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

[Distracted]

Holy poop Batman, £349 for the 2700X.

I can't tell if you are saying that is good or bad.

 

[AMDPower]

I can't tell if you are saying that is good or bad.

BAD, really BAD

 

[Journey]

Holy poop Batman, £349 for the 2700X.

I neglected to say it's high sorry. However I just realised why it is high, it's so OCUK can put a reduced by 20% banner next to in a day or so making look like it's cheap. They are literally as bad as DFS.

 

[4K8KW10]

Holy poop Batman, £349 for the 2700X.

I don't mind, as long as we can have the other option - the same CPU with some tweaks in BIOS

My basket at Overclockers UK:

• 1 x AMD Ryzen 7 Eight Core 2700 4.10GHz (Socket AM4) Processor - Retail= £269.99

Total: £278.69 (includes shipping: £8.70)​

​

 

[Distracted]

They are literally as bad as DFS.

Let's not go crazy. It's bad for sure but DFS bad? They would have to have a 'previously sold for £900 now only £349' sticker on it at the mo to drop to that level.

But point taken

 

[4K8KW10]

The 9900k was released to target gamers...

Yeah, this is what they say because it's their strength and the gamers as a community are an easy target to manipulate...
Threadripper was released to target multi-taskers... 64 threads and your Windows will be happy.

 

[easyrider]

Yeah, this is what they say because it's their strength and the gamers as a community are an easy target to manipulate...
Threadripper was released to target multi-taskers... 64 threads and your Windows will be happy.

The benchies were out and the data collected...

9900k faster in games...

Worth the cost no? But faster yes...

 

[d_brennen]

Semi relevant

https://bit-tech.net/news/tech/cpus/amd-microsoft-working-on-threadripper-epyc-performance/1/

Microsoft looking to gain performance parity with Linux on high core count NUMA systems. About time, though this will impact TR and Epyc rather than Ryzen consumer specifically. In the near future, consumer Ryzen will resemble Epyc 2 more and more as core counts rise

 

[theone8181]

The benchies were out and the data collected...

9900k faster in games...

Worth the cost no? But faster yes...

Unless its high resolution.

 

[easyrider]

Unless its high resolution.

At 4k yeah the differences are inconsequential

 

[nashathedog]

Not if the IPC and clockspeed are noticeably past Intel, but if they can release the 16 core then they should anyway.

That's not gonna happen,

I can't tell if you are saying that is good or bad.

I bought my 2700x either on or close to release & it cost me £299 here at OCUK, 9 months later it's £50 more. I suppose it still looks good compared to Intel's pricing but it's not good for us.

 

[easyrider]

That's not gonna happen,



I bought my 2700x either on or close to release & it cost me £299 here at OCUK, 9 months later it's £50 more. I suppose it still looks good compared to Intel's pricing but it's not good for us.

Thats just the value of the pound and basic economics

 

[nashathedog]

Thats just the value of the pound and basic economics

Maybe but it's only 8 or 9 months ago, The Pound's been scapping the bottom for a lot longer than that.

 

[Journey]

Thats just the value of the pound and basic economics

Ironically it's not the £ value since you can buy a 2700X for less than £280 delivered to you door from an EU vendor.

 

[easyrider]

Maybe but it's only 8 or 9 months ago, The Pound's been scapping the bottom for a lot longer than that.

Old stock bought cheap....sold at 279....@Gibbo mentioned this when I was just about to buy one.

 

[~>Dg<~]

I do love playing Pacman at 360p on my 9900K. I get a full 52478 fps, which is 17432 more than on my 2700X. It's just a shame that my cheapo monitor craps out at 60Hz. I truly can tell the difference too.

its easy to be negative but ...remember many people with modern systems have modern monitors ! so once you have high hz you need that extra bit of juice for the better experience. pubg for eg and other games the difference is night and day on anything from a new i5 upwards to anything offered gaming wise from amd on a cpu. instead of looking at just the cpu differences look at how it may effect games if people want them for gaming. on a old accient 60-75hz monitor yeah not much difference. go to 120hz + thats where you see the intels come into there own. especially in mp games. those 20-30 fps drops on amd or lower general fps just arent generally there on the intel options.

hope we have some news soon with some decent details.

 

[Potatowithearsontheside]

That's not gonna happen,



I bought my 2700x either on or close to release & it cost me £299 here at OCUK, 9 months later it's £50 more. I suppose it still looks good compared to Intel's pricing but it's not good for us.

The price is simply down to ASA (Advertising Srandards Agency) rules; you can't advertise a discount in the UK if the product hasn't be for sale at the higher price for at least 28 consecutive days during the last 6 months.
They will list it as £349 for only 28 days for sure, and then list a huge discount in percentage terms. If they reduce it to £249 then a 28% discount reads better than a 16% discount (from £299).

 

[Potatowithearsontheside]

its easy to be negative but ...remember many people with modern systems have modern monitors ! so once you have high hz you need that extra bit of juice for the better experience. pubg for eg and other games the difference is night and day on anything from a new i5 upwards to anything offered gaming wise from amd on a cpu. instead of looking at just the cpu differences look at how it may effect games if people want them for gaming. on a old accient 60-75hz monitor yeah not much difference. go to 120hz + thats where you see the intels come into there own. especially in mp games. those 20-30 fps drops on amd or lower general fps just arent generally there on the intel options.

hope we have some news soon with some decent details.

Many, but not all.
The majority of folk will cheap out on at least one component of an expensive build, and that then ultimately becomes their bottleneck.
Nowadays, I think it better to choose your monitor first, and then select a CPU and GPU accordingly.
Whilst that top end GPU might be what you 100% have to have, if you're buying a 4K monitor then there's little point in splashing on the most expensive CPU. Likewise, if you're buying that 240Hz monitor, you'll be wanting the best CPU and maybe not quite the best GPU, as the CPU is likely going to be your bottleneck in the type of games that you can hit those fps in.

 

[Orange Nexus]

its easy to be negative but ...remember many people with modern systems have modern monitors ! so once you have high hz you need that extra bit of juice for the better experience. pubg for eg and other games the difference is night and day on anything from a new i5 upwards to anything offered gaming wise from amd on a cpu. instead of looking at just the cpu differences look at how it may effect games if people want them for gaming. on a old accient 60-75hz monitor yeah not much difference. go to 120hz + thats where you see the intels come into there own. especially in mp games. those 20-30 fps drops on amd or lower general fps just arent generally there on the intel options.

hope we have some news soon with some decent details.

https://imgur.com/PNGvuqY

 

[Potatowithearsontheside]

You're not allowed to have ultra quality settings.
One must only play games at their lowest quality settings at their lowest possible resolution. Anything else is just not representative of real life. Even my ultra wide TV screen is set to 4:3 because golden oldies are the best.