AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

[Mr Oblong]

I'm not sure, but these chips look like they will appeal to many markets. The master race will probably be foaming at the mouth and the amount frustrated graphics money is still on the table.

But there's a lot of competition around for that GPU money...

No, it never is, usually its discovered when someone digs into the code and finds Intel code that seeks out what type of CPU is running and if its AMD it gimps the performance.
Intel don't even hide it, well, they admit to it in marketing speak, they say the compiler is designed to run best on Intel, or optimised for Intel, the only reason they do that is because they were caught doing it and fined, the courts told them they must tell people they are doing it, so they do, in cynical marketing speak "runs best on Intel"
I don't know if that or anything is happening here, if anything this is more along the lines of it being tuned for Intel's strengths, they just don't have any of those anymore.

Right, thanks for clarifying.

"Optimised for" is a bit clearer than "runs best on", but really it sounds like "hobbled for non-Intel" would be more accurate.

 

[FoxEye]

Anyway, muppets aside. AMD have somewhat of a history of under pricing to the point that supply outstrips demand. That is detrimental to the buyer.

Hahaha. You couldn't make this **** up.

"It's bad for the buyer if the manufacturer RRP is too cheap."

Clearly all the people BUYING at those cheap prices would disagree with you.

So who are you speaking for? The people who didn't buy because it was too cheap?

 

[jigger]

But there's a lot of competition around for that GPU money...

Nvidia just killed the graphics market.

 

[jigger]

Hahaha. You couldn't make this **** up.

"It's bad for the buyer if the manufacturer RRP is too cheap."

Clearly all the people BUYING at those cheap prices would disagree with you.

So who are you speaking for? The people who didn't buy because it was too cheap?

People who bought at those price you mean? or those who have been buying for 9 years

 

[Mr Oblong]

Nvidia just killed the graphics market.

Or they frothed it up beyond recognition.

Big Navi supply will make all the difference, maybe even more than performance.

 

[jigger]

Or they frothed it up beyond recognition.

Big Navi supply will make all the difference, maybe even more than performance.

Maybe when AMD decide to release Navi, but right now noting in stock is worth buying and that is the polar opposite of the CPU market.

 

[Twinz]

The 3600 was as fast as the 2700 so the performance gains are similar this gen to last gen. Why would this gen be worth more than last gen?

It seems that the $300 Zen 3 CPU performs better than the $300 Zen 2 CPU.

Same money. More performance.

Unfortunately by that logic you invite AMD to price their next-gen 4 core at £300, if it matches the 5600 in MT and beats it in ST.

Where does that rabbit hole end?

Focusing on core-count is its own rabbit hole. Cores are just a means to an end. That "end" should be performance....period.

If AMD releases a dual-core that outperforms a 3950X in every metric, then who cares if it's a dual core? -Certainly not me.

If Zen 2's 8-core CPU gets beat by Zen 3's 6-core in ST and MT, core count doesn't matter to me at that point.

I want performance for my money and, while I wish AMD would have offered more than they did, it seems they are still offering moderately more performance for the same money.

 

[Doobedoo]

It seems that the $300 Zen 3 CPU performs better than the $300 Zen 2 CPU.

Same money. More performance.

The 3600 was £190 the 2700 was £300 or so. I’m struggling to see the point your making.

 

[Twinz]

The 3600 was £190 the 2700 was £300 or so. I’m struggling to see the point your making.

That's because I'm making a point about price vs performance, and you are focusing on price vs names.

 

[pc-guy]

Hahaha. You couldn't make this **** up.

"It's bad for the buyer if the manufacturer RRP is too cheap."

Clearly all the people BUYING at those cheap prices would disagree with you.

So who are you speaking for? The people who didn't buy because it was too cheap?

Buyer of AMD share not their CPU. I am a very happy CPU buyer.

maybe he is just annoyed that he bought the CPU 1 month earlier than the sales prices and he missed out on discounts.

 

[pete910]

we are comparing single core

Yes but it's a single threaded test so the number of cores is irrelevant.

My bad , Having said that looking at the clock speed of Roberts @5.2 it does'nt bode well for Intel if true

 

[Doobedoo]

That's because I'm making a point about price vs performance, and you are focusing on price vs names.

No. Ok let’s go over this again.

Your saying the new cpus are great because a £300 5600x performs the same as a £300 3700x. Same performance for the same money.

And I said a £190 3600 performs the same as a £300 2700. Same performance, less money.

Now which one is better?

 

[LePhuronn]

The 3600 was £190 the 2700 was £300 or so. I’m struggling to see the point your making.

That's because I'm making a point about price vs performance, and you are focusing on price vs names.

Don't go there Doobedoo, you'll just cave your head in against the wall trying to argue logic and product segmentation with this guy.

 

[Doobedoo]

Don't go there Doobedoo, you'll just cave your head in against the wall trying to argue logic and product segmentation with this guy.

I thought it was only Jigger and 4K

 

[FoxEye]

That's because I'm making a point about price vs performance, and you are focusing on price vs names.

No, not really.

Price vs stack position also.

If you get pushed down to the 4-core 6300 for £300, you just know that the 6-core 6600 and 8-core 6800 will still exist.

Effectively you're just accepting moving lower and lower down the product stack - paying 6core money for next year's 4cores. The 6core will still eixst; it will still be better than the 4core; you'll just be accepting moving down, down, deeper and down (the product stack) for the same monies.

 

[pc-guy]

No, not really.

Price vs stack position also.

If you get pushed down to the 4-core 6300 for £300, you just know that the 6-core 6600 and 8-core 6800 will still exist.

Effectively you're just accepting moving lower and lower down the product stack - paying 6core money for next year's 4cores. The 6core will still eixst; it will still be better than the 4core; you'll just be accepting moving down, down, deeper and down (the product stack) for the same monies.

what about iPhone and all the android phones?

my iPhone 2 (top sku) was a mere £200 on 12month contract. Then iPhone 3GS £300 (top sku), iPhone 6 Plus 64GB £600 (second sku), iPhone 6s Plus 64GB £700 (second SKU) iPhone X 64GB £900 (3rd or 4th SKU) iPhone XR 64GB £800 (bottom of the pile)

what’s your point? Things get expensive that’s called inflation.

if everything remain the same price we have no growth.

In all the years of spending money on tech, a decent portion of my earning goes into buying tech. I have never know things to get cheaper as time goes on. Tech only gets cheaper when they become superseded or somehow the manufacturer decide to lower price to shift stock or for other sales reasons. Never ever has new tech ever lowered in prices.

 

[Twinz]

No. Ok let’s go over this again.

Your saying the new cpus are great because a £300 5600x performs the same as a £300 3700x. Same performance for the same money.

First: "Same performance" in MT and MORE performance in ST is, well, MORE performance....not the "same performance".

Second: More performance at the same money is what I expect from generational progress. More performance for less money is even better, but I'm not going to pretend that more performance for the same money is some sort of rip-off.

And I said a £190 3600 performs the same as a £300 2700. Same performance, less money.

Now which one is better?

We have yet to see what AMD offers at that price point. What they have offered at the $300 price point appears to be a net-improvement over the previous generations $300 price point.

 

[Twinz]

No, not really.

Price vs stack position also.

If you get pushed down to the 4-core 6300 for £300, you just know that the 6-core 6600 and 8-core 6800 will still exist.

Effectively you're just accepting moving lower and lower down the product stack - paying 6core money for next year's 4cores. The 6core will still eixst; it will still be better than the 4core; you'll just be accepting moving down, down, deeper and down (the product stack) for the same monies.

"Stack position"?

This seems to be an e-peen argument. Otherwise, why am I supposed to care about the "product stack"?

How fast?

How much?

This is all that really matters if you are not shopping for bragging rights.

 

[FoxEye]

what about iPhone and all the android phones?

my iPhone 2 (top sku) was a mere £200 on 12month contract. Then iPhone 3s £300 (top sku), iPhone 6 Plus 64GB £600 (second sku), iPhone 6s Plus 64GB £700 (second SKU) iPhone X 64GB £900 (3rd or 4th SKU) iPhone XR 64GB £800 (bottom of the pile)

what’s your point? Things get expensive that’s called inflation.

if everything remain the same price we have no growth.

Things don't get more expensive continually. If they did our CPUs would cost tens of thousands each.

It always amuses me to see people tripping over themselves to justify price hikes.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

No. Ok let’s go over this again.

Your saying the new cpus are great because a £300 5600x performs the same as a £300 3700x. Same performance for the same money.

And I said a £190 3600 performs the same as a £300 2700. Same performance, less money.

Now which one is better?

There's still people buying Intel builds because of the higher single threaded performance. AMD were offering a discount over Intel before because their single threaded performance was lower. Now AMD are faster than Intel in every metric, why should they continue offering a good deal?

AMD is now the premium option for people that are happy to pay for it.