AMD Ryzen 5000 (ZEN3) announcement thread

It's about price segments. If the 5600X was clocked at 5GHz it would have higher single core performance than a 5900X.

 

these are what is left after the binning process.

 

As expected, and as it was the case when AMD had the top dog spot with Athlon, the prices show that this corporation cares about as much for providing decent products at decent prices as Intel or Nvidia does.
None whatsoever, profit chasing is supreme.
AMD will play the price cut game until they reach a pretty clear superiority and then the price will be above or matching Intel's.
Is it justified to have the 549$ vs 488$ (unrealistic as it is) pricing? Performance wise, yes, but we all know Intel basically played customers after the 7700K/8700K era, adding another SKU with the i9 just to justify a huge price increase for their top CPU that should have been an i7. It's one thing to raise the price in small amounts and another to drop 150$ on top of your previous generation, and going as far as desperately cutting HT from i7 - what a joke.
So these prices are artificially inflated with 150-200USD or so, IMO.
Ideally, we would have no more fanboyistic posting about how X corporation is great and y is evil from now on, as all the big ones are evil.
Of course, I know that won't happen, with so many sad individuals creating an identity for themselves based on something as pathetic as technology, or gaming.

 

150-200? Don't be ridiculous

 

AMD is fiendishly clever on every front.
by having an Intel-ten-years-ago Price Structure while not being greedy they hit the sweet spot
let's face it, more than one thing is true - in tech and in life.

this time AMD is protecting itself from short-sellers for the foreseeable future while throwing the gauntlet down. Intel has viable products, but the morale is reeling.

it is understandable that Intel held onto old fabs as they-were-making-money-at-the-time. Intel's greatest failure has been a short-sighted management stuck on short term gains. the moment Intel abandoned (literally gave up because of being cheap) Tick-Tock incorporating timely node shrinkage i knew there was going to be a reckoning. i didn't think it would be this fast, but there it is.
Intel could have and still can turn this around, but that would mean heads will roll

 

Need more input

 

Why are you concerned with what other folks throw in their mobos?
I buy intel not because i'm a fanboy, but because no.1 gaming.
AMD have yet to change this fact.

 

I'm not. The top desktop CPUs of today should be in mid-high 300 range if we allow for inflation and even a bit of raising the price.
Instead, we went to 500$+ from 300-340 which was the norm from 2600k to 7700K. They added a bit on top of that for the 8700K at 360$, I believe, and from then on it went out of control, and AMD kept up nicely.
Competition at the top between just 2 players is irrelevant when it comes to keeping prices down, that's for sure.

 

I think we just get to the point were amd "ties/wins" vs intel. If they are almost there at 1080, 1440 and 4k should be good.

Ill go with amd this new build just coz i dont want to support a 14nm+++++++ platform. Lets hope i dont have to regret it lol

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't AMD supposed to be the reasonable alternative to "money hungry" Intel?

The 5800x is an absolute stinker here, while the 5900x is the pick of the bunch, a really nice CPU with a good value for money credentials. That being said, I'll hold out for DDR5 as I still don't need more performance out of my rig.

 

5950X for 300... Hmmm ok

 

This is such a nonsense post.

I can guarantee you you'd do much better spending your money on Nvidia, if you want value per fps.

You will not prove me wrong on this.

If you think a 3080 will only give you 15-20fps over your 2080S, good, you think that. But you're wrong. It will in fact give you a lot more than that. It'll give you some 50-80% more performance in games. It'll always be more than 15-20fps.

But you go ahead, make a bad purchase.

 

Both the 16 and 12 core CPUs have no direct competition, and the 16 core has limited use of a desktop that you don't use for VMs, rendering and the sort, so it's kinda more of a vanity move to have it on the desktop and not HEDT.
I would say the 5900X for 380$. Obviously, that means the 10900K should be cheaper. 360$, since it's old now.
If Intel was able to add 2 cores at 14nm from 7700K to 8700K for only 20$(ish), you can AT LEAST keep the same number of cores at the same price for the 3000 to 5000 series jump.
And don't forget, Intel is the greedy, horrible, big bad corporation that bullies the righteous AMD. So one would assume AMD would be far, far more careful to provide better value for its customers than Intel...
... right?

 

They need to fit around the already well established 3000 series. Don't forget that. Zen 2 CPU's won't just vanish off the shelves. Your pricing does not work.

 

In normal times, a normal corporation would basically sell their previous gen for cheap to get it off those shelves. AMD did it just months ago with both Ryzen 1000 and 2000 series, which were at times quite low and offering great value.
They aren't doing it now, you know why?
They don't have to, because Intel lost gaming and single core, so AMD is on top with everything, so why lose on profit increases?

 

People are also still buying 2nd gen motherboards. They have saturated the market. There's still stock for X and XT which will be even better value for some in the coming months

 

He's a troll; that's all the input you need.

 

In my opinion, it's nice that AMD has left some space for Intel's weaker processors. Otherwise, Intel would have had big problems. Intel did the same for AMD a few years ago.

 

Forgive me for not reading through this entire thread, but what's the word on B450 support and Zen 3? Is it official, or is it up to motherboard manufacturers?

Edit: Nevermind, just saw it in HH's article. Pretty much what I was expecting.