Ryzen 5600X3D potential?

The title of the article is pure click-bait trash. How would a 6-core 5600X3D with lower clocks compared to the 5800X3D be "The Best Gaming Chip For AM4"? There is nothing whatsoever that would give a 5600X3D an advantage over a 5800X3D.

It does make sense to have a chip like the 5600X3D, and the "Why" is pretty straight-forward. Yield issues. A CCD has 8 cores. For a 5800X3D, which has one CCD, all of those 8 cores have to actually work. So what do you do with 5800X3D chips that have one or two defective cores? Well, THIS is what you do with them...

This has been standard practice for a long time. The 5900X for example, uses 6-core CCDs because it's basically just a 5950X where some of the cores were defective. The defective cores got disabled and it became a 5900X instead of a 5950X. Same with the regular 5800X. When some of the cores are defective, it gets rebranded and becomes a 5600X.

I'm surprised that they didn't do this sooner, honestly. They were probably just worried that it would cannibalize sales from the rest of their AM4 lineup, especially on the lower-end. But they probably have a huge stash of semi-defective 5800X3D chips built up at this point, just waiting to be re-branded, and with AM5 having been out for a while, time to put them to use.
 
While you make some good reasons for why, the reason I still ask it is because from a marketing standpoint, this will further cannibalize the AM5 platform potential sales. The more options you provide the less likely you'll push people to incentivize the AM5 platform as an upgrade path. AM4 has a huge glut of options for upgrades price range from normal 5700, 5800x, g chips, which are all in that pricing tier as well. Sure you get rid of "broken inventory" as new product, but you further eat into sales of your other products.
 
I guess the thinking is.. keeping current AM4 users running along with their "last upgrade" before the need for a new rebuild.
Can't see this being sought after except for maybe those still on 2xxx or 3xxx series...
If more than $200, then might as well go AM5/7600
 
Slade said:
this will further cannibalize the AM5 platform potential sales.
Click to expand...

I don't think that AMD really cares which platform people are on as long as they are buying AMD CPUs. When someone upgrades to AM5, a huge percentage of that profit goes to the motherboard and memory manufacturers. I don't think that AMD is making any less profit selling an AM4 CPU vs an AM5 CPU, especially if they are rebadged 5800X3D chips that had some faulty cores, where they already paid to produce those chips. It was either sell them like this, or toss them in the trash.
 
The 5600x is just as fast as the 5800x or even faster in clock speed, this 5600x is clocking itself up, So, I really don't see the 3D stacking to be a heat issue on the 5600x like the 5800x has with heat before the 3D stacking took place and no need to have it locked at 4.4Ghz boost clock if AMD really wants a winner on their hands.

 
GotNoRice said:
The title of the article is pure click-bait trash. How would a 6-core 5600X3D with lower clocks compared to the 5800X3D be "The Best Gaming Chip For AM4"? There is nothing whatsoever that would give a 5600X3D an advantage over a 5800X3D.
Click to expand...
Clock, maybe ? Heat issue with the 5800x3d are significant
GotNoRice said:
For a 5800X3D, which has one CCD, all of those 8 cores have to actually work. So what do you do with 5800X3D chips that have one or two defective cores? Well, THIS is what you do with them...
Click to expand...
Do they stack expensive 3d cache on top of non 8 cores working 5800x ? or they not know yet if they will work in that process ?
 
Other outlets were reporting on this chip being matched up against Intel's cheap offerings

I think this is how AMD gets rid of a lot of remaining 6 core Zen 3 dies. Last upgrade for budget minded people already on AM4 or those who are looking to pick up a super-cheap remainder AM4 board and DDR4 RAM.

This is seems meant for people not in the budget space for AM5. While DDR5 has come down quite a bit in price, AM4 boards are still generally much cheaper than AM5 boards with roughly the same feature set.
 
GotNoRice said:
Not really. My 5800X3D runs a lot cooler than my 5900X did. 8 cores, even with the extra cache, isn't that difficult to cool.
Click to expand...
At the same clock (or comparing a bit apple and orange ?), if they do not have heat issue by the extra cache layer why they are clocked lower and with pbo off ?

The comment being implicitly at same clock heat issue are significant (to the point they tend to not be run at the same clock)
 
LukeTbk said:
At the same clock (or comparing a bit apple and orange ?), if they do not have heat issue by the extra cache layer why they are clocked lower and with pbo off ?

The comment being implicitly at same clock heat issue are significant (to the point they tend to not be run at the same clock)
Click to expand...
voltage.. given the spread on die quality they can't guarantee a higher boost clock at the limited voltage so they lowered the clocks. same reason PBO is disabled as well.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
voltage.. given the spread on die quality they can't guarantee a higher boost clock at the limited voltage so they lowered the clocks. same reason PBO is disabled as well.
Click to expand...
And the voltage being lower, is it because of the significant heat issue (with that cache putting himself insulating from the heat sink) or something else the cache is causing ?
 
LukeTbk said:
And the voltage being lower, is it because of the significant heat issue (with that cache putting himself insulating from the heat sink) or something else the cache is causing ?
Click to expand...

it's a limitation of the stacked cache having a maximum voltage of 1.35v since it's tied into the into the voltage supplied to the core where as the cache within the CCD isn't. at 1.4v the stacked cache fries it's self long before temperature is a concern. remember the stacking of the cache is a separate process in the production which is why it makes no sense for them to ever produce a 5600X3D.
 
Last edited:
Teenyman45 said:
Other outlets were reporting on this chip being matched up against Intel's cheap offerings

I think this is how AMD gets rid of a lot of remaining 6 core Zen 3 dies. Last upgrade for budget minded people already on AM4 or those who are looking to pick up a super-cheap remainder AM4 board and DDR4 RAM.

This is seems meant for people not in the budget space for AM5. While DDR5 has come down quite a bit in price, AM4 boards are still generally much cheaper than AM5 boards with roughly the same feature set.
Click to expand...
I still don't understand why AMD doesn't put the VCache on a 7600X to promote more AM5 sales? wouldn't it be the exact same cost??
 
Sounds unlikely given all the recent sales on the 5800x3d. Seems like they are trying to clear out old inventory. I'm not sure why they would be doing that and developing new "old" inventory at the same time.
 
Kardonxt said:
I'm not sure why they would be doing that and developing new "old" inventory at the same time.
Click to expand...

They aren't developing anything new. With Zen3, 6-core CCDs are just 8-core CCDs where 1 or 2 cores didn't pass quality control testing. 2 cores are disabled and they become 6-core CCDs. This happens more often than you might think. The more cores per CCD, the higher the chances that at least one of them won't pass quality control. This is how we got chips like the 5900X and the 5600X. A 5600X3D would literally just be a defective 5800X3D where one or two cores didn't work, so they turned it into a 6-core CCD.
 
I'm in for one, wife's gaming PC is still on AM4 and I don't really want to throw much money at it. If a 5600X3D launches in the low $200s it will be hard to resist.
 
considering only microcenter is getting stock the number of reject 5800x3d must be low.
 
Slade said:
While you make some good reasons for why, the reason I still ask it is because from a marketing standpoint, this will further cannibalize the AM5 platform potential sales. The more options you provide the less likely you'll push people to incentivize the AM5 platform as an upgrade path. AM4 has a huge glut of options for upgrades price range from normal 5700, 5800x, g chips, which are all in that pricing tier as well. Sure you get rid of "broken inventory" as new product, but you further eat into sales of your other products.
Click to expand...
Apart from the tiny detail that people who upgrade their platform could also choose a competing one, it does add to amd's reputation for their major selling point of providing loooooong platform support.
 
GotNoRice said:
They aren't developing anything new. With Zen3, 6-core CCDs are just 8-core CCDs where 1 or 2 cores didn't pass quality control testing. 2 cores are disabled and they become 6-core CCDs. This happens more often than you might think. The more cores per CCD, the higher the chances that at least one of them won't pass quality control. This is how we got chips like the 5900X and the 5600X. A 5600X3D would literally just be a defective 5800X3D where one or two cores didn't work, so they turned it into a 6-core CCD.
Click to expand...

I've got no visibility into AMD's build process, but I'd think they'd have tested the chiplets before they bonded the v-cache on top. But maybe they made too many v-cache dies, and have to put them on something, so 5600X is it?
 
I have a launch 5600X that happily runs at 2000 1:1, and is core cycler stable up to 4800. I let it run at 4850 lol. Its a good CPU still. Of course it sucks in Cinebench though at only 12xxx.

If you are just a regular Joe Blow who is not into bleeding edge gaming, the chip should be fine.
 
The chip doesn't seem to hit it's 4.4GHz max clock, but is 50MHz worth crying about? Seems to be around 7700 speeds in some games and faster than a 5950 & 5900 most of the time.

Still too much money IMHO, being a failed AM4 chip and all. I'm sure it will sell out in no time, even though there are better deals for the 5800X3D that are still floating around.

 
This thing is the new 3300X. Grab one if you have MS nearby IMO. Blink and it'll be gone.
 
Overall it's still kind of odd. I mean, it makes sense that they are making it out of recycled 5800x3d chips. It makes sense that there isn't enough inventory so they are going through a single retailer. Where it gets odd is that it really only makes sense as a drop in upgrade if you are already on AM4. For example, last month I upgraded my old 3600X to a 5600X. The price at $230 doesn't seem to justify the performance increase over the $150 5600X or $130 5600. The thing about Microcenter is that they offer good combo discounts which means the price of the 5600x3d isn't really $230 if you are building a new system, but now we are back at #1 where this makes the most sense as a drop in upgrade. If you are building a whole new system just start on AM5 instead of end of life AM4.
 
CAD4466HK said:
Still too much money IMHO, being a failed AM4 chip and all.
Click to expand...

If it costs less than things it's faster than, seems like an ok price to me?

As a value builder, it feels like something that might be tempting enough to get me to spend a little more and have a good result; but then I built with a 3600 combo from Microcenter when I was near one for spring break.
 
Gorilla said:
The price at $230 doesn't seem to justify the performance increase over the $150 5600X or $130 5600.
Click to expand...

It really depends on what games you play. Some games show HUGE gains from 3D-cache, some don't. In the games that do, you often get better performance from an AM4 3D cache chip than you would get from an AM5 non-3D-cache chip. That's makes for one nice upgrade IMO, especially if all you have to do is swap your CPU.

Even for those building a new system. There are some cheap B450 motherboards out there (like $50) that will run a 5600X3D or 5800X3D just fine, along with some cheap DDR4 (since the 3D cache makes the memory speed less relevant). We're still talking much less than an AM5+DDR5 system.
 
I have to wonder if maybe this is really about Microcenter making a deal for an exclusive product? Other sorts of retailers do this kind of thing all the time.

I feel like this chip is kind of niche. If I had an older AM4 machine I wanted to upgrade I'd either go cheap or get something with more cores for longevity. Or maybe both. A 5800X is $190 at Microcenter, so it's $40 cheaper than the 5600X3D. Then there's the 5800X3D at $280 and 5900X at $300. I tend to feel that future proofing by getting 8 cores if you plan to keep it a while isn't a bad idea at this point. 6 has been the price/perf sweet spot for quite some time, but quite a few games can use more now and I'm thinking thread counts will go up a bit now that Intel is adding e-Cores. On the other hand for certain games it's basically perfect. No idea which, but I bet there are a number of e-Sports games that don't benefit from extra cores and like the extra cache. Likely some MMOs too. So it might be perfect for someone who just wants to maximize the performance of that one game. I don't have a "that game." Mostly I play games that you "finish" (particularly RPGs), then move on to the next. So I don't build a rig around a particular game.
 
Launch this morning and all three Washington, DC area stores still have 25+ in stock to reserve on line. So not an instant sell out as far as I can tell. Also noticed they jacked up the prices of 5600X, 5600 and others to make the 5600X3D look like a better deal I'd guess.
 
It’s a neat cpu for sure but I can’t bring myself to pay close to or over 200 for it. I’m tempted though since I can pass AM4 cpus down to my kids PCs.
Still showing the 5600 for 129 at the Sharonville OH store. Same price as yesterday. Some of the others are $5-10 more now though.

5500 for 89.99 up 5
5700x for 189.99 up 10
7600 209.99 same I believe

5500, 5600, 5700x are arguably better bang for buck choices

Like the 5800x3d this one seems like a nice top off for an existing board and that’s about it.
 
Any buyer is going want to see this 5600x 3D benchmarked on lesser video cards than a RTX 4090, resulting in not much gains paired with say a RX 6600, and waste of money in the long run, reason I don't own the 5800x 3D is same reason I own the RTX 3070, so these benchmarks need to be more down to earth with the video card used for the budget buyer these are aimed at, budget buyers don't own RTX 4090's and the reviewer missed this point using a $1600 video card.
 
mothman said:
Also noticed they jacked up the prices of 5600X, 5600 and others to make the 5600X3D look like a better deal I'd guess.
Click to expand...

Funny you shouldn't mention this... i noticed the same thing Newegg did to the 5600/5600x (even though they'll never have the 5600x3d).
 
crazycrave said:
Any buyer is going want to see this 5600x 3D benchmarked on lesser video cards than a RTX 4090, resulting in not much gains paired with say a RX 6600, and waste of money in the long run, reason I don't own the 5800x 3D is same reason I own the RTX 3070, so these benchmarks need to be more down to earth with the video card used for the budget buyer these are aimed at, budget buyers don't own RTX 4090's and the reviewer missed this point using a $1600 video card.
Click to expand...
Here's a 5800x3d Vs. 5600 Vs. 3600. With 6600xt and 6950xt.



*IMO, for gaming focused builds purchasing brand new CPUs, none of AMD's 8 core CPU on AM4 make sense. Buy a 5600x for super budget. Buy a 5600x3d for AM4 'max' potential.

On AM5, get a 7600/x or jump up to the 7800x3D
 
Last edited:
After MC sees these aren't the hit they expected the price will be $199 very quickly. Maybe even over the weekend. I'll get one then.
 
Could happen. I could convince myself to top off my itx box with one at 199.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top