WYP
News Guru
Here's everything that AMD has announced about AM5, Zen 4 and Ryzen 7000.
Read more about AMD's Ryzen 7000 series processors.
Read more about AMD's Ryzen 7000 series processors.
What you need to know about AMD's Ryzen 7000 series Zen 4 processors
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
what surprises me is that AMD did not say a single word about integrated graphics.
as i use many of my systems as render slaves it´s a big deal for me.
until now i always needed an extra GPU for my systems, for troubleshooting.
most of the time i use RealVNC to administer the systems but sometimes you need direct access to a system.
thought cheap GPUs are good enough... it´still an additional 70-100 euro for a system ( GT 730, DDR5, 2GB ).
i would expect AMD would at least say "and hey, we also offer an integrated graphics solution with the 7000x series".
as i use many of my systems as render slaves it´s a big deal for me.
until now i always needed an extra GPU for my systems, for troubleshooting.
most of the time i use RealVNC to administer the systems but sometimes you need direct access to a system.
thought cheap GPUs are good enough... it´still an additional 70-100 euro for a system ( GT 730, DDR5, 2GB ).
i would expect AMD would at least say "and hey, we also offer an integrated graphics solution with the 7000x series".
Last edited:
AlienALX
Well-known member
I'm not surprised the 7950x bashes the 12900K. Not at all. The KF only has 8 performance cores and threads.
When Intel can physically fit 16 of those onto a CPU? yeah, check the benchmarks then.
It's long been common knowledge that AMD would dominate Intel on higher core models, because of physically fitting stuff under the lid. This became apparent when they released the 3000 series. It was nearly as fast as the competing Intel in games, but slaughtered Intel on core counts and overall performance.
Until Intel manage another successful shrink that will remain in place.
When Intel can physically fit 16 of those onto a CPU? yeah, check the benchmarks then.
It's long been common knowledge that AMD would dominate Intel on higher core models, because of physically fitting stuff under the lid. This became apparent when they released the 3000 series. It was nearly as fast as the competing Intel in games, but slaughtered Intel on core counts and overall performance.
Until Intel manage another successful shrink that will remain in place.
are you surprised that the 7600x beats the 12900K in games?
i am really curious to see benchmarks by hardware unboxed and co.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Does it? no one knows yet. All we are seeing is AMD's cherry picked titles like F1 and etc where they were in front any way.
However, as not to avoid your question? no I would not be surprised. It has higher IPC than the 5000 series, games only really seem to want 6/12c/t and the clock speed is much higher than I thought it would be. Something AMD have been struggling with.
That said? it remains to be seen the actual performance. Because like I say, looking at another thread showing performance it all seems to be their cherry picked games.
i think AMD is aware that blant cheating will not get you anywhere theses days.
but in light of that performance a price tag of 299 dollar is not too high i think.
the 12900k is sold for way over 500$ if i am not wrong.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
The 7600X being compared to the 12900K is a bit silly when the 12600K is far better value for gamers. It's one of the go-to midrange gaming chips right now.
that´s the point.
someone who wants the fastest bought a 12900k + 3090TI.
now he can save a few bucks and is still faster.
in that light i don´t think the 7600x is a bad purchase or too expensive.
the 12600k is as you wrote not much slower than a 12900k but also not much cheaper than the 7600x.
in fact here in germany the cheapest retailer is selling it for 18 euro more than the announced 7600x price.
so compared to the 12600k the value of the 7600x is still better.
i only hope that the reported temps of ES/QS cpus are not entirely correct for retail parts.
they are pretty high.
Last edited:
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
I think the 7600X value is fine as well. A lot are saying it's AMD's weakest of the four in terms of positioning. While I agree, I only do so because one of them has to be the weakest. If I do build in the next six months, the 7600X is a real contender. Either I'll build a budget system with a 5600 and leave the 5800X3D as my upgrade path, invest in DDR5 and Zen 4 and buy a 7600X, buy a 5800X3D out the gate and be done with it, or jump back aboard Intel with a 13600K or 12600K and keep it with DDR4. That's four really stellar options that I'm so appreciative to have. Years ago we didn't have many options.
AlienALX
Well-known member
It's not. It sounds like it is but at the end of the day you need to spend at least (as I type this) £149.99 on DDR5. 4800mhz DDR5, to be exact.
So you need to spend half of what this CPU is set to cost on RAM. And we haven't seen the board prices yet. Which as we know of late have been becoming increasingly ridiculous. That coupled with the fact AMD boards now cost a good chunk more than their Intel counterparts whilst offering far less features? just all pile onto the costs.
Look man, at the end of the day I can absolutely bet you hard cash that any one who bought a 12600 from Intel DID NOT BUY DDR5 with it. Why? because it wasn't good enough to justify that cost on RAM.
Even I, who bought a 12700K bought a DDR4 board and used my existing RAM. Had it not been for that? I would not have bought it. Like F would I pay over half the CPU cost on RAM LOL.
And then we come back to this. AM5 boards are going to be expensive. The DDR5 you need is already expensive, and you are spending all of that on what? a 6 core 12 thread CPU.
It's not worth it. You are WAY better off buying a 5600x, or a 12600k, cheaper board and putting the extra into a better GPU. And it has always been that way, too. There is no point in building an unbalanced rig.
Going back to AMD's board prices? I paid £220 for this.
Specs are pretty lousy. Two NVME slots. I also paid £220 for this.
Which not only looks better, and has far more heatsinks and nice bits on, but is specced WAY better, and has four NVME slots.
I dread to think what AM5 boards will cost, but I can pretty much guarantee they will make this £300 CPU totally not worth buying.
300 and 400 boards were amazing value. The 350 and 450 Strix were bloody excellent, both it looks and features. The 500 boards? have all been too expensive. The low end ones doubled in price.
Dawelio
Active member
Just because the quoting on Firefox doesn't work at times for some strange reason?...
Quote from Alien above:
Or just an 5600, seeing it's cheaper and is only -200MHz slower, which doesn't do a whole lot. Essentially 95+% of an 5600X for a nice little money saver to something more important
Quote from Alien above:
Or just an 5600, seeing it's cheaper and is only -200MHz slower, which doesn't do a whole lot. Essentially 95+% of an 5600X for a nice little money saver to something more important
AlienALX
Well-known member
Just because the quoting on Firefox doesn't work at times for some strange reason?...
Quote from Alien above:
Or just an 5600, seeing it's cheaper and is only -200MHz slower, which doesn't do a whole lot. Essentially 95+% of an 5600X for a nice little money saver to something more important
Exactly yeah. It's always best to prioritize the GPU when building a gaming PC, especially a budget one
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
It's not. It sounds like it is but at the end of the day you need to spend at least (as I type this) £149.99 on DDR5. 4800mhz DDR5, to be exact.
So you need to spend half of what this CPU is set to cost on RAM. And we haven't seen the board prices yet. Which as we know of late have been becoming increasingly ridiculous. That coupled with the fact AMD boards now cost a good chunk more than their Intel counterparts whilst offering far less features? just all pile onto the costs.
Look man, at the end of the day I can absolutely bet you hard cash that any one who bought a 12600 from Intel DID NOT BUY DDR5 with it. Why? because it wasn't good enough to justify that cost on RAM.
Even I, who bought a 12700K bought a DDR4 board and used my existing RAM. Had it not been for that? I would not have bought it. Like F would I pay over half the CPU cost on RAM LOL.
And then we come back to this. AM5 boards are going to be expensive. The DDR5 you need is already expensive, and you are spending all of that on what? a 6 core 12 thread CPU.
It's not worth it. You are WAY better off buying a 5600x, or a 12600k, cheaper board and putting the extra into a better GPU. And it has always been that way, too. There is no point in building an unbalanced rig.
Going back to AMD's board prices? I paid £220 for this.
Specs are pretty lousy. Two NVME slots. I also paid £220 for this.
Which not only looks better, and has far more heatsinks and nice bits on, but is specced WAY better, and has four NVME slots.
I dread to think what AM5 boards will cost, but I can pretty much guarantee they will make this £300 CPU totally not worth buying.
300 and 400 boards were amazing value. The 350 and 450 Strix were bloody excellent, both it looks and features. The 500 boards? have all been too expensive. The low end ones doubled in price.
If we see the 7600X, not as a singular piece of hardware but as a collective, why not also consider its long term viability? I'd argue that if you're building a system now and you choose a 5600 for instance, you only have one CPU (for gaming) that you can upgrade to that's meaningful. That's a solid upgrade, don't get me wrong, but it would be strange to buy a 5600 now and three years later a 5800X3D. Investing in a 7600X allows for future upgrades. That adds to its cumulative value.
DDR4 is almost half the cost a 5600 as well, as are motherboards You buy DDR5/AM5 because you want to futureproof your system and because you're an enthusiast. That's the value element. That's not necessarily going to improve your FPS by any meaningful degree, but neither will buying anything other than a 5600 yet people spend significantly more for slightly more performance all the time.
I absolutely agree that the majority will be better off with a 12600K or equivalent. But that doesn't mean the 7600X does not have any value. Maybe I'm playing the devil's advocate too much, but I don't want to push what I think is value onto others. I'm trying to see how a certain demographic would consider the 7600X a value component. Yeah, putting more into your GPU is 99% of the time the wiser choice if all you care about is raw FPS. But there is more to building to PC's than raw FPS. If you're a hardware enthusiast that doesn't have a ton of money, the 7600X would be the CPU I'd recommend. Four years ago, that was me. Nowadays I'll probably buy a 5600 or a 12600K like you said.
Motherboards for sure are going to increase in price. AM5 is going to be expensive, and for many not a worthwhile upgrade. But I stand by my value comment, because not all people value the same thing.
Similar threads
