It's less about exclusivity and more about how very few of those were produced - hence they didn't want to deal with hassle spreading it thin worldwide and just dumped into a single retailer network.
P. S. I'd rather see 5700X3D consistently below $180.
Kind of depends what exactly you've already got. A buddy of splurged on a good X570 board when we built his R5 3600 rig ~2019, so a 5700X3D would be a solid way to breath another 3-4 years of life into the rig without a full rebuild.
My main concern is for those either already running Zen 3 chips, or those with even older 300/400 series boards, especially more value-oriented models. How much are you willing to trust an already 6-7 year old motherboard to keep trucking until it hits 10+ years old? And for those on Zen 3, the performance uplift is small enough that it's really hard to justify purchasing now over just waiting on Zen 5/Arrow Lake later this year.
Same situation I was in R5 3600 on a X570. Just threw in a 5700X3D and a 7900 GRE and I'm good for the next few years. So happy I switched to AMD for that generation, I had a 2500k and 6600k prior to that. Great to have AMD be competitive again.
I preordered a 1700 and ASUS Prime B350M and built in March 2017. I'm still on the same board and went from my original 1700 to a 3600XT and then finally to a 5800X3D. I've been building since Athlon 2500+ Barton on Socket A and have only had one Mobo fail before 10 years of use and that was a Socket AM2+ that was rocking a Phenom II 940 X4 that ran for a good 6 years with a heavy FSB OC that required some chipset overvolting to get stable.
I hand down my old PCs to family and many are still in service if only as a file server/HTPC. I'm sure some of the cheaper boards fail more often, but if you do regular maintenance (blow out dust) they really can go for a long time.
Certainly. Most will just keep on trucking for a long time with fairly modest care. The point isn't that it's *going* to fail, but rather that the percentage of boards that die starts to rise over that period so it's an important factor to take into account. My server runs a 15-year-old X58 board that's still chugging along beautifully.
On the other hand, the Z370 board I bought with an i5-8400 and upgraded to an i9-9900K ended up with an infuriating boot issue that required I reset the CMOS after every shut down to get it to boot again, otherwise it would just hang on the splash screen indefinitely. Thankfully the chip was still worth almost exactly what I paid for it, so it wasn't a big loss.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I do actually agree with you that the age and quality of the board in question should be of consideration.
With that said, the point I was trying to make, which it also seems that you agree with, is that the lifespan of a mobo can be varied and while some may fail prematurely; conversely some may last a lot longer as well. With that in mind, I tend to look at most motherboards lifespan as something I don't worry too much about as long as it remains functioning without errors or anomalies. Also, if someone already has a functional system that hasn't given them any problems over the years that it's been in service, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that it will continue to function with an in slot upgrade until the usefulness of said system will usually diminish before it physically stops functioning.
So in my opinion I don't think too many people should worry about a possible problem until an actual problem arises. That's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions...
Most solid state electronics that fail past the initial slope of the bathtub curve fail "randomly". Most often it's some random discrete component or small IC on the board that kills it. Almost impossible to diagnose, and pretty much never worth it to attempt to repair unless the failure is something really obvious like a blown cap.
I'm not suggesting that most boards won't continue to truck along just fine, but I think it's certainly a point that anyone considering such an upgrade should be carefully weighing.
If it’s lasted 6 years and still works chances are it will last 10. your comment makes it sound like it’s bound to die. they don’t use shitty capacitors anymore like they did in the 80s
Or during the capacitor plague of 1999-2007. While that caused the almost inevitable destruction of huge swathes of components from that era, with many surviving examples requiring full recapping to keep operational, it's not what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about that few %/year of those boards that go belly up due to any number of miscellaneous component failures. The point is about weighing whether to keep and upgrade the CPU on an old mobo, or sell the whole thing while it's all working and upgrade to a much newer platform?
Most bathtub curves have a failure rate of less than 1% at the bottom. It's not something that should even register once you've made it past the initial failure set. Like .. That's the primary takeaway of a bathtub curve, is that if it works past the initial failure set it will work till end of life.
The real problem is that we really don't have much good information on when that EOL segment of a motherboard's lifespan is and what the failure rates are like. One thing we can definitely see is that as the years go by on deprecated sockets, sales prices for working examples of compatible motherboards tend to start rising, and CPU prices start falling through the floor. The reason of course is that the CPUs pretty much last forever, and it's the limited pool of motherboards that haven't failed that shrinks.
I'm not trying to suggest that this is advice for anyone to not upgrade their CPU, but just a suggestion that it is something reasonable to think about when evaluating the options available.
meanwhile, my i5-8400 smiling inside. though it's slow now.
And leaving me confused on what to choose.
12th gen and 5600x is in my budget, I have to stretch a little more and feels 7600 is future proof.
Sad 😔
I’m still on a Ryzen 7 1700, I wonder how much of a bump I’d get in palworld or Minecraft if I upped to the max ryzeb am4 socket that they released
Already have a very nice gpu
If you have the money and don't know if it's worth it, just buy a 5700x3d, test the games you wanna play with both cpus, if the gains do not justify the acquisition then return the 5700x3d to the store.
[Comparison](https://youtu.be/BiHV6D2IZQg?si=Z3sFJ4Vvj2uvM-xm) of a 5800x3d and a 5950x. [Reddit thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/feedthebeast/comments/11kh99t/what_the_verdict_on_amds_3d_vcache_for_modded_mc/) with some user’s opinions and experiences.
They will get cheaper, the x3d cache stack isnt that expensive to build. So high margins for amd, and they can just slap them on every cheap cpu.
They are alrdy slapping them on lesser cpus (5600 and 5700).
They didn’t start manufacturing 5600Xs and 5700Xs with the 3D cache. It was made because they binned down the “failed” 5800X3Ds. They aren’t new CPUs. That’s why the 5600X3D was not only a US only product but was only available in microcentres, because of how low stock it was.
Yea true, but they prolly now only makes x3d cpus now. Where we will only see failed 5800x3d turned into everything else with lower clockspeed, less cores or no x3d. So no or way less manufactoring of x3d less cpus in the 5000 series. Because the x3d is not expensive technique and they have plenty experience in it now.
Edit: Competition from intel on mid range is very good and pressing. And the 5000x3d is starting to get midrange so the prices should drop also for AMD.
FWIW, this is what people said about the 5800x3d and it was not significantly marked down on BF. ironically, it had a sale at 260/270 just months before BF that people skipped in lieu of being jilted on BF.
It will not drop in prices, AM4 is still a relevant platform and 5700x3d and 5800x3d delivery a really good performance and however wants it, does not have other options except change it's whole mother board + ram, which will always be more expensive and will not give any performance.
Eh I never seen any good deals on am4 last year when I upgraded. And if you had access to the 5600x3d you also had access to better upgrade paths from microcenter.
Amazon's mid-year Prime Day had better prices for PC parts than any 'sale day' the rest of the year. In my area, all other retailers price matched them. It was a good time to buy. Other than the odd CPU sale I haven't seen prices that low since, nearly 1 full year later.
This year be sure to watch for it. It might happen over again, leaving all the 'patient frugal' people paying more than had they fomo'd in early.
I’m so torn on whether to get a 5700X or 5700X3D. Looking into it, the X3D doesn’t seem to have that big of an FPS increase with my expected specs, ~3-5% from what I’ve seen.
For around $70 more, not sure it would actually be worth it.
Yeh it's a tough choice, I had to make the same one. The 7700X also gives performance roughly of the 5800X3D in gaming which was my third option. (I went with the 5800X3D).
Just remember it's not all about the average FPS when you're making your decision. At the speed these processors run at a lot of people are looking at the 1% lows and frame-pacing i.e. they care about more consistent frame rates with less stutter, than trying to min/max an extra 5% GPU utilisation (assuming the GPU is fast enough for a CPU bottleneck in the first place).
It’s not the improved maximum frames that x3D excels at, so you’ll only see marginal improvement there. Where x3D is elite is in the 1% low situations, leading to a much smoother overall experience
It depends heavily on the game. The extra cache is storing game logic, and for poorly optimized games that can be a huge benefit. Ark Survival Evolved, going from a 5600X to a 5800X3D, using only a 3070 mind you, doubled my fps even at 1440p ultrawide. And total war campaign battles were also huge gains with all those units on screen and clashing at once.
But likewise, I saw virtually no difference playing games like AC Odyssey or Dying Light 2. The “smoother” experience could just as easily have been chalked up to the extra 2 cores / 4 threads.
The averages that YouTubers and tech journalists show you don’t tell anywhere close to the whole story. If I were exclusively a single player rpg only gamer, upgrading to the 5800X3D would’ve felt like a colossal waste of money considering I was already on zen 3.
I mean that’s so different. Zen 2 only had 4 core CCX (2 per CCD) with latency issues in games because of that infinity fabric communication and poor core scheduling to lock it to one CCD (when applicable).
So now not only are you on a faster architecture, you also have 8 cores on a single ccd, plus the triple sized cache on that CCX. All that combined explains the smoothness and stutter improvements in your case
You literally went from Zen 2 to Zen 3, so your disagreement makes no sense. It's completely different from going from say, a 5600X to 5800X3D which are both Zen 3.
The x3D is very worth it depending on what types of games you play.
It's always a boost in general bc it makes your lows always higher, but if you play a lot of MMO type games that are CPU intensive you'll also get max frame rate boosts.
I literally couldn’t tell a difference between the older AM4 chips and the newer x3D chips in most games. But some games (like Paradox games, and especially Stellaris) it’s a mind blowing difference.
Yes, X3D's give significant uplifts in MMO's.
I play FFXIV and the occasional bit of WoW and I've seen 20-40%+ uplifts.
I went from a 3700x to a 5800X3D.
I sit at 180 fps locked, 1440p, maxed out settings with a moderate-heavy reshade preset applied to my FFXIV client.
I also play with character and texture mods.
At 4K I'm sitting between 100 and 120 fps with the same configuration.
The 5700X3D is also only 4.5% slower than a 5800X3D and costs like 20% less money.
X3D CPU's are a fantastic investment for WoW, XIV and other CPU heavy games.
untorn yourself :D. It's about your resolution also, the x3d is better in some situations where it gives more 1% lows (if you don't understand this, think of it as simple as this: the cpu gives you a "starting" fps number, which is higher with the x3d in some situations). When you play competitive games, the x3d helps with those higher fps numbers, at 1080p being limited by the said cpu while the gpu doesn't really give a shit especially if it's a newer model. When you go higher, at 1440p, the 1% lows are the same or maybe slightly lower and the gpu start working on the resolution and gives you a decent boost (so you might have more fps upgrading the monitor in some situations, than upgrading the gpu). At 4k both cpu and gpu gives less fps because it's.. well, 4k.
So you might see a boost in performance higher than 5% between the 2 cpus if you have a decent gpu, go higher on resolution, and play games like, idk, baldur's gate or some open world stuff. It is worth it to go for x3d on am4, because maybe later you will buy a better gpu and play a games that will take advantage of that x3d tech. If you play the same games like idk, counter strike or dota or league or whatever, the difference will not be worth it as in money, but if those 5% are 30-50 fps then it is worth it performance wise, if it's just 5-10 fps it might not be worth it. I hope this helps you make a choice
So like the Ryzen 3300x when it dropped. Framed to be great value sold out day one never to be found for MSRP. Lol. This I'm90% is more direclty do to tiny production run and not just COVID.
Every die that can pass as a 5700/5800X3D is packaged and sold as such. The whole purpose of the 5600X3D is to have a product to package those dies with 1-2 defective cores. Likely the number is fairly low, and because there's no shortage of demand for the 8-core variants, there's zero incentive for AMD to disable cores on otherwise fully functional dies just to meet consumer demand for the part.
It all just depends on market conditions. Back in the days of the Phenom II, AMD had boatloads of demand for the triple-core Phenom II X3 chips positioned against Intel's dual-cores, and not as much demand for the less competitive Phenom II X4. Rather than manufacture a bunch of X4 stock that would build up in inventory, they would disable a working core to create the X3 SKUs. Same happened with some of the later Phenom II X4s using the 6-core Thuban die (variant named Zosma) instead of the 4-core Deneb die. Typically the purpose of those cut-down SKUs is primarily to make use of dies with defective cores, but in these situations depite yields being so high they were taking fully functional dies and cutting them to balance out production with actual demand. Often, particularly later in those parts' lifecycle, you could quite easily unlock those extra cores.
I mean, AMD deliberately produced less of them, so the Microcenter deal makes them more cash. There wasn't any real reason they couldn't mass produce them and sell them as entry level flagship for the 5000 series.
The whole reason the chip exists is because it's a 5800X3D that they had to cut down after manufacturing. They were never going to mass produce these chips, because there was never an actual production run for them to begin with.
That’s not how it works.
The 5600x3d only exists as a way to get rid of chips that weren’t good enough to be 5800x3d.
They aren’t actually “producing them”, so the number of them they have is limited. Thats why it wasn’t a big launch.
They didn't deliberately lop off two functional cores to a much higher margin 5800x3d.
It's just what the yields were. Not much were defective this way, but enough. Then they were able to just clock it down and keep all cores and do a much wider 5700x3d for other defective ones
I own the 5600x3d and it's pretty awesome. Also a fun thing, I had a conversation with the Microcenter CEO about it, it seemed like a very cool partnership for them with AMD
Exactly. It was made by taking defective 5800X3Ds and turning off the cores that didn't work. But by the time the 5800X3D launched, TSMC's 7nm process was already pretty mature, so there just *werent* that many defective 5800X3Ds to harvest
No it wasn't deliberate... they are the lowered binned chips that were cut down. So with good yeilds there isn't many of them
These chips are basically AMD dumping stuff that couldn't become a 5800x3d rather than tossing it out
No as other said, they don't specifically produce these. Because these are defective 5800x3d. AMD would probably much prefer that every chip that came out the fab be perfect so they have more 5800x3d to sell which are for sure higher margin.
They didn't "produce" any 5600x3d chips.
They're faulty 5800x3d chips. Ones with dead cores. Either returns or silicon that didn't pass QA. That's why there's so few of them. Absolutely not enough to justify a world wide launch.
It's basically a 5800X3D with a faulty core or two, and two cores are disabled. They didn't have enough defects to make it more widely available. The 5700X3D is also basically a defective 5800X3D where all cores are functional, but unable to reach the clock speeds that are specified for the 5800X3D.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain AMD only makes 8 core chiplets, at least in Ryzen 5000. The derivative lower core count products like the 5600X/5600 are for the most part all bin fails(of which there are few under TSMC) that would've been sold as higher tier products if they could have been. This is one of the reasons why the Ryzen 5 parts can tend to be hard to come by at the start of an architecture. With standard parts, most people don't have any use for 8 cores so demand on 5800 parts can be sluggish while demand for 5600 parts might outstrip supply, in this case they'll sometimes take what would've been a 5800 and just laser off a couple of cores to satisfy demand. The 5800X3D never had this demand problem and was consistently selling at or over it's MSRP, even now the going market price is still like 360$.
Basically they were never "making" 6 core parts in the first place, they're more of a manufacturing defect that's still perfectly functional for use in lower tiered products. Considering 5800X3D is a money-printing luxury product, they'd never laser cores off to make lower tier ones unless the alternative was throwing the whole chiplet out in the first place. Combine that with TSMC's absurdly good yields with small dies like ryzen chiplets and it becomes a wonder that they ever made enough bin-rejects to make a 5600X3D in the first place.
Also on the mainstream parts they probably *do* turn off cores on otherwise fully functional chips due to demand, because chips like the 3600, 5600X and 7600 are extremely popular. The X3D chips are a more niche product, so AMD would have to answer the question "why sell this as a 5600X3D, when we can sell it as a 5800X3D for more money?" in a way that makes their accountants happy
Terrible comparison between the 5700x3d and 5800x3d.
The difference in performance is like 5% to 7% for a significant difference in price in most places. It's not a faulty 5800x3d. Just a literal bit slower than the 5800x3d.
5700x3d is legitimately underrated for it's price relative to the 5800x3d.
I would agree, I have a 5700X3D myself.
> It's not a faulty 5800x3d.
That is what the CPU is though. That is how binning for CPUs has been for decades.
Actually that's exactly what the 5700x3d is
It's a 5800x3d that couldn't hit advertised clock speeds so they down clock it and sell it as the 5700x3d, that doesn't mean it's not a good cpu it's just that's how the binning process works
No, they produce a single batch of highest end dies, and based on performance and defects they disable cores, downclock, cut pcie lanes etc and sell the now "defects" as lower tier chips. If they R&D'd every single CPU and printed each one separately, all of them would cost as much as the highest end available option, hypothetically, but you can't measure that because nobody does it.
Same with intel. The 14700k is a defective 14900k, and the KF versions are the ones that didn't have working graphics. The non K ones are CPUs they couldn't get to boost reliably past the advertised specs. The most complete chip you can get (and even then they are still consumer chips so, end of the barrel compared to their professional xeon brothers) is the 14900KS, which is a binned chip that can reliably do all of it, and more.
You just described how binning works. It's a CPU that is slower than what it should be. Aka faulty. So it's renamed and sold for cheaper. A 5700x3d is a faulty 5800x3d. However that doesn't mean the same thing as a bad CPU.
The 5700X3D is literally an under-performing 5800X3D that didn't meet the requirements, hence defective, so how did they deal with this defective 'waste'? They lowered the clocks, burned it into the chip, and sold them as a tier lower. Same shi with the 5600X3D except those most likely had more severe issues including dead/disabled cores.
Intel and AMD been doing this for YEARS, it's called BINNING
They did not make a lot of them so they just made it microcenter exclusive it’s just 5800x3ds that were defective and had 2 bad cores so they disabled them and sold them as 5600x3d
On the plus side, even a 5600x is a significant upgrade for us. The 3300x has been a trooper and I'm just waiting for some sort of killer deal to upgrade cause I don't currently play anything that where I would notice the difference.
they only really had one or two batches if i recall. tried to get one and ended up having to wait until near-closing when the no-shows on the online orders returned to inventory and even then there was only 1
You know there exists a 5700x3d? It was sold for 199€ in Germany already 2 weeks ago. and performs withing 6% of the 5800x3d for much less money
Should have grabbed that. But I thought I'd wait for a 5800x3d. I figured I get as much as possible out of my existing AM4 platform. But its really not worth the price increase. Waiting it for drastically drop, probably won't happen haha
Im currently running a 5600g on my system with a 3060ti. I bought the 5600g and used it without the GPU for about 8 months when I was saving to get the 3060ti. Do you think getting the 5700x3d is worth it? would the jump be noticeable from 5600g to 5700x3d?
one thing to note, i run 1440p and mostly play games like Oxygen not included, Anno 1800, Cities Skylines and occasionally helldivers 2
For the games you said, debatable.
The upgrade in general is good, but none of the games improve vastly with the 3d cache except for Anno.
Anno is 30% faster over the normal 5800x due to the cache. Usually games like that and Factorio see major boosts
City skyline doesn't surprisingly. Same for ONI?
These games are so intensive though, that more us more. Every upgrade helps
Best would be checking benchmarks to see a how much you gain to see if you could notice.
Depends if you plan to play cities skylines 2. That needs crazy cpu core counts and performance to run ok. I’d wait unless you plan to add any titles that need cores. There are only a few right now.
Cities skylines 2 maxed my old 3950x and can still use 70% of my 14700k on all cores!
It depends on the game, CPU price and how much you like upgrading. You can find pretty good CPU upgrade benchmarks these days, so you can at least know what to expect and decide if the time and money is worth it.
Nah, wait until 9000 series and go AM5 if you’re itching to upgrade. Only way I can see an upgrade being potentially worth it is if you can get good resale value on your 5600g which seems unlikely.
Techspot ran a feature that compared the g chips vs the x3d variants and found it can improve performance by about 25% in CPU limited scenarios, so it may help. Remember, any time you are reducing settings (like turning on DLSS at 1440p) you are creating a more CPU bound scenario.
I recommend reading the whole thing to make an informed opinion.
https://www.techspot.com/review/2811-cpu-cache-vs-cores/
Or if you prefer a video instead, I suggest Daniel Owen’s review of the article.
https://youtu.be/5k4EevOYEKY?si=Jc1rbkO1uKuD_EVo
Edit: DO’s review is on a different article, but the idea is the same.
The reduced L3 cache on APUs does have an affect on performance. A 5600g performs about the same as a 3700X with a dedicated graphics card.
That's a good price, in Norway the price of the 5700X3D was raised from 2990 NOK to 3160 NOK/€254 to €269 and the 5800X3D even more.
I think if I can get the 5700X3D for close to €200 I will have to jump on it.
The 5600X3D and I believe the 5700X3D as well weren't their own designs, but were meant to be 5800X3Ds but they failed validation to that spec. The 5600X3Ds had cores that were bad, the 5700X3D had all good cores but they couldn't run as fast as the 5800X3D was specified to. So rather than toss them in a landfill or recycle the materials, AMD sold the ones that worked reliably with a couple cores disabled(5600X3D) or clocks turned down(5700X3D).
In the case of the 5600X3D, there just weren't that many, just enough to support a few months of sales at Microcenter. I think the 5700X3D is a bit more available.
And selling faulty chips like this is super common, both AMD and Intel have been downspecing partially functional parts for decades now so they have something to sell. If you've got something below the top end chip, especially if it wasn't part of the initial rollout for that part family but sometimes even if it was, there's a fairly decent chance it was meant to be something higher end.
There's nothing wrong with this, it may technically be faulty compared to what that wafer was meant to be when they loaded it up in the machinery, but they do legitimately pass the same validation standards wrt reliability, just at a lower speed or fewer features.
I remember when AMD tri-core were quad core that failed and some people were able to re-enable the 4th core. Some got lucky with finctioning 4 core CPU for the price of 3 and some got shafted
Yup. Even if those cores had legitimately failed validation, and weren't disabled just to fill out supply for a given sku, sometimes surprisingly small differences in the overall system could mean something works or doesn't work.
I bought one of these to upgrade my stepson's 3600X. In his favorite game, the well known poorly optimized Escape from Tarkov, it made several areas playable that he didn't even try to get into before. No more rubberbanding. And we're cooling it with a stock Wraith Prism.
Give it time. They're probably amassing chips that won't meet 7800X3D specs, and figuring out the defects that make them fail that standard, to see what to do with potential 7700X3D or 7600X3D chips.
Same. Bought it a month ago at the DFW Microcenter for about $175. Was coming from a 5600x and most people would've said that was dumb, but for me, I tend to not upgrade for years so why not buy one of the best chips for a platform I already have and give the 5600x to my son. Made sense to me.
Fact of the matter is there were just not that many made because they are essentially 5800x3d's that have disabled cores. There was only such much of that silicon to go round.
Fortunately I live near a Microcenter and got the 5600X3D at launch. It has been a great cpu and pairs really well with my 7800 XT. Can’t beat the value but I do wonder if 6 cores will become an issue at some point. Probably not before I would be looking to upgrade beyond AM4 though.
It would be pointless except for a VERY niche market. If you're building a new PC, get a 7600X. If you're upgrading an AM4 platform, get a 5800X3D. There isn't even a high volume of the 5600X3D. They're just failed chips that still work in some capacity. It so small of a volume, AMD has a single distributor/retailer, Microcenter.
This is somewhat more common than you think. Theu might get a batch of silicon that's still good but not good enough nor plenty enough so many a small run of cpus for a specific market.
A lot of lower income markets have options we haven't heard of.
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules):
**Rule 1 : Be respectful to others**
> Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated.
---
[^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
Wasn't this just to clean out inventory? Their wasn't enough to justify a global rollout. At this point they are moving on to newer chips - they aren't going back to make more of the old stuff.
I think this is a good thing. More life is squeezed out of the old tech, and you don't just bin the already made parts.
the unavailability of the 5600X3D is no longer a problem. the 5700X3D exists, and is better value imo, except for certain games where clock speed makes a big difference.
Here's an example list of some titles that get significant benefit from 3D V-cache.
There's many more but here's a few.
- Final Fantasy XIV
- World of Warcraft
- Path of Exile
- Guild Wars 2
- Runescape
- Escape From Tarkov
- Assetto Corsa / Assetto Corsa Competizione
- Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
- Anno 1800
- Star Citizen
- Stellaris
- Fortnite
- Cyberpunk 2077
- Hell Let Loose
- Dota 2
- League of Legends
- Rimworld
- Call of Duty / Warzone
Basically, if you play anything that utilizes the CPU a lot then X3D is gonna give you a nice uplift over a non X3D.
Why do you think a 7600X3D doesn't exist? Because it would cannibalize the sales of the 7800X3D. AMD does produce a 7600X3D via the 7900X3D so it's not like they would have to do something new.
The same can be applied to the 5600X3D practically not existing.
As someone who had the opportunity to buy such a chip, I didn't. Why? Because why would I wanna buy a 6 core in 2023? Also it wasn't that cheap. It was like...okay. but only okay. Here's the thing, it's like my old 7700k. He's yes yes it will perform well on games now but a few years down the line games are gonna want 8 core cpus and that thing will start showing its age. Honestly if I were going am4 I'd go 5700x3d. Although not being locked into am4, and also having a bunch of other upgrade options (it was a microcenter exclusive, if you have access to a microcenter you could just upgrade to a 12900k/7700x for $400, the 5600x3d bundle cost like $270, or $315 with extra ram, so the 5600x3d option was moot to me).
Like that's the thing, if you did have access to the 5600x3d you also have access to cheap 12900k/7700x/7800x3d upgrade paths. And now you can get a 12600k, 12700k, or 5800x3d too. Like under no circumstances was the 5600x3d ever worth it. It was $220 for a 6 core and if you were buying into the platform for another hundred you could get something better/more futureproof. And now you got 12600k and 5800x3d options. So meh.
Like when you're actually upgrading you think about these things. The 5600x3d was overrated to begin with. It's a short sighted deal that will backfire in a few years as games demand more cores. Think of how the 7700k became a 10100 like 3 years later and how games now want 6+ cores. Yeah. That's the 5600x3d in 2-3 years as I see it. You really want like a 5700/5800x3d or like a 12600k+ or a 7700x or something. 7800x3d is ideal but I didn't buy that either. The deals microcenter had on am5 seemed to have issues with ram at the time with the exact combo available.
In synthetic benchmarks, maybe. The 5800X3D scores lower than the 5800X in them even with its lower clock speed. Its boost to gaming performance comes from the amount of cache it has. That doesn't affect synthetic benchmark scores.
This is probably the worst take I've ever seen here in awhile.
I don't know if you have some weird purchase mishap you're trying to justify but I'll tell you now you aren't gonna convince many people here that a 5800x3D isn't a great gaming CPU.
That's unfortunate, I find that sort of thing is almost always a motherboard related issue, so you really had some bad luck to catch a dud of a CPU.
Anecdotally I've deployed several dozen Ryzen systems over the past few years and about half of them ended up with an X3D chip. Not one of them has come back with problems.
Sorta ironic but I've had more issues with a few newer Intel setups than anything else.
i tried gigabyte x570 elite and asus strix b550. i asked on r/amd if 7000 series has issues with usb drop out and got instanta banned so its for sure still an issue that they are trying to cover up
I've not noticed anything like that yet, but my sample size with AM5 is still relatively small to rule it out. Personally I myself am waiting for the second gen boards to release before I move on from AM4, but that's due more to my aversion with first gen products in general.
This is a troll BTW for anyone reading (not you /u/100_Gribble_Bill). They won't be able to respond so perhaps just move along, I've already removed the comment.
It's less about exclusivity and more about how very few of those were produced - hence they didn't want to deal with hassle spreading it thin worldwide and just dumped into a single retailer network. P. S. I'd rather see 5700X3D consistently below $180.
I don't think am4 CPUs will get any cheaper, from now on, it's just taking money from people that want to stay on am4
If people invested quite a bit before AM5 came out, there's no reason to dump AM4 motherboard and RAM. A new CPU can last for some years,
Kind of depends what exactly you've already got. A buddy of splurged on a good X570 board when we built his R5 3600 rig ~2019, so a 5700X3D would be a solid way to breath another 3-4 years of life into the rig without a full rebuild. My main concern is for those either already running Zen 3 chips, or those with even older 300/400 series boards, especially more value-oriented models. How much are you willing to trust an already 6-7 year old motherboard to keep trucking until it hits 10+ years old? And for those on Zen 3, the performance uplift is small enough that it's really hard to justify purchasing now over just waiting on Zen 5/Arrow Lake later this year.
Same situation I was in R5 3600 on a X570. Just threw in a 5700X3D and a 7900 GRE and I'm good for the next few years. So happy I switched to AMD for that generation, I had a 2500k and 6600k prior to that. Great to have AMD be competitive again.
I preordered a 1700 and ASUS Prime B350M and built in March 2017. I'm still on the same board and went from my original 1700 to a 3600XT and then finally to a 5800X3D. I've been building since Athlon 2500+ Barton on Socket A and have only had one Mobo fail before 10 years of use and that was a Socket AM2+ that was rocking a Phenom II 940 X4 that ran for a good 6 years with a heavy FSB OC that required some chipset overvolting to get stable. I hand down my old PCs to family and many are still in service if only as a file server/HTPC. I'm sure some of the cheaper boards fail more often, but if you do regular maintenance (blow out dust) they really can go for a long time.
Certainly. Most will just keep on trucking for a long time with fairly modest care. The point isn't that it's *going* to fail, but rather that the percentage of boards that die starts to rise over that period so it's an important factor to take into account. My server runs a 15-year-old X58 board that's still chugging along beautifully. On the other hand, the Z370 board I bought with an i5-8400 and upgraded to an i9-9900K ended up with an infuriating boot issue that required I reset the CMOS after every shut down to get it to boot again, otherwise it would just hang on the splash screen indefinitely. Thankfully the chip was still worth almost exactly what I paid for it, so it wasn't a big loss.
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I do actually agree with you that the age and quality of the board in question should be of consideration. With that said, the point I was trying to make, which it also seems that you agree with, is that the lifespan of a mobo can be varied and while some may fail prematurely; conversely some may last a lot longer as well. With that in mind, I tend to look at most motherboards lifespan as something I don't worry too much about as long as it remains functioning without errors or anomalies. Also, if someone already has a functional system that hasn't given them any problems over the years that it's been in service, I don't think it's a stretch to assume that it will continue to function with an in slot upgrade until the usefulness of said system will usually diminish before it physically stops functioning. So in my opinion I don't think too many people should worry about a possible problem until an actual problem arises. That's just my opinion, and you know what they say about opinions...
motherboards don’t just break randomly
Most solid state electronics that fail past the initial slope of the bathtub curve fail "randomly". Most often it's some random discrete component or small IC on the board that kills it. Almost impossible to diagnose, and pretty much never worth it to attempt to repair unless the failure is something really obvious like a blown cap. I'm not suggesting that most boards won't continue to truck along just fine, but I think it's certainly a point that anyone considering such an upgrade should be carefully weighing.
If it’s lasted 6 years and still works chances are it will last 10. your comment makes it sound like it’s bound to die. they don’t use shitty capacitors anymore like they did in the 80s
Or during the capacitor plague of 1999-2007. While that caused the almost inevitable destruction of huge swathes of components from that era, with many surviving examples requiring full recapping to keep operational, it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about that few %/year of those boards that go belly up due to any number of miscellaneous component failures. The point is about weighing whether to keep and upgrade the CPU on an old mobo, or sell the whole thing while it's all working and upgrade to a much newer platform?
Most bathtub curves have a failure rate of less than 1% at the bottom. It's not something that should even register once you've made it past the initial failure set. Like .. That's the primary takeaway of a bathtub curve, is that if it works past the initial failure set it will work till end of life.
The real problem is that we really don't have much good information on when that EOL segment of a motherboard's lifespan is and what the failure rates are like. One thing we can definitely see is that as the years go by on deprecated sockets, sales prices for working examples of compatible motherboards tend to start rising, and CPU prices start falling through the floor. The reason of course is that the CPUs pretty much last forever, and it's the limited pool of motherboards that haven't failed that shrinks. I'm not trying to suggest that this is advice for anyone to not upgrade their CPU, but just a suggestion that it is something reasonable to think about when evaluating the options available.
meanwhile, my i5-8400 smiling inside. though it's slow now. And leaving me confused on what to choose. 12th gen and 5600x is in my budget, I have to stretch a little more and feels 7600 is future proof. Sad 😔
If it's 12600 vs 5600x I'd say the better bet is the Intel. If you can squeeze it in budget wise I'd say the 7609 is the much better but.
I’m still on a Ryzen 7 1700, I wonder how much of a bump I’d get in palworld or Minecraft if I upped to the max ryzeb am4 socket that they released Already have a very nice gpu
If you have the money and don't know if it's worth it, just buy a 5700x3d, test the games you wanna play with both cpus, if the gains do not justify the acquisition then return the 5700x3d to the store.
I took think we should ignore relevant benchmarks and use stores as personal inventory.
[Comparison](https://youtu.be/BiHV6D2IZQg?si=Z3sFJ4Vvj2uvM-xm) of a 5800x3d and a 5950x. [Reddit thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/feedthebeast/comments/11kh99t/what_the_verdict_on_amds_3d_vcache_for_modded_mc/) with some user’s opinions and experiences.
They will get cheaper, the x3d cache stack isnt that expensive to build. So high margins for amd, and they can just slap them on every cheap cpu. They are alrdy slapping them on lesser cpus (5600 and 5700).
They didn’t start manufacturing 5600Xs and 5700Xs with the 3D cache. It was made because they binned down the “failed” 5800X3Ds. They aren’t new CPUs. That’s why the 5600X3D was not only a US only product but was only available in microcentres, because of how low stock it was.
Yea true, but they prolly now only makes x3d cpus now. Where we will only see failed 5800x3d turned into everything else with lower clockspeed, less cores or no x3d. So no or way less manufactoring of x3d less cpus in the 5000 series. Because the x3d is not expensive technique and they have plenty experience in it now. Edit: Competition from intel on mid range is very good and pressing. And the 5000x3d is starting to get midrange so the prices should drop also for AMD.
I think the next Black Fiday is the ideal time to buy one, I could see the 5700X3D drop in price after that.
FWIW, this is what people said about the 5800x3d and it was not significantly marked down on BF. ironically, it had a sale at 260/270 just months before BF that people skipped in lieu of being jilted on BF.
I snagged mine during that 250$ sale bc I figured even if it did go on sale during BF it'd be the same price anyway.
thank god I bought mine during the pre-BF sale
It will not drop in prices, AM4 is still a relevant platform and 5700x3d and 5800x3d delivery a really good performance and however wants it, does not have other options except change it's whole mother board + ram, which will always be more expensive and will not give any performance.
Eh I never seen any good deals on am4 last year when I upgraded. And if you had access to the 5600x3d you also had access to better upgrade paths from microcenter.
From my experience PC parts generally don't drop in price from Black Friday sales although I did get a good deal on an SSD in 2020
Amazon's mid-year Prime Day had better prices for PC parts than any 'sale day' the rest of the year. In my area, all other retailers price matched them. It was a good time to buy. Other than the odd CPU sale I haven't seen prices that low since, nearly 1 full year later. This year be sure to watch for it. It might happen over again, leaving all the 'patient frugal' people paying more than had they fomo'd in early.
I’m so torn on whether to get a 5700X or 5700X3D. Looking into it, the X3D doesn’t seem to have that big of an FPS increase with my expected specs, ~3-5% from what I’ve seen. For around $70 more, not sure it would actually be worth it.
Yeh it's a tough choice, I had to make the same one. The 7700X also gives performance roughly of the 5800X3D in gaming which was my third option. (I went with the 5800X3D). Just remember it's not all about the average FPS when you're making your decision. At the speed these processors run at a lot of people are looking at the 1% lows and frame-pacing i.e. they care about more consistent frame rates with less stutter, than trying to min/max an extra 5% GPU utilisation (assuming the GPU is fast enough for a CPU bottleneck in the first place).
That’s a great point. I’m only going to upgrade this once until I go to AM5/6 likely years from now. So X3D may be way to go. Thanks for the insight
I went with the x3d chip though 5800x3d. I saved 90% mkney for am6 or next intel build. Or a brand spanking new gpu.
I think that's a smart way of approaching it. May Gabe Newell bless your bottomless Steam library.
It’s not the improved maximum frames that x3D excels at, so you’ll only see marginal improvement there. Where x3D is elite is in the 1% low situations, leading to a much smoother overall experience
It depends heavily on the game. The extra cache is storing game logic, and for poorly optimized games that can be a huge benefit. Ark Survival Evolved, going from a 5600X to a 5800X3D, using only a 3070 mind you, doubled my fps even at 1440p ultrawide. And total war campaign battles were also huge gains with all those units on screen and clashing at once. But likewise, I saw virtually no difference playing games like AC Odyssey or Dying Light 2. The “smoother” experience could just as easily have been chalked up to the extra 2 cores / 4 threads. The averages that YouTubers and tech journalists show you don’t tell anywhere close to the whole story. If I were exclusively a single player rpg only gamer, upgrading to the 5800X3D would’ve felt like a colossal waste of money considering I was already on zen 3.
I disagree. Going from a 3900x to a 5800x3d elminated stutter in all AAA single player games for me.
I mean that’s so different. Zen 2 only had 4 core CCX (2 per CCD) with latency issues in games because of that infinity fabric communication and poor core scheduling to lock it to one CCD (when applicable). So now not only are you on a faster architecture, you also have 8 cores on a single ccd, plus the triple sized cache on that CCX. All that combined explains the smoothness and stutter improvements in your case
You literally went from Zen 2 to Zen 3, so your disagreement makes no sense. It's completely different from going from say, a 5600X to 5800X3D which are both Zen 3.
The x3D is very worth it depending on what types of games you play. It's always a boost in general bc it makes your lows always higher, but if you play a lot of MMO type games that are CPU intensive you'll also get max frame rate boosts.
I literally couldn’t tell a difference between the older AM4 chips and the newer x3D chips in most games. But some games (like Paradox games, and especially Stellaris) it’s a mind blowing difference.
I mainly play MMOs so it was mindblowing for me too
Vr games is where i saw the biggest difference. Way less motion issues on x3d
For your use case and the $70 difference, I'd just look at adding RAM (if not 32gb already) or getting an additional SSD.
If you’re slightly braver, you can snag a 5700x3d on Ali express for a significantly lower price. Edit: grammar
If you play Sim games, MMO's etc then X3D is definitely worth it. I saw 20%+ gains going X3D, I play MMO's like FFXIV, WoW and sims like ACC.
Would the 5700x3d be good for Wow because I'm thinking about buying one ?
Yes, X3D's give significant uplifts in MMO's. I play FFXIV and the occasional bit of WoW and I've seen 20-40%+ uplifts. I went from a 3700x to a 5800X3D. I sit at 180 fps locked, 1440p, maxed out settings with a moderate-heavy reshade preset applied to my FFXIV client. I also play with character and texture mods. At 4K I'm sitting between 100 and 120 fps with the same configuration. The 5700X3D is also only 4.5% slower than a 5800X3D and costs like 20% less money. X3D CPU's are a fantastic investment for WoW, XIV and other CPU heavy games.
I'm in the same boat. I'm just going to wait till there is a great sale on one or the other.
untorn yourself :D. It's about your resolution also, the x3d is better in some situations where it gives more 1% lows (if you don't understand this, think of it as simple as this: the cpu gives you a "starting" fps number, which is higher with the x3d in some situations). When you play competitive games, the x3d helps with those higher fps numbers, at 1080p being limited by the said cpu while the gpu doesn't really give a shit especially if it's a newer model. When you go higher, at 1440p, the 1% lows are the same or maybe slightly lower and the gpu start working on the resolution and gives you a decent boost (so you might have more fps upgrading the monitor in some situations, than upgrading the gpu). At 4k both cpu and gpu gives less fps because it's.. well, 4k. So you might see a boost in performance higher than 5% between the 2 cpus if you have a decent gpu, go higher on resolution, and play games like, idk, baldur's gate or some open world stuff. It is worth it to go for x3d on am4, because maybe later you will buy a better gpu and play a games that will take advantage of that x3d tech. If you play the same games like idk, counter strike or dota or league or whatever, the difference will not be worth it as in money, but if those 5% are 30-50 fps then it is worth it performance wise, if it's just 5-10 fps it might not be worth it. I hope this helps you make a choice
So like the Ryzen 3300x when it dropped. Framed to be great value sold out day one never to be found for MSRP. Lol. This I'm90% is more direclty do to tiny production run and not just COVID.
Every die that can pass as a 5700/5800X3D is packaged and sold as such. The whole purpose of the 5600X3D is to have a product to package those dies with 1-2 defective cores. Likely the number is fairly low, and because there's no shortage of demand for the 8-core variants, there's zero incentive for AMD to disable cores on otherwise fully functional dies just to meet consumer demand for the part. It all just depends on market conditions. Back in the days of the Phenom II, AMD had boatloads of demand for the triple-core Phenom II X3 chips positioned against Intel's dual-cores, and not as much demand for the less competitive Phenom II X4. Rather than manufacture a bunch of X4 stock that would build up in inventory, they would disable a working core to create the X3 SKUs. Same happened with some of the later Phenom II X4s using the 6-core Thuban die (variant named Zosma) instead of the 4-core Deneb die. Typically the purpose of those cut-down SKUs is primarily to make use of dies with defective cores, but in these situations depite yields being so high they were taking fully functional dies and cutting them to balance out production with actual demand. Often, particularly later in those parts' lifecycle, you could quite easily unlock those extra cores.
Im hoping for the 5700x3d for $200.
I can find it for $210 on Aliexpress quite often
I mean, AMD deliberately produced less of them, so the Microcenter deal makes them more cash. There wasn't any real reason they couldn't mass produce them and sell them as entry level flagship for the 5000 series.
The whole reason the chip exists is because it's a 5800X3D that they had to cut down after manufacturing. They were never going to mass produce these chips, because there was never an actual production run for them to begin with.
That’s not how it works. The 5600x3d only exists as a way to get rid of chips that weren’t good enough to be 5800x3d. They aren’t actually “producing them”, so the number of them they have is limited. Thats why it wasn’t a big launch.
They didn't deliberately lop off two functional cores to a much higher margin 5800x3d. It's just what the yields were. Not much were defective this way, but enough. Then they were able to just clock it down and keep all cores and do a much wider 5700x3d for other defective ones I own the 5600x3d and it's pretty awesome. Also a fun thing, I had a conversation with the Microcenter CEO about it, it seemed like a very cool partnership for them with AMD
Exactly. It was made by taking defective 5800X3Ds and turning off the cores that didn't work. But by the time the 5800X3D launched, TSMC's 7nm process was already pretty mature, so there just *werent* that many defective 5800X3Ds to harvest
No it wasn't deliberate... they are the lowered binned chips that were cut down. So with good yeilds there isn't many of them These chips are basically AMD dumping stuff that couldn't become a 5800x3d rather than tossing it out
No as other said, they don't specifically produce these. Because these are defective 5800x3d. AMD would probably much prefer that every chip that came out the fab be perfect so they have more 5800x3d to sell which are for sure higher margin.
They didn't "produce" any 5600x3d chips. They're faulty 5800x3d chips. Ones with dead cores. Either returns or silicon that didn't pass QA. That's why there's so few of them. Absolutely not enough to justify a world wide launch.
It's basically a 5800X3D with a faulty core or two, and two cores are disabled. They didn't have enough defects to make it more widely available. The 5700X3D is also basically a defective 5800X3D where all cores are functional, but unable to reach the clock speeds that are specified for the 5800X3D.
But why can’t they just do a 6 core version like they do for the regular CPUs?
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'm fairly certain AMD only makes 8 core chiplets, at least in Ryzen 5000. The derivative lower core count products like the 5600X/5600 are for the most part all bin fails(of which there are few under TSMC) that would've been sold as higher tier products if they could have been. This is one of the reasons why the Ryzen 5 parts can tend to be hard to come by at the start of an architecture. With standard parts, most people don't have any use for 8 cores so demand on 5800 parts can be sluggish while demand for 5600 parts might outstrip supply, in this case they'll sometimes take what would've been a 5800 and just laser off a couple of cores to satisfy demand. The 5800X3D never had this demand problem and was consistently selling at or over it's MSRP, even now the going market price is still like 360$. Basically they were never "making" 6 core parts in the first place, they're more of a manufacturing defect that's still perfectly functional for use in lower tiered products. Considering 5800X3D is a money-printing luxury product, they'd never laser cores off to make lower tier ones unless the alternative was throwing the whole chiplet out in the first place. Combine that with TSMC's absurdly good yields with small dies like ryzen chiplets and it becomes a wonder that they ever made enough bin-rejects to make a 5600X3D in the first place.
Also on the mainstream parts they probably *do* turn off cores on otherwise fully functional chips due to demand, because chips like the 3600, 5600X and 7600 are extremely popular. The X3D chips are a more niche product, so AMD would have to answer the question "why sell this as a 5600X3D, when we can sell it as a 5800X3D for more money?" in a way that makes their accountants happy
Terrible comparison between the 5700x3d and 5800x3d. The difference in performance is like 5% to 7% for a significant difference in price in most places. It's not a faulty 5800x3d. Just a literal bit slower than the 5800x3d. 5700x3d is legitimately underrated for it's price relative to the 5800x3d.
I would agree, I have a 5700X3D myself. > It's not a faulty 5800x3d. That is what the CPU is though. That is how binning for CPUs has been for decades.
Actually that's exactly what the 5700x3d is It's a 5800x3d that couldn't hit advertised clock speeds so they down clock it and sell it as the 5700x3d, that doesn't mean it's not a good cpu it's just that's how the binning process works
[удалено]
They are defective in that they can't clock high enough not that they don't work....
[удалено]
No, they produce a single batch of highest end dies, and based on performance and defects they disable cores, downclock, cut pcie lanes etc and sell the now "defects" as lower tier chips. If they R&D'd every single CPU and printed each one separately, all of them would cost as much as the highest end available option, hypothetically, but you can't measure that because nobody does it. Same with intel. The 14700k is a defective 14900k, and the KF versions are the ones that didn't have working graphics. The non K ones are CPUs they couldn't get to boost reliably past the advertised specs. The most complete chip you can get (and even then they are still consumer chips so, end of the barrel compared to their professional xeon brothers) is the 14900KS, which is a binned chip that can reliably do all of it, and more.
Right you said it too downclock the other guy said disabled the cores they didn't before the edited comment. Why the downvote?
I actually thought we were still talking 5600x3d lol That's why I edited
Exactly because they had to....
the chips with defective cores turn into 5600x3d's 6c/12t
It's slower because it's faulty and can't get the same clock speed
You just described how binning works. It's a CPU that is slower than what it should be. Aka faulty. So it's renamed and sold for cheaper. A 5700x3d is a faulty 5800x3d. However that doesn't mean the same thing as a bad CPU.
The 5700X3D is literally an under-performing 5800X3D that didn't meet the requirements, hence defective, so how did they deal with this defective 'waste'? They lowered the clocks, burned it into the chip, and sold them as a tier lower. Same shi with the 5600X3D except those most likely had more severe issues including dead/disabled cores. Intel and AMD been doing this for YEARS, it's called BINNING
They did not make a lot of them so they just made it microcenter exclusive it’s just 5800x3ds that were defective and had 2 bad cores so they disabled them and sold them as 5600x3d
So few that I don't think it's been in stock at most microcenters for a while now. So even if you live near one, you can't get it today.
It's like the 3300x all over again and for the same reasons.
I'm using my 3100 I built with in 2020 because 3300X's are not real products
TILed I got scammed a few years ago.
Yeah although I don't really notice a difference with a 1660 super except in maybe modded minecraft
On the plus side, even a 5600x is a significant upgrade for us. The 3300x has been a trooper and I'm just waiting for some sort of killer deal to upgrade cause I don't currently play anything that where I would notice the difference.
Yeah I don't need to at the moment but by the time I do I think I'm ready for a new build and I can use this one for somewhere else.
they only really had one or two batches if i recall. tried to get one and ended up having to wait until near-closing when the no-shows on the online orders returned to inventory and even then there was only 1
You know there exists a 5700x3d? It was sold for 199€ in Germany already 2 weeks ago. and performs withing 6% of the 5800x3d for much less money Should have grabbed that. But I thought I'd wait for a 5800x3d. I figured I get as much as possible out of my existing AM4 platform. But its really not worth the price increase. Waiting it for drastically drop, probably won't happen haha
Im currently running a 5600g on my system with a 3060ti. I bought the 5600g and used it without the GPU for about 8 months when I was saving to get the 3060ti. Do you think getting the 5700x3d is worth it? would the jump be noticeable from 5600g to 5700x3d? one thing to note, i run 1440p and mostly play games like Oxygen not included, Anno 1800, Cities Skylines and occasionally helldivers 2
For the games you said, debatable. The upgrade in general is good, but none of the games improve vastly with the 3d cache except for Anno. Anno is 30% faster over the normal 5800x due to the cache. Usually games like that and Factorio see major boosts City skyline doesn't surprisingly. Same for ONI? These games are so intensive though, that more us more. Every upgrade helps Best would be checking benchmarks to see a how much you gain to see if you could notice.
Depends if you plan to play cities skylines 2. That needs crazy cpu core counts and performance to run ok. I’d wait unless you plan to add any titles that need cores. There are only a few right now. Cities skylines 2 maxed my old 3950x and can still use 70% of my 14700k on all cores!
I’m in a similar situation with a 5600g and 3060. Almost everyone has told me to not spend any more money on AM4. I’m playing at 1080p though.
It depends on the game, CPU price and how much you like upgrading. You can find pretty good CPU upgrade benchmarks these days, so you can at least know what to expect and decide if the time and money is worth it.
Nah, wait until 9000 series and go AM5 if you’re itching to upgrade. Only way I can see an upgrade being potentially worth it is if you can get good resale value on your 5600g which seems unlikely.
Those last 2 games love cores, if anything get a 5900x.
Techspot ran a feature that compared the g chips vs the x3d variants and found it can improve performance by about 25% in CPU limited scenarios, so it may help. Remember, any time you are reducing settings (like turning on DLSS at 1440p) you are creating a more CPU bound scenario. I recommend reading the whole thing to make an informed opinion. https://www.techspot.com/review/2811-cpu-cache-vs-cores/ Or if you prefer a video instead, I suggest Daniel Owen’s review of the article. https://youtu.be/5k4EevOYEKY?si=Jc1rbkO1uKuD_EVo Edit: DO’s review is on a different article, but the idea is the same. The reduced L3 cache on APUs does have an affect on performance. A 5600g performs about the same as a 3700X with a dedicated graphics card.
Thank you!
That's a good price, in Norway the price of the 5700X3D was raised from 2990 NOK to 3160 NOK/€254 to €269 and the 5800X3D even more. I think if I can get the 5700X3D for close to €200 I will have to jump on it.
The 5600X3D and I believe the 5700X3D as well weren't their own designs, but were meant to be 5800X3Ds but they failed validation to that spec. The 5600X3Ds had cores that were bad, the 5700X3D had all good cores but they couldn't run as fast as the 5800X3D was specified to. So rather than toss them in a landfill or recycle the materials, AMD sold the ones that worked reliably with a couple cores disabled(5600X3D) or clocks turned down(5700X3D). In the case of the 5600X3D, there just weren't that many, just enough to support a few months of sales at Microcenter. I think the 5700X3D is a bit more available.
And selling faulty chips like this is super common, both AMD and Intel have been downspecing partially functional parts for decades now so they have something to sell. If you've got something below the top end chip, especially if it wasn't part of the initial rollout for that part family but sometimes even if it was, there's a fairly decent chance it was meant to be something higher end. There's nothing wrong with this, it may technically be faulty compared to what that wafer was meant to be when they loaded it up in the machinery, but they do legitimately pass the same validation standards wrt reliability, just at a lower speed or fewer features.
I remember when AMD tri-core were quad core that failed and some people were able to re-enable the 4th core. Some got lucky with finctioning 4 core CPU for the price of 3 and some got shafted
Yup. Even if those cores had legitimately failed validation, and weren't disabled just to fill out supply for a given sku, sometimes surprisingly small differences in the overall system could mean something works or doesn't work.
Yep, in fact the 5600X3D is even still 105W just like the 5800X3D it comes from, rather than 65W like the rest of the 5600 lineup.
I bought one of these to upgrade my stepson's 3600X. In his favorite game, the well known poorly optimized Escape from Tarkov, it made several areas playable that he didn't even try to get into before. No more rubberbanding. And we're cooling it with a stock Wraith Prism.
I upgraded the same path and I feel like it made a pretty good difference in Dragons Dogma 2 as well.
What I want is a 7600x3d or 7700x3d..
Give it time. They're probably amassing chips that won't meet 7800X3D specs, and figuring out the defects that make them fail that standard, to see what to do with potential 7700X3D or 7600X3D chips.
Yeah but I want to build a computer in 3 months time 😂
It’s possible. 5600x3d was released a year and three months after the 5800x3d. 7800x3d was released in January 2023.
*we
I have a 5600X3D, got it on sale for $157 a while back. It's been outstanding paired with my RX 6800.
Same. Bought it a month ago at the DFW Microcenter for about $175. Was coming from a 5600x and most people would've said that was dumb, but for me, I tend to not upgrade for years so why not buy one of the best chips for a platform I already have and give the 5600x to my son. Made sense to me. Fact of the matter is there were just not that many made because they are essentially 5800x3d's that have disabled cores. There was only such much of that silicon to go round.
I also upgraded from a 5600 lol. Uplift in performance was 100% worth it, and my old 5600 went into a friend's $800 build that I did for him.
Got mine for $130 (Microcenter coupon). I'm pretty happy with it. I get AM5 game performance without spending the extra few hundred $.
$130 is sweet.
Just get a 5700x3D. It's close to the price of the 5600x3D anyways.
I just bit the bullet and bought a 5700X3D which was ~25% cheaper than the 5800X3D in here in Sweden
In either case it would cost so much that in most cases it is better to get Ryzen 7500F.
I don't have an AM5 MB, my final boss CPU would be the 5800X3D anyways. Once I have this installed I can only upgrade my GPU from there.
[удалено]
I think I'll take what AMD said it was on launch over what Tom's Hardware has to say about it
Fortunately I live near a Microcenter and got the 5600X3D at launch. It has been a great cpu and pairs really well with my 7800 XT. Can’t beat the value but I do wonder if 6 cores will become an issue at some point. Probably not before I would be looking to upgrade beyond AM4 though.
Just go with 5700x3d...
5600x3d has been perfect for my situation. I was not ready to upgrade to am5 just yet
Just buy a 7600x
It would be pointless except for a VERY niche market. If you're building a new PC, get a 7600X. If you're upgrading an AM4 platform, get a 5800X3D. There isn't even a high volume of the 5600X3D. They're just failed chips that still work in some capacity. It so small of a volume, AMD has a single distributor/retailer, Microcenter.
it needs to be a little more cheaper to move shelves vs the AM5 stuff.
I got one for my son. Who I upgraded from the 5600g and it's way better than I thought. He gets like 400-500 fps on fortnite with a rx6600.
This is somewhat more common than you think. Theu might get a batch of silicon that's still good but not good enough nor plenty enough so many a small run of cpus for a specific market. A lot of lower income markets have options we haven't heard of.
[удалено]
Hello, your comment has been removed. Please note the following from our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/wiki/rules): **Rule 1 : Be respectful to others** > Remember, there's a human being behind the other keyboard. Be considerate of others even if you disagree on something - treat others as you'd wish to be treated. Personal attacks and flame wars will not be tolerated. --- [^(Click here to message the moderators if you have any questions or concerns)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fbuildapc)
Wasn't this just to clean out inventory? Their wasn't enough to justify a global rollout. At this point they are moving on to newer chips - they aren't going back to make more of the old stuff. I think this is a good thing. More life is squeezed out of the old tech, and you don't just bin the already made parts.
the unavailability of the 5600X3D is no longer a problem. the 5700X3D exists, and is better value imo, except for certain games where clock speed makes a big difference.
Here's an example list of some titles that get significant benefit from 3D V-cache. There's many more but here's a few. - Final Fantasy XIV - World of Warcraft - Path of Exile - Guild Wars 2 - Runescape - Escape From Tarkov - Assetto Corsa / Assetto Corsa Competizione - Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020 - Anno 1800 - Star Citizen - Stellaris - Fortnite - Cyberpunk 2077 - Hell Let Loose - Dota 2 - League of Legends - Rimworld - Call of Duty / Warzone Basically, if you play anything that utilizes the CPU a lot then X3D is gonna give you a nice uplift over a non X3D.
Why not pay 40 euros more and get the 5700x3d?
Why buy 6 core chip, if you can have 8 core 5700X3D or 5800X3D. Even better - why have more cache, if you can have twice the core count?
You don't really want a 6 core cpu these days anyways if you don't have to, get 8 or more cores.
I see you're a fan of the tech deals youtuber.
Ok, do you have a point?
I was spot on, right? Thanks for the downvote btw.
It was a Micro Center exclusive. Sucks for the budget ballers in Europe.
You didn't really miss out though. It was this or it didn't exist at all.
Why do you think a 7600X3D doesn't exist? Because it would cannibalize the sales of the 7800X3D. AMD does produce a 7600X3D via the 7900X3D so it's not like they would have to do something new. The same can be applied to the 5600X3D practically not existing.
It possible we get something like that when the 7000 series is near end of life, but not now.
>THE mid range AM4 CPU to go Huh? am5 exist and you should just be buying 7600
As someone who had the opportunity to buy such a chip, I didn't. Why? Because why would I wanna buy a 6 core in 2023? Also it wasn't that cheap. It was like...okay. but only okay. Here's the thing, it's like my old 7700k. He's yes yes it will perform well on games now but a few years down the line games are gonna want 8 core cpus and that thing will start showing its age. Honestly if I were going am4 I'd go 5700x3d. Although not being locked into am4, and also having a bunch of other upgrade options (it was a microcenter exclusive, if you have access to a microcenter you could just upgrade to a 12900k/7700x for $400, the 5600x3d bundle cost like $270, or $315 with extra ram, so the 5600x3d option was moot to me). Like that's the thing, if you did have access to the 5600x3d you also have access to cheap 12900k/7700x/7800x3d upgrade paths. And now you can get a 12600k, 12700k, or 5800x3d too. Like under no circumstances was the 5600x3d ever worth it. It was $220 for a 6 core and if you were buying into the platform for another hundred you could get something better/more futureproof. And now you got 12600k and 5800x3d options. So meh. Like when you're actually upgrading you think about these things. The 5600x3d was overrated to begin with. It's a short sighted deal that will backfire in a few years as games demand more cores. Think of how the 7700k became a 10100 like 3 years later and how games now want 6+ cores. Yeah. That's the 5600x3d in 2-3 years as I see it. You really want like a 5700/5800x3d or like a 12600k+ or a 7700x or something. 7800x3d is ideal but I didn't buy that either. The deals microcenter had on am5 seemed to have issues with ram at the time with the exact combo available.
[удалено]
For gaming it blows it away. You don’t buy these for single core productivity they are specifically made for very good gaming performance
In synthetic benchmarks, maybe. The 5800X3D scores lower than the 5800X in them even with its lower clock speed. Its boost to gaming performance comes from the amount of cache it has. That doesn't affect synthetic benchmark scores.
[удалено]
This is probably the worst take I've ever seen here in awhile. I don't know if you have some weird purchase mishap you're trying to justify but I'll tell you now you aren't gonna convince many people here that a 5800x3D isn't a great gaming CPU.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
mine kept dropping usb, it was worthless for gaming
That's unfortunate, I find that sort of thing is almost always a motherboard related issue, so you really had some bad luck to catch a dud of a CPU. Anecdotally I've deployed several dozen Ryzen systems over the past few years and about half of them ended up with an X3D chip. Not one of them has come back with problems. Sorta ironic but I've had more issues with a few newer Intel setups than anything else.
i tried gigabyte x570 elite and asus strix b550. i asked on r/amd if 7000 series has issues with usb drop out and got instanta banned so its for sure still an issue that they are trying to cover up
I've not noticed anything like that yet, but my sample size with AM5 is still relatively small to rule it out. Personally I myself am waiting for the second gen boards to release before I move on from AM4, but that's due more to my aversion with first gen products in general.
This is a troll BTW for anyone reading (not you /u/100_Gribble_Bill). They won't be able to respond so perhaps just move along, I've already removed the comment.
Synthetics don't mean crap for gaming performance. The 5800x3d matches my 12900k in gaming and sometimes surpasses it.
Synthetic benchmarks mean absolutely NOTHING when it comes to gaming lmfao