techspot AMD Ryzen 5000 launch: "Fastest gaming CPU", higher clocks, higher prices

[UltraMega]

Quote

In Cinebench R20 single thread, AMD is claiming the Ryzen 9 5900X will hit a score of 631 making it the first desktop processor to hit the 600 point mark. That's with the IPC improvements and the slight clock speed jump to 4.8 GHz turbo. Previously AMD would get around 530 in this benchmark with the 3950X, which means we could be seeing a 100 point or 19% performance improvement, which is right on what AMD has said should be the average IPC gain. Intel’s Core i9-10900K in our testing scored 551, so this would make the 5900X 15% faster.

Source: https://www.techspot.com/news/87037-amd-ryzen-5000-launch-fastest-gaming-cpu-higher.html

 

Looks like AMD is about to take the performance crown! Lots more details in the source, no benchmarks yet though. 

Edited October 8, 2020 by axipher

[ENTERPRISE]

As always *watch this space for reviews* but if that is true, Intel are going to take a real slap this year.

[UltraMega]

9 minutes ago, ENTERPRISE said:

As always *watch this space for reviews* but if that is true, Intel are going to take a real slap this year.

Like a fat spoiled child, a long overdue slap is appropriate. 

 

Edit: don't hit kids unless they are intel upper-management.

 

Edited October 8, 2020 by UltraMega

[Sir Beregond]

Pretty happy by what I see from the marketing, but as always will wait to see the actual reviews and benchmarks and see if it shapes up. That said, AMD seemed to have a lot of bravado in this presentation. Architecturally, glad to see 8 cores unified on a single CCX.

 

I was ok with the $50 price hikes, but them getting rid of or at least not announcing a replacement for the 3700X for instance does raise the price of entry into R7 more than the $50 hike. 3700X was $329 at launch and the 5800X being the only R7 entry at launch with $449 price makes it more like a $120 hike into that class of CPU. It makes sense from a business standpoint since the 3700X ate into 3800X sales I am sure, but still is a little disappointing as a consumer where all things being close enough, the lower cost part would probably win my money.

 

Without a 5700X, it wouldn't be a stretch to think AMD might be hoping people say what's another $100 and go for the 5900X over the 5800X. That would be a much harder choice with a $349-$379 5700X.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sir Beregond
added details

[rares495]

It's also interesting that the x600X SKU is now a 65W part. This does make me wonder if they'll even bother with a 5600 non X. It would make sense to later introduce a 95/105W TDP 5600XT though.

Edited October 8, 2020 by rares495

[UltraMega]

15 minutes ago, Sir Beregond said:

Pretty happy by what I see from the marketing, but as always will wait to see the actual reviews and benchmarks and see if it shapes up. That said, AMD seemed to have a lot of bravado in this presentation. Architecturally, glad to see 8 cores unified on a single CCX.

 

I was ok with the $50 price hikes, but them getting rid of or at least not announcing a replacement for the 3700X for instance does raise the price of entry into R7 more than the $50 hike. 3700X was $329 at launch and the 5800X being the only R7 entry at launch with $449 price makes it more like a $120 hike into that class of CPU. It makes sense from a business standpoint since the 3700X ate into 3800X sales I am sure, but still is a little disappointing as a consumer where all things being close enough, the lower cost part would probably win my money.

 

Without a 5700X, it wouldn't be a stretch to think AMD might be hoping people say what's another $100 and go for the 5900X over the 5800X. That would be a much harder choice with a $349-$379 5700X.

Yea I hope they release a lower clocked version more in line with the 3700x. That cpu was really at the sweet spot in terms of price and performance.

[Sir Beregond]

43 minutes ago, UltraMega said:

Yea I hope they release a lower clocked version more in line with the 3700x. That cpu was really at the sweet spot in terms of price and performance.

 

There's definitely room in the stack between the $299 5600X and $449 5800X pricing wise. We'll see if they want to do anything there though for fear of eating into 5800X sales.

 

I don't plan to build anything till probably around Feb or March next year, so here's hoping.

Edited October 8, 2020 by Sir Beregond

[Diffident]

I was a little shocked by the price.  I paid $299 for my 1700X a couple months after launch, now that's the price of the 5600X which is only 6 cores.

 

How does the 16 core/32 thread have the same TDP as the 12/24 and the 8/16?

[mouacyk]

20 hours ago, Diffident said:

I was a little shocked by the price.  I paid $299 for my 1700X a couple months after launch, now that's the price of the 5600X which is only 6 cores.

 

How does the 16 core/32 thread have the same TDP as the 12/24 and the 8/16?

It's possible with binning (voltage) and cherry picking the CCX's.  If you will observe that clocks are also higher at the top-end, it lends even more credence to binning.

 

More leaky (noisier?) dies have to pump higher voltages in order to sustain signal integrity, while leak-tight dies can get by with lower voltages.

[Mistio]

22 hours ago, Diffident said:

I was a little shocked by the price.  I paid $299 for my 1700X a couple months after launch, now that's the price of the 5600X which is only 6 cores.

 

How does the 16 core/32 thread have the same TDP as the 12/24 and the 8/16?

 

 

In my opinion AMD prices are slowly creeping out of certain people's budget. 

They were an amazing choice for many. 
I advised a few of my friends to build some AMD rigs last year, it seems they will keep the for a long time. 

[ENTERPRISE]

16 minutes ago, Mistio said:

 

 

In my opinion AMD prices are slowly creeping out of certain people's budget. 

They were an amazing choice for many. 
I advised a few of my friends to build some AMD rigs last year, it seems they will keep the for a long time. 

Unfortunately it seems to be the trend...underdog not underdog anymore means prices start creeping up.

[rares495]

Well at least AMD CPUs often get discounts unlike Intel ones which remain full price for 10 years.

[Mistio]

@rares495

 

I hope you are right because I would not want to spend 1700 EUR on a motherboard and CPU . 

[rares495]

You don't have to. That's the beauty of AMD: you can run the 16-core on a $100 motherboard.

[Mistio]

1 hour ago, rares495 said:

You don't have to. That's the beauty of AMD: you can run the 16-core on a $100 motherboard.

 

I would not go that far to be honest. 

Last time I paired a good CPU with a budget mobo, I ended up buying another mobo after multiple RMAs. 

[rares495]

41 minutes ago, Mistio said:

 

I would not go that far to be honest. 

Last time I paired a good CPU with a budget mobo, I ended up buying another mobo after multiple RMAs. 

 

Just saying that you can. There are some very decent cheap boards on AM4.

[KyadCK]

On 10/8/2020 at 5:17 PM, Diffident said:

I was a little shocked by the price.  I paid $299 for my 1700X a couple months after launch, now that's the price of the 5600X which is only 6 cores.

 

How does the 16 core/32 thread have the same TDP as the 12/24 and the 8/16?

 

Because Ryzen doesn't work the way traditional CPUs do in regards to power curves and boost/turbo.

 

Instead of saying "This CPU runs at this frequency at this power", AMD says "The CPU is given this much power. We guarantee it will run this fast (base clock), but it may go higher, power and thermals permitting".

 

This gets you power graphs that look like these;

 

Spoiler

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15043/the-amd-ryzen-9-3950x-review-16-cores-on-7nm-with-pcie-40/2

 

Notice how when the used core count goes up, the clocks reduce on each thread which helps reduce the overall package power. AMD can throw in 33% more cores and sacrifice only 3% clock speed at the same power due to where the cores are on the efficiency curve. A core at 4450Mhz draws 18.3w, but a core at 3875Mhz draws just 7.25w! In EPYC and Threadripper, cores in the mid-2Ghz draw just three watts.

 

Additionally, as you can see, low-thread workloads don't even come close to approaching the total power budget. Between binning for better cores and simply having more to pick from, the higher core count parts also get a small low thread frequency advantage.

 

The lower core count parts are given the same power window as the higher core parts to allow them to clock up higher at their given core counts, but it largely makes little difference in the real world as most Ryzen CPUs are already tuned pretty close to their maximum out the gate, which is why you see little to no difference between the 3600 (65w) and 3600X (95w) or the 3700X (65w) and 3800X (105w). Part of this is why AMD introduced "Eco" mode, where you could chose to lower your higher TDP chip to the power window of their lower TDP counterparts.

 

PBO, in comparison, is an extension of these same power limits. If you were to increase the 3900X's power window beyond 140w, the CPU would then use that extra overhead (temps allowing) to start clocking higher in multithread workloads where you would otherwise hit your cap.

 

TL;DR, because Ryzen is already beyond the peak of it's efficiency curve out the box and has started scaling the wall, and because you can easily change the performance and draw of your chip just by adding better cooling and changing your PPT (power window). TDP doesn't really mean anything anymore.

 

Any additional OCing or undervolting you do is just modifying the existing p-states, which you can now do per CCX, but undervolting on it's own may open up more performance just by opening up more PPT.

 

[rares495]

30 minutes ago, KyadCK said:

 

Because Ryzen doesn't work the way traditional CPUs do in regards to power curves and boost/turbo.

 

Instead of saying "This CPU runs at this frequency at this power", AMD says "The CPU is given this much power. We guarantee it will run this fast (base clock), but it may go higher, power and thermals permitting".

 

This gets you power graphs that look like these;

 

  Reveal hidden contents

https://www.anandtech.com/show/15043/the-amd-ryzen-9-3950x-review-16-cores-on-7nm-with-pcie-40/2

 

Notice how when the used core count goes up, the clocks reduce on each thread which helps reduce the overall package power. AMD can throw in 33% more cores and sacrifice only 3% clock speed at the same power due to where the cores are on the efficiency curve. A core at 4450Mhz draws 18.3w, but a core at 3875Mhz draws just 7.25w! In EPYC and Threadripper, cores in the mid-2Ghz draw just three watts.

 

Additionally, as you can see, low-thread workloads don't even come close to approaching the total power budget. Between binning for better cores and simply having more to pick from, the higher core count parts also get a small low thread frequency advantage.

 

The lower core count parts are given the same power window as the higher core parts to allow them to clock up higher at their given core counts, but it largely makes little difference in the real world as most Ryzen CPUs are already tuned pretty close to their maximum out the gate, which is why you see little to no difference between the 3600 (65w) and 3600X (95w) or the 3700X (65w) and 3800X (105w). Part of this is why AMD introduced "Eco" mode, where you could chose to lower your higher TDP chip to the power window of their lower TDP counterparts.

 

PBO, in comparison, is an extension of these same power limits. If you were to increase the 3900X's power window beyond 140w, the CPU would then use that extra overhead (temps allowing) to start clocking higher in multithread workloads where you would otherwise hit your cap.

 

TL;DR, because Ryzen is already beyond the peak of it's efficiency curve out the box and has started scaling the wall, and because you can easily change the performance and draw of your chip just by adding better cooling and changing your PPT (power window). TDP doesn't really mean anything anymore.

 

Any additional OCing or undervolting you do is just modifying the existing p-states, which you can now do per CCX, but undervolting on it's own may open up more performance just by opening up more PPT.

 

TDP is fake news. Power consumption is much higher.

[KyadCK]

6 minutes ago, rares495 said:

TDP is fake news. Power consumption is much higher.

 

TDP is a measure of cooling required to maintain a specific temperature at a given power level. A reference point of the minimum to not have runaway thermals.

 

TDP has never been representative of power consumption, it just happened to be close enough to not matter. At least until modern turbo/boost standards.

Edited October 10, 2020 by KyadCK

[Sir Beregond]

23 hours ago, Mistio said:

 

 

In my opinion AMD prices are slowly creeping out of certain people's budget. 

They were an amazing choice for many. 
I advised a few of my friends to build some AMD rigs last year, it seems they will keep the for a long time. 

 

23 hours ago, ENTERPRISE said:

Unfortunately it seems to be the trend...underdog not underdog anymore means prices start creeping up.

 

Yeah I don't think it is reasonable to expect AMD to be a scrub budget brand from the Faildozer era forever. That said, would be nice if they didn't lack certain SKUs with this launch like a 5700X and sub $300 as well. They are certainly leaving certain price segments open where you have to jump more than $50 hike from Zen 2.

Edited October 10, 2020 by Sir Beregond

[bwalker36]

I really want to build a rig with one of these.  I have not used a AMD since a dual core athlon.  After my q6600 G0 its been intel.  I only planned to get a GPU but......

[aDyerSituation]

scrounging up the pennies under the couch cushions for a 5900x, hope these benchmarks are accurate. 

[ENTERPRISE]

On 10/11/2020 at 11:00 PM, bwalker36 said:

I really want to build a rig with one of these.  I have not used a AMD since a dual core athlon.  After my q6600 G0 its been intel.  I only planned to get a GPU but......

 

What system have you got currently ? You may not need to upgrade the CPU and you can focus on the GPU.

[bwalker36]

On 10/13/2020 at 1:24 PM, ENTERPRISE said:

 

What system have you got currently ? You may not need to upgrade the CPU and you can focus on the GPU.

I have an 8700k at 5ghz.  I def don't need to upgrade it but you know how it is lol.  My gpu on the other hand is a 980ti and its not cutting it anymore at 1440p.  I will definitely be getting a new GPU whole system overhaul is still up for debate.

[Sir Beregond]

14 hours ago, bwalker36 said:

I have an 8700k at 5ghz.  I def don't need to upgrade it but you know how it is lol.  My gpu on the other hand is a 980ti and its not cutting it anymore at 1440p.  I will definitely be getting a new GPU whole system overhaul is still up for debate.

Tell me about it. My non-Ti 980 is hating my 1440p monitor upgrade I got a year ago.

 

The last AMD system I had was some single core Athlon way back in the day (not sure which, I was a kid  ). Been Intel ever since my Core 2 Duo E8500. Glad AMD are back in the game, and happy to reward them with an AMD Zen 3 build for that work.

 

That said, hope Intel can get their act together. We need both companies to be healthy and innovative/competitive against each other rather than just swapping places.