• 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 Zen3 event thread

FoxEye said:
Well given how often people keep saying, "AMD aren't a charity," the idea of giving them more money to make a charitable donation to their R&D fund seems a bit contradictory ;)

I'll buy if I think it's worth the asking price, not because I want to help them out. They aren't my buddy, pal :p

Also I'm sure someone else would have filled the void. IBM still make chips, maybe it would have been them. Maybe Abu Dhabi or whatever would have poured a few billion into making a chip.

It wouldn't have been x86, for sure, but there's no reason a world without AMD (or Intel) would tend towards £3-5k PCs.
Click to expand...

Had it over on another forum too. Apparently people mocking Nvidia for Turing(more performance and higher pricing),and mocking Intel being better for gaming(but more expensive per core),was fine.

The moment AMD does the same its all A-OK!! :P
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Had it over on another forum too. Apparently people mocking Nvidia for Turing(more performance and higher pricing),and mocking Intel being better for gaming(but more expensive per core),was fine.

The moment AMD does the same its all A-OK!! :p
Click to expand...
AMD can do no wrong on this forum.

When AMD put up prices it's for R&D. When Intel/nV put up prices it's corporate/shareholder greed.
 
I was thinking about that - 3.procent in battlefield 5. Maybe it was a gpu bottleneck so the results where in margin of error?

Btw they used a rtx 2080ti for the gametesting. Why didn't they used the rtx 3080 or rtx 3090 to avoid possible gpu bottleneck? If the 5900x is indeed faster then using a better gpu would result more in their favor.

Can't believe that the 5900x is so much faster then the 3900x in shadow of the tomb raider. I should test that with my config.
 
FoxEye said:
AMD can do no wrong on this forum.

When AMD put up prices it's for R&D. When Intel/nV put up prices it's corporate/shareholder greed.
Click to expand...

Exactly and its the same on another forum I post on. I mean have people even looked at the figures for gaming performance??

AMD says the Ryzen 7 5800K MATCHES the Core i7 10700K! The Ryzen 5 5600X is around 10% faster,and we all know the Core i5 has conservative boost clockspeeds. When overclocked its close to the Core i7 CPUs.

Maybe AMD is sandbagging,but realistically these CPUs will be worse price/performance than the ones they are replacing or basically the same at best. So this is exactly the same scenario as Turing. Faster,more efficient and more features but you pay more for it.

Even on AMD Reddit,which is notoriously protective of AMD,they are pointing out Intel is probably better value in certain segments:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/j7h3uk/intel_offers_better_priceperf_than_some_ryzen/

Top rated comments:

Agreed, can't fault them for making the 5900X a halo product since it's now the best desktop CPU.

But the 5600X and 5800X pricing doesn't make sense to me. It's a big improvement over Ryzen 3000, but only a few percentage points ahead of Intel in most games. I can't see why someone would pay $100 more for a 5800X over a i7-10700K.
Click to expand...

The value curve is upside down. The low end is supposed to be where the value is, but instead the 5900 is the best value.

They are trying to do the upsell trick like popcorn at the cinema, where you can buy a thimble full of popcorn for $9, or a wheelbarrow full for $10.
Click to expand...

That thread has a decent upvote level,so if on the AMD subreddit people are potentially seeing Intel as better value,so will others.

Robert896r1 said:
I see 1080p high refresh rate gaming popular here all of a sudden lol
Click to expand...

Its funny and also how suddenly pricing isn't a problem. I thought it was all about price/performance not absolute performance! ;)
 
Did they nerfed the 5950x multicore performance? By my math the 3950x is up to 68 procent faster then the 10900k in the vray benchmark? They showed that the 5950x is 59% faster.



My bad it is over 40%. It should fit. The 5950x 59x is 19 procent faster then the 3950x (ipc increase).
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Had it over on another forum too. Apparently people mocking Nvidia for Turing(more performance and higher pricing),and mocking Intel being better for gaming(but more expensive per core),was fine.

The moment AMD does the same its all A-OK!! :p
Click to expand...
Hold on. Ryzens outperformed Intel CPUs on many ground and always were behind in games. Now they literally going to be best in everything. What else you want? Why would they lower the prices when they have no competition no more? It's business
 
Sedgey123 said:
Not sure where the 10% has come from as most titles said 3-5% other than LoL and CSGO.

What i should have said was at higher resolutions, i know 1080p still has the lead market share but with more and more people going 1440p and 4k i wonder what it will be, I guess time will tell!
Click to expand...
LoL is 21% gain over intel, CSGO is 19% gain, most games benched were 5-6% total 10 game benches so I averaged to around 10%.

For most of the titles I can see they will be high frame rate games @1080p even at 5% it will be more than 5-10fps.

but the thing is that hopefully Navi scales better at low res compared with ampere, then AMD products will be much better gaming experience at 1440p and 1080p. 4K is really a niche market still.
 
SnR3 said:
Hold on. Ryzens outperformed Intel CPUs on many ground and always were behind in games. Now they literally going to be best in everything. What else you want? Why would they lower the prices when they have no competition no more? It's business
Click to expand...
So every year when they make a new better product they should put the price up a bit more?
 
SnR3 said:
Hold on. Ryzens outperformed Intel CPUs on many ground and always were behind in games. Now they literally going to be best in everything. What else you want? Why would they lower the prices when they have no competition no more? It's business
Click to expand...

Sorry but all the lot here were complaining at Nvidia Turing pricing when they were top dog. The same lot complained at Intel for having less cores for the same price than AMD,even though they were faster in games. AMD is doing the same and its fine. Ok,then!

AMD literally says the Core i7 10700K which is £344 is the same performance as a Ryzen 7 5800X which is £420+ and that is fine?? Even on the AMD Reddit people are scratching their head regarding the Ryzen 5 5600X and Ryzen 7 5800X pricing.

Intel is not only cheaper per core now,under 10 cores,but in terms of gaming performance its a wash. Where was everyone defending Nvidia and Intel pricing WRT to costs,etc back then. Intel is a company with over 80000 people. Nvidia has more people than AMD.They have higher costs and overheads,but that is not relevant to the end user?

People made these excuses when Nvidia started pushing up their own GPU pricing during Kepler,and look where the market headed.

The flip-flop reminded me of the Athlon 64 days when they did the same. They released the Athlon 64 and pushed up pricing and thought it would all be fine. AMD then pushed back on 65NM investment,pushed back the Phenom,etc and thought Intel wouldn't be able to compete. AMD then priced their CPUs so high,Intel actually had enough breathing space,until they brought out the Core2.

shannowdr said:
The 5800X seems a tad expensive.
Be interesting to see if more expensive then the 3900X.
Click to expand...

You can get a Ryzen 9 3900 non-X for well under £350 too.
 
Last edited:
Looking at prices, I will put my money towards a gpu, and upgrade cpu later. Looking forward to radeon launch.

Want to see reviews.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
AMD literally says the Core i7 10700K which is £344 is the same performance as a Ryzen 7 5800X which is £420+
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they're saying it's better, actually, not the same.

But it is more expensive. The value here (to me) is at the top end. Intel just don't have 12 and 16 core consumer parts. (And the specialist cascade-lake stuff is more expensive than AMD)
 
Last edited:
Sedgey123 said:
Not sure where the 10% has come from as most titles said 3-5% other than LoL and CSGO.

What i should have said was at higher resolutions, i know 1080p still has the lead market share but with more and more people going 1440p and 4k i wonder what it will be, I guess time will tell!
Click to expand...
Also that is over a stock 10900k which has an all core boost of 4800mhz so I could see overclocked Intel still being on par or even slightly ahead when the dust settles.

AMDs big draw has always been the price/performance so even though the current zen 2 CPUs lost by 10-15% or so in gaming they massively outsold Intel as many didn't care about that 10-15% but instead the value propersition which they have now lost. The people on current gen Intel won't switch as there's only a couple of percent in it and the value buyer will probably go for zen 2 or Intel i5.

I found the big navi more interesting as it seems very close to the 3080 and if it has more OC headroom it might well beat it so long as AMD don't price it at £1000 that is which after the CPU launch wouldn't supprise me.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy Weirdarms said:
Pretty sure they're saying it's better, actually, not the same.

But it is more expensive. The value here (to me) is at the top end. Intel just don't have 12 and 16 core consumer parts. (And the specialist cascade-lake stuff is more expensive than AMD)
Click to expand...

Some of the higher end parts look relatively better off. Its the mainstream and entry level parts which seem a bit overpriced.

But a Ryzen 9 3900 non-X can be easily found for well under £350.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom