AMD Strikes Back! 6 New CPU's to Combat Intel

JUNI0R

VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
Just before the end of AM3, AMD have striked back against Intel with 6 new CPU's to join the 5800X3D- The 5700X, 5600, 5500, 4600G 4500 and 4100.

With lower priced boards, this could really bring AMD back into contention for value builds!

FN5cvLDXEAYPS8j

FN5c6HuWYAggVEm
 

Scott

Behold The Ford Mondeo
Moderator
I'll be curious to see the figures but I don't see anything @ £150 competing with the 12400f (4.4Ghz) or £240 competing with the 12600Kf (4.9Ghz).

Clock for clock & £ for £ I just don't see it unfortunately.

I soooooooo want to be team red but Intel have gotten it right for the first time in a LONG time.

The 4600G is the only CPU of interest that I can see. The 4500/5500/5600 is just paying for a bin.
 

sck451

VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
I'll be curious to see the figures but I don't see anything @ £150 competing with the 12400f (4.4Ghz) or £240 competing with the 12600Kf (4.9Ghz).

Clock for clock & £ for £ I just don't see it unfortunately.

I soooooooo want to be team red but Intel have gotten it right for the first time in a LONG time.

The 4600G is the only CPU of interest that I can see. The 4500/5500/5600 is just paying for a bin.
I think they're probably of more interest to people upgrading from Ryzen 1000/2000, with 300-series boards that now have support for this generation for the first time. There's a market there for all of them, especially the 5700X and 4100.

Though clock speed between CPU manufacturers is of relatively limited importance, surely; it's the actual performance in applications/games that matters more.
 

Scott

Behold The Ford Mondeo
Moderator
I think they're probably of more interest to people upgrading from Ryzen 1000/2000, with 300-series boards that now have support for this generation for the first time. There's a market there for all of them, especially the 5700X and 4100.

Though clock speed between CPU manufacturers is of relatively limited importance, surely; it's the actual performance in applications/games that matters more.

Possibly but again, I don't see much of an upgrade in play.

With regards to the clock speed. The 12400f already surpasses the 5600x and the 12600k surpasses the 5800x so opting for lesser models with a lower clock speed would only lead to another L.

The 12 series matches the 5000 series ipc levels, thats why the clock speed matters.
 

barlew

MOST VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
No matter what you think of Intel you cannot deny that the 12 series CPU's are just ahead. The thing is without AMD's recent innovations you could probably argue that Intel would not have been forced to create a product that does perform so well.

You cant even argue the case that Ryzen is better for multi core workloads any more.
 

sck451

VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
Possibly but again, I don't see much of an upgrade in play.

With regards to the clock speed. The 12400kf already surpasses the 5600x and the 12600k surpasses the 5800x so opting for lesser models with a lower clock speed would only lead to another L.

The 12 series matches the 5000 series ipc levels, thats why the clock speed matters.
Oh, sure, comparing clock speed between CPUs of the same design (e.g. 5700X vs 5800X) makes sense. I'm not sure saying that Intel and AMD have matching IPC levels makes sense, though: there's more to performance than that (e.g. cache). But I do agree that none of these are especially compelling.

As I say, I think the main argument for these CPUs is if you have something like a 2600X and want a cheapish upgrade. The 5500 and 5700X are both quite compelling, while a second-hand board could make the 4100 quite a good deal. But I don't see much argument in their favour for new builds like we talk about on this forum!
 

SpyderTracks

We love you Ukraine
Moderator
No matter what you think of Intel you cannot deny that the 12 series CPU's are just ahead. The thing is without AMD's recent innovations you could probably argue that Intel would not have been forced to create a product that does perform so well.

You cant even argue the case that Ryzen is better for multi core workloads any more.
Intel did a good job with 12th gen, but there are a few considerations, when you factor in power to performance, they're neck and neck with Ryzen 5000 which is a year older but way behind when you factor in the 12900k. Plus temps are extremely high.

On it's own it's not much of a consideration, but it makes you wonder how they're going to do the next iteration which would normally just be marginal overclock with perhaps some extra L3 cache. They can't do that with 12th gen, there's no headroom, it's already maxxing out.
 

barlew

MOST VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
Intel did a good job with 12th gen, but there are a few considerations, when you factor in power to performance, they're neck and neck with Ryzen 5000 which is a year older but way behind when you factor in the 12900k. Plus temps are extremely high.

On it's own it's not much of a consideration, but it makes you wonder how they're going to do the next iteration which would normally just be marginal overclock with perhaps some extra L3 cache. They can't do that with 12th gen, there's no headroom, it's already maxxing out.
I get where you are coming from but personally if I were to build a high end gaming tower right now I would be taking a properly cooled 12900k over a 5950X.

I get that it takes much more power but the performance gain just can't be ignored.

I am still waiting for AMD to come out with the next huge innovation press release but it just hasn't happend yet.
 

SpyderTracks

We love you Ukraine
Moderator
I get where you are coming from but personally if I were to build a high end gaming tower right now I would be taking a properly cooled 12900k over a 5950X.

I get that it takes much more power but the performance gain just can't be ignored.

I am still waiting for AMD to come out with the next huge innovation press release but it just hasn't happend yet.
I'd wait with the 5800x3d for half the money. Makes sense. They're far more comparable chips being released around the same time frame.

EDIT: The release date has been announced by AMD along with these chips as the 20th April for the 5800x3D and it's supposed to outperform the 12900k for half the money, although we've heard all these marketting hypes before from all of them, so 3rd party reviews are the only viable source.


Obviously 7000 series aren't going to be announced til mid summer for release in September, but I'm sure I saw rumours that AMD are ahead of schedule with manufacturing and may bring forward the release to July / August in order to get ahead of Intel's September release.
 
Last edited:

Scott

Behold The Ford Mondeo
Moderator
I won't be going down the Intel route personally, at least I hope I won't. I have high hopes for the next gen from AMD, given their track record, so I'm holding out for something decent from them.

I must admit that this release from AMD feels very 2020 Intel though, that's the one blemish that I will say I'm not happy with. They're just re-hashing and re-packaging their product with a cut down price/performance level to bring in more sales without compromising the integrity of their original part pricing. I don't like this, I know it's a business and business models are there to make money but this is the sort of marketing that Intel took the heat for, deservedly, and quite vocally on this very forum over the 9/10/11k series. They were stalling so that they could introduce their actual next offering which was the 12 series. I think it's also a little less than they had hoped though, as my guess is they wanted the node size smaller, but had to stop the rot.

The 5800X3D seems reactive as well, it's very much what I see as half a launch in order to try and eek out the time. Sure it may get on top in some gaming tests, but that's what Intel held onto for long enough as well with marketing nonsense to dupe consumers.

When the next gen comes out I'm simply hoping for business as usual and get back to the more favoured, IMO, marketing and product introduction.

With regards to multi-tasking, I still think the 5950X is the best of the bunch. There's not as much in it as there should be, looking at the core counts, but for the main tasks that you would want such a beast of a CPU in play it still eeks out the 12900k for me (and going by most reviews).
 

JUNI0R

VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
First reviews are dropping of these new CPU's. the 5600 non-X looks like an okay choice- performance is pretty similar to the X with a slightly cheaper price tag- the generally cheaper board prices for AMD systems might help it fight back a little bit here but an EOL platform won't. The 5500 though? best we don't talk about that 😬 Seems you should probably just avoid any AMD product in the 500 tier 😂 TLDR: It's on par with or behind the the 12100 for more money


 

Scott

Behold The Ford Mondeo
Moderator
Even on paper I couldn't see it going any other way to be honest.
 

sck451

VALUED CONTRIBUTOR
The 5500 seems very undesirable in a new system. I can see the argument for an upgrade to, say, a 2600-based system on a low budget, though the 5600 still seems more appealing.
 

DarTon

Well-known member
As I implied on another thread, it's the 5700X that is the most interesting since it should give performance very close to the 5800X but with a TDP of 65W should be able to use a lower end board with cheaper cooler. It won't be able to compete with the single core performance of the 12600K but with 8 performance cores rather than the 6+4 approach in the 12600K it may well look good on a multi core basis. It could well be an ideal mixed use type CPU.

This doesn't take away though from the fact that AMD could have released the 5700X much earlier (and also allowed the 5800 and 5900 to be offered to retail insteasd of just the likes of Dell). They have no interest though in lower end products given their capacity constraints which was totally self inflicted by their short sightedness a decade ago. It's looking even more silly now given the geo-political situation.
 
Top