WYP
News Guru
Pricing, specifications, IPC improvements and more.
Read more about AMD's Ryzen 3rd Generation processors.
Read more about AMD's Ryzen 3rd Generation processors.
AMD Reveals their High-end Ryzen 3rd Generation Processor Lineup
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
Guessing the early "leaks" of a 16 core AM4 part were false then considering it wasn't mentioned.
WYP
News Guru
Weren't those AdoredTV Leaks disproven very quickly? The problem was that fanboys kept spreading them.
Excalabur50
Well-known member
The 16 core is confirmed but it probably won't be revealed until E3 on June 10th
WYP
News Guru
Joker's just an echo chamber for what other people say. Hype man or Rage man depending on what best suits at the time. Not a great source IMHO.
AMD want to showcase their "no compromise" 12-core model. The 16-core model will likely come with lower clocks, and is therefore against AMD's "not compromise" message. It's all marketing.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Remember what I said about two £500 sales vs one?
Plus they don't know what Intel have planned.
I will wait for the full reviews.
As it sit's based of the information from the AMD Keynote I am not as impressed with AMD as I thought I would be, mainly due to poor tactics and really trying to miss lead people with the performance.
I mean a Cinebench run on a 8c 8t Intel CPU (9700K) up against a 8c 16t (3700x) AMD cpu and then act's surprised that it's faster?
Here is the kicker though it was only 30% faster, yes 30% is a big number but it's not where it should be really if you think about it.
For gaming yes it look's like they are going to be equal with Intel and I am happy with that, but we are going to have to wait for the full reviews where more than PUBG is tested, as that game is a mess and if you lower all the details etc you will only use around 50% of the CPU and around 75% of the GPU if that.
The 12 core CPU looks pretty good though, at least in that test they did put the 3900x up against it's equivalent the 9920x, and it was faster by around 15% which is a nice increase in performance.
The price of it seems fair I am thinking about £550 after taking in to account the Tax and shop markup, but for the 16 core I think it's going to be somewhere in the £650 to £800 at which point it will be interesting to see how the Threadripper 3000 series will perform and cost, because it might be around the same cost for around the same performance.
For me the real issue I have was the Navi RX5700 card going up against the 2080Ti and them carefully trying to make it look faster than the 2080Ti, I think that was a rather pathetic thing to do because I really do not think the RX5700 card's are going to be close to the 2080 let alone the 2080Ti in gaming.
That test was alright to show the bandwidth increase from PCI-E 3.0 to PCI-E 4.0 but it really did feel like something that Intel or nVidia would pull, a cheap poorly thought out tactic to try and make themselves look better.
I am still interested in the Ryzen 3000 series CPU's but for me they really need to sort out the whole testing against product's that are not equal.
As it is I am now just waiting to see all the click bait articles and videos on YouTube by idiot's claiming the Navi 5700 cards are going to be faster than the 2080Ti.
I don't think Intel will be as worried as some people think they are going to be, I am pretty sure Intel will have stuff ready that is faster, although we know it will be a hell of a lot higher in price, unless they do something that is new and actually price something "fairly".
Even the nVidia Keynote from what I have seen, seems to be a poor showing as well with no new card's announced from what I could see or even anything mentioned about what this whole "Super" thing is supposed to be.
From what I could see it was pretty much all about Ray Tracing being added to different games like Wolfenstien, the Quake 2 thing and apparently some Quadro card based laptops or something.
As it sit's based of the information from the AMD Keynote I am not as impressed with AMD as I thought I would be, mainly due to poor tactics and really trying to miss lead people with the performance.
I mean a Cinebench run on a 8c 8t Intel CPU (9700K) up against a 8c 16t (3700x) AMD cpu and then act's surprised that it's faster?
Here is the kicker though it was only 30% faster, yes 30% is a big number but it's not where it should be really if you think about it.
For gaming yes it look's like they are going to be equal with Intel and I am happy with that, but we are going to have to wait for the full reviews where more than PUBG is tested, as that game is a mess and if you lower all the details etc you will only use around 50% of the CPU and around 75% of the GPU if that.
The 12 core CPU looks pretty good though, at least in that test they did put the 3900x up against it's equivalent the 9920x, and it was faster by around 15% which is a nice increase in performance.
The price of it seems fair I am thinking about £550 after taking in to account the Tax and shop markup, but for the 16 core I think it's going to be somewhere in the £650 to £800 at which point it will be interesting to see how the Threadripper 3000 series will perform and cost, because it might be around the same cost for around the same performance.
For me the real issue I have was the Navi RX5700 card going up against the 2080Ti and them carefully trying to make it look faster than the 2080Ti, I think that was a rather pathetic thing to do because I really do not think the RX5700 card's are going to be close to the 2080 let alone the 2080Ti in gaming.
That test was alright to show the bandwidth increase from PCI-E 3.0 to PCI-E 4.0 but it really did feel like something that Intel or nVidia would pull, a cheap poorly thought out tactic to try and make themselves look better.
I am still interested in the Ryzen 3000 series CPU's but for me they really need to sort out the whole testing against product's that are not equal.
As it is I am now just waiting to see all the click bait articles and videos on YouTube by idiot's claiming the Navi 5700 cards are going to be faster than the 2080Ti.
I don't think Intel will be as worried as some people think they are going to be, I am pretty sure Intel will have stuff ready that is faster, although we know it will be a hell of a lot higher in price, unless they do something that is new and actually price something "fairly".
Even the nVidia Keynote from what I have seen, seems to be a poor showing as well with no new card's announced from what I could see or even anything mentioned about what this whole "Super" thing is supposed to be.
From what I could see it was pretty much all about Ray Tracing being added to different games like Wolfenstien, the Quake 2 thing and apparently some Quadro card based laptops or something.
WYP
News Guru
As far as the Ryzen 3700X VS Intel 9700K comparison goes, it is worth remembering that the i7-9700K costs more than AMD's $319 price point and consumes more power.
Fair means different things to different people. If AMD could have chosen Intel's best 65W processor for their comparison if they wanted. It really depends on what you are trying to compare. Both CPUs are similarly priced, so that's what AMD compared.
Fair means different things to different people. If AMD could have chosen Intel's best 65W processor for their comparison if they wanted. It really depends on what you are trying to compare. Both CPUs are similarly priced, so that's what AMD compared.
This is the problem with the whole TDP thing, I mean you have MSI apparently saying they are not supporting the Ryzen 3000 series on the first gen Ryzen boards and not recommending people use the 2nd gen Ryzen boards for the 3000 series cpu's because of the power draw!
That's why I am waiting for the reviews, because the power draw, temps and real world performance will be shown then.
As far as I am concerned the 3700x and 3800x should have been compared to the 9900K, testing core count and thread count against core count and thread count.
I know the price of the new cpu's from AMD will be cheaper, but it's hard for me to think the testing was fair in the testing that they did.
Don't get me wrong I would expect Intel to do the same.
Pricing wise in terms of "Fair" for Intel I think they they need to drop the price of the 9900K to below £400 if they want to keep selling them to avoid people just buying AMD.
Last edited:
Pretty sure AMD compare to parts in the same rough price range or above to make them fair, rather than matching selected bits of spec lists.
Also not sure you can call the 9900K a fair comparison exactly always anymore given hyperthreading is now disabled by default on some OS' and by a fair few companies on internal systems. For the time being as far as some people are concerned, Intel doesn't have viable SMT anymore.
There are pretty big difference between the TR4 and AM4 platforms, not sure they'd have much issue if both had new 16 core parts. Having twice the memory bandwidth on TR4 would differentiate it performance wise in a lot of professional workloads, while the increased socket TDP and IHS size would allow it to hit higher & more consistent clock speeds, the increase socket bandwidth would also help in properly utilising all the extra PCIe lanes too and whatever other devices you have hooked up.
Also not sure you can call the 9900K a fair comparison exactly always anymore given hyperthreading is now disabled by default on some OS' and by a fair few companies on internal systems. For the time being as far as some people are concerned, Intel doesn't have viable SMT anymore.
There are pretty big difference between the TR4 and AM4 platforms, not sure they'd have much issue if both had new 16 core parts. Having twice the memory bandwidth on TR4 would differentiate it performance wise in a lot of professional workloads, while the increased socket TDP and IHS size would allow it to hit higher & more consistent clock speeds, the increase socket bandwidth would also help in properly utilising all the extra PCIe lanes too and whatever other devices you have hooked up.
Last edited:
AlienALX
Well-known member
Depends on perspective. Are they priced similarly? then if so it's a perfectly valid comparison.
The 1600 Ryzen was the most highly lauded Ryzen from round one, and it was compared to I3s and god only knows what else Intel wanted £190 for.
God dammit, shoulda read page 2
Motherboard manufacturers have confirmed their boards are set up for a full 16 core processor. I am guessing they are holding it back for Intels response, or we will get an announcement later. Also looking back at CES the 8core processor die had the traces for another die to be placed below it. But as with all things time will tell.
Similar threads
