I'll wait till the Ryzen 2nd gen reaches 1st gen prices... after the announcement. $10/$20 off isn't going to clear inventory. A $270 2700x at $200 or less might.Microcenter appears to have $10-$20 additional off many Ryzen processors.
Clearing inventory?
As a 8700k owner I think the relevant question for gamers at the end of the day is; at a certain price point, who gives the best cpu for gaming?
Its not about cores or memory latency it's about performance at a certain price.
Tested in a realistic user scenario at 60 or 144hz.
To me the relevant criteria here to test is can you consistently 99.99% of the time stay above those 60/144hz in your current game portfolio and the portfolio you will have in 3/xx years. Set your % targets. If not 99.99% mins what is your target then?
If you play eg arma3 it's only a question of memory latency and Intel will probably stay ahead for 144Hz gaming. Drawcall limitations for games based on older engines. They still is a huge part of the games out there.
If you play eg bf it becomes more muddy. At 6/12t an Intel will probably stay ahead for current bf5. But what happens in the comming crop of games? When the new consoles arrives?
Any 4 thread cpu is imo next to unplayable in bf for 60hz and even a 8t takes 40hz dips regularly. In games like overwatch it's the same problem just at 144hz. The games becomes throughput limited. When a games becomes throughput limited it just tanks.
Those people getting a 1600x instead of a 4c/4t Intel at same pricepoint in 2017 imo for the most part have by far the best cpu. Especially for the future. They can also upgrade now.
But Intel portfolio is far better today than in 2017 start 2018 for gaming. 6c cores is mainstream and it makes a huge difference. 8400 is a darn nice processor for gaming and you can use cheap ram.
The important thing imo is will Amd improve the memory controller so much that for the mainstream, will it not be the weak link any more? Is it good enough so to speak?
With the 9900k you can just have your cake and eat it. But it comes at at cost. If you can have 99% of the same gaming performance for half the price that's a huge plus. The mainstream is imo the most important market. Also as an enthusiast that can buy whatever suits me.
So it's not only a matter of memory latency but also how amd chooses to price the processor.
Gaming performance matters hugely for the b2c market. Imo they need to price the 3600x at same price as current 2600x if not lower to take a step forward in market share.
They simply need to offer the same advantage vs Intel for the mainstream as they did 2017. If not, who cares, as a gamer I will just get Intel cpu.
This keeps sales at AMD. 2700x/2600x were the biggest sellers.
2 to 1 sales outnumbered.
AMD has been practically neck to neck and in a number of cases dominating Intel for a while. No one besides a super niche group of people are buying 9900ks.
Are those direct sales to consumers? The part of the market that builds their own PCs is a small part compared to the various suppliers of pre-built computers, and I don't believe that AMD is nearly as successful there, though I do suspect they're grabbing market share there as well.
It's also silly to discount the niche, high-end parts. I recall some years ago when Apple was losing market share in smartphones (or just phones now I suppose) but were still hauling in 95% or more of the profit. Even though halo products like the 9900K are a small part of the total revenue, and an even smaller part of the total sales, they can actually serve as a very profitable product.
I fixed image link in the post. It was from mindfactory.de.Are those direct sales to consumers? The part of the market that builds their own PCs is a small part compared to the various suppliers of pre-built computers, and I don't believe that AMD is nearly as successful there, though I do suspect they're grabbing market share there as well.
It's also silly to discount the niche, high-end parts. I recall some years ago when Apple was losing market share in smartphones (or just phones now I suppose) but were still hauling in 95% or more of the profit. Even though halo products like the 9900K are a small part of the total revenue, and an even smaller part of the total sales, they can actually serve as a very profitable product.
Are those direct sales to consumers? The part of the market that builds their own PCs is a small part compared to the various suppliers of pre-built computers, and I don't believe that AMD is nearly as successful there, though I do suspect they're grabbing market share there as well.
It's also silly to discount the niche, high-end parts. I recall some years ago when Apple was losing market share in smartphones (or just phones now I suppose) but were still hauling in 95% or more of the profit. Even though halo products like the 9900K are a small part of the total revenue, and an even smaller part of the total sales, they can actually serve as a very profitable product.
Jim from Adoredtv replied only a few minutes ago, stating that he's just been asked if he wanted review an "upcoming X570".
If true, this is going to blindside so many. Glad I waited to build my new PC soon on 7nm.Jim from Adoredtv replied only a few minutes ago, stating that he's just been asked if he wanted review an "upcoming X570".
That suggests we're maybe not gonna be waiting too long for AMD to be hitting us with their Zen 2 CPUs.
You mean since they introduced Zen, right? As @tamz_msc articulated, inter-CCX latency is one of the things that's punishing Zen and Zen+ in some games. Speed up the IF link and move all 8 cores to the same chiplet and things get intereseting.
Essentially, people who know what they're doing and buying select AMD overwhelmingly (takes about 15 minutes to plug computer components together and its foolproof). Theres videos of 10 years olds doing it on youtube. Those that don't and buy prepackaged take what Intel has established in the regular distribution channels. From a consumer perspective, this speaks for itself.Those are sales figures from Mindfactory.de Germany's largest e-tailer. So those are sales figures for sales to the DIY market in Germany and other countries they ship to.
I am really curious how this will pan out, if we are really going to get 16 cores at high clocks for mainstream platform for mainstream prices... i still have hard time believing that. But that is just me growing cynical thanks to all those years of Intel price gouging and whatnot...
i bought 6850k in August 2016 for 600 EUROs and few months later Ryzens made it obsolete with more cores for less money... i fixed that by replacing x99 with x299 last year...lets see if AMD will make it obsolete in few days... again. I guess its happening. But if i bought 2950x in last few months (obviously not to mention anything Intel) and this core number, clockspeeds, pricing rumors come true, i would be really unhappy.
Rumors come in two flavors :
> Unsubstantied Clickbait (common)
> Clearly Substantiated backed by product in hand or official information (rare)
I'm treating all of this nonsense that isn't coming from AMD as hot garbage. Next week I'll have the real info and even then I can't make a purchase. Nothing from these rumors changes this especially coming from a bandwagon of people who makes boatloads of money on clicks and views.
i still bought a 2700x even knowing about the leaked cores counts and clocks because i want a solid 8c/16t core. the 8c/16t ryzen 3xxx could be 2x 4core/8thread but at a higher clock due to binning. i am uncertain about how well it work in gaming/light productivity applications in the current win OS environment, given TR's multi die issues/legacy modes.
if ryzen 4xxx goes the active interposer butter doughnut route then some of those penalties can be reduced. so i can wait. needing a x570/b550 board for the 16c/32t on am4 is a grey area that i want to see play out first.
but for anyone else in the upgrade cycle, dirt cheap 6c/12t up to 16c/32t on zen2 is a no brainer.
Wont you be slightly annoyed though? If 3800x drops with 16C at higher clocks and more or less same price as your 2700x?
the price difference for firesale 2700x when zen2 comes out will be a bit painful, but the first gen of anything isnt worth the hassle to me. i skipped ryzen 1700 because of the ram/mb timing issues, and the 2x00 is stable.Wont you be slightly annoyed though? If 3800x drops with 16C at higher clocks and more or less same price as your 2700x? Knowing that if you waited few more months you could have had that.... i know i would be. I still recall the bad taste of my 6850k purchase - granted it was HEDT platform with quad channel and whatnot, but still slower than half the price R1700... at multicore tasks... but i never ever saw that coming, i mean AMD undercutting Intel that hard. Sure, i expected them to sell Ryzens cheaper than Intel, after all that is what they always did, but if 8C Broadwell-E went for 1000 at the time, i expected AMD to price Ryzen at say 600 or so, but not 300.
This time around though, i wont be surprised one bit, if that happens. But still i find it hard to believe until it does, as this time around, they would be undercutting their own products, which are not even half year at the market.
2950x is HEDT. Quad channel memory, properly fed cores, and properly scaled I/O speak for themselves. 16core on AM4 will be weird and I don't expect it to be less than $500. At ~$800 for 2950x, there's nothing upsetting. Instead of 1 nvme slot (PCI x4), you get 3. Instead of 2 x8 PCI slots, you get : 2x8 and 2x16. Instead of Dual channel, you get quad channel. The price difference is substantiated.
Also, since everyone knew what was coming this year, there's nothing to be butthurt about. Lastly, stuff in computing gets halved all the time and depreciation is swift. Everyone should know this by now. Buy an Nvme drive for $240.. 6 months later its $120 .. which makes me go out and buy another and be thankful for the significant price drop
No, because I bought computer equipment in the 80s and the 90s when this sort of thing happened with regularity. The thing that truly annoyed me for years is that I couldn't buy better hardware every year. I guess because Intel decided no one needed more than four cores and a few more Mhz. The whole POINT is to buy better hardware. How am I going to feed an 8k TV if all I have is hardware I used to build 1080p videos?
Better, faster, cheaper. Pick three.
Why in god's name would this annoy me?!
I grow tired of manipulative practices quite easily.For some reason, it wouldn't surprise me if AMD chose Jim to leak this information to.
Edit: I also want to add that I think that there will be a Ryzen 9 3850x 50th Anniversary Editon heading his way as well.
I have no clue what other people are doing with their processors but my Ryzen 7's I/O is the bare minimum I can tolerate. 1 GPU/1 NIC (all of my PCIE slots are gone) and then I have 1 nvme for main and some sata.. All of my I/O is gone.Then again chances are you can get away with single Nvme (cant you put more of them on some PCI-E card BTW?), single GPU (not to mention real-world performance difference between 8x and 16x not being that hot) and the effect of quad vs dual channel on 16C remains to be seen (could very well be not much)...in which case you are left with actually slower CPU (if the clock rumors are true) for say 300 more.
Not at all since its a norm that things drop by half in price after a year or so in computing.Depreciation is swift no doubt - as far as CPUs go, it was not so much, just 2 years ago. Very likely, in 2 years time, it may as well not be again. Cause i doubt they keep doubling the core count every year ad absurdum now. Or decreasing node or increasing frequency.
Is it not obvious? :-D You could have saved money by getting (maybe) half the price 8C Ryzen 2, or get double the perf for same money with 16C.
But when you say you were annoyed by not being able to upgrade every year before, i understand your viewpoint. It is just vastly different from mine, who could not upgrade that often, even if wanted to, so i guess i tend to prize my purchases more, as i keep them longer.