Intel to Cut Prices of its Desktop Processors by 15% in Response to Ryzen 3000

TrM · 16 Jul 2019 at 10:02

nhornby51743 said:
Couldn't agree more, I think that Ryzen will defo pick up steam by Zen 11 in 2033....that'll really stick it to the boys at Intel!

amd have allready stuck it to intel

sorry but intel have been caught napping and sleeping by ryzen. all you 9700k 9900k and 8700k user out there sould be thanking amd

u really think 8700k and 9700k would be what they are and not just 4 core 8 thread cpu?

nhornby51743 · 16 Jul 2019 at 10:08

TrM said:
amd have allready stuck it to intel sorry but intel have been caught napping and sleeping by ryzen. all you 9700k 9900k and 8700k user out there sould be thanking amd u really think 8700k and 9700k would be what they are and not just 4 core 8 thread cpu?

I think competition is great, and I would honestly love to see AMD beat Intel clean across the board, although I really don't see that happening, as they are constantly playing catch-up in gaming.

DragonQ · 16 Jul 2019 at 10:09

nomadd said:
Absolutely correct.

And we have to wait until 2020 for B550, which will probably be as big a mess on release as X570. So add another 6 months of "stabilisation" before it makes sense to actually buy anything AMD related.

As much as I love what AMD is doing with Ryzen - my god, it's the kick in the balls Intel has needed for a long time - the mindless fanaticism by the AMD fanboys on OCUK is getting ridiculous; many of the posts are now just completely childish.

What's the point of B550? What is it going to offer over B450 that you can buy now (and in a couple of months should support Ryzen 3000 out of the box)?

4K8KW10 · 16 Jul 2019 at 10:11

DragonQ said:
What's the point of B550? What is it going to offer over B450 that you can buy now (and in a couple of months should support Ryzen 3000 out of the box)?

The point is to decrease the total cost of purchase by reducing the features which are not needed for the average users.

B450 doesn't support PCIe 4.0.

TrM · 16 Jul 2019 at 10:12

nhornby51743 said:
I think competition is great, and I would honestly love to see AMD beat Intel clean across the board, although I really don't see that happening, as they are constantly playing catch-up in gaming.

in gaming yea but lets be honest here though intel are much bigger then amd and whilst amd are making a it prize fight atm i fully expect intel to wake up and start pulling ahead again intel have the money and people to to improve current cpu and put a lot of extra in to new articaure etc at the same time whilst amd snook up and did a massive sucker punch to intel its only a matetr of time till we will all say intel the only choice (quite a few years away though)

DragonQ · 16 Jul 2019 at 10:25

4K8KW10 said:
The point is to decrease the total cost of purchase by reducing the features which are not needed for the average users.

B450 doesn't support PCIe 4.0.

So are you saying that B550 does support PCIe 5.0? Do you have evidence of that? IMO it has to, otherwise it's worthless, but we don't know this yet.

Orange Nexus · 16 Jul 2019 at 10:28

4K8KW10 said:
The point is to decrease the total cost of purchase by reducing the features which are not needed for the average users.

B450 doesn't support PCIe 4.0.

Some B450s do support PCIe 4.0. The TUF B450M is one of them.

Sh4rkie · 16 Jul 2019 at 10:45

beany_bot said:
Have you lost your mind? 20%? Not even close to true. AND Ryzen is only going to get faster and faster over the coming months.

Yes roughly 20% averaged across the GN 1080p test results, it narrows at 1440p as things become gpu limited and is practically nil at 4k.

Curlyriff · 16 Jul 2019 at 11:26

Grim5 said:
The gap is 16.5% over a range of games

Pointless to do average like that tbh. Reviews use different games & quantity of games, resolution, game settings and thus you end up with difference averages.

If you take it as a per game from each of the different reviews and put them into the same resolution segment so you can compare different reviews to one another to get an average per specific game you will see what the variation is and then you can see what % per game difference is.

Boot_Loop · 16 Jul 2019 at 11:39

Grim5 said:
The gap is 16.5% over a range of games

Use your common sense please. The 9900K they are using there is overclocked to 5.1Ghz, it says right there. The 3900X is stock. The gap between the two at stock is 5%, hardly anything, and that's when gaming at 1080p and with a 2080 Ti. Not only does hardly anyone do this, out of all the people out there, few own a 2080 Ti too.

TechpowerUp tested with a large suite of games. It's funny, when AMD was losing bad, TPU were the go-to benchmarks. Now when the gap is tiny or margin of error, we got people quoting the amatuers over at Tom's Hardware!

Overclocking a 9900K, which is already power hungry and pushed to its limit, to 5Ghz on all cores results in massive heat and power draw, so it doesn't matter that it can overclock that high (and around 50% can't even get there without massive voltage), it's not a viable comparison.

Boot_Loop · 16 Jul 2019 at 11:45

nomadd said:
Sorry, but it's mindless speculation. Period.

If an uplift happens, then great news for all of us. But to use such speculative arguments against someone who is making a good case for Intel's current - and upcoming - CPUs is just plain silly.

And looking at the latest Gamers Nexus results (PBO, Auto-OC), it seems ANY form of boost is looking very unlikely.

Sure, newer game engines may be compiled/re-architectured to make better use of Ryzen 3000 (espeically in light of next gen. consoles), but that's a big if and a long way off - 2021/22 before we start to see a flood of new games. At that point, both Intel and AMD will have moved on to better CPUs, so all this speculation is completely moot.

It's not, 'period' (you should say full stop, this is not America).

I was just watching HardwareUnboxed latest video and World War Z has already received better multi-threaded update that dramatically improves performance on Ryzen 3900X/3700X:

https://youtu.be/RmxkpTtwx1k?t=339

It's happening right now, next week and next month, performance is going up all the time.

Grim5 · 16 Jul 2019 at 11:49

Boot_Loop said:
Use your common sense please. The 9900K they are using there is overclocked to 5.1Ghz, it says right there. The 3900X is stock. The gap between the two at stock is 5%, hardly anything, and that's when gaming at 1080p and with a 2080 Ti. Not only does hardly anyone do this, out of all the people out there, few own a 2080 Ti too.

TechpowerUp tested with a large suite of games. It's funny, when AMD was losing bad, TPU were the go-to benchmarks. Now when the gap is tiny or margin of error, we got people quoting the amatuers over at Tom's Hardware!

Overclocking a 9900K, which is already power hungry and pushed to its limit, to 5Ghz on all cores results in massive heat and power draw, so it doesn't matter that it can overclock that high (and around 50% can't even get there without massive voltage), it's not a viable comparison.

Both the 3900x and 9900k are overclocked - you should look at the graphs again - the 3700x, 3800x and 3900x, 9700k and 9900k are ALL OVERCLOCKED and using the same cooling solution.

It's not the testers fault that ryzen 3000 can't overclock for **** and only gains 0.5% extra fps, they did try

Orange Nexus · 16 Jul 2019 at 11:59

Boot_Loop said:
Use your common sense please. The 9900K they are using there is overclocked to 5.1Ghz, it says right there. The 3900X is stock. The gap between the two at stock is 5%, hardly anything, and that's when gaming at 1080p and with a 2080 Ti. Not only does hardly anyone do this, out of all the people out there, few own a 2080 Ti too.

TechpowerUp tested with a large suite of games. It's funny, when AMD was losing bad, TPU were the go-to benchmarks. Now when the gap is tiny or margin of error, we got people quoting the amatuers over at Tom's Hardware!

Overclocking a 9900K, which is already power hungry and pushed to its limit, to 5Ghz on all cores results in massive heat and power draw, so it doesn't matter that it can overclock that high (and around 50% can't even get there without massive voltage), it's not a viable comparison.

You can get a 9900K @ 5.1GHz easy.

** No competitor linking **

nomadd · 16 Jul 2019 at 12:50

Boot_Loop said:
It's not, 'period' (you should say full stop, this is not America).

You clearly missed my comment above about the childish stupidity that has become so common on OCUK these days.. And a better grasp of English would have resulted in you foregoing your superfluous comma.

Boot_Loop said:
I was just watching HardwareUnboxed latest video and World War Z has already received better multi-threaded update that dramatically improves performance on Ryzen 3900X/3700X:

https://youtu.be/RmxkpTtwx1k?t=339

It's happening right now, next week and next month, performance is going up all the time.

ONE. SINGLE. GAME. And a bad one at that.

Please show me the improvements in ALL the other games where Ryzen is behind - especially as it's happening "all the time."

EDIT: You can't. Period.

nhornby51743 · 16 Jul 2019 at 13:06

TrM said:
in gaming yea but lets be honest here though intel are much bigger then amd and whilst amd are making a it prize fight atm i fully expect intel to wake up and start pulling ahead again intel have the money and people to to improve current cpu and put a lot of extra in to new articaure etc at the same time whilst amd snook up and did a massive sucker punch to intel its only a matetr of time till we will all say intel the only choice (quite a few years away though)

I'd only give it until Comet Lake, tbh.

nhornby51743 · 16 Jul 2019 at 13:08

Boot_Loop said:
It's not, 'period' (you should say full stop, this is not America).

I was just watching HardwareUnboxed latest video and World War Z has already received better multi-threaded update that dramatically improves performance on Ryzen 3900X/3700X:

https://youtu.be/RmxkpTtwx1k?t=339

It's happening right now, next week and next month, performance is going up all the time.

It should have happened 7/7, though, let's be honest.

DragonQ · 16 Jul 2019 at 13:16

nhornby51743 said:
It should have happened 7/7, though, let's be honest.

Do you know how long it takes to optimise a codebase for a new CPU architecture? Most software never gets updated, let alone updated within a short timeframe (say a few months). It's a bit much to expect AMD to give game developers access to chips months before launch and for those studios to prioritise performance on new AMD CPUs at all. To be honest I think we've done well to get several high profile games updated since Zen 1's launch.

I would not bank on patches improving performance at this point. If you game at 1080p, don't do much else with your PC, and have spare budget after maxing out your GPU, just get an i7-9700K and forget about it. Zen wasn't for you and Zen 2 isn't for you either, let's stop all the fighting about it. At lower price brackets and for more diverse users, AMD is extremely competitive.

Steveocee · 16 Jul 2019 at 13:22

I think the pitiful thing from the graphs above are that a comparative CPU for Intel one generation to the next only yielded a 1.2% increase (8700>9700).

Same old Intel vs AMD argument that dogs this forum though, AMD are amazing yes but then you point out the chips don't actually outperform Intel and the argument turns to cost/power/heat. As an enthusiast, none of those really matters does it? You want best performance regardless.

nomadd · 16 Jul 2019 at 13:30

DragonQ said:
Most software never gets updated, let alone updated within a short timeframe (say a few months).

Exactly.

What is encouraging for Ryzen 3000 is that in newer games like Rage 2, it seems to be pretty much head-to-head with Intel. We'll have to wait a few months to see if this is a genuine trend, however. Hence why I'm happy to sit on the fence for now.

Alan1969 · 16 Jul 2019 at 13:33

for me I am not interested in single threaded shooter game benchmark on a 1080 monitor. I wish that we had some more benchmark on turn times for say total war Warhammer 2 (for 4k or 1440 monitors with mid range GPU) - then I would be able to make a god choice between Intel and AMD. I suspect that the Ryzen may be better for what I want (reduced turn times but OK performance in shooters - I don't get CPU bottlenecks)