N4CR
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,947
A kiwi retailler told me they sold out of basically all stock (4 units of 3600 left) and that demand was higher than expected. Had at least 50-60 units across the range in store.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A kiwi retailler told me they sold out of basically all stock (4 units of 3600 left) and that demand was higher than expected. Had at least 50-60 units across the range in store.
See this sort of price normalization is why we have the prices we have these days. Sorry not trying to single you out here, just saying instead of accepting these ridiculous prices, I voted with my wallet and refused to buy overpriced shit. That's why I'm still on a 4930K + 980 Ti.
See this sort of price normalization is why we have the prices we have these days. Sorry not trying to single you out here, just saying instead of accepting these ridiculous prices, I voted with my wallet and refused to buy overpriced shit. That's why I'm still on a 4930K + 980 Ti.
I'm not really sure $750 for a top of the line consumer CPU is ridiculous. I remember a time when far and away the most expensive part in a system was the CPU. Somewhere along the way we all let NV (and I guess AMD to a smaller extent) sell us on a GPU being worth $1200-$1400 for top of the line consumer stuff.
That was sort of more my point is... $750 for a CPU seems Crazy ? When that is mid range GPU card pricing these days.
For some semblance of context....
June Fifth 2000 AMD released the Athlon thunderbird... top of the line Athlon 1GHZ $990. The Athlon 900mhz was a more pocket friendly $589... and if you could live with 800mhz AMD was only charging $359. (Now remember this is 2000 numbers so factor in a 47% inflation rate... or $1,472.. $875... and 533) All throughout 2000-2001 AMD kept upping the clock and dropping the prices on newer parts... within a year selling GHZ+ Althon chips for half the price.
Back in 2000 AMD led the fight to bring MHZ (GHZ) to the masses at a reasonable cost. You could even argue it helped convince the Intel brass that Netburst was the way to go... jack the MHZ and win the PR war. Now AMD is fighting the battle on core count. The 3900x would sell for right around $500 in 2000 money. I would say AMD is doing insanely well when it comes to making multi core CPUs pocket friendly. And just like back in 2000.... you don't HAVE to buy a 3900x, squeezing a 3700 or even a 3600 is probably the sweet spot. I think the 3600 is looking to be our new Celeron 400a, accept it doesn't have its cache hacked off. lol
Some fun reading from way way back in the day.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/612
I'm not really sure $750 for a top of the line consumer CPU is ridiculous. I remember a time when far and away the most expensive part in a system was the CPU. Somewhere along the way we all let NV (and I guess AMD to a smaller extent) sell us on a GPU being worth $1200-$1400 for top of the line consumer stuff.
That was sort of more my point is... $750 for a CPU seems Crazy ? When that is mid range GPU card pricing these days.
For some semblance of context....
June Fifth 2000 AMD released the Athlon thunderbird... top of the line Athlon 1GHZ $990. The Athlon 900mhz was a more pocket friendly $589... and if you could live with 800mhz AMD was only charging $359. (Now remember this is 2000 numbers so factor in a 47% inflation rate... or $1,472.. $875... and 533) All throughout 2000-2001 AMD kept upping the clock and dropping the prices on newer parts... within a year selling GHZ+ Althon chips for half the price.
Back in 2000 AMD led the fight to bring MHZ (GHZ) to the masses at a reasonable cost. You could even argue it helped convince the Intel brass that Netburst was the way to go... jack the MHZ and win the PR war. Now AMD is fighting the battle on core count. The 3900x would sell for right around $500 in 2000 money. I would say AMD is doing insanely well when it comes to making multi core CPUs pocket friendly. And just like back in 2000.... you don't HAVE to buy a 3900x, squeezing a 3700 or even a 3600 is probably the sweet spot. I think the 3600 is looking to be our new Celeron 400a, accept it doesn't have its cache hacked off. lol
Some fun reading from way way back in the day.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/612
Forget T-Bird, you want crazy, how about a $2000 Pentium II? https://www.cnet.com/news/300-mhz-pentium-ii-box-for-1999/
BUT that was the absolute bleeding edge at the time, and also PCs weren't as common, so less volume = higher cost per capita, amongst other reasons why prices were so high back then.
$750 gets you around a 2080, which is decidedly not mid-range but high end (just not highest end). Mid-range would be something like 2060, which has also inflated to a ridiculous $400. In any case this is all semantics, point really just being that there's no justification for these increases in prices other than "because we can and most people will still buy our shit". Not that me as one person will make any difference whatsoever, but I refuse to give in to such extortion, and thus have not upgraded since 980 Ti.
Forget T-Bird, you want crazy, how about a $2000 Pentium II? https://www.cnet.com/news/300-mhz-pentium-ii-box-for-1999/
BUT that was the absolute bleeding edge at the time, and also PCs weren't as common, so less volume = higher cost per capita, amongst other reasons why prices were so high back then.
$750 gets you around a 2080, which is decidedly not mid-range but high end (just not highest end). Mid-range would be something like 2060, which has also inflated to a ridiculous $400. In any case this is all semantics, point really just being that there's no justification for these increases in prices other than "because we can and most people will still buy our shit". Not that me as one person will make any difference whatsoever, but I refuse to give in to such extortion, and thus have not upgraded since 980 Ti.
And as I've said before, Intel had its Extreme Edition CPU's at $1,099.99 for at least a decade or more. While this was at the top of the pile it was still a mainstream part. Intel had Xeon's back then which were used in workstations and servers. This was a practice going back to the Pentium 4 and functionally ending with the introduction of the Core i7 6950X. My Core i7 5960X was about $1,099.99 at Microcenter. The Broadwell-E chip was some $1,599.99 at launch. My Threadripper 2920X was some $600 or more when it first came out for the same core and thread count. So AMD offering 12c/24t for $500 is damn reasonable.
I know most people want the top of the line processor, but the fact of the matter is most people aren't doing anything that will really make use of something with 8c/16t, much less 12c/24t. The core wars has got HEDT level core counts hitting the mainstream and HEDT parts are getting straight up server core counts.
Pretty on point, overall, though Zen 2's shift to a chiplet design was a pretty big move. The rest, though, is as you say.
Increasing clockspeed, and delivering modest IPC improvements with each gen should work well enough. So far, though Sunny Cove/Icelake looks to have a huge IPC advantage, and at least comparable low voltage efficiency (if not more!), clock scaling is shite. Makes Zen look like a high-clocked part by comparison. So if we get a 10nm CPU with +18% IPC, but -10% clockspeed (or more, given that Comet Lake rumors look to be ~5.2GHz max boost), AMD only needs modest generational improvements to hold their market position.
If Zen 3 finally unlocks a 5GHz boost, that'd do wonders. Plausible, I think. Give Zen 3 +3-5% IPC and a 5GHz max boost (and maybe fusing of 2x 256b -> AVX512, which I don't care much about, but am confused why they didn't), and I think AMD stays in the race in 2020.
I did read the 5GHz claim for Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller, Zen, Zen+, and Zen2. Nice to heard it now for Zen3.
In this forum that you’re posting in, everyone gives a damn. I see tons of people asking about boards and RAM and not a single person asking about which model Optiplex to buy. Maybe you’re in the wrong forum?
Even if you buy DDR4 2400 for a 3900x, the CPU is the same price as a 9900k, a x470 costs the same as z390 and x570s are more expensive.
Platform price is the almost exactly the same. Which has been my point from the start, but everyone missed that by going on some tangent about about RAM performance. Potentially buying lower than spec RAM just to win an argument, doesn't make it cheaper than an equivalent Intel system.
I am in the wrong forum. Reading is fundamental.
The RAM variable makes comparisons hard. It's one thing for reviews to use the same RAM, and another to use the fastest RAM that each system takes, or use the RAM that is at the edge of diminishing returns- and these last two can be quite different for each system.Even if you buy DDR4 2400 for a 3900x, the CPU is the same price as a 9900k, a x470 costs the same as z390 and x570s are more expensive.Platform price is the almost exactly the same.
Comparable system to 9900K with the same PCI-E speeds would be getting 3700X and 3xx or 4xx series chipset (though some mobos allegedly support PCI-E 4.0 on some ports)Even if you buy DDR4 2400 for a 3900x, the CPU is the same price as a 9900k, a x470 costs the same as z390 and x570s are more expensive.
Platform price is the almost exactly the same. Which has been my point from the start, but everyone missed that by going on some tangent about about RAM performance. Potentially buying lower than spec RAM just to win an argument, doesn't make it cheaper than an equivalent Intel system.
I am in the wrong forum. Reading is fundamental.
Cheaper really depends on what you’re comparing. Mainstream vs Mainstream AMD isn’t really cheaper and could be a bit more expensive with x570 but has a pronounced multi thread performance advantage that you cannot equal without going HEDT on Intel which would make AMD far more economical.
There’s enough variables here that everyone can technically be right depending on what they are choosing to compare and prioritize. That’s a good thing though. It’s nice having options that you really can’t go wrong with, that hasn’t been the case in a long time.
Comparable system to 9900K with the same PCI-E speeds would be getting 3700X and 3xx or 4xx series chipset (though some mobos allegedly support PCI-E 4.0 on some ports)
Price advantage is obvious
AMD simply wins this round. There should be no doubt about that!
Not that it is enough to convince die hard Intel fanboys like myself to get AMD platform <laughing madly while putting i9 9900K to Z390 mobo>
Even if you buy DDR4 2400 for a 3900x, the CPU is the same price as a 9900k, a x470 costs the same as z390 and x570s are more expensive.
Platform price is the almost exactly the same. Which has been my point from the start, but everyone missed that by going on some tangent about about RAM performance. Potentially buying lower than spec RAM just to win an argument, doesn't make it cheaper than an equivalent Intel system.
I am in the wrong forum. Reading is fundamental.
While I understand that X570 is the new hotness and premium'ish stuff, "cheap" seems to be a bit relative given the cheapest board I currently see at Newegg is $170 and going up to $700. So in that context vs a $700 board I guess $170 is indeed cheap.X470 motherboards are generally cheaper, but not necessarily cheaper than Z390 motherboards. Otherwise, there is perfect platform cost parity. Of course you can point out how expensive X570 is, but there are also cheap X570 motherboards as well. I probably wouldn't ever use one, but that's just me.
The 9900k is an excellent CPU, and if it had existed when I built this rig I have now, I'd have gone with it over Ryzen. But at the time I built this (originally with a 1700X and not 2700X), It was 7700k (not enough cores) or 6900k (old platform and ridiculous price).
I thought about waiting for Ryzen myself, but decided to jump up because I was not happy with the broad crapshoot that Ryzen memory compatibility was, and how random it seemed to find motherboards that actually had good VRM implementations for maintaining boost clocks. The 9900K is still the fastest CPU on the market for everything I do that is CPU limited.
I wouldn't recommend it now for general usage, of course.
But now there's the 3900X and 12 cores, and single thread performance getting very close to the 9900k.
Also, a drop-in replacement.
If you don't overclock
If you bought a decent board, you'll actually get to use the features of the new CPU too...
Which was where I checked out. Some got lucky, but generally speaking, way too much uncertainty with Ryzen. Now we have great boards and probably parity in terms of memory compatibility, it's much easier to look at AMD now for many uses.
Ill put it in a summary: competition is great.. AMD continues to be the "value" choice.
The ladder part is only true if you're looking for HEDT performance from a mainstream part.
Kinda sorta. I'd argue Zen 2 is the best all-rounder design, where as the 9900k is the best no-compromise gaming CPU.
I’ve been hearing mixed reviews with Zen 2. Is there a good reason to upgrade from a 7700K? I’m debating if it’s worth changing to a 3900X.
Kinda sorta. I'd argue Zen 2 is the best all-rounder design, where as the 9900k is the best no-compromise gaming CPU.
Seems like AMD realized that they needed a way to bring more cores to the data center at lower cost to fight back to relevance. Zen for consumers feels like a bit of a compromise to leverage what the data center needs. That said, these are awesome chips.
I’ve been hearing mixed reviews with Zen 2. Is there a good reason to upgrade from a 7700K? I’m debating if it’s worth changing to a 3900X.
I’m actually looking for another M.2 slot to put my second SSD. I only have 1 M.2 slot on this ASrock Z170 motherboard lol. Also, I do use my system mainly for gaming.For gaming? Frankly, no. A 7700k is still an excellent gaming CPU, and though the 3900X finally puts AMD convincingly over top of the 7700k in gaming, it's not by all that much. Certainly not worth the money.
For mixed-use workloads? Hell yes. Going from 4c/8t to 12c/24t? That will be INSANE.... IF your work can utilize the extra cores, that is.
That "high end" 2080 will require an upgrade FAR sooner than the "mid range" 3950X. In fact, the 3950X will probably outlast a bare minimum of 3-4 generations of high end GPUs. Pricing is important but it's nearly useless when not put into perspective.
I agree with you on the GPU end of things. I used to enjoy buying mid range GPUs every couple years and getting the previous top of the line performance at that price. Lack of GPU competition has really hurt. The 5700 give me some hope... it seems like for the price they are providing that previous top of the line performance at a more budget friendly price.
CPUS though... they have actually come down. $750 isn't AMDs mid range CPU its their highest end. The 3700x/3600 are the sweet spot for average users, and compared to what we used to pay they are a steal. I haven't checked inflation pricing ect but I'm pretty sure the 3600 is selling for less then the Celeron/Duron overclock kings of our youth did. Granted its a bit less sexy these days with the auto overclocking features being so good. Still sort of have that same feeling myself.
For gaming? Frankly, no. A 7700k is still an excellent gaming CPU, and though the 3900X finally puts AMD convincingly over top of the 7700k in gaming, it's not by all that much. Certainly not worth the money.
For mixed-use workloads? Hell yes. Going from 4c/8t to 12c/24t? That will be INSANE.... IF your work can utilize the extra cores, that is.
Not saying AMD will try emulate Intel, just if we internally justify these prices and keep hitting our wallets harder, the end result won't be pretty.