|
Even if they do benchmark like that in no way do I expect to see any sort of real world performance on that. Also AMD's turbo speed is only guaranteed for one core, so anything modern that is multi threaded it's not suddenly the fastest all around CPU - the listed 5600x here benchmarks dead on with the 3700x at multi threading, which is nothing incredible, and if that plays out people should definitely consider what the right upgrade path is depending on their need. And that it's correct to assume this is the best run of this hardware being pushed to its limits by pros.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
Cygni posted:Yeah, as always wait for reviews. AMD's own claims was that the higher clocked 5950X matches the 10900K in gaming, not the 5600X. Yeah, and it really isn't going up against a 10900k at stock clocks, either--no one buys a 10900k and then doesn't bother overclocking at least a bit. I do wish review embargos expired earlier than the morning of release.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 20:26
|
|
|
I would be pretty surprised if the 5600x is not within like 3% of the 5950x in games but yeah waiting for independent reviews is always the answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 20:30
|
|
|
VorpalFish posted:I would be pretty surprised if the 5600x is not within like 3% of the 5950x in games but yeah waiting for independent reviews is always the answer. They're all the same chip base, any difference will likely just be clock speed, so yeah. The multi ccd parts might wind up somewhat worse even.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 20:34
|
|
|
VorpalFish posted:I would be pretty surprised if the 5600x is not within like 3% of the 5950x in games but yeah waiting for independent reviews is always the answer. Its gonna depend on the boost clock behavior I think. At 1440p/4k, the difference is gonna be marginal for sure.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 20:47
|
|
|
I don't think the 5600X will be a great buy at release. A 3600 and saving your money for when you actually need more power would make more sense. Or as Paul would say, just buy an 8700k three years ago. 6-9 months from now, the 5600X and 5900X will probably be solid value processors if their prices decline a bit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 20:56
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:I don't think the 5600X will be a great buy at release. A 3600 and saving your money for when you actually need more power would make more sense. Or as Paul would say, just buy an 8700k three years ago. Yes, with the announced pricing zen3 is very likely a regression in value from zen2. It's not a given that the 3600 will stick around in retail channels though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 21:02
|
|
|
VorpalFish posted:Yes, with the announced pricing zen3 is very likely a regression in value from zen2. AMD doesn't need to be the "value" option anymore. So their chips won't be great values anymore. Standard business, really. The 3600 might not stick around in retail channels, but it'll be super easy to get second hand at even better prices.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GamersNexus/status/1319383019145351168 the madman did it
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
VorpalFish posted:I'm calling the opposite - I think new consoles are gonna provide less incentive to spend tons of resources making games scale with thread count. This makes absolutely no sense. Developers were already leveraging the multiple cores 5 years ago in the Xbox One and PS 4 era. The limiting factor to many PC ports at the time was the fact that DX 11 was still the API used by the Xbox. DX 11, while allowing multithreading, does not allow secondary threads to make draw calls directly to the GPU. So if a frame is being prepared by the CPU on multiple threads, the primary render thread is the only one allowed to submit data to the GPU and all secondary threads must complete their work and resubmit to the primary thread. DX 12 and Vulkan allow every thread to make commands directly to the GPU scheduler. If you were a developer that has to develop cross-platform games, you are definitely going to stick to a DX 11 API with very weak cores of which only one can talk to the GPU. Which hampers your ability to take advantage of higher-end PC hardware. If you had a dedicated team that was committed to making a good PC port, you could take the time to reoptimize for potentially more powerful cores and more of them. But why bother when tons of people were still stuck on 4c/4t systems? With Xbox Series X being fully DX 12 compliant, we are going to see code written from the ground up to take advantage of multithreading which will carry over directly to the PC. AAA developers have already been pushing last-gen to its limits. There is no reason to think they are all of sudden going to leave a ton of performance on the table to have less complex geometry in their games compared to their competitors by "being lazy". And with both consoles having essentially 3700Xs as a baseline, even "lazy ports" may be inherently more capable of taking advantage of high-end desktop parts. It remains to be seen how much you can parallelize the workload but to say developers are going to stick to one thread is just nuts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
Running literally everything on one thread is a little bit of an exaggeration but I'm betting people will absolutely leave performance on the table rather than try to extract every bit of performance by being as parallel as possible if the core is fast enough to push 100+ fps. I really doubt the new consoles are going to kill 6c12t desktop cpus just because they're 8c16t instead of 8c8t because each core is just so. much. Faster.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 23:26
|
|
|
MikeC posted:This makes absolutely no sense. Developers were already leveraging the multiple cores 5 years ago in the Xbox One and PS 4 era. The limiting factor to many PC ports at the time was the fact that DX 11 was still the API used by the Xbox. DX 11, while allowing multithreading, does not allow secondary threads to make draw calls directly to the GPU. So if a frame is being prepared by the CPU on multiple threads, the primary render thread is the only one allowed to submit data to the GPU and all secondary threads must complete their work and resubmit to the primary thread. DX 12 and Vulkan allow every thread to make commands directly to the GPU scheduler. If you were a developer that has to develop cross-platform games, you are definitely going to stick to a DX 11 API with very weak cores of which only one can talk to the GPU. Which hampers your ability to take advantage of higher-end PC hardware. If you had a dedicated team that was committed to making a good PC port, you could take the time to reoptimize for potentially more powerful cores and more of them. But why bother when tons of people were still stuck on 4c/4t systems? your argument that "actually last time games were designed around PC hardware but this time they'll be designed around console hardware" makes no sense. games were already heavily multithreaded, they are going to go from 7T to 14T since that's what consoles have. PC ports have always been an afterthought and have practically never involved a significant rewrite of game engines like you claim ("PCs only have 4C4T so that's what ports target"), PCs just always have been powerful enough to churn through it even in the event they had less threads because the console CPU cores of the time were loving embarrassing even when they were released. it is basically a doubling of thread count but game engines are going to roughly quadruple in single-thread performance. This could very easily lead to a situation where console game engines start looking like desktop PC game engines with a heavier reliance on per-thread performance (nowhere did he say that game engines were going to run on a single thread - "games will lean on single-core performance" is not the same thing as "running on a single thread"). Think of it as convergent evolution, given the same hardware, people will come up with similar engines. It is a substantially larger increase in per-thread performance than the increase in thread count. Jaguar was an embarrassment and Zen2 is a practically state of the art architecture. It completely makes sense for desktop users to try and stay ahead of that curve, for example by purchasing a 5600X instead of a 3700X if you are building a rig today, or by having bought a 8700K instead of a 1700 or 2700X. Staying ahead of the curve in single-thread performance (which is really per-thread performance) is what's going to keep you ahead of consoles, gaming has always been about single-thread performance (yes, even in the era of multi-threaded engines) due to Amdahl's law. Nobody is going to write engines that scale to 64T or whatever for the 0.001% of users who have that, just like nobody really wrote game engines that scaled to 16T or 20T in the 5960X/6950X days. Games will continue to target good performance in the 14T range since that's what the consoles have and it doesn't make much sense to write engines for the handful of users with TR 3000/4000, 3950X, etc, and PC will continue to remain an afterthought. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:32 on Oct 22, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:your argument that "actually last time games were designed around PC hardware but this time they'll be designed around console hardware" makes no sense. Nah they are going to write engines that scale to N cores and set N to whatever
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
It becomes a resource allocation problem - you have to decide how many hours you're going to devote to optimizing around getting everything you can out of being as parallel as possible. My prediction is if you have a 5600x you're good for the life cycle of the new consoles (assuming the 5600x benches as expected at a 15-20% isoclock uplift over zen2).
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 23:47
|
|
|
DrDork posted:AMD doesn't need to be the "value" option anymore. So their chips won't be great values anymore. Standard business, really. The 2X00s are still kickin around retail channels so I would be a bit surprised if the 3600 went away really quickly.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 23:54
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The 2X00s are still kickin around retail channels so I would be a bit surprised if the 3600 went away really quickly. The 2x00s don't share a process with zen2. The difference is every zen2 chip they make is a zen3 chip they can't make, which matters if tsmc capacity is as scarce as it seems.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 23:56
|
|
|
DrDork posted:AMD doesn't need to be the "value" option anymore. So their chips won't be great values anymore. Standard business, really. The good thing about AMD is they do price cuts especially on the SKUs that don't sell well, the 3800X now sells for $100 under MSRP. Also there will probably be a 5600 eventually, they just want to charge an earlier adopter premium, I'm surprised they're not charging more for the 5900X and 5950X tbh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
MikeC posted:It remains to be seen how much you can parallelize the workload this is a massive massive case of burying the lede Like, "all in one thread" like that other guy said is dumb, but current games are already highly multithreaded on many stages of executing a frame. Like, dozens of threads wide. (Note that is a game from the 360/PS3 era.) But there are more chokepoints than just the immediate render thread. The changes from DX11 to 12 are not a magic bullet that unlocks previously impossible performance. DX11 has multithreading, DX12 has different and better multithreading. It's nice in that it has less overhead than DX11, but moving to DX12 is not gonna make games able to gainfully double their core use by itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:The good thing about AMD is they do price cuts especially on the SKUs that don't sell well, the 3800X now sells for $100 under MSRP. Also there will probably be a 5600 eventually, they just want to charge an earlier adopter premium, I'm surprised they're not charging more for the 5900X and 5950X tbh. We'll see about that. With Zen 2, they still had to try to convince a lot of people that more slower cores was better than fewer faster ones--and for gaming and numerous other applications that simply wasn't true. Now with Zen 3 they get to hold all the cards, and be at least as fast in single-core and have more cores and L3. What I'm saying is that AMD doesn't really have any reason to need to feel like giving discounts now, because unless they hosed something up royally they're going to be a strictly superior product vs what Intel can put out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 00:51
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Nah they are going to write engines that scale to N cores and set N to whatever Almost certainly. It's one thing to expand an app from one thread to two by adding specific tasks that work on one thread or the other, but that programming model is impossible to reason about when you have 10+ threads in flight. Game engines will probably have to use things like OpenMP and asynchronous task queues if they aren't already.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Cygni posted:https://twitter.com/GamersNexus/status/1319383019145351168 Lol, tech jesus owns.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
Malcolm XML posted:Nah they are going to write engines that scale to N cores and set N to whatever The Monster Hunter World approach, basically.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:I don't think the 5600X will be a great buy at release. A 3600 and saving your money for when you actually need more power would make more sense. Or as Paul would say, just buy an 8700k three years ago. A lot of us are on zen1 B450 boards though having skipped zen2 entirely and having this sort of drop in upgrade is really nice. The 2600 to 3600 jump was pretty real, the 2600 to 5*00x jump is going to be sweet, especially since I've moved to 1440p/144hz since building the PC. Great value, will probably get 2018->end of console generation out of the b450 platform. bus hustler fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Oct 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 02:57
|
|
|
K8.0 posted:I don't think the 5600X will be a great buy at release. A 3600 and saving your money for when you actually need more power would make more sense. Or as Paul would say, just buy an 8700k three years ago. I'm planning on upgrading from Intel Haswell. By the time that 3600 isn't cutting it for me, I'd probably jump to a new motherboard and DDR5. I'm fine with spending the extra for Zen3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 03:27
|
|
|
https://www.passmark.com/baselines/V10/display.php?id=131010639859 this is the benchmark Looks like 16GB of DDR 3200 and a pretty standard nvme drive. 3080 of course but that could easily be a fairly stock result.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 05:03
|
|
|
teagone posted:Lol, tech jesus owns. That goes for literally any bike if you don't know what you're doing, btw Get them checked by an expert. Coming out of the factory they can have totally hosed brakes, lose derailleur that rips the back wheel apart, loose stem that veers you into traffic or off a cliff etc.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 08:41
|
|
|
Had a little nostalgia trip over motherboards I used to have in my custom builds. an nForce ( ) MSI P7N Diamond that ended up failing due to wax paper being left on the thermal pads, an ASUS P5Q Pro Turbo (the only board that survived to be resold), a Z87 Gigabyte UD4H that also ended up failing to POST, and now an MSI Z97 Krait.I've not had a AMD system since the Athlon 64 X2 6400 (I think, it was a pre-built). I can't wait to build a new PC again 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 11:46
|
|
|
ijyt posted:I can't wait to build a new PC again SIx months ago, when we thought Ryzen 4000 desktop APUs were about to happen I was stoked to rebuild my PC (which I mostly use for development, but it does also get used to play indie/older games on Steam). In the interim, I pondered other possibilities, mostly revolving around a midrange Ryzen CPU with a low-power discrete GPU -- which at the moment would mean Nvidia, but could possibly include AMD once the RDNA2 cards are released. But then we got my wife a new laptop, and settled on an Acer Nitro 5 (4600H, GTX 1650). We upgraded the RAM to 16G, put a 1TB SSD in the second M.2 slot, and t's been really great for her. I'm now thinking really hard about seeing what gaming-enabled laptops come out with the 5000 series mobile APUs, and using one of those as a desktop replacement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 17:24
|
|
|
Sipher posted:I've been using this monster spreadsheet to narrow down what I'm looking for: This is exactly the kind of resource I was looking for the other day. Now I can look at what is out there for motherboards and figure out if one I'm looking at is newer or older. Now if only I could find spreadsheets for other components too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 19:03
|
|
|
Trying to decide between a 5600x and a 5800x considering there's £140 between them. I'm gaming at 1440p 144hz. Any indication limiting my cores to 6 will bite me in the arse in the long run? Or is trying to predict that at this point essentially fortune telling?
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 19:16
|
|
|
Rookoo posted:Trying to decide between a 5600x and a 5800x considering there's £140 between them. I'm gaming at 1440p 144hz. Any indication limiting my cores to 6 will bite me in the arse in the long run? Or is trying to predict that at this point essentially fortune telling? your gpu will matter more than your cpu at higher resolutions afaik and if the 5600x beats the 3900x/3950x you're probably going to be fine. a 5600x is what I'm gunning for at least
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 19:29
|
|
|
Martout posted:your gpu will matter more than your cpu at higher resolutions afaik and if the 5600x beats the 3900x/3950x you're probably going to be fine. a 5600x is what I'm gunning for at least Yes, but it's not quite that simple. If you've got a beefy-rear end gpu capable of pushing 144 fps at your chosen res than you need a CPU that can keep up, regardless of what that res is. Any Zen3 should beat any Zen2 at this out of the gate, the operative question is "are you afraid the new consoles will have developers utilizing all 14 threads available during the useful life of these processors?" If yes, the 6/12 ones might get left behind. Personally, I think no, but it's more crystal ball territory.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 19:46
|
|
|
Some Goon posted:Yes, but it's not quite that simple. If you've got a beefy-rear end gpu capable of pushing 144 fps at your chosen res than you need a CPU that can keep up, regardless of what that res is. Any Zen3 should beat any Zen2 at this out of the gate, the operative question is "are you afraid the new consoles will have developers utilizing all 14 threads available during the useful life of these processors?" If yes, the 6/12 ones might get left behind. Personally, I think no, but it's more crystal ball territory. yeah I'm working off of the assumption that any current gen processor will probably be enough for quite some time seeing as my now 10+ year old 4c/8t processor has let me play any game until the last year or two. I may have a lower level of acceptable performance & quality than some of you guys do but I seriously doubt a 5600x is going to become a bottleneck for games any time soon? that said, since I'm currently just saving money for a new PC anyway, if supply is so low that I can't get hold of one until the market settles a bit in a few months time I might just spring for the 5900x anyway because come january I'll be able to afford it... I'm on the fence, let's say!
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 19:59
|
|
|
Martout posted:yeah I'm working off of the assumption that any current gen processor will probably be enough for quite some time seeing as my now 10+ year old 4c/8t processor has let me play any game until the last year or two. I may have a lower level of acceptable performance & quality than some of you guys do but I seriously doubt a 5600x is going to become a bottleneck for games any time soon? Honestly I feel CPUs last such a long time before they become an issue (in games) that whether you go 5600X or 5900X you'll be fine. Worst case you sell the 5600X and slot in a 5900X in a year.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
The 5800x looks like a bad value, the 5600x and 5900x probably make the most sense and I've been on this beat for a while now. I'm really expecting given that my 2600 pushes everything >100 FPS at 1440p no problem (usually well over) that some marginal game in 5 years will not really matter if I turn down a few settings because whoops gaming hit its 90th percentile outcome. poo poo I'll be thrilled if the new consoles are still pushing limits like that in a few years. The price difference is $250, or almost all of a used/price drop console in a few years which is probably a way better value for me than a few marginal top end frames. Or as my constant strategy, put it toward a GPU bump in a few years (though these 3080s do seem to be blowing that away, I can't see something that already beats consoles feeling that old in 2 years) I have $120 sitting in credit card rewards and dont pay tax on Amazon, my body is ready for (probably) a 5600x bus hustler fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Oct 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
12 vs 16 is such a gamble right now though. I'd say BF1/BFV were the first games that needed more than 8 threads. If they're coming, I don't think we will see games that need a minimum of 8 good cores for at least 2 years after the console releases. Most games are still going to be cross-gen for a good while.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 22:20
|
|
|
uhhhhahhhhohahhh posted:12 vs 16 is such a gamble right now though. I'd say BF1/BFV were the first games that needed more than 8 threads. If they're coming, I don't think we will see games that need a minimum of 8 good cores for at least 2 years after the console releases. Most games are still going to be cross-gen for a good while. Who knows what the future holds with intel going to big and little cores. The best strategy is to buy what you need, and wait till it can’t hack it. Idk when my 9600k at 5.0ghz or 5.2 wont be enough, but when it doesn’t cut it I hope 30-50% all core overclocks are still a thing with one company. I wonder if we will be talking about pushing our main big cores to 7ghz.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 22:34
|
|
|
5800X is an objectively bad buy. If you are worried about 6C then suck it up and buy the 5900X I think the 5600X is more of a 3 year processor and the 5900X can do 5 years. Maybe a bit longer for both if you are not a demanding user Bear in mind that 3 years will get you onto second gen DDR5 platforms easily, if not third gen. And while the 5900X has threads to spare now, past the 3 year mark it will be falling substantially behind in per-thread performance. Or if you are a power user buy the 5900X and replace it in three years. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Oct 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 22:41
|
|
|
The minimum and recommended specs for Cyberpunk are still only an i5-3570k and and i7-4790, can't think of a processor that hasn't been a 5 year processor in a while. Shoot, we're all crapping our pants over performance and technically a Ryzen 3 3200G & 1060 6GB meets the "recommended" specs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 07:19 |
|
|
Yeah, but at the same time I don't think anyone here who is trying to decide between buying a $300 CPU and a $550 CPU are the type to accept playing games at 1080p@30, which is more or less what I'd expect out of minimum specs. To that end, they'd likely be looking to upgrade a long time before dropping to such levels. The other side of it is that part of the reason we've gotten such long legs out of CPUs of late is because of how badly Intel has been doing in driving meaningful progress. With AMD now in the driver's seat, we might see substantially different relative performance over the next few years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2020 23:53
|
|