AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

[Martini1991]

I agree, i did say it was niche, it does show what the thing is capable of, its better future proofed, if you want to know how games could behave with CPU's in the future Star Citizen is a good place to look, $300m development so far and yes ahead of its time.

While other games are not that extreme its far more often than not where the 1600 wins against my old 4690K, including a couple of pretty old games.

The 4670K's 6 years old.
The 1600's only 2 years old.

I'd certainly not want a 4690K going forward, but I wouldn't personally own a 1600 going forward either.
I'd say the 1600's more future proof than the 4690K, but there's loads of scenarios where they trade blows.

 

[scotty63]

Well i've decided to give these a miss, Replacing my R5 1600 with a 2700 i've just picked up for £192, They most probably will go even cheaper but i'm happy as it's the same price i paid for my 1600 2 years ago. I'll just drop it in my B350 gaming 3 board and see how it goes, Assetto corsa competizione released today and i just need a tad more cpu grunt so hoping the 2700 and my vega56 will do me for the next couple of years.

 

[~>Dg<~]

The 8700k isn't twice as fast though. I have figures earlier which I have done side to side comparison using a GTX 1080 at 1080p very high settings and there is only the 20 odd % I stated earlier (on mobile so can't be bothered to scroll through to get figure again).

Your 2x or 3x performance is bull. Unless your on about 720p low settings. Which is not a gaming setting and just dumb.

in battlefield in mp big games it can be. at 1080. so sorry wrong there. battlefield games cripple on 4 cores. especially mp.

also the whole arguement was about how a guy with a 6 year old i5 said there was no upgrade options by going intel. which is obviously false. the 8700k was used as a example to show there is huge performance differences.if people dont call 50 fps or above nothing or big difference. then i dont know what to say. as mentioned thats like playing battlefield for eg at 1080 and going from a 1060 gtx to a 2080 ti difference. just on cpu. its a massive difference.

hes waiting for amd 3000 cpus when you could have had that performance two years ago in games. so its basically a budget arguement not performance arguement.

 

[Kashinoda]

Well i've decided to give these a miss, Replacing my R5 1600 with a 2700 i've just picked up for £192, They most probably will go even cheaper but i'm happy as it's the same price i paid for my 1600 2 years ago. I'll just drop it in my B350 gaming 3 board and see how it goes, Assetto corsa competizione released today and i just need a tad more cpu grunt so hoping the 2700 and my vega56 will do me for the next couple of years.

Would the Ryzen 5 3600 made sense for around the same price?

 

[kitfit1]

Well i've decided to give these a miss, Replacing my R5 1600 with a 2700 i've just picked up for £192, They most probably will go even cheaper but i'm happy as it's the same price i paid for my 1600 2 years ago. I'll just drop it in my B350 gaming 3 board and see how it goes, Assetto corsa competizione released today and i just need a tad more cpu grunt so hoping the 2700 and my vega56 will do me for the next couple of years.

It will serve you well, so don't worry about it. And a good time to pick up a 2700 as well, don't know if that's a good price, but it's defo a good cpu.

 

[HRL]

I’m going to sit on my 2700X/X470 until the 16C is released and people have figured out whether we need X570 boards or not to get the best out of one.

Should be some interesting reading over the next couple of months anyway.

 

[scotty63]

Cheers, Well getting a latest chip would mean a motherboard and then that will lead to wanting faster RAM etc, I think the 2700 will cover my needs for the near future. I'll be using my Noctua D15 cooler on it so hopefully it will go 4.1 ghz +

 

[Curlyriff]

in battlefield in mp big games it can be. at 1080. so sorry wrong there. battlefield games cripple on 4 cores. especially mp.

also the whole arguement was about how a guy with a 6 year old i5 said there was no upgrade options by going intel. which is obviously false. the 8700k was used as a example to show there is huge performance differences.if people dont call 50 fps or above nothing or big difference. then i dont know what to say. as mentioned thats like playing battlefield for eg at 1080 and going from a 1060 gtx to a 2080 ti difference. just on cpu. its a massive difference.

hes waiting for amd 3000 cpus when you could have had that performance two years ago in games. so its basically a budget arguement not performance arguement.

Not a single game I've tested with those two chips showed more than a 40fps increase though. Most were closer to 11-15fps.

Why would someone go from a 1060 to 2080ti. Everything your suggesting is honestly not even close.

And yeah it's performance to cost ratio that's been awful with Intel. That's the point. It hasn't been possible to have the performance your suggesting at the price point your giving.

The i7 8700k was 19 months ago not over two years for a start. It did not cost £200 it cost £350. Even now its not £200 to buy.

Looking at the link you provided for the battlefield performance then even the i3 near the bottom is only just 2x the performance. Nothing is close to 3x performance or similar.

That is my point. Your throwing numbers about and the evidence you've provided is factually wrong and not even supporting your point.

 

[kitfit1]

Not a single game I've tested with those two chips showed more than a 40fps increase though. Most were closer to 11-15fps.

Why would someone go from a 1060 to 2080ti. Everything your suggesting is honestly not even close.

And yeah it's performance to cost ratio that's been awful with Intel. That's the point. It hasn't been possible to have the performance your suggesting at the price point your giving.

The i7 8700k was 19 months ago not over two years for a start. It did not cost £200 it cost £350. Even now its not £200 to buy.

Looking at the link you provided for the battlefield performance then even the i3 near the bottom is only just 2x the performance. Nothing is close to 3x performance or similar.

That is my point. Your throwing numbers about and the evidence you've provided is factually wrong and not even supporting your point.

That has never bothered DG, he's one of those peeps that thinks if you say something long enough and repeat it long enough..................it must be true.

 

[Potatowithearsontheside]

DG can't decide when its appropriate to throw a low res low quality bench or a high res high quality bench. Its whichever suits his point at any given time. I'd be interested to see how that 4690K benches in PUBG at low settings and 720p, as that's his favourite metric for assessing CPU performance.

 

[~>Dg<~]

Not a single game I've tested with those two chips showed more than a 40fps increase though. Most were closer to 11-15fps.

Why would someone go from a 1060 to 2080ti. Everything your suggesting is honestly not even close.

And yeah it's performance to cost ratio that's been awful with Intel. That's the point. It hasn't been possible to have the performance your suggesting at the price point your giving.

The i7 8700k was 19 months ago not over two years for a start. It did not cost £200 it cost £350. Even now its not £200 to buy.

Looking at the link you provided for the battlefield performance then even the i3 near the bottom is only just 2x the performance. Nothing is close to 3x performance or similar.

That is my point. Your throwing numbers about and the evidence you've provided is factually wrong and not even supporting your point.

not even close ? okay go do this. take his i5 at 1080. go play 64 man battlefield.then take a 8700k do same 64 man online mp. you will see far more fps increase than your suggesting. the point of there is already benchmarks done and showing this is what puzzles me. ask anyone who plays bf on a i5 of old and gone to 6 cores or above. 15 fps lol.

performance cost ratio many calculate it wrong. why ? i explained this. you dont go just on innitial cost. you factor in use time and how long you are going to use it for and the performance.

the 8700k will be 2 years old when these new cpus are available to us all. so that is right what i said. you cant compare if its not out

read what i put. it was about performance. he was stating no performance upgrade path viable from intel. from his i5. as hes getting a amd cpu. i stated the 8700k was available roughly 2 years ago. which is the same speed roughly as what he will consider buying now. so its not the same price now but he could have had 2 years of use out of it by the time the new amd cpus are out. so his statement was wrong . also 2 years of gaming for 200 quid without waiting. 100 pound a year. i wouldnt way thats bad also shows you how amd are really lighting the world on fire when intel did it 2 years ago.

even a lowly ryzen 1600 for £100 new would have been a upgrade over his cpu.

 

[Vince]

I have decided after reading the last few pages that none of this matters anyway as real men don't buy tiny little cpus and argue over fps in one game or another, real men buy massive cpu's that come in fancy boxes bundled with their own special tools. With that in mind ill see you all in the Threadripper thread when the proper CPU's are released!

 

[~>Dg<~]

look at this for eg pubg intel vs ryzen 50 fps difference. people say not much difference. look.

 

[Vince]

look at this for eg pubg intel vs ryzen 50 fps difference. people say not much difference. look.

Isn't anybody bored of this yet? Its like a massive pubg yawn fest up in here for at least what feels like 25% of the thread.

 

[Potatowithearsontheside]

not even close ? okay go do this. take his i5 at 1080. go play 64 man battlefield.then take a 8700k do same 64 man online mp. you will see far more fps increase than your suggesting. the point of there is already benchmarks done and showing this is what puzzles me. ask anyone who plays bf on a i5 of old and gone to 6 cores or above. 15 fps lol.

performance cost ratio many calculate it wrong. why ? i explained this. you dont go just on innitial cost. you factor in use time and how long you are going to use it for and the performance.

the 8700k will be 2 years old when these new cpus are available to us all. so that is right what i said. you cant compare if its not out

read what i put. it was about performance. he was stating no performance upgrade path viable from intel. from his i5. as hes getting a amd cpu. i stated the 8700k was available roughly 2 years ago. which is the same speed roughly as what he will consider buying now. so its not the same price now but he could have had 2 years of use out of it by the time the new amd cpus are out. so his statement was wrong . also 2 years of gaming for 200 quid without waiting. 100 pound a year. i wouldnt way thats bad also shows you how amd are really lighting the world on fire when intel did it 2 years ago.

even a lowly ryzen 1600 for £100 new would have been a upgrade over his cpu.

Except you'd have been telling him its a slower CPU because PUBG at 720p...as you do every time someone refers to Ryzen CPUs being better than whatever Intel CPU they currently have.

 

[Potatowithearsontheside]

Except you'd have been telling him its a slower CPU because PUBG at 720p...as you do every time someone refers to Ryzen CPUs being better than whatever Intel CPU they currently have.

^^^looks up and sees that he's done just that^^^

 

[Thekwango]

crazy thought - have amd intentionally priced high, initially, in some daft notion to protect sales of Zen+.....plenty will jump on say the 2700 and wait on price drops or for the refresh of the new chips. price R3K higher still make sales but continue decent sales on Zen+ without a serious price drop on it.....do that for a couple of months then dramatically drop new prices on R3K...….all total and utter made up fantasy on my part before anyone thinks I believe this, but it just came to me earlier while on the porcelain throne

 

[~>Dg<~]

Isn't anybody bored of this yet? Its like a massive pubg yawn fest up in here for at least what feels like 25% of the thread.

people say no difference. i show difference. then its something else. i have proved differences in games. showed battlefield first then pubg. just to highlight how big the performance gap can be. many in here oooh no difference. when its clear to see there can be massive differences. cause its not amd its obviously not right.

 

[Pete @r...]

Still no where near 2x faster, let alone 3

 

[KentMan]

Can we all take a minute to look at DGs Pubg charts, and appreciate that AMD just matched and or bwat Intel in that game in particular?

Therefore rendering all discussion of Pubg being better on Intel basically irrelevant...