If AMD are within about 5%, I'd still choose AMD even if costs are similar as the Intel platform is dead with no pcie4. At least you should be able to drop in a refresh part with zen and have that future proofing. Then there's the slight extra noise from the no doubt hotter running 9900k.
-
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
If AMD are within about 5%, I'd still choose AMD even if costs are similar as the Intel platform is dead with no pcie4. At least you should be able to drop in a refresh part with zen and have that future proofing. Then there's the slight extra noise from the no doubt hotter running 9900k.
For me personally if as I expect there is little to no difference between a 3900X vs the 9900k in typical gaming, then I’ll get the AMD chip to reward AMD for finally really shaking things up in the CPU market.
The fact that it’ll likely do better with more cores in star citizen, and that my fusion renders will happen faster is just a happy bonus.
Also AMD shares have made me some tidy profits this year so only fair to give back a little!
The 570 boards look like they will be doing what Intel does, 20 lanes from the PCH but CPU to PCH is 4. If this is the case M.2 drives will not get full speed, wish they would do a new SATA 7 type standard with NVME as I tend to use lots of drives and SATA 6 has been maxed out for a long time. M.2 is not very good as they are a pain to install and use.
Just a quick question...
If AMD and Intel keep leap-frogging each other in terms of performance, does that justify the prices leap-frogging each other too?
Ie in 3 years time year we could be paying £500 for a mid-range CPUSo long as the perf keeps improving, that's fair, right? Nobody ever needs to actually hold prices or reduce them, so long as perf increases...
It's not that but people are questioning why AMD can justify any price rise. Things change significantly and its natural that they will end up closer to or around Intel prices.
If they are saying that the boards will be a little more than Intel's then you take they jabe manufacturing costs that are 20% higher but only 10% more expensive for instance then the price might have increased but it's not one thing and everyone is putting it down to one element.
If the Intel was so high with pretty much same features as previous X470 then we add more features, more PCB layers/tracers as a significantly higher cost but they are around or just above Intel does that not really show that they might be priced higher but not as far as Intel could possibly push?
I am not saying it is good and would love for the prices for the x570 to be prices of the x470 series but that won't be case till things like PCIE 4.0 becomes mainstream for all and similar.
Wait for the x670 series or similar then as prices likely to stabilise more.
Depends what the boards actually provide. I don't mind there being a new tier of super expensive enthusiast boards, as long as the ones for £200-250 are as good as the previous generation (e.g. 10 GbE, great VRMs, most features you could want, etc.). If they just price gouge then I will get an X470 board instead.
Unless the motherboard manufacturers have done something clever like bifurcate lanes, I would expect only the 1x M.2 drive coming directly from the CPU to be full x4 3.0 speed. Any others will need to share bandwidth with other devices (USB, SATA, PCIe slots). Same with any PCIe slots that are not the main x16 4.0 slot.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 3,214
- Location
- bedlam
Why. Mine plugged in and just installed windows no messing
Permabanned
- Joined
- 11 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 3,214
- Location
- bedlam
Hell yes.
Put it in a slot and tighten 1 screw, is that too much for you?
The PCH is really only about adding connectivity as the CPU has enough direct connections for most people needs, iirc you can hang 2x16 PCIe 3.0 (or 1x16 PCIe 4.0) GPU and 2x8 PCIe 3.0 (or 1x4 PCIe 4.0) NVME drives off the CPU, i can't see many people running more than 1-2 GPUs and NVME drives so most people would probably only need the PCH for SATA, USB, Thundebolt and other ancillary devices.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,631
- Location
- Rutland
The block diagram is already out. The chipset has 4 PCI 4.0 lanes with the main M2 having 4 direct PCI-E lanes off the CPU.
I did not say difficult, Its about compatibility. M.2 drive are limited so we end up with 1 or 2 M.2/PCIe drives and the rest are SATA. A faster SATA interface would be more useful than M.2.
To be fair most users will only use 1 M.2 SSD for OS Boot drive, and even when using a slower M.2 slot the speed is about half its full speed, which is still faster than a regular SSD. I tested mine in the second slot of my X470 and was getting around 1500/read and 750/write speeds.
That is the point, M.2 is good as a fast OS drive but that's about it. A new SATA 7 spec that was 2x SATA 6 would still be slower than M.2 but it would offer a big improvement and be more useful for most users. SATA Express looked OK but the connector was a hack job, basically 2 SATA ports and nobody bothered making drives.
easyrider, you were banking on a slide from the Computex keynote which highlighted the 12c as a gaming CPU. It was the First 12c gaming CPU and that's how it was billed by Lisa Su. However Lisa also stated when talking about the 3800X that it was likely to become THE gaming CPU, thus rendering this entire BS tirade you've been on for 3 pages now, utterly irrelevant and just a waste of everyones time.
Go watch the keynote before you start chucking shade at anyone else.
#contextmatters
Go watch the keynote before you start chucking shade at anyone else.
#contextmatters
So the word “THE” now means Faster than a 3900x in games?
What does “Become the gaming cpu” actually mean?
Does it mean fastest mainstream gaming cpu?
Fastest gaming cpu?
Fastest gaming cpu at that given price point?
The most popular gaming cpu?
Please enlighten us?
Put the word THE in the correct context please? Thanks
Who actually gives a **** about what is and what isn't the gaming CPU, it is so irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It is a pointless argument from either side, people buy what they want to buy and justify that purchase based on many factors, whether that be cost, a high number in the name, number of cores, boost speed, base speed, faster in "this application" or "this game" etc.
It's pathetic tbh, and its playground bickering... my Dad is bigger than your Dad.
It's pathetic tbh, and its playground bickering... my Dad is bigger than your Dad.
Who actually gives a **** about what is and what isn't the gaming CPU, it is so irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It is a pointless argument from either side, people buy what they want to buy and justify that purchase based on many factors, whether that be cost, a high number in the name, number of cores, boost speed, base speed, faster in "this application" or "this game" etc.
It's pathetic tbh, and its playground bickering... my Dad is bigger than your Dad.
And all because someone posted that the 3900x wasn’t for playing games
I’ll be getting the 3900x regardless...I’ve sold my 9900k so I’m committed
Ignoring the bizarre arguing going on around here I do have a question for you.
Where did she say that? All I can see is that she said the 3800X is "now the 8 core device for the enthusiast gamer" which is a very specifically chosen phraseology. Note that she didn't just say the 3800X is "now the device for the enthusiast gamer".
As you yourself say, context matters. We have no more context than what she actually said... which is that the 3800X is the 8 core enthusiast's choice, followed by an introduction of AMD "bringing 12 cores to gaming".
Unless I have missed something else she said, I think a lot of people are missing the details of what was actually said. I would appreciate if you could point out where it is said otherwise as I haven't been able to find it.
I'm very much looking forward to seeing how the 3800X and 3900X compare in benchmarks.
Last edited:
8700k vs 3600, both clocked to 4.2ghz with 3000mhz RAM.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/13450444?baseline=13437018
Not really seeing any gains over Coffee Lake here.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/13450444?baseline=13437018
Not really seeing any gains over Coffee Lake here.