• 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 ***

~>Dg<~ said:
so you reckon they dont know themselves what the cpus will be at or will achieve ? :p
Click to expand...

I'm saying that's how making large semiconductor dies works.

E: Intel, the undisputed heavyweight of CPU manufacturing, probably expected great things of their 10nm process when they flipped the switch. 3 years later they quietly chucked a bunch of slow dual core chips with a GPU that doesn't even work out the back door so... :p
 
~>Dg<~ said:
so you reckon they dont know themselves what the cpus will be at or will achieve ? :p
Click to expand...

I'm sure they have targets, what they will achieve is anyones guess, they don't know for sure, Lisa said the chip being demoed was not at its final clock speed, i think that's probably all they do know, they are still working on it.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
isnt it weird how they left out the frequency out ? :p man we got six months of this ! :(

hopefully we get some of this nonsense out the way.
Click to expand...
What are you implying with this statement, I really don't understand. Are you suggesting that the frequency is low (which'd suggest AMD's IPC has jumped significantly) or that it's really high (meaning the process is reaching its "5 GHz" promise whilst using sod all power)?
 
i think honestly it comes down to this

they know they got a strong product which is as fast or faster and holding back for launch to drop and dominate
they know they got a strong product which isnt quite as fast as intel offerings but will sell cheaper so keeping quiet to keep hype up so doesnt effect sales
they not sure what they got and dont know what will actually launch in summer so no prices or frequency details are being given as they dont know themselves.

mainly comes down in how you see amd. looking at the past they have failed to deliver on most occasiobns. will this one be any different ?

normally with a strong product you say we got this it smashes the competition come buy. yet amd are not saying much showing much. again based on previous amd marketing has this ever worked out in recent times ? honestly ? not really.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i think honestly it comes down to this

they know they got a strong product which is as fast or faster and holding back for launch to drop and dominate
they know they got a strong product which isnt quite as fast as intel offerings but will sell cheaper so keeping quiet to keep hype up so doesnt effect sales
they not sure what they got and dont know what will actually launch in summer so no prices or frequency details are being given as they dont know themselves.

mainly comes down in how you see amd. looking at the past they have failed to deliver on most occasiobns. will this one be any different ?
Click to expand...
Why did you buy your Amd cpu?
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i think honestly it comes down to this

they know they got a strong product which is as fast or faster and holding back for launch to drop and dominate
they know they got a strong product which isnt quite as fast as intel offerings but will sell cheaper so keeping quiet to keep hype up so doesnt effect sales
they not sure what they got and dont know what will actually launch in summer so no prices or frequency details are being given as they dont know themselves.

mainly comes down in how you see amd. looking at the past they have failed to deliver on most occasiobns. will this one be any different ?

normally with a strong product you say we got this it smashes the competition come buy. yet amd are not saying much showing much. again based on previous amd marketing has this ever worked out in recent times ? honestly ? not really.
Click to expand...
Well, they just equalled the flagship of Intel with not final clocks, a good few months ahead of their release date, and at significantly lower power, so I ask you your own question; which do you think it is?
Sensible folk will be seeing AMD claim gaming dominance on the 8c SKUs, and productivity dominance on the 8c+ SKUs. There'll be no justifiable reason to buy a 9900K, unless audio latency is your thing.
 
I'd love to know in 8 years what have the competition actually given, unless havng their arm held behind their back.

They are as bad as Ford, and VW etc. They were in denial of a coming revolution and are now scrambling to look competitive in a changed market place, and if you're in first place and stall before you leave the line then you aren't likey to finish first
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i have always had amd cpus from back to 2000. most of my rigs back then were amd based. i like amd i like to tinker with them. i also have intel. im not biased to any company.
Click to expand...

I am the same and just chose the best deal for my budget and needs each time. The last time it was a i7-6700k v a Ryzen 1700. Ryzen has opened up competition and value that would likely not have happened without it.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i think honestly it comes down to this

they know they got a strong product which is as fast or faster and holding back for launch to drop and dominate
they know they got a strong product which isnt quite as fast as intel offerings but will sell cheaper so keeping quiet to keep hype up so doesnt effect sales
they not sure what they got and dont know what will actually launch in summer so no prices or frequency details are being given as they dont know themselves.

mainly comes down in how you see amd. looking at the past they have failed to deliver on most occasiobns. will this one be any different ?

normally with a strong product you say we got this it smashes the competition come buy. yet amd are not saying much showing much. again based on previous amd marketing has this ever worked out in recent times ? honestly ? not really.
Click to expand...

Given that it matched the 9900K in Cinebench i'm going to assume what you are talking about is gaming?

You said it yourself, the 2700X is 15 to 20% behind in gaming, so at stock the 2700X scores about 1820, the 3600X? scored 2057, a difference of 13%, if AMD get another 200Mhz over the demo that's probably about 4%, there's you're 15 to 20%.
 
Potatowithearsontheside said:
Well, they just equalled the flagship of Intel with not final clocks, a good few months ahead of their release date, and at significantly lower power, so I ask you your own question; which do you think it is?
Sensible folk will be seeing AMD claim gaming dominance on the 8c SKUs, and productivity dominance on the 8c+ SKUs. There'll be no justifiable reason to buy a 9900K, unless audio latency is your thing.
Click to expand...

no they shown a benchmark for cinebench that is all they havent equalled anything. how is that hard to understand ? look at previous cinebench scores. for previous amd chips. where did that put them for instance in gaming? it put them behind. i dont get why so many are falling for the AMD marketing. you got a cinebench result. thats it ! you know nothing else and are just making up theorectical things to try and justify it being better. haha.

cinebench scores dont prove anything.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
no they shown a benchmark for cinebench that is all they havent equalled anything. how is that hard to understand ? look at previous cinebench scores. for previous amd chips. where did that put them for instance in gaming? it put them behind. i dont get why so many are falling for the AMD marketing. you got a cinebench result. thats it ! you know nothing else and are just making up theorectical things to try and justify it being better. haha.

cinebench scores dont prove anything.
Click to expand...

humbug said:
Given that it matched the 9900K in Cinebench i'm going to assume what you are talking about is gaming?

You said it yourself, the 2700X is 15 to 20% behind in gaming, so at stock the 2700X scores about 1820, the 3600X? scored 2057, a difference of 13%, if AMD get another 200Mhz over the demo that's probably about 4%, there's you're 15 to 20%.
Click to expand...
 
humbug said:
Given that it matched the 9900K in Cinebench i'm going to assume what you are talking about is gaming?

You said it yourself, the 2700X is 15 to 20% behind in gaming, so at stcok the 2700X scores about 1820, the 3600X? scored 2057, a difference of 13%, if AMD get another 200Mhz over the demo that's probably about 4%, there's you're 15 to 20%.
Click to expand...

what if the sample being used is a cherry picked engineering eg ? and everything else is less ? its not the first time its been done. its all guess work. all im basically saying is we can all come up with a rough idea of what might be. doesnt mean it will be. we have no actual figures or data to go off. only a cinebench score. which as i said doesnt mean anything. the 2700x scored more than many intel chips when released where was it in gaming ? it was slower than a 140 quid i5 in almost all games !
 
Currently on a 4690k @ 4.4 with 1600mhz DDR3 memory..I am getting a strong urge to upgrade this year.

I really hope the 3700x is 12c/24t @ 5hz, but is that 5ghz for all cores or what?

If it's around £300 I'll defo buy!
 
i will say one thing if they can get 8/10 plus cores even at 4ghz only out for £200 thats amazing for your avg buyer. really is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom