I'm a little confused here. Which CPU are you referring to? my 1920x? my 16 core Haswelll?
For the most part my hobby used to be running multiple OSes at once. For that you need cores. Each VM works far better if you dedicate cores to it. So for me I always bought the most highly threaded CPUs for the coin. Total overall speed did not come into the equation. You can't divide up what you don't have, basically.
That's exactly my point. People who have £350-420 to spend on a CPU
now for the purpose of specific workloads, they can buy a 3900X and a cheap B450 motherboard. Waiting is not necessary. There are perfectly good CPUs available NOW. If they want the same thing but at a higher clock speed, they can pay what everybody and their mum paid last year for the original 3900X.
I don't agree that people don't care about additional IPC. At all. If they did not care then Intel would not sell a single 10 series CPU. And yes, I am aware that a lot of that is down to clock speed but ATM Ryzen are nearly 1ghz behind Intel, which allows Intel to have higher IPC by clock speed and thus the best gaming performance. If AMD want to be the only choice (which is the only way they will ever get near to Intel) then they have to match or beat that. And they can't seem to do it with raw clock speed.
I said some people. The fact that you bought an older generation with lower IPC is testament to that. As are the people that bought bargain first and second generation TR processors when they could have bought a Zen 2 CPU. They saw the higher core count/dollar as worth it.
AMD don't need to beat Intel at gaming to sell vast amounts of processors. They really don't. To sell even more, yes, absolutely. And I'm sure AMD want that. And I'm sure they're very excited about Zen 3 because it might just get them that. But that doesn't change my point. Some people don't care about that enough to wait when there are excellent CPUs available now.
I could be wrong about the point of these CPUs. Is it to maintain higher pricing? or is it simply to create more product to fill the small gaps and holes? IDK. But the way AMD are going with their high end pricing? we could be begging for Intel not to be crap.
I'm sure there are multiple reasons. Maybe they have excess stock. Maybe they have been binning chips for months and months waiting for this moment. Maybe they want to saturate the market. Maybe they want to show that they intend to stay competitive with Intel even when they're on top. Again, I think it's all of the above.
I also think you are underestimating Zen 3. When you throw around 10-20%? that is when you start matching and beating Intel territory. That is absolutely huge. Mostly because that is pretty much exactly how far AMD are behind @ 1080p. 5% or so every CPU at stock, 10-20% with both overclocked.
Don't get me wrong. I think Zen 3 is gonna be crackin' and it's what I'm waiting for. That was never my point. My point was never to diminish the value of Zen 3. My point was to counter your statement that you'd be stupid to waste your money on an overpriced refresh. I think Zen 3 is going to appeal to, say for argument's sake, 80% of the market. Older, cheaper Zen 2 CPUs cater to 10% (people who want a bargain high core count CPU) and the last 10% will be people who want Zen 2 but with higher clock speeds for gaming. My point was never to say "BUY ZEN2 NAO!!!1!" My point was to say that it's still an excellent architecture that still has life left in it. 200-300Mhz is all that was needed.
I suppose what I meant when I typed that was I would rather buy just a 3700 or 3600 or what not at the prices they are now (or lower) than a jacked up price CPU on the same node. However, that does assume that they will be jacked up in price. However, if the 3700 and 3600 drop in price because of them? I would choose those.
We don't know what their prices are going to be, but I imagine a 3900XT will have a £450-500 price while the 3900X will drop to £380-420. That's my guess. If the 3900XT has a boost clock of 4.8Ghz, that's a large boost in IPC right there. So the insistence to wait for Zen 3 because it'll introduce higher IPC makes no sense. You're saying, 'Don't buy the CPU's with higher IPC... wait for the new CPU's with higher IPC.' It doesn't make sense. Whether you get the IPC from clock speed or from the architecture, it doesn't matter. Higher frames rates is higher frame rates.
It's already been shown that if you care only for gaming then the best bargain out there in the whole of PC universe right now is the 3600. Well, unless the 10400 comes in super cheap and or if you can get a cheap board for said 10400 because there ain't any costing £100 or less right now.
And that is another way AMD work out better. Not because the boards are overly cheaper, but because of the overall package. 3900x £410 give or take £10. Comes with a cooler, Intel costs £100-£120 more and doesn't. 3900x will run easily in a £100 B450 motherboard, Intel requires Z490 right now.
I agree, the 3600 is incredible value for gamers. The 4600 or whatever it'll be called will be even better. But it doesn't change the value of current gen high core count CPU's at higher clock speeds. I really don't know why anybody would be confused or begrudging of this decision. If AMD have got the silicon, release it, and close the gap in gaming and single-threaded workloads even further. Then seal the coffin with Zen 3. If they're sacrificing a lot to get these out, I don't think it's worth it. But if the silicon is there, release it and sell a few hundred thousand more chips to the last stragglers who have been saving up for the last eight months.
