AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

[jigger]

Was the £350 not the release price for the 3700x so to suggest that AMD release the 4700x at the same release price is not increasing cost.

You should be ignoring it's sale price now after being out for what would be a year. Intel and Nvidia been putting their same tier stuff up in price is different compared to AMD in the CPU sector releasing at the same RRP as previous gen. (They don't seem to do same for their GPU tbh which is much more like Nvidia in price scaling).

They have already moved segments down in the last three years to make greater multicore chips available at a better price bracket.

So in three years you are looking at about a 40% increase (compared to first gen Ryzen) at the same price bracket and then are trying to claim they are charging more? Yeah okay then.

He fully understands, but just loves acting up and making pointless statements.

 

[LePhuronn]

He fully understands, but just loves acting up and making pointless statements.

And yet there's no action taken. I've been warned and even suspended for arguing a point too voraciously, but at least I actually have a point. Yet Foxy and others come in with no actual stance, swing argumentative dicks around and yet naff all happens.

 

[FoxEye]

Tell you what then, we can all put each other on ignore. I'll ignore all the AMD Superfan League and they can all ignore me.

My "stance" is that I dislike bias and disinformation, and the people who insist AMD chips are better at every task in every situation are doing nothing but spreading disinformation.

And as I've posted before, my next CPU will be a Zen3 in all likelihood, unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of a hat between now and then (unlikely). I have no shares in either company. I have no hatred for either company.

I see a lot of dual standards here; emotional investment in AMD, and not only is it puzzling but it's unhelpful. AMD might be the best buy for 90% of people, and probably the best in a whole host of metrics.

But to deny/ignore Zen2 has any weaknesses at all (as is often done by people like @jigger) is just disinformation and fanboyism. Now please, go ahead and ignore me and I'll do the same. After all it benefits no one to repeat the same arguments over and over again.

 

[jigger]

And yet there's no action taken. I've been warned and even suspended for arguing a point too voraciously, but at least I actually have a point. Yet Foxy and others come in with no actual stance, swing argumentative dicks around and yet naff all happens.

I don’t think flamebaiting is against the rules any more. Did ask one of the newer mods and didn’t get a clear answer. Maybe mass post reporting is the way.

 

[gavinh87]

Ahh some things never change.
The same old people spreading same old crap.

 

[jigger]

There's no real reason for devs to rush to 8 cores, 16 threads and leave a large install base behind. That's bad business.

However, once the new console gen matures along (2-3 years post launch) along with new development toolset, those users have the option to buy a console instead of upgrading their pc to get the next gen experience after the first round of price cuts. That's generally when you see a shift in the market in terms of minimum/recommended specs.

Game optimization to run well across a large array of systems is more important than pleasing the high end market.

Games are already scaling past 12 cores.

 

[Curlyriff]

Tell you what then, we can all put each other on ignore. I'll ignore all the AMD Superfan League and they can all ignore me.

My "stance" is that I dislike bias and disinformation, and the people who insist AMD chips are better at every task in every situation are doing nothing but spreading disinformation.

And as I've posted before, my next CPU will be a Zen3 in all likelihood, unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of a hat between now and then (unlikely). I have no shares in either company. I have no hatred for either company.

I see a lot of dual standards here; emotional investment in AMD, and not only is it puzzling but it's unhelpful. AMD might be the best buy for 90% of people, and probably the best in a whole host of metrics.

But to deny/ignore Zen2 has any weaknesses at all (as is often done by people like @jigger) is just disinformation and fanboyism. Now please, go ahead and ignore me and I'll do the same. After all it benefits no one to repeat the same arguments over and over again.

I'm not ignoring any weakness or anything but you've ignored the pricing to performance scale we've been given for last 3 years and then claiming (incorrectly) that AMD have increased their price as performance has which is clearly not true.

Yes their performance does not match intel in gaming at peaks and likely won't even next gen in my opinion because of the pure speed difference and latency (although I think it will be much closer) but at same time at 1440p/4k it makes zero difference because the general differences are not brackets higher like sat going from 60 to 90fps or 90 to 120.

And going with that the price to performance is still in AMD court unless you are after that final 5% performance.

Only you can decide, just don't think the stuff you've particularly said about pricing is correct in any stretch. The 1700x came out at £399, The 2700x released at £349, the 3700x released at £349, so we have had a £50 price drop at release price over three years for a 40% performance improvement ish depending on load. That seems pretty decent.

Assume the 4700x comes out around the £350 mark with another 15-20% seems decent overall.

 

[FoxEye]

Yes their performance does not match intel in gaming at peaks and likely won't even next gen in my opinion because of the pure speed difference and latency (although I think it will be much closer) but at same time at 1440p/4k it makes zero difference because the general differences are not brackets higher like sat going from 60 to 90fps or 90 to 120.

That's part of my problem with posters here.

The number of people who say, "Yes Intel has higher perf in gaming but you won't notice it so buy AMD." A reluctant admission followed by a generalisation that nobody would benefit from buying Intel for a gaming system.

That's except for the posters who flat out deny AMD has any disadvantage in gaming at all (because there are people who will just cherry pick benchmarks to show AMD winning in one game and use that as justification to say "AMD is better in gaming too").

Sorry but I'm not interested in rehashing the same ground anymore. AMD doesn't have it all their own way and some people are going to notice a difference in the games they play or certain single-threaded workloads. A difference that favours Intel.

Zen3 might wipe that advantage out, and I fully expect the usual suspects here to be shouting from the rooftops if/when it happens, completely ignoring the fact that they have been claiming AMD is already on parity (or better) with Zen2.

 

[gavinh87]

Worth noting that the very people stating that there is no difference at 1440p are very mistaken. There are plenty of benchmarks that show this.
All to make themselves feel better about buying a cpu that is slower in games.

The usual crew will come at me - the joke is on them. I have just purchased a 3700x with the knowledge that it cannot match or beat Intel offerings in games.

 

[FoxEye]

Worth noting that the very people stating that there is no difference at 1440p are very mistaken. There are plenty of benchmarks that show this.
All to make themselves feel better about buying a cpu that is slower in games.

The usual crew will come at me - the joke is on them. I have just purchased a 3700x with the knowledge that it cannot match or beat Intel offerings in games.

Exactly. I might still pick up a 3700X if it drops to £200 and I don't have to drive to Stoke (!!), and the same thing again when the 4700X drops to £200

I'm not anti-AMD. But whilst I'd be more than happy with such an upgrade, I'd know at the same time that in many games the Intel chips would be performing better.

But short of such bargain pricing happening again, I'll be jumping on the Zen3 band-wagon, and hoping that they are better in gaming than Zen2. Including ye olde single-threaded games like Dwarf Fortress, etc (which also would like the faster/larger/unified cache on Zen3).

 

[gavinh87]

Exactly. I might still pick up a 3700X if it drops to £200 and I don't have to drive to Stoke (!!), and the same thing again when the 4700X drops to £200

I'm not anti-AMD. But whilst I'd be more than happy with such an upgrade, I'd know at the same time that in many games the Intel chips would be performing better.

But short of such bargain pricing happening again, I'll be jumping on the Zen3 band-wagon, and hoping that they are better in gaming than Zen2. Including ye olde single-threaded games like Dwarf Fortress, etc (which also would like the faster/larger/unified cache on Zen3).

Funny you would mention driving to Stoke. I did exactly that and got it for £200!
Also got a 5700xt for good measure. I also know and acknowledge that this is slower than a 2070S!
Come at me fangirls

 

[Curlyriff]

That's part of my problem with posters here.

The number of people who say, "Yes Intel has higher perf in gaming but you won't notice it so buy AMD." A reluctant admission followed by a generalisation that nobody would benefit from buying Intel for a gaming system.

That's except for the posters who flat out deny AMD has any disadvantage in gaming at all (because there are people who will just cherry pick benchmarks to show AMD winning in one game and use that as justification to say "AMD is better in gaming too").

Sorry but I'm not interested in rehashing the same ground anymore. AMD doesn't have it all their own way and some people are going to notice a difference in the games they play or certain single-threaded workloads. A difference that favours Intel.

Zen3 might wipe that advantage out, and I fully expect the usual suspects here to be shouting from the rooftops if/when it happens, completely ignoring the fact that they have been claiming AMD is already on parity (or better) with Zen2.

The problem us that 90% would never notice the difference, if you have a 60hz screen and AMD is doing 64fps and intel is doing 76fps the actual ability to tell difference is almost zero with a few outliers where some are super sensitive. We are talking about average FPS too, not lows etc.

The other side is that also at that point you have to pay for that tangible difference between AMD and Intel and that is why the point is made that it doesn't really make ant difference.

As said if you want to have the ultimate and that is even if it offers no tangible difference at gaming and just need the best then by all means buy the 9900ks or similar. Or if you play one or two games and they are the outliers that ait at 10-15% performance over AMD that also makes sense.

But the general is that for most the cost to performance is pretty much now if you are upgrading/buying new then AMD makes better sense. That is all.

You've since ignored the point that I replied to though which was you claimed AMD are raising prices as their performance increases and are doing what intel and Nvidia have been doing which they haven't with their CPUs, but where I did actually believe they have been doing it in the GPU sector.

 

[Curlyriff]

Worth noting that the very people stating that there is no difference at 1440p are very mistaken. There are plenty of benchmarks that show this.
All to make themselves feel better about buying a cpu that is slower in games.

The usual crew will come at me - the joke is on them. I have just purchased a 3700x with the knowledge that it cannot match or beat Intel offerings in games.

TBF I'm not suggesting there is no difference, that the price to performance difference is there though is all and is that performance noticeable without an FPS counter in the corner.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Also depends who you trust for benchmarks, Digital Foundry show a difference where Intel are ahead by a good 10+% or more, but i don't know if they purposely show benchmarks that mostly favour Intel, even at 1440p.

I just hope Zen 3 is another jump forward, Zen 2 is still not quite there.

 

[Deleted User 456458]

Games are already scaling past 12 cores.

Which ones?

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

There are games based on older engines which do better than 10% on an Intel CPU at 1440p,and I play one or two of them myself. However, the Intel CPUs were too overpriced at the time,and lacked SMT which I needed for other things,so I still went for an AMD CPU.

 

[gavinh87]

Can we all agree there is no right or wrong choice here. Both teams have very capable CPU's now.
The thing that gets people backs up is comments from the usual group that portray ryzen to be better than it really is and often have nothing to back it up with.

 

[sideways14a]

Yes intel has some strengths although they are now few and far between.
But i dont get the whole must use 9900k for the last few % because what you gain with those final few % fps you loose out massively in power draw, heat, security and of course outright performance when fully loaded - as opposed to say a 3900x or similar.

I just dont get how such a small increase in one metric cancels out so many others for some.

 

[FoxEye]

Funny you would mention driving to Stoke. I did exactly that and got it for £200!
Also got a 5700xt for good measure. I also know and acknowledge that this is slower than a 2070S!
Come at me fangirls

600 mile round trip was a bit much for me Otherwise yeah, 3700X at £200 is too good even for me to refuse.

But alas, it was not to be. I really do not want anything less than an 8-core for my next CPU, so the 4600 at £200-£225 (pricing in coronavirus) is probably not something I'd be interested in. I'd imagine 6-core's time is coming to an end, not so very long after new consoles hit. That leaves me selling a kidney for the 4700X or settling for a 3700X (if and when another fire sale happens on those).

Plus AMD set the boost clock higher the higher up the series you go, meaning the best chips for single-thread perf are ironically the 8+ core parts anyhow...

Or just getting a next-gen console and not bothering with the PC at all.

 

[gavinh87]

600 mile round trip was a bit much for me Otherwise yeah, 3700X at £200 is too good even for me to refuse.

But alas, it was not to be. I really do not want anything less than an 8-core for my next CPU, so the 4600 at £200-£225 (pricing in coronavirus) is probably not something I'd be interested in. I'd imagine 6-core's time is coming to an end, not so very long after new consoles hit. That leaves me selling a kidney for the 4700X or settling for a 3700X (if and when another fire sale happens on those).

Plus AMD set the boost clock higher the higher up the series you go, meaning the best chips for single-thread perf are ironically the 8+ core parts anyhow...

Or just getting a next-gen console and not bothering with the PC at all.

I toyed with the idea of console. So I set my monitor to 60hz and plugged in the xbox controller. It was horrific.