The performance gains looked promising in the announcement, but it's probably best to wait for official reviews before passing final judgement.
Well it perfectly describes the biases of 99% of the posters in this thread, including you.
and if we use 720p & 768p gaming performance (anandtech data), 10900k takes the lead. that's true. but... not anymore if zen3 is as good as what amd showed us. this is a useless metric for gamers though, nobody plays at 720p low.
The AMD 3rd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 3700X and 3900X Raising The Bar
www.anandtech.com
What is late? You have a company developing products according to what is possible, such as, fab capacity, R&D constraints, time to amortize R&D, etc. How exactly do you suspend reality and wish magical products out of nothing?say it on oct 8 then say it goes on sale nov 5???
why not just wait and see what intel has in march.
video cards show on oct 28 ....I am assuming sale dec 1
AMD has to know that they are 6 months late on release and still dragging ass
Are you suggesting users wait 6 months to buy a 14nm intel chip which will have inferior IPC, only 8 cores and most likely slightly higher clocks? Please use common sense. The only up side with Rocketlake launch is addition of few SKUs to Zen3 lineup that will most likely cut the prices by about 50 USD.say it on oct 8 then say it goes on sale nov 5???
why not just wait and see what intel has in march.
video cards show on oct 28 ....I am assuming sale dec 1
AMD has to know that they are 6 months late on release and still dragging ass
Why should saying any negative(which by the way I haven't, except point out that the marketing numbers don't imply an outright lead) things about a CPU series antagonize people? Are people that invested emotionally in wanting their preferred choice to "win", so much so in fact that they throw all rationality out of the window?Antagonizing others by posting only the negative things one can find doesn't help the situation.
I have only seen negative and argumentative posts from you in this thread, so I would have to agree with @Kenmitch .Why should saying any negative(which by the way I haven't, except point out that the marketing numbers don't imply an outright lead) things about a CPU series antagonize people? Are people that invested emotionally in wanting their preferred choice to "win", so much so in fact that they throw all rationality out of the window?
Since its the exact same node, i think the 75-80mm2 size of the Zen 2 chiplet will remain more or less unchanged. The cores are slightly wider, but now with all 8 grouped to the same CCX there could be enough space savings to offset that. All in all AMD should be getting about 600 chiplets per wafer, and they have access to 30,000 wafer starts per month on TSMC's 7nm lines.Did AMD physically show the processor? I am wondering about how big the chiplet is.
Now, now, don't take it so hard; Intel had a good run. You'll be ok, I promise.You know there is a meta-review at 3DCenter.org - compiling the results from different reviews, and it shows that the gap is clearly more than 2%.
Are you still in denial?
Pointing out the fact that one needs to look at marketing data more closely is negative in your opinion?
Price rises still suck though, pricing wise they are not a million miles different from the others we all criticise.
Are you suggesting users wait 6 months to buy a 14nm intel chip which will have inferior IPC, only 8 cores and most likely slightly higher clocks? Please use common sense. The only up side with Rocketlake launch is addition of few SKUs to Zen3 lineup that will most likely cut the prices by about 50 USD.
Also, the moment you claim virtually everyone else in the thread is biased, the dialogue is over.Waiting for the official reviews is what a logical person would do. There's no need to overhype or downplay at this time.
Well it perfectly describes the biases of 99% of the posters in this thread, including you.
Yea no question AMD is the "go to" vendor now, can they actually produce enough cpu's to actually take the lions share? I have my doubts.My take is, AMD can justify the higher prices because assuming the numbers are correct, they will be the "go to" vendor for premium CPU performance across the widest variety of apps. Intel has no HEDT/mainstream solution that isn't based on their aging Skylake architecture, so they are going to be pummeled into the dirt; especially from a performance per watt perspective.
I look forward to seeing what Zen 4 will offer with 5nm and DDR5, and Intel's response with Golden Cove.
Well I hadn't considered that, value is a multi layered equation, ultimately though what value is determined by is what the consumer deems important or what information they can take in.I'd like to make the point that the 5600x and 5900x are a good deal compared to their intel counterparts. 10600k with a $20 cooler and the cheapest z490 mobo is $425 right now. And while per chip the 5600x is $25 more than the i5, it actually comes with its own cooler and motherboards start out at half the cost of the intel platform. 300+70>425 And with the 5900x and a b550 board you can save a solid $40 over an intel platform, and even then good AMD motherboards are still much cheaper than good intel boards at this time.
Yea efficiency is the most surprising aspect for me, AMD has not even pulled the power card yet, which they have made clear in some statement I read, they have that in reserve.Don't forget AMD is more efficient than Intel so that is another benefit for AMD
Ugh, a lot of the top YouTubers are claiming Intel just got crushed - without any independent review data (annoying)
AMD has succeeded in creating a pretty decent hype train. Pretty good marketing strategy.
I think everyone got a bit blindsided by the ST performance lead claim. Most were expecting a healthy jump in gaming performance, but only a conservative IPC jump.Ugh, a lot of the top YouTubers are claiming Intel just got crushed - without any independent review data (annoying)
Do you disagree that there are outliers in AMD's gaming benchmark comparison?