AMD has operated in the past...they always were priced much more competitively...so now that they have a CPU that can stand toe to toe with Intel they are starting to act like Intel...
I get it but I'm going according to how AMD has operated in the past...they always were priced much more competitively...so now that they have a CPU that can stand toe to toe with Intel they are starting to act like Intel...
Now, they're neck-and-neck with Intel on performance (we'll see), and close in pricing. Yes, they are more power efficient, but I'm feeling like this price hike is taking away a huge amount of allure as to why people jumped ship from blue to red.
The 10900l has a msrp of $550 I believe. Those high prices are from 3rd part vendors trying to jack the price up on a CPU that doesn't really exist in the retail channels. Like other say there is the 10850k which is only 100mhz less but can be OC to the same levels as the 10900k.IF the numbers are to be believed the AMD CPU's are still great value. The 5900x is faster, has more cores than the 10900k Intel and uses way less power. The 5900x will be priced $549, yet the 10900k is around the $730-750 mark? Neither CPU will have a heatsink as well.
So I mean how is that not still value? Sure it isn't as cheap as the 3900x/3900xt, but Zen 3 is still the fastest CPU's you can get (according to AMD).
A $30 air cooler isn't going to do a good job with a 3900X or 5900X.
Costs for a lot of things have gone up in the past year. It may not be a matter of AMD being greedy. We don't really know for sure why the price went up. In any case, I don't think $50 is a huge deal. Again, AMD has charged considerably more for desktop processors in the past. I still think these are going to be an incredible value compared to their competition.
Omg, yes it is. And, it's actuallly $100. Let me explain...Omg, 50 more is a deal breaker huh?
Omg, yes it is. And, it's actuallly $100. Let me explain...
Let's pretend the 3600X and 3800X never existed, because they shouldn't have. They were crap. The 3600 is just as good. Let's continue...
3600 at launch - $199. 5600(X) at launch, 18 months later, still a 6 core, $299.
The pricing is a little strange because the 5800X is such a bad deal compared to the 5900X and the 3700X. Going from an on-sale 3700X to the 5800X you spend an extra $180 (67%) to get 20% more performance. Going from the 5800X to the 5900X, you spend an extra $100 (22%) to get 50% more cores. At this rate they are basically telling you "please buy a 5900X", which is not really a bad thing unless you really wanted a $300 CPU.
at least as good as any intel CPUfor gaming it seems the 5800X would be fine for the next few years...
for gaming it seems the 5800X would be fine for the next few years...