AMD Zen3 event thread

[Joxeon]

Or you can pick up a B550 and a 3900x cheaper than that 10850K + z490, and have even more cores and an upgrade path to Zen 3 when the price is right for you.


It's kinda funny how this release has flipped the intel argument on its head - last week people were arguing that AMD would get you more cores at a given price-point, but intel might give you a few more FPS if that was important. This week we have the reverse. But the thing is, Zen2 still exists.

If you want more cores, go Zen 2. You'll get better value/more cores than the intel counterpart. If you need the last few FPS, go Zen 3 for top of the range gaming/IPC/single-thread performance.

Intel doesn't have a win on either front.

If your going by the zen 3 slides vs stock Intel CPU I still think Intel will win when overclocked and is now the cheaper option for 6 and 8 cores.

Remember those nvidia slides showing the 3080 at double the performance of the 2080 when in reality it's 50-80% depending on the resolution. Will wait and see the proper benchmarks before taking a company at its word.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Not at all.

I haven't owned an Intel cpu since 2017. All three of my rigs are AMD but this price creep is greedy.

It's corperations. Just like Intel and Nvidia, if you're in pole position you can afford to increase margins. It was the same when the FX series was spanking Intel's Netburst and it's the same now.

 

[bakes0310]

I got the right website this time

This will give you an idea but it won't include 5xxx until benchmarks are available and added...but you could add 19% on top of the 3950x
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/compare/Intel-i7-6700K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-9-3950X/2565vs3598

Thanks for the link, not a massive jump but enough that i think i will hit the order button.

 

[FoxEye]

I agree. AMD still offer their more budget friendly options, but I don't see why AMD shouldn't sell premium grade stuff for more premium prices. As the old adage goes, you get what you pay for.

The mistake there is thinking that their entire new line-up can all be "Premium" at the same time.

Or that a budget-friendly mid-range chip (3600) last time around can now be a "Premium" chip, whilst occupying the same spot in the new line-up.

People aren't all stupid, and won't accept that your entire line up all all "premium" offerings, and therefore everything should cost more.

Btw what you guys call "premium" we used to call "progress". New chips used to come along that were better than the old chips and *replaced* them. Not co-existed with them.

 

[Armageus]

Or that a budget-friendly mid-range chip (3600) last time around can now be a "Premium" chip, whilst occupying the same spot in the new line-up.

It's not the same spot though - at present it's higher in the product stack as the 3600x is still being sold. Why should a product with more performance instantly be the same price as the old one just because they both have a x6xx in the product name?

In all likelihood it will drop in price and fall back into a better price slot, either when 3xxx stock is discontinued or Intel provide a reason for AMD to change prices.

 

[pc-guy]

If your going by the zen 3 slides vs stock Intel CPU I still think Intel will win when overclocked and is now the cheaper option for 6 and 8 cores.

how do you know the AMD cpu can’t be over clocked? It’s weird that you are comparing two situations where the parts aren’t expected to do the same thing and drawing your own conclusions on unknown factors.


What we do know is that Latest intel CPU has very little overclock headroom due to the factory overclock. And we know that they boost much higher than even zen3. So in essence stock intel clocks higher and boosts higher and still looses.

how much does an overclocked 10900k give you in terms of performance with consumer grade cooling over a stock 10900k? Not a lot. If rumours are to be believed, these new zen3 chips able to hit 5GHz that will give you far bigger improvement over stock zen3 than intel.

anyway speculation on overclocked situation. But stock vs stock AMD is ahead. So let’s see how the reviews come out before we conclusively say one thing or the other.

honestly just put all your AMD fanboy and intel Fanboy mantra down for a second. This generation of AMD chip can be a watershed moment when the lead in the market swings. So best to approach this with a blank slate and look at ALL the facts and forget past dogma.

 

[NZXT30]

It's corperations. Just like Intel and Nvidia, if you're in pole position you can afford to increase margins. It was the same when the FX series was spanking Intel's Netburst and it's the same now.

Yes they are just corporations that's why I don't care about either of them and I just want them to engage in price wars. Right now the best thing would be an Intel come back so AMD can go back to being the underdog offering bang for buck cpus.

 

[Journey]

This thread in a sentence. "Wow, that is impressive performance, but it is more expensive so I'm going to spend less and get a slower CPU, or non at all"

Lots of people holding on to their ancient 2500K's, 4770K's etc. Holding out hope for another 3, 6, 12 months, lol.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Loads and loads of people are complaining about the price in this thread?!

Some were defending it here and elsewhere.

 

[FoxEye]

It's not the same spot though - at present it's higher in the product stack as the 3600x is still being sold. Why should a product with more performance instantly be the same price as the old one just because they both have a x6xx in the product name?

Actually people only suggested it should meet the launch pricing of the previous gen, which is more reasonable than you make out.

And again, people expect progress.

You all lambasted Intel for keeping 4c as the mainstream SKU. Now when AMD keeps 6c as the main SKU I guess we're waiting to applaud Intel when they force AMD's hand?

In all likelihood it will drop in price and fall back into a better price slot, either when 3xxx stock is discontinued or Intel provide a reason for AMD to change prices.

OK - I see that's exactly where we are. AMD are now the evil Intel and we're waiting for Intel to force progress* whilst AMD sits on 6c and hikes prices.

And they should have value SKUs in the new line up, not just top-end SKUs.

*Progress being vfm and cores per SKU. 6c should be in our rear-view mirror by now.

 

[Journey]

And they should have value SKUs in the new line up, not just top-end SKUs.

Because they didn't immediately release a 3600 > 5600 at a similar price you are annoyed as you've waiting forever like someone who just missed the only bus of the day.
That doesn't mean they aren't going to, the just have not yet, they are using the same 7nm process for the 3600 as they are for the 5600X, so perhaps they are just biding their time let the stock deplete until the can have a two pronged approach, both capturing the value segment, and the performance segment leaving the competition firmly stuck in the middle. Maybe they'll just keep the 3600 as well, and drop that back down to ~£140.

I know you won't be happy until a 5600 is £150, and you'll keep banging on about it until the cows come home, but face up to facts you aren't getting it. You could have had a 3600 for £145 6 months ago, and faced with paying 92% (£279) more for a 5600X aggrieves you, even though it's only a 19% difference in performance (confirmation dependant).

 

[FoxEye]

Because they didn't immediately release a 3600 > 5600 at a similar price you are annoyed as you've waiting forever like someone who just missed the only bus of the day.
That doesn't mean they aren't going to, the just have not yet, they are using the same 7nm process for the 3600 as they are for the 5600X, so perhaps they are just biding their time let the stock deplete until the can have a two pronged approach, both capturing the value segment, and the performance segment leaving the competition firmly stuck in the middle. Maybe they'll just keep the 3600 as well, and drop that back down to ~£140.

I know you won't be happy until a 5600 is £150, and you'll keep banging on about it until the cows come home, but face up to facts you aren't getting it. You could have had a 3600 for £145 6 months ago, and faced with paying 92% (£279) more for a 5600X aggrieves you, even though it's only a 19% difference in performance (confirmation dependant).

No I was looking at a 5700X if you must know. I never had any intention of buying a 6 core, or I would have got the 3600.

But thanks for pointing out what a terrible purchase the 5600X would be at this time, compared to its predecessor.

I also note that like a true AMD superfan, you're celebrating the fact that prices have risen and that vfm has got worse. Because to a superfan like you, the most important thing is your darling AMD's revenue stream.

There must be a name for this "corporate Stockholm syndrome" effect.

 

[COYS]

This thread in a sentence. "Wow, that is impressive performance, but it is more expensive so I'm going to spend less and get a slower CPU, or non at all"

Lots of people holding on to their ancient 2500K's, 4770K's etc. Holding out hope for another 3, 6, 12 months, lol.

2700K owner says hi!

 

[Armageus]

*Progress being vfm and cores per SKU. 6c should be in our rear-view mirror by now.

And then what? AMD were bashed with their "MOAR CORES" phase for years. The 5xxx range potentially offers a decent IPC boost and AMD are still in the wrong.

I know you won't be happy until a 5600 is £150, and you'll keep banging on about it until the cows come home, but face up to facts you aren't getting it. You could have had a 3600 for £145 6 months ago, and faced with paying 92% (£279) more for a 5600X aggrieves you, even though it's only a 19% difference in performance (confirmation dependant).

My £199 3700X from the start of the year is looking like a great buy

 

[FoxEye]

My £199 3700X from the start of the year is looking like a great buy

It always was a great buy. Sadly limited to people who could make their way to one specific city in the country, and in doing so not negate the saving..

And then what? AMD were bashed with their "MOAR CORES" phase for years. The 5xxx range potentially offers a decent IPC boost and AMD are still in the wrong.

Should at least have the same number of cores for the mid-range PC part as in the consoles.

Above that would be "moar cores" territory.

Having less cores than a console is lolworthy. Just remember we've got Win10 eating up resources for fun.

 

[Journey]

No I was looking at a 5700X if you must know. I never had any intention of buying a 6 core, or I would have got the 3600.

But thanks for pointing out what a terrible purchase the 5600X would be at this time, compared to its predecessor.

Yep, just as Intel was terrible by offering 5-10% on average often at similar price gaps, yet some people found ways to try and justify it "'cause gaming, huh"

5700X isn't happening anytime soon, at £409-419 the 5800X leaves a gap obviously but when will AMD want to fill that gap, at a guess I'd say when/if Intel decide they need to take the 'value' segment/approach and reduce their prices pushing the 10700K to £319, at which point AMD launch the 5700X at £319 but it's faster, so Intel then have to drop again to £299, and AMD match if they want to.

You can't increase prices after launch but you can easily lower them or push in new models (see the 10850K), this allows AMD to hit Intel where it hurts, in the pocket, once the prices have dropped then Intel are making less per die, and still selling less, AMD on the other hand know they can sell the 3700X/5700X at £319 as that is what they did last year, and since they are are from a manufacturing perspective almost identical, the costs don't change, just the margins went up. This is exactly how competition works, you do show your whole poker hand to the rest of the table, you take advantage when you are holding all the Aces.

Oh, you could get a 3700X online for £242 in May, but let me guess still too expensive, but only 10% slower than the 9900K which was at the time £450+

 

[RavenXXX2]

People are free to buy Intel if they are not happy with AMDs $50 HIKE.

 

[FoxEye]

People are free to buy Intel if they are not happy with AMDs $50 HIKE.

It's disingenuous not to mention the missing VFM products in the line-up.

Who people like @Journey are crowing about not even coming further down the tracks. So AMD can gouge low-end buyers as much as humanly possible through forced upselling to a more expensive product.

 

[Vince]

I actually think that they are well priced. I mean it's a substantial change to the arc, they are offering a proper uplift in performance not some couple of % here and there and its the best of the best. I actually think its an entirely fair amount of money to ask for a processor that really has no proper competition.

 

[ljt]

I also note that like a true AMD superfan, you're celebrating the fact that prices have risen and that vfm has got worse. Because to a superfan like you, the most important thing is your darling AMD's revenue stream.

There must be a name for this "corporate Stockholm syndrome" effect.

Indeed, you see it from all "fans" of Intel/Nvidia/AMD they must have vested interest via shares or something. I just can't comprehend why anyone would like a company enough to contemplate their profits/revenue etc.

I'm just a consumer, I don't particularly like any company, I don't give a knats knacker about a companies revenue/share price/profit, all I care about is the price for a given performance criteria of a product I have some interest in. I don't care who makes it, how much it's apparently cost them to make, all I care about is whether I think it's a good price. If it isn't, then it's my right to call it out and voice my opinion, and withhold my purchase until it fits my criteria.