I think I just broke multi-quote. Oh well. Moving right along . . .
Note the comma. Without it it would imply with performance as well. With it, it seems to mean that the 9900k uses as much power and that (the 9900k) has the performance as well. I had to re-read that line too.
You and your punctuation.
I still don't think FX9590 and 9900k deserve to be compared to one another, but damn them 9900k chips do get hot. And the 9900KS? Oh my. Zen2 to the rescue!
The current Ryzen 5 2600 (6C/12T, 65W TDP) maxes out at 3.9 GHz with a base clock of 3.4 GHz. Based on what we've heard so far about the architecture, it looks like Ryzen 5 3600 should boast 10-15% better IPC, better SMT, and far superior AVX2 performance. If this rumor is correct and they can add +200 MHz to the base clock and +300 MHz to the boost clock on top of that while maintaining the same TDP, I'd definitely consider that to be a decent generational gain.
It's an amazing gain, and it makes a lot of Intel and AMD chips look kind of silly in comparison. I wouldn't take any Intel 6c chips seriously anymore, and I'd be skeptical of some of AMD's older 8c chips from 2017, like a stock 1700. Hell that thing, overclocked, might give my 4 GHz 1800x a run for its money!
I wonder how much power the i9 9900KS draws at stock...
Of course, we know they'll claim 95w TDP.
BTW, 9900KS is 5.0GHz all core at all times.
Probably 210-220W.
The real question. Do I want an 8 core, 12 core or 16 core Zen 2 CPU when they are released into the wild?
16c is off the table, as you now know. The real question is, 12c vs 8c? And which one to get? 3700x may have all the same OC headroom as the 3800x, so that may be the smart choice. If we go by the example of the 2700 vs 2700x, the 2700x has maybe 100 MHz more OC headroom. That's it. 12c part probably hits the same clocks
if you can cool it. 16c comes later, I'm sure.
I don't understand why AMD would focus on X570 at Computex. Surely the mobo manufacturers should be doing that...? Why would they use their keynote to effectively promote companies that would sell you a mobo regardless of your choice of CPU?
I know, right?
If Lisa Su herself had revealed those specs back in September 2018, with a July 2019 release, then would we be calling her a fraud if they didn't exactly match what was revealed?
Investors might like to have a word with her about that. But she didn't do that so, we'll never know.
I tried to tell people in the other thread that the prices in the 'leak' were a bridge too far, but a couple of people kept saying margins didn't matter and it was all about winning marketshare.
The only thing that surprises me here is that there isn't yet an 8c option for $250-$279 or so. Otherwise, they did exactly as I predicted: stuck to the $500 price point for their top-of-the-line chip, and moved prices on down from there. If they're guilty of anything, it's of having too few SKUs at launch.
Also where is the 5.1Ghz 16C?
It was a toss-up as to whether a 16c part would even launch at this point. 16c comes later, probably for $550 or so. Maybe $599 but we'll see. I doubt it'll have turbo clocks higher than the 3900x.
Looks like they still have no competitor for the 2080 and 2080ti.
Predictable. I'm surprised they're even taking a swing at the 2070.
Double ouch when you consider how much IPC intel has lost since Zen release. If concrete, this puts AMD solidly in the IPC lead.
That's only for people who run all those mitigations, in workloads where they make a difference. I wouldn't be surprised to find a lot of Intel users disabling those wherever possible. But yeah, when you think about it, if this is what Intel has to face from Rome in the server room . . . whew.
I'm struggling to understand the difference between the 3700x and the 3800x other than a 100mhz increase.
$100, and a more-aggressive boost map on the 3800x. 3800x also gets a bigger cooler.
$499, makes their own $399 price point look bad.
It kind of does. I think they should have lowered the 3700x and 3800x by about $50. AMD is getting a bit greedy. Either that, or there should be a 3700 non-X SKU for $279. Remember that they're expecting most buyers to use the default behavior of the chip, rather than to overclock the things. For enthusiasts, the 3800x may not be a great buy.
The 3800X is targeted at the 9900K there is really no much more to add to that, to me it runs at 4.5Ghz ALL CORES, and thats what was needed to match 9900K. This is why they avoided to pit the 3700X vs the 9900K in Cinebench, it probably has a much lower ACT turbo.
They did not wanted to launch a 16C -yet-, they also avoided to talk about anything lower than 8C, what is strange.
Agreed on why they priced the 3800x and 3700x the way they did. I think the 6c parts are on their site now?
Who buys these cpu's? If a person has a 8700k,9600k,9700k,9900k, ryzen 2600 or 2700, this is not a good upgrade, is it? Not in my opinion.
You must be out of your mind. There are plenty of users out there, like me, that have a ph4t HSF or AiO that can push an R7 3700x to 4.5 GHz static and ruin all of those chips. Only the 9900k would run anywhere near it, at 210W or higher. 8700k? 9700k? Seriously? No! Even the 9700k is going to look bad. And a 2600? I have an 1800x @ 4.0 GHz and I will not hesitate to upgrade. The question is, 3700x or 3900x? I am undecided.
The 12 core is cool but we really don't need 12 cores to game for another 2 years.
Some of us prefer to be ahead of the curve.
Ryzen 4 and Intel 7nm with be here by then.
We all better hope Intel 7nm will be here by then. 14nm is getting pretty embarrassing.
I guess if you still have a bulldozer or sandy bridge system it's a great time to upgrade but I suspect anyone that has upgraded in the past 3 or so years will not find Ryzen 3700 that appealing.
Or Haswell, or Broadwell, or the majority of Skylake/Kabylake/CoffeeLake. You think a 6700k owner wouldn't upgrade? Why not?!?! A 3700x in enthusiast hands will be fantastic.
It's all fun and games until Intel releases something on or before the Zen 2 release date. Yes, it's all over for intel! That is too funny. I am pulling for AMD but there is more than a month to go.
What is Intel going to release? 10c Comet Lake? They haven't got anything left.
Correct me if I am wrong but the 2700x is fully OC'd as is? Does it have anything to OC. I ask because I am wondering if these Zen 2 chips will have a good deal of headroom for OCing. What happened to 5ghz? Is that still in the cards?
2700x usually settles at all-core turbo of 4.05 GHz or so. Single-core can go up to maybe 4.35GHz, or possibly higher if under insane cooling. All-core static overclocks of the 2700x usually top out at around 4.3 GHz which buys you more performance in MT tasks, but very little in tasks where XFR can do its work. So the reasonable expectation for most of these Zen2 chips is that all-core static OCs will top out at around 4.5 GHz, maybe higher, we don't know. The veteran's choice will be the 3700x for its low(er) MSRP. Might have to go higher on the voltage to hit 4.5 GHz than a 3800x or 3900x, though.
Agree on managing expectations but as far as not knowing 9900K power settings, it doesn't matter anymore: the AMD product achieved ST performance parity in CB 20 as well, meaning whatever uplift the Intel product gets from unlocked TDP will be met by equal uplift from AMD product with unlocked TDP.
Exactly! For those of us who like to tweak things, put a 3800x (or maybe 3700x) on a good board with a solid PSU and nice cooling, and watch the feathers fly.