I be damned, AMD were not bullshiting

  • 96 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for Random_Matt
#1 Posted by Random_Matt (4244 posts) -

Intel truly is fucked.

https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2019/06/amd-ryzen-5-3600-x470-review/

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#2 Posted by mrbojangles25 (44044 posts) -

Sure, just like all the other times

Avatar image for Bikouchu35
#3 Posted by Bikouchu35 (8304 posts) -

@mrbojangles25 said:

Sure, just like all the other times

Its over. Amd has the higher ground now.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#4 Posted by Random_Matt (4244 posts) -

People realise that is a stock 3600 right.

Avatar image for PfizersaurusRex
#5 Posted by PfizersaurusRex (1239 posts) -

This looks really good but I'm still not sure if it's legitimate. Why didn't they overclock? They didn't even mention it, or maybe I missed it.

Avatar image for plageus900
#6 Posted by plageus900 (2707 posts) -

How is Intel fucked?

Avatar image for PredatorRules
#7 Edited by PredatorRules (12446 posts) -
@Random_Matt said:

Intel truly is fucked.

https://elchapuzasinformatico.com/2019/06/amd-ryzen-5-3600-x470-review/

Where's i5 9600K in that game comparison chart?

Also comparing 6th gen i7?

If you want to make a review you have to compare newest tech vs competitors newest tech, I don't mind them putting some old tech as well, but if I'm to buy AMDs new CPU I'd need to know if it's better or worse than Inte's newest i5.

Avatar image for 04dcarraher
#8 Posted by 04dcarraher (23196 posts) -

I'll wait until more 3rd party testing before "leaked" or random test result before release

Avatar image for appariti0n
#9 Posted by appariti0n (2774 posts) -

Intel isn't "fucked" per se, but they are due to lose some marketshare this year imo.

Avatar image for Bikouchu35
#10 Posted by Bikouchu35 (8304 posts) -

@appariti0n: they are effed depending on who you ask. Obv not to the degree on how Intel effed amd in 2006 and onwards. It seems like amd is able to make a chip that finally goes toe to toe with cheaper price, better yield, sustain a profit margin per chip even at that, and beat them to 7nm punch. While Intel has no answer this year. Looks like Intel will have to finally work on their r&d heavily for once and again like the core2 and sandybridge that used to wreak havoc to amd. Assuming the numbers are real and that they broke nda than that means the 6 core already beats an 8 core Zen+ while kissing 8 core Intel's perf., that's pretty darn good.

Avatar image for dxmcat
#11 Edited by dxmcat (2667 posts) -

what kind of a joke site is that, lol

Avatar image for Grey_Eyed_Elf
#12 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (6453 posts) -

Those scores are sketchy. A stock 2700X scores 180 on Cinebench single core and on theirs its 176... It looks like they are fudging scores to give the chip relevance which is not needed.

Avatar image for horgen
#13 Posted by Horgen (120581 posts) -

@plageus900 said:

How is Intel fucked?

Decent competition. Intel no longer has monopoly.

Avatar image for plageus900
#14 Posted by plageus900 (2707 posts) -

@horgen: Competition with AMD in the PC market doesn't mean Intel is fucked.

Avatar image for horgen
#15 Posted by Horgen (120581 posts) -

@plageus900 said:

@horgen: Competition with AMD in the PC market doesn't mean Intel is fucked.

If Intel can continue to deliver. Intel has run into problems the last few years. But yeah I agree I wouldn't say they are fucked yet. Rather trying to give a possible explanation for why someone could think that.

Avatar image for Yams1980
#16 Posted by Yams1980 (3511 posts) -

am i missing something? All those charts, Intels old 9900k is beating the AMD cpu each time. How is Intel "fucked"? The newer AMD cpu can't even beat it in single threaded performance, and the 9900k isn't even overclocked.

Other than the lower cost of AMD cpu, this looks like its still worth while buying the 9900k and overclocking it. AMDs move to pci express gen 4 and need for more powerful vrms to power the extra cores also increased price of their boards, making buying the AMD cpu less tempting. Seems pretty disappointing if your looking to get an AMD cpu for gaming.

I was waiting and thinking of upgrading my 4770k later this year to AMD maybe, but seems pretty pointless if those charts are correct, the 9900k is still superior.

Avatar image for Bikouchu35
#17 Posted by Bikouchu35 (8304 posts) -

@Yams1980 said:

am i missing something? All those charts, Intels old 9900k is beating the AMD cpu each time. How is Intel "fucked"? The newer AMD cpu can't even beat it in single threaded performance, and the 9900k isn't even overclocked.

Other than the lower cost of AMD cpu, this looks like its still worth while buying the 9900k and overclocking it. AMDs move to pci express gen 4 and need for more powerful vrms to power the extra cores also increased price of their boards, making buying the AMD cpu less tempting. Seems pretty disappointing if your looking to get an AMD cpu for gaming.

I was waiting and thinking of upgrading my 4770k later this year to AMD maybe, but seems pretty pointless if those charts are correct, the 9900k is still superior.

Thats their base $200 6 core, I'd say they did pretty good. Still got to wait for the nda to break to get a conclusive picture.

Avatar image for howmakewood
#18 Posted by Howmakewood (5925 posts) -
@Yams1980 said:

am i missing something? All those charts, Intels old 9900k is beating the AMD cpu each time. How is Intel "fucked"? The newer AMD cpu can't even beat it in single threaded performance, and the 9900k isn't even overclocked.

Other than the lower cost of AMD cpu, this looks like its still worth while buying the 9900k and overclocking it. AMDs move to pci express gen 4 and need for more powerful vrms to power the extra cores also increased price of their boards, making buying the AMD cpu less tempting. Seems pretty disappointing if your looking to get an AMD cpu for gaming.

I was waiting and thinking of upgrading my 4770k later this year to AMD maybe, but seems pretty pointless if those charts are correct, the 9900k is still superior.

The new cpu's should perform well on old boards as well, the new chipset(this is on the mobo) does draw more power tho

Avatar image for davillain-
#19 Posted by DaVillain- (36901 posts) -

So far, I'm hearing good things about 3900x. If it's as close as to matching i9 9900k, I'm taking that 3900x in a heartbeat! I really don't wanna go back to Intel.

Avatar image for remiks00
#20 Posted by remiks00 (3822 posts) -

I'm interested in the R9 3900x myself as well; I'm still rocking my i7 4770k. Which isn't bad at all though

Avatar image for jackwl89
#21 Posted by jackwl89 (8 posts) -

Intel is gonna slash prices so hard; I'm gonna wait until at least Q4 2020 to buy a new gaming machine and it's gonna cost half of what it would cost right now

Avatar image for Grey_Eyed_Elf
#22 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (6453 posts) -

Like I said on the heals of a stock 8700... Overclock the 8700/9700/9900 and your looking at a 5-8% difference in gaming on average.

That being said as someone who games at 1440/4K... These chips are a no brainer, the 3900X looks like a monster. I am tempted to go for it BUT I am good, all I do is game and my 8700K does that better.

Avatar image for howmakewood
#23 Edited by Howmakewood (5925 posts) -

Ye I don't really see point in upgrading

But good to see competition, much stronger in gaming compared to earlier ryzens

Avatar image for horgen
#24 Posted by Horgen (120581 posts) -

I've gotten a few sudden expenses so I need to wait a little with upgrading. Gives me more time to read reviews though :D

Avatar image for davillain-
#25 Posted by DaVillain- (36901 posts) -

Just got done reading all the nationwide Ryzen 3000 reviews from Tech YouTubers to Tom's Hardware and all I gotta say is, AMD deliver on their promise, especially the 3900X. Surprised it won in any gaming tests at all honestly, but it took the crown for games like Assassin's Creed: Odyssey with the same number of cores and threads.

Looks like the AMD chip is faster, but Intel chip boosts higher and has lower latency system memory access. And doing it with less power. I'd call that a win for AMD, to be quite honest. Looks like I'm diving into buying 3900X after all. I'm only gaming in 1440p, so it's basically fits right into my alley and the multitasking is very important for me both gaming & content creating & streaming.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#26 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31188 posts) -

3700x seems like the best bang for the bug, not much difference for gaming with the 3900x.

3700x comes with a stock cooler, right?

I'm asking because Intel does not provide coolers anymore.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#27 Edited by Random_Matt (4244 posts) -
@R4gn4r0k said:

3700x seems like the best bang for the bug, not much difference for gaming with the 3900x.

3700x comes with a stock cooler, right?

I'm asking because Intel does not provide coolers anymore.

9900k is still the best gaming cpu, but offers no upgrade path. 1440P upwards you may as well go with the 3700X, the 3900X is not a great CPU at gaming for the price, it is more or less the same as the former. Guessing 12 cores are not used very much if at all, perhaps that will change though going forward. Think they come with a wraith cooler or whatever they call them, personally better to go with a 240/360 AIO or water loop if you prefer.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#28 Posted by Random_Matt (4244 posts) -
@davillain- said:

Just got done reading all the nationwide Ryzen 3000 reviews from Tech YouTubers to Tom's Hardware and all I gotta say is, AMD deliver on their promise, especially the 3900X. Surprised it won in any gaming tests at all honestly, but it took the crown for games like Assassin's Creed: Odyssey with the same number of cores and threads.

Looks like the AMD chip is faster, but Intel chip boosts higher and has lower latency system memory access. And doing it with less power. I'd call that a win for AMD, to be quite honest. Looks like I'm diving into buying 3900X after all. I'm only gaming in 1440p, so it's basically fits right into my alley and the multitasking is very important for me both gaming & content creating & streaming.

You are wasting your money on the 3900X, techspot have done a obscene amount of benchmarks, there is nothing in it compared to the 3700X.

Avatar image for davillain-
#29 Edited by DaVillain- (36901 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:

3700x seems like the best bang for the bug, not much difference for gaming with the 3900x.

3700x comes with a stock cooler, right?

I'm asking because Intel does not provide coolers anymore.

Yes, all AMD Ryzen comes with their own coolers and they are legit as well cause they are way better then the stock coolers Intel only carried on their lowest CPU. AMD highest CPU like 3900X comes with the Wraith Cooler which can handle nicely if you were to overclock it of course.

@Random_Matt said:

You are wasting your money on the 3900X, techspot have done a obscene amount of benchmarks, there is nothing in it compared to the 3700X.

Yeah, I saw that as well but the extra cores/threads is something that I can benefit using the most. I don't wanna upgrade my PC anymore until Nvidia launches GPU 3000 series in the future and my 2700X is limited to my 2070 as it is. So 3900X it is :)

Avatar image for Grey_Eyed_Elf
#30 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (6453 posts) -

The 3900X is giving me buyers remorse... 12c/24t with similar gaming performance to 8700 non K for £100 more than what I paid for a 8700K, damn.

I don't know what I would need with those cores... But I want them anyway :(

Avatar image for horgen
#31 Posted by Horgen (120581 posts) -

@Random_Matt said:
@R4gn4r0k said:

3700x seems like the best bang for the bug, not much difference for gaming with the 3900x.

3700x comes with a stock cooler, right?

I'm asking because Intel does not provide coolers anymore.

9900k is still the best gaming cpu, but offers no upgrade path. 1440P upwards you may as well go with the 3700X, the 3900X is not a great CPU at gaming for the price, it is more or less the same as the former. Guessing 12 cores are not used very much if at all, perhaps that will change though going forward. Think they come with a wraith cooler or whatever they call them, personally better to go with a 240/360 AIO or water loop if you prefer.

60 Hz or higher on that 1440 res?

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#32 Edited by R4gn4r0k (31188 posts) -

@Random_Matt said:

You are wasting your money on the 3900X, techspot have done a obscene amount of benchmarks, there is nothing in it compared to the 3700X.

Would the 3800X with its higher clock speeds offer something over the 3700X for gaming?

Avatar image for pyro1245
#33 Edited by pyro1245 (5051 posts) -

Intel is fucked relative to the position they held for the last 10 years. I'm sure they will be fine though.

I'll likely be going back to AMD for my next build. First time since the Athalon XP days. I'm waiting to see what the Ryzen 3000 Threadrippers have to offer.

Avatar image for howmakewood
#34 Posted by Howmakewood (5925 posts) -
@R4gn4r0k said:
@Random_Matt said:

You are wasting your money on the 3900X, techspot have done a obscene amount of benchmarks, there is nothing in it compared to the 3700X.

Would the 3800X with its higher clock speeds offer something over the 3700X for gaming?

There arent 3800X reviews around... pretty much boils down how you can clock those 2, but 3700x is most likely the better value

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#35 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31188 posts) -

@howmakewood: 3800x also launched today, right?

Avatar image for howmakewood
#36 Posted by Howmakewood (5925 posts) -
@R4gn4r0k said:

@howmakewood: 3800x also launched today, right?

yeah, amd just didnt send any review samples

Avatar image for BassMan
#37 Edited by BassMan (10366 posts) -

I am happy with my 9900K, but the extra cores of the 3900X are sexy. :P

Avatar image for Grey_Eyed_Elf
#38 Posted by Grey_Eyed_Elf (6453 posts) -

@BassMan said:

I am happy with my 9900K, but the extra cores of the 3900X are sexy. :P

The thought of opening up task manager and seeing 24 threads gets me going...

Avatar image for BassMan
#39 Posted by BassMan (10366 posts) -

@Grey_Eyed_Elf: LOL

Avatar image for phbz
#40 Posted by phbz (4496 posts) -

I think I saw this movie before.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#41 Edited by Random_Matt (4244 posts) -

@horgen: Merely highlighting that you are GPU bound going up in res, as you already know. There literally is no difference whatever CPU you choose, unless people care for a few frames. Intel still has the best 1080p performance if gamers are still on that.

The 3700X is still going to be the biggest seller imo, also the 3600 is very good value too. Nobody is sure about performance post new bios release, apparently some suggested they are hitting a power limiter.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/#allcomments

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#42 Posted by Random_Matt (4244 posts) -
@R4gn4r0k said:
@Random_Matt said:

You are wasting your money on the 3900X, techspot have done a obscene amount of benchmarks, there is nothing in it compared to the 3700X.

Would the 3800X with its higher clock speeds offer something over the 3700X for gaming?

It is just a slightly higher clocked 3700X, nobody will buy it.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#43 Posted by Random_Matt (4244 posts) -

If anyone is interested the Taichi is stupidly a good price right now, not sure if it is a pricing error. UK £242.

Avatar image for blaznwiipspman1
#44 Edited by blaznwiipspman1 (7205 posts) -

intel > amd

Don't even need to read the reviews to know amd is crapp

Their GPU side is a different story, don't know why any moron would spend so much for an overrated nvidia when you can get a solid AMD gpu that does the same exact thing as the nvidia for 1/2 the price.

Avatar image for rmpumper
#45 Posted by rmpumper (651 posts) -

@blaznwiipspman1 said:

intel > amd

Don't even need to read the reviews to know amd is crapp

Their GPU side is a different story, don't know why any moron would spend so much for an overrated nvidia when you can get a solid AMD gpu that does the same exact thing as the nvidia for 1/2 the price.

You must live in an opposite world.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#46 Posted by Random_Matt (4244 posts) -
@blaznwiipspman1 said:

intel > amd

Don't even need to read the reviews to know amd is crapp

Their GPU side is a different story, don't know why any moron would spend so much for an overrated nvidia when you can get a solid AMD gpu that does the same exact thing as the nvidia for 1/2 the price.

An Intel fanboy has made it into GS, if you read the reviews then you would know it is a fact ryzen is the better package.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#47 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31188 posts) -
@phbz said:

I think I saw this movie before.

Looks like Ron Burgondy

@Random_Matt said:

It is just a slightly higher clocked 3700X, nobody will buy it.

3700X looks the most interesting, but the X570 motherboards draw more power and have to deal with heat.

Also PCIe4.0 SSD seem to get crazy hot.

Than there is the 9700K and 9900K which do seem to benefit in some games, they aren't worth the price. But Intel could be doing pricedrops. But they get hotter than AMDs too, and don't come with a cooler either.

I'll have to do some more research. I want the best CPU at the best price. Honestly I want something to last me as long as my i7 4790K did and still does.

Right now this seems the 3700X

Avatar image for rmpumper
#48 Posted by rmpumper (651 posts) -

@R4gn4r0k said:
3700X looks the most interesting, but the X570 motherboards draw more power and have to deal with heat.

Also PCIe4.0 SSD seem to get crazy hot.

That's irrelevant seeing how Zen2 gives identical performance on X470.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#49 Posted by R4gn4r0k (31188 posts) -
@rmpumper said:

That's irrelevant seeing how Zen2 gives identical performance on X470.

Why would I go for a X470 when the X570 supports higher speed RAM and PCI-e 4.0 could be interesting for future graphics cards?

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#50 Posted by Random_Matt (4244 posts) -

X470 Taichi is the only one worth buying, and X570 is not that much more expensive.