The vast majority of people should absolutely not buy a 5600x. The price is an absolute joke. If it was 180-200€ then sure, but at over 250 that is ludicrous
Top 5 Best CPUs: Intel or AMD, who dominates today?
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
- Status
Superconductor
Posts: 288 +345
This story smacks of BS
Nice to see Techspot put the Intel 10700 and 11700 above all Ryzen 5000 CPU's for gaming, we all know Intel have 10X more revenue than AMD so its right that their slower gaming CPU's are elevated above AMD's better CPU's, 5600X at under $300? nope.... #### you AMD how dare you be competitive.
Techspot keeping up the solid tradition of crapping on the little guy.
Techspot keeping up the solid tradition of crapping on the little guy.
Mugsy
Posts: 772 +203
The problem with selecting a single "Best CPU" for any category is that if I'm a user of the "other" brand, in order to use your recommended CPU, I'd also have to change my motherboard (maybe more.) Suddenly, this is no longer a cheap or simple upgrade.
How about "Best Intel CPU" AND "Best AMD CPU" that don't require a motherboard upgrade, then you pick from among those two?
How about "Best Intel CPU" AND "Best AMD CPU" that don't require a motherboard upgrade, then you pick from among those two?
PEnnn
Posts: 1,285 +1,854
Well, Steven of TS:
Not everyone is lucky enough to grab any new Intel CPU. PLUS the required NEW and free motherboard of their choice (courtesy of Intel advertising or the TS Intel cosy relationship) and then claim every Intel CPU is the best, period!!
Many of us peasants HAVE to buy a new motherboard each time Intel farts a new CPU, you know.
But thank you for the amazing Intel PR story!!
Not everyone is lucky enough to grab any new Intel CPU. PLUS the required NEW and free motherboard of their choice (courtesy of Intel advertising or the TS Intel cosy relationship) and then claim every Intel CPU is the best, period!!
Many of us peasants HAVE to buy a new motherboard each time Intel farts a new CPU, you know.
But thank you for the amazing Intel PR story!!
Dimitriid
Posts: 2,455 +4,930
Motherboard prices count for a lot: A520 motherboards that run the 5600x perfectly are under 100 USD Good % in the overall price of the rig and we know the prices of anything that can run the 12600k more than makes up for the price difference, even if you stick to DDR4 but that only makes finding a decently priced motherboard even more of a challenge.
I'm sure we can revisit this in 6 months but well, at that point Zen3+ may (or may not) be a better option.
Joey Rakas
Posts: 41 +34
While I think it's fair to agree Intel has the upper hand for a cheap entry level gaming processor, there is also a large category of people who learn to never buy the "cheapest" solution available, and generally spend the extra bit of cash on a mid tier CPU such as the i5 12600k, or 5600X. In which case on paper yes the 12600k is a tad faster in some tasks, but also consumes more power. The truth of the matter is; if you built 2 identical systems other than one having a 12600k and the other a 5600X(and associated motherboards), and did some tasks side by side, especially gaming, can you actually see the difference? It's nothing like comparing say an old FX-8350 to an I7 3770K where some games, especially when it came to minimum framerates, were considerably better and far more playable on the i7. I am basing this off TechSpots own 10 game average where overall the i5-12600k utterly dominates the 5600x by a whopping 2 frames per second..............
You have "Best Entry-Level CPU" & "Best Value CPU", I would think those two things are far too similar given your price points. I just find it odd you're leaving out the $300ish category almost completely, and basing off user review counts, those $300 processors are without question far more popular(going back to what I said about people learning not to purchase the cheapest solution). At this rate, I'd say to visually allow people to filter out buying options, take your 10 game average chart, and put the corresponding price next to that CPU, it may really help put things into perspective for users. For your category's I think something like "Entry Level", "Gaming", "Productivity", "Enthusiast", and "Long Term Builder" make far more sense, and give a little flexibility.
You have "Best Entry-Level CPU" & "Best Value CPU", I would think those two things are far too similar given your price points. I just find it odd you're leaving out the $300ish category almost completely, and basing off user review counts, those $300 processors are without question far more popular(going back to what I said about people learning not to purchase the cheapest solution). At this rate, I'd say to visually allow people to filter out buying options, take your 10 game average chart, and put the corresponding price next to that CPU, it may really help put things into perspective for users. For your category's I think something like "Entry Level", "Gaming", "Productivity", "Enthusiast", and "Long Term Builder" make far more sense, and give a little flexibility.
Fimbulvetr
Posts: 52 +64
Got my 5600G from MC for $175. No complaints here. 
12600k is not your only option. If you don't care about performance that much you go for the 10400f / 11400f, if you do you can go to the 12600k. Also, there is the 10 and 11 series of 8 cores which can be memory oced to a b560.
Yes, you can see the difference, the 12600k is up to 50-60% faster in MT workloads, usually around 30%. I mean, if you can't actually see the difference then there is no point in going for a 5600x, you get the 10400f for half the price
I am buying AMD, even if Intel has a slightly better product/price, for two reasons.
First and for most, we still need AMD to grow, and be big enough to truly compete with Intel on a level playing field, as Intel can still buy itself out of the mess of not innovating, crippling competition unfairly, giving consumers the middle finger.
Second, I just hate Intel, they have been f****ing over me/consumers for years, Its nice Intel has an engineer again at the rudder, but it's gone take time for I buy Intel again, not saying AMD gone be any better if they dominate the market, but for now, as long as AMD does not screw up again like with bulldozer, I stick with AMD
First and for most, we still need AMD to grow, and be big enough to truly compete with Intel on a level playing field, as Intel can still buy itself out of the mess of not innovating, crippling competition unfairly, giving consumers the middle finger.
Second, I just hate Intel, they have been f****ing over me/consumers for years, Its nice Intel has an engineer again at the rudder, but it's gone take time for I buy Intel again, not saying AMD gone be any better if they dominate the market, but for now, as long as AMD does not screw up again like with bulldozer, I stick with AMD
Yeah, right, poor AMD with those "innovations" For 3 years they gave us 10% year to year performance increases, and the moment they actually put forth a REAL upgrade (the zen3) the prices on the 6core and 8core chip increased by almost 50 freaking percent.
I'm sorry, but going by the numbers alone, Intel between 2011 and 2015 or between 2013 and 2017 gave us more performance increase then AMD did. At 300$ , we went from a 1700 at 2017 to a 5600x at 2020-2021. In cinebench that's a 30-35% increase.
On the other hand from the 2600k to the 6700k there is a 45+% increase. From 2013 to 2017 there is what, an 80%+ increase? (4770k to 8700k).
So yeah, stop making up excuses for an awful company.
You are comparing 8-core from 2017 against three years newer 6-core and say it's "only" 30-35%.
But then Intel made "huge increase" when going from quad core to six core
How about comparing Ryzen 1200 against Ryzen 5950 and see how much AMD gained during 4 years?
As for your results, https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pag...00kthe_2018_review_time_for_an_upgrade,6.html
2600K scores 612 and 6700K 879. That's pretty far from "45+% increase".
You are comparing 8-core from 2017 against three years newer 6-core and say it's "only" 30-35%.
But then Intel made "huge increase" when going from quad core to six core
How about comparing Ryzen 1200 against Ryzen 5950 and see how much AMD gained during 4 years?
As for your results, https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pag...00kthe_2018_review_time_for_an_upgrade,6.html
2600K scores 612 and 6700K 879. That's pretty far from "45+% increase".
To be fair 612 vs 879 is +43%
FX 8370 at 641 vs 1700X at 1527 is +238%
Moving to Cinebench R20
1700 at 3180 vs 3700X at 4760 is +50%
2600K: $317
1700: $329
6700K: $339
3700X: $329
AMD's pricing went a little daft there after:
BUT.
10700K: $374, score 4974
10600K: $262, score 3605
5600X: $299, score 4390
5600X cost vs 10600K +14%, performance +22%
10700K cost vs 5600X +25%, performance +13%
So no matter which way you look at it the 5600X had a better performance per $ ratio than Intel equivalents at both lower and higher SKU's, the 5600X was the better value chip.
And yet the 5600X was used an example in framing AMD, not Intel, as being too greedy.
Again people actually buying these chips disagreed.
Last edited:
Im comparing CPU's at the same price points. The R3 1200 and the R9 5950 are not at the same price point. On the other hand, the R7 1700 and the R5 5600x are. So it's fair to compare them. The number of cores is completely irrelevant, what matters is how much you pay and what you get out of that.You are comparing 8-core from 2017 against three years newer 6-core and say it's "only" 30-35%.
But then Intel made "huge increase" when going from quad core to six core
How about comparing Ryzen 1200 against Ryzen 5950 and see how much AMD gained during 4 years?
As for your results, https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pag...00kthe_2018_review_time_for_an_upgrade,6.html
2600K scores 612 and 6700K 879. That's pretty far from "45+% increase".
612 to 879 is actually a 45% increase (okay, maybe 44%). 44% of 612 is 269. 612 + 269 is 881. So yeah, the 6700k is 44% faster than the 2600k. And dont even get me started at the performance increase from 3770 to 8700. That's around 120%.
So yeah, AMD has dramatically increased the price of a high end CPU, from 330-350€ to 800€, and completely stagnated and offered piss poor yearly performance increases to the CPU market at 500€ and below. I don't know why anyone in their mind would still support that company, but don't let me stop you, go on
Last edited:
How comparing CPU's on same price points is fair on current situation? Also, there are still available previous models, like Ryzen 3600 or 3600X that fits on same socket. Basically you are saying that AMD should have reduced pricing of 3600/3600X and offer 5600X on same price 3600X was launched. All on current situation...
From 2600K to 6700K there are two socket changes already.
I think I put wrong numbers on calculator, that is indeed pretty much correct.
8700 is still hexa core and 3770 quad core. And three socket changes too.
High end CPU price increased indeed but AMD also offers 16 good performance cores vs 8/10 on Intel. Price is more than justified.
Again, on current situation, there is no point comparing prices (and forgetting almost everything else) to what they were before. Using your logic, Nvidia should never be supported. Price increases on mid range cards and above are tremendous.
What difference do the sockets make? My point is that AMD has stagnated the mid - midhigh end market (so CPU's below 450€) MORE than Intel had, yet we are blaming intel constantly when actually AMD is way worse.
I'm not comparing street prices, I'm comparing MSRP. The current market is no excuse for MSRP to be 50% higher than previous gen. Arguably the GPU market is way worse, yet the MSRP of the nvidia cards were actually pretty fine. AMD's on the other hand SUCKED
It makes big difference. Somehow AMD manages to make around 70% IPC improvements using same socket. Intel...
Let me remind you that it was Intel that offered zero IPC gain since Skylake (2015) until March 2021.
Ah, MRSP comparison at time when virtually no products sells for MSRP.
Nvidia's low MSRP for 3000 series is one main reason for card shortage. Some people haven't got card they ordered on release day...
Last edited:
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
So you acknowledge that the 12600K is cheaper and faster than a 5600X but you say we should still buy the 5600X anyway because it’s not slower enough to notice unless you are measuring it?
Yeah that still makes the 12600K a better buy. You are an ***** if you pay more for a slower 5600X. Or a fanboy, they are the same. And besides, the 12600K doesn’t just beat the 5600X at gaming, it wins practically across the board and it’s mobos have PCIe5 and thunderbolt 4.
I bought a 5800X just over 12 months ago, if I were buying today I would buy the 12700K. Even though I would be unlikely to notice the difference between these parts, I’m smart enough to see which one is faster by reading the benchmarks that the tech press publish. That’s why we are here, I mean if you’re going to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend Alder lake doesn’t exist then why even bother reading benchmarks at all?
The mobo compatibility doesn't mean anything when you are already paying for a new motherboard in the price of your CPU. There was a point when 5800x was 450€, with that money you could literally buy a 10700k + a z490!!!
Intel even with 0% IPC increase offer more performance increase between 2015 and 2020 compared to AMD. Do you need me to run the numbers again? The 9700k is almost 100% faster than a 6700k, with almost the same price. On the other hand the 5600x is 35% faster than the r7 1700 at the same price. That's called stagnation in my books
Must be very cheap z490 motherboard then. Also AM4 boards are miles better than z490 motherboards (because z490 boards lack x4 NVMe from CPU). Additionally there is zero upgrade paths available for 10700K+z490 combo. On AM4 side 5800X probably works on older boards too.
So yes, socket matters too. Good luck putting Alder Lake on z490 board...
Yeah when you consider price and only price. Same time you ignore fact that only reason for Intel's competitive pricing was AMD. You also ignore socket compatibility, upgrade paths and fact that AM4 boards are much better than Z490 boards.
When considering price and only price you may even be right. But when looking at wider perspective, it was Intel that stagnated. Pretty funny that when AMD gains around 70% more IPC and Intel same time 0%, you somehow manage to conclude it was AMD that stagnated...
I think ADL is quite good, but it feels very much like the result of corporate thinking, its like Intel thought very carefully about it, to do just enough to knock Zen 3 off its perch but with one eye on margins. It still all feels very Intel, it feels like the same thinking that got us a few % higher performance generation to generation during the decade of the quad cores, just do as little as we think we can get away with to achieve our goals.
But it was not enough, with Intel's agonising over the formula of what is just enough they fell short.
Will Intel ever learn not to be so corporately conniving?
Beyond that I also think Intel has a problem, their architecture is still very inefficient when compared with AMD, the 12900K is 240 Watts in a full productivity load, the 5950X is 120 Watts, literally half in the same Blender load, the 12900K is no faster, this according to Gamers Nexus.
What that means is AMD have a lot of room to scale, AMD could "Glue" anoth 8 core chip on there and bring the power up to 180 watts, still 60 watts less than Intel while gaining 50% performance over the 12900K.
That might deserve a thread of its own.
Anyway...
With the 5800X currently at $348.99 and the 12600K at $322.90 on Amazon I would still buy the 5800X now, yes I currently have one.
The $25 difference is easily made back on the price difference with Motherboards and you need high end DDR5 6000 to make ADL better in games, if you have a 3090 / 6900XT at 1080P.
ADL also doesn't work properly consistently in Windows 10 with games, that's even true to some extent with Windows 11, I do not want the hassle of troubleshooting problems.
The 5800X has been a very good chip, I have it in a Gigabyte Aorus B550 Elite AX V2 with a 32GB Team Group Vulcan Z kit, I think the kit was $90.
Rock solid.
But it was not enough, with Intel's agonising over the formula of what is just enough they fell short.
Will Intel ever learn not to be so corporately conniving?
Beyond that I also think Intel has a problem, their architecture is still very inefficient when compared with AMD, the 12900K is 240 Watts in a full productivity load, the 5950X is 120 Watts, literally half in the same Blender load, the 12900K is no faster, this according to Gamers Nexus.
What that means is AMD have a lot of room to scale, AMD could "Glue" anoth 8 core chip on there and bring the power up to 180 watts, still 60 watts less than Intel while gaining 50% performance over the 12900K.
That might deserve a thread of its own.
Anyway...
With the 5800X currently at $348.99 and the 12600K at $322.90 on Amazon I would still buy the 5800X now, yes I currently have one.
The $25 difference is easily made back on the price difference with Motherboards and you need high end DDR5 6000 to make ADL better in games, if you have a 3090 / 6900XT at 1080P.
ADL also doesn't work properly consistently in Windows 10 with games, that's even true to some extent with Windows 11, I do not want the hassle of troubleshooting problems.
The 5800X has been a very good chip, I have it in a Gigabyte Aorus B550 Elite AX V2 with a 32GB Team Group Vulcan Z kit, I think the kit was $90.
Rock solid.
150€ is a very cheap motherboard? LOL ok bro.
Numbers dont lie, AMD gaves us a 35% performance increase in 4 years at the 300€ price point. Intel gave us more than 100% (6700 to 8700).
Now let's see: https://de.pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#c=143&s=39&sort=price&page=1
ONE motherboard goes under 150€ on Germany. Same goes for France https://fr.pcpartpicker.com/products/motherboard/#c=143&s=39&sort=price&page=1
So yes, for Z490 motherboard 150€ is basically cheapest of all.
That's just because AMD's comparison point is 8-core, Intel's 4-core. You're basically deciding goalposts so that result is what you want.
I'm not comparing cores, im comparing prices. The number of cores is irrelevant to me. If AMD wanted to compare cores then maybe they shouldn't increase their prices by 50%?
I don't get what is your problem with a 150€ mobo. The Msi A pro for example has pretty decent VRM's and good memory ocing, so what is the issue with using that for example?
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Google is experimenting with massive banner ads for brand searches- hradeshkumar replied
-
Intel CPUs Are Crashing and It's Intel's Fault: Intel Baseline Profile Benchmark- erickmendes replied
