Coasters are also IN STOCK & SHIPPING:store.gamersnexus.net/products/3d-coaster-pack-4-component-coasters The R5 5600 non-X seems actually good. Watch our review here: ua-cam.com/video/ifI9nnmW5sg/v-deo.html Our review of the Intel i3-12100F can be found here: ua-cam.com/video/01EhbmJAW-k/v-deo.html Our full review of the disappointing R5 5500 can be found here: ua-cam.com/video/JPPeSNV9Hog/v-deo.html
Tf is your problem it's a budget cpu that can get the job done for someone it not nor is it competing with Intel it's just to fill a gap AMD should of been did if anyone wants performance buy the 5600 non x
Using up waste silicon is not a bad idea, but if this was a $75-80 OEM only chip with graphics for office boxes then it would be fine. As a consumer product with no graphics above $100 it is an insult.
Indeed, (but way lower than 75 dollars) they should have maybe enabled the APU and fused off the completely crappy cores and sold them as replacement for the athlon AM4 APUs. That would have been a solid path way for low spec gaming and enabling people to at least enter the PC build market via 300 series on AM4 in regions where what most consider cheap in dollar amounts is an actual fortune in local currency.
This is a good point, actually. Even if it had all but 3 of its CUs disabled, it would be fine as a successor to the 3000G with vega 3 and a higher core count.
@@ghomerhust but its not garbage. Its always the same stupid comment here "its the same as X older model" yeah, X is no longer in production, so the new one is just a replacement for cheap builds
@@GamersNexus you know there's a theory about a serial killer that drowns people in rivers draws smiley faces around the scene of the crime?, I have a theory, it's probably announcing the 4100, oh boy.
We'll take another look at the i3-10 series! It's been a little while, but we didn't notice its price until commenters started pointing out that it's so cheap now!
Honestly, at as low as $80 for the 10100F and with how cheap b460 boards are getting (seeing good ones for under $90), there's no way the 4500 can be redeemable in a pure budget sense where every dollar counts.
@@mallon04008... Well, Price up the G7400 thats Actually Useless Garbage lol. A 2600x is around $100 used, so $130 isn’t terrible partly thanks to intel going PCIe 5 pricing their boards to be redundant Why the 5500 is better value than the 12100, because a good used b450 like an MSI board can be had for $50, and will run a 5800x, Probably a 5900x with airflow Motherboards just make AMD Nearly Unbeatable at the moment, Intel seriously messed up with their boards
AMD prices this because they want people to spend more on a 5600x. AMD doesn't give a damn about making good value products. The 1600af was nothing more then a temporary product to make AMD seem like a value king. They stopped selling or making them after 6 months. Kind of like the 3300x which was only on sale at launch and then was never available for purchase at MSRP for years afterwards. AMD loves making halo products.
@@Tofuey no, 1600af was meant to fulfill contracts for original 1600, because they stopped making 1k silicon 3300x and 3100 was indeed like you say, but my friend bought 3300x at the end of august 2020 (3 months after launch), and it was still available for at least a month for same intended price (in russia)
@@Tofuey that’s exactly right, and they wanted people who bought the 1600af to stay on the AM4 platform so they can upgrade to another Amd cpu. It’s all about money
i really dont think this will survive. there isnt going to be ANY positive reviews of it, so unless the price PLUMETS, it's the worst bang for the buck in the entire cpu lineup from everyone combined. horrible. this is more akin to the person that nobody liked so they committed a ton of felonies and are spending the next 50 years in the clink.
@@ghomerhust You can get decent AMD motherboards for a low as 35 USD, so, no, you're wrong, and even Steve is wrong. Obviously you can't count on finding a price that low on a decent motherboard, but the CPU isn't inherently bad, and would actually be a good value if paired with such a low-cost board. That being said, if we're talking about hunting for the best value for someone on a very low budget, a used 2600, or used 3600 is probably going to be a better option than a 4500.
AMD already made the ultimate case that Steve is right and Reddit is wrong: The AMD bike was a bad product and would always be a bad product no matter what price it was sold for. Thankfully Steve trashed it so badly for being the safety hazard that it was that AMD pulled it from sale.
I've seen very decent B450M AM4 motherboards for as low as about 35 USD in the past few weeks. At that price, even a 4500 is a good value. You can't really compare AMD vs. Intel CPUs without considering the cost of the motherboard, though I realize that prices (especially sale prices) will fluctuate a lot, and can vary a lot by region.
@@syncmonism I wouldn't say the 4500 is _good_ value, even when considering the motherboard. An i3-12100F and H610M is about $30/£20 more expensive overall, but its single-core performance is much better and you get PCIe 4.0. The 4500 isn't completely terrible, but it's not good either.
@@nathangamble125 I mean...I caught an ASUS A520 mobo on sale for $35 CDN, so I see what you're saying, but $99 is about the most that I'd pay for a CPU for it...and that's pushing it. It's sitting here until I find a cheap case, and catch a Zen 2 or 3 CPU on the cheap to throw into it. Likely around Black Friday when retailers have a crapload of these junk piles that have been taking up space and collecting dust in their store rooms that they want to get rid of to make room for budget and mid-range Zen 4 CPUs and high-end ARC GPUs. 😉
Would've been a great $85 cpu. package up those failed laptop cpus and make a few bucks on them, but they're proving that brand loyalty is for the small minded. buy whatever is the best bang for the buck when you need to upgrade. My old $120 r5 2600 could probably still hang with this turd. At least they aren't priced like GPUs, and we can actually pick and choose our CPU at a competitive prices....not the 4500 though.
Yep, I think $85 would have put it in an interesting position for sure. As with you, I buy when things make sense regardless of brand. Thus I'm currently running - AMD 1700, AMD 5900X, AMD 5950X, Intel 11700, Intel 9900, Intel 8400. Pretty even split across the board. Tho I will say the AMD chips have been handy with the ECC support for homelab stuff.
@@unicaller1 It seems reasonable, but the 4500 is so anemic that it isn't a performant enough upgrade to anything in the AM4 socket...IMO If you can save up $130 I'd wait another year and grab a discounted 5600....I'll probably do that to replace my 2600, but I really don't need to upgrade yet as I only have 60hz monitor and wouldn't get any benefit in gaming with a more powerful CPU unless I upgrade my graphics card and monitor. Cheers
@@Ben-ry1py Looks a lot faster them most first gen Ryzens. It's also much faster then most of the AM4 Athlons. Another year can also be a long time. So it could be a reasonable up grade path, even if it is not for you. Just like other very low end Ryzens, they are just dies that have had defective parts disabled. There won't ever be many on the market any way.
@@unicaller1 I disagree that it's a lot faster than zen 1. It' might be about 15% faster in gaming on average than a 1600. Not worth upgrading IMO. If you could find a really cheap mobo it might be worth building a cheap gaming rig with room to upgrade in the future. I'd still wait for the price to come down though, but that's just my preference. I got lucky and bought my 2600 when it was at it's lowest price. I could buy a used one for the price I got mine new a few years back. Intel is looking pretty good right now, but I'm sure the mother boards are more pricey than AMDs right now. Either way. It'll be fine for gaming at 60hz for a few years, and that's all most of us need. Thanks for your perspective. I know some people are on super tight budgets. I'd love it if this thing cost them at least $20 less though. Cheers
I don't mind using failed chips, as long as the price is right. If this was an Athlon CPU with an msrp of around 80$, it could have been a great one. maybe even if it had not SMT.
The 4100 could be the new Athlon(35 USD) if its performance scales linearly to this. Jumping to quad-core on Athlon would be a natural progression. This should be the lowest Ryzen 3 SKU "4100" at $65 USD, and the 5500 could be the "4300X" at $100 USD
@@madguitarist the thing is ryzen 3s are the quad core tier alreadyy. However, they could have updated the athlon series by releasing a new dual core athlon, but with the zen 3 architecture, alongsided a more expensive, yet still budget ryzen 3 5100... it would be a huge bump in performance tbh. And if there was a 5100 for 100 dollars, it would have been great.
@@mparagames I mean...I don't particularly disagree with that, but if we're being honest, it's time to move to Quad core in the ultra budget basement of the stacks already. 6-core should be the budget to mid-range offerings, and 8-core should be the upper mid-range. Athlon was quad-core(X4 950) in the generation before it switched to Zen, so I stand by what I said.
@@madguitarist i mean, the better it is, the more it benefits the consumer, of course. I'm just saying that realistically speaking, it's more reasonable to think of a ryzen 3 5100 rather than a quad core athlon. However, they are already releasing zen 4 instead...
Office & school computers for light use, such as calculator, browser, Word and Excel, at $80, this would make sense. For anything else, above $80, a joke and a meme.
Problem is, that it has no integrated graphics. Even the cheapest dedicated GPU will set you back enough to make alternatives with iGPU the better deal.
Hey there! I didn't know you watch these videos. I am subscribed to you. I have been subscribed to you way before UA-cam had the "Bell" icon for notifications.
Rehash this to something like "Athlon 4000", sell for half price, credibility restored as hero of the budget PC and the low end office market. I will gladly accept the job as high priest of PR at AMD.
@@TheDoomerBlox Well, other than pairing it with the other waste of sand that is the 6500 XT or the rumoured 6500 and calling it the eternal e-waste machine, I have no other ideas. Maybe slapping a crap laptop GPU on one of those embedded motherboards like a Lattepanda? I dont know. Good luck with that, AMD.
Meh. They are clearing out some bins of silicon that failed QA for their intended uses. It's not like they were ever going to come to the rescue of budget builders with tens of millions produced. Look on the flipside with the 1600AF... was a great value.. but they didn't exactly churn out a ton of them.
I disagree a little bit with "just let it be waste" - if you use it correctly! This would have been a perfect successor for the Ryzen 1600AF - it was a 80$ CPU which was a perfect match for people, that did not invest a lot of money. You can get a modern B450 Motherboard for below 50$ new and if they would have just made the price right (below 100$) it would have been perfect (maybe instead of releasing the 4100). Other than that: Great video, thanks again and as you already said: I am glad there is some competition from Intel and that AMD is forced to stop doing such products, if they want to keep their reputation.
Except the 1600af was essentially a 2600, and better than the 1600 in every way, while the 4500 loses to the previous 3600 and probably even the two generation old 2600 as well lol. Even at a lower price it's a waste of money.
Something to keep in mind is that with current inflation you have to pay about $120 today to purchase the same amount of goods as $100 bought you 4 years ago. Add to that increased wafer and supply chain costs, and it is perfectly reasonable that what we would have thought of as a $90 part a couple years ago is at fair market price at $130.
AMD was the first company to bring out a PCI-E Gen 4 platform 2 years before Intel. Yet in 2022... They are still stuck on PCI-E gen 3 on their budget platform while Intel is providing Gen 4/5... How the tables have turned!
Yeah, because that generation didn't have PCI-e 4.0... this is a couple years old already, AMD just released it to the retail market late. At least they kept the generation naming correctly.
@@looncraz The chiplet-based zen 2 Matisse CPUs (such as the 3600) did support PCIe 4.0, it just wasn't a consideration when it came out since it made far more sense to buy a B450 board than an X570 one. The monolithic Renoir CPUs (such as the 4600G and 4500) do not support PCIe 4.0, however. It's a similar case to zen 3 in that regard.
Just built a rig with one of these. Paid $59 for it. $50 for an asrock a520 mb and $150 for a power color rx6600. Plays 1080p ultra in evey game at 60+fps. It's great! LOVE IT!
Can’t wait to see a “budget pc build - crippled edition” pairing the 4500 with the 6500XT, that will be equivalent to watching a person run marathon after you cut all of their limbs off
This doesn't sound like a bad product to me. It's recycled silicon, as you said. They can sell it for *something* or throw it in a dumpster for *nothing* . It _is_ however, a very bad price.
Recycled silicon, the only benefit (in theory) is for AMD in profit, but considering there are so many other factors here like the inevitable profit margin loss due to terrible specs, all the other necessary production needed to make the recycled silicon into something useful, and disgraceful brand rep, it might just level out, in which case there was no use. It only wasted energy and resources that otherwise would have not been used. The release of new stuff makes markets move in good directions.
Sunken cost is generally regarded as a fallacy. And as consumers we shouldn’t judge a product based on the corporations’ bottom lines. If you approach it from a corporate perspective… then Rocket Lake was an absolute win. By implementing a design on a node it wasn’t designed for, Intel got the experience it needs to secure its future (in case their in house node falls behind again), and they got the public to floor the cost of this experiment. (Although I would argue that Rocket Lake was a decent generation, better than Comet Lake at least. 114/6/7 are substantially better than 104/6/7. And even in the case of the 11900K, it generally matched the nT performance of its predecessor with two less cores. As end users, given the same nT performance, the solution with a smaller amount of strong cores is preferable. At the same price I’d take a 11900K over a 10900K any day of the week.)
@@Cinkodacs 2200G -> 3600 upgrade high five! My 2200G still gets plenty of use in a second machine. I'd love something like a 4500G instead of this 4500... provided it was still cheaper than $130.
Just used a 4500 in a productivity machine for a friend. Got it on sale for $68. At that price, and for that purpose, it's great. Even scored almost 10,000 in Cinebench R23, although the end user will never run it that hard.
Too bad tech pundits here on YT have given it a bad image. I just build a pc with 4500 as a placeholder. I must admit it is here to stay for couple years. All games I have like Cyberpunk and WH3 are running just perfectly and my RX5700xt seems to be the bottleneck here. This chip has not been intended to be the top performer. It’s just the reasonable performance for a reasonable price. It can do everything one has to throw in it.
@@LazyB00Mactually im planing to get the same setup but with 5600xt gbu which is cheaper than the used 1660s here in egypt, the problem is that i'm a bit scared of buying it from aliexpress tho the seller got like over 5k salles and 1570 reviews with rating 4.8 stars so what do you think do I buy it ?
Remember the deep discounts on the 1000 and 2000 series? Remember the 1600AF for $85? AMD realized they were giving it to us too good, so this garbage is what we get now. Unfortunately for them, Intel is back on their feet so AMD can't get away with this. The 4500 would make sense around $60-$80 and no more than that for the soon-to-be-outdated AM4 platform. What a shame, this could have been a return to the solid budget options they used to offer.
I got a 1600AF for my husband's current rig. Was a decent choice for the small budget he gave me to work with. He doesn't run any games more demanding than WoW, so he's been very happy with it. I'm a lot less happy about having gotten him a GTX 1050 in 2020, but that's what the budget he set allowed for and it's still a massive improvement over what he had before. Oh well :( I'll probably get him an upgrade next summer. Real shame that they thought they could release the 4500 at that price point. Consensus does seem to be that for $80 or so it'd be a reasonable low-budget choice.
AMD got the good will of the people, then shot their prices beyond intel as soon as they got the performance advantage. (5800x at 450 was such a goddamn shitty price) AMD is just as shitty as intel and people need to stop acting like anything else is true.
Here's a video idea for you all: I would love to see a video comparing the flagship models of all the CPUs in the past 5 years from intel and AMD including their modern CPU flagships. It's all well and good to see how everything compares between modern CPU's, but I would love to see the differences between the 6700k, 7700k, 8700k, 9900k, etc and AMD's flagships. Especially when overclocking. Sometimes I see these and wonder if it is worth even looking at an upgrade or if I'm really missing out on anything not upgrading my platform for 3+ years. Yes PCIE support I know I'm missing out on, but other than that, I'd love to see how far both intel and AMD have come in 5 years.
I think tomshardware did a couple "same ghz tests" in the past, where they put all the chips at the same clock and tested how much architechture has improved. And about PCIe, I don't think I have any reason hunt for it now. I mean I'm still on a DDR3 system and my secondary one is my old DDR2/PCIe1.1 setup that also still does stuff. And besides that it'll take a while for GPUs to really "need" PCIe4 (except for the waste of sand called RX 6500, but that is the GPUs fault). It was the same with PCIe3 and PCIe2 before it. Took a while for cards to utilize the bandwidth sufficiently that the older standard had a noticeable hit in performance.
Intel have made AMD look like a bit of a joke at the lower end. Worse, AMD then decided they could do a better job of smashing their reputation. They did it well at least.
You can get the 12gen i3 in Germany rn for only 90€ which is the price drop of nearly twenty euros. Considering this, i think it is an even better option then any other Budget CPU.
@@arch1107 you don't need ddr5 at all, buying ddr5 is pointless right now. The cheapest mbs are H610 ~80€ or B660 ~110€ where I live. Yes the motherboards are probably more expensive than AM4 equivalents however you get higher pcie gens and you will get at least 1 and maybe 2 more generations of CPUs to upgrade into.
@@randomlycasual4941 sure, best idea, buy a new motherboard and ddr4, because it will be futureproof 200 iq there, upgrade path to it, is none at least if you stay in am4 you already know what you have and what your next step is, don't answer just trying to win, here, you don't win, you get a fucking i3 but on a new socket and in a ddr4 motherboard in 2022
They had to be refurbished, repackaged, reshipped, and will still eventually end up in a landfil. Every stage of this process requires energy and resources and manpower. Don't kid yourself, this does literally nothing for the environment - quite the opposite really. And some dumb people will contribute to even pay for this to happen, by buying these garbage products. It would literally be cleaner if they just dumped all of this in a landfill.
I bought it as part of a prebuilt, it´s quite good for 4k gaming with a 6600xt, I undervolted both, capped the CPU to 4 GHz with a -0,1 V offset and I only need 10 W CPU at Forza Horizon Ultra 4 and Forza Horrizon 4 High settings at 4K with 60 FPS cap. They graphics card draws a bit more than 50 W on average, undervolted from 1,15 to 1,08 capped to 2200 MHZ. The Cpu reaches about 41 Celsius max in that games. It is super energy efficient and at 4k you don´t need the fasted and most expensive CPU. The price of the CPU is now really ok and you only need a very cheap B450 for it. If you want to have more performance you could overclock it a lot quite easily, or overclock it a little and undervolt it at the same time even on a 40 to 45 USD B450 motherboard it is very easy to do. I think it is a very good value to pair a 4500 (or a 5500) with a rx6600 and a B450 plus 16 GB of very cheap DDR4 Ram. Ryzen 7000, Alderlake, Raptorlake or a 5800x3d are a waste of money for such a budget gaming system. Keep in mind how many FPS you can get per Dollar!
@@arch1107 so why the i3 10100F is successful? Because AMD fanboys said intel made cheap cpus, so it's sh*t? While pricing Zen 3 so high that until competition called they released some absolute turds just to desperately respond?
@@arch1107 nope, never angry about that. Just usual fanboys quarrel that each other one's product is bad, on one way or another. Personally I enjoyed both.
@@TheReelToneMF because the 10900k was superior in every aspect. and the fact that you could’ve gotten the 10850k for cheaper made the 11900k even more irrelevant
Now that the price has dropped $40 its looking like an attractive option. AM4 motherboards can be gotten cheaper more easily than intel accepting boards.
Yup... I just recently bought this CPU. I kinda urgently need a new system to replace my old system, I bought it around $87... and it's cheaper around $20 compared with R5 3600 and around $26 cheaper around R5 4600G. So it's good enough for me until I can afford the R7, maybe next year.
@@da_pawz I just purchased a new custom built rig by a enthusiast with this CPU. It seems I made the sacrifice by having a RTX 4070Ti while keeping the overall price point at $1000 on the dot. Is this CPU good enough temporarily or is it gonna bottleneck my new 4070Ti?
I pray for the day when companies get their heads out of their asses and realize providing good, efficient, cheap, friendly products/services naturally creates profits and market domination. Look at Valve. They've done that for years and they rightfully deserve their spot in the industry.
Valve has been sitting on the largest captive market for years and years, and only since EGS started to viably encroach on their market did they get off their asses beyond glorified platform life support. Brand loyalty will get you nowhere. Do you remember Artifact? Or whatever that game was called? I'm glad that failed hard enough to get them to actually innovate.
@@Lakius Did they actually, though? Tim Sweeney's bullshit artist storefront is barely catching up to Steam features from 2008 just now because they're so busy pushing NFTs and lying to people's faces.
Reusing somehow defect CPUs is not a waste - the chips were already made - the real problem is pricing.... at 75 bucks it would have been not such a bad product.
I feel so bad for those who bought the 4500 who couldn't wait for this review cause they thought "it's AMD, it's most probably good" For context this CPU costs around 165$ in my country after taxes I think and most because of amd hype while the 12100F costs around 126$. It's most definitely clear who wins.
I mean in reality anyone who did buy it would probably be fine with it. My computer isn't suddenly on fire because I'm using a 2600x still which is worse than this cpu. It's not like they ended up with an athlon II x2 from 2008 or something.
@@BrianMcKee that is true. but value wise, paying for that much isn't just worth it when there are better options out on the market. but they'd still be fine nonetheless. just probably with a tiny bit of regret.
@@jared_kc3155 There are people still on A320 chipset with lack of support for pci4 and weaker vrms, these will be a choice for them maybe not optimal but still in case they needed something a little better, I wouldn't say this is a waste unlike someone who gets free stuff and sponsored hardware for free like gamersnexus which happen to have another perspective of the world where nothing is free and you have to go out there to work your ass off in order to have something.
And I paid about that for my 3600 2 years ago. I'm so glad about buying that thing. Amazing CPU that holds up pretty well and the 4500 and 5500 are just garbage
@@jared_kc3155 Intel motherboards generally cost more, but for someone who already has an AM4 motherboard, this might actually be a pretty good value, though you could probably find a better deal by looking for a good price on a used 2600 or 3600, and for anybody who can afford one, the 5600 is probably the best choice.
Okay, so I did end up buying this CPU for my first ever PC build. I'm coming from playing consoles almost exclusively my whole life and coming from a PS4 slim, this is actually a significant upgrade to me. I'm very new to what general expectations are to PC gaming and I really have to ask, with the PS4/Xbox one games sometimes averaging at around 30 fps, is having a very consistent 60 (and sometimes double that) fps really such a bad thing? Especially when I don't plan up upgrade to a high refresh rate monitor that displays better than 1080p? Because, I'm genuinely happy with my setup and I'm perfectly content playing Doom Eternal on Ultra settings running at a consistent 60 fps.
yeah im the same. i dont really do pc gaming to get high fps. i do it for the sheer amount of games and prices of games available. and also you can do basically any thing on a pc its a total multimedia device. people still tend to forget that the human eye can't even see more than 60fps. you can feel the smoothness and fluidity in a game but you can't see it.
@@Writeous0ne well, i agree with everything you said but the affirmation of "the human eye can't see more than 60fps". That's not... true. You could say you don't care for 120+ fps, and i kinda don't either, but having more than 60 fps IS a noticeable diference. I have used 120hz screen before, it does feel different.
I remember my friends and randoms online talking about intel being evil money grubbers and amd being the good guy, bringing more cores for cheap and at almost the same performance, then at better performance, and saying to them "they're both big companies that only care about your money, once amd are firmly on top they'll do the same BS as intel has been doing" sucks to be right
Theres no hope for people who think big corporations want to be their friend. Just buy the product you want and forget they exist until you need something new.
I own one of these and have a RX 6800 matched to it. It's not bad at all for budget builders. I got it for $100 new. I compared it to my buddy's R5 3600 and it's ALMOST the exact same in performance with my 6800. You gotta remember some of us are out here making bullshit wages man. Take it easy bro.
@@lifeisbeautiful7361 Yeah I just thought it was dumb to act as if this product is worthless. I needed a computer ASAP to make ends meet until I could get better parts so I got what I could but still have room to upgrade. For sure if I had more money at the time I would have got something else but for a brand new 6 core CPU $100 is a deal even now. I'm buying a 5900x in a few days and will use this for a small build I'm doing in a few months.
What an absolute joke of a CPU. AMD clearly doesn't care about budget buyers and just threw this into the market to try and cash in on the Ryzen brand by selling a trash CPU, people should be buying the much better i3-12100F.
I think they're trying to cash in on misleading product naming, because it has 4500 number and 6 cores most people will assume it's actually better than Ryzen 3600 lol.. meanwhile in reality it's slower
my guess is they're having a hard time making decent budget CPUs since they still have to pay TSMC and probably don't want tiny margins anymore. Might bite them in the butt later on though. Intel is super strong in the budget segment right now.
I think it´s better value for money than the 10400F. I think you are exaggerating. I ordered a new prebuild with full warranty today with it, including a 6600XT(cheapest price in Germany at the moment 399 Euros), 500 GB M.2 PCIe SSD, 2x8 GB RAM 3200 Mhz...... including 2 free games and shipping and VAT for only 684 Euro. I think it is a bargain and I will not regreat it. That means I paid only 285 Euros without the GPU, for a cheap enough price almost everything is ok. It´s not a waste of silicon, it´s well used silicon, when you consider AMD would have to throw it away with the damaged iGPU. They bring the manufacturing reject to good use and it makes me feel good to support, combined with the felling that I have made a bargain. Another thing is that AMD is a bit more power efficient than intel. It also very possibly works better together with the AMD GPU, for nice to have gadgets like Smart Acces Memory.
It is a reuse of silicon, that takes additional money. It isn't supposed to be a product with an optimum balance of performance and price. It is merely to recover loses without compromising the success of other lines. They want it to not be a great deal and you should to, margins on chips are so low if someone wants to buy this extremely middling chip then let them.
Considering the AM4 vs LGA 1700 motherboard prices, this isn't necessarily as bad as people make it out to be. If you consider that, the 4500 is closer in price to the Pentium G7400 -- which it decimates.
@@Farisss11 there are b660 boards that can be bought for less than 100 dollars. The board I bought for my sister I got for 90 dollars. The 12400f I bought on sale for 140 dollars (only 10 dollars more than the MSRP of the 4500), a vastly superior cpu. The 4500+Mobo combo would've had to somehow save me at least a good 75-100 dollars to be a comparable deal here. The cheapest non-used motherboards that can run this cpu go for a good 70 or so, while the 4500 itself has barely budged in price since this video, so the best you'll get is maybe 30 dollars of saving. Lest we forget, at these prices, you may want to look at an h610 board anyway, which can also be found for 70 or so, so that means there's literally no saving at all here if you dig even a little bit. There's literally nothing salvageable here.
Im torn on this. If these arent new production dies, then the recycling oriented part of me applauds AMD for re-using them instead of throwing them out. On the opposite end, I admonish AMD's pricing on it. This should really be a $100 or below cpu
AMD could have been turning defective dies into products **literally years ago**. They've been throwing those dies until now, because by selling only fully-functional silicon they were able to artificially keep supply low and thus their prices high. The only reason they've dumped this clutch of chips on us is that Intel is eating their lunch at the low-end... and even with that caveat, AMD has now become so greedy they aren't even willing to price their defective silicon at prices to compete with Intel. AMD deserves no applause. What they do deserve is pure unmitigated contempt for managing to become greedier then Intel with less than half a decade of dominance.
I bought this this year as an upgrade to my 9100f for £65, worth every penny if you ask me, I have had no problems with it at all I will say I bought it as a temp until I can upgrade to something a lot more powerful, but this is actually a great CPU for the price..
The 4500 should have been an $80 chip at worst, and never released in the consumer space at best. If I recall, it costs the same amount per unit to package the chips onto a substrate, so I do agree with the sentiment that AMD should have just tossed these out.
Why don't they just say 'hey these are left over from production take them for 80 bucks'? Would be a win win and they would beat out Intel in the ultra low budget range.
Thanks for the heads up Steve! But I need yours or other people's opinion on whether or not should I buy the mentioned Ryzen 4500. My Ryzen 1600 (non AF) is getting pretty old and in a dire need of upgrade. I was saving money to buy the Ryzen 5600, but the lowest price for it in my local stores is currently $219 while the Ryzen 4500 is sitting around $149. I was thinking of buying the latter to save more money to upgrade my old GPU, the GTX 1060 to something a lot better like the RX 6600. I'm still in college working part time with a very little income (since most of it goes to student loan). While I can wait a bit longer to save up more money, I need to upgrade soon since I felt left behind by my classmates whenever there is a demanding projects with the use of after effects. Thanks again, keep up the good work! EDIT: I don't think I'll be selling my old CPU and GPU to get a better deal, because I'm currently still using it since I don't have a laptop. And after the upgrade I want to save it to build my sister a PC using my old components.
Basically, it's 2700X gaming performance, between 2600X and 2700X productivity performance, with lower power consumption, at $130. For an older Ryzen user with an AM4 motherboard, what can beat this today for $130 (including the cost of the motherboard)?
Typing this on a laptop with a 4500U in it, it's still a surprisingly good lower mid-end laptop processor today. I have no clue why AMD thought giving it multithreading and making it a desktop part was a good idea.
@Claudio Salazar I guess you're not wrong, but that is one hell of a bullshit comparison. "Did you know that this top of the line part will last me longer than a budget part?" Yeah, no shit. I'd expect as much going by how I paid 3x less for the device. Would you like to release a PSA telling people to not headbutt coat hooks next?
The Ryzen 5 4500U is a beast of an APU. 4600H less so. But whoever thought taking a mobile Ryzen 5 4600H and releasing it for PCs two whole years later for anything other than a clearance sale price should be fired from the job. Now if GN actually did the comparisons with something like a 3060 that would be more realistic.
Roller coaster here for me. Laughed at how hard Steve ripped on this cpu. Felt bad when he compared it to my 2700x. Felt better that I got it before the 3000 series came out and have gotten years of enjoyment out of it.
Fun fact is, that Ryzen 4500 is still quite competible to 12100F: Its for similar price and 12100F is better, yes, BUT the prizes of Lga 1700 mobos are clearly more expensive than older AM4s. So the cost saved for AM4 mobo fills the performance gap for 4500.
@@fantom5894 I am not interested to have a word with a trash model, nerfed mobo :D. Well, proly it has its buyers, but I dont consider it as a good bargain to go with, if u want an upgrade potential to later times, especially for gaming, and still, its not that cheap if u consider lga1700 ends with 13th gen. But, for company purposes and the lack of support Intel does over AMD, even H610 with 12100 truly is a better option, I must admit. Its like meant to pair together in this case.
As an environmental scientist I appreciate the fact that you mention environmental/resource costs in your videos. Tech sites/channels tend to ignore that way too much in the pursuit of the next shiny toy.
Honestly still a poor job of doing it considering how wasteful it is to have yearly releases that serve no real purpose besides small percentages of extra performance that aren't even as relevant as they should be because software can't catch up. We should have CPU releases every 5 years at the earliest, only really changing when there's a *need* for it.
@@shardperson3777 That's not gonna happen because of the rapid innovation society that we live in. Technological advancement stops for no one unless it hits a major hurdle that brings it to a creaking stop. With that said. I just wish companies were held accountable for recycling these types of products instead of just turning them into waste. The materials are often still usable in some way and there are processes for properly breaking them down and repurposing them again. But, of course, that all costs $$$$ that these corporations will never spend.
is not always a new shiny toy, i used to be like that, changing pcs like changing pants, but now, i really want to move from 4 cores, enviromenal cost does matter, but sometimes you need more cpu power and the old cpu will be sold or repurposed
People forget that the 11th gen wasn't bad, it wasn't an improvement, which was really silly, but the price was right and they did the job. This is overpriced and a regression in performance
Honestly, as a guy trying to find an upgrade from an a8-7600, the pricing of this CPU actually beats out the 3600 and the 12100f in my country (Philippines) so it's like.... Huh, interesting. Edit: Correction: the cpu mobo (h610) combo of the 12100f is now currently beating the price of the 4500 making it a way better value on a budget (unless you really want a 6core?k
I don't think there's a video that I most disagree than this on the entire web...People today are so amazed and blinded of how fast are modern CPUs that look for a low end CPU like this and can't see it beats older high end Intel with a good margin and much lower consumption. Buddy, a 6/12 4960X was a thousand dollars, remember? Still a very capable machine in 2023...and the 4500 which is stronger, is a waste of sand? 🤔
i mean i get where he is coming from to a degree, as at the time of this review the cpu launched for $130, making it a pretty big waste mainly because there were alternatives that were just flat out better in every way for the same price point, at which point yeah your product is useless. now however they seem to have walked the price down a LOT, i just b ought one myself for $70 and for that price point? i'd say its pretty great for a mid range setup. but yeah i think this guy was definitely too harsh, a waste of sand is definitely unfair on a cpu that is actually pretty useable, even if at the time of review it wasnt practical.
It's a waste of sand when there's _already_ other chips on the market that are faster and cheaper. Cherry picking old overpriced CPUs in an attempt to defend a new overpriced one is disingenuous at best if you ignore other superior options. Even now that the 4500 got a price drop the 12100f is _still_ cheaper. AMD dropped the price because _they had to._
The 12100f where I live for example is around $120 whilst the 4500 is $80 also comparing amd to Intel on a price comparison with a cpu like this is silly, as a lot of people will be using it primarily to upgrade from a much older cpu for the more modern nice to haves, like higher cache, faster clocks better architecture etc at which point the 4500 would still be cheaper for amd users as they already have the board. Don't get me wrong it's not a particularly great use of silicon but it's something I was indeed looking to purchase, for very legitimate reasons.
@@jakeely9040 So many people in other countries that get screwed by the importers. 12100f is literally only $68 in the US. Your shops are taking advantage of you just because a product is more desirable. That's not Intel or AMD's fault, but your local retailers.
@@zodwraith5745 I mean I guess? But by that logic wouldn't they do the same thing to the 4500? A lot of the extra cost for pc components comes from living in a country with higher sales tax, I find most pc stuff is about the same as us pricing with most of the overhead being sales tax, though there are other reasons. But it's incredibly rare that I find components that don't march the same pricing structure as the us I.E 3 processors in the US are $60, $80, and $100 I'd typically see higher prices here but the same order of pricing, so not sure whats going on with the 4500 here :P
You can pick these up for $99 at microcenter now, that being said the Ryzen 5 5500 is only 119 at microcenter as well and still worth the extra 20 for personal use. Personally, I do builds and Ill take the extra 20 in profits and let someone else have a fun time upgrading the in future. It also makes a nice pairing with 300 and 400 series AM4 boards that dont have PCIE 4.0 and its still a nice upgrade from a Ryzen 5 2600 or below.
Makes me wonder why the 4500 looks so bad compared to the 3600. All things considered they should be way closer together. Same archtiecture, both on PCIe 3.0, only difference is the name. ARe clocks and TDP that different that the 4500 is hit so hard
I'll be honest It feels kind of bad seeing my CPU being roasted (r5 pro 4650g ie 4500 with an igpu and ryzen pro branding) However my cpu should have been launched in 2020 not 2022 , amd is out of its mind
I disagree.. Someone will buy this and it will satisfy their needs. If these were going to the dumpster it would be better to be sold off rather than serve as e-waste. Companies even get fined for e-waste (look at how much target was fined). Yes maybe the price is not indicative of performance but more CPUs available will also prevent shortages at the low end. I tend to agree with you all but just because this was not a huge release does not mean its 100% bad. It just means you were not the target demographic. (PS the school I work at had a very tough time replacing computers for kids due to the pandemic and we were forced to purchase less computers than we originally planned due to the price hikes)
Ya GN POV is a little skewed. I build computers for our research lab which do not require high end anything for majority of the staff and this would be acceptable. Yes $/performance is not the best but it will come down shortly. The comparison to intel is ok but that is assuming you switch everything to intel. A large chunk of our PC are amd so if we need to swap out a cpu this may be the route.
More CPUs on the market the better. I understand you are looking at the price to performance of the chip but someone not well informed most likely is not looking for the best performing rather something to get them by especially when we are looking at the low end of the spectrum + small difference with the competition. Also I agree better to be sold off and repurposed than be e-waste. I would have thought GN would know this but they have become a little to high on there horses lately. Hopefully they will address this more of an e-waste issue than a best foot forward approach.
@@Freestyle80 Doesn't know Ive been using intel for my home PC for the past 15 years🤣. I am sure you are one of the fanboys that wishes they have a good system. Next time don't assume and make sure you know for sure they have an intel/AMD system. The point is about availability at the low end for consumers not about the brand ✌
That's why you buy what performs the best or provides the best value for the job at hand. I can't comprehend the bootlicking mentality of brand loyalists who are so common in this industry.
While this chip comically over-priced, it's easy to forget that there's a massive market for 'I need 1,000 PCs that can run Outlook, Excel, and PDF", that these low-end lines are aimed for. This should still be a $50 CPU, though.
It's a basically an R5 4600 with disabled iGPU, right? The price is too high, or is it actually not working properly? I'm having trouble following what the actual performance is behind Steve's outrage.
Steve is probly most upset with the price. Ive owned a 4600g since the - uhm original(?) - launch and by all metrics it performs slightly slower than a 3600. These 4500 are supposedly the same chips but have the igpu disabled along with a slower base and boost clock. I doubt that the 100mhz difference would affect performance to the point that they are now literally the worst CPU you can currently buy from AMD. So something else must be at play here. Hoping GN will also review the 4600g and compare it with the 4500 to maybe determine if that disabled half of the monolithic SoC is somehow critical to overall performance of these chips??
The real disappointment is the price. If they priced the 4100 at $59 and the 4500 at $79 they would be a compelling argument for budget builds and people still running pcie Gen 3 cards. It would also put it closer in line to compete against Celeron and Pentium processors and at that price I’m sure they’d at least break even on waste silicon which isn’t bad if you’re increasing market share and brand sentiment. Unfortunately with greedy price points they completely miss a window of opportunity.
i have to say that its a little insulting when EVERY tech reviewer benchmarks the same pointless shit, i mean i get that ultimately its still useful info but i feel if you're gonna benchmark a cpu maybe benchmark it on a cpu intensive game? i mean seriously, why dont we see some super cpu intensive games, completely eliminating the need to wipe out games because of bottlenecks, there are plenty of games that typically you can bet on the cpu ALWAYS being the bottleneck, it would be especially helpful to benchmark some high cpu intensive games that do not support multicore for example rimworld, project zomboid x4 foundations etc all these games would be great ways of benchmarking these cpu's in ways that really matter. because if you benchmark a cpu on a genuinely cpu intensive game it will really allow us to see how much it falters, at the end of the day a lot of people arent that great at really visualising percentile loss, if you show me a spreadsheet and say "woah look how bad this cpu is, its only getting 300 fps on this game how bad" have you considered using an actual appropriate build for the cpu? running appropriate games on appropriate settings stress testing the appropriate part? idk maybe its just me, but all these videos end up identical and rarely show you the practical performance you can expect with cpu intensive tasks, like sure its 15 percent worse than X processor, but how does that actually practically effect how its going to run demanding cpu intensive games? how does 200+ fps in rainbow six siege when paired with a 3080 compare to how i'd use it with a 1060 on a game like going medieval, or rimworld? i havent got a clue! so ultimately your numbers mean nothing in practical terms.
YES, in the past i follow this crap and buy a intel 2 cores 4 threads cpu with 8 gb of ram becos "you dont need more!" and in 1/2 year later my pc was 100% all the time and always using 7/8 gb of ram, this cpu has 4 cores, the same will happen to this i3 in 2 years or less.
1600AF the golden days of AMDs cheapo goodness . Scored 2 of these for about 80$ each after the GN video. Currently still have one of them under a sythe fuma 2 . Its mainly used for my home server among the other re-purposing i do with it . All together the build was a little above 400$ But again i had parts on hand (purchased before the shortage) 1600AF , 16GB 3200mhz c16 , RX 570 4GB, 500GB ssd , 2TB HDD.
I wouldn't waste my time. I get to clean up and install games on my nephew's 3600 on a regular basis, and it still runs 99 percent of games at over 100 frames per second. It's even good for lightworkstation use, but we live in an age where higher numbers are the sole factor rather than practical usecase. Only upgrade if you're using your computer as a workstation or for competitive gaming with super high refresh rates.
@@TrinoDR I play at 144hz 1440p mostly fps and vr. I have a 2070s so im still mostly gpu limited but with that upgrade i should also upgrade my cpu. i also use it for work compiling code. but that will probably just shave a few seconds.
If they marketed this at something like £60-£80 it would have been worth it. Plenty of people on low incomes just wanting something for word processing and internet browsing. This CPU would be sweet for that plus lite gaming. However with the price its at those looking for a system like that would be better off looking at the used market :/. Why did they not just turn them into a "nuc" device. Low powered, cheap small units where you just add a monitor.
AMD: "I know! Let's release a product based on the 3600 - zen 2, 6c12t, and clock it lower and slash the L3 cache by 75% at least (can't find the specs, it may have just 4Mb like the 4100), and then we'll charge more for it than what you can buy the R5 3600 for AT THE SAME RETAILER!
Coasters are also IN STOCK & SHIPPING:store.gamersnexus.net/products/3d-coaster-pack-4-component-coasters
The R5 5600 non-X seems actually good. Watch our review here: ua-cam.com/video/ifI9nnmW5sg/v-deo.html
Our review of the Intel i3-12100F can be found here: ua-cam.com/video/01EhbmJAW-k/v-deo.html
Our full review of the disappointing R5 5500 can be found here: ua-cam.com/video/JPPeSNV9Hog/v-deo.html
Tf is your problem it's a budget cpu that can get the job done for someone it not nor is it competing with Intel it's just to fill a gap AMD should of been did if anyone wants performance buy the 5600 non x
they take advantage of higher board price of intel
@@chriswright8074 enjoy the side grade
@@arandomgamer1508 You misspelled downgrade lol
@@OUBrent1 oh did I? My bad
Using up waste silicon is not a bad idea, but if this was a $75-80 OEM only chip with graphics for office boxes then it would be fine. As a consumer product with no graphics above $100 it is an insult.
yeah for a hundred bucks, i'd buy this. anything more and it's a slap in the face, a kick in the nuts, and a poke in the eye all at once.
Indeed, (but way lower than 75 dollars) they should have maybe enabled the APU and fused off the completely crappy cores and sold them as replacement for the athlon AM4 APUs. That would have been a solid path way for low spec gaming and enabling people to at least enter the PC build market via 300 series on AM4 in regions where what most consider cheap in dollar amounts is an actual fortune in local currency.
exactly what I was thinking 👍
@@earthtaurus5515 what if it is the CUs that are busted?
This is a good point, actually. Even if it had all but 3 of its CUs disabled, it would be fine as a successor to the 3000G with vega 3 and a higher core count.
Watching AMD and Intel take turns ritualistically stumbling over their own hubris every 5-10 years never gets old.
especially when steve can go on a "garbage" rant like this. the entertainment value is worth more than the chip is
And the fanboys trying to justify the situation... I am just glad to see competition and core counts rising.
@@ghomerhust but its not garbage. Its always the same stupid comment here "its the same as X older model" yeah, X is no longer in production, so the new one is just a replacement for cheap builds
If it wasn't entirely profit driven, things might change. "Competitor release new thing? We must release new thing! Those are OUR margins."
@DarkRoast that comment got a good laugh from me 😄.
I can slowly see the Disappointment Build of 2022 taking form..
6500XT + R5 4500
Oh no.....
I'd say it's going quite fast as it just came crashing through the wall.
@@netronet1383 atleast it had a 8 gig variant
@@netronet1383 why tho?
At least this doesn't catch on fire. Right? Right??
The AMD vs Intel fight is like watching a Wrestling match where every so often one fighter throws THEMSELVES out of the ring!
Modern capitalist competition
And the crowd is cheering ....
For the score girls
🤣 the mental image is just gold 🤣
yeah the wrastler grabs themself by the scruff of the neck and is like huh.
Lmfaoo
The CPU smiley face actually terrified me
It's like some sort of comic book villain signature. We'll leave them at the chalk outline of each review.
Ngl it triggered me too when I saw it lol
@@GamersNexus you know there's a theory about a serial killer that drowns people in rivers draws smiley faces around the scene of the crime?, I have a theory, it's probably announcing the 4100, oh boy.
I laughed, but then again I laughed when after 6 months of diagnosis my doctor told me I had cancer. (In remission 20 years last September.)
That seriously needs a trigger warning, I'm not joking
This CPU seems to be made for a Dell Gaming PC, combined with a 6500 XT, and single channel RAM.
get dawid on it
*RX 6400
and this pc will also cost you 1000 bucks
Running at DDR4 base speed, too. And with an NVMe without a DRAM cache.
I sure do love me 35 fps with 3 fps 1% lows on medium quality 😍
Too bad you didn't include the i3-10 series. It's dirt cheap and might make that 4500 look even worse.
We'll take another look at the i3-10 series! It's been a little while, but we didn't notice its price until commenters started pointing out that it's so cheap now!
@@GamersNexus i3 10100 are 70$ retail in Mexico,paired with the 80$ asus b560 3yr warranty, amd has to step up
Honestly, at as low as $80 for the 10100F and with how cheap b460 boards are getting (seeing good ones for under $90), there's no way the 4500 can be redeemable in a pure budget sense where every dollar counts.
@@GamersNexus the 10400f and 10600kf is also really cheap on Newegg now as well
Whoa, I didn't realize those things were so cheap. That's worth picking up for a homelab networking project. Thanks for the tip!
If this were $80-$85 I think it would make sense at least as a good use of otherwise defective chips, but them setting the msrp at $130 is insulting
Agreed 100% At $80 this becomes a nice budget option with a cheap b450. At $130, it's a non starter. Too many good options at that price point
Thay want to sell 4100 for that price and its going to be fun seeing it loosing to 3100 like what 6500xt did with 5500xt
@@mallon04008... Well, Price up the G7400 thats Actually Useless Garbage lol. A 2600x is around $100 used, so $130 isn’t terrible partly thanks to intel going PCIe 5 pricing their boards to be redundant
Why the 5500 is better value than the 12100, because a good used b450 like an MSI board can be had for $50, and will run a 5800x, Probably a 5900x with airflow
Motherboards just make AMD Nearly Unbeatable at the moment, Intel seriously messed up with their boards
It wouldn't even make sense at 80$ in my country. Here the i3-12100F can be had for 90. That just makes the R5 4500 look even worse.
There is another lower end R3 4100 coming in at MSRP $99 though..
Aah yes, the disappointment build is coming along nicely 😈
So many options!
@@GamersNexus my favorite part of the year, seeing the horrors what the next one will bring :)
@@GamersNexus Yeah , all from amd
4500 + 6500XT = certified disappointment.
@@dragontales1999 ahh from tech darling to the lowest of the low in only one short year.
Imagine how positive it would’ve been if they priced it at $85 to make it a 1600AF successor.
AMD prices this because they want people to spend more on a 5600x. AMD doesn't give a damn about making good value products. The 1600af was nothing more then a temporary product to make AMD seem like a value king. They stopped selling or making them after 6 months.
Kind of like the 3300x which was only on sale at launch and then was never available for purchase at MSRP for years afterwards. AMD loves making halo products.
@@Tofuey no, 1600af was meant to fulfill contracts for original 1600, because they stopped making 1k silicon
3300x and 3100 was indeed like you say, but my friend bought 3300x at the end of august 2020 (3 months after launch), and it was still available for at least a month for same intended price (in russia)
@@Tofuey that’s exactly right, and they wanted people who bought the 1600af to stay on the AM4 platform so they can upgrade to another Amd cpu. It’s all about money
Give it some time and it may get there
3 years ago or so I got a Ryzen 2600 for 115€. That was a great offer.
if I was a cpu I would probably be a r5 4500. failed but still surviving.
Don't be so hard on yourself.
i really dont think this will survive. there isnt going to be ANY positive reviews of it, so unless the price PLUMETS, it's the worst bang for the buck in the entire cpu lineup from everyone combined. horrible. this is more akin to the person that nobody liked so they committed a ton of felonies and are spending the next 50 years in the clink.
well then at least you have an excuse to do like intel and get bent
@@ghomerhust when you factor in the platform cost its comparable to intel. pretty meh cpu but also its not that bad
@@ghomerhust You can get decent AMD motherboards for a low as 35 USD, so, no, you're wrong, and even Steve is wrong. Obviously you can't count on finding a price that low on a decent motherboard, but the CPU isn't inherently bad, and would actually be a good value if paired with such a low-cost board. That being said, if we're talking about hunting for the best value for someone on a very low budget, a used 2600, or used 3600 is probably going to be a better option than a 4500.
AMD out there trying to make a case for "no bad products only bad prices" after Steve proved Reddit wrong.
AMD already made the ultimate case that Steve is right and Reddit is wrong: The AMD bike was a bad product and would always be a bad product no matter what price it was sold for. Thankfully Steve trashed it so badly for being the safety hazard that it was that AMD pulled it from sale.
I've seen very decent B450M AM4 motherboards for as low as about 35 USD in the past few weeks. At that price, even a 4500 is a good value. You can't really compare AMD vs. Intel CPUs without considering the cost of the motherboard, though I realize that prices (especially sale prices) will fluctuate a lot, and can vary a lot by region.
@@syncmonism I wouldn't say the 4500 is _good_ value, even when considering the motherboard. An i3-12100F and H610M is about $30/£20 more expensive overall, but its single-core performance is much better and you get PCIe 4.0. The 4500 isn't completely terrible, but it's not good either.
@@nathangamble125 I mean...I caught an ASUS A520 mobo on sale for $35 CDN, so I see what you're saying, but $99 is about the most that I'd pay for a CPU for it...and that's pushing it. It's sitting here until I find a cheap case, and catch a Zen 2 or 3 CPU on the cheap to throw into it. Likely around Black Friday when retailers have a crapload of these junk piles that have been taking up space and collecting dust in their store rooms that they want to get rid of to make room for budget and mid-range Zen 4 CPUs and high-end ARC GPUs. 😉
@@madguitarist id never trust a $35 mb with any system I’d consider keeping
Would've been a great $85 cpu. package up those failed laptop cpus and make a few bucks on them, but they're proving that brand loyalty is for the small minded. buy whatever is the best bang for the buck when you need to upgrade. My old $120 r5 2600 could probably still hang with this turd. At least they aren't priced like GPUs, and we can actually pick and choose our CPU at a competitive prices....not the 4500 though.
Yep, I think $85 would have put it in an interesting position for sure. As with you, I buy when things make sense regardless of brand. Thus I'm currently running - AMD 1700, AMD 5900X, AMD 5950X, Intel 11700, Intel 9900, Intel 8400. Pretty even split across the board. Tho I will say the AMD chips have been handy with the ECC support for homelab stuff.
As long as you don't need to buy a GPU, maybe there are some upgrade paths that would make sense for the 4500 but not for a new build.
@@unicaller1 It seems reasonable, but the 4500 is so anemic that it isn't a performant enough upgrade to anything in the AM4 socket...IMO If you can save up $130 I'd wait another year and grab a discounted 5600....I'll probably do that to replace my 2600, but I really don't need to upgrade yet as I only have 60hz monitor and wouldn't get any benefit in gaming with a more powerful CPU unless I upgrade my graphics card and monitor.
Cheers
@@Ben-ry1py Looks a lot faster them most first gen Ryzens. It's also much faster then most of the AM4 Athlons. Another year can also be a long time. So it could be a reasonable up grade path, even if it is not for you.
Just like other very low end Ryzens, they are just dies that have had defective parts disabled. There won't ever be many on the market any way.
@@unicaller1 I disagree that it's a lot faster than zen 1. It' might be about 15% faster in gaming on average than a 1600. Not worth upgrading IMO.
If you could find a really cheap mobo it might be worth building a cheap gaming rig with room to upgrade in the future. I'd still wait for the price to come down though, but that's just my preference. I got lucky and bought my 2600 when it was at it's lowest price. I could buy a used one for the price I got mine new a few years back. Intel is looking pretty good right now, but I'm sure the mother boards are more pricey than AMDs right now.
Either way. It'll be fine for gaming at 60hz for a few years, and that's all most of us need.
Thanks for your perspective. I know some people are on super tight budgets. I'd love it if this thing cost them at least $20 less though.
Cheers
I don't mind using failed chips, as long as the price is right. If this was an Athlon CPU with an msrp of around 80$, it could have been a great one. maybe even if it had not SMT.
They wouldn't brand a hexa-core as an Athlon, but yeah it should be at most 100 bucks
The 4100 could be the new Athlon(35 USD) if its performance scales linearly to this. Jumping to quad-core on Athlon would be a natural progression. This should be the lowest Ryzen 3 SKU "4100" at $65 USD, and the 5500 could be the "4300X" at $100 USD
@@madguitarist the thing is ryzen 3s are the quad core tier alreadyy. However, they could have updated the athlon series by releasing a new dual core athlon, but with the zen 3 architecture, alongsided a more expensive, yet still budget ryzen 3 5100... it would be a huge bump in performance tbh. And if there was a 5100 for 100 dollars, it would have been great.
@@mparagames I mean...I don't particularly disagree with that, but if we're being honest, it's time to move to Quad core in the ultra budget basement of the stacks already. 6-core should be the budget to mid-range offerings, and 8-core should be the upper mid-range. Athlon was quad-core(X4 950) in the generation before it switched to Zen, so I stand by what I said.
@@madguitarist i mean, the better it is, the more it benefits the consumer, of course. I'm just saying that realistically speaking, it's more reasonable to think of a ryzen 3 5100 rather than a quad core athlon.
However, they are already releasing zen 4 instead...
Office & school computers for light use, such as calculator, browser, Word and Excel, at $80, this would make sense. For anything else, above $80, a joke and a meme.
Problem is, that it has no integrated graphics. Even the cheapest dedicated GPU will set you back enough to make alternatives with iGPU the better deal.
Hey there! I didn't know you watch these videos. I am subscribed to you. I have been subscribed to you way before UA-cam had the "Bell" icon for notifications.
Rehash this to something like "Athlon 4000", sell for half price, credibility restored as hero of the budget PC and the low end office market.
I will gladly accept the job as high priest of PR at AMD.
It actually still loses out on Low-End Office to the Bentium G7400, because it doesn't even have an iGPU. :)
@@TheDoomerBlox Well, other than pairing it with the other waste of sand that is the 6500 XT or the rumoured 6500 and calling it the eternal e-waste machine, I have no other ideas. Maybe slapping a crap laptop GPU on one of those embedded motherboards like a Lattepanda? I dont know. Good luck with that, AMD.
Meh. They are clearing out some bins of silicon that failed QA for their intended uses. It's not like they were ever going to come to the rescue of budget builders with tens of millions produced. Look on the flipside with the 1600AF... was a great value.. but they didn't exactly churn out a ton of them.
@@control_the_pet_population Makes me wonder why they don't do a bunch of 4+4 CPUs to get rid of the really bad yield.
I disagree a little bit with "just let it be waste" - if you use it correctly! This would have been a perfect successor for the Ryzen 1600AF - it was a 80$ CPU which was a perfect match for people, that did not invest a lot of money. You can get a modern B450 Motherboard for below 50$ new and if they would have just made the price right (below 100$) it would have been perfect (maybe instead of releasing the 4100). Other than that: Great video, thanks again and as you already said: I am glad there is some competition from Intel and that AMD is forced to stop doing such products, if they want to keep their reputation.
It would be good if it was priced at $80. it’s not thougt
Except the 1600af was essentially a 2600, and better than the 1600 in every way, while the 4500 loses to the previous 3600 and probably even the two generation old 2600 as well lol. Even at a lower price it's a waste of money.
Something to keep in mind is that with current inflation you have to pay about $120 today to purchase the same amount of goods as $100 bought you 4 years ago. Add to that increased wafer and supply chain costs, and it is perfectly reasonable that what we would have thought of as a $90 part a couple years ago is at fair market price at $130.
That would be a side grade
AMD was the first company to bring out a PCI-E Gen 4 platform 2 years before Intel. Yet in 2022... They are still stuck on PCI-E gen 3 on their budget platform while Intel is providing Gen 4/5... How the tables have turned!
Yeah, because that generation didn't have PCI-e 4.0... this is a couple years old already, AMD just released it to the retail market late. At least they kept the generation naming correctly.
@@looncraz The chiplet-based zen 2 Matisse CPUs (such as the 3600) did support PCIe 4.0, it just wasn't a consideration when it came out since it made far more sense to buy a B450 board than an X570 one. The monolithic Renoir CPUs (such as the 4600G and 4500) do not support PCIe 4.0, however. It's a similar case to zen 3 in that regard.
Greed is a great corruptor.
Just built a rig with one of these. Paid $59 for it. $50 for an asrock a520 mb and $150 for a power color rx6600. Plays 1080p ultra in evey game at 60+fps. It's great! LOVE IT!
Still going strong ?
Just got the 5600 and now just patiently waiting for the AMD bios to allow me to use it in my X370 Taichi.
The 5600 is a good chip!
you got an actually good chip my friend
Works on my X370 Gaming Profesional.
@@GamersNexus Thanks to your review, I did guess this.;)) As expected, it's gonna replace the 1600.;))
Thank you for all of your hard work!
@@montreauxs Sweet! Enjoy!
Can’t wait to see a “budget pc build - crippled edition” pairing the 4500 with the 6500XT, that will be equivalent to watching a person run marathon after you cut all of their limbs off
Don't forget the 4100 and 6400 though
@@nayan.punekar
Recently saw a new ad on some damn card they released. i can't remember whether it was called RX 6400W
LOL the smiley face on the pins of that cpu made me crack up!
it looks a bit psychotic and i am here for it lmao
This doesn't sound like a bad product to me. It's recycled silicon, as you said. They can sell it for *something* or throw it in a dumpster for *nothing* . It _is_ however, a very bad price.
Products and their price go together.
60-70 would be amazing
Recycled silicon, the only benefit (in theory) is for AMD in profit, but considering there are so many other factors here like the inevitable profit margin loss due to terrible specs, all the other necessary production needed to make the recycled silicon into something useful, and disgraceful brand rep, it might just level out, in which case there was no use. It only wasted energy and resources that otherwise would have not been used. The release of new stuff makes markets move in good directions.
Sunken cost is generally regarded as a fallacy.
And as consumers we shouldn’t judge a product based on the corporations’ bottom lines. If you approach it from a corporate perspective… then Rocket Lake was an absolute win. By implementing a design on a node it wasn’t designed for, Intel got the experience it needs to secure its future (in case their in house node falls behind again), and they got the public to floor the cost of this experiment.
(Although I would argue that Rocket Lake was a decent generation, better than Comet Lake at least. 114/6/7 are substantially better than 104/6/7. And even in the case of the 11900K, it generally matched the nT performance of its predecessor with two less cores. As end users, given the same nT performance, the solution with a smaller amount of strong cores is preferable. At the same price I’d take a 11900K over a 10900K any day of the week.)
When its worse than the 3600, it should never, ever, have been released.
*cries in having a 3600* :(
It would have been good at $99. Price is everything.
@@NJDEVIL91923 you should be happy that your CPU is actually better than what gets released right now lol 😅
@@NJDEVIL91923 Just bought one last month. It was the only thing I could afford that fit in my mobo and was a major upgrade from a 2200g.
@@Cinkodacs 2200G -> 3600 upgrade high five! My 2200G still gets plenty of use in a second machine. I'd love something like a 4500G instead of this 4500... provided it was still cheaper than $130.
Just used a 4500 in a productivity machine for a friend. Got it on sale for $68. At that price, and for that purpose, it's great. Even scored almost 10,000 in Cinebench R23, although the end user will never run it that hard.
Too bad tech pundits here on YT have given it a bad image. I just build a pc with 4500 as a placeholder. I must admit it is here to stay for couple years. All games I have like Cyberpunk and WH3 are running just perfectly and my RX5700xt seems to be the bottleneck here. This chip has not been intended to be the top performer. It’s just the reasonable performance for a reasonable price. It can do everything one has to throw in it.
@@LazyB00Mactually im planing to get the same setup but with 5600xt gbu which is cheaper than the used 1660s here in egypt, the problem is that i'm a bit scared of buying it from aliexpress tho the seller got like over 5k salles and 1570 reviews with rating 4.8 stars so what do you think do I buy it ?
@@LazyB00M Because the problem is their msrp which is too high for its performance. Most of the good value cpu nowadays benefited from price drop.
this would have been fine as a $75-$85 dollar part for oems.
It would’ve been better as a $45 Celeron competitor
Nah, OEM will buy 2C4T intel for home/office mini pcs.
@@ufoformdad5845 Exactly. They get bought by the truck load as by and large they don't have to do anything much.
For that you need an iGP. And that's why intel celerons and pentiums are shipped in a tuck load of office prebuilds.
@@Supcharged They also have multi-year contracts with those OEMs
For 80-90€ it would start to make sence for a budget build as b450 is way cheaper then even a shitty H610
Remember the deep discounts on the 1000 and 2000 series? Remember the 1600AF for $85? AMD realized they were giving it to us too good, so this garbage is what we get now. Unfortunately for them, Intel is back on their feet so AMD can't get away with this. The 4500 would make sense around $60-$80 and no more than that for the soon-to-be-outdated AM4 platform. What a shame, this could have been a return to the solid budget options they used to offer.
I got a 1600AF for my husband's current rig. Was a decent choice for the small budget he gave me to work with. He doesn't run any games more demanding than WoW, so he's been very happy with it. I'm a lot less happy about having gotten him a GTX 1050 in 2020, but that's what the budget he set allowed for and it's still a massive improvement over what he had before. Oh well :( I'll probably get him an upgrade next summer.
Real shame that they thought they could release the 4500 at that price point. Consensus does seem to be that for $80 or so it'd be a reasonable low-budget choice.
@TitKatt yeah a 1600af successor at around $70 would have been awesome. AMDs greed is showing
AMD got the good will of the people, then shot their prices beyond intel as soon as they got the performance advantage.
(5800x at 450 was such a goddamn shitty price)
AMD is just as shitty as intel and people need to stop acting like anything else is true.
Still on AMD Ryzen 5 2600 since 2020. Still decent for video editing and some games. Looks like I won't jump to their newer CPUs anytime soon unless.
"There's still hope, there could be worse yet." Is going to be my new burn. XD
Oof, another one for the "waste of sand" pile, huh? At least they didn't name it the same as the 5000 series...
Still they put a misleading name that basically makes majority of people think it's actually better than Ryzen 3600.
They should have just called these Athlons.
$50-$85.
But this was a huge marketing error imho
You know it's a bad product when Steve can review it in less than 15 minutes.
Here's a video idea for you all: I would love to see a video comparing the flagship models of all the CPUs in the past 5 years from intel and AMD including their modern CPU flagships. It's all well and good to see how everything compares between modern CPU's, but I would love to see the differences between the 6700k, 7700k, 8700k, 9900k, etc and AMD's flagships. Especially when overclocking. Sometimes I see these and wonder if it is worth even looking at an upgrade or if I'm really missing out on anything not upgrading my platform for 3+ years. Yes PCIE support I know I'm missing out on, but other than that, I'd love to see how far both intel and AMD have come in 5 years.
I think tomshardware did a couple "same ghz tests" in the past, where they put all the chips at the same clock and tested how much architechture has improved.
And about PCIe, I don't think I have any reason hunt for it now. I mean I'm still on a DDR3 system and my secondary one is my old DDR2/PCIe1.1 setup that also still does stuff.
And besides that it'll take a while for GPUs to really "need" PCIe4 (except for the waste of sand called RX 6500, but that is the GPUs fault). It was the same with PCIe3 and PCIe2 before it. Took a while for cards to utilize the bandwidth sufficiently that the older standard had a noticeable hit in performance.
It's going for as low as £60 here nowadays. That's a lot of CPU for that kind of money.
yea great to bump up that old 4 core intel with gtx970 for only $100
The worse a CPU gets, the more fun it gets to watch fanboys gymnastics trying to justify their existence.
True!
The perfect entertainment
No one can justify this cpu
@@thereddog223 AMD fanboys will try.
@@Direwoof Nah, not really. AMD fanboys learned to admit FXailure when it's due =) unlike some multigenerational waste of sand...
Intel have made AMD look like a bit of a joke at the lower end. Worse, AMD then decided they could do a better job of smashing their reputation. They did it well at least.
You can get the 12gen i3 in Germany rn for only 90€ which is the price drop of nearly twenty euros. Considering this, i think it is an even better option then any other Budget CPU.
untill you realize you need a motherboard and ddr5 to make it worth your money, this one will work on most mobos for amd
@@arch1107 you don't need ddr5 at all, buying ddr5 is pointless right now. The cheapest mbs are H610 ~80€ or B660 ~110€ where I live. Yes the motherboards are probably more expensive than AM4 equivalents however you get higher pcie gens and you will get at least 1 and maybe 2 more generations of CPUs to upgrade into.
@@arch1107 if your going to strawman fallacy at least try a bit harder
@@randomlycasual4941 sure, best idea, buy a new motherboard and ddr4, because it will be futureproof
200 iq there, upgrade path to it, is none
at least if you stay in am4 you already know what you have and what your next step is, don't answer just trying to win, here, you don't win, you get a fucking i3 but on a new socket and in a ddr4 motherboard in 2022
@@arch1107 Nobody is pairing an i3 with ddr5. AM4 will soon be a dead platform. At least b660 will support Raptor Lake.
It isn't necessarily a waste .. they just need to lower the price to 70$.
I was thinking at $50 it would kinda be a great deal.
@@deesnutz42069 I think you're asking too much for $50 , R5 4500 is still a 6c/12t CPU . $50 probably suits the R3 4100 4c/8t CPU asking price though.
@bron lebron As well.
Right now in my country, it only costs 55.46 USD. For it's price right now, I think this cpu deserves a second chance of a review.
It's nice to see AMD improving their environmental impact by recycling more of their waste
A very "glass half full" view, appreciate it
@Alien Wanderer Wish I could find them for that here. Some of 'em are in high end B450/B550 territory for price.
They still had to be shipped across the oceans so not really...
They had to be refurbished, repackaged, reshipped, and will still eventually end up in a landfil. Every stage of this process requires energy and resources and manpower. Don't kid yourself, this does literally nothing for the environment - quite the opposite really. And some dumb people will contribute to even pay for this to happen, by buying these garbage products.
It would literally be cleaner if they just dumped all of this in a landfill.
I bought it as part of a prebuilt, it´s quite good for 4k gaming with a 6600xt, I undervolted both, capped the CPU to 4 GHz with a -0,1 V offset and I only need 10 W CPU at Forza Horizon Ultra 4 and Forza Horrizon 4 High settings at 4K with 60 FPS cap. They graphics card draws a bit more than 50 W on average, undervolted from 1,15 to 1,08 capped to 2200 MHZ. The Cpu reaches about 41 Celsius max in that games. It is super energy efficient and at 4k you don´t need the fasted and most expensive CPU. The price of the CPU is now really ok and you only need a very cheap B450 for it. If you want to have more performance you could overclock it a lot quite easily, or overclock it a little and undervolt it at the same time even on a 40 to 45 USD B450 motherboard it is very easy to do. I think it is a very good value to pair a 4500 (or a 5500) with a rx6600 and a B450 plus 16 GB of very cheap DDR4 Ram. Ryzen 7000, Alderlake, Raptorlake or a 5800x3d are a waste of money for such a budget gaming system. Keep in mind how many FPS you can get per Dollar!
AMD budget choices never fail to amaze me…
Long gone are the 3100 and 3300X days...
tbh i think they learned too much from intel, 11th gen comes to mind here
@@arch1107 so why the i3 10100F is successful? Because AMD fanboys said intel made cheap cpus, so it's sh*t? While pricing Zen 3 so high that until competition called they released some absolute turds just to desperately respond?
@@baoquoc3710 you sound like a angry intel fanboy, and that, is your problem, only yours
@@arch1107 nope, never angry about that. Just usual fanboys quarrel that each other one's product is bad, on one way or another. Personally I enjoyed both.
in my country Indonesia, the price is $80 for the Box ver. & $65 for the Tray ver. So it makes sense to buy this processor.
AMD's i9-11900k moment.
Excellently said.
I guess I’m confused. Why is the 11900k bad?
AMD was desperate to make a waste of sand competitor. so they came up with the 4500 alongside the 5500
@@TheReelToneMF It was genuinely worse than the processor it replaced - in almost every aspect it was a step down
@@TheReelToneMF because the 10900k was superior in every aspect. and the fact that you could’ve gotten the 10850k for cheaper made the 11900k even more irrelevant
Now that the price has dropped $40 its looking like an attractive option. AM4 motherboards can be gotten cheaper more easily than intel accepting boards.
Yup... I just recently bought this CPU. I kinda urgently need a new system to replace my old system, I bought it around $87... and it's cheaper around $20 compared with R5 3600 and around $26 cheaper around R5 4600G. So it's good enough for me until I can afford the R7, maybe next year.
yeah i just ordered one for $74 as part of a build i’m doing for my girlfriend. not a bad option now that it is much more budget friendly.
@@da_pawz I just purchased a new custom built rig by a enthusiast with this CPU. It seems I made the sacrifice by having a RTX 4070Ti while keeping the overall price point at $1000 on the dot.
Is this CPU good enough temporarily or is it gonna bottleneck my new 4070Ti?
I pray for the day when companies get their heads out of their asses and realize providing good, efficient, cheap, friendly products/services naturally creates profits and market domination. Look at Valve. They've done that for years and they rightfully deserve their spot in the industry.
But how long before valve releases half life 3 lol
@@rcp9ty Hopefully not the half life of a long lived radioactive element 🥴, that would be a long wait lol.
Valve has been sitting on the largest captive market for years and years, and only since EGS started to viably encroach on their market did they get off their asses beyond glorified platform life support. Brand loyalty will get you nowhere. Do you remember Artifact? Or whatever that game was called? I'm glad that failed hard enough to get them to actually innovate.
I would say that you'll be praying for a mighty long time....but, it's prayer. It doesn't matter how long you do it, it won't change anything.
@@Lakius Did they actually, though? Tim Sweeney's bullshit artist storefront is barely catching up to Steam features from 2008 just now because they're so busy pushing NFTs and lying to people's faces.
Reusing somehow defect CPUs is not a waste - the chips were already made - the real problem is pricing.... at 75 bucks it would have been not such a bad product.
Well, I'm sold. On sale now for $75. Clinking complete purchase.
I feel so bad for those who bought the 4500 who couldn't wait for this review cause they thought "it's AMD, it's most probably good"
For context this CPU costs around 165$ in my country after taxes I think and most because of amd hype while the 12100F costs around 126$. It's most definitely clear who wins.
I mean in reality anyone who did buy it would probably be fine with it. My computer isn't suddenly on fire because I'm using a 2600x still which is worse than this cpu. It's not like they ended up with an athlon II x2 from 2008 or something.
@@BrianMcKee that is true. but value wise, paying for that much isn't just worth it when there are better options out on the market. but they'd still be fine nonetheless. just probably with a tiny bit of regret.
@@jared_kc3155 There are people still on A320 chipset with lack of support for pci4 and weaker vrms, these will be a choice for them maybe not optimal but still in case they needed something a little better, I wouldn't say this is a waste unlike someone who gets free stuff and sponsored hardware for free like gamersnexus which happen to have another perspective of the world where nothing is free and you have to go out there to work your ass off in order to have something.
And I paid about that for my 3600 2 years ago.
I'm so glad about buying that thing. Amazing CPU that holds up pretty well and the 4500 and 5500 are just garbage
@@jared_kc3155 Intel motherboards generally cost more, but for someone who already has an AM4 motherboard, this might actually be a pretty good value, though you could probably find a better deal by looking for a good price on a used 2600 or 3600, and for anybody who can afford one, the 5600 is probably the best choice.
Okay, so I did end up buying this CPU for my first ever PC build. I'm coming from playing consoles almost exclusively my whole life and coming from a PS4 slim, this is actually a significant upgrade to me. I'm very new to what general expectations are to PC gaming and I really have to ask, with the PS4/Xbox one games sometimes averaging at around 30 fps, is having a very consistent 60 (and sometimes double that) fps really such a bad thing? Especially when I don't plan up upgrade to a high refresh rate monitor that displays better than 1080p? Because, I'm genuinely happy with my setup and I'm perfectly content playing Doom Eternal on Ultra settings running at a consistent 60 fps.
yeah im the same. i dont really do pc gaming to get high fps. i do it for the sheer amount of games and prices of games available. and also you can do basically any thing on a pc its a total multimedia device.
people still tend to forget that the human eye can't even see more than 60fps. you can feel the smoothness and fluidity in a game but you can't see it.
@@Writeous0ne well, i agree with everything you said but the affirmation of "the human eye can't see more than 60fps". That's not... true. You could say you don't care for 120+ fps, and i kinda don't either, but having more than 60 fps IS a noticeable diference. I have used 120hz screen before, it does feel different.
I remember my friends and randoms online talking about intel being evil money grubbers and amd being the good guy, bringing more cores for cheap and at almost the same performance, then at better performance, and saying to them "they're both big companies that only care about your money, once amd are firmly on top they'll do the same BS as intel has been doing"
sucks to be right
Theres no hope for people who think big corporations want to be their friend. Just buy the product you want and forget they exist until you need something new.
At its current price of only $79, it finally feels like a decent deal.
Not when the i3 12100f has literally dropped to $68 on Newegg.
@@zodwraith5745but the Intel boards are more expensive right now
@@zs4580 By a whopping 10 bucks? Meh. With the chip being 10 bucks cheap it comes out the same, and the Intel is better for gaming.
I own one of these and have a RX 6800 matched to it. It's not bad at all for budget builders. I got it for $100 new. I compared it to my buddy's R5 3600 and it's ALMOST the exact same in performance with my 6800. You gotta remember some of us are out here making bullshit wages man. Take it easy bro.
He's just an Intel fan boy so whatever he says don't mean jack shit
@@lifeisbeautiful7361 Yeah I just thought it was dumb to act as if this product is worthless. I needed a computer ASAP to make ends meet until I could get better parts so I got what I could but still have room to upgrade. For sure if I had more money at the time I would have got something else but for a brand new 6 core CPU $100 is a deal even now. I'm buying a 5900x in a few days and will use this for a small build I'm doing in a few months.
"Should have been left to rot." Silicon doesn't rot. Better to make the most of these. I agree though that they should be cheaper.
Should of been left to rust and break into fine particulate*
your brain rots though seeing as you are trying to nitpick a meme statement
@@JacobSmits Silicon doesn't rust either.
@@Freestyle80 Do you not know the difference between a meme and a joke?
"Should have been left to sandpaper production" would have been better.
Request for a "Waste of Sand" page to be added somewhere on GN's website cause the list just keeps growing
What an absolute joke of a CPU. AMD clearly doesn't care about budget buyers and just threw this into the market to try and cash in on the Ryzen brand by selling a trash CPU, people should be buying the much better i3-12100F.
I think they're trying to cash in on misleading product naming, because it has 4500 number and 6 cores most people will assume it's actually better than Ryzen 3600 lol.. meanwhile in reality it's slower
my guess is they're having a hard time making decent budget CPUs since they still have to pay TSMC and probably don't want tiny margins anymore. Might bite them in the butt later on though. Intel is super strong in the budget segment right now.
@@Nintenboy01 these chips would otherwise end thrown out in trash... And it's profitable with good margin even at 90$ because the chip is so little .
@@Nintenboy01 I suspect it's more that they have a fixed amount of wafers and they would much rather use them on higher margin products.
@@Nintenboy01 7nm is extremely cheap now, it's 2022, not 2019
I think it´s better value for money than the 10400F. I think you are exaggerating. I ordered a new prebuild with full warranty today with it, including a 6600XT(cheapest price in Germany at the moment 399 Euros), 500 GB M.2 PCIe SSD, 2x8 GB RAM 3200 Mhz...... including 2 free games and shipping and VAT for only 684 Euro. I think it is a bargain and I will not regreat it. That means I paid only 285 Euros without the GPU, for a cheap enough price almost everything is ok. It´s not a waste of silicon, it´s well used silicon, when you consider AMD would have to throw it away with the damaged iGPU. They bring the manufacturing reject to good use and it makes me feel good to support, combined with the felling that I have made a bargain. Another thing is that AMD is a bit more power efficient than intel. It also very possibly works better together with the AMD GPU, for nice to have gadgets like Smart Acces Memory.
He's an Intel fan boy so whatever he says don't mean jack shit
@@lifeisbeautiful7361 Do mean the man in the video or me with "intel fanboy"?
@@lifeisbeautiful7361 Are you mean Steve🙂
Remember, corporations only want money this is why reviews like these are invaluable to know where to put your money into
It is a reuse of silicon, that takes additional money. It isn't supposed to be a product with an optimum balance of performance and price. It is merely to recover loses without compromising the success of other lines. They want it to not be a great deal and you should to, margins on chips are so low if someone wants to buy this extremely middling chip then let them.
Considering the AM4 vs LGA 1700 motherboard prices, this isn't necessarily as bad as people make it out to be. If you consider that, the 4500 is closer in price to the Pentium G7400 -- which it decimates.
people only see 12100f price point, they never bring the 1700 board into the table, while 4500+b450 will be much more cheap
@@Farisss11 But you better hope your b450 board's bios supports the 4500. And LGA 17000 H610M and even some B660M boards aren't that expensive
@@Farisss11 there are b660 boards that can be bought for less than 100 dollars. The board I bought for my sister I got for 90 dollars. The 12400f I bought on sale for 140 dollars (only 10 dollars more than the MSRP of the 4500), a vastly superior cpu. The 4500+Mobo combo would've had to somehow save me at least a good 75-100 dollars to be a comparable deal here. The cheapest non-used motherboards that can run this cpu go for a good 70 or so, while the 4500 itself has barely budged in price since this video, so the best you'll get is maybe 30 dollars of saving.
Lest we forget, at these prices, you may want to look at an h610 board anyway, which can also be found for 70 or so, so that means there's literally no saving at all here if you dig even a little bit. There's literally nothing salvageable here.
good to know, i almost recommended it to someone, but 4500 brand new (sale) is cheaper than used 3600 which is tempting
Im torn on this. If these arent new production dies, then the recycling oriented part of me applauds AMD for re-using them instead of throwing them out. On the opposite end, I admonish AMD's pricing on it. This should really be a $100 or below cpu
AMD could have been turning defective dies into products **literally years ago**. They've been throwing those dies until now, because by selling only fully-functional silicon they were able to artificially keep supply low and thus their prices high. The only reason they've dumped this clutch of chips on us is that Intel is eating their lunch at the low-end... and even with that caveat, AMD has now become so greedy they aren't even willing to price their defective silicon at prices to compete with Intel.
AMD deserves no applause. What they do deserve is pure unmitigated contempt for managing to become greedier then Intel with less than half a decade of dominance.
I bought this this year as an upgrade to my 9100f for £65, worth every penny if you ask me, I have had no problems with it at all I will say I bought it as a temp until I can upgrade to something a lot more powerful, but this is actually a great CPU for the price..
The 4500 should have been an $80 chip at worst, and never released in the consumer space at best.
If I recall, it costs the same amount per unit to package the chips onto a substrate, so I do agree with the sentiment that AMD should have just tossed these out.
It took AMD one generation of being ahead to milk and troll customers. Amazing :D.
Why don't they just say 'hey these are left over from production take them for 80 bucks'? Would be a win win and they would beat out Intel in the ultra low budget range.
the 12100F will not let that happen, unless it's 50$ or lower
Thanks for the heads up Steve! But I need yours or other people's opinion on whether or not should I buy the mentioned Ryzen 4500. My Ryzen 1600 (non AF) is getting pretty old and in a dire need of upgrade. I was saving money to buy the Ryzen 5600, but the lowest price for it in my local stores is currently $219 while the Ryzen 4500 is sitting around $149. I was thinking of buying the latter to save more money to upgrade my old GPU, the GTX 1060 to something a lot better like the RX 6600. I'm still in college working part time with a very little income (since most of it goes to student loan). While I can wait a bit longer to save up more money, I need to upgrade soon since I felt left behind by my classmates whenever there is a demanding projects with the use of after effects. Thanks again, keep up the good work!
EDIT: I don't think I'll be selling my old CPU and GPU to get a better deal, because I'm currently still using it since I don't have a laptop. And after the upgrade I want to save it to build my sister a PC using my old components.
Built an entire PC for £360
R5 4500
B450
16gb 3200Mhz
CiT Case
600w PSU
RX 580 4GB
120gb SSD + 1tb HDD Soon
Good buy for the cash!
Basically, it's 2700X gaming performance, between 2600X and 2700X productivity performance, with lower power consumption, at $130. For an older Ryzen user with an AM4 motherboard, what can beat this today for $130 (including the cost of the motherboard)?
Should have released it last year!
literally the motto for the new Ryzens lmao
yes, wrong timing and wrong price, is not a bad cpu if it was older and cheaper, but it isn't
Typing this on a laptop with a 4500U in it, it's still a surprisingly good lower mid-end laptop processor today. I have no clue why AMD thought giving it multithreading and making it a desktop part was a good idea.
Laptop yes, desktop terrible idea but good for environment
@Claudio Salazar I guess you're not wrong, but that is one hell of a bullshit comparison.
"Did you know that this top of the line part will last me longer than a budget part?" Yeah, no shit. I'd expect as much going by how I paid 3x less for the device. Would you like to release a PSA telling people to not headbutt coat hooks next?
Watching the AMD fanboys meltdown over their precious "underdog" who they thought loved them actually turn into Intel is the funniest shit ever.
I LOVE pointing out the FACTs to these AMD fanboy/ soyboys ,,, WE ALL need to be FANs of VALUE
The Ryzen 5 4500U is a beast of an APU. 4600H less so. But whoever thought taking a mobile Ryzen 5 4600H and releasing it for PCs two whole years later for anything other than a clearance sale price should be fired from the job.
Now if GN actually did the comparisons with something like a 3060 that would be more realistic.
Roller coaster here for me. Laughed at how hard Steve ripped on this cpu. Felt bad when he compared it to my 2700x. Felt better that I got it before the 3000 series came out and have gotten years of enjoyment out of it.
Fun fact is, that Ryzen 4500 is still quite competible to 12100F: Its for similar price and 12100F is better, yes, BUT the prizes of Lga 1700 mobos are clearly more expensive than older AM4s. So the cost saved for AM4 mobo fills the performance gap for 4500.
H610M would like to have a word with you about LGA 1700 mobo prices.
@@fantom5894 I am not interested to have a word with a trash model, nerfed mobo :D. Well, proly it has its buyers, but I dont consider it as a good bargain to go with, if u want an upgrade potential to later times, especially for gaming, and still, its not that cheap if u consider lga1700 ends with 13th gen. But, for company purposes and the lack of support Intel does over AMD, even H610 with 12100 truly is a better option, I must admit. Its like meant to pair together in this case.
I hope they regain their footing once AM5 is out. Too much hubris and complacency and they might end up like back in the Phenom 2/Bulldozer days
I wouldnt group bulldozer and phenom 2 together. Phenom was quite good when it came out.
@@Spentalei true, but it cost much more for AMD to make compared to a comparable Core 2 or first/2nd gen i-series then
Man those numbers are sad.
As an environmental scientist I appreciate the fact that you mention environmental/resource costs in your videos. Tech sites/channels tend to ignore that way too much in the pursuit of the next shiny toy.
Honestly still a poor job of doing it considering how wasteful it is to have yearly releases that serve no real purpose besides small percentages of extra performance that aren't even as relevant as they should be because software can't catch up.
We should have CPU releases every 5 years at the earliest, only really changing when there's a *need* for it.
@@shardperson3777 That's not gonna happen because of the rapid innovation society that we live in. Technological advancement stops for no one unless it hits a major hurdle that brings it to a creaking stop.
With that said. I just wish companies were held accountable for recycling these types of products instead of just turning them into waste. The materials are often still usable in some way and there are processes for properly breaking them down and repurposing them again. But, of course, that all costs $$$$ that these corporations will never spend.
is not always a new shiny toy, i used to be like that, changing pcs like changing pants, but now, i really want to move from 4 cores, enviromenal cost does matter, but sometimes you need more cpu power and the old cpu will be sold or repurposed
Intel rarely has bad budget cpus that are terrible.
AMD is accomplishing history with so many bad releases
It all depends on prices
People forget that the 11th gen wasn't bad, it wasn't an improvement, which was really silly, but the price was right and they did the job. This is overpriced and a regression in performance
@@Ang3lUki 11th gen did the job on laptops only.
@@Spido68_the_spectator I'd be happy with an 8700k today, let alone an 11600k. I have a 10900x though, so it's a moot point
In 4 months i'll have had my ryzen 5 3600 for 3 years. WTF is all of this.
Your R5 3600 is a fine chip, you'll be ok with it for a few more years.
Honestly, as a guy trying to find an upgrade from an a8-7600, the pricing of this CPU actually beats out the 3600 and the 12100f in my country (Philippines) so it's like.... Huh, interesting.
Edit: Correction: the cpu mobo (h610) combo of the 12100f is now currently beating the price of the 4500 making it a way better value on a budget (unless you really want a 6core?k
I don't think there's a video that I most disagree than this on the entire web...People today are so amazed and blinded of how fast are modern CPUs that look for a low end CPU like this and can't see it beats older high end Intel with a good margin and much lower consumption.
Buddy, a 6/12 4960X was a thousand dollars, remember? Still a very capable machine in 2023...and the 4500 which is stronger, is a waste of sand? 🤔
i mean i get where he is coming from to a degree, as at the time of this review the cpu launched for $130, making it a pretty big waste mainly because there were alternatives that were just flat out better in every way for the same price point, at which point yeah your product is useless.
now however they seem to have walked the price down a LOT, i just b ought one myself for $70 and for that price point? i'd say its pretty great for a mid range setup. but yeah i think this guy was definitely too harsh, a waste of sand is definitely unfair on a cpu that is actually pretty useable, even if at the time of review it wasnt practical.
It's a waste of sand when there's _already_ other chips on the market that are faster and cheaper. Cherry picking old overpriced CPUs in an attempt to defend a new overpriced one is disingenuous at best if you ignore other superior options. Even now that the 4500 got a price drop the 12100f is _still_ cheaper. AMD dropped the price because _they had to._
The 12100f where I live for example is around $120 whilst the 4500 is $80 also comparing amd to Intel on a price comparison with a cpu like this is silly, as a lot of people will be using it primarily to upgrade from a much older cpu for the more modern nice to haves, like higher cache, faster clocks better architecture etc at which point the 4500 would still be cheaper for amd users as they already have the board.
Don't get me wrong it's not a particularly great use of silicon but it's something I was indeed looking to purchase, for very legitimate reasons.
@@jakeely9040 So many people in other countries that get screwed by the importers. 12100f is literally only $68 in the US. Your shops are taking advantage of you just because a product is more desirable. That's not Intel or AMD's fault, but your local retailers.
@@zodwraith5745 I mean I guess? But by that logic wouldn't they do the same thing to the 4500? A lot of the extra cost for pc components comes from living in a country with higher sales tax, I find most pc stuff is about the same as us pricing with most of the overhead being sales tax, though there are other reasons.
But it's incredibly rare that I find components that don't march the same pricing structure as the us I.E
3 processors in the US are $60, $80, and $100 I'd typically see higher prices here but the same order of pricing, so not sure whats going on with the 4500 here :P
got it for 75$ and upgraded from a ryzen 3 1200 i think i got a good deal
Back to you, Steve
Thanks Steve*
You can pick these up for $99 at microcenter now, that being said the Ryzen 5 5500 is only 119 at microcenter as well and still worth the extra 20 for personal use. Personally, I do builds and Ill take the extra 20 in profits and let someone else have a fun time upgrading the in future. It also makes a nice pairing with 300 and 400 series AM4 boards that dont have PCIE 4.0 and its still a nice upgrade from a Ryzen 5 2600 or below.
I am using this CPU and it's quite good. Not the best of course, but it works.
Buying my R5 3600 for $167 back in 2020 was probably the best move I made when I built my PC.
Basically, Intels 4 core 8 thread i3 outshines the 4500 6 core 12 thread for less money.
Makes me wonder why the 4500 looks so bad compared to the 3600. All things considered they should be way closer together. Same archtiecture, both on PCIe 3.0, only difference is the name. ARe clocks and TDP that different that the 4500 is hit so hard
@@HappyBeezerStudios 1. 3600 has pcie4 support
2. 4500 is scrapped Renoir Apu not Matisse CPU
3. 4500 8mb L3 vs 3600 32mb L3
4. Clock speed
@@HappyBeezerStudios Apu usually weaker than their CPU counterpart
I'll be honest
It feels kind of bad seeing my CPU being roasted (r5 pro 4650g ie 4500 with an igpu and ryzen pro branding)
However my cpu should have been launched in 2020 not 2022 , amd is out of its mind
I disagree.. Someone will buy this and it will satisfy their needs. If these were going to the dumpster it would be better to be sold off rather than serve as e-waste. Companies even get fined for e-waste (look at how much target was fined). Yes maybe the price is not indicative of performance but more CPUs available will also prevent shortages at the low end.
I tend to agree with you all but just because this was not a huge release does not mean its 100% bad. It just means you were not the target demographic. (PS the school I work at had a very tough time replacing computers for kids due to the pandemic and we were forced to purchase less computers than we originally planned due to the price hikes)
Ya GN POV is a little skewed. I build computers for our research lab which do not require high end anything for majority of the staff and this would be acceptable. Yes $/performance is not the best but it will come down shortly. The comparison to intel is ok but that is assuming you switch everything to intel. A large chunk of our PC are amd so if we need to swap out a cpu this may be the route.
More CPUs on the market the better. I understand you are looking at the price to performance of the chip but someone not well informed most likely is not looking for the best performing rather something to get them by especially when we are looking at the low end of the spectrum + small difference with the competition. Also I agree better to be sold off and repurposed than be e-waste. I would have thought GN would know this but they have become a little to high on there horses lately. Hopefully they will address this more of an e-waste issue than a best foot forward approach.
ahh amd fanboys, will waste money on their products to justify the existence
@@Freestyle80 I run only intel and intel for life. Maybe English isn't your first language but I did not bring any brand loyalty in this discussion.
@@Freestyle80 Doesn't know Ive been using intel for my home PC for the past 15 years🤣. I am sure you are one of the fanboys that wishes they have a good system. Next time don't assume and make sure you know for sure they have an intel/AMD system. The point is about availability at the low end for consumers not about the brand ✌
That's why you buy what performs the best or provides the best value for the job at hand. I can't comprehend the bootlicking mentality of brand loyalists who are so common in this industry.
While this chip comically over-priced, it's easy to forget that there's a massive market for 'I need 1,000 PCs that can run Outlook, Excel, and PDF", that these low-end lines are aimed for.
This should still be a $50 CPU, though.
But it doesn't even have a iGP! Might as well go with the IGPU version of this CPU. 4650g had a purpose at least.
You're confusing these with the Atlon series of CPUs. THOSE are the "I need 1000 PCs for outlook/excel/PDF" machines.
It's a basically an R5 4600 with disabled iGPU, right? The price is too high, or is it actually not working properly? I'm having trouble following what the actual performance is behind Steve's outrage.
Steve is probly most upset with the price.
Ive owned a 4600g since the - uhm original(?) - launch and by all metrics it performs slightly slower than a 3600. These 4500 are supposedly the same chips but have the igpu disabled along with a slower base and boost clock. I doubt that the 100mhz difference would affect performance to the point that they are now literally the worst CPU you can currently buy from AMD. So something else must be at play here.
Hoping GN will also review the 4600g and compare it with the 4500 to maybe determine if that disabled half of the monolithic SoC is somehow critical to overall performance of these chips??
Steve being savage as always...
The real disappointment is the price. If they priced the 4100 at $59 and the 4500 at $79 they would be a compelling argument for budget builds and people still running pcie Gen 3 cards. It would also put it closer in line to compete against Celeron and Pentium processors and at that price I’m sure they’d at least break even on waste silicon which isn’t bad if you’re increasing market share and brand sentiment. Unfortunately with greedy price points they completely miss a window of opportunity.
i have to say that its a little insulting when EVERY tech reviewer benchmarks the same pointless shit, i mean i get that ultimately its still useful info but i feel if you're gonna benchmark a cpu maybe benchmark it on a cpu intensive game? i mean seriously, why dont we see some super cpu intensive games, completely eliminating the need to wipe out games because of bottlenecks, there are plenty of games that typically you can bet on the cpu ALWAYS being the bottleneck, it would be especially helpful to benchmark some high cpu intensive games that do not support multicore for example rimworld, project zomboid x4 foundations etc all these games would be great ways of benchmarking these cpu's in ways that really matter. because if you benchmark a cpu on a genuinely cpu intensive game it will really allow us to see how much it falters, at the end of the day a lot of people arent that great at really visualising percentile loss, if you show me a spreadsheet and say "woah look how bad this cpu is, its only getting 300 fps on this game how bad" have you considered using an actual appropriate build for the cpu? running appropriate games on appropriate settings stress testing the appropriate part?
idk maybe its just me, but all these videos end up identical and rarely show you the practical performance you can expect with cpu intensive tasks, like sure its 15 percent worse than X processor, but how does that actually practically effect how its going to run demanding cpu intensive games? how does 200+ fps in rainbow six siege when paired with a 3080 compare to how i'd use it with a 1060 on a game like going medieval, or rimworld? i havent got a clue! so ultimately your numbers mean nothing in practical terms.
YES, in the past i follow this crap and buy a intel 2 cores 4 threads cpu with 8 gb of ram becos "you dont need more!" and in 1/2 year later my pc was 100% all the time and always using 7/8 gb of ram, this cpu has 4 cores, the same will happen to this i3 in 2 years or less.
1600AF the golden days of AMDs cheapo goodness . Scored 2 of these for about 80$ each after the GN video. Currently still have one of them under a sythe fuma 2 . Its mainly used for my home server among the other re-purposing i do with it . All together the build was a little above 400$ But again i had parts on hand (purchased before the shortage) 1600AF , 16GB 3200mhz c16 , RX 570 4GB, 500GB ssd , 2TB HDD.
This makes me want to upgrade from 3600. I remember the time when this cpu was THE choice. Everyone recommended it. Time flies...
I wouldn't waste my time. I get to clean up and install games on my nephew's 3600 on a regular basis, and it still runs 99 percent of games at over 100 frames per second. It's even good for lightworkstation use, but we live in an age where higher numbers are the sole factor rather than practical usecase.
Only upgrade if you're using your computer as a workstation or for competitive gaming with super high refresh rates.
@@TrinoDR I play at 144hz 1440p mostly fps and vr. I have a 2070s so im still mostly gpu limited but with that upgrade i should also upgrade my cpu. i also use it for work compiling code. but that will probably just shave a few seconds.
If they marketed this at something like £60-£80 it would have been worth it. Plenty of people on low incomes just wanting something for word processing and internet browsing. This CPU would be sweet for that plus lite gaming. However with the price its at those looking for a system like that would be better off looking at the used market :/. Why did they not just turn them into a "nuc" device. Low powered, cheap small units where you just add a monitor.
Theyre $80 now
AMD: "I know! Let's release a product based on the 3600 - zen 2, 6c12t, and clock it lower and slash the L3 cache by 75% at least (can't find the specs, it may have just 4Mb like the 4100), and then we'll charge more for it than what you can buy the R5 3600 for AT THE SAME RETAILER!