I have Identified my new intended PC purchase!

[Lord Flashheart]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0gbfvJDsv4

So 3600X -> 5800X3D for me.

I expect it will be popular.
Productivity mediocre - meh.
For gaming - apparently great!

Replaced B450 motherboard with B550 around 2 years ago + kept the B450 for various reasons.
So maybe get some cheap/slow memory also. So I can replace the decade old i7-3770 in the home server.
Yay!

[r.linder]

Publicado originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Looks like it fell about where I was expecting, but I wasn't expecting productivity stuff to not show the same uplift.

It'd be very hard to do accurately due to the nature of consistently testing it, but I wonder if Minecraft is one of the cases where this CPU would be a big gain, or if it'd instead up ever-so-slightly-slower than the other Zen 3 Ryzen 7s due to the lower clock ceiling.

I'm probably going to skip it in favor of the 5700X myself, as I feel it represents the best value among Zen 3, and I can probably make the change from my current 3700X for ~$100 or so. If you're after the outright best performance, especially just for gaming, and extending this platform as long as you can, the 5800X3D your best option IMO. While the 5900X is a "better value" provided you can make use of its extra cores, it's a bit more expensive and a bit slower purely for games.

Why would productivity gain a boost when clock speeds are lower on average due to the lack of PBO? Cache doesn't benefit many loads, games are more commonly affected by it than anything else.

[Illusion of Progress]

Publicado originalmente por 尺.し工几句ヨ尺:

Why would productivity gain a boost when clock speeds are lower on average due to the lack of PBO? Cache doesn't benefit many loads, games are more commonly affected by it than anything else.

I worded that wrong. I meant I'm surprised productivity showed seemingly no uplift versus not showing the same uplift. I expected differences, but it was a bit more pronounced than I was expecting.

In the past, higher caches would often show pretty broad uplifts, not just in games. When Prescott released, it was slower clock for clock than Northwood, but I recall the extra cache helped gain it some performance especially in productivity tasks. I could have that backwards (maybe because Intel was already better at productivity at the time, whereas it was worse in games), but that's what I'm recalling.

[r.linder]

Publicado originalmente por Illusion of Progress:

Publicado originalmente por 尺.し工几句ヨ尺:

Why would productivity gain a boost when clock speeds are lower on average due to the lack of PBO? Cache doesn't benefit many loads, games are more commonly affected by it than anything else.

I worded that wrong. I meant I'm surprised productivity showed seemingly no uplift versus not showing the same uplift. I expected differences, but it was a bit more pronounced than I was expecting.

In the past, higher caches would often show pretty broad uplifts, not just in games. When Prescott released, it was slower clock for clock than Northwood, but I recall the extra cache helped gain it some performance especially in productivity tasks. I could have that backwards (maybe because Intel was already better at productivity at the time, whereas it was worse in games), but that's what I'm recalling.

It depends entirely on how a program handles cache, but it seems that more cache nowadays above a certain threshold does nothing for productivity.

[Illusion of Progress]

Yeah, seems so. It just caught me off guard being it's about the opposite of things back then (granted, trends doesn't always stay the same).

[GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™]

IDK, I'm not sold on the 3d cache thing. To me it's a red flag that they can't make their silicon go any faster without disabling features and adding this special cache. Even though it's fast for gaming, the chip still feels gimped to me.

AMD keeps gimping their hardware. Gimped bus, vram and display count on the 6500xt, not to mention codecs. Gimped CPUs with missing pcie 4.0 support and lacking cache that get owned by i3s.

And now this, gimped clocked speed, gimped bios features. And now we are stacking on top of each other because our silicon fitness is poor. And the price is a joke.

No Thanks AMD.

[r.linder]

Publicado originalmente por The Hardware ʬhisperer:

IDK, I'm not sold on the 3d cache thing. To me it's a red flag that they can't make their silicon go any faster without disabling features and adding this special cache. Even though it's fast for gaming, the chip still feels gimped to me.

AMD keeps gimping their hardware. Gimped bus, vram and display count on the 6500xt, not to mention codecs. Gimped CPUs with missing pcie 4.0 support and lacking cache that get owned by i3s.

And now this, gimped clocked speed, gimped bios features. And now we are stacking on top of each other because our silicon fitness is poor. And the price is a joke.

No Thanks AMD.

1. Seems like they're going this route because they know they can't match Intel's clock speeds. All Intel has to do is add more cache, and that falls flat.

2. The 6500-XT was just a re-purposed laptop GPU, and the 3 new CPUs (4100, 4500, 5500) are all APUs with disabled iGPUs (the iGPUs were defective). They just offload garbage onto poor people.

3. The price of the 5800X3D isn't terrible, it's the same price that the 5800X was at launch, and they lowered the other prices, plus you can get them all at micro center for good deals in the US. Compared to the 12900KS it beats in many cases, it costs often half as much. It's a strong value for gamers that can afford it.

4. Expect the future of AMD to lack OC features more frequently if they keep this 3D cache design around. I wouldn't be surprised if all of Zen4 or Zen5 ends up being locked.

[shiel]

Publicado originalmente por The Hardware ʬhisperer:

IDK, I'm not sold on the 3d cache thing. To me it's a red flag that they can't make their silicon go any faster without disabling features and adding this special cache. Even though it's fast for gaming, the chip still feels gimped to me.

AMD keeps gimping their hardware. Gimped bus, vram and display count on the 6500xt, not to mention codecs. Gimped CPUs with missing pcie 4.0 support and lacking cache that get owned by i3s.

And now this, gimped clocked speed, gimped bios features. And now we are stacking on top of each other because our silicon fitness is poor. And the price is a joke.

No Thanks AMD.

How is the price a joke? You can match the top Intel cpu for gaming at a little over half the price. Sounds like a pretty big win to me... especially for someone with a 1000 or 2000 series Ryzen looking for an upgrade to get them through a few more years without having to go to a new platform.

[emoticorpse]

Publicado originalmente por shiel:

Publicado originalmente por The Hardware ʬhisperer:

IDK, I'm not sold on the 3d cache thing. To me it's a red flag that they can't make their silicon go any faster without disabling features and adding this special cache. Even though it's fast for gaming, the chip still feels gimped to me.

AMD keeps gimping their hardware. Gimped bus, vram and display count on the 6500xt, not to mention codecs. Gimped CPUs with missing pcie 4.0 support and lacking cache that get owned by i3s.

And now this, gimped clocked speed, gimped bios features. And now we are stacking on top of each other because our silicon fitness is poor. And the price is a joke.

No Thanks AMD.

How is the price a joke? You can match the top Intel cpu for gaming at a little over half the price. Sounds like a pretty big win to me... especially for someone with a 1000 or 2000 series Ryzen looking for an upgrade to get them through a few more years without having to go to a new platform.

I know some of these guys know what they're talking about but lack of consistency really urks me. Whenever it's convenient some will say "nothing matters except real world results, go watch youtube footage of gaming performance", and then in other situations that philosophy is nowhere to be found.

[GOD RAYS ON ULTRA™]

I actually was thinking of trying this platform again and got excited about these 5800X3Ds. Then as I learned more I became more excited about the 5700x. Then I learned that it doesn't come with a cooler when my 3700x did, so that destroyed the value for me. The 3700x came with a gorgeous looking cooler so it's odd that the 5700x comes without one.

I still have my eye on AMD though. Their GPUs are good but you have to get high end to get anything worth. With Nvidia you can go with their cheapest alternatives and get something good.

For now it's almost like they don't want me to buy anything. If I want a low end amd cpu it can't even beat a 2700x. That's not ok in 2022. Look at i3 how fast it is. I feel like I'm not asking for too much either.

Anyways, peace.

*edit*

The price is more than a 5900x. That's why I mention price. What I'm seeing is $449 for 5800x3d and $385 for 5900x. 5900x still has pbo.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Not sure if 5800X3D is actually good choice despite the gaming performance since AMD is gone move to new socket anyway from there.

[shiel]

Publicado originalmente por Rumpelcrutchskin:

Not sure if 5800X3D is actually good choice despite the gaming performance since AMD is gone move to new socket anyway from there.

It's more of an upgrade for people already on the platform. I would never suggest it to someone building a new pc. I also wouldn't suggest it for anyone doing more than just gaming for obvious reasons.

[Lord Flashheart]

Publicado originalmente por shiel:

Publicado originalmente por Rumpelcrutchskin:

Not sure if 5800X3D is actually good choice despite the gaming performance since AMD is gone move to new socket anyway from there.

It's more of an upgrade for people already on the platform. I would never suggest it to someone building a new pc. I also wouldn't suggest it for anyone doing more than just gaming for obvious reasons.

Pretty much this.
So for those with an AMD setup already, is a decent option. That is my situation.

As for those looking to build a good 'gaming' machine, may be a choice also. It will depend on the budget. For productivity - get something else.

As for things like clock speeds & other specifics - not fussed. The tests are the only thing I really look at.

[Fake]

Ryzen 5600 is $200.
Ryzen 5800X3D is $450.

Gaming in 1440p, the difference would be in the single digits. $240 for a few frames more, just isn't worth it.

[r.linder]

Publicado originalmente por Fake:

Ryzen 5600 is $200.
Ryzen 5800X3D is $450.

Gaming in 1440p, the difference would be in the single digits. $240 for a few frames more, just isn't worth it.

It's single digits even at 1080p because it's the same IPC and similar core frequencies, all you get by paying more in each generation is additional cores, but at least Intel splits things up by having locked CPUs so there is some kind of a reason to choose a 12600K over a 12400F.

In many cases the 5600 won't be far behind the 5800X3D when its enormous cache doesn't make a difference in the load, though it could actually pull ahead if PBO is fine tuned enough since the 5800X3D doesn't support it if you have an updated BIOS, and can't safely use it. AMD showing off 3D V-Cache just showcases its crucial weakness: durability, and the fact that its viability depends heavily on the type of loads that the user plans to run, and if most of those loads don't make good use of 96MB L3 cache, it's one of the worst value CPUs in the generation because it costs slightly more than the 5900X (which has more cores and much higher performance in productivity) and can easily be outperformed by the rest of the stack when the cache is useless.

All in all though, for most people, anything above the i5-12400F or R5 5600 is just a waste, you're right. For some, the i7-12700F and R7 5700X do have some viability though due to the extra cores, since some people do peg 100% on their Ryzen 5s.

[ugafan]

Newegg has a promo for $15 off the 5600, bringing it down to $184.