AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Linux Performance

[mppix]

The starting CPU of the previous lineup was 3600, not 3600X. The 5800X doesn't replace the 3800X because again, the the starting eight-core CPU of the previous lineup was 3700X, not 3800X.

Do you like making a fool out of yourself?

No company -ever- launches the full lineup. New models always come later to fill in gaps. This is true for AMD, Nvidia, and Intel.
This time AMD led with the X models that show that they are now more than competitive in single-threaded and gaming and Intel has no performance edge left.

Yes, AMD can charge more until Intel decides to show up again. I really hope they do (for the consumers sake) but I am no too optimistic. Next gen desktop Intel CPU will again use the 14nm process (but new architecture) and AMD is very possibly on 5nm around the time that Intel gets their 10nm node stable for desktop.

[mppix]

I made it clear that I distinguish between the technical merits and the pricing of the new AMD CPUs. What other people cannot accept is criticism of any sort, but there are valid reasons to be more critical here.
..............
By the way, my criticism is mainly due to the 5600X pricing, which is 100 EUR over the 3600X (if you can get the 5600X for MSRP, good luck with that, I've seen prices of 349 EUR and higher these days), which translates into at least a 50% price increase for just 22% more performance.

Your criticism is heard. Nobody here is happy about increased prices (ever). However, you need to be fair
- Compare launch prices of the same model; tech prices always drop over time as investments are paid off and availability increases
- In the 2020 COVID year, demand seems more difficult to meet than usual (see Nvidia, this launch, and expect the same for AMD GPU).
- AMD can increase the price because gamers will now buy their products in increased quantities (price is where demand meets offer...)

If you cannot afford the pricepoint, you have essentially three options
- Get a 3600X, it is a formidable CPU, just not the 'best of the best'
- Wait for a few months; the 5600X will come down in price somewhat
- Don't go out on Saturday and invest the savings in the cpu

[ms178]

Your criticism is heard. Nobody here is happy about increased prices (ever). However, you need to be fair
- Compare launch prices of the same model; tech prices always drop over time as investments are paid off and availability increases
- In the 2020 COVID year, demand seems more difficult to meet than usual (see Nvidia, this launch, and expect the same for AMD GPU).
- AMD can increase the price because gamers will now buy their products in increased quantities (price is where demand meets offer...)

If you cannot afford the pricepoint, you have essentially three options
- Get a 3600X, it is a formidable CPU, just not the 'best of the best'
- Wait for a few months; the 5600X will come down in price somewhat
- Don't go out on Saturday and invest the savings in the cpu

Totally understandable points, but I don't see any value in comparing launch prices or why these points should matter to consumers, it is the current street price and the performance which you are getting for that price what should matter potential buyers the most. I am personally already well served with a used Xeon E5-2678V3 which I could get for around 75 EUR for 84 to 85% of the performance of the 5600X. This is what I call value and a more cost-conscious buying decision. And I wonder how many of the people who went out and bought these 5600X for 349 EUR would be just as happy with that alternative and could invest the saved money into a better GPU or monitor instead (sure, if all they are playing is Far Cry New Dawn or a similar single-thread heavy title, that would be a good reason to spend more money on such a CPU - more multi-threaded games are the future though).

[birdie]

Do you like making a fool out of yourself?

No company -ever- launches the full lineup. New models always come later to fill in gaps. This is true for AMD, Nvidia, and Intel.
This time AMD led with the X models that show that they are now more than competitive in single-threaded and gaming and Intel has no performance edge left.

Yes, AMD can charge more until Intel decides to show up again. I really hope they do (for the consumers sake) but I am no too optimistic. Next gen desktop Intel CPU will again use the 14nm process (but new architecture) and AMD is very possibly on 5nm around the time that Intel gets their 10nm node stable for desktop.

Grasping at straws? Lying? Trump has been voted out, it's time to get back to facts and honesty. Straight from the horse's mouth https://www.amd.com/en/press-release...ailability-amd : Ryzen 3600, 3600X, 3700X, 3800X, 3900X, 3950X were available on release last time. The press destroyed both the 3600X and 3800X by calling them overpriced junk, so AMD has learned their lesson and this time around they have released the exact CPUs to get as fattest margins as humanly possible. And again TSMC yields are now much better than a 1.5 year ago and wafers must cost a lot less but that shouldn't distract you from AMD's greatness.

Please try to spend at least 10 minutes of your time before trying to provide counterarguments. I could maybe understand the fever with which you're trying to defend their fat margins if you were their investor, but I guess you're don't own a single share which makes you just a fool or/and a very biased person.

[Marco-GG]

The problem is that we have a duopoly and when two companies start to ripp off their target audience, some people don't know how to react properly to this markt situation, either use your old hardware longer or look at the used market to get more value.

I completely agree with this. And I can add something: when the RTX 3080 was released a lot of people felt that Nvidia "reduced" their prices while they just take care of keeping the 2080 MSRP tiers.

By the way, my criticism is mainly due to the 5600X pricing, which is 100 EUR over the 3600X (if you can get the 5600X for MSRP, good luck with that, I've seen prices of 349 EUR and higher these days), which translates into at least a 50% price increase for just 22% more performance.

For the sake of making valid comparisons, we must take MSRP at launch. Using prices out of what each company states as "standard" is just get in to a region by region comparison as first world countries tends to have lower prices for old hardware (vendors want to clear stock) and new hardware with a lot of hype is victim of the speculation of "scalpers".

[mppix]

Totally understandable points, but I don't see any value in comparing launch prices or why these points should matter to consumers, it is the current street price and the performance which you are getting for that price what should matter potential buyers the most. I am personally already well served with a used Xeon E5-2678V3 which I could get for around 75 EUR for 84 to 85% of the performance of the 5600X. This is what I call value and a more cost-conscious buying decision. And I wonder how many of the people who went out and bought these 5600X for 349 EUR would be just as happy with that alternative and could invest the saved money into a better GPU or monitor instead (sure, if all they are playing is Far Cry New Dawn or a similar single-thread heavy title, that would be a good reason to spend more money on such a CPU - more multi-threaded games are the future though).

Xeon is a workstation/server CPU. They are designed for stability, typically use ECC memory, and don't boost very high. Sure you can use it but it won't keep up (at all) in lightly threaded consumer workloads. Also, there is a platform cost for these CPUs (motheboard, usually memory) that even if the CPU is free you'd likely end up paying more.
We run these at work but certainly not because of performance for consumer workloads...

Frankly, if you start recommending (old) Xeon CPUs to people, you are doing them a disservice (unless they run heavily parallel scientific/audio/video/cad workloads and then you are looking at the wrong price bracket).

[mppix]

Grasping at straws? Lying? Trump has been voted out, it's time to get back to facts and honesty. Straight from the horse's mouth https://www.amd.com/en/press-release...ailability-amd : Ryzen 3600, 3600X, 3700X, 3800X, 3900X, 3950X were available on release last time. The press destroyed both the 3600X and 3800X by calling them overpriced junk, so AMD has learned their lesson and this time around they have released the exact CPUs to get as fattest margins as humanly possible. And again TSMC yields are now much better than a 1.5 year ago and wafers must cost a lot less but that shouldn't distract you from AMD's greatness.

Agree, do want to give 'reasonable' or 'objective assessment' a try?
Try have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen
Not all 3000 series processors were launched at the same time and that launch was before covid (when corporations didn't need to review schedules every week to factor in new delays). You can safely expect more SKUs from AMD 5000.

The press destroyed both the 3600X and 3800X by calling them overpriced junk, so AMD has learned their lesson and this time around they have released the exact CPUs to get as fattest margins as humanly possible. And again TSMC yields are now much better than a 1.5 year ago and wafers must cost a lot less but that shouldn't distract you from AMD's greatness.

What press? Certainly not the anandtech, tomshardware, or phoronix. Also, "fat" margins rarely applies in consumer tec products (server stuff has decent margins). How do you know that their process is cheaper and by how much? Are they using the enhanced 7nm node not?
Last, it is very likely that AMD (and Nvidia, Intel) can produce and move only lower quantities due to COVID for foreseeable future. This drives prices up and you can either wait or pay up.

[ms178]

Xeon is a workstation/server CPU. They are designed for stability, typically use ECC memory, and don't boost very high. Sure you can use it but it won't keep up (at all) in lightly threaded consumer workloads. Also, there is a platform cost for these CPUs (motheboard, usually memory) that even if the CPU is free you'd likely end up paying more.
We run these at work but certainly not because of performance for consumer workloads...

Frankly, if you start recommending (old) Xeon CPUs to people, you are doing them a disservice (unless they run heavily parallel scientific/audio/video/cad workloads and then you are looking at the wrong price bracket).

It doesn't matter which market these CPUs were made for as long as they meet your needs. You need to know your workloads though, but I do game a lot on Windows (mainly Battlefield series but also strategy games) and also enjoy to tinker around with compiling code on Linux - that Xeon serves this purpose very well. I even sold my former Ryzen 2600/MSI B450 Tomahawk combination as in my testing I got equal/slightly better gaming performance and much better compile performance out of the Xeon. Watch the video, the Haswell-Xeons can be unlocked to run at Turbo speed at all-cores, this particular 2678V3 can run at 3.3 Ghz on 12 Cores (I use a -70mV/-20mV undervolt to stay in the TDP limit and can sustain the high clocks even in AVX2 workloads). That is enough to get at least decent performance in every present game I own, sure it is not the best choice for some games which need high single-thread performance but with more DX12/Vulkan games and better multi-thread optimizations, this is more likely to improve in the future. As I've only a Vega 56 @ 64 BIOS to work with right now, the differences in CPU power are less important anyway (the numbers in the linked video are drawn with a 2080 Ti, and 15/16% on average is in my eyes not very much of a difference even with such a high end card). People can draw their own conclusions though, I just throw this video into the discussion here because a lot of people don't even know all of their options and would be better off with these Xeons if they fit their needs.

It is an added bonus that I can run this particular SKU with cheap DDR3-ECC-RAM and enjoy the added benefit of its improved stability. Also there are some decent quality Chinese X99 motherboards nowadays, I've tested two of them myself intensively during the last couple of months. If you know what you are doing and not afraid of BIOS modding (flashing from a UEFI-USB stick is enough, there are pre-modded BIOSes out there already), this is a tinkerer's dream.

[mppix]

It doesn't matter which market these CPUs were made for as long as they meet your needs. You need to know your workloads though, but I do game a lot on Windows (mainly Battlefield series but also strategy games) and also enjoy to tinker around with compiling code on Linux - that Xeon serves this purpose very well. I even sold my former Ryzen 2600/MSI B450 Tomahawk combination as in my testing I got equal/slightly better gaming performance and much better compile performance out of the Xeon. Watch the video, the Haswell-Xeons can be unlocked to run at Turbo speed at all-cores, this particular 2678V3 can run at 3.3 Ghz on 12 Cores (I use a -70mV/-20mV undervolt to stay in the TDP limit and can sustain the high clocks even in AVX2 workloads). That is enough to get at least decent performance in every present game I own, sure it is not the best choice for some games which need high single-thread performance but with more DX12/Vulkan games and better multi-thread optimizations, this is more likely to improve in the future. As I've only a Vega 56 @ 64 BIOS to work with right now, the differences in CPU power are less important anyway (the numbers in the linked video are drawn with a 2080 Ti, and 15/16% on average is in my eyes not very much of a difference even with such a high end card). People can draw their own conclusions though, I just throw this video into the discussion here because a lot of people don't even know all of their options and would be better off with these Xeons if they fit their needs.

It is an added bonus that I can run this particular SKU with cheap DDR3-ECC-RAM and enjoy the added benefit of its improved stability. Also there are some decent quality Chinese X99 motherboards nowadays, I've tested two of them myself intensively during the last couple of months. If you know what you are doing and not afraid of BIOS modding (flashing from a UEFI-USB stick is enough, there are pre-modded BIOSes out there already), this is a tinkerer's dream.

What you say is sound just the conclusion is wrong. You analysis should conclude that a Ryzen 3600(x) or 5600X gives you a better system performance and better system performance per dollar (with HEDT, whatever you save on the chip, you spend a lot more on the system and on the power bill).

This does not mean that the Xeon chip, i.e. Ryzen 2000 level performance, is not enough. Few consumers really need the performance that today's CPUs have nor can they properly leverage it. Just don't justify it with a $50 (~70EUR margin.. I looked it up).

On a separate note, you can certainly run both Ryzen chips with ECC memory with supported motherboards, e.g. the Asus WS.

Also, I insist: recommending old Xeon or Threadripper parts, no-name Chinese motherboards, undervolting/overclocking to people is borderline stupid.

Take this from someone that massively overclocks his 6700k and runs 2x Titan Xp for schientific computation and machine learning workloads. It works but newer CPU+GPU achieve higher performance + performance/cost + performance/watt.

[birdie]

Agree, do want to give 'reasonable' or 'objective assessment' a try?
Try have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen
Not all 3000 series processors were launched at the same time and that launch was before covid (when corporations didn't need to review schedules every week to factor in new delays). You can safely expect more SKUs from AMD 5000.

Moving the goalposts much? Last time AMD announced the full lineup there was a deficit, right, but CPUs became available sooner or later. This time around there's been zero indication that 5600/5700X will be released at all. End of story.

I didn't expect such an honesty from Hardware Unboxed but they are perhaps the only reviewers who've called AMD out for this crap and Steven twice in his review mentioned that the 5600X is 50% more expensive that the 3600. Thanks God, not everyone is ass-licking AMD's marketing machine: