Ryzen 5000 APUs launched in India.

Let's say performing a task which needs 6 cores on a 5600X at 100% CPU utilization would do it similar to the 3700X at 75% utilization but with the 3700X you have additional 25% headroom for other tasks (background tasks) and that is the benefit I see with the 3700X while it may be a tiny bit slower but it's more future-proof.
This isn't entirely true. The 5600X doesn't have the same cores as the 3700X. It has Zen 3 cores compared to Zen 2. As a result, there is about a 20% gain in IPC. So 1 core of 5600X can be roughly equated to 1.20 cores of a 3700X. Granted, that's still a net difference of about 5% in the 3700X's lead, but that's not really a big difference, plus the 5600X has the advantage of running cooler, consuming less power, and most importantly having much better single core performance as well. There's a reason why the 5600X often beats (or comes very close to) the 3700X even in productivity benchmarks. In gaming the 5600X beats even the 11900k
 
I agree. The i5 10400f 6/12 for 12k was the best priced CPU ever. We just didn't know things would get this bad in the future lol. I mean i5 10400f for <12k against the R5 3600 for 17k. Who in his right mind would go for the latter??
These prices of new models don't make any change. Which also made Intel distri greedy and raised the price to 15-16k for that CPU and set 19k for the i5 11400f. Unbelievable. Everyone wants to make the most out of the situation.
 
Hexacores will get outdated sooner than before including the 5600x. Multi-core movement was never as strong as it is right now. Alder Lake, ARM on desktop, Apple M1, Windows 11 support, consoles using x86 multi cores. I game at 4K using 4c/8t and it performs as good as the top end stuff right now. But later or sooner things will bottleneck.
 
There's a difference between multi-tasking and multi-threading performance. Sure, benchmarks may show 5600X multi-threading performance is similar to a 3700X but the multi-tasking headroom is less.
Let's say performing a task which needs 6 cores on a 5600X at 100% CPU utilization would do it similar to the 3700X at 75% utilization but with the 3700X you have additional 25% headroom for other tasks (background tasks) and that is the benefit I see with the 3700X while it may be a tiny bit slower but it's more future-proof.
My point was mostly in terms of gaming performance. Also in your example sure a 3700x will have a 25% headroom but the work done by the remaining 75% of cores will be a bit slower compared to a 5600x as each core is faster here. While multitasking & multithreading are different, the end user will still perceive the similar performance due to how the OS manages these details automatically, remember how we could multi task even on single cores?

Point is, I don't think a 3700x will be significantly faster than a 5600x even in multithreaded workloads but a 5600x is actually significantly faster in gaming/single threaded work load. Most software's scale very well with single core performance but are are not well optimized for multiple cores, so a faster core will almost always be better when multi core performance of are almost equal. If you really want good multi core capabilities you should be looking at something like a 3900x or equivalent.
 
Hexacores will get outdated sooner than before including the 5600x. Multi-core movement was never as strong as it is right now. Alder Lake, ARM on desktop, Apple M1, Windows 11 support, consoles using x86 multi cores. I game at 4K using 4c/8t and it performs as good as the top end stuff right now. But later or sooner things will bottleneck.
For gaming, I don't really think so. Six Zen 3 cores can keep up with the eight Zen 2 cores in the consoles (out of which 1/2 are reserved for the OS I think). Some games will scale better with more cores but I doubt six cores will become obsolete anytime soon. Multithread performance > core count.
 
@OT
everyone is aware of the price for these new processors.
is it worth upgrading my month old Ryzen 4650G to something like 5600x / 5600G or maybe 5700G ?
only using it for casual surfing and watching 4k movies.
currently using 4650g with 1050ti
 
@OT
everyone is aware of the price for these new processors.
is it worth upgrading my month old Ryzen 4650G to something like 5600x / 5600G or maybe 5700G ?
only using it for casual surfing and watching 4k movies.
currently using 4650g with 1050ti
Nope, not now. Wait and upgrade to used 3900X or 5900X directly after 1-2 years.
BTW for your casual use even 4 cores are enough. You don't need an upgrade.
 
Last edited:
Nope, not now. Wait and upgrade to used 3900X or 5900X directly after 1-2 years.
BTW for your casual use even 4 cores are enough. You don't need an upgrade.
I know it's more than sufficient for casual use but just considering to use my current system (excluding GPU) for may be next 4-5 years, Hence thinking of upgrading right now.
but I think it's not worth extra amount for just marginal performance improvement.
 
I know it's more than sufficient for casual use but just considering to use my current system (excluding GPU) for may be next 4-5 years, Hence thinking of upgrading right now.
but I think it's not worth extra amount for just marginal performance improvement.
The system requirements for casual browsing and watching videos on system will not change because these tasks have to be doable on low end hardware as well where power utilized is less. Your 4650G will be fine for such things even after 4-5 years.
 
Good Read -
Bad news -

One significant difference between the Ryzen 5000 “G” CPUs and their “X” desktop cousins is that the “G” chips lack PCIe 4.0 support. Because these processors re-used Renoir’s design outside of the CPU swap, the chips themselves are only equipped with PCIe 3.0.
Have you ever noticed any difference between PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 4.0? I'm running my GPU on PCIe 4.0 and have tested it out in 3.0 and not seen any real difference.
 
The system requirements for casual browsing and watching videos on system will not change because these tasks have to be doable on low end hardware as well where power utilized is less. Your 4650G will be fine for such things even after 4-5 years.
There is a silent difference is happening progressively, 4K and 8K videos are already blooming in youtube, the best bet for viewing 4K and 8K videos, for the future, will be 8 physical CORE is a must and if it hyper-threads to 16 is a good CPU for future aspects, more over the speed must be at 5GHz, and the RAM must be 32GB (4 X 8GB DDR4 3200Mhz) as a must for 4-5 years sustainment, by next 5 years, we would have leaped to probably DDR5/6 @ Almost 5(000MHz)GHz and pcie5/6 would have born and could be available to mainstream market. also the technologies would have improved to 16K or 24K videos, where the RAM and CPU cores/Speed requirements could have changed proportionately too.

But at this point of time 4K is hot cake, and the picture quality is amazing, 8K tvs have already came out, only there are no transmissions in 8K, Lately few OTT platforms are doing 4K.

i have now 2 machines, both are 11 Years and 8 years old respectively, they are CORE 2 QUAD and i5-3570, only when i began playing 4K videos i realized the power of CPUS are must, With C2Q, 4K hit 100% CPU utilization that includes stuttering sometimes hangs, and it cried for mercy, whereas i5-3570 played it easily @80% - 90% usage to just play a 4K Video, i5-3rd gen played 4K majestically did not cry though.

A Genuine future proof upgrade would be: AMD/INTEL CPU 8C/16T, 5+GHz speed, RAM:32GB in the multiples of 4 Sticks of 8GB to have better FPS, and a NVME PCIe 3/4 Atleast for storage,

As of now for next 3 years the best monitor of choice could be branded one like DELL, ASUS, ACER, BENQ, LG with HDR Support 600 nits, 144Hz/165Hz Refresh rate is the sweet spot. 1440p that is 2K, coz 4K Monitors are not at all in the price RANGE for MAINSTREAM. Hopefully future monitors will come with 2 DP ports 1.4 and 2 HDMI ports with v2.3.

GPU??? all pray to god..... :p
 
While I agree to most of your points and the experience with LGA775 and Ivy bridge is mutual but you're forgetting that the task he mentions are casual browsing and 4K videos and with the hardware he got he's pretty much untouchable by the changes happening. Now if his requirements were to change then accordingly he'd need the upgrades.

Also when I mentioned that those tasks should be doable in low end hardware with less power that's why we still have 2c/4t or 4c/4t CPUs like pentium/i3 or Ryzen 3 on mobile CPUs still since past 10 years almost the low/budget end hasn't changed in core count but the architecture is so refined that they are still powerful enough to do modern daily tasks while keeping same number of cores all this time and reduced power usage.
And BTW I don't think there are many mobile devices with 4K res which are in the range of 12-14" form factor.
 
> the best bet for viewing 4K and 8K videos, for the future, will be 8 physical CORE is a must and if it hyper-threads to 16 is a good CPU for future aspects, more over the speed must be at 5GHz, and the RAM must be 32GB (4 X 8GB DDR4 3200Mhz) as a must for 4-5 years sustainment, by next 5 years, we would have leaped to probably DDR5/6 @ Almost 5(000MHz)GHz and pcie5/6 would have born and could be available to mainstream market. also the technologies would have improved to 16K or 24K videos, where the RAM and CPU cores/Speed requirements could have changed proportionately too.

It is silly to optimize these specs for video playback. Most formats today are being being designed with hardware acceleration in mind. A significantly cheaper machine 6-7 years from now may be able to play a wider variety of formats than a maxed out machine today.

My 5900x can barely play 5-6 streams of a high bitrate hevc video while GPU churns through it like it's nothing because it has hevc hw acceleration built into it.
IMO 8 core, 16 cores doesn't matter that much in video playback. Both of them will choke relatively quickly unless they have hardware acceleration for that format.
 
While I agree to most of your points and the experience with LGA775 and Ivy bridge is mutual but you're forgetting that the task he mentions are casual browsing and 4K videos and with the hardware he got he's pretty much untouchable by the changes happening. Now if his requirements were to change then accordingly he'd need the upgrades.

Also when I mentioned that those tasks should be doable in low end hardware with less power that's why we still have 2c/4t or 4c/4t CPUs like pentium/i3 or Ryzen 3 on mobile CPUs still since past 10 years almost the low/budget end hasn't changed in core count but the architecture is so refined that they are still powerful enough to do modern daily tasks while keeping same number of cores all this time and reduced power usage.
And BTW I don't think there are many mobile devices with 4K res which are in the range of 12-14" form factor.
well said, yes the Number of Cores have not changed much, u could say 4C has come to 10C in the past 10 years thats an improvement if we measure only the physical cores and not the virtual hyperthreading, but 10C cpus are expensive - rightly so, the downside is even 6C proccys have also been overpriced, as a thumb rule when the technology improves, price must also come down, whereas in reality, the THUMB is broken :),

anyway, PI 4 8GB RAM with CREDIT CARD SIZED Form factor is more than enough for CASUAL BROWSING and 4K Videos, although some 4K Frames will be bunked by the PI 4 Proccy, it will not make any difference, AND the proccy speed is only 1.5GHz, the funny part is , like a mobile it supports all the latest encoding/decoding technologies, which is not part of 10 year old CPUs , and it's a tough ask, PI 4 is certainly advanced with 1.5GHz speed 4 cores , it is a magic for me.
It is silly to optimize these specs for video playback. Most formats today are being being designed with hardware acceleration in mind. A significantly cheaper machine 6-7 years from now may be able to play a wider variety of formats than a maxed out machine today.
LOL, unfortunately to run 4K videos, practically in reality, the best bet will be 8 Cores, otherwise the usage will be 90%, which i am not against it, as i had seen HD videos consuming at the max only 10% of the CPU , the same CPU is using 90% of its effort to run a 4K Video, is kinda disturbing, to run a SIMPLE task like playing a VIDEO.

Having said that, HW acceleration plays an important role, meaning the CPU must be capable of processing latest decoding/encoding technologies, that might slice the usage from 90% to 10%, then i would be satisfied, is there such proccy with only 4 cores with all the latest technologies of HW acceleration in place within the proccy that supports HDR or HDR+ and a speed of 5 GHz ??? for a layman practical understanding.

Could you please list your proccy or anyother CPU for that matter , that it's usage is only few percentages for just a 4K playback???

a combo of CPU and GPU will also be nice.

PI 4 has already achieved it in a crispy form factor, but IDK coz, it bunks frames. which i can't accept.
I just got a 5600x so I'll update you all after a year :cyclops:. Everything will make sense at the right price. 5800x was often called the most overpriced Zen 3 processor that didn't make sense at all, so 5600x and 5900x were always recommended. I highly doubt the 5600x will come down to 20K in India. Maybe after 2 years, if at all.
As of now it has come down from 27K to 25K, so it is falling. 5600x,
 
Last edited:
LOL, unfortunately to run 4K videos, practically in reality, the best bet will be 8 Cores, otherwise the usage will be 90%, which i am not against it, as i had seen HD videos consuming at the max only 10% of the CPU , the same CPU is using 90% of its effort to run a 4K Video, is kinda disturbing, to run a SIMPLE task like playing a VIDEO.

Having said that, HW acceleration plays an important role, meaning the CPU must be capable of processing latest decoding/encoding technologies, that might slice the usage from 90% to 10%, then i would be satisfied, is there such proccy with only 4 cores with all the latest technologies of HW acceleration in place within the proccy that supports HDR or HDR+ and a speed of 5 GHz ??? for a layman practical understanding.

Could you please list your proccy or anyother CPU for that matter , that it's usage is only few percentages for just a 4K playback???

a combo of CPU and GPU will also be nice.

PI 4 has already achieved it in a crispy form factor, but IDK coz, it bunks frames. which i can't accept.

As of now it has come down from 27K to 25K, so it is falling. 5600x,
I completely agree with ishanjain, if HW acceleration is supported or your GPU is capable of decoding then we don't need a 8core processor. With HW decode, CPU usage will be below 10% even if you're using a 4 core or 6 core processor. when HW acceleration isn't supported by GPU then it's CPU which rushes for software decode pushing itself to 90-100% usage.
Playing 4k 60 fps with HW acceleration -my Ryzen 4650G usage is below 5% & with soft decode it 's 20-22% , Ram usage is below 500MB.
I can illustrate with screenshots from my system but it's already going off topic.

Even Amlogic S908X can decode 8k 60fps, Usually 8k format is AV1 and minimum HW support starts from Nvidia 3000 series or AMD RDNA2
as for the RAM , even 1GB will do.

Have you ever noticed any difference between PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 4.0? I'm running my GPU on PCIe 4.0 and have tested it out in 3.0 and not seen any real difference.
No,
but my question is - We're using m.2 nvme gen 4 PCIe 4.0 SSD on m.2 PCie 4.0 slot , how much SSD performance difference will it make using this config with a Pcie 3.0 processor like 4650G or other pcie 3.0 APUs
Vs Pcie 4.0 like 5600x.
 
but my question is - We're using m.2 nvme gen 4 PCIe 4.0 SSD on m.2 PCie 4.0 slot , how much SSD performance difference will it make using this config with a Pcie 3.0 processor like 4650G or other pcie 3.0 APUs
Vs Pcie 4.0 like 5600x.
Only in benchmarks right now, nothing in real world which is easily perceivable by us or makes a real difference.
I can bet none of us here can notice the difference between a SATA SSD like 860 Evo and an NVME like 970 Evo+ without using any benchmarks or sequential file copy.
 
I completely agree with ishanjain, if HW acceleration is supported or your GPU is capable of decoding then we don't need a 8core processor. With HW decode, CPU usage will be below 10% even if you're using a 4 core or 6 core processor. when HW acceleration isn't supported by GPU then it's CPU which rushes for software decode pushing itself to 90-100% usage.
Playing 4k 60 fps with HW acceleration -my Ryzen 4650G usage is below 5% & with soft decode it 's 20-22% , Ram usage is below 500MB.
I can illustrate with screenshots from my system but it's already going off topic.

Even Amlogic S908X can decode 8k 60fps, Usually 8k format is AV1 and minimum HW support starts from Nvidia 3000 series or AMD RDNA2
as for the RAM , even 1GB will do.


No,
but my question is - We're using m.2 nvme gen 4 PCIe 4.0 SSD on m.2 PCie 4.0 slot , how much SSD performance difference will it make using this config with a Pcie 3.0 processor like 4650G or other pcie 3.0 APUs
Vs Pcie 4.0 like 5600x.
Linus Tech Tips did a comparison between PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 4.0 m.2 nvme drives and found there really isn't much of a difference. They in fact noticed the PCIe 4.0 running a tad bit slower in some cases. Was an interesting comparison if that matters.
 
Linus Tech Tips did a comparison between PCIe 3.0 and PCIe 4.0 m.2 nvme drives and found there really isn't much of a difference. They in fact noticed the PCIe 4.0 running a tad bit slower in some cases. Was an interesting comparison if that matters.
I am not comparing Pcie gen 3.0 and Gen 4 ssds. I want to know if there's and difference using gen 4 ssd with a PCie 3.0 only processor and Pcie 4.0 supporting processor.
 
I am not comparing Pcie gen 3.0 and Gen 4 ssds. I want to know if there's and difference using gen 4 ssd with a PCie 3.0 only processor and Pcie 4.0 supporting processor.
Given there's no real discernable difference between both generations with regards to SSD performance, using a PCIe 3.0 capable processor with a PCIe 4.0 SSD should be the same as a PCIe 4.0 processor with a PCIe 4.0 SSD. Since PCIe 4.0 is backwards compatible, would run fine.
 
Back
Top