AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Linux Performance

[CochainComplex]

Everything boils down to both red and blue need to be in strong competition so that we as consumer will win.

If you want to judge if a product is overprices just look at the financial reports of a company. And Intel has a lot of money in the banks because they have grinded us for decades. On the contrary AMD just now goes into the good profit range. And to be honest if they don't they will not be able to launch a new arch. Zen was their last chance before bankruptcy.

If a Mercedes S class costs 100k$ but their profit is 1k$ it is less overprices than a porsche for 70k$ with a profit margin 5k$ ....
Overprices statements can only be done if you calculate how much more money you will get after all costs are covered.

And at the moment Intel ist more profitable then AMD for several reasons. Among them unethical business practises. Even after the penalty payment for corrupting the oems and resalers in eu. The market has not changed to the favor of amd it is not the only reason but intel is still dominating.

Yes 50$ is a price increase but if it secures proper competition it is worth any peny. Because it does not make sense that half bankrupted amd has to keep prices down so that when intel comes back amd gets crushed once again ...

[Alex/AT]

These glued dies are doing quite well.

I concur. AMD Zen2 based CPUs were a hellish upgrade over Scalable, currently running a farm of them.
Scalable has less cores, higher power / thermal output, and they do really dip very heavily at massive virtualization with all the required security mitigations in place.
So it's not a matter of glueing dies, it's a matter of how the system is engineered as a whole.

[dave_boo]

It's not $50, it's $100 or a 50% price hike. I wonder why you keep comparing the 5600X to the 3600X instead of the 3600 which was the starting CPU of the Ryzen 3000 series. That's AMD fans biggest fallacy. And the 5800X at $450 replaces the 3700X at $330, again a $120/over 30% price hike.

Let's for instance compare the i7 860 with the Intel Core i7 6700K:



Along with an over 60% performance increase. By all accounts the Intel Core i7 6700K should have been sold at $300 higher, right?

And another quote:

The reason that there's the $50 comparison is because the launch price of the 3600X was $249. The reason the 5600X is compared to the pricing of the 3600X is because they are both, well, X models.

Just out of curiosity, do you spam the Nvidia review threads that the 3070 is way overpriced because it's currently Nvidia's entry level 30*0 card and it costs so much more than a 2060?

I will allow that you are consistent. The 5800X replaces the 3800X; not the 3700X. It's right in the name *800X. The 3800X launched at $399; there is only a 12.5% increase in the price.

If we want to be pedantic, the i7 860 was going for ~$50 in 2015 when the 6700K was released at $350. So a 700% increase in cost (forgetting about the other new platform costs even when upgrading which could be a be a non-issue with a 3***->5*** upgrade) for a measly 60% increase in performance? Piss poor value.

**edit**
Which workloads outside of AVX(512 only?) does Intel retain their IPC lead? I'm genuinely curious.

When was the last time that Intel had this large of a generational jump?

The "Faster than Intel - wait, what?" would be believable except you had already posted "performance lead which they still retain for certain workflows". So even allowing for certain workflows having a performance lead, Intel falls behind in others.

I don't think anyone would besmirch Intel's Skylake uarch. We'll poke fun of 14++++++++ and the fact that Intel was aiming to bend people over for more than 4 cores and the fact that Intel's efficiency lead has been blown by increasing core counts and clock speed. But we won't deny that the uarch was great and they have been coasting on it regardless of their deeply stuffed warchest.

[artivision]

Don't get confused people. Price is about Demand and Availability. It does have 300 bucks for now but it will eventually go under 200, not very far from now.

[birdie]

You don't say it but it seems that you and your new friend gets very vocals when some people appreciate the new AMD CPUs (but what it's pretty much the standard rant of the other guy). Either way, there is no fallacy in my comparison of price as the way you set a price in the market is based on the other similar products available and how much is the market willing to pay for this product (sorry, IMO grades are a bad analogy in this case). So, yeah, 3600X have the same performance per dollar value as this CPU, but I'm sure that given the current difference in performance and the lack of competence in that segment a lot of people will pay the extra 50USD (just like people did the last 8 years for Intel products). And by the way, this scenario is exactly the same we had with the RTX 2080, companies can set this prices because people are willing to pay more and more for each release of their products.

Long story short: the CPU is terrific at performance level but will keep back some people from buy it if 50USD are way too much to them or if Intel doesn't do something in order to compete (and I really want to see some movement from blue team). That's all what is required to say... not to mention that anyone that decides to buy it is not in anyway a fanboy of AMD, so maybe we should keep the real fallacies out of the answers.

It's not $50, it's $100 or a 50% price hike. I wonder why you keep comparing the 5600X to the 3600X instead of the 3600 which was the starting CPU of the Ryzen 3000 series. That's AMD fans biggest fallacy. And the 5800X at $450 replaces the 3700X at $330, again a $120/over 30% price hike.

Let's for instance compare the i7 860 with the Intel Core i7 6700K:

$339-284 = $55 increase over the span of almost a decade. I'm not even sure if it accounts for the inflation for the same period.

Also:

* Lithography 45 nm vs 14nm.
* Number of transistors 774 million vs 2160 million.
* Several generations of iGPUs in between.
* Several new CPU intruction sets (AVX/AVX2)
* And CAPEX to the tune of dozens of billions of dollars for new fabs while AMD uses exactly the same node from TSMC and given their volumes must pay significantly less for wafers this time around because TSMC has improved their yields.

Everything points at Intel who must have significantly increased their pricing but they didn't.

Along with an over 60% performance increase. By all accounts the Intel Core i7 6700K should have been sold at $300 higher, right?

And another quote:

AMD fans are masters of making up all kind of insane excuses to justify this behavior.

Here's what I've heard so far:

• AMD now is now a premium manufacturer (as if Intel wasn't from 2005 until 2019 with their indisputable IPC/single-core performance lead which they still retain for certain workflows)
• COVID-19!
• A high generational performance uplift (by this logic Intel should have increased their CPUs prices by $50 every other generation (enough to have this uplift), right)
• Faster than Intel - wait, what?
• Demand! (now that Intel has been stuck with Sky Lake for the past five years now - just shows how insanely good the uArch is as it still competes with AMD without any changes aside from a frequency/number of cores increase)

Crap, crap, crap,crap. Your favourite company is literally ripping you off and people are ass-licking with eagerness. Oh, god. If Intel had pulled such a stunt, it would have been torn apart for being a f***ing monopoly. AMD, on the other, hand ... nothing applies to AMD.

[Marco-GG]

Because Intel's pricing is absurd to begin with. Their manufacturing woes and prioritizing higher margin server CPUs made it clear why they haven't lowered their prices in spite of having the inferior product, they actually didn't want to sell anything on the consumer market as the margins are simply lower there than in the server market. If you have a limited amount of wafers to sell, guess which market gets prioritized?! The higher margin one! This is slowly changing as more of their products move to newer process nodes which they need to operate at full capacity to recoup their investments and therefore have more capacity on 14nm to serve the client market again.

I don't say the 5000 series CPUs are bad, I just say that the 5600X (which matters the most because of sales volume, the market for high-end CPUs is rather limited) has got terrible value in comparison to the 3600 (X) now. And you fall for the fallacy to compare it with an absurdly priced product to begin with. You could also argue with your parents that a D which you've got in math today is not a bad grade after all because your friend got an F.

You don't say it but it seems that you and your new friend gets very vocals when some people appreciate the new AMD CPUs (but what it's pretty much the standard rant of the other guy). Either way, there is no fallacy in my comparison of price as the way you set a price in the market is based on the other similar products available and how much is the market willing to pay for this product (sorry, IMO grades are a bad analogy in this case). So, yeah, 3600X have the same performance per dollar value as this CPU, but I'm sure that given the current difference in performance and the lack of competence in that segment a lot of people will pay the extra 50USD (just like people did the last 8 years for Intel products). And by the way, this scenario is exactly the same we had with the RTX 2080, companies can set this prices because people are willing to pay more and more for each release of their products.

Long story short: the CPU is terrific at performance level but will keep back some people from buy it if 50USD are way too much to them or if Intel doesn't do something in order to compete (and I really want to see some movement from blue team). That's all what is required to say... not to mention that anyone that decides to buy it is not in anyway a fanboy of AMD, so maybe we should keep the real fallacies out of the answers.

[ms178]

Where have you been earlier? In the previous discussion I was torn apart for trying to suggest that AMD has decided to rip us off for this new shiny generation of CPUs.

Aye, I was a bit late to the party, liked all your posts and later on tried the best I could to open the eyes to these people myself. Thanks man for your hard work in that thread. I've lost some hope on that day though that people make rational buying decisions. To be fair, needs and preferences can be different and the best value choice is not the right one for everyone - I can accept that, but I still cannot understand why many people are okay with the pricing of the 5600X, also the supply situation or non-enforcement of the MSRP this time around are points which should be criticized in the media.

[birdie]

Looking at individual Fortran benchmarks on OpenBenchmark, I find some things I am really curious about;-( For example, for scimark2, 3700X 8-core posts a score of 1160 (ahead of 3900X 12-core's 1126), and way ahead of 5959X and 5900X (with 886 and 872, respectively); it's also worse than AMD 2700's 994.

Certainly so for people living in 1st-world countries, not so much for 2/3 of the rest of the world where people earn significantly less than that in a month.

[birdie]

Intel is irrelevant at these obscene price levels. But this is not a new insight. For the record, such a comparison between a 10900K and a 5600X tells you nothing about the value of the 5600X, as a comparison between the 5600X with the 3600X tells you a completely different story. But as AMD keeps selling these better value parts, I guess we can still thank AMD for that. Just a reminder in case you missed it: You could have gotten a 1700 for less than 200 EUR 1,5 years after launch, but we are far away from that mark with the 3700X yet.

Where have you been earlier? In the previous discussion I was torn apart for trying to suggest that AMD has decided to rip us off for this new shiny generation of CPUs.

1.) 50$ more is not an 50% increase, do you even math?

2.) 5600 is coming, remember the non X SKU are made with lesser quality CCXs that build up over time and it seems this time the process is so efficient those parts didn't came frequent enough compared to previous iterations + AMD is in no rush either with that massive performance anyway.

If you gonna cry for 50$ then wait a couple of months for the B450 BIOS updates and the 5600 to release.

50$ is more than very reasonable giving it beat even the 3800X that is in the next price bracket

Why the fuck are you comparing the starting CPU of this lineup, the 5600X, with the overpriced junk which no one really bought, i.e. 3600X (and 3800X for that matter)?

You should compare it to the Ryzen 5 3600 and that's a $100/50% price hike for fuck's sake. Likewise with the 5800X which costs $120 more than its 3000 brethren the 3700X, $330 vs $450. AMD marketing will shit on you and you will rejoice, right? After all, it's neither Intel nor NVIDIA.

Sometimes it feels like AMD fans have shit instead of grey matter.

[Mark Rose]

The chip I'm looking forward to is the 3300X replacement. The application I run the most is memory bandwidth intensive, so having more than two cores per memory channel doesn't make sense. But why not get a 3600? Because the the cores are split across two complexes, reducing performance for this application, the same issue with the 3100X. That means looking at the 3700X, which is a lot more expensive than the 3300X, considering only half the cores are useful due to memory bandwidth limits.

I also looked at Threadripper 3945WX systems, but Lenovo wants outrageous amounts of money to get in on that platform: if you want to complain about overpriced Ryzens, look no further.

I'd probably be better buying single or dual socket Epyc 7302(P) systems.

The 4 core variant of the 5000 series will be nice, since they should always be in a single CCX.

What's going to be especially exciting to me is if Zen 5 has 64 MB of L3 per CCX, as my data should fit entirely inside.