• 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.

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

Nghtmare said:
Facts. The 9900K its better at games by a small margin because games have been made mainly to favour Intel since Ryzen was not really a "gamers" CPU. However when you check benchmarks that test the CPU as a whole like C20 even the 3700X trades blows with the 9900K, let alone the 3900X which is in a league of its own.
Click to expand...

Many game engines have Intel specific machine code optimizations in areas where performance tricks are needed - there is a bit of a twist to that though in that often similar ways of tuning for AMD CPUs simply don't exist. A lot of the performance optimizations patches for Zen are to make up for software issues such as the Windows scheduler not working optimally for the CPU.

TrM said:
i doubt we will ever see that day intel will pull ahead at some time again whilst amd are putting up a massive fight atm and i think they will for a few years but they have to find a successor to zen one day and intel have more money more man power and can aford to take more risks with having such a market share on the prebuilt and laptop etc which makes them the most money amd really havent cracked that yet :(
Click to expand...

It'll come if/when Intel feel sufficiently threatened the bigger problem than tech development is management (or rather lack of) and for some reason a hang up on 10nm - even though they are in a position to bypass it now they seem intent on throwing good money after bad.
 
B1gbeard said:
Has there been any indication that there is more in the tank for the 3xxx CPU's based on the 2xxx say? The 2xxx series seems to be in a pretty similar place to where it was on release. Just wondering if it made any ground up at all on the 8700k would it have been at that time?
Click to expand...

I was just wondering this. AMD stated after Zen they had spotted some "low hanging fruit" they were going to pick off for some improvements with Zen+. Can't help but wonder how good Zen2+ (???) may be when they release a revised version of this current gen.
 
B1gbeard said:
Has there been any indication that there is more in the tank for the 3xxx CPU's based on the 2xxx say? The 2xxx series seems to be in a pretty similar place to where it was on release. Just wondering if it made any ground up at all on the 8700k would it have been at that time?
Click to expand...

Ryzen 1000 gained quiet a lot of gaming performance in time post initial release as developers started optimizing for it, much less so for Ryzen 2000 as they are essentially the same.

Ryzen 3000 is different again, but unlike Ryzen 1000 it carries in a lot of performance before optimizations for this new architecture are in place.

The thing with Intel is they haven't changed their architecture in a decade or more, so they are well optimized for, this is great if you want to play it safe, you're always on top if the other keeps changing but it creates stagnation.

AMD's method seems to be keep advancing but also create an architecture that's strong enough to offset some of that that lack of optimization early on, this appears to be exactly what they have done.
 
Rroff said:
Many game engines have Intel specific machine code optimizations in areas where performance tricks are needed - there is a bit of a twist to that though in that often similar ways of tuning for AMD CPUs simply don't exist. A lot of the performance optimizations patches for Zen are to make up for software issues such as the Windows scheduler not working optimally for the CPU.
Click to expand...
That's what I mean. Zen 2 was released 10 days ago, nothing was optimized to use the chips at their full potential AND even then they are losing to Intel by a very very small margin.
 
Ryzen 4000 will be on 7nm+, a slightly enhanced Ryzen 3000, slight IPC increase, small bump in clock speeds, just like Ryzen 1000 vs Ryzen 2000, Ryzen 5000 will be different again and on 5nm.

Tick Tock Tick Tock..... ;)
 
Actually lads I've lead you all down the garden path. I re-watched that HUnboxed 36 bench suite and the gap is 5%, not the 6% I kept repeating. 6% is when the 3900X has PBO and auto-overclock turned on whereas the 9900K is overclocked to 5Ghz. :cool:
 
humbug said:
Ryzen 4000 will be on 7nm+, a slightly enhanced Ryzen 3000, slight IPC increase, small bump in clock speeds, just like Ryzen 1000 vs Ryzen 2000, Ryzen 5000 will be different again and on 5nm.

Tick Tock Tick Tock..... ;)
Click to expand...

the road map says zen 3 will be on 5nm but i will bet 20p that will not be 5nm it will be 7nm euv i very much doubt the 5nm will be ready for zen 3 and a much improved 7nm will be used
 
Zen 3 is Ryzen 5000, Zen 2+ is 7nm+ and Ryzen 4000 ^^^^ :)

Boot_Loop said:
Actually lads I've lead you all down the garden path. I re-watched that HUnboxed 36 bench suite and the gap is 5%, not the 6% I kept repeating. 6% is when the 3900X has PBO and auto-overclock turned on whereas the 9900K is overclocked to 5Ghz. :cool:
Click to expand...

A couple of the games in that benchmark have since launch had Ryzen 3000 patches, like World War Z for example which they used in the launch benchmark's was about 20% or more behind Intel, the patch has reduced that deficit to 2%, in fact the 1% lows are slightly higher than the 9900K.

Continuing work with Ryzen 3000 is already closing up the difference vs the 9900K seen initially on release.
 
Last edited:
orbitalwalsh said:
@4K8KW10

greed is good for AMD currently ! need to make max profit consumer side before intel drops their next line up and will drop price accordingly . AMD did what they needed to price wise with first 2 gens and this is correct for the time being with 3rd series. It will drop down in the near future, but why drop it now when chips are OUT of stock, demand is HIGH and max profit is being generated !

server side they are killing intel in pricing and still make sense not to raise prices as much as desktop as they still need to capture more market- push more companies onto their platform .

hopefully they can follow on trend and increase R&D as the'll need to for intels 10nm ! as manufacturing wise, 7nm EUV should be on par with it . Key question is, AMD werent able to increase speed so much with Die shrink to half size, can intel pull this off with IPC increase as well ?
Click to expand...

The lack of stock is a valid point but doesn't explain why AMD failed to offer a normally clocked 65W 12-core SKU. Or why they decided to inflate the model numbering, the Ryzen 3 SKUs should have been six-core and Ryzen 5 SKUs 8-core.

I don't see how they will make profit when most of the consumers wouldn't buy into these prices.
AMD's plan doesn't work.
 
AMD is selling a £320 8/16 CPU that competes with Intel's £480-500 8/16 CPU, and you are still upset? That is not factoring a cooler which will increase the difference.
 
4K8KW10 said:
The lack of stock is a valid point but doesn't explain why AMD failed to offer a normally clocked 65W 12-core SKU. Or why they decided to inflate the model numbering, the Ryzen 3 SKUs should have been six-core and Ryzen 5 SKUs 8-core.

I don't see how they will make profit when most of the consumers wouldn't buy into these prices.
AMD's plan doesn't work.
Click to expand...

sorry but a 12 core 65w part ? you got to be kidding me im suprised they have a 65w 8 core cpu neverr mind a 12 core

they moved the numbering along to match intel wont look good if intel have i3 i5 i7 i9 cpu and amd have r3 r5 r7 cpu? why did intel call the i9 9900k ? and not a intel i7 9800k and then have the 8 core pure part at i5 and 6 core i3?

people complain when amd are to cheap and just a budget chip now they offer a ryzen 9 12 core at 479.99 in the uk were is intels answer for it (gaming aside ) there cpu is upwards of 1k that it tangles with core for core

amd just playing by the rules others set intel changed the naming first amd just followed

to me amd hit the points they was aiming for cant talk about the 16 core yet but it it follows ryzen 9 12 core intels answer is still hell of a lot more cash
 
Nghtmare said:
AMD is selling a £320 8/16 CPU that competes with Intel's £480-500 8/16 CPU, and you are still upset? That is not factoring a cooler which will increase the difference.
Click to expand...

It's because there is the Ryzen 7 2700 that already competes with the i9-9900 and has done it since April of last year. AMD wants from us to pay 50% on top of its price tag of £200 and get 20% or so performance uplift. 50 for 20 is not normal.
 
4K8KW10 said:
The lack of stock is a valid point but doesn't explain why AMD failed to offer a normally clocked 65W 12-core SKU. Or why they decided to inflate the model numbering, the Ryzen 3 SKUs should have been six-core and Ryzen 5 SKUs 8-core.

I don't see how they will make profit when most of the consumers wouldn't buy into these prices.
AMD's plan doesn't work.
Click to expand...

ryzen 3 would have never have been 6 core. ever purely for the fact of APU using 4 cores . along with Intel setting the 3/5/7/9 naming scheme for the last decade or so .

pretty much easy enough for anyone new or more focused on intel to adapt to AMD.

WHY would you offer a lower watt 12 SKU when it would either eat into the sales of 8 cores, avoid people buying higher 12 core when Intel and AMD TDP stating aren't true - ALL AMD CPUs can be overclcoked and thus TDP can be overridden . Are you saying AMD should adapt a locked intel eco system ? if so... i agree... lock low tdp cores to set speeds and lower ram timings !

make more money !

@Journey was right- intel did make a lot of chips, but not enough !!! haha also have to deal with dies going into up and coming thread ripper. yes they can make more dies since they are 7nm and not 14nm, but they are almost using the same amount of dies per product and they are selling fast !

2700 only competed in certain fields, now its every field ! 3600 does so well in Photshop and lightroom compared to the slower performance of 2700x and beats it whilst matching intel
 
orbitalwalsh said:
WHY would you offer a lower watt 12 SKU when it would either eat into the sales of 8 cores, avoid people buying higher 12 core when Intel and AMD TDP stating aren't true - ALL AMD CPUs can be overclcoked and thus TDP can be overridden . Are you saying AMD should adapt a locked intel eco system ? if so... i agree... lock low tdp cores to set speeds and lower ram timings !
Click to expand...

If the SKUs don't OC anyways, there is no point in them being unlocked. So yes, better be cheaper, cooler and locked.
 
Last edited:
4K8KW10 said:
The lack of stock is a valid point but doesn't explain why AMD failed to offer a normally clocked 65W 12-core SKU. Or why they decided to inflate the model numbering, the Ryzen 3 SKUs should have been six-core and Ryzen 5 SKUs 8-core.

I don't see how they will make profit when most of the consumers wouldn't buy into these prices.
AMD's plan doesn't work.
Click to expand...


Well, the great thing is you have an alternative, just go out and buy a 65 Watt 12 core Intel CPU instead, oh? wait........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom