AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Linux Performance

[Marco-GG]

Phoronix has very specific linux benchamarks and when you buy CPU and you do majority of certain work you probably look at just this usage. But for example on Windows Hardware Unboxed made price/performance and Intel doesn't look that bad here with price increases, mostly because in productivy older 3000 series is winning price/performance and in games cheaper Intel chips are also doing fine. Intel at least towards windows market doesnt' have that obscene prices unless you do tons of rendering at CPU.

I get it, but this is Phoronix and we normally talk about Linux performance (or at least that's what I care of) and the numbers Michael shares shows that on this benchmarks Intel doesn't have nothing that can compete with this CPU... outside of probably a 9700, but this last one will probably be far worst with the stock cooler. For what I can see in the numbers, Intel is in troubles unless they start applying cuts to their prices, something that I wish they start doing once for all!.

Thing is that 50$ flat price increase is really bad way to increase prices. I understand AMD wants to earn more money with such good chips, but 5950x is price increase of 50$ (MSRP value which is 6.6% increase) while Ryzen 5600x is 20% price increase over 3600x at MSRP. If you add to calculation fact that 3600 existed that was better value then 3600x that is even 40% price increase until 5600 come. 5800x is the worst case because it replaces 3800x that in reality is 3700x if you buy per value. GamersNexus in their benchmarks literally said that if you play games, buy 5600x and forget about stronger model it makes no diffrence (even similar cache is here), if you go productivity saving 100$ for 5900x is huge uplift, and if you don't want to do that, get 3900x which will oscilate around same price now on market and will be faster in productivity.

Like i understand 50$ price increase on 5950x and 5900x. But 5600x should really have smaller price increase (like 20-30$), and 5800x if 5700x is not comming shouldn't have price increase at all.

Thing is that the current price is related to the lack of competence from Intel. What AMD did is to set the price in such a way that it delivers a similar relation of performance per dollar as Ryzen 2 does and this will be kept this way until Intel starts playing the game in the only way the can do for now (a.k.a. reduce CPU prices!). So yeah, it would be very cool to get the same prices we had (something that may happen when Intel release his new CPU next year and Ryzen 3000 stock is reduced) but for now we have this. A pity? Of course. But even with this price increase AMD has the best CPU in market on middle-high and high end segment, so you really get what you pay.

I really fail to see why so many people keeps trying to imply that this CPUs are bad with this price increase when they deliver a better performance than their Intel counterparts and AMD previous gen in the same price segment.

[smitty3268]

Thing is that 50$ flat price increase is really bad way to increase prices. I understand AMD wants to earn more money with such good chips, but 5950x is price increase of 50$ (MSRP value which is 6.6% increase) while Ryzen 5600x is 20% price increase over 3600x at MSRP. If you add to calculation fact that 3600 existed that was better value then 3600x that is even 40% price increase until 5600 come.

I think AMD thought very carefully about these price increases and did them each individually for a reason. They didn't just randomly pick $50 and say they were going to apply it across the board.

I tend to agree that the price increase on the 5600X is a little bit on the high side - while arguing strongly that for the 5900X and 5950X it's trivial.

But the truth of the matter is that the 5600X is going to be by far the best seller. It's the most important one for AMD to cash in on, and they carefully came up with a figure that still makes it look like a good deal versus the Intel competition while simultaneously letting them pull in more profit per sale. These things are going to go like hot cakes to gamers who can get virtually 10900k performance now for a lot less money and power use. I don't love that it's $50 instead of $25, but I understand it. That's what happens when you become the market leader.

I also tend to agree that the 5800X isn't particularly interesting this time around. Unlike the 3700X, it's not a low power version and for the price it seems like most people would be better off just going up to the 5900X instead.

Anyway, I can understand why some people might be slightly disappointed in the price increases, but at the same time it's well earned by AMD and within the bounds of what is reasonable. I mostly just find the whiners who complain like this is the end of the world annoying as ****. Deal with the fact that AMD is now a premium brand and not the bargain bin, and move on. Or switch to another brand, i don't care. No one cares.

[smitty3268]

Incredible that this 5600X for $299 is beating intel's $529 i9-10900k in so many tests, and even in the geometric mean of all tests!

That seemed odd to me, and looking a little more closely that chart appears to be the geometric mean for only gaming tests, which makes a little more sense.

There's one for the overall tests higher up in the article, where it falls behind the 10900k as expected due to having so many fewer cores. Still, it looks like it would probably beat out the 8-core 10700k which is $80 more expensive.

[ms178]

If this prices are obscene, current Intel prices are obscene too, doesn't it?

Yes, I think I made that crystal clear. That makes it a dire time to build, but if you must build right now there is more value to be had on the used market, either with used 2nd Gen Ryzen or Intel Xeons.

[blackshard]

Excuse me, I don't get it why people are so wrong with their facts today. 200 EUR is the cost of a 3600X in Germany right now, wheras the 5600X did cost around 329 - 369 EUR yesterday but is out of stock currently due to high demand. With Zen 2 AMD was keen to enforce their MSRP at launch but they don't seem to bother anymore with Zen 3. If you do your math right, that is even a worse margin than the stated 50% as I was generiously taking the 300 EUR price for the 5600X for my calculation. And where I live 300 - 200 = 100 which is a half of 200, hence 300 is 50 % more than 200. If I took the 329 EUR which was the best price which I have seen yesterday, it would be 64,5 % more in price for 22 % more performance. No, thank you - that is not a deal for me.

IMHO you're comparing street prices which is definitely affected by the "new exciting product" effect, scarcity and global/local situations.
The 3600X is an established product, distributors have them in stock in large quantities and market is saturated with that. 5600X has been released few days ago, distributors have none of them in stock and "enthusiasts" are demanding them, raising demand while the product is not yet ready to sell, thus raising prices.

You can compare instead the stock price proposed by AMD itself and put the price/performance ratio in perspective.

A last thing about the X-models is that they have the unlocked multiplier, slightly higher frequencies and a higher TDP, which is something overclocking folks is going to like but normal people will never care about, that's the reason they exist and cost few dollars/euros more.

[brent]

It's pretty crazy that AMD's new gen 6-core part comes up significantly on top of their previous gen highly clocked and tuned 8-core part!

[Venemo]

Wow.
In the geometric mean of all test results, the new 5600X beats much higher tier products. My 3900X is now basically garbage.

[ms178]

IMHO you're comparing street prices which is definitely affected by the "new exciting product" effect, scarcity and global/local situations.
The 3600X is an established product, distributors have them in stock in large quantities and market is saturated with that. 5600X has been released few days ago, distributors have none of them in stock and "enthusiasts" are demanding them, raising demand while the product is not yet ready to sell, thus raising prices.

You can compare instead the stock price proposed by AMD itself and put the price/performance ratio in perspective.

A last thing about the X-models is that they have the unlocked multiplier, slightly higher frequencies and a higher TDP, which is something overclocking folks is going to like but normal people will never care about, that's the reason they exist and cost few dollars/euros more.

The 3600 also has an unlocked multiplier and can be clocked to the same levels. There are no TDP restrictions with Ryzen, the stock clocks don't matter for tech savvy users like me and with Ryzen overclocking is childs play and not voodoo art, if you don't use that capability you probably won't even notice a difference in games between these CPUs anyway, so why pay more if you can get away with less?

You picture my calculations as somewhat artificial, but they only reflect situation a potential buyer faces today (and I made it clear that the situation could look different in a month or two, I assume people know that street prices change all the time). And in my calculation I was using the MSRP for the 5600X to reflect that street prices for the 5600X are off by a fair amount due to the demand/lack of supply, but that means that the numbers are even worse in reality today (as long as the supply/demand situation isn't smoothed out which can take at least two more months, we don't know yet). And there are people who buy these CPUs right now at launch, so this isn't some artificial scenario I came up with here. My point still stands: In comparison to the 3600 (and even the X-part) the new 5600X is terrible value. These numbers don't lie, this is not an opinion, this is a fact. If you still want to pay the price for getting the absolute best, go for it. But a lot of people can get by with the older parts and enjoy a better value.

[mdedetrich]

Now I'm really exited now to see what they will offer on mobile. The 4800H is already incredibly powerful - but if this uplift applies in similar fashion for the 6800H(?), that should finally justify an upgrade from my i5-6440HQ, assuming it would cut compile times considerably.

Its kinda sad whats happening in the mobile space. AMD has much better CPU's but it hasn't translated well into the laptop market because

1. No thunderbolt
2. Laptop manufacturers had exclusivity agreements with Intel (i.,e. project ultrabook, project athena) in order to design their laptops. Intel provided RnD/engineering experience on how to construct the laptop but this meant that the manufacturer had to use an Intel CPU.

I think its gonna take a good couple of years before seeing decent range of AMD based laptops. Without thunderbolt I am also not personally getting an AMD laptop.

[blackshard]

The 3600 also has an unlocked multiplier and can be clocked to the same levels. There are no TDP restrictions with Ryzen, the stock clocks don't matter for tech savvy users like me and with Ryzen overclocking is childs play and not voodoo art, if you don't use that capability you probably won't even notice a difference in games between these CPUs anyway, so why pay more if you can get away with less?

You picture my calculations as somewhat artificial, but they only reflect situation a potential buyer faces today (and I made it clear that the situation could look different in a month or two, I assume people know that street prices change all the time). And in my calculation I was using the MSRP for the 5600X to reflect that street prices for the 5600X are off by a fair amount due to the demand/lack of supply, but that means that the numbers are even worse in reality today (as long as the supply/demand situation isn't smoothed out which can take at least two more months, we don't know yet). And there are people who buy these CPUs right now at launch, so this isn't some artificial scenario I came up with here. My point still stands: In comparison to the 3600 (and even the X-part) the new 5600X is terrible value. These numbers don't lie, this is not an opinion, this is a fact. If you still want to pay the price for getting the absolute best, go for it. But a lot of people can get by with the older parts and enjoy a better value.

Indeed you are right about the unlocked multiplier, both 3600 and 3600X have it. TDP is different though, and that may make a difference for childs play overclocking.
I perfectly agree that the 5600X may not be the best worth CPU nowadays because the price/performance ratio of 3600 is better, but that thing happens quite often when new products with new features come in the market. I'm looking in particular for gaming performance results, which are going to get a boost from Zen3 architecture and they may be worthwhile for gamers. Indeed a savvy user would opt for a 3600 if best price/performance is the goal.

AMD just wants to monetize the new architecture and enthusiasts are going to pay the extra price for the feeling to have something new, also the extra price will keep away savvy users that will opt for the older architecture emptying warehouses thus making room for the newcomers. I don't say that you're not right, I just say that there is a perfectly reasoned rationale behind that pricepoint