AMD said to be readying Ryzen 5 5500, 5600 and Ryzen 7 5700X CPUs to reduce Alder Lake's...

nanoguy

Posts: 1,200   +20
Staff member
In brief: Power consumption worries aside, Intel’s 12th generation Core processors have been slowing down AMD’s conquest in the DIY and enthusiast gamer markets. Zen 4 is widely expected to pull this tug of war back toward Team Red, but in the meantime, the company may release new Zen 3 SKUs to balance things out until Zen 4’s arrival.

After the successful release of Intel’s Alder Lake CPUs, AMD appears to be fighting back against team blue’s offerings not with Zen 4, but with discounted Zen 3 processors on the desktop and Zen 3+ processors for laptops. As noted by our own Tim Schiesser, the latter wave is a decent mid-generation upgrade — especially in terms of performance-per-watt — but it isn’t able to compete with Alder Lake in higher power classes.

According to a recent report, Team Red may also be preparing to release new Ryzen 7 5700X, Ryzen 5 5600, and Ryzen 5 5500 CPUs as a stopgap solution until Zen 4 is ready to ship. The rumor comes from several known leakers, so there’s a relatively high chance there are real SKUs that will soon land on the market, possibly alongside the much-awaited Ryzen 5800X3D.

The Ryzen 7 5700X will supposedly be a 65-watt part with 8 cores/16 thread, so it’s most likely designed to compete with Intel’s Core i5-12600K and Core i5-12600 processors. As explained in our review of the 12600K, Intel nailed the recipe for a mainstream CPU, and in some cases, it can at times approach Ryzen 7 5800X levels of performance. If AMD can slightly undercut the pricing of the Core i5-12600, it might have a chance at tempting some people away from the Intel offering.

Arguably the more interesting of the upcoming CPUs is the Ryzen 5 5600, which is set to compete with Intel’s value champ, the Core i5-12400. The Ryzen 5 5600 will reportedly sport 6 cores/12 threads, so it’s probably going to end up in a similar performance ballpark as the existing Ryzen 5 5600X.

Of course, these CPUs will be the last to work on AMD’s AM4 platform, but the Lisa Su-powered company has a real chance of making them a worthwhile upgrade path for people who are using older Ryzen processors and aren’t quite ready to do a major overhaul of their gaming rigs.

Permalink to story.

 

yRaz

Posts: 4,400   +5,124
AMD enjoyed their share of the CPU profits when they were top dog but they have to do more than match Intel prices at this point. One thing I absolutely hate about intels new CPUs is that they get to say they have "10 core" parts(12600). While true, the average consumer doesn't know that half of them are slower than what's in a smartphone. To the uniformed it reminds me of the Pentium 4 days. People thought that since Intel had higher clockspeeds that it was better and that just wasn't the case. Now we have clockspeeds and core counts to confuse people.
 
Last edited:

Bobbydpue

Posts: 327   +217
AMD enjoyed their share of the CPU profits when they were top dog but they have to do more than match Intel prices at this point. One thing I absolutely hate about intels new CPUs is that they get to say they have "10 core" parts(12600). While true, the average consumer doesn't know that half of them are slower than what's in a smartphone.

That's not true. They are as capable of cores from two-three generations in the past.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,360   +5,586
That's not true. They are as capable of cores from two-three generations in the past.
So smartphone level? They are skylake tier, that is performance from 6+ years ago, and skylake was only maybe 5% faster IPC from sandy bridge of 2011.
A pointless release. Just lower prices of what's already available.
But why would they do that when they can keep the high MSRP stuff for fanbois to buy to "support AMD" while then making some lower MSRP stuff for the poors who havent bought yet?
 

Dimitriid

Posts: 2,203   +4,239
Seems kind of wasteful to produce brand new chips when they could just lower prices on current skus but well at least it's a return to form: Now we know that if we wait around 18 months after launch or so you could eventually see the 5600 and 5700 lines without GPUs that basically make the 5600x and 5800x obsolete but it takes intel jumping ahead of schedule for AMD to bring back the actual good pricing SKUs

5500 seems specially weird to me: What is this going to do vs the 5600g? Are they intentionally removing threads so it's worst? If they just down clock the 5600/x then of course people will overclock it back up. Are they removing l3 cache? If so well that's already the 5600g so it's just a graphics-less 5600g then?
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,360   +5,586
Seems kind of wasteful to produce brand new chips when they could just lower prices on current skus but well at least it's a return to form: Now we know that if we wait around 18 months after launch or so you could eventually see the 5600 and 5700 lines without GPUs that basically make the 5600x and 5800x obsolete but it takes intel jumping ahead of schedule for AMD to bring back the actual good pricing SKUs
I mean it's no mroe wasteful then making more 5600xs. They're all the same chiplets at the end of the day.
5500 seems specially weird to me: What is this going to do vs the 5600g? Are they intentionally removing threads so it's worst? If they just down clock the 5600/x then of course people will overclock it back up. Are they removing l3 cache? If so well that's already the 5600g so it's just a graphics-less 5600g then?
It's likely using silicon where the SMT is unreliable and must be disabled. See also the ryzen 3500x.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,104   +3,633
That's not true. They are as capable of cores from two-three generations in the past.
Yes, but far from as capable as their big Golden Cove cores.

A pointless release. Just lower prices of what's already available.

While I mostly agree - unless they all of the sudden have a large enough number of not good enough cores - having a lower power 8C available would be a nice option.

If the 5700x is e.g. an 85W model, I might upgrade to that from my 2700X as I would get better performance and lower power consumption and I could continue to use the 2700X‘s stock heatsink.

That said, prices have come down a good bit already - €229 for a 5600X puts it in the same territory as a 12400 if you look at board + CPU, even lower if you are willing to accept PCIe 3.
The 5800x is almost there at €329, imho €299 would be a good price.

But maybe AMD does not want to reduce prices for their current models too much as that might make Zen 4 prices look bad. That‘s always the risk of reducing prices too much before the successor has been released.

What would be welcome is a 6C6T 5500 that is priced around the i3.
 

Irata

Posts: 2,104   +3,633
To the uniformed it reminds me of the Pentium 4 days. People thought that since Intel had higher clockspeeds that it was better and that just wasn't the case. Now we have clockspeeds and core counts to confuse people.
Back in the day, Germany‘s two largest retailers (that coincidentally were the ones that had been paid by Intel to not sell any AMD based systems) advertised the P4 as having ‚real‘ Ghz.
That stopped very quickly when the Core line was released. Funny that.
 
Last edited:

3ogdy

Posts: 54   +46
AMD enjoyed their share of the CPU profits when they were top dog but they have to do more than match Intel prices at this point. One thing I absolutely hate about intels new CPUs is that they get to say they have "10 core" parts(12600). While true, the average consumer doesn't know that half of them are slower than what's in a smartphone. To the uniformed it reminds me of the Pentium 4 days. People thought that since Intel had higher clockspeeds that it was better and that just wasn't the case. Now we have clockspeeds and core counts to confuse people.
You're correct. It's not right.

Well, wasn't AMD doing the same thing with the FX series?

What is the basic principle of a multi-core chip? Increased performance by PARALLELIZATION. Run a task on each core simultaneously and just as quick as a single core CPU can run 1 task.

AMD claimed Bulldozer was a multi-core architecture. They said the FX-8150 was an 8-core chip. It turned out you could only use (load) 4 individual cores (each in a different module) at any given time. NOT 8.

That's the definition of a quad core, not an octo-core.
Instead of stating that, they hid the crap under the architecture design with CMT.

The only time I've seen rendering take over 2x LONGER using 8 cores vs using 4 cores was with my FX-8350. (at stable stock clocks with an NH-D15)
They did market 4-core CPUs as 8-core CPUs, triple-cores as hexa-cores and dual cores as quad-core. They got away with it mostly because the cores were there - one simply couldn't use all cores properly.

Same crap Intel is doing now. At least we know what they're about. "efficient" cores and "performance" cores.

Because they cannot do both and call it a day.
Like AMD did with Ryzen.
 
Last edited:

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 3,360   +5,586
Well, wasn't AMD doing the same thing with the FX series?

What is the basic principle of a multi-core chip? Increased performance by PARALLELIZATION. Run a task on each core simultaneously and just as quick as a single core CPU can run 1 task.

AMD claimed Bulldozer was a multi-core architecture. They said the FX-8150 was an 8-core chip. It turned out you could only use (load) only 4 individual cores (each in a different module) at any given time. NOT 8.

That's the definition of a quad core, not an octo-core.
Instead of stating that, they hid the crap under the architecture design with CMT.

The only time I've seen rendering take over 2x LONGER using 8 cores vs using 4 cores was with my FX-8350. (at stable stock clocks with an NH-D15)
They did market 4-core CPUs as 8-core CPUs, triple-cores as hexa-cores and dual cores as quad-cores.

Same crap Intel is doing now. At least we know what they're about. "efficient" cores and "performance" cores.

Because they cannot do both and call it a day.
Like AMD did with Ryzen.
No it's not. AMD was advertizing their hyperthreading as a seperate core because technically they designed two CPU cores that shared an FPU. The counts agreed that a CPU core without a FPU can tbe counted as a full core.

What intel is doing is using a large number of super slow cores to pump up their "core count" to give the appearance of better performance, even though it is the P cores doing 99% of the work.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 7,694   +6,633
You're correct. It's not right.

Well, wasn't AMD doing the same thing with the FX series?

What is the basic principle of a multi-core chip? Increased performance by PARALLELIZATION. Run a task on each core simultaneously and just as quick as a single core CPU can run 1 task.

AMD claimed Bulldozer was a multi-core architecture. They said the FX-8150 was an 8-core chip. It turned out you could only use (load) 4 individual cores (each in a different module) at any given time. NOT 8.
Blame the clueless Rory Reed for that. Still, because one company does something scummy does not justify the other doing the same thing. AMD went down a black hole in those days, I think they have learned a lesson, and I also think that Intel was not ready for AMD's Zen lines. So, IMO, Intel will be Intel and they are desperate to project an image that they are on top of things when they have had quite a few blunders since Zen came out.

I also think Intel is trying to plug the leak in the **** as much as possible, and get people to come back to them before AMD releases the next generation of Zen.
Same crap Intel is doing now. At least we know what they're about. "efficient" cores and "performance" cores.
Yes.
Like AMD did with Ryzen.
We've seen them both doing crap and they both will likely continue.
 

3ogdy

Posts: 54   +46
Blame the clueless Rory Reed for that. Still, because one company does something scummy does not justify the other doing the same thing. AMD went down a black hole in those days, I think they have learned a lesson, and I also think that Intel was not ready for AMD's Zen lines. So, IMO, Intel will be Intel and they are desperate to project an image that they are on top of things when they have had quite a few blunders since Zen came out.

I also think Intel is trying to plug the leak in the **** as much as possible, and get people to come back to them before AMD releases the next generation of Zen.

Yes.

We've seen them both doing crap and they both will likely continue.
The sad part is we as computer enthusiasts end up paying for it one way or another.
 

kinetix

Posts: 27   +24
I will not upgrade to Ryzen 7000. I will wait for a good Ryzen 5000 price drop and go for the best that is on sale .
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 4,430   +2,409
AMD enjoyed their share of the CPU profits when they were top dog but they have to do more than match Intel prices at this point. One thing I absolutely hate about intels new CPUs is that they get to say they have "10 core" parts(12600). While true, the average consumer doesn't know that half of them are slower than what's in a smartphone. To the uniformed it reminds me of the Pentium 4 days. People thought that since Intel had higher clockspeeds that it was better and that just wasn't the case. Now we have clockspeeds and core counts to confuse people.
The average consumer doesn't NEED to know core count or clock speed. If they do, they'll do the research. What is 10 cores gonna tell the average consumer? That it can do 10 things at once? The salesman is going to tell them the same as they did with 4, 6, 8+ core parts. It will or it won't do what they want the computer for.
 

nodfor

Posts: 236   +432
5600X is better than Intel locked 6 core parts and with fast ddr4 it is similar or better than the 12600K as well in plenty of gaming scenarios, when the 12600K is used with ddr4.
It can run on a dirt cheap mobo and an aftermarket cooler is nice to have but not a requirement.
The 5600X is excellent value below 240$.
 

ZackL04

Posts: 793   +600
5600X is better than Intel locked 6 core parts and with fast ddr4 it is similar or better than the 12600K as well in plenty of gaming scenarios, when the 12600K is used with ddr4.
It can run on a dirt cheap mobo and an aftermarket cooler is nice to have but not a requirement.
The 5600X is excellent value below 240$.

Yep, and 5600 non x will be even better value it seems.

You’re right too, Id get a new intel if the boards weren't so damn spendy. 9600k will have to keep rolling
 

yRaz

Posts: 4,400   +5,124
The average consumer doesn't NEED to know core count or clock speed. If they do, they'll do the research. What is 10 cores gonna tell the average consumer? That it can do 10 things at once? The salesman is going to tell them the same as they did with 4, 6, 8+ core parts. It will or it won't do what they want the computer for.
Average consumers are *****s. More=better, that's all they know. In laptops E-cores 100% makes sense. I'm all for E-cores in laptop parts, but in desktops those cores are kind of pointless. In a desktop they really only act as a marketing tactic. With videocards hitting 400Ws+ and the next gen nVidia cards said to be pushing 600watts I don't really think people care about power consumption. If you're going to drop a 3090 in a system why does an i9 need 8 efficiency cores?

On low end parts this also makes a lot of sense because it allows motherboard manufactures to reduce component costs and prebuilt systems can cut costs on things like powersupplies. E cores only make sense in 2 places, mobile computing and low end systems. Otherwise, the E-cores are just wasting silicon or space that could be used for Cache. Looking at some benchmarks, the i9's performance really has nothing to do with the extra e-cores and everything to do with cache size.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Doesn't really matter about which cores do what... Rich people want to know which CPU does things faster... and the rest of us want to know which CPU does things faster for a given price...

Alder Lake, despite misleading core counts, does things faster than AMD - and price is comparable... whether these "new" CPUs make a difference will depend on the prices AMD asks for...
 

nodfor

Posts: 236   +432
Average consumers are *****s. More=better, that's all they know. In laptops E-cores 100% makes sense. I'm all for E-cores in laptop parts, but in desktops those cores are kind of pointless. In a desktop they really only act as a marketing tactic. With videocards hitting 400Ws+ and the next gen nVidia cards said to be pushing 600watts I don't really think people care about power consumption. If you're going to drop a 3090 in a system why does an i9 need 8 efficiency cores?

On low end parts this also makes a lot of sense because it allows motherboard manufactures to reduce component costs and prebuilt systems can cut costs on things like powersupplies. E cores only make sense in 2 places, mobile computing and low end systems. Otherwise, the E-cores are just wasting silicon or space that could be used for Cache. Looking at some benchmarks, the i9's performance really has nothing to do with the extra e-cores and everything to do with cache size.
E cores have their role in desktops too, especially if they pack tons of them (16+)
In the old days you had to choose between high clock speeds (useful usually in gaming) or many cores at lower cores (productivity), this hybrid thing will be able to do both efficiently with one system.
But unless they can pack a lot of those e-cores (16, 24 or even 32), the AMD approach is currently better.
A 5900X or 5950X can deliver with solid efficiency and one type of core.
 
Last edited:

Sausagemeat

Posts: 1,597   +1,421
Average consumers are *****s. More=better, that's all they know. In laptops E-cores 100% makes sense. I'm all for E-cores in laptop parts, but in desktops those cores are kind of pointless. In a desktop they really only act as a marketing tactic. With videocards hitting 400Ws+ and the next gen nVidia cards said to be pushing 600watts I don't really think people care about power consumption. If you're going to drop a 3090 in a system why does an i9 need 8 efficiency cores?

On low end parts this also makes a lot of sense because it allows motherboard manufactures to reduce component costs and prebuilt systems can cut costs on things like powersupplies. E cores only make sense in 2 places, mobile computing and low end systems. Otherwise, the E-cores are just wasting silicon or space that could be used for Cache. Looking at some benchmarks, the i9's performance really has nothing to do with the extra e-cores and everything to do with cache size.
“Enthusiasts” are fools for putting too much weight on core count anyway. A 6 core R5 5600X matches the multithreaded performance of an 8 core R7 3700X. A quad core i3 12100 matches the multithreaded performance of an 8 core R7 1700X in some instances. And core count doesn’t affect several other performance metrics.

More cores doesn’t necessarily mean better and never has done. We should be looking at benchmarks and performance for what you are going to use it for and not the number of cores the manufacturer tells us it has. At best core count can give you a rough idea of performance relative to other parts using the same architecture.