The 5900x appears to be a poor choice compared to the 5800x.
The 5900x appears to be a poor choice compared to the 5800x.
The 5900x is priced at 550 when available, whereas the 5800x sells for 450. Both models offer the same single-core performance, but the 5900x includes 8 cores and the 5800x has 12 cores. This difference could make the 5900x a more attractive option, delivering roughly half as many cores for a 22% price rise. That increase in cost could be justified by improved efficiency and a longer lifespan—about five years instead of four—thanks to the additional cores. Some might argue they only need gaming with single-core usage, but even a modest 100-dollar gap for four extra cores seems worthwhile, especially for multitasking tasks. What are your thoughts?
Everyone agreed on the main point throughout. The only thing that changed was the timing of when you could actually purchase a 5900X.
Initially, it's not just about gaming; most programs don't require many cores. Only passionate users and professionals need numerous cores. The majority of the world still uses 2 or 4-core CPUs. Second, not everyone can afford an additional $100; many have a fixed budget and prefer spending on storage or a better GPU rather than more cores that offer little benefit. Third, not all people live in the US, and $100 USD is significantly more than it is in other countries, amplifying the disparity.
If everything were available, the 5800x would seem like a poor purchase. However, locating a 5900x model isn’t possible. The current supply should improve if demand for a single Zen 3 CPU spikes, but right now the 5800x remains the best choice. Many prefer spending under $450, and some find the extra $100 unnecessary. Not everyone requires 12 or 8 cores—pricing would need to be more attractive for the 5800x to justify itself.
For most users, the Ryzen 5 5600X covers gaming and single-threaded tasks, while the Ryzen 9 suits multithreaded workloads. The R7 offers a similar performance at a lower price, close to the Ryzen 9. Apps designed for more than six cores but not twelve are rarely needed. It might make sense for a small group, but few follow this path. Those on tight budgets can’t afford a Ryzen 9, whereas others who aren’t restricted may find spending $100 on a $2000 build too costly. Foreign pricing also plays a role. This guidance is for the USA, and yes—Ryzen 9 units aren’t always available. If you need something right away, the 5800X remains a solid alternative, even without Ryzen 9s.
It's not the best price but it's available. The top-performing benches I've seen are also on the 5800x (single ccx?), I almost grabbed one but am holding off for a 5950x. The 5600x and 5900x weren't on my radar, so don't think I'm missing anything. Just a different perspective.
The more practical choice seems clearer to me. The first option costs X plus $100 for four extra cores you likely won’t need, while the second involves spending x on something you’ll actually use. The latter makes more sense, especially since $5900X wasn’t available. A $450 investment in this technology for regular work and extended play is a smart decision. No further questions.