AMD's Greed: R5 5500 CPU vs. Intel i3-12100F CPU Review & Benchmarks
video description
Date: 2022-04-07
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Lon
I really think that you are not looking at the whole picture in this case. At the end of the day, I feel this is a CPU for somebody upgrading from first or second gen AMD chips versus a brand new build. From that viewpoint it's a pretty damn good deal to get better gaming performance than most 8 core first and second generation CPUs. Of course I would never recommend this for a new build for obvious reasons but if I am working on a customer machine, and they have an old 1600af or 2600, this would be a great upgrade for them with a bios update if needed. Considering the gaming performance sit above a 3600, and below a 5600, I think the pricing is perfectly Fair. Since these are basically OEM chips that they have extra stock of, why not sell them. And just because MSRP is where it's at, it will make sense for those customers who just need the CPU itself and not everything else. Am4 is a dying platform so why put more money into reinventing the wheel and why not try to get as much money as possible. They are a business, and the more money they have, the more money can be put into research and development. I do agree it is not a good value for a brand new build but I think it is a great value as an upgrade to an existing build. Heck, nobody has mentioned the platform cost, and I would put this chip with a a520 board and a dirt cheap video card for somebody who just needs a basic workstation. I feel it would still be cheaper overall than trying to do a 12th gen i3 and a cheap board based on the cost of these new generation Intel boards right now. And who knows, in a couple months to price will drop even more and it'll be a better value than it is now. But to basically dismiss this chip completely I think is not the best way to go about things. I know Steve is very opinionated at times but I feel you did drop the ball to point out where this CPU does actually have a usage scenario.
reply
I really think that you are not looking at the whole picture in this case. At the end of the day, I feel this is a CPU for somebody upgrading from first or second gen AMD chips versus a brand new build. From that viewpoint it's a pretty damn good deal to get better gaming performance than most 8 core first and second generation CPUs. Of course I would never recommend this for a new build for obvious reasons but if I am working on a customer machine, and they have an old 1600af or 2600, this would be a great upgrade for them with a bios update if needed. Considering the gaming performance sit above a 3600, and below a 5600, I think the pricing is perfectly Fair. Since these are basically OEM chips that they have extra stock of, why not sell them. And just because MSRP is where it's at, it will make sense for those customers who just need the CPU itself and not everything else. Am4 is a dying platform so why put more money into reinventing the wheel and why not try to get as much money as possible. They are a business, and the more money they have, the more money can be put into research and development. I do agree it is not a good value for a brand new build but I think it is a great value as an upgrade to an existing build. Heck, nobody has mentioned the platform cost, and I would put this chip with a a520 board and a dirt cheap video card for somebody who just needs a basic workstation. I feel it would still be cheaper overall than trying to do a 12th gen i3 and a cheap board based on the cost of these new generation Intel boards right now. And who knows, in a couple months to price will drop even more and it'll be a better value than it is now. But to basically dismiss this chip completely I think is not the best way to go about things. I know Steve is very opinionated at times but I feel you did drop the ball to point out where this CPU does actually have a usage scenario.
reply
John
Boy the performance of the 12100K sure seems contrived, kind of like Intel capped it's performance.
Just thought I'd throw in the point that both companies are doing the same thing with their product stacks. I mean as fast as Intel 7 can go (all-cores over 5GHz), I'm SURE the 12100K could be pushed more. But I guess it's OK for Intel, not AMD? Because the AMD product costs a little more?
How pathetic. It why after about 3 minutes of watching a GN video I have to mute the sound. I get tired of listening to CONSTANT negativity.
With using TSMC and the current hardware architecture of using chiplets, it's really good for AMD for producing high core count parts for server or 8 core parts and above for the desktop. But these low cost parts, when they're still based on chiplets and you have an IO die separate from cores, AND you're only using 3/4 or less of these cores, it still costs AMD the same to produce the 5600X, the 5800X or a 5600 or even the 5500. The 5500 doesn't have gen4 mostly likely because the die wasn't good enough to run gen4. It's ALL the same hardware. So selling these chiplet based products have pros and cons, and the con is making budget CPUs.
Personally I think AMD should go back to monolithic die for Ryzen for 8 core parts and below, and then have an interconnect that allows a core chiplet to be added to go up to 16 core for Zen 4 since it's on TSMC N5 and both those chips should be pretty small. But I don't know, maybe the amount of IO and the complexity and speed is SO great they may still have to keep it away from the cores for heat dissipation. Once they move down to N3 there should be absolutely no need to keep making desktop parts like they are now.
reply
Boy the performance of the 12100K sure seems contrived, kind of like Intel capped it's performance.
Just thought I'd throw in the point that both companies are doing the same thing with their product stacks. I mean as fast as Intel 7 can go (all-cores over 5GHz), I'm SURE the 12100K could be pushed more. But I guess it's OK for Intel, not AMD? Because the AMD product costs a little more?
How pathetic. It why after about 3 minutes of watching a GN video I have to mute the sound. I get tired of listening to CONSTANT negativity.
With using TSMC and the current hardware architecture of using chiplets, it's really good for AMD for producing high core count parts for server or 8 core parts and above for the desktop. But these low cost parts, when they're still based on chiplets and you have an IO die separate from cores, AND you're only using 3/4 or less of these cores, it still costs AMD the same to produce the 5600X, the 5800X or a 5600 or even the 5500. The 5500 doesn't have gen4 mostly likely because the die wasn't good enough to run gen4. It's ALL the same hardware. So selling these chiplet based products have pros and cons, and the con is making budget CPUs.
Personally I think AMD should go back to monolithic die for Ryzen for 8 core parts and below, and then have an interconnect that allows a core chiplet to be added to go up to 16 core for Zen 4 since it's on TSMC N5 and both those chips should be pretty small. But I don't know, maybe the amount of IO and the complexity and speed is SO great they may still have to keep it away from the cores for heat dissipation. Once they move down to N3 there should be absolutely no need to keep making desktop parts like they are now.
reply
mdavid
I mean, this is kind of AMD's strategy. The advantage to using the MCM approach was that they could streamline all of their chip design from servers to consumer-grade CPUs using a single architecture. You're getting CCDs that would otherwise be in a Epyc part in somebody's datacenter. Considering how good TSMC's yeilds on 7nm have been, I doubt there are many CCDs that have more than two bad cores. While it would be nice to have a 4C/8T part that's basically a 50% disabled Zen3 CCD--I can't imagine they get too many defects that bad. I think that they just don't have the inventory to support such a low binned part, and that would require them designing a different die for a Zen 3 budget model. With the low margins on budget-friendly parts, I suspect it wasn't worth their time to implement.
reply
I mean, this is kind of AMD's strategy. The advantage to using the MCM approach was that they could streamline all of their chip design from servers to consumer-grade CPUs using a single architecture. You're getting CCDs that would otherwise be in a Epyc part in somebody's datacenter. Considering how good TSMC's yeilds on 7nm have been, I doubt there are many CCDs that have more than two bad cores. While it would be nice to have a 4C/8T part that's basically a 50% disabled Zen3 CCD--I can't imagine they get too many defects that bad. I think that they just don't have the inventory to support such a low binned part, and that would require them designing a different die for a Zen 3 budget model. With the low margins on budget-friendly parts, I suspect it wasn't worth their time to implement.
reply
penguins
Ryzen 5500 is an excellent example why you should absolutely never be loyal to a brand. It was AMDs very badly timed attempt to copy nvidias marketing strategy but with CPUs. For about 7 years when AMD was investing in APUs I said AMD is actually innovating with APUs you're just not their customer and to stop fanboying. I got an Intel during that time and now I'm back to AMD. I've got a Ryzen 5900X and I'm loving it. You have to also consider while its overkill now it'll last me a really long time. By then DDR5 will be cheap when I need an all new build! Also I have a suspicion developing the R5500 might not have cost AMD as much R&D as people might think. But it is ironic that they certainly made an attempt to pull an nvidia and failed.
reply
Ryzen 5500 is an excellent example why you should absolutely never be loyal to a brand. It was AMDs very badly timed attempt to copy nvidias marketing strategy but with CPUs. For about 7 years when AMD was investing in APUs I said AMD is actually innovating with APUs you're just not their customer and to stop fanboying. I got an Intel during that time and now I'm back to AMD. I've got a Ryzen 5900X and I'm loving it. You have to also consider while its overkill now it'll last me a really long time. By then DDR5 will be cheap when I need an all new build! Also I have a suspicion developing the R5500 might not have cost AMD as much R&D as people might think. But it is ironic that they certainly made an attempt to pull an nvidia and failed.
reply
John
I think the 5500 could have been taken down to 55W TDP and the selling point would be a very low power part. But, maybe this is years of collecting die that didn't quite meet the specs for other CPU so their pushing it out the down as slower parts, which is perfectly fine. It is greatly discounted and I'n not going to say anything negative about AMD doing this. It is after all the same price, or even lower than what an FX-8350 was. Then add in a 3300X was 120 and this is a much better part.
YOU probably won't ever see them. They'll get scalped and sold for 200, which will be about the same price you'll find the 5600X, or at least I bought one for 210 NEW at Microcenter.
reply
I think the 5500 could have been taken down to 55W TDP and the selling point would be a very low power part. But, maybe this is years of collecting die that didn't quite meet the specs for other CPU so their pushing it out the down as slower parts, which is perfectly fine. It is greatly discounted and I'n not going to say anything negative about AMD doing this. It is after all the same price, or even lower than what an FX-8350 was. Then add in a 3300X was 120 and this is a much better part.
YOU probably won't ever see them. They'll get scalped and sold for 200, which will be about the same price you'll find the 5600X, or at least I bought one for 210 NEW at Microcenter.
reply
penguins
8:40 honestly I feel this is actually a much more respectable business strategy than it's being made out to be relentless competition sounds great except most of that is actually just anti- competitive practices. If AMD can just wait for Intel to invest in a market segment it doesn't immediately reveal its weakness to Intel nor did have to invest or sell on extremely slim margins just to snuff the competition. AMD might also see a lot of its business model based in custom design and distribution deals rather than retail. Intel also has far more captial than AMD so it'd be like backing your economy into a corner only to have them fly away in a jetpack.
reply
8:40 honestly I feel this is actually a much more respectable business strategy than it's being made out to be relentless competition sounds great except most of that is actually just anti- competitive practices. If AMD can just wait for Intel to invest in a market segment it doesn't immediately reveal its weakness to Intel nor did have to invest or sell on extremely slim margins just to snuff the competition. AMD might also see a lot of its business model based in custom design and distribution deals rather than retail. Intel also has far more captial than AMD so it'd be like backing your economy into a corner only to have them fly away in a jetpack.
reply
TheBobcat1978
I am using a 5600X on my gaming setup. Might go w a 5900x. Also use 2 10300s for headless systems. As much as I love And now, I can't really use them because of the lack of graphic integrated cpus. I am aware of the 5600G. But as always, the G series tend to come to the party late upon the launch of next Gen cycles.
So my question is how cone Amd just can't do what Intel does and offer more variety to its chips when they are released. Not everyone games and if they don't have a integrated gpu, they aren't suitable for things like nas and routers which after initializing can be run headless.
reply
I am using a 5600X on my gaming setup. Might go w a 5900x. Also use 2 10300s for headless systems. As much as I love And now, I can't really use them because of the lack of graphic integrated cpus. I am aware of the 5600G. But as always, the G series tend to come to the party late upon the launch of next Gen cycles.
So my question is how cone Amd just can't do what Intel does and offer more variety to its chips when they are released. Not everyone games and if they don't have a integrated gpu, they aren't suitable for things like nas and routers which after initializing can be run headless.
reply
Googlar
While the 5500 is clearly performing worse than the 12100F in games, are there any CPU heavy games which scale well across multiple cores and threads which actually run better on the 5500? One could be forgiven for thinking that the 5500 might be more future proof than the 12100F, and I'm curious to know how that will pain out.
Also, is the 5500 actually significantly slower than the 5600G? I had assumed that it would perform almost identically to a 5600G, but I seem to recall the 5600G faring better against the 3600 in the benchmarks I've seen.
reply
While the 5500 is clearly performing worse than the 12100F in games, are there any CPU heavy games which scale well across multiple cores and threads which actually run better on the 5500? One could be forgiven for thinking that the 5500 might be more future proof than the 12100F, and I'm curious to know how that will pain out.
Also, is the 5500 actually significantly slower than the 5600G? I had assumed that it would perform almost identically to a 5600G, but I seem to recall the 5600G faring better against the 3600 in the benchmarks I've seen.
reply
Gorbaz
Rather predictably, you completely ignore the fact that 12100F doesn't have good cheap motherboard options. Either route is fine, LGA1700 can have better connectivity if you are willing to spend more, neither has great connectivity or upgrade options when you go with cheap boards. B450 and B550 boards which are more than adequate for this class of CPU are available for under / 80 in most places, spend 100 or so and you can get a board that will handle a 5900x/5950x, but that won't be a particularly interesting upgrade option in a few gens time.
reply
Rather predictably, you completely ignore the fact that 12100F doesn't have good cheap motherboard options. Either route is fine, LGA1700 can have better connectivity if you are willing to spend more, neither has great connectivity or upgrade options when you go with cheap boards. B450 and B550 boards which are more than adequate for this class of CPU are available for under / 80 in most places, spend 100 or so and you can get a board that will handle a 5900x/5950x, but that won't be a particularly interesting upgrade option in a few gens time.
reply
trancelistic
At least the name makes sense, a 5500. A bit lower number then a 3600 but are very close.
Anyhows I'm on a 3600 and think if i only upgrade if its a 5800x. Else I just wait a bit longer. Cpu is still fine for me.
Edit: Well the 5500 should be a lot cheaper then the 229 euro 5600x anyhows. Heck I might change my 3600 to 5600x, It would help alot on my RTX 3060TI and then just sell my 3600 so the 5600x is rly cheap for me.
reply
At least the name makes sense, a 5500. A bit lower number then a 3600 but are very close.
Anyhows I'm on a 3600 and think if i only upgrade if its a 5800x. Else I just wait a bit longer. Cpu is still fine for me.
Edit: Well the 5500 should be a lot cheaper then the 229 euro 5600x anyhows. Heck I might change my 3600 to 5600x, It would help alot on my RTX 3060TI and then just sell my 3600 so the 5600x is rly cheap for me.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
