AMD Ryzen 5 5600X Linux Performance

[mppix]

I get it why TechTubers need to restrict their comparisons to MSRP on their buying advice, as they cater to a global audience, street prices change all the time and vary between regions and they don't want to re-shoot their videos every day, but for me as a buyer in my particular region, I can assess ALL of my options at the current point in time. That also means that I can take all markets into account which are available to me, I cannot see a good reason why I should restrict my options in my assessment? It doesn't matter if the stuff is used or new if it works and suits my needs. What matters is the money you need to spend to get a certain level of performance you want.

I won't deny that there are good reasons against this route, people might not be comfortable with buying new Chinese motherboards or used CPUs on Aliexpress without warrenty. I get that. But there are respectable sellers with a proven track record out there and a flourishing community around these parts which are mature by this point (good luck with undervolting your new Zen 3 CPUs by the way, you probably need several new AGESA versions to eventually get a mature product, I was fed up buy a lot of these little quirks on AM4). If you want to limit yourself to options on the primariy market because of the reasons I mentioned, fair enough. But you pay a hefty premium for all of this as I have proven to you with my calculations.

P.S: Doing something unconventional is part of the fun here and you can save quite a lot of money along the way if you are willing to take some calculated risks.

I agree with what you say here. Tinkering can be fun.
Unfortunately, none of this supports that any of the new Ryzen chips are good or bad value. Used and new [pc components, cars, hifi, camera equipment] does not compare directly. Used can be exceptional value but caveats always apply [warranty, reliability and/or defects from previous use, remaining lifetime] and every so often you need to write something off.

[dave_boo]

Oh god, you just cannot stop moving the goalposts, can you? This topic is about the new Ryzen CPUs, in particular the overpriced junk called 5600X which in terms of value per cost is a lot worse than AMD's own previous generation products and it's even worse than ... the Intel Core i5 10600 which retails for $270, and comes with an iGPU and you're now talking about NVIDIA?

Can you just admit that AMD has pulled an Intel this time around and since they have the ultimate performance lead they've decided to abandon any reminiscence of decency or customer first strategy and now charge you top dollar for the product which costs them a lot less to produce. The node is the same, yields are much better, wafers cost less.

Tell me, why are you defending a corporation which decided to make their margins really fat by selling us an entry level CPU for fucking 300 US dollars? I don't give a damn it's the fastest six core x86 CPU (and not even in all workloads as it sometimes loses to Comet Lake which is based on the five years old Sky Lake uArch), it's the entry level CPU for this generation and it costs 50% more than their previous gen entry CPU. Period.

Moving the goalposts? In which way? You brought up the 6700K vs. the 860 comparison. I pointed the fallacy in that. You want to compare MSRP, and I conceded that in response to your assertion that the RTX30*0 are out of your price range and thus...you don't disparage Nvidia for not releasing a 3060 and thus their 3070 is their starting card. I clearly demonstrated your two-faced approach with quoting your inconsistencies.

Your feigned indignation would be much more believable if you were consistent. Care to provide any links where you were decrying Intel's actions that mirror what you are spamming these threads with now that AMD has, gasp, raised their prices? Assuming that you can't I believe that you have the monopoly on moving the goalposts...

Obviously you have no business sense; this is on clear display by your ignorance in the funds needed for future developments. Your desire for instant gratification by someone providing something to the market out of the kindness of their hearts is a clear indicator of a person who lacks development both socially and mentally whilst simultaneously displaying to the world their lack of understanding of simple economics. I've covered this in my last post as to why any company should try and maximize their profits. They can't reach into your pocket and take the money out; either reward them with your money for producing a quality product or continue broadcasting to the world your misguided, indeed foolish, opprobrium that simply exudes a petulant child who is used to getting what they demand by screaming their protestations. Here's a hint; that doesn't work in the real world like it did on mommy.

Your indignation about AMD selling an entry level CPU for 300 USD is laughable; their entry level CPUs are the quad core 3*** and 2*** (and possibly the 1*** assuming they are still producing them). The fact that they won't sell YOU a 25 USD 6 core chip in the 5*** series with a blowjob by Jenna Jameson (or Ron Jeremy if that's your thing) thrown in is YOUR problem. You like pointing out that Intel is still selling people chips based on a 5 year old; AMD is selling chips based on a uarch that's only ~15 months younger. And the cool thing about AMD chips is that they have fallen in prices by a good bit when a new generation is released; do Intel chips do that?

I noticed you ignored my question; why do you give Nvidia the benefit of the doubt that they'll have entry level models coming shortly but you won't give that to AMD? Are you that biased against AMD that you won't address that or are you that much of a troll that you can't admit you are wrong? I'm not ruling out the lack of mental acuity either...but it may be against the TOS to call someone stupid so I wouldn't even dream of doing that.

I understand that reading comprehension is hard for some people, but I answered all the questions that needed to be answered in your posts. The questions that I am quoting below are answered in my previous post to you.

Can you just admit that AMD has pulled an Intel this time around

Tell me, why are you defending a corporation

Answered in previous post about maximizing profit. I'd like to see your figures on how much profit that AMD actually has on each chip. Remember MSRP is not the same as resellers pay...and I'd like your information that AMD is paying less per wafer when there's more competition for the 7nm wafers than ever meaning TSMC can charge more per wafer for new, non-contracted, work.

[birdie]

you don't disparage Nvidia for not releasing a 3060 and thus their 3070 is their starting card. I clearly demonstrated your two-faced approach with quoting your inconsistencies.

NVIDIA, unlike AMD, has had the same lineup for over a decade now - you absolutely know the RTX 3060 is coming, unlike AMD which is changing naming schemes frequently and releases products only when it's necessary for them. Again, how convenient of you to forget that a year ago they released a full lineup right away starting with the 3600 and ending with the 3950X and now they've conveniently forgotten about the 5600 and 5700X. Not even a sign of these two CPUs.

What we have this time around:

1) Super expensive 5600X and 5800X (50% and 36% more expensive) than previous generation Ryzens.
2) Not a hint of 5600/5700X at any price or date.
3) An extreme price gouging vs. Intel which released their parts at roughly the same price for over a decade and didn't even try to abuse their indisputable lead in performance as AMD is doing right fucking now. You seem to be over your head saying you've debunked this argument only I've seen nothing logical or factual from you.

Obviously you have no business sense;

And you have crap instead of grey matter:

Intel while keeping their CPU prices more or less the same:
* Spends billions of dollars developing new nodes and upgrading their factories - AMD is fabless!
* Spends a ton of money developing iGPUs (Ryzen 4000 APUs feature an ages old Vega graphics)
* Introduces new intruction sets (AVX, AVX2)
etc. etc. etc.

Zen 3 vs Zen 2:
* The same node
* The same instructions (two new AVX2 instructions don't really count)
* no iGPU
* No fabs to pay for

According to your brilliant business sense Intel should have made their CPUs $50 more expensive each generation and we'd have had the Intel Core i5 6600K for roughly $600, instead of ~$300.

AMD increases price by $100 for a single generation.

You're making crap up and I'm done arguing with you. You continue to make things "expensive" for AMD which "warrant" a crazy price increase, while omitting truly insane expenses for Intel. God, your logic is so twisted it's mindblowing.

They can't reach into your pocket and take the money out; either reward them with your money for producing a quality product or continue broadcasting to the world your misguided, indeed foolish, opprobrium that simply exudes a petulant child who is used to getting what they demand by screaming their protestations. Here's a hint; that doesn't work in the real world like it did on mommy.
...
I'm not ruling out the lack of mental acuity either...but it may be against the TOS to call someone stupid so I wouldn't even dream of doing that.

Now resorting to ad hominem attacks? Sneakily calling me insane and stupid? According to you only AMD makes quality products. All other companies who don't charge top dollar for new upgraded products are producing crap and they don't spend nearly as much on R&D as AMD (And Intel absolutely does spend 10 times more on R&D than AMD). Jesus Christ. Just fuck off, Dave. You're so in love with AMD it's cringeworthy.

"Maximizing profits" seems to be your motto. I wonder why you're applying it only to AMD and not to Intel which produced the fastest CPUs for well over a decade. Or NVIDIA which has had faster GPUs most of the time. It's just AMD which can enjoy "maximizing profits". Double standards and other crap.

[pininety]

3) An extreme price gouging vs. Intel which released their parts at roughly the same price for over a decade and didn't even try to abuse their indisputable lead in performance as AMD is doing right fucking now. You seem to be over your head saying you've debunked this argument only I've seen nothing logical or factual from you.

LOL. If anyone was "price gauging", then it was Intel. Remember how the Core i9-9980XE cost nearly 2 grand because AMD could not compete? Guess what happened when AMD could compete: price went by half. Intel was price gauging you by 100% by your own logic yet that is apparently fine as long as Intel is doing it.

Both, Intel and AMD are companies, they will ask you as much money as they can for their products. If you find the prices unreasonable, just dont buy them.

Also, the rest of your "argument" is nonsense as well. Do you think AMD is not doing R&D? Also, what does fabless or nor have to do with anything? No CPU manufacturer
is required to produce all the tech and ressources they need, they just have to source them. Why do you think Intel is doing their own fabs? Because they thought it would be benefical to them. It was not.

[birdie]

LOL. If anyone was "price gauging", then it was Intel. Remember how the Core i9-9980XE cost nearly 2 grand because AMD could not compete? Guess what happened when AMD could compete: price went by half. Intel was price gauging you by 100% by your own logic yet that is apparently fine as long as Intel is doing it.

Both, Intel and AMD are companies, they will ask you as much money as they can for their products. If you find the prices unreasonable, just dont buy them.

Also, the rest of your "argument" is nonsense as well. Do you think AMD is not doing R&D? Also, what does fabless or nor have to do with anything? No CPU manufacturer
is required to produce all the tech and ressources they need, they just have to source them. Why do you think Intel is doing their own fabs? Because they thought it would be benefical to them. It was not.

Again moving the goalposts?

The 5600X and 5800X have the same number of cores as the 3600 and 3700X. Intel charged for additional cores FFS! AMD does charge a ton for their Threadripper CPUs. AMD fans continue to abuse logic to no end. Lovely.

Intel did not raise prices for their comparable CPUs between generations despite having a massive performance lead, AMD does. End of fucking story.

[pininety]

Intel did not raise prices for their comparable CPUs between generations despite having a massive performance lead.

Dude, they had to LOWER the price for the SAME CPU because they suddenly had competion with Threadripper.
So no, they were taking advantage of not having competition in that segment, same as AMD is doing now.
Heck, even with that, they still lose on price/performance ratio.

Now, do I like to pay more for a product? Of course not, but I can understand why AMD is rising prices, they offer great value even with taht increase vs Intel and as long as Intel is not going to lower prices, AMD will just profit from that. They are both companies trying to get as much money out of you as they can. Thats theijob.

[birdie]

Dude, they had to LOWER the price for the SAME CPU because they suddenly had competion with Threadripper.
So no, they were taking advantage of not having competition in that segment, same as AMD is doing now.
Heck, even with that, they still lose on price/performance ratio.

Now, do I like to pay more for a product? Of course not, but I can understand why AMD is rising prices, they offer great value even with taht increase vs Intel and as long as Intel is not going to lower prices, AMD will just profit from that. They are both companies trying to get as much money out of you as they can. Thats theijob.

I'm not dude, OK?

Stop comparing N core Intel CPUs with N+X cores CPUs from AMD, OK?

The fact that Intel lowered prices when AMD introduced The Ryzen 1000 series has absolutely nothing to do with the current situation, OK? Should we also talk about something unrelated which happened to the PC industry 10, 20, 30 years ago for good measure? The fuck is wrong with you?

We are talking a massive price increase for the same number of cores for AMD, OK? Which very bad monopolistic Intel never attempted to do but your divine AMD does with full impunity. No, AMD fanboys are even cheering for this price increase. The fuck is wrong with you?

Stop fucking with logic and facts, OK? Stop dragging unrelated things to the current sitation, OK?

Intel had a massive performance lead for over a decade, offered great value and their CPUs prices remained relatively the same. Why the fuck AMD does a completely different thing, raises prices significantly and you're OK with that for fuck's sake? Does AMD pay you personally to sing the praises?

[dave_boo]

NVIDIA, unlike AMD, has had the same lineup for over a decade now - you absolutely know the RTX 3060 is coming, unlike AMD which is changing naming schemes frequently and releases products only when it's necessary for them. Again, how convenient of you to forget that a year ago they released a full lineup right away starting with the 3600 and ending with the 3950X and now they've conveniently forgotten about the 5600 and 5700X. Not even a sign of these two CPUs.

What we have this time around:

1) Super expensive 5600X and 5800X (50% and 36% more expensive) than previous generation Ryzens.
2) Not a hint of 5600/5700X at any price or date.
3) An extreme price gouging vs. Intel which released their parts at roughly the same price for over a decade and didn't even try to abuse their indisputable lead in performance as AMD is doing right fucking now. You seem to be over your head saying you've debunked this argument only I've seen nothing logical or factual from you.



And you have crap instead of grey matter:

Intel while keeping their CPU prices more or less the same:
* Spends billions of dollars developing new nodes and upgrading their factories - AMD is fabless!
* Spends a ton of money developing iGPUs (Ryzen 4000 APUs feature an ages old Vega graphics)
* Introduces new intruction sets (AVX, AVX2)
etc. etc. etc.

Zen 3 vs Zen 2:
* The same node
* The same instructions (two new AVX2 instructions don't really count)
* no iGPU
* No fabs to pay for

According to your brilliant business sense Intel should have made their CPUs $50 more expensive each generation and we'd have had the Intel Core i5 6600K for roughly $600, instead of ~$300.

AMD increases price by $100 for a single generation.

You're making crap up and I'm done arguing with you. You continue to make things "expensive" for AMD which "warrant" a crazy price increase, while omitting truly insane expenses for Intel. God, your logic is so twisted it's mindblowing.



Now resorting to ad hominem attacks? Sneakily calling me insane and stupid? According to you only AMD makes quality products. All other companies who don't charge top dollar for new upgraded products are producing crap and they don't spend nearly as much on R&D as AMD (And Intel absolutely does spend 10 times more on R&D than AMD). Jesus Christ. Just fuck off, Dave. You're so in love with AMD it's cringeworthy.

"Maximizing profits" seems to be your motto. I wonder why you're applying it only to AMD and not to Intel which produced the fastest CPUs for well over a decade. Or NVIDIA which has had faster GPUs most of the time. It's just AMD which can enjoy "maximizing profits". Double standards and other crap.

Yep, Nvidia has had the same family for over a decade and has never changed the naming scheme. Except for jumping right over the (non-mobile) 800 series. Your lack of knowledge regarding AMD's plans does not preclude their plans for what we know you are fervently praying doesn't come to fruition. And by the way, since you are so set on bookending product lines does the fact that the RX5700XT have a better price/performance ratio have you proclaiming that the 2080 Super are horrible values? Or are they both out of your budget and don't warrant your asinine screeching?

You keep repeating the mantra that you want to compare chips across generations that are not similar simply because it supports your position. Are you willing to admit that AMD is still producing the 3000 series chips, at least, that can be purchased and as they are lower on the performance scale they are the actual 'entry' level chips available? I imagine you're going to try and say that is moving the goalposts but it is a valid question as they are available, work in the same systems, and are less performant and less costly.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You don't have a direct line to AMD's engineering department, marketing department, or sales department. Why do you assume you have any actual proof of what you are saying. The most that any of us can say is 'Based on previous evidence' where the previous evidence shows that over the last 3 generations AMD has delivered on the products you claim (without proof) they won't this generation.

I'm glad that you can admit that Intel gave little reason to increase their prices when they had single digit gains; however if you really wanted to go more cores, which has been their only recourse other than blowing past previous TDP, they definitely charged what they wanted to.

So after spending those billions of dollars, how have their nodes and fabs came along?

In regards to the Xe LP, which products are they in? However they've been using the "HD" iGPU since 2010...quite long in the tooth and the Vega arch has been in use since 2017. Furthermore we know that RDNA2 is used in the latest consoles; what's to preclude their usage in APUs?

You do realize that AVX was introduced in 2008 and AVX512 in 2013? Got any more recent examples that Intel has been spending billions on and out of magnanimity not been charging for?

Yes, Zen2 and Zen3 use the same node. Are you denying that more companies are going to 7nm and that is putting a pricing squeeze on AMD's non-contracted bids?

No IGP...except for the millions of console chips they need to produce as well as all the laptop/APU chips they sell.

It's rather rich that you claim I am making stuff up. Show one place where I have done anything comparable to your reaching deep up inside your anus and pulling out a steaming pile to stand on as a bully pulpit. For example:

• You made up the fact that AMD won't release the 5600.
• You made up the fact that AMD doesn't spend money developing iGPU.
• You made up the fact that "TX 3000 cards are sold significantly cheaper than the RTX 2000"
• You made up the fact that I take the position that AMD only makes quality products and I'm in love with them (here's a hint about how unbiased I am; this is typed on an Intel/Nvidia laptop, there's an all AMD build, several ARM machines, and an Amiga 3000).
• You made up the fact that I don't apply my logic consistently in regards to companies maximizing their profits.
• ETC, etc, etc.

Whilst I didn't specify that Intel should be able to '"warrant" a crazy price increase', my previous post quoted below applies equally to them.

And yes, Nvidia can price their cards as high as they want. When it's more than the market will bear the prices will have to be lowered. Nvidia can take all that extra money and keep investing in new technologies which drive the market forward. These higher price brackets allow their competition to price higher also and hopefully pull ahead of Nvidia thus pressuring Nvidia to lower their prices to maintain market share. It can be a yo-yo affect where there's 5 years of stagnation with ~10% performance increase each year or there can be cut throat competition that benefits the consumer.

I know that reading comprehension is hard...but there was even a dig in there at Intel. As you have previously state they have been spending billions of dollars and seem to be spinning their wheels. Perhaps the reason that AMD is on such a tear, having done remarkable things in the last 4 years, is because they weren't doing what Intel was. You'd think that perhaps they were doing what I just quoted by catching up and surpassing the sleeping behemoth.

Perhaps the (not my!) logic isn't so much twisted but not dumbed down enough that a simpleton can understand it?

Well, I can't be arsed to look at the TOS, so if you believe I responded in kind to your personal attacks throughout this thread by causing you to believe that I was insinuating a prevaricating dullard who is uncouth and of narrow life experience that was in all likelihood obtained through the matriarch's cellar...I guess I succeeded in making you read that into my post?

I really wish that I could explain it in simple enough terms for you to understand. Consumers have the money and want the product. Companies have the product and want the money. Consumers want to exchange as little money as possible for the product. Companies want to exchange as little product as possible for the money. Each side has something they value and so a fair exchange has to be made. The company offers the product for what they believe it's worth. The consumer either pays that because they believe it's worth it or they don't.

We can look back at RAMBUS. They had a product that they thought was worth quite a bit. The consumers didn't. RAMBUS tried to bully the consumers into exchanging their money for RAMBUS's product. That didn't work out. Why are you trying to take RAMBUS's tack and bully the company indirectly by being so pompous on forum(s) and attacking people?

Do you think that you should be arbiter of pricing? Should the economic system be torn down to suit your desires? How well does innovation march forward under a non-capitalistic society?