• 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 4" thread (inc AM5/APU discussion) ***

Joxeon said:
For 300 quid you're not gaining any multi-theaded performance with Zen 4 over what was previously available at that price point from AMD.
Screenshot-301.png

Screenshot-302.png
Click to expand...
why oh why are you comparing a 5700x? The reason that its price point is completely irrelevant is that it was released into it's cycle so late. Try comparing the 5600x to the 7600x on multicore as they were released at the same price point relative also to the fact they are first wave releases. The 5700x was always going to be an anomaly coming out so far apart in the series line-up.

The 12700k can be had for similar price to the rumoured 13600k. The rumoured multi core score for the 13600k is around 24k points, the 12700k is around 23.5k points so they are pretty much the same then as your argument but that isn't at all what you will be comparing for Intel. But if you do that also means that you are not gaining any/possibly a tiny bit multi-core score at the same price point then?
 
Rumour is the 13600K will have higher MT performance vs 7600X and cost $350
The 7600X will have higher gaming performance and cost $300.

So there we are, if you're looking for a rendering / encoding CPU for around $350 the 13600K is what you want.
If you're looking for a $300 gaming CPU you want the 7600X.

Intel didn't sell as many Alderlake CPU's as they had hoped, they still have a stack of them they want to sell, so anything below the 13600K will be an Alderlake rebrand.
 
Zarax said:
I've honestly seen the same attitudes from all sides, they fail to realize that we consumers we can only benefit from increased competition.
Personally I'd welcome Zhaoxin in the CPU market, Intel in the GPU one and heck, even the comeback of old players like Matrox!
Click to expand...

The reason i say that is because of people being really quite viscously defensive of Intel's decade of 4 core single digit performance increase, not only did that not bother them, they took it personally when Intel was criticised for it.

You see the same thing now with Nvidia.
 
humbug said:
The reason i say that is because of people being really quite viscously defensive of Intel's decade of 4 core single digit performance increase, not only did that not bother them, they took it personally when Intel was criticised for it.

You see the same thing now with Nvidia.
Click to expand...
Well, the only good thing I can say about the stagnation is that it allowed people to keep the same CPU for 10 years without being too much of a drawback in gaming, saving some money in the long run.
The same is happening with GPUs right now, where you still cannot get better performance than a 1060/580 for what they costed in 2018.
 
Zarax said:
Well, the only good thing I can say about the stagnation is that it allowed people to keep the same CPU for 10 years without being too much of a drawback in gaming, saving some money in the long run.
The same is happening with GPUs right now, where you still cannot get better performance than a 1060/580 for what they costed in 2018.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the games that keep crashing on me for a lack of VRam.

The 2070S is too powerful for its limited buffer, never mind the 3070.
 
Curlyriff said:
why oh why are you comparing a 5700x? The reason that its price point is completely irrelevant is that it was released into it's cycle so late. Try comparing the 5600x to the 7600x on multicore as they were released at the same price point relative also to the fact they are first wave releases. The 5700x was always going to be an anomaly coming out so far apart in the series line-up.

The 12700k can be had for similar price to the rumoured 13600k. The rumoured multi core score for the 13600k is around 24k points, the 12700k is around 23.5k points so they are pretty much the same then as your argument but that isn't at all what you will be comparing for Intel. But if you do that also means that you are not gaining any/possibly a tiny bit multi-core score at the same price point then?
Click to expand...
You can only compare to what is currently available on the market in terms of price and that doesn't make it irrelevant at all, If anything I was being generous to the 7600X and using the 5700X' MSRP pricing despite the fact that it is currently available for around £240 so would look even worse.

I see you use the current pricing though to compare intel and even then its still a better price to performance ratio so lets look at the current amd pricing of £150 5600 and £300 7600X, 35% faster for 100% more money or the £190 5600X to 7600X 35% faster for 58% more money.
 
VortexA1 said:
What games need more than 8gb at 1440p? I know far cry 6 if you want the high res pack i played without the high res pack and graphics were very good still..and flight sim 2020 at highest details i assume..What else?
Click to expand...
Most games with an high res texture pack? A lot of modded games?
 
There is always going to be issues with fans, they are fanatical in nature. However things get pulled left and right. My view at moment from what we know is AMD Zen 4 seems like the more sensible buy if you are happy to loose 5-10% performance this generation to Intel but know you could drop a Zen 5 chip in later and relative cost be much better off even if AMD is 5-10% behind Intel in the next generation again.

7600x £279
B650 Mobo £129
32GB 6000Mhz RAM £140
8600x £279

= £827
or

13600k £329
Z690 Mobo £149
32GB 6000Mhz RAM £140
14600k £329
Z790 Mobo £149

= £1096

So assuming metrics remain where Intel is 5-10% you need to decide if the additional £269 additional outlay is worth that performance difference. And what if Zen 5 outperforms the next Intel side instead. That would make the value even less appealing. It would be different if the deficit was 30%+ (gaming here by way) but that just isn't realistic from what has been shown and stated so far.

What it does mean is that both are relatively competitive with wins in either direction depending on the game or application and exactly what price point you are at. If Intels next Mobo then supports 2 generations and thus you can get more out of that one board again it could be interesting to go for Intel route and them possibly remain on top again come that next generation and only need a CPU swap from Z790. However it is likely AMD will support Zen 6 with the current Mobo also. Always a gamble but neither are bad calls now tbh.
 
Curlyriff said:
There is always going to be issues with fans, they are fanatical in nature. However things get pulled left and right. My view at moment from what we know is AMD Zen 4 seems like the more sensible buy if you are happy to loose 5-10% performance this generation to Intel but know you could drop a Zen 5 chip in later and relative cost be much better off even if AMD is 5-10% behind Intel in the next generation again.

7600x £279
B650 Mobo £129
32GB 6000Mhz RAM £140
8600x £279

= £827
or

13600k £329
Z690 Mobo £149
32GB 6000Mhz RAM £140
14600k £329
Z790 Mobo £149

= £1096

So assuming metrics remain where Intel is 5-10% you need to decide if the additional £269 additional outlay is worth that performance difference. And what if Zen 5 outperforms the next Intel side instead. That would make the value even less appealing. It would be different if the deficit was 30%+ (gaming here by way) but that just isn't realistic from what has been shown and stated so far.

What it does mean is that both are relatively competitive with wins in either direction depending on the game or application and exactly what price point you are at. If Intels next Mobo then supports 2 generations and thus you can get more out of that one board again it could be interesting to go for Intel route and them possibly remain on top again come that next generation and only need a CPU swap from Z790. However it is likely AMD will support Zen 6 with the current Mobo also. Always a gamble but neither are bad calls now tbh.
Click to expand...

IMHO it might make a little more sense to spend more for the extra performance if you basically buy and keep for 5+ years, maybe replacing just the GPU.
Future proofing allowed me to keep the same PC for 10 years (i7-3770k and 16GB of RAM were overkill in 2013!) so a couple hundred quids more wouldn't be the issue.

IF I had to buy today I'd either go for a 12700k or a 5900x and 64GB RAM, I'm waiting to see if next gen will change the equation (and I'm definitely going sub 300W for GPU!).
 
Joxeon said:
You can only compare to what is currently available on the market in terms of price and that doesn't make it irrelevant at all, If anything I was being generous to the 7600X and using the 5700X' MSRP pricing despite the fact that it is currently available for around £240 so would look even worse.

I see you use the current pricing though to compare intel and even then its still a better price to performance ratio so lets look at the current amd pricing of £150 5600 and £300 7600X, 35% faster for 100% more money or the £190 5600X to 7600X 35% faster for 58% more money.
Click to expand...
You do not stop do you. What are you going to do about the fact that all intel components (CPU, WiFi controllers, Chipsets, Etc) are going to be rising in price from 1st Oct. 20% is a lot, going to mess all your metrics up
 
cliffy said:
You do not stop do you. What are you going to do about the fact that all intel components (CPU, WiFi controllers, Chipsets, Etc) are going to be rising in price from 1st Oct. 20% is a lot, going to mess all your metrics up
Click to expand...
I'm just pointing out that AMD is giving less price to performance with the new stuff than they offer right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom