5 ms·

I'm not sure it's fair to say the 5950X is a good point of reference. The 7950X has been out for quite some time at this point and the 7950X3D is announced and

I'm not sure it's fair to say the 5950X is a good point of reference. The 7950X has been out for quite some time at this point and the 7950X3D is announced and expected to be available next month.

Godel_unicode 4y ago
And a ton of people are cross-shopping more expensive newer parts with still-available 5000 series CPUs which are much cheaper. There’s an interesting question about whether absolute performance is more important or if you should weight that against cost and/or power. The GN benchmarks recently have done a good with explaining both the cost perspective and the performance-per-watt. Edit: for reference, Newegg currently has the 5950x and 7950x at $500 and $600 respectively. And that’s before the higher platform cost for AM5/DDR5.
- vondur 4y ago
  The 5950x uses DDR4. The 7000 Ryzen series uses DDR5.
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    How is that different than what I said? To quote myself: > higher platform cost for AM5/DDR5
- fbdab103 4y ago
  If reading a review of the newest vendor's product, it is only fair to give the performance of the competitor's similar generation release. If there are strong availability/price concerns (eg generation N+1 is triple the cost of generation N) those should be noted as to why not performing the most appropriate apples-to-apples comparison. Calculating performance / dollar is an entirely different exercise (though valuable, and rare is it the newest generation that hits the sweet spot).
  - Godel_unicode 4y ago
    That’s one definition of fair, sure. I use a different one; how does this option compare to my other options, sans artificial constraints. As another example of this, there’s a great mkbhd video comparing new cheap smartphones with old flagship smartphones. He does that every couple years, and it always gets a ton of “I never thought of that” comments.
formerly_proven 4y ago
The 7950X3D is not going to be faster in non-game benchmarks. Most likely it will be a bit slower in most synthetic tests and non-game workloads (rendering, encoding, FEA etc.)
Espressosaurus 4y ago
It's a fair point of reference for those of us with a 5950X, which was a top performer a couple years ago and is still a damn lot of CPU no matter how you slice it.
bloodyplonker22 4y ago
Living in a place where electricity costs are very high, such as California, the AMDs have much better price to performance when compared to the Intel CPUs over a period of 3-5 years (which is how long I normally wait before upgrading CPUs).
anticensor 4y ago
Also to mention, 5950X has long been out of stock in many places.

I'm not sure it's fair to say the 5950X is a good point of reference. The 7950X has been out for quite some time at this point and the 7950X3D is announced and expected to be available next month.

Godel_unicode 4y ago

And a ton of people are cross-shopping more expensive newer parts with still-available 5000 series CPUs which are much cheaper. There’s an interesting question about whether absolute performance is more important or if you should weight that against cost and/or power. The GN benchmarks recently have done a good with explaining both the cost perspective and the performance-per-watt. Edit: for reference, Newegg currently has the 5950x and 7950x at $500 and $600 respectively. And that’s before the higher platform cost for AM5/DDR5.

vondur 4y ago
The 5950x uses DDR4. The 7000 Ryzen series uses DDR5.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  How is that different than what I said? To quote myself: > higher platform cost for AM5/DDR5
fbdab103 4y ago
If reading a review of the newest vendor's product, it is only fair to give the performance of the competitor's similar generation release. If there are strong availability/price concerns (eg generation N+1 is triple the cost of generation N) those should be noted as to why not performing the most appropriate apples-to-apples comparison. Calculating performance / dollar is an entirely different exercise (though valuable, and rare is it the newest generation that hits the sweet spot).
- Godel_unicode 4y ago
  That’s one definition of fair, sure. I use a different one; how does this option compare to my other options, sans artificial constraints. As another example of this, there’s a great mkbhd video comparing new cheap smartphones with old flagship smartphones. He does that every couple years, and it always gets a ton of “I never thought of that” comments.

formerly_proven 4y ago

The 7950X3D is not going to be faster in non-game benchmarks. Most likely it will be a bit slower in most synthetic tests and non-game workloads (rendering, encoding, FEA etc.)

Espressosaurus 4y ago

It's a fair point of reference for those of us with a 5950X, which was a top performer a couple years ago and is still a damn lot of CPU no matter how you slice it.

bloodyplonker22 4y ago

Living in a place where electricity costs are very high, such as California, the AMDs have much better price to performance when compared to the Intel CPUs over a period of 3-5 years (which is how long I normally wait before upgrading CPUs).

anticensor 4y ago

Also to mention, 5950X has long been out of stock in many places.