AMD Zen 2 (Refresh) 3900XT/3800XT/3600XT

[Gerard]

Not sure why people were dreaming up these being anything different than slightly faster refreshes, amd said so in their announcement video last month yet people still come in on the whinge.

Are people "conveniently" forgetting that video or something so they can have something to moan about? Seems like it. They said they would be slightly faster iterations of current CPU's, they are, so whats the problem exactly?

 

[LePhuronn]

At least Intel would have just quietly introduced them without bothering to reprint the packaging/point of sale material

No, Intel would've made a big song and dance about them, charged a hefty premium for them and possibly even pushed a new motherboard on us. Don't believe me? 8086K and 9900KS are prime examples. Hell, the entire Kaby Lake series required a new motherboard.

I've seen some overblown reactions in my time but, beer or not, yours is up there with the most ludicrous. Just don't buy an XT and get on with your life, nobody is holding a gun to your head.

 

[LePhuronn]

Not sure why people were dreaming up these being anything different than slightly faster refreshes

Nobody was

 

[Jacky60]

No, Intel would've made a big song and dance about them, charged a hefty premium for them and possibly even pushed a new motherboard on us. Don't believe me? 8086K and 9900KS are prime examples. Hell, the entire Kaby Lake series required a new motherboard.

I've seen some overblown reactions in my time but, beer or not, yours is up there with the most ludicrous. Just don't buy an XT and get on with your life, nobody is holding a gun to your head.

Lots of rubbish there LePhuron, the difference is much less than the examples you quote.

 

[Gerard]

Nobody was

Think you might want to look back at some posts earlier in this thread, higher all core boost clocks were being talked about in the region of 4.6ghz.

 

[LePhuronn]

Think you might want to look back at some posts earlier in this thread, higher all core boost clocks were being talked about in the region of 4.6ghz.

But that's exactly what the 3600XT does

 

[LePhuronn]

Lots of rubbish there LePhuron, the difference is much less than the examples you quote.

Really not. 7700K had a 200MHz clock bump over the 6700K. Plenty of 8700Ks were hitting 5GHz reliably long before the 8086K came out, as were 9900K before the KS.

 

[Gerard]

But that's exactly what the 3600XT does

The 3900xt was the one that people were talking about having 4.6 boost clocks, the 3600xt can do 4.5 overclocked on water from some reviews but it's only half the core count of the 3900. Not like it's out of the box all core boost at 4.5.

 

[Jacky60]

Really not. 7700K had a 200MHz clock bump over the 6700K. Plenty of 8700Ks were hitting 5GHz reliably long before the 8086K came out, as were 9900K before the KS.

Oh lordy........look at the benchmarks...some people ffs !

 

[Journey]

We all know that the XT simply gives the opportunity to make a price drop on the non-XT range, thus becoming even more competitive than before.

The 10600K really does eat into the best bang for buck argument if your sole purpose is to play games with a very high end GPU, and giving that extra choice in the 3600XT make the decision more difficult, which is what the people in marketing hope for, a discussion prior to a decision.

3600 ~£140, 3600X ~£185, or 3600XT ~£229, vs the 10600K ~£280. So grab a 3600 for 50% of the cost of the 10600K and hope it's binned well for boost and OC, or 20% less sand get the XT. How much is the improvement worth to the end user, at least the get a choice.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

AMD are becoming the new turds on the block, wtf? I am going to invoice the useless fkrs for my time looking here and elsewhere and for even daring to announce this POS as a 'new product'. I'm tempted to go Intel with my next upgrade just to punish them for having the gall to pretend that this is even worth calling by a different name. At least Intel would have just quietly introduced them without bothering to reprint the packaging/point of sale material but AMD are back to their old ways. Lisa Su, Queen of turds! I'd never imagine any 'launch' could be quite so underwhelming. Way to lose the dressing room.........I'm buying Ampere too now just to punish them twice over. Nvidia and Intel wouldn't dream of doing this and I despise both of those companies...this is a new low.

The Core i7 8700K and Core i7 8086K were the same die:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_8700k/
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_8086k/

What about the Core i9 9900KS:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_9900k/
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_9900ks/

Literally a 100MHZ difference in overclock values but big new launches for both.

What about the Core i7 6700K and Core i7 7700K,then? Oh you mean the fact Intel,artficially held back the former,by using crappier TIM,etc.Basically the Core i7 7700K came 12 months later,and they basically improved the thermal interface.

Let's go into Asus literally saying the Z170 would work with CFL,and Intel preventing them from releasing updates for such motherboards:

https://www.kitguru.net/components/...-processor-runs-on-a-modded-z170-motherboard/

You do realise Clevo,actually hacked together BIOSes for some laptops to allow CFL to work in Z170 motherboards,but Intel actually stopped Asus,etc from doing so?

Now it transpires,Alder Lake needs a new socket:
https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/i...021-leaving-z490-motherboards-out-in-the-cold

So the current Intel CPUs,will not get another upgrade.Even if AMD tried a similar stunt,at least they gave in and said they wouldn't do that - yet has Intel ever did this?

So you are over-reacting to this by saying you will not get AMD,but go from Intel to Intel despite them doing even worse moves.

Also punishing AMD by getting Ampere,so basically another excuse maker.

When ATI/AMD made decent GPUs,people like you made excuses never to buy them,so in the end AMD decided not to bother fighting price wars. Hence we have the **** market we have now.

Intel/Nvidia can move any kind of dick moves,but that's OK,only AMD get slammed for them,but can't do that to Intel/Nvidia ever.

Lots of rubbish there LePhuron, the difference is much less than the examples you quote.

No he isn't even though I have disagreed with him the past. Literally you couldn't be bothered to look on HWBOT did you?

The Core i7 8700K/8086K and Core i9 9900K/9900KS are almost the same clockspeeds when overclocked,and that is verified over 1000s of examples.

I had a right go at AMD when they tried their B450 move,but you literally can't say Intel is better with what they have done in the last few years.

Edit!!

Here is another similar move from Intel:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4770k/
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4790k/

The Core i7 4790K barely clocked 100~150MHZ better than a Core i7 4770K.

Why do you think AMD has pulled a fail move like this?

All the people who bought Core i9 9900KS,Core i7 8086K and Core i7 4790K and made them tons of money.

At least AMD gives you PBO,etc even on the cheaper SKUs,ie,they don't prevent you from overclocking all SKUs.

What about the B and H series having overclocking locked?

So you are rewarding Intel for locking out overclocking too??

 

[sideways14a]

Strange how i am seeing significant differences in reviews with gaming, some are saying its got a small but decent lead over the non "T" parts... Others saying its practically the same which i would have thought they would be.

Some proper overclocking might give us some new Zen2 world records though.

 

[Jacky60]

The Core i7 8700K and Core i7 8086K were the same die:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_8700k/
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_8086k/

What about the Core i9 9900KS:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_9900k/
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i9_9900ks/

Literally a 100MHZ difference in overclock values but big new launches for both.

What about the Core i7 6700K and Core i7 7700K,then? Oh you mean the fact Intel,artficially held back the former,by using crappier TIM,etc.Basically the Core i7 7700K came 12 months later,and they basically improved the thermal interface.

Let's go into Asus literally saying the Z170 would work with CFL,and Intel preventing them from releasing updates for such motherboards:

https://www.kitguru.net/components/...-processor-runs-on-a-modded-z170-motherboard/

You do realise Clevo,actually hacked together BIOSes for some laptops to allow CFL to work in Z170 motherboards,but Intel actually stopped Asus,etc from doing so?

Now it transpires,Alder Lake needs a new socket:
https://www.techradar.com/uk/news/i...021-leaving-z490-motherboards-out-in-the-cold

So the current Intel CPUs,will not get another upgrade.Even if AMD tried a similar stunt,at least they gave in and said they wouldn't do that - yet has Intel ever did this?

So you are over-reacting to this by saying you will not get AMD,but go from Intel to Intel despite them doing even worse moves.

Also punishing AMD by getting Ampere,so basically another excuse maker.

When ATI/AMD made decent GPUs,people like you made excuses never to buy them,so in the end AMD decided not to bother fighting price wars. Hence we have the **** market we have now.

Intel/Nvidia can move any kind of dick moves,but that's OK,only AMD get slammed for them,but can't do that to Intel/Nvidia ever.



No he isn't even though I have disagreed with him the past. Literally you couldn't be bothered to look on HWBOT did you?

The Core i7 8700K/8086K and Core i9 9900K/9900KS are almost the same clockspeeds when overclocked,and that is verified over 1000s of examples.

I had a right go at AMD when they tried their B450 move,but you literally can't say Intel is better with what they have done in the last few years.

Edit!!

Here is another similar move from Intel:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4770k/
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_4790k/

The Core i7 4790K barely clocked 100~150MHZ better than a Core i7 4770K.

Why do you think AMD has pulled a fail move like this?

All the people who bought Core i9 9900KS,Core i7 8086K and Core i7 4790K and made them tons of money.

At least AMD gives you PBO,etc even on the cheaper SKUs,ie,they don't prevent you from overclocking all SKUs.

What about the B and H series having overclocking locked?

So you are rewarding Intel for locking out overclocking too??

OK, so they're all as bad as each other, pardon me I expected more from AMD.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

OK, so they're all as bad as each other, pardon me I expected more from AMD.

AMD has done plenty of crap stuff and I did point out some of the historically crap thing they have done,but Intel is generally far worse even with the recent AMD moves,and it worked for Intel which is the problem.

I have more the issue,that you feel Intel is now better,since AMD has being pulling some weird moves(like this release and the B450 stuff). The fact is AMD feels it can do this,because Intel(and to some degree Nvidia) pulled similar or even worse moves,and made tons of money,and still do,despite this.

Intel is worse,so basically you are rewarding Intel for:
1.)Not giving into public pressure(Z170 CFL compatibility whereas AMD caved in with B450)
2.)Locking out CPU overclocking on mainstream chipsets
3.)Locking out RAM XMP settings on entry level chipsets
4.)Making sockets last one generation,when they used to do two(think IB and SB for example)
5.)Locking out most CPU SKUs from being overclockable
6.)Releasing clock bumped SKUs with higher TDPs,by making the original SKU have lower clockspeeds
7.)Re-releasing SKUs with "improved" thermal interfaces,even though they could have done it originally
8.)Locking out SMT until this year and charging essentially an SMT tax
9.)Locking out cheaper consumer Xeons out of consumer motherboards(as they were starting to steal sales of locked Core i7 SKUs)
10.)Useless stock coolers and no stock coolers on all higher end SKUs.

AMD at least does not lock out PBO/manual overclocking from its non X and low end X SKUs. This is why the Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 7 3700X have most of the performance of the Ryzen 5 3600X/3600XT and Ryzen 7 3800X/3800XT. In fact the Ryzen 9 3900 non-X has most of the performance of the Ryzen 9 3900X/3900XT. Intel doesn't always do that,as their segmentation is worse.

I WON'T forgive Intel for what they did with the consumer socket Xeon E3 CPUs. You could literally get a locked Core i7 for Core i5 money,and it was significantly cheaper than the Core i7 non-K models. Intel decided to artificially lock these CPUs out even though they were the same chips. I did so many builds with those Xeon E3 CPUs,including my own system.

Intel also started all this rubbish about locking out overclocking,to only K models. This started with SB - before SB even a £50 motherboard and £50 CPU could be overclocked.

There is even more stuff that could be added,but Intel is still doing a lot of crap things,and they still get rewarded. Nvidia has a history if doing crap things too,and even when AMD/ATI was disruptive,and avoided doing crap things,people just waited for cheaper Nvidia GPUs. So AMD decided it wouldn't bother fighting price/performance and wanted to be "not a cheap brand".

AMD is the lesser of two evils,even if they are trying to become more Intel like,however Intel still is digging its own hole,by not comprehensively responding. But if the AMD money men see what Intel and Nvidia doing is still working,because people keep throwing money at them,they will eventually become the same.

Better to then stick with what you have for longer. That is the best lesson for any of these companies if they start taking the mickey.

 

[Curlyriff]

AMD are becoming the new turds on the block, wtf? I am going to invoice the useless fkrs for my time looking here and elsewhere and for even daring to announce this POS as a 'new product'. I'm tempted to go Intel with my next upgrade just to punish them for having the gall to pretend that this is even worth calling by a different name. At least Intel would have just quietly introduced them without bothering to reprint the packaging/point of sale material but AMD are back to their old ways. Lisa Su, Queen of turds! I'd never imagine any 'launch' could be quite so underwhelming. Way to lose the dressing room.........I'm buying Ampere too now just to punish them twice over. Nvidia and Intel wouldn't dream of doing this and I despise both of those companies...this is a new low.

It's exactly what intel and Nvidia done haha. Not sure if sarcastic or not tbh.

 

[Participant]

Lisa Su, Queen of turds!

LOL

Really though, just don't buy it. We do have a choice.

 

[humbug]

Really not. 7700K had a 200MHz clock bump over the 6700K. Plenty of 8700Ks were hitting 5GHz reliably long before the 8086K came out, as were 9900K before the KS.

He has a point and Zen 3 are still out in a few months.

All AMD have done is exactly what they said they have done, squeezed a little more out of it and added a T on the end to bring it into line with their GPU naming scheme. That's it, no new motherboard, no pretending this is a new CPU.

 

[Jacky60]

AMD has done plenty of crap stuff and I did point out some of the historically crap thing they have done,but Intel is generally far worse even with the recent AMD moves,and it worked for Intel which is the problem.

I have more the issue,that you feel Intel is now better,since AMD has being pulling some weird moves(like this release and the B450 stuff). The fact is AMD feels it can do this,because Intel(and to some degree Nvidia) pulled similar or even worse moves,and made tons of money,and still do,despite this.

Intel is worse,so basically you are rewarding Intel for:
1.)Not giving into public pressure(Z170 CFL compatibility whereas AMD caved in with B450)
2.)Locking out CPU overclocking on mainstream chipsets
3.)Locking out RAM XMP settings on entry level chipsets
4.)Making sockets last one generation,when they used to do two(think IB and SB for example)
5.)Locking out most CPU SKUs from being overclockable
6.)Releasing clock bumped SKUs with higher TDPs,by making the original SKU have lower clockspeeds
7.)Re-releasing SKUs with "improved" thermal interfaces,even though they could have done it originally
8.)Locking out SMT until this year and charging essentially an SMT tax
9.)Locking out cheaper consumer Xeons out of consumer motherboards(as they were starting to steal sales of locked Core i7 SKUs)
10.)Useless stock coolers and no stock coolers on all higher end SKUs.

AMD at least does not lock out PBO from its non X and low end X SKUs. This is why the Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 7 3700X have most of the performance of the Ryzen 5 3600X/3600XT and Ryzen 7 3800X/3800XT. In fact the Ryzen 9 3900 non-X has most of the performance of the Ryzen 9 3900X/3900XT. Intel doesn't always do that,as their segmentation is worse.

I WON'T forgive Intel for what they did with the consumer socket Xeon E3 CPUs. You could literally get a locked Core i7 for Core i5 money,and it was significantly cheaper than the Core i7 non-K models. Intel decided to artificially lock these CPUs out even though they were the same chips. I did so many builds with those Xeon E3 CPUs,including my own system.

Intel also started all this rubbish about locking out overclocking,to only K models. This started with SB - before SB even a £50 motherboard and £50 CPU could be overclocked.

There is even more stuff that could be added,but Intel is still doing a lot of crap things,and they still get rewarded. Nvidia has a history if doing crap things too,and even when AMD/ATI was disruptive,and avoided doing crap things,people just waited for cheaper Nvidia GPUs. So AMD decided it wouldn't bother fighting price/performance and wanted to be "not a cheap brand".

AMD is the lesser of two evil,even if they are trying to become more Intel like,however Intel still is digging its own hole,by not comprehensively responding. But if the AMD money men see what Intel and Nvidia doing is still working,because people keep throwing money at them,they will eventually become the same.

I really don't so forget your issue. The only issue I have tbh is people being discourteous on this forum to vent whatever is going on in their everyday lives. I'll always buy AMD given a choice at equivalent performance I just want them to deliver what they say and if they don't I'll call them out. I also have a problem with people being rude to me for no good reason and when I refute their argument point by point seeing them disappearing as if it never happened, only to re-surface later with unnecessary jibes especially against legitimate opinions backed up with empirical data. I can see you also prefer data to personal sniping and if you look at my posts on this forum you'll see I've been an exemplar of civility and politeness. If others choose not to behave like this especially towards me (of which there are vanishingly few) then I won't accord them the civility I always extend to others the second or third time around.

LOL

Really though, just don't buy it. We do have a choice.

She's actually done a fabulous job, I was just venting.

 

[Jacky60]

It's exactly what intel and Nvidia done haha. Not sure if sarcastic or not tbh.

Both....just annoyed as was anticipating something more!

Not sure why people were dreaming up these being anything different than slightly faster refreshes, amd said so in their announcement video last month yet people still come in on the whinge.

Are people "conveniently" forgetting that video or something so they can have something to moan about? Seems like it. They said they would be slightly faster iterations of current CPU's, they are, so whats the problem exactly?

Come on! I can't take Mr Hallock seriously ever since he drew the PBO bar chart nonsense that frankly was so disingenuous it was beyond belief. 4.7Ghz everybody, it just never happened and when he drew it he knew this. He's the sort of chap that will look you in the eye and say "you see this red line? well look again it's actually blue" with a straight face.

 

[Jacky60]

AMD has done plenty of crap stuff and I did point out some of the historically crap thing they have done,but Intel is generally far worse even with the recent AMD moves,and it worked for Intel which is the problem.

I have more the issue,that you feel Intel is now better,since AMD has being pulling some weird moves(like this release and the B450 stuff). The fact is AMD feels it can do this,because Intel(and to some degree Nvidia) pulled similar or even worse moves,and made tons of money,and still do,despite this.

Intel is worse,so basically you are rewarding Intel for:
1.)Not giving into public pressure(Z170 CFL compatibility whereas AMD caved in with B450)
2.)Locking out CPU overclocking on mainstream chipsets
3.)Locking out RAM XMP settings on entry level chipsets
4.)Making sockets last one generation,when they used to do two(think IB and SB for example)
5.)Locking out most CPU SKUs from being overclockable
6.)Releasing clock bumped SKUs with higher TDPs,by making the original SKU have lower clockspeeds
7.)Re-releasing SKUs with "improved" thermal interfaces,even though they could have done it originally
8.)Locking out SMT until this year and charging essentially an SMT tax
9.)Locking out cheaper consumer Xeons out of consumer motherboards(as they were starting to steal sales of locked Core i7 SKUs)
10.)Useless stock coolers and no stock coolers on all higher end SKUs.

AMD at least does not lock out PBO/manual overclocking from its non X and low end X SKUs. This is why the Ryzen 5 3600 and Ryzen 7 3700X have most of the performance of the Ryzen 5 3600X/3600XT and Ryzen 7 3800X/3800XT. In fact the Ryzen 9 3900 non-X has most of the performance of the Ryzen 9 3900X/3900XT. Intel doesn't always do that,as their segmentation is worse.

I WON'T forgive Intel for what they did with the consumer socket Xeon E3 CPUs. You could literally get a locked Core i7 for Core i5 money,and it was significantly cheaper than the Core i7 non-K models. Intel decided to artificially lock these CPUs out even though they were the same chips. I did so many builds with those Xeon E3 CPUs,including my own system.

Intel also started all this rubbish about locking out overclocking,to only K models. This started with SB - before SB even a £50 motherboard and £50 CPU could be overclocked.

There is even more stuff that could be added,but Intel is still doing a lot of crap things,and they still get rewarded. Nvidia has a history if doing crap things too,and even when AMD/ATI was disruptive,and avoided doing crap things,people just waited for cheaper Nvidia GPUs. So AMD decided it wouldn't bother fighting price/performance and wanted to be "not a cheap brand".

AMD is the lesser of two evils,even if they are trying to become more Intel like,however Intel still is digging its own hole,by not comprehensively responding. But if the AMD money men see what Intel and Nvidia doing is still working,because people keep throwing money at them,they will eventually become the same.

Better to then stick with what you have for longer. That is the best lesson for any of these companies if they start taking the mickey.

Agreed and I'll buy AMD if I can ever justify it, I'll even spend more for equvalent performance just not very much more say £20-£30 or so.