R7 5800X3D, R7 5700X, R5 5600, R5 5500, R5 4600g, R5 4500, R3 4300 incoming

Which new AMD are you most likely to purchase?

  • 5800X3D

  • 5700X

  • 5600

  • 4600g

  • 4500

  • 4300

  • 5500


Results are only viewable after voting.

jlbenedict

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 22, 2005
Messages
1,799
Running a 3600X now on B550...
5700X to ride AM4 out to the end?
Any other benefits besides the 95w to 65w drop?
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
298
I think some people are missing something on this 4500. It is based on an older APU die, not the regular 3000 series dies like Ryzen 3600. Steve did point out that it doesn't even have the chiplets. He was trying to explain.
L3 cache on the 3600 is 32MB and the 4500 has just 8MB. There are reasons Steve is bashing it. L3 cache is very important and why the 5800X3D is being introduced. This 4500 goes in the opposite direction with predictable results. It was near the bottom of most charts. I doubt overclocking will improve scores very much with the lack of L3.
Sorry, but no. The Doctor has spoken. Anandtech tested the 4650g and it matches the 3600 in everything except gaming where it was still more than adequate with a 2080ti.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1630...-apus-desktop-amd-ryzen-4750g-4650g-and-4350g

Even the 2080ti is more GPU than the vast majority plan on using this with.
 

pgaster

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2008
Messages
1,392
The doctor has spoken!! I just about spit out my coffee on that one.
I almost forgot another major shortcoming of the 4500. It only has pci-e 3.0 support. The 3600 has pcie 4.0. The doctor's benchmark results, valid as they were 2 years ago, used a 2080TI, a pci-e 3.0 card. The gaming gap will be larger if using a pci-e 4.0 card. Also if one uses a 6500 XT or 6600 XT with the 4500 performance will be reduced even further. The 6600 XT is X8 and the 6500 XT is x4. Not the end of the world on pci-e 4.0 but really can hurt sometimes at pci-e 3.0.
A used 3600 would be a much better choice than the 4500.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,497
Why would an AMD APU ever be a good option for someone that has a strong GPU ?

To access some more modern codec with a powerful but more ancien GPU ? for dual GPU workload ?
 

NattyKathy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 20, 2019
Messages
1,192
Why would an AMD APU ever be a good option for someone that has a strong GPU ?

To access some more modern codec with a powerful but more ancien GPU ? for dual GPU workload ?
Yep, both of those factors. Maybe the iGPU has a better media block than someone's dGPU, or they could want to keep video encode off the dGPU during game recording / streaming. I suppose HDMI capabilities could be a consideration too.

Also, multi-application workflows that have more than one app needing GPU acceleration or compute at a time (like content creation stuff or, I'd presume, scienc-ey work) can benefit in responsiveness and stability from having multiple GPUs in the system even if one of them is much slower than the other.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
298
Why would an AMD APU ever be a good option for someone that has a strong GPU ?

To access some more modern codec with a powerful but more ancien GPU ? for dual GPU workload ?
I used the 4650g to show 4500 performance as they are much the same. APUs might be used with dGPU later for those that just wanted a media PC and later wanted to play games.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
298
The doctor has spoken!! I just about spit out my coffee on that one.
I almost forgot another major shortcoming of the 4500. It only has pci-e 3.0 support. The 3600 has pcie 4.0. The doctor's benchmark results, valid as they were 2 years ago, used a 2080TI, a pci-e 3.0 card. The gaming gap will be larger if using a pci-e 4.0 card. Also if one uses a 6500 XT or 6600 XT with the 4500 performance will be reduced even further. The 6600 XT is X8 and the 6500 XT is x4. Not the end of the world on pci-e 4.0 but really can hurt sometimes at pci-e 3.0.
A used 3600 would be a much better choice than the 4500.

The 6500xt is indeed a bad choice for pcie 3.0 CPUs, but that I wouldn't recommend that POS for any CPU. The x8 GPUs seem to be still good with PCIe 3.0

In some ways this "3600af" is a better deal than the old 1600af was depending on what motherboard you got. If it was a ASRock B350 like mine, your best upgrade you'll be to a 3800x, which is like a 1.3x single core and 1.5x multi core bump.
With most cheap B-450s, or a B-550 if you want something more future proof, you can swap out the 4500 for a 5700x, 5800x3d, or the higher core parts. That should be closer to a 1.5x single core boost and a 2x or more multi core boost.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,906
This isn't a "3600AF" when the original 1600AF has double the cache lol

I agree. I think the 4500 is essentially an old Athlon if you're comparing to previous gen. The "AF" is closer to the 5500 just a lot more money. Everything just costs more nowadays.

AMD lives on cache. There's really no compelling reason to buy a 4500 unless you have some real aversion to buying used CPUs in the same price point and ONLY have $129 to spend. I'd spend the extra $30 for the 5500 every time.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
298
A used 3600 is still $140 or more used on eBay (if you sort by ending soonest) and if this performs near that CPU despite its weak looking cache, why wouldn't you get the 4500 and buy new worry free? I saw one used 11400 there for $110 but there is still a couple days so that price will likely go up. a used 2700 is i guess the best alternative as it is cheaper and slightly better in multi thread, but it does so using a lot more power and may not be supported on B550 if you go that route.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
298
So here it - the CPU over half the [H] goobers were most excited about because moooaaar cache!!!
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d/

For $450, you get a CPU that runs the same speed as a $300 5700x in most cases save for a couple 1080p scenarios with ultra high end graphics while being less efficient overall. Oh, yeah, and zero overclocking.

This overhyped CPU truly belongs on the back of long haired Steve's t shirts.

How anyone would buy this over a $400 5900x is beyond comprehension.
 

legcramp

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
12,279
I take it you don't like cache, love the gimped cpu with little cache but absolutely hate the fat cpu with the most cache. You're not wrong though, the 5900X is the best all-around cpu for the recently discounted price.
 

Andrew_Carr

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
2,603
So here it - the CPU over half the [H] goobers were most excited about because moooaaar cache!!!
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d/

For $450, you get a CPU that runs the same speed as a $300 5700x in most cases save for a couple 1080p scenarios with ultra high end graphics while being less efficient overall. Oh, yeah, and zero overclocking.

This overhyped CPU truly belongs on the back of long haired Steve's t shirts.

How anyone would buy this over a $400 5900x is beyond comprehension.

Why does nobody do mining benchmarks? That's what really matters.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
298
I take it you don't like cache, love the gimped cpu with little cache but absolutely hate the fat cpu with the most cache. You're not wrong though, the 5900X is the best all-around cpu for the recently discounted price.

I like performance per dollar across a wide range of applications. It's like favoring one car simply because it has more horsepower despite being slower.

I don't have a vendetta against cache. My dispute with cache was settled in court. Cache and I have even hung out together a few times as our kids go to the same school.

Going to bed.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
2,497
you get a CPU that runs the same speed as a $300 5700x in most cases save for a couple 1080p scenarios with ultra high end graphics while being less efficient overall
That seem a bit harsh:

borderlands-3-2560-1440.png


far-cry-5-2560-1440.png


Seem that the effect can be giant (when the something fit all in cache all the sudden I imagine), true enough that you need to play a lot one of those games to be worth considering, will see if with the next generation of video cards if it would be more common.
 

evhvis

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2021
Messages
348
So here it - the CPU over half the [H] goobers were most excited about because moooaaar cache!!!
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-5800x3d/

For $450, you get a CPU that runs the same speed as a $300 5700x in most cases save for a couple 1080p scenarios with ultra high end graphics while being less efficient overall. Oh, yeah, and zero overclocking.

This overhyped CPU truly belongs on the back of long haired Steve's t shirts.

How anyone would buy this over a $400 5900x is beyond comprehension.
The 720p and 1080p scenarios are a glimpse of what you will see in the future. This generation of GPUs is nearing it's end and the same with the previous gen consoles. Next gen high end GPUs could very well show differences even at 4k and CPU will become more important once the game developers leave the previous console generation behind and start to take full advantage of the CPU in the current gen. There are already a few games where CPU matters quite a bit at 1440p and that number will increase in the near future.
 

prtzlboy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,729
Really this just makes me more excited for the next gen AMD later this year. I was all ready to upgrade, but the new Intel platform has had some hiccups--ddr5 is still expensive, the chips are power hungry, and some of the ddr4 boards are having problems (I'm going ITX for my build). I ended up only upgrading my living room itx pc that I use for rom scale VR (5600x and a 3070)--I wanted cool thermals and a mature platform that I could just build and forget about.

For my main PC I'm still running a gtx 1070 ti and 4970k. I just can't get myself to pull the trigger on AMD due to DDR4/AM4 EOL, or Intel due to DDR5/mobo expense and platform instability (on ITX at least).
 

MaZa

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 21, 2008
Messages
3,456
Yeah I still don't get it. It beats the 12700k by a whopping 2.5% at 720p and losses at just about everything else.

Eh? From what I have seen as far as DDR4 memory is used this is the fastest gaming CPU available. But if the stupidly expensive DDR5 is thrown into the mix then yeah, it looses.
 
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
201
Depends on the point if view.

It is the same or better than 12900k. It is not fastest right across the board when 12900k is used with 6800 DDR5, but is ahead of it when they both use DDR4.

Even if one was to start from scratch right now, you coud use $500 saving compared to Adler Lake (CPU&memory) for next tier of GPU, while keeping top tier performance on CPU front.

It's a great last hooray for AM4, and looking forward to the upgrade on my end.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,906
If you're buying something new right now, I don't know if it makes sense to invest in a DDR4 platform.

If you're coming from a well performing Zen 3 5000 series CPU, it doesn't make much sense either.

If you're coming from a Zen 2 3000 series and you want a drop in upgrade to your existing motherboard, then it makes sense.
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
298
Why do reviewers keep comparing this to the 12900k instead of the 12700k anyways? While the 12900k might lose in a few titles, it destroys in elsewhere. The 12700k lines up much better in price and overall performance.
 

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
6,012
Why do reviewers keep comparing this to the 12900k instead of the 12700k anyways? While the 12900k might lose in a few titles, it destroys in elsewhere. The 12700k lines up much better in price and overall performance.
Because AMD says its the best CPU for gaming. So, for gaming, it should be compared to 12900k/ks
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
298
Because AMD says its the best CPU for gaming. So, for gaming, it should be compared to 12900k/ks

Yeah it's just silly to see these reviews yell "oh god is spanks the pricier 12900k at gaming!".

Yes it does win, but it is such a silly trade off on platform features and other tasks if money is no object.

If money is a concern, the trade off over a very gaming capable 12700k seems foolish if you are not invested in Am4 already.

Just because it has an edge in 1080p now, does not mean it will be a significant upgrade to 4k in a few years.
 

chameleoneel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
6,012
If money is a concern, the trade off over a very gaming capable 12700k seems foolish if you are not invested in Am4 already.
That's the key, though. If you already have an AM4 motherboard and gaming is the most important thing for your PC: the 5800x3D makes sense.
 

NightReaver

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
1,451
Yeah it's just silly to see these reviews yell "oh god is spanks the pricier 12900k at gaming!".

Yes it does win, but it is such a silly trade off on platform features and other tasks if money is no object.

If money is a concern, the trade off over a very gaming capable 12700k seems foolish if you are not invested in Am4 already.

Just because it has an edge in 1080p now, does not mean it will be a significant upgrade to 4k in a few years.
Some people literally chase every fps possible. That's what this was marketed as.
 

DeanEH

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
110
So does it make sense if you already have an AMD 5800x to go with a AMD 5800x3d or keep the AMD 5800x? I mostly game. My GPU is a RTX 2070 super.
 

DeanEH

Weaksauce
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
110
Right now I am gaming at 1080. I have a 1440 monitor and was thinking about using it again . The reason I am using 1080 is my eye sight isn't what it use to be so I went to 1080 to better to see my desk top icons and the letters beneath them. I play all kinds of games shooters, sims and more. 1080 just makes it easier to see stuff.
 

Digital Viper-X-

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 9, 2000
Messages
14,813
Where are you guys getting your info? just about every review has it trading blows with the 12900ks, winning more than losing.
 

kirbyrj

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
29,906
Right now I am gaming at 1080. I have a 1440 monitor and was thinking about using it again . The reason I am using 1080 is my eye sight isn't what it use to be so I went to 1080 to better to see my desk top icons and the letters beneath them. I play all kinds of games shooters, sims and more. 1080 just makes it easier to see stuff.

You know you can adjust the size of the icons/wording and still keep it at 1440p right?
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
32,711
I volley of new AMD CPUs are coming:

5800X3D - $450 Extensively covered on other threads
5700x - $300 Basically a 5800X price cut
5600 - $ 200 Same as to the 5600X
5500 - $160 6/12, (updated info) could be interesting, maybe a 1600 AF replacement.
4600g $154 - Seen before as the OEM 4650g
4500 - $130 6/12 Renoir same as above, w/o igpu
4300 - $100 4/8 Renoir, maybe around 3300x performance.

https://www.techpowerup.com/292739/...ril-launch-pricing-of-other-new-chips-surface

So thoughts on pricing? Which one has you the most interested.

For myself, I am interested in getting a 6/12 APU for my crusty ASRock B-350 itx so I can just get rid of my GPU.
I see no 5960X or 5970X on there. I'm out for this gen :p
 
Joined
Nov 24, 2021
Messages
298
5950x now close to $500.
https://www.techpowerup.com/294005/amd-ryzen-9-5950x-16-core-processor-now-down-to-usd-520-550

Of course, not a match for 5800x3d or 12900knin gaming. Even in rendering or encoding, the 12900k often matches it, however, if you tend to game while running a background video project, this CPU is hard to beat.

Also, by far the most efficient in multi core workloads.

Some have claimed to see the 5900x at $370 or lower online. Unless you already have a 3800/3900/3900ti, using the cash savings here to get a $100 more expensive GPU will do you better than the gaming flagship CPUs from AMD and Intel.
 
Top