It's time we finally check out the Ryzen 5 5600X, the most affordable Ryzen 5000 series processor announced to date. Positioned as a mainstream part, it's coming in at $300, a 20% premium over the Ryzen 5 3600X.
It's time we finally check out the Ryzen 5 5600X, the most affordable Ryzen 5000 series processor announced to date. Positioned as a mainstream part, it's coming in at $300, a 20% premium over the Ryzen 5 3600X.
Great review. However, one point from me when comparing woth the 3600x. Do not forget that many people will make whole new system and pairing it with radeon 6000 you will have the Rage mode and the full power gain of the combination. This should have been added in that section in my oppinion. If you are buying radeon 6000 and buy ryzen 3600x is a stupid move, but with 5600x ... a whole different story.
Anyone who thought AMD was their "friend" or would keep the prices low just to appeal to those with less money is an utter maroon. AMD is a for profit company, once they are competitive they will raise prices.The pricing of both the 5800X and the 5600X here do feel like a little shine has been taken off AMD's hype train. Now, of course AMD have jacked up the prices. The X models are premium products. They are no longer chasing in performance, they are matching or usually beating competition all round and have adjusted their prices accordingly. Justifiably.
On the flip side it shows that AMD are no more your friend than Intel. They want to make as much money as possible. I just had the feeling that if AMD had positioned them at slightly lower prices and better cost to performance ratios they would entirely clean up and in the long term would be more beneficial. They will sell exceedingly well anyway, but 10 percent less MSRP on these models would have been a killer move.
Intel are a giant, and they have dominated the industry for a long time. AMD's strategy has been near flawless the past 4 years to claw back into contention. However this seemed the point where they could choose raw profit right now, or long term gain in the industry with their brand for massive future growth before Intel strike back. They have chosen the higher profit margins and I get the business standpoint. We'll see how it pays off longer term. Intel won't fold up their tent and go home just yet.
Perhaps I am just asking too much, and a Ryzen 5600 will be the clear champ when the dust settles. The best buys on the Zen range have been the non X models since dot, so I wait with anticipation to see where they fall in the stack.
Also:Anyone who thought AMD was their "friend" or would keep the prices low just to appeal to those with less money is an utter maroon. AMD is a for profit company, once they are competitive they will raise prices.
How quickly we forget that AMD sold a $1031 single core FX that was 10-15% faster then their $400 athlon parts.
This. Please update the charts if possible. People don't come to reviews wanting to play Seek 'n Find.It might be a good idea to change the color of the part being reviewed in the charts so that it stands out among the rest.
Anyone who thought AMD was their "friend" or would keep the prices low just to appeal to those with less money is an utter maroon. AMD is a for profit company, once they are competitive they will raise prices.
How quickly we forget that AMD sold a $1031 single core FX that was 10-15% faster then their $400 athlon parts.
... Still, the 10700k is slightly ahead in most tasks and in games ...
The pricing of both the 5800X and the 5600X here do feel like a little shine has been taken off AMD's hype train. Now, of course AMD have jacked up the prices. The X models are premium products. They are no longer chasing in performance, they are matching or usually beating competition all round and have adjusted their prices accordingly. Justifiably.
On the flip side it shows that AMD are no more your friend than Intel. They want to make as much money as possible. I just had the feeling that if AMD had positioned them at slightly lower prices and better cost to performance ratios they would entirely clean up and in the long term would be more beneficial. They will sell exceedingly well anyway, but 10 percent less MSRP on these models would have been a killer move.
Intel are a giant, and they have dominated the industry for a long time. AMD's strategy has been near flawless the past 4 years to claw back into contention. However this seemed the point where they could choose raw profit right now, or long term gain in the industry with their brand for massive future growth before Intel strike back. They have chosen the higher profit margins and I get the business standpoint. We'll see how it pays off longer term. Intel won't fold up their tent and go home just yet.
Perhaps I am just asking too much, and a Ryzen 5600 will be the clear champ when the dust settles. The best buys on the Zen range have been the non X models since dot, so I wait with anticipation to see where they fall in the stack.
Anyone who thought AMD was their "friend" or would keep the prices low just to appeal to those with less money is an utter maroon. AMD is a for profit company, once they are competitive they will raise prices.
How quickly we forget that AMD sold a $1031 single core FX that was 10-15% faster then their $400 athlon parts.
You are correct, the 5600X is just ahead in gaming. I'm not sure what I was looking at I thought it was the opposite, with the i7-10700k just ahead.Are you referring to the contents of this article? I'm pretty sure the 11 game average puts the 5600X ahead, but if you are referring to a different data set please provide the source.
The two extra cores help the 10700k in 3D rendering, if you consider that a 'task', but in less heavily threaded loads, like Photoshop, After Effects, the 5600x pulls well ahead ... just depends on the requirement for 8 cores vs 6 or less.
I do agree Intel should trim some prices, but if the past has any precedence, they'll just make potential buyers wait for Rocket Lake.
Many people looking to upgrade from older cheaper parts want to know how many extra FPS they could expect to gain if they upgraded into a higher bracket. Comparing only exactly the same price brackets on every upgrade cycle is useless as a guide for people on lower end chips thinking about a big upgrade (not just an endless stream of mild side-grades). Same reason why many older pre-Ryzen i7 reviews that included i3 & i5's (eg, 4770K, 6700K, etc) got it right. "but, but, but they're completely difference prices!". Yes we know, but many on older i3's still wanted that information to see whether it was worth a "big" upgrade to an i7 or whether an i5 would do.I dont agree with comparing the 5600X to the 3600 non X. Compare similiar price point products.