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.
I think its the oppositeIt’s very unlikely AMD could produce chips for less than Intel.
15'th gen will be expensive, its large, on the most advanced node with very expensive packaging.
I think its Intel's hope to be able to go back to high pricing for CPU's with these, they may get a surprise.
I think what going to happen is Ryzen 9000 series might not be quite as good as 15'th gen, but to do it Intel will be producing very expensive CPU's while AMD's are very cheap, they are at extreme ends.
Intel will want to say "ha... see we can beat them" If AMD are smart they will say "yeah but its so expensive compared to ours we can still make a profit selling ours at a price where you make a loss"
Anyone can make a fast CPU, if you make it big enough on the most advanced node, look at Apples M chips, they are huge, and frankly still not that good... making tiny little CPU's on older cheaper nodes that are still fast, that's a skill Intel don't have.
If i was AMD i would be punishing Intel at every turn, i would be beating them down relentlessly. Never let them get back on their feet.
I think its the opposite
Intel is just starting with tiles and doing it in more advanced and complex form.
AMD is not introducing anything new in Zen 5 (Zen 4 refresh, really), not using the most advanced node.
Intel are using 3nm, AMD 4nm / 6nm and AMD's chip is very much smaller.I very much doubt AMD could produce silicon at TSMC for a lower rate than Intel.
Somewhat odd thing to say given that the 16 core has the same 170 TDP and its not like Intel TDP where 125 watts is actually 350 watts.For those that didnt read the article in full..
AMD's Ryzen 9000 won't beat the previous-gen X3D models in gaming, but they'll be close — improved 3D V-Cache coming, too
Ryzen 9000's 3D V-Cache will get new features.www.tomshardware.com
I wonder if decent overclocking might be a thing with these 65w 8-Core 9700X's?
I was specifically talking about the 9700X, unless you're not talking about what I said, but the guy in the articleSomewhat odd thing to say given that the 16 core has the same 170 TDP and its not like Intel TDP where 125 watts is actually 350 watts.
AMD's 170W TDP pulls ~250W+ power, think the TDP is about how much heat it must dissipate but I could be wrong. I have seen mine at ~250W(HWiNFO64) running Cinebench. @65W TDP it uses ~95W and @105W it uses ~130W.Somewhat odd thing to say given that the 16 core has the same 170 TDP and its not like Intel TDP where 125 watts is actually 350 watts.
Its only the 12, 8 and 6 core that get a lower TDP but there was no reason to have the same 170 watt TDP for the 12 core as the 16 core, it never pulled that much power, all AMD have done here was change the numbers to be more in line with how they draw power anyway.
AMD's 170W TDP pulls ~250W+ power, think the TDP is about how much heat it must dissipate but I could be wrong. I have seen mine at ~250W(HWiNFO64) running Cinebench. @65W TDP it uses ~95W and @105W it uses ~130W.
Not for me but if all the OC stuff is on It might be, I don’t use that stuff so don’t know.So not 350 watts then...
170W TDP = 230W PPT. 65W = 88W PPT and 105W is 142W PPT. It might spike above those momentarily but should sustain at or below those PPT number if everything is stock.AMD's 170W TDP pulls ~250W+ power, think the TDP is about how much heat it must dissipate but I could be wrong. I have seen mine at ~250W(HWiNFO64) running Cinebench. @65W TDP it uses ~95W and @105W it uses ~130W.
Modern TDPs are just a guide for OEMs on how much they can cheap out on the cooler, you can run a 14900 on a 65 watt coolerthink the TDP is about how much heat it must dissipate but I could be wrong
I think Ryzen 9000 will be superior to Intel's 15th gen (Arrow Lake Core Ultra 285k). It's Intel's first chiplet attempt for desktop CPU's, I think they've got much to learn to catch up with AMD.I think what going to happen is Ryzen 9000 series might not be quite as good as 15'th gen, but to do it Intel will be producing very expensive CPU's while AMD's are very cheap, they are at extreme ends.
Intel will want to say "ha... see we can beat them" If AMD are smart they will say "yeah but its so expensive compared to ours we can still make a profit selling ours at a price where you make a loss"
Anyone can make a fast CPU, if you make it big enough on the most advanced node, look at Apples M chips, they are huge, and frankly still not that good... making tiny little CPU's on older cheaper nodes that are still fast, that's a skill Intel don't have.
If i was AMD i would be punishing Intel at every turn, i would be beating them down relentlessly. Never let them get back on their feet.
I think Ryzen 9000 will be superior to Intel's 15th gen (Arrow Lake Core Ultra 285k). It's Intel's first chiplet attempt for desktop CPU's, I think they've got much to learn to catch up with AMD.
Do we believe big chin guy on YouTube? (Moore's Law dude)
Just watched one where he said a 16-core x3d chip was in the offing. Nice upgrade from my 5800x3d for me.
Sometimes he is right, sometimes he is wrong. It wouldn't surprise me if AMD release that first though (with a big price premium) and the other X3Ds later.Do we believe big chin guy on YouTube? (Moore's Law dude)
A 9950X3D with with V Cache on both CCD's would certainly be interesting