But as Spiderman showed it clearly will become advantageous to have DDR5 in time.
DDR5 or cache. People forget 5800X3D also performs much better than vanilla 5800X in that graph.
Upcoming Intel chips are bumping the cache massively as well, and that is either bound to increase the difference yet again (if it'still a bottleneck) or offset the DDR5 advantage a little. We'll see when Raptor Lake launches and people test it with DDR4.
As the screenshot will confirm, Each Raptor Cove P performance core has 2 MB of dedicated L2 cache, up from 1.25 MB on Alder Lake-S Gracemont has 16 E-cores in 4 clusters, while "Alder Lake-S" has 8 in 2 clusters. Each cluster's four cores share L2 cache. Intel quadrupled "Alder Lake" L2 cache from 2 MB to 4 MB. The chip's shared L3 cache is now 36 MB. Eight 2 MB P-cores and four 4 MB E-core clusters total 32 MB L2 cache. L2+L3 cache is 68 MB.
Source:
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/i...onfirmed-through-leaked-cpu-z-screenshot.html
Likely why AMD decided to just lock in for DDR5, im assuming they are planning on having AM5 socket last a while.
They didn't decide to lock it for that, they thought DDR5 would replace DDR4 in the way DDR4 replaced DDR3 without any meaningful price difference and then it was just too late.
Processors or northbridges/chipset (I don't know which controls the RAM supported by the system) don't have the registers for DDR4 and they'll have to launch as is. I have no doubt they would support DDR4 if they could.
If they launch 6 Cores and 8 Cores at $299/$449 like last time then that is too high.
Intel will likely have 6+8 and 8+8 Core CPUs at a similar price to that a month later.
Yes and no.
Not all cores are made equal, intel e-cores are designed so a 8-core cluster performs as well as a Skylake 6600K (a quad core design). It's useful to offload background tasks and increase energy efficiency if the computer is idling and it's still performant enough that it helps total performance, but... One should see it as free performance while their heavy hitters are still the conventional p-cores.
I'm sure AMD will compete with intel 6-core chips plus the helper Atoms with similarly priced 8-core designs. And these extra cores will be advantageous for at least some tasks, like the ones that require the AVX512 that intel nuked due to the atoms not supporting.
I also hope AMD makes 10 and 12 core CPU's at some point, perhaps with faulty CCX chiplets.