No bad product only bad prices.
If the to be released 9700X is slower than 7800X3D, it better be cheaper as well.
If all you get from a 9950X is a 16% uplift over 7950X, time to adjust flagship pricing
The 9709X will be faster for less power use.
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.
No bad product only bad prices.
If the to be released 9700X is slower than 7800X3D, it better be cheaper as well.
If all you get from a 9950X is a 16% uplift over 7950X, time to adjust flagship pricing
I agree it's stupid
Most people who buy this stuff are gamers give us what we want
At the bare minimum they should have given us the 9950x3d. Take your time on the rest but give us your best gaming chip at launch
Most people aren’t interested in X3D. Its a niche product within a limited market.
Top selling is the 7800X3DMost people aren’t interested in X3D. Its a niche product within a limited market.
Then Who buys all the desktop consumer CPUs? Because for a long time the best selling Ryzen on the market has been the 5800x3d
Top selling is the 7800X3D
Let’s face it, without the X3D chips then ryzen would be quite boring and behind Intel in most workloads.Buy one.
Let’s face it, without the X3D chips then ryzen would be quite boring and behind Intel in most workloads.
Let’s face it, without AMD the industry (all of it) would still be in the dark ages. The desktop market particularly would still be in the doldrums.
Let’s face it, without the X3D chips then ryzen would be quite boring and behind Intel in most workloads.
We would still be on quad cores, if it was just left to Intel.
Ryzen X3D will be a fraction of AMD sales.
Not true, ask any store 5800x3d and 7800x3d are top sellers
Yes but its AMD which has stagnated the last few years.We would still be on quad cores, if it was just left to Intel.
Yes but its AMD which has stagnated the last few years.
AMD
1600X 6 core
2600X 6 core
3600X 6 core
5600X 6 core
7600X 6 core
9600X 6 core
Intel
7600k 4 core
8600k 6 core
9600k 6 core
10600k 6 core
11600k 6 core
12600k 10 core
13600k 14 core
14600k 14 core
Yes but its AMD which has stagnated the last few years.
AMD
1600X 6 core
2600X 6 core
3600X 6 core
5600X 6 core
7600X 6 core
9600X 6 core
Intel
7600k 4 core
8600k 6 core
9600k 6 core
10600k 6 core
11600k 6 core
12600k 10 core
13600k 14 core
14600k 14 core
The top end had an increase in core count though the mainstream didn’t.^^^^.......
Stagnation is not how i would characterise it.
R24
1800X: 100%
2700X: 108%
3950X: 243%
5950X: 274%
7950X: 393%
In 5 years AMD have increased their performance by a factor of almost 4. It might be 5 before this year is out...
Maybe at the high but in the mainstream intel are comfortably ahead. AMD should really be going for 8 cores on the ryzen 5 by now.I would also say its AMD who are driving this relentless boom in CPU performance, Intel are sweating trying to keep up.