they came in and out of stock at newegg/amazon fairly often through the week. 5600 and 5800 seems to be okayish compare to 59x0.
We’ll see how this week plays out.
Sadly what I was after was the Ryzen 9 5900x. I’ve been trying very hard to get one and I feel like I’m trying to catch a leprechaun.
If I can get my hands on one by January? I will return my i9 10900k. If not? It’s not the end of the world it’s not like I’m on a bad CPU
by that point you may as well wait until rocketlake in March and AMD will make sure their supply chains are fully stocked at that point
Well the thing is… Where I bought my processor from has extended their return policy until January 31st. So if I can get my hands on one prior I can literally return my processor and motherboard, then I can get an AMD one without spending any more money. Everything I have in my rig is compatible with both
1 Like
well then your argument is with techspot/hardwareunboxed although I do agree with them
Techspot/Hardwareunboxed isn’t wrong per se, they’re not giving a full picture.
The problem is how to get more performance out of a CPU. Giving a CPU more cores is one way to get more performance but it’s not the best way due to physics.
Here’s a white paper correctly predicting the predicament we have today.
"Speeding up processor frequency had run its course in the earlier part of this decade; computer architects needed a new approach to improve performance. Adding an additional processing core to the same chip would, in theory, result in twice the performance and dissipate less heat, though in practice the actual speed of each core is slower than the fastest single core processor. In September 2005 the IEE Review noted that “power consumption increases by 60% with every 400MHz rise in clock speed…But the dual-core approach means you can get a significant boost in performance without the need to run at ruinous clock rates.”
http://cse.unl.edu/~seth/990/Pubs/multicore-review.pdf
Intel wrote a really good white paper on the bottlenecks of the memory subsystem about a decade ago. That’s how future Xeons are tackling the issue: less cores but much higher IPC by improving the memory subsystem.
I’ve read the white paper and it seems you are agreeing with techspot/HU.
Was the message they (really Steve Walton) are trying to convey, in my opinion. If gaming was all about multicore CPUs we would all be running the Ryzen 1800x and shaking our firsts at AMD for giving us the blasphemous Ryzen 3300x & 5600x.
I’m definitely agreeing, just saying there’s a lot more to the topic than the simplified message they give.
CPUs are made faster in certain ways (adding cores, cache, faster memory etc). How much that benefits depends on the total speed of the processor and the software running on it.
An 1800X is faster than a 3300x depending on how the software stack and OS uses the CPU:
https://preview.redd.it/k34dpknbeoh51.png?width=662&format=png&auto=webp&s=e5148e6dc459aeedd237998a9d762b38a97ca743
Linux (and Mac) has a better scheduler than Windows and runs WoW 20% faster:
https://youtu.be/V2_LlSaYNUo?t=70
A single core CPU with the highest instructions per second would be best. We’ve hit a physics bottleneck so we had to look at other ways around the problem (ie more cores and faster memory).
I wonder at what point “more power” won’t be the answer, and instead, smarter programming or more efficient tech will.
For example, in the 70s and 80s, you had huge displacement gas guzzling V8s (albeit somewhat due to the fuel crisis and detuning) that put out a whole lot of nothing. Compared to today, we have super low displacement turbo 4 cylinders that will mop the floor with these older V8s while sipping fuel (well, mostly)
Not saying we’ll just suddenly learn about FI on CPUs, but perhaps the video game market will learn to optimize better, use less demanding engines, and produce good games without the need for more power.
Perhaps the start of that here is the DLSS type stuff, along with dynamic resolution.
1 Like
That’s already happening today. APIs are Vulkan/DX12 are forcing better use of existing hardware.
2 Likes
But then we get these AAA titles like AC Valhalla just tearing through hardware.
So despite all that, there’s still a market for maximizing realism/visuals over efficiency I guess.
Efficiency is generally not considered until end of a programming project. They want to identify where they can spend the time and get perf.
Think of Witcher 3. When it 1st released you needed two $1000 Titan cards to see hair on a horse butt. After a slew of patches and drivers you needed like a $200 card to run reasonably.
AC will probably follow a similar effort.
Is that due to optimization, or just the progression of future hardware to give generational leaps?
AC: OD still runs like crap on my Vega 64, even years later. It runs better on a 5600XT, as its just faster/more gaming focused architecture.
Little bit of everything.
Optimizations happen to games over time as do driver optimizations. Most of it comes down to how much money and effort companies want to invest in a project.
VEGA 64 is pretty neglected on Windows (heck Linux has ac culling in drivers). Navi1 gets more support but it’s also an easier arch to use for gaming compared to VEGA. Naturally devs are going to optimize for Navi as it’s easier to use and the present hardware vs VEGA.
1 Like
UPDATE!!!
Just snagged a Ryzen 7 5800x for $529 on ebay!
I am so happy! I can now return my i9 10900k and motherboard. I know MSRP is $450 but it wasn’t that bad of a price hike considering most scalpers are asking $650. He has it in hand and is shipping it 2-Day Air tomorrow!
Grats. I guess you got hit by too much poison.
Enjoy!
2 Likes
dont judge me bro
It was worth it to finally be able to join the red team on Zen3. I really didnt pay that much over retail. That price includes tax. He was asking 495$
Retail is 450$ without tax.
Cool. Hope you score a good silicon lottery so you can OC it a lot.
My 5900X not great.
Good luck.