Ryzen 5 5600X laying a beatdown on i5-10600K

Daniel_Doty

"stinger608"
Staff member
Joined
Aug 9, 2020
Messages
276
Points
43
Well, for what it's worth, over at Tom's Hardware, there is an article that shows the new Ryzen 5600X knocking the crap out of the i5-10600K

After previously sharing benchmark results for the Ryzen 9 5950X, @Tum_Apisak has done it again. This time around, the chip detective uncovered submissions for the Ryzen 5 5600X, which will likely battle it out with Intel's Core i5-10600K.

Here's literally everything we know about the Ryzen 5000 series, both official and unofficial, but for a bit of a quick introduction, the Ryzen 5 5600X comes wielding six Zen 3 cores with 12 threads, 32MB of L3 cache, and base and boost clock speeds of 3.7 GHz and 4.6 GHz, respectively. The Core i5-10600K, which also has a six-core, 12-thread design, has 12MB of L3 cache and features a 4.1 GHz base clock and 4.8 GHz boost clock.
 

Ready4Droid

Sort-of-Regular
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
132
Points
28
Yes, in general the 5600x is probably more closely compared to the 10700k performance wise (even though price wise it's closer to the 10600k). Makes sense it'll beat the 10600k. Will see if Intel drops prices early November, but I wouldn't be surprised if the 10700k ends up closer to $300 and 10600k ends up near $250, otherwise either one of those would be a really hard sell.
 

Auer

FPS Regular
Joined
Jul 2, 2019
Messages
1,042
Points
113
I know that personally I won't be looking at a Intel CPU for at least another year.
As a 4K gamer I can stay a few generations behind, at least for now.
 

Stoly

Semi-regular
Joined
Sep 18, 2020
Messages
952
Points
93
not upgrading till maybe sometime early next year, but the ryzen5 is on the top of the list.
 

MacLeod

Quasi-regular
Joined
Jul 23, 2019
Messages
261
Points
43
That's good news and all but with the price increase, the $300 5600X is what looks to be around 20% faster than a $250 10600K. I guess it would just be bigger news to me if the 5600X was the same price as the 10600K. 20% faster at 20% more cost isn't that groundbreaking to me.
 

Ready4Droid

Sort-of-Regular
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
132
Points
28
That's good news and all but with the price increase, the $300 5600X is what looks to be around 20% faster than a $250 10600K. I guess it would just be bigger news to me if the 5600X was the same price as the 10600K. 20% faster at 20% more cost isn't that groundbreaking to me.
I mean... The 10700k is closer in performance to the 5600x.. so maybe that's be more fair to compare price wise? $349 without iGPU... And less than 1/2 the power draw, almost 1/3 (88w compared to 229w). Nobody complained that the 10700k was only 20% faster than the 10600k and wanted $350-$380... Now that's it's AMD everyone is super concerned that it's $50 less than that for about the same performance and that's not good enough, lol. Oh well, you can't make everyone happy. I'm sure we'll see where the $/perf falls soon enough. Also if you don't want to pay that much for the 5600x, then wait for the 5600 non X... Rumored to be $220, which should easily handle the 10600k, but you'll have to wait a bit as they're only releasing the higher end stuff first. Probably won't see the 5600 till Q1 is my guess.
 

MacLeod

Quasi-regular
Joined
Jul 23, 2019
Messages
261
Points
43
I mean... The 10700k is closer in performance to the 5600x.. so maybe that's be more fair to compare price wise? $349 without iGPU... And less than 1/2 the power draw, almost 1/3 (88w compared to 229w). Nobody complained that the 10700k was only 20% faster than the 10600k and wanted $350-$380... Now that's it's AMD everyone is super concerned that it's $50 less than that for about the same performance and that's not good enough, lol. Oh well, you can't make everyone happy. I'm sure we'll see where the $/perf falls soon enough. Also if you don't want to pay that much for the 5600x, then wait for the 5600 non X... Rumored to be $220, which should easily handle the 10600k, but you'll have to wait a bit as they're only releasing the higher end stuff first. Probably won't see the 5600 till Q1 is my guess.

That's because the i7 line is usually in the $300+ range so no real news there. Bumping the price up on an already pricier product isn't that big a deal. The problem is that the 3600X was largely considered the perfect gaming build CPU dollar for dollar. They could usually be found for close to $200 AND don't forget that it came with a Wraith Spire cooler which was a capable cooler that could easily handle some light overclocking and saved you an additional $30-50. So you're potentially saving $150 on your build by going with a 3600X which could go towards a faster GPU or a larger SSD or something else. Now they've bumped the price up to $300 AND no longer include the cooler. Now the 5600X is no longer the perfect gaming build CPU. Now it's no different than a comparable Intel CPU.

Is it the end of the world? No. Does it mean nobody will buy it? No. But it does mean that the for 3 generations, the #600X CPU was an ideal product. Now it's not really any different than an Intel CPU...$20 more expensive than the 10600K and depending on how the 11000 series performs, there may not be too many reasons to buy one. I think it's justifiable that a lot of us aren't fans of that.
 

Ready4Droid

Sort-of-Regular
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
132
Points
28
I understand, but my point was performance is going to be a good bit higher than a 10600k... why do people expect to pay so much less? With the 3600x it didn't always keep up, so it was hard to justify that it should cost more... if it can perform like a 10700k and come in $50 cheaper than it, I feel like that's a good deal. If they want a $200 CPU, they can wait for the 5600 which is going to still beat a 10600k and come in at $220. Intel and Nvidia margins are 50% higher than AMD's.... I'm not sure why people think AMD should be a charity. I understand if they are not competitive performance wise they are going to have to sell cheaper to get sales. If they are faster in every metric, this is no longer the case.

5600x Single Thread outscores the 10900k in Passmark.... which is a $550 CPU. Why on earth do people feel like they should be able to pick them up for $180? And it does so while drawing around 1/3 the power. I think people are stuck thinking 3600x performance when thinking of 5600x price. I know year on year we should expect more performance for a similar price, but the 5600 non-x will easily outrun a current 3600x. As I said, everyone keeps comparing it to being $20 more than a 10600k... but that's really not going to be the performance category, the 5600 non x will be $220, so cheaper than a 10600k and still out run it. The 5600x should be compared to the 10700k, which it is cheaper by $50. So you are still getting more performance per $$ than Intel and for most of their previous line. I do agree the 5600x is a bit expensive since it went up the same $50 as a 5950x, maybe it should have only jumped $25, but again, if you compare to other offerings in the same performance bracket, it's a win in $/perf.

https://www.techspot.com/news/87265-amd-ryzen-5-5600x-ripper-notches-top-spot.html
Obviously, this is passmark, not the end all be all, but it's a good indicator that AMD has closed the single core gap.
 

Brian_B

FPS Enthusiast
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
5,152
Points
113
Like @MacLeod says, I am concerned the price per tier is going up. There's no rule or law that says the tiers have to stay static priced, but the convention has been that price tiers stay or more less intact with respect to price, and you get a generation over generation performance improvement for that same price.

That being said - at least they didn't pull a Turing and gratuitously crank up the price just because they could. Intel is still keeping AMD honest here, and a competetive response from Intel could easily pull the pricing right back down. I don't blame AMD for trying to get some margin out of it while they can, and for the performance increase we see coming with Zen3, the additional markup seems justified compared to the previous generation.

So... I see both sides, I agree with both sides. I'm somewhat conflicted I suppose
 

SmokeRngs

Sort-of-Regular
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
140
Points
43
Like @MacLeod says, I am concerned the price per tier is going up. There's no rule or law that says the tiers have to stay static priced, but the convention has been that price tiers stay or more less intact with respect to price, and you get a generation over generation performance improvement for that same price.

That being said - at least they didn't pull a Turing and gratuitously crank up the price just because they could. Intel is still keeping AMD honest here, and a competetive response from Intel could easily pull the pricing right back down. I don't blame AMD for trying to get some margin out of it while they can, and for the performance increase we see coming with Zen3, the additional markup seems justified compared to the previous generation.

So... I see both sides, I agree with both sides. I'm somewhat conflicted I suppose
My problem is that the price hike is the same no matter the CPU. That's what doesn't make sense. A $50 increase on the top end CPU is little more than added pocket change compared to the old price of the same tier. $50 added onto the value CPU end is way more than pocket change when compared to the price of the tier before.

I do not have an issue with AMD charging more for new CPUs, especially when we're looking at a considerable increase in performance and having performance overall which is quite a bit better than the competition.

My issue is the % of increase on the low end is huge compared to the increase at the high end.
 

Ready4Droid

Sort-of-Regular
Joined
Jul 9, 2019
Messages
132
Points
28
My problem is that the price hike is the same no matter the CPU. That's what doesn't make sense. A $50 increase on the top end CPU is little more than added pocket change compared to the old price of the same tier. $50 added onto the value CPU end is way more than pocket change when compared to the price of the tier before.

I do not have an issue with AMD charging more for new CPUs, especially when we're looking at a considerable increase in performance and having performance overall which is quite a bit better than the competition.

My issue is the % of increase on the low end is huge compared to the increase at the high end.

I don't disagree with this completely, $25 on the low end and $50 on the upper would have made more sense, but really we're talking $300 for a CPU that should beat a $350 Intel CPU in just about every metric, yet we complain that it's priced way to high. Where was this concern/complaining on price when Intel released their CPUs? It's as if everyone just expects AMD to keep selling cheap parts while Intel keeps their profit margin much higher without a peep. I would much prefer to pay less for more, as consumers that tends to be how we operate. So, while I agree I would like them to keep prices lower, I also completely understand why they aren't. They are trying to shake the old mantra of being the "Cheap Alternative", and selling things much cheaper than your competition isn't the way to do that. Getting into a pricing war takes their already slim margins and puts them back into a place they prefer not go again. Intel has ~60% margins, AMD has 40% margins... they will sell all of their products produced by TSMC whether it's $250 or $300... what does selling cheaper get them as a company? They don't get more market share as they can only produce so much stock... all they do is cut their profit margins. Sure maybe Intel will respond, more likely AMD will be sold out and CPU's will be sold at > MSRP anyways, so Intel will do nothing, AMD will get none of the markups and you'll end up paying the same anyways, except you'd be giving it to 3rd party retailers who aren't going to dump any R&D money into AMDs next chip.
 

SmokeRngs

Sort-of-Regular
Joined
May 31, 2019
Messages
140
Points
43
I don't disagree with this completely, $25 on the low end and $50 on the upper would have made more sense, but really we're talking $300 for a CPU that should beat a $350 Intel CPU in just about every metric, yet we complain that it's priced way to high. Where was this concern/complaining on price when Intel released their CPUs? It's as if everyone just expects AMD to keep selling cheap parts while Intel keeps their profit margin much higher without a peep. I would much prefer to pay less for more, as consumers that tends to be how we operate. So, while I agree I would like them to keep prices lower, I also completely understand why they aren't. They are trying to shake the old mantra of being the "Cheap Alternative", and selling things much cheaper than your competition isn't the way to do that. Getting into a pricing war takes their already slim margins and puts them back into a place they prefer not go again. Intel has ~60% margins, AMD has 40% margins... they will sell all of their products produced by TSMC whether it's $250 or $300... what does selling cheaper get them as a company? They don't get more market share as they can only produce so much stock... all they do is cut their profit margins. Sure maybe Intel will respond, more likely AMD will be sold out and CPU's will be sold at > MSRP anyways, so Intel will do nothing, AMD will get none of the markups and you'll end up paying the same anyways, except you'd be giving it to 3rd party retailers who aren't going to dump any R&D money into AMDs next chip.
But consider the corollary. A smaller price increase on the lower end parts will increase desirability over a larger price increase. AMD seems to have plenty of stock so selling more CPUs is only a good thing and any increase in price is going to mean more revenue and profit unless the new CPUs are somehow much more expensive to produce. Pointing at Intel's prices as if they must be the standard is the wrong way to look at it. With enough price/performance advantage AMD can still increase prices at smaller increments on the lower end while still beating the piss out of Intel. Intel would likely need to drop prices in order to compete properly because Intel can't afford to the lose the market share. AMD would will be making more per CPU while likely increasing market share a bit while Intel loses profit due to needing to drop prices. Who do you think benefits more in that scenario? AMD making more money than ever while Intel makes less money.

This also isn't a zero sum game. Neither AMD nor Intel is selling every single CPU they make otherwise no one would be getting their hands on either. That means there's elasticity in market share which means there's price competition possible. No matter what AMD needs to continue increasing market share. Increased market share does more than just put money directly into AMD's coffers. Increased marketshare gives AMD more clout when it comes to fabs and fab space which can mean cheaper fab costs in the long run as long as AMD can keep increasing demand for their products. A regular and stable customer with a large and increasing marketshare gives that company better leverage in many ways.

I'll say it just one last time. The same $ increase on lower end CPUs as higher end CPUs is stupid considering the large differences in % increase. It considerably lowers the value of the value end of the CPU line; the main place where pricing is most important.
 

Brian_B

FPS Enthusiast
Joined
May 28, 2019
Messages
5,152
Points
113
I'll wait and see what all the SKUs and pricing ends up shaking out to be before I get too worried about it. What is currently on top of the single threaded benchmark isn't exactly a value-oriented CPU, I have a feeling more budget-oriented SKUs and pricing will fall down.
 

LazyGamer

FPS Regular
Joined
Sep 5, 2020
Messages
1,720
Points
113
What is currently on top of the single threaded benchmark isn't exactly a value-oriented CPU
In general, if you can get an Intel CPU into the 5.1GHz+ range, you're at roughly peak single-threaded performance today.

That's really the biggest reason I haven't jumped to AMD for any of my current builds. I'd be going backward in terms of single-threaded performance, and I don't... need more cores. Yet.

At the same time, I also don't really recommend Intel either these days. Anyone I've met that would want Intel for what Intel does best (still) know that's what they want already and why. Everyone else, well, it's hard to knock the great performance per core with reasonably priced cores, up to sixteen on AM4, that AMD delivers.
 
Become a Patron!
Top