Does Zen3 make the 8700k/8086k/9700k redundant or is high quality processing hardware now just affor

[modd1uk]

another intel is doomed thread. how refreshing... wait for benchmarks and actual info. imagine if all the hype is hype.

what we do know about new amd cpus.

mobos have fans on chipset so extra noise
mobos even budget ones are 3 times dearer than normal.
there will be low stock on release. this is why no pre order anywhere
they will be expensive because of not many and gouged.
no actual benchmarks exist showing actual performance in real world scenarios.
vrms on many motherboards will overheat as they cant cope proven fact.

so yes intel are screwed. the single core ipc already shows that the new amd cpus are the same as a non k varient 8700. hold up.....there is 8700k , 9700k , 9900k... new 9900 series...higher end intel..... they must be screwed.

wait for benchmarks.

this forum is so pro amd its unreal...

This ^. Until I see none biased reviews from people who favor neither AMD or Intel then it's all just hearsay and assumptions. Issue is there are so many poor AMD boards that just aren't up to the task of running the new 3X CPU's, however if you do your research in theory you should be able to run a few certain B450 / X470 boards very well (again assuming it doesn't gimp the performance)

 

[Simon Belmont]

No. 8700k, 9700k Will be fine for years to come. Heck even a 2700k is still revenant today.

 

[hominid]

mobos have fans on chipset so extra noise

Only with multiple M.2 SSD/High IO workload, configurable in the bios.

mobos even budget ones are 3 times dearer than normal.

Slight exaggeration!

there will be low stock on release. this is why no pre order anywhere

speculation, we will see for sure in a few days but I suspect there will be enough for launch day.

they will be expensive because of not many and gouged.

There are more x570 motherboards than x370 and x470 combined at launch. They cost more mainly because of PCIE 4.0 - you know this but you like to exaggerate.

no actual benchmarks exist showing actual performance in real world scenarios.

There have been some released if you look, but again only a couple of days to wait.

vrms on many motherboards will overheat as they cant cope proven fact.

Sure you can pick some of them and burn them up with a x3950 on LN2 for sure, but most X570 motherboards will be more than adiquate for mild overclocking. If you want to overclock like a demon get a godlike for £700 and fill your boots, you won't burn the vrm on than.. All jokes aside most motherboards will be more than fine and will not burn out the VRM's unless you are doing something wrong..

//Edit.. Intel are screwed for the next 4-6 months AT LEAST. They cannot compete with AMD on 7nm so are just going to take this rough patch and sort their stuff out. Intel was cruising for nigh on 10 years giving us sub 5% inprovements per generation, AMD are on a roll at the moment and Intel are reeling..

 

[Beren]

IMO at well over a grand in budget you are better buying new, especially if it is a business expense. I assume you are actually going to use it for work, therefore the warranty of new product is worth it.
Wait till after the weekend and see what you can get for your budget. I suspect you will be able to get 16gb of decent ram, an 8 core processor, reasonable SSD and Mobo with something like a 5700XT or 2070 Super for pretty close to the budget you are looking at.

We are just guessing at the moment though.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Only with multiple M.2 SSD/High IO workload, configurable in the bios.

Slight exaggeration!

speculation, we will see for sure in a few days but I suspect there will be enough for launch day.

There are more x570 motherboards than x370 and x470 combined at launch. They cost more mainly because of PCIE 4.0 - you know this but you like to exaggerate.

There have been some released if you look, but again only a couple of days to wait.

Sure you can pick some of them and burn them up with a x3950 on LN2 for sure, but most X570 motherboards will be more than adiquate for mild overclocking. If you want to overclock like a demon get a godlike for £700 and fill your boots, you won't burn the vrm on than.. All jokes aside most motherboards will be more than fine and will not burn out the VRM's unless you are doing something wrong..

//Edit.. Intel are screwed for the next 4-6 months AT LEAST. They cannot compete with AMD on 7nm so are just going to take this rough patch and sort their stuff out. Intel was cruising for nigh on 10 years giving us sub 5% inprovements per generation, AMD are on a roll at the moment and Intel are reeling..

why are intel screwed ? they have 8700 - 8700k ipc. so slower than intels newest range. then intel will release newer version of of the 9900 again shortly after. so no not screwed. just amd are closer.

 

[hominid]

just amd are closer.

AMD are in the LEAD..

Intel are trying to compete with AMD from at least one node behind, something which Intel has never done before. Intel has ALWAYS had a manufacturing advantage for the last 15 years and probably a lot more. We are also getting into the relms of decreasing transister switching speed on smaller lithography nodes. Intel themselves on 14++''nm get a 5GHz All core turbo on a 8c16th CPU as their current maximum performance, on their 10nm at the moment all they can produce is ~4GHz on a much smaller chip(something like 4c8t), leaving aside it's not commercially viable due to low(read single digit %) yealds.

So without a LOT more work, they are still very far from getting it all sorted, they are poised to release a 10nm with a lower over all speed. Now they can mask that with architecture improvements, and in hardware mitigations(rather than software/firmware) like this: https://wccftech.com/intel-10nm-ice-lake-18-pc-ipc/

At the moment the only major reason for switching to 10nm, or lower, is extra area for more transistors, with this metric Intel still have the upper hand, but it's useless if they can't get 10nm out of the door. It'll be good for AMD to have the upper hand for a while, they could really use the money, which they could then use to help with their graphic division catch up to the competition.

 

[Beren]

We have no idea yet if AMD re in the lead... let's wait a few days before making comments like that. I believe that AMD are probably going to have an IPC lead at the same speeds, but Intel still have a Mhz advantage. We need to see where it all ends up. Sure Intel don't currently have an answer to the 12 and coming 16 core desktop processors, however in most tasks that number of cores is not a definite advantage yet. I believe the 12 core is going to get stronger and stronger as newer games and applications come out... but right now we just don't know until we see a strong batch of reviews and real use by members.

 

[~>Dg<~]

AMD are in the LEAD..

Intel are trying to compete with AMD from at least one node behind, something which Intel has never done before. Intel has ALWAYS had a manufacturing advantage for the last 15 years and probably a lot more. We are also getting into the relms of decreasing transister switching speed on smaller lithography nodes. Intel themselves on 14++''nm get a 5GHz All core turbo on a 8c16th CPU as their current maximum performance, on their 10nm at the moment all they can produce is ~4GHz on a much smaller chip(something like 4c8t), leaving aside it's not commercially viable due to low(read single digit %) yealds.

So without a LOT more work, they are still very far from getting it all sorted, they are poised to release a 10nm with a lower over all speed. Now they can mask that with architecture improvements, and in hardware mitigations(rather than software/firmware) like this: https://wccftech.com/intel-10nm-ice-lake-18-pc-ipc/

At the moment the only major reason for switching to 10nm, or lower, is extra area for more transistors, with this metric Intel still have the upper hand, but it's useless if they can't get 10nm out of the door. It'll be good for AMD to have the upper hand for a while, they could really use the money, which they could then use to help with their graphic division catch up to the competition.

i dont get how you coming up with this info its already shown the ipc is the same as a previous gen intel chip of 2 years old in september. so how are amd in the lead if they only catching upto a 2 year old intel product ? thats the 8700k for eg not even the 9 series intel which we already know ipc single core wise are faster.

so no intel arent behind

 

[humbug]

why are intel screwed ? they have 8700 - 8700k ipc. so slower than intels newest range. then intel will release newer version of of the 9900 again shortly after. so no not screwed. just amd are closer.

Higher IPC, Ryzen 3000 has higher IPC than 8700K and 9900K.

Even in benchmarks that favor Intel they are still just as fast if not faster at lower clocks, that's higher IPC.

 

[Beren]

Higher IPC, Ryzen 3000 has higher IPC than 8700K and 9900K.

Even in benchmarks that favor Intel they are still just as fast if not faster at lower clocks, that's higher IPC.

Yes but Intel has higher clocks. We need to see which is better on a core by core basis and we just don't know that yet.

 

[spoffle]

another intel is doomed thread. how refreshing... wait for benchmarks and actual info. imagine if all the hype is hype.

what we do know about new amd cpus.

mobos have fans on chipset so extra noise
mobos even budget ones are 3 times dearer than normal.
there will be low stock on release. this is why no pre order anywhere
they will be expensive because of not many and gouged.
no actual benchmarks exist showing actual performance in real world scenarios.
vrms on many motherboards will overheat as they cant cope proven fact.

so yes intel are screwed. the single core ipc already shows that the new amd cpus are the same as a non k varient 8700. hold up.....there is 8700k , 9700k , 9900k... new 9900 series...higher end intel..... they must be screwed.

wait for benchmarks.

this forum is so pro amd its unreal...

You've become a parody of yourself, and your complete lack of self awareness is hilarious.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Higher IPC, Ryzen 3000 has higher IPC than 8700K and 9900K.

Even in benchmarks that favor Intel they are still just as fast if not faster at lower clocks, that's higher IPC.

we did this the other day because you suggested that the 3600 had the higher ipc. it was benchmarked proven to be between a 8700-8700k. mate ran his 8086 as a comparision and was 1000 points higher. so how are they faster than intel single core ipc. please some one tell me this ? 8700k is beating them ocd in single core never mind 8086 , 9700k , 9900k .

really will be amusing on sunday / monday seeing benchmarks showing this. can we change humbugs name please when its true ? change it to humble pie.

 

[humbug]

we did this the other day because you suggested that the 3600 had the higher ipc. it was benchmarked proven to be between a 8700-8700k. mate ran his 8086 as a comparision and was 1000 points higher. so how are they faster than intel single core ipc. please some one tell me this ? 8700k is beating them ocd in single core never mind 8086 , 9700k , 9900k .

really will be amusing on sunday / monday seeing benchmarks showing this. can we change humbugs name please when its true ? change it to humble pie.

You're talking about an overclocked 8700K Geekbench result you fished out, yes i looked at all the scores and you picked out the highest 8700K score on the site.

Here's a sock for stock comparison.

Single threading performance is looking pretty good for the 3600X (in the top 1%). It seems likely the cpus above this model will overtake the 9900k in single threaded tasks, at stock speeds.

In my view AMD has finally caught up to Intel, as single threaded performance is what matter most in games and most tasks.

9900K @ 5.0 Ghz 145
3600X @ 4.4 Ghz 142

So for 14% higher clocks the 9900K scored 2% higher, that's a 12% IPC deficit to Ryzen 3000.

 

[~>Dg<~]

like your results that you make people believe as gospel . as said you said geekbench this that 3600 so i compared real life chips with them some on here. 8086 1000 points ahead in your own benchmark. 8700k ahead. so how is a 9700 or 9900k not ahead. as said leave this till sunday...then change your name

 

[Phixsator]

another intel is doomed thread. how refreshing... wait for benchmarks and actual info. imagine if all the hype is hype.

what we do know about new amd cpus.

mobos have fans on chipset so extra noise
mobos even budget ones are 3 times dearer than normal.
there will be low stock on release. this is why no pre order anywhere
they will be expensive because of not many and gouged.
no actual benchmarks exist showing actual performance in real world scenarios.
vrms on many motherboards will overheat as they cant cope proven fact.

so yes intel are screwed. the single core ipc already shows that the new amd cpus are the same as a non k varient 8700. hold up.....there is 8700k , 9700k , 9900k... new 9900 series...higher end intel..... they must be screwed.

wait for benchmarks.

this forum is so pro amd its unreal...

and your solution to this AMD bias is spreading misinformation about the products?

1) VRMs will overheat? how exactly did you come to that conclusion considering that they aren't releasing anything with a higher tdp than the zen+ offerings?
2) Noisy fan? again have you had one next to you since you are so sure the fan will be an issue? wasn't the higher power draw only due to nvme raid setups? how many are running that? near silent fans do exist you know?
3) Motherboards, even budget ones, being 3?!? times more expensive? Even if.. and that is a very big if that there isn't a single offering of a x570 around the 150-180 pound mark you still have very capable and cheap b450 boards, x470 boards that would do the job just fine. But to be clear, you are saying that the cheapest x570 board will cost around 360-400 pounds?

The only thing I can agree with you on is that AMD is favored. Many people loves a good story about the underdog clawing itself back and Intel hasn't really done much to win over the average consumer lately with their pricing structure. Saying all these things you continuously do certainly doesn't put you in a good light if your goal is to change peoples minds. Do that with well documented facts and perhaps in a less condescending tone. I mean this in the best possible way as of right now you are only making yourself look like a fool friend.

 

[MartinPrince]

It's the single thread results that I need to see (for my usage). This will indicate how close/better AMD might be.

 

[jay13bry]

Intel are not screwed by any means.

I'll bet that they still sell more cpu's despite Ryzen being launched.

What's going to happen is a price drop and a continuation of the core / arms race.

The next big launch from Intel, whenever it comes, I believe will be quite a different launch from them.

The problem for AMD and they do have one is if they don't put out anything between now and 2021... Which is a possibility given that 2020 will likely be a refreshed Zen 2

 

[humbug]

Intel are not screwed by any means.

I'll bet that they still sell more cpu's despite Ryzen being launched.

What's going to happen is a price drop and a continuation of the core / arms race.

The next big launch from Intel, whenever it comes, I believe will be quite a different launch from them.

The problem for AMD and they do have one is if they don't put out anything between now and 2021... Which is a possibility given that 2020 will likely be a refreshed Zen 2

You're right Intel are most certainly not screwed, they still sell about 80% to AMD's 20% in OEMs but retail its a very different picture.

Board vendors have said they are now selling more AMD boards than Intel

70% AMD to 30% Intel here..




this is what the Amazon Best Sellers list currently looks like, this is actually better for Intel than it's been for a long time, for the past year Ryzen usually fills out the entire top row.

 

[jay13bry]

Exactly, it's in the DIY space they are going to take a hit.

How big is that market? Honestly I don't know.

Over time as OEM suppliers like Dell etc. Include Ryzen offerings for enterprise and business, where Ryzen makes the most sense (My work pc is Ryzen) then they'll threaten Intel.

Bleaker times ahead for the blue team? Sure.

 

[nomadd]

I'm thinking of buying an 8700k rig second hand for around 1-1.4k.

That price range seems very high to me, based on a quick peruse of The Bay.

What exactly are you getting for upto £1.4k? Unless it has a real top-end graphics card and monitor, I'd look elsewhere.

PS. Sorry to post a reply that actually dealt with your question! It seems most of the replies you got were of the typical OCUK "mindless arguing on every thread" format.