why would you buy a 2500u
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
why would you buy a 2500u
The 3800X beating i9 9920X by 18% at $1200 vs $499 (with half the TDP?) seems like
No chance.
Intel have no response, and product launches take time and money, and mind share (when they will have Zen 3 to sell at or before this time next year).
Bins will likely improve over time, but they won't launch new SKUs.
They're not going to refresh unless Intel come up with something ... and that is impossible as they're stuck on 14nm+++++++++ and Core.
Soldato
cheers
Ah cool, they've put the specs pages up. 3700X looks like smart buy then, unless you really want that higher bin (won't be more than 200mhz in it on all-core if history is anything to go by).
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
Because it's an enthusiast gaming CPU, the other is HEDT aimed at professionals and content creators.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
That assumes that $1200 was a fair price to begin with, it's not, and that there is zero value in more pci-e, quad channel memory, etc, which people constantly argue gives Threadripper more value over the mainstream platform.
New process technology leads to massively higher transistor counts being able to be produced at the same price.
If Zen 2 was on 14nm alone and die size had increased from 200 to 300mm^2, then a price increase would make sense. When a 12 core Zen 2 should cost less to produce than a 8 core Zen 1.... then no, that is a bad price.
Why didn't a RX480 cost more than a 290x at launch? Because it was on a new node and die size dropped from I forget now but 430mm^2 to 230mm^2, and launch pricing was about half, which is exactly how technology works. 7nm doesn't cost half as much to make the same die size as roughly speaking most nodes have been as complexity and cost is now increasing faster. But 14nm also wasn't as much cheaper to produce the same chip on as it was when you compared 40nm to 28nm chips.
8 core Zen 2 should cost less than 8 core Zen 1 or Zen +, because manufacturing makes that true, so the prices going up represent a fairly hefty increase in price. Due to the increase cost per mm^2, 12 cores should come in below 8 core 14nm pricing but not by much and 16 core should come in above, but not by miles. That's a fundamental fact of how die sizes effect costs and how much more you can fit on a new and improved node.
The 12 core Intel chip, apart from being HEDT and apart from being WAY bigger due to being on a much larger node.... was also disgustingly overpriced and incredibly poor value. Just comparing to that and calling $500 cheap, is to ignore that even with existing chips you can buy a 2700 8 core at around the £200 mark, which would make a 12 core chip on 14nm on mainstream.... expensive and poor value for money at £400.
The 'enthusiast gaming CPU' would be the 3700X, no? Lisa Su even explicitly said so, that's the intention. The 3800X is Ryzen 9 not 7. It's not TR but it's in a bit of a grey area in the middle and is certainly pitched as a competitor to the Core i9 at half the price (and +18% perf, with half the power usage). In Cinebench the 3800X outpaces 9900K by a few percent in multi threaded *and* single threaded. Seems fair to me, especially given the historical 'fact' its price will drop nicely after a few months. By Q4 we will have a tasty upgrade for not much money, while Intel scrambles around trying to find its answer.
No the 3800x was the gaming chip...The 3800 x is Ryzen 7 and the 3900x is Ryzen 9...
https://www.amd.com/en/products/specifications/processors/11781,11756,11761,11766,11771
AMD Ryzen™ 9 3900X AMD Ryzen™ Processors AMD Ryzen™ 9 Desktop Processors Desktop 100-000000023 100-100000023BOX 7/7/2019 12 24 3.8GHz 4.6GHz 6MB 64MB Yes TSMC 7nm FinFET AM4 PCIe 4.0 x16 Wraith Prism with RGB LED 105W 3200MHz DDR4 2 Discrete Graphics Card Required
AMD Ryzen™ 7 3800X AMD Ryzen™ Processors AMD Ryzen™ 7 Desktop Processors Desktop 100-000000025 100-100000025BOX 7/7/2019 8 16 3.9GHz 4.5GHz 4MB 32MB Yes TSMC 7nm FinFET AM4 PCIe 4.0 x16 Wraith Prism with RGB LED 105W 3200MHz DDR4 2 Discrete Graphics Card Required
AMD Ryzen™ 7 3700X AMD Ryzen™ Processors AMD Ryzen™ 7 Desktop Processors Desktop 100-000000071 100-100000071BOX 7/7/2019 8 16 3.6GHz 4.4GHz 4MB 32MB Yes TSMC 7nm FinFET AM4 PCIe 4.0 x16 Wraith Prism with RGB LED 65W 3200MHz DDR4 2 Discrete Graphics Card Required
AMD Ryzen™ 5 3600X AMD Ryzen™ Processors AMD Ryzen™ 5 Desktop Processors Desktop 100-000000022 100-100000022BOX 7/7/2019 6 12 3.8GHz 4.4GHz 3MB 32MB Yes TSMC 7nm FinFET AM4 PCIe 4.0 x16 Wraith Spire 95W 3200MHz DDR4 2 Discrete Graphics Card Required
AMD Ryzen™ 5 3600 AMD Ryzen™ Processors AMD Ryzen™ 5 Desktop Processors Desktop 100-000000031 100-100000031BOX 7/7/2019 6 12 3.6GHz 4.2GHz 3MB 32MB Yes TSMC 7nm FinFET AM4 PCIe 4.0 x16 Wraith Stealth 65W 3200MHz DDR4 2 Discrete Graphics Card Required
Showing 1 to 5 of 5 rows
Ah yeah, my bad.
The 3800X matching 9900K is even more impressive then, imo. I'll be grabbing a 3900X once the dust settles and prices stabilise.That means little when elsewhere in the range the prices and performance are very similar; certainly nothing like 50% less $ for the same perf vs Intel.
Intel halo pricing is not representative of their range, I'm sure we can agree. Intel's halo product pricing is nuts as is most halo product pricing. It defies logic because there are a select group who will pay any amount for "the best".
Now AMD has a competitive product the absurdity of the halo pricing is (more) obvious.
But in the rest of the range the same situation does not exist. Halo pricing is normally limited to one or two products by definition...
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
Sorry my point is that these Ryzen cpu's are all enthusiast gamer cpu's, the 3900x is the enthusiast +
I hope the cinebench results are indicative of real world performance, no reason why they shouldn't be. I'll probably still get the 12 core if it's more halo silicon and clocks better... Let's hope reviews show it smashing it out the park.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 885
I suspect that once things have settled down the 12 core will be the "gaming" chip, the to be announced officially 16 core part the big dawg and the 8s are there to **** on intels chips..literally.
Soldato
I don't think the 12 core pricing is bad, we were just hyped by AdoredTV spouting BS pricing. 2017 AMD gave us 8 core for $499, 2019 they gave us 12 core for the same price but with huge IPC gains, can't complain.
The 3800X matches the 9900K in a single benchmark cobbled together by AMD, I'm not convinced this is representative of the chips gaming performance against the 9900K.Ah yeah, my bad.
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 885
Neither am i, i think the AMD chips will be faster.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 963
They are both CPUs so buy on actual performance not some abstract difference that marketing dreams up to fool the uniformed like yourself.
I dont give two hoots about gaming. The fact the new chips have massively improved FP perf and are beating 9900K in single thread Cinebench (versus trailing quite a lot before) is good news. This thing will destroy Intel's desktop chips for my uses so that's all I care about.