Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15% in Response to Ryzen 3000

[humbug]

i think its pretty accurate. what was amds whole sell with these chips ? same as a i7 8700k single core ipc. look at the results. 1 fps between a 8700k stock vs a 3700x.

then work out the ipc difference from older ryzen chips vs 3700x. lets do that then compare the fps difference.

Ok, if the GPU is the bottleneck 80% of the time then there's only 20% of the run where different performance CPU's would separate, that reduces the overall score difference between the CPU's.

The 1080TI is a fast card but not even at 1080P is it fast enough to make a 2700X choke, the 7700K is faster than the 2% showing in pubg vs the 2700X, put in an RTX 2080TI and all of those CPU's will separate into their performance regions, that includes the 3700X pulling away which to me looks entirely GPU bound.

Make of that what you will.

 

[~>Dg<~]

its simple new amd chips are 14 percent quick in games than old ones.then its down to if they clock.or if that gives them extra performance.so even a i5 8 series will match any amd cpu ingames. never mind 9 series.

it also makes sense why 15 percent would be cut off the price ! its all coming together nicely.

so your 3600 gets 103 fps at 1080 which is the exactly the same as a stock 6700k

so it does look like a 3700x is quicker than the 3600 at pubg. with 108 fps.

 

[humbug]

I have a headache... thanks

 

[~>Dg<~]

shown you actual benchmarks. which coinsides with the ipc percentage upgrade. many people play pubg soley.

 

[humbug]

shown you actual benchmarks. which coinsides with the ipc percentage upgrade. many people play pubg soley.

Well then according to your results the best CPU for the job in the 3700X given that the 4.3Ghz 7700K is only 5% better than the 3.6Ghz 5820K, a 20% clock speed difference = 5% higher FPS so clocking them up isn't going to help you much is it?

 

[4K8KW10]

Well then according to your results the best CPU for the job in the 3700X given that the 4.3Ghz 7700K is only 5% better than the 3.6Ghz 5820K, a 20% clock speed difference = 5% higher FPS so clocking them up isn't going to help you much is it?

Nope, the cheapest CPU is the best for the job. Certainly, 3700X is not cheap.

 

[~>Dg<~]

the point is many of those will clock 1 ghz more or close to that. or be close enough to be not worth upgrading. there is a lot of hype. imagine paying £700-1000 start pubg and in some scenarios be same or worse than a i5 8600k. 7700k will most likely do 5ghz. or quite a few will or 4.8 - 4.9 that will be just in front of a 3700x. my 5820k is 4.6ghz. so benched at 3.6 its 10 fps behind a 3700x. its already ahead clocked at pubg than a stock 3700x.

from those benchmarks a 3600 is the same as a 6700k. 6700k is £100 2nd hand.

 

[Vince]

the point is many of those will clock 1 ghz more or close to that. or be close enough to be not worth upgrading. there is a lot of hype. imagine paying £700-1000 start pubg and in some scenarios be same or worse than a i5 8600k. 7700k will most likely do 5ghz. or quite a few will or 4.8 - 4.9 that will be just in front of a 3700x. my 5820k is 4.6ghz. so benched at 3.6 its 10 fps behind a 3700x. its already ahead clocked at pubg than a stock 3700x.

from those benchmarks a 3600 is the same as a 6700k. 6700k is £100 2nd hand.

Many people? 99.9% of the population dont overclock. Should read a handful of people might....

We need to remember we are very much the minority rather than the majority.

 

[~>Dg<~]

which is why i shown stock figures

would you pay £700-800 for 3 fps from a 7700k vs a 3700x ?

 

[Vince]

which is why i shown stock figures

I know, I know but looking back there are many posts not only yours which go along the same lines of your post above. OC is fine as long as we dont lose sight of what the norm really is.

 

[4K8KW10]

Many people? 99.9% of the population dont overclock. Should read a handful of people might....

We need to remember we are very much the minority rather than the majority.

Many users who don't have money, are not happy with their hardware performance, always search for ways how to improve performance. OC is the only way to extract more performance for free.

99.9% of the population will never touch a 3900X for 500 quid, too.

 

[Vince]

Many users who don't have money, are not happy with their hardware performance, always search for ways how to improve performance. OC is the only way to extract more performance for free.

99.9% of the population will never touch a 3900X for 500 quid, too.

I dont disagree re 3900x but if you really think that your average users really overclocks before buying a new system then you are more delusional than I previously thought.

 

[4K8KW10]

I dont disagree re 3900x but if you really think that your average users really overclocks before buying a new system then you are more delusional than I previously thought.

In the past, there were the turbo buttons on the PCs. People loved this feature.

On personal computers, the turbo button is a button which provides two run states for the computer: normal speed or an enhanced "turbo" speed. It was relatively common on personal computers using the Intel 80286,[1] Intel 80386 and Intel 80486 processors,[2] from the mid 1980s to mid 1990s.

The name is inspired by turbocharger, a turbine-driven forced induction device that increases an engine's power and efficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_button#/media/File:Casebuttons.jpg

 

[Vince]

In the past, there were the turbo buttons on the PCs. People loved this feature.

On personal computers, the turbo button is a button which provides two run states for the computer: normal speed or an enhanced "turbo" speed. It was relatively common on personal computers using the Intel 80286,[1] Intel 80386 and Intel 80486 processors,[2] from the mid 1980s to mid 1990s.

The name is inspired by turbocharger, a turbine-driven forced induction device that increases an engine's power and efficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_button#/media/File:Casebuttons.jpg

That brings back memories. Bring back the turbo button.

 

[tamzzy]

lol for someone with a username with computer stuff like 4k 8k w10...clearly needs to open their windows (haha pun) and look at 2019.
1990 called and wants their computer back

 

[motiv]

In the past, there were the turbo buttons on the PCs. People loved this feature.

On personal computers, the turbo button is a button which provides two run states for the computer: normal speed or an enhanced "turbo" speed. It was relatively common on personal computers using the Intel 80286,[1] Intel 80386 and Intel 80486 processors,[2] from the mid 1980s to mid 1990s.

The name is inspired by turbocharger, a turbine-driven forced induction device that increases an engine's power and efficiency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_button#/media/File:Casebuttons.jpg

From what I remember, with turbo switched off, the PC ran at a speed that all software previously was configured for. Back then many games ran to fast if they ran at the natural speed of a new CPU. So you ended up with turbo mode to indicate it was faster than the norm.
It wasn't Overclocked in turbo mode, just running at the normal speed.

 

[humbug]

the point is many of those will clock 1 ghz more or close to that. or be close enough to be not worth upgrading. there is a lot of hype. imagine paying £700-1000 start pubg and in some scenarios be same or worse than a i5 8600k. 7700k will most likely do 5ghz. or quite a few will or 4.8 - 4.9 that will be just in front of a 3700x. my 5820k is 4.6ghz. so benched at 3.6 its 10 fps behind a 3700x. its already ahead clocked at pubg than a stock 3700x.

from those benchmarks a 3600 is the same as a 6700k. 6700k is £100 2nd hand.

So what's your argument here?

Let's take two of the Intel CPU's

The 3700X 108 FPS

5820K @ 3.6Ghz 98
7700K @ 4.3Ghz 105

So, do you think that by overclocking the 5820K to 4.3Ghz (20%) will net you 20% FPS? like 120?

If so then why is the 7700K not running at 120 FPS?

Before you answer that go back and read everything that i said, breath, think, come back to me.

 

[lltfdaniel]

So what's your argument here?

Let's take two of the Intel CPU's

The 3700X 108 FPS

5820K @ 3.6Ghz 98
7700K @ 4.3Ghz 105

So, do you think that by overclocking the 5820K to 4.3Ghz (20%) will net you 20% FPS? like 120?

If so then why is the 7700K not running at 120 FPS?

Before you answer that go back and read everything that i said, breath, think, come back to me.

This confirms that i was right to say that the 3700x or 3800x is between 7700k and 8700k performance.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32886134

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32886176

But on cpu-z benchmark my 3700x single thread is the same as a 9600k or multi thread beating a 9900k.

 

[humbug]

This confirms that i was right to say that the 3700x or 3800x is between 7700k and 8700k performance.

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32886134

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32886176

But on cpu-z benchmark my 3700x single thread is the same as a 9600k or multi thread beating a 9900k.

Yeah, what Dg isn't seeing, somehow, is that all of those CPU's, other than perhaps the 5820K are bottlenecked by the GPU.

The only thing we can be sure of is that the 3700X is the fastest of them all, how fast or how much faster is unknown given that its pushing the 1080TI further to it's limits more of the time than the rest.

 

[~>Dg<~]

benchmark games allow margin of era. its same as a 8700k single core ipc. the problem is oc. thats where the older cpus catch up with high oc.

20 percent overclock is going to net me 20 fps. on the 5820k. so 118fps.

we going off how the game benches humbug ask pubg.

we know what all the cpus get at stock.