AMD Announces Ryzen 7 3700X, 3800X and Ryzen 9 3900X

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,835
like I said it doesn't work for you. I am sure AMD won't make everyone happy. I for sure will be upgrading and giving big middle finger to Intel for sitting on their ass.
And like you keep saying, it does work for you. Many for sure won't be upgrading. Interesting how that goes both ways, but only your perspective matters. I've already stated what the market for Zen 2 is. You happen to fall in it, great for you.
 

NKD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
7,807
And like you keep saying, it does work for you. Many for sure won't be upgrading. Interesting how that goes both ways, but only your perspective matters. I've already stated what the market for Zen 2 is. You happen to fall in it, great for you.
True, but you can't just say many wont be upgrading. That is little silly thing to say, please quantify that number. We can't just speak for everyone. Only you and me, agree?
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,517
And like you keep saying, it does work for you. Many for sure won't be upgrading. Interesting how that goes both ways, but only your perspective matters. I've already stated what the market for Zen 2 is. You happen to fall in it, great for you.
Oh look your saying something negative about AMD and how you wont use it. Dont like the cpu then move on and accept not everyone agrees with you. I for one will be upgrading just trying to decide if I want a 12 core or not. Plenty of people are still on old hardware will likely find this new chip interesting, very few would be looking for a 9900K. These new Ryzen chips will raise the bar quite a bit for the average user base and thats a good thing.
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,835
True, but you can't just say many wont be upgrading. That is little silly thing to say, please quantify that number. We can't just speak for everyone. Only you and me, agree?
I was never speaking for everyone. Many as in those who don't need >8 cores and have bought an Intel 6/6, 6/12, 8/8, 8/16 (even 4/8 depending on use) CPU in the last couple of years.

Oh look your saying something negative about AMD and how you wont use it.
What negative?
Dont like the cpu then move on and accept not everyone agrees with you.
Why don't you follow your own advice. I like the CPU just fine. Most of my responses have been to people not willing to accept that not everyone has to be hyped about it and see it as some extraordinary must have.

I for one will be upgrading just trying to decide if I want a 12 core or not. Plenty of people are still on old hardware will likely find this new chip interesting, very few would be looking for a 9900K.
Nothing that I've contradicted.
These new Ryzen chips will raise the bar quite a bit for the average user base and thats a good thing.
Core count bar, at least, and not before Ryzen 3 gets released.
 

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
350
That's all well and good, but I'm not in the business of patting companies on the back for being a good boy. I'm in the business of buying products with tangible benefits and while Zen 2 is great for AMD, and us by bringing healthy competition, it doesn't make it any better in terms of value or performance gain for people that have already upgraded in the last couple of years. It brings yesteryear's level of performance for a better price. Great, but not that exciting. It fairs much better for 12 cores and more, if your parallelism needs aren't met by GPUs already. That's where AMD has no competition currently.
See, here is your problem: you are telling us, that it does nothing for you, which is all fine and dandy but you are trying to put the rest of the user base in that same category. And that is where your mistake is. First, new processor releases, even when they are faster than what was previously offered are not geared towards those that already own last years year
Top tier/fastest models or even the year before really, regardless if it is AND or Intel. The that exception is those that have lots of disposable income to throw away and upgrade Everytime something new is released and those people are a very small minority. As most of the user base can only afford to upgrade every few years if not longer. There are also those who have the work loads that this release is the best option all though they have last years tech or the power draw is important. It appears, by your comments, that you fall into the category that new processors are not geared for. So to you this is a underwelming release, which is fine. But it stops there.

I guess your comments remind me of a guy who bought a 2017/2018 corvette, and then complains that the 2019 mustange is underwelming (all though slightly better, just a hypothetical example) so you won't be selling your corvette that is a year or two to get the mustange, and then try and spin it that it is the same for all corvette owners, and they have no reason to purchase the mustange.... All because it doesn't do anything for him. Hello, no business expects that, and no business releases new models with that line of thinking because it is unrealistic. The same thing holds true for computers. And it a flawed thinking.

New processors are for those in the market for a new computer or looking to upgrade, and to give them the incentive to go AMD.

You also say you are not speaking for everyone, but you keep making statements towards the average user base or say most people... So yea!!
 
Last edited:

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,835
See, here is your problem: you are telling us, that it does nothing for you, which is all fine and dandy but you are trying to put the rest of the user base in that same category. And that is where your mistake is. First, new processor releases, even when they are faster than what was previously offered are not geared towards those that already own last years year
Top tier/fastest models or even the year before really, regardless if it is AND or Intel. The that exception is those that have lots of disposable income to throw away and upgrade Everytime something new is released and those people are a very small minority. As most of the user base can only afford to upgrade every few years if not longer. There are also those who have the work loads that this release is the best option all though they have last years tech or the power draw is important. It appears, by your comments, that you fall into the category that new processors are not geared for. So to you this is a underwelming release, which is fine. But it stops there.

I guess your comments remind me of a guy who bought a 2017/2018 corvette, and then complains that the 2019 mustange is underwelming (all though slightly better, just a hypothetical example) so you won't be selling your corvette that is a year or two to get the mustange, and then try and spin it that it is the same for all corvette owners, and they have no reason to purchase the mustange.... All because it doesn't do anything for him. Hello, no business expects that, and no business releases new models with that line of thinking because it is unrealistic. The same thing holds true for computers. And it a fkawed thinking.

New processors are for those in the market for a new computer or looking to upgrade, and to give them the incentive to go AMD.
What about a 2012 Corvette that still doesn't have a successor worth buying? Should I still be excited about the 2019 Mustang or just acknowledge it's good?
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,215
That's all well and good, but I'm not in the business of patting companies on the back for being a good boy. I'm in the business of buying products with tangible benefits and while Zen 2 is great for AMD, and us by bringing healthy competition, it doesn't make it any better in terms of value or performance gain for people that have already upgraded in the last couple of years. It brings yesteryear's level of performance for a better price. Great, but not that exciting. It fairs much better for 12 cores and more, if your parallelism needs aren't met by GPUs already. That's where AMD has no competition currently.
The important metric is not you or me. It's where it stands for people looking to buy this product cycle, obviously the people happy with their current systems are out of the equation.

For enthusiast desktop buyers AMD was already winning that market last year, and these new chips further solidify that.

For Intel to have a comeback in the enthusiast desktop market, they need some real price cuts (something I doubt will happen).

Edit: quoted wrong person somehow. fixed.
 
Last edited:

NWRMidnight

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 23, 2010
Messages
350
What about a 2012 Corvette that still doesn't have a successor worth buying? Should I still be excited about the 2019 Mustang or just acknowledge it's good?
Only those that go for slow Sunday drives in their 2012 corvette and are in the market to replace it, but has never driven their current corvette under conditions that required them to fully utilize its full power so they wouldn't understand the performance differences between the two as they haven't yet done anything beyond light driving.

So i guess you are telling us, that you are only utilizing your 5 year old processor for light work loads and have never really used it for serious work loads where you would be able to justify upgrading. Or, you are full of crap and just showed us your cards.. and you have nothing.

If what you have works for you, great! But don't assume that is true for the masses.
 
Last edited:

dragonstongue

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 18, 2008
Messages
3,161
I am "glad" that many of my attempted purchases and "offers" for sales etc fell through, although the Radeons are pricier than I would have liked, will see/know more once on sale and some hopefully unbiased reviews come out.

I am also quite interested to see how the "world" takes it, such as overclockers or even analyst who should realize by now AMD means business with Ryzen and constantly keeping their valuations "behind" those they are effectively out doing (kind of in regards to a watt/performance or something, as are they not a much much smaller company than Intel or Nvidia?

if not, break them into their 1/2 CPU wise are way smaller than Intel, and GPU wise am pretty sure the Radeon group is also much smaller than the Nvidia folks, certainly invest less / less overhead (not accounting for pay down / investing RnD)

Anywho, at least should have quite a nice pick of at least 2 really solid performing generations going from Ryzen 2600 all the way to the "top end" Ryzen sounds like 3900x

Navi should be 3 offerings right off the bat?
of course there is also the RX 47/80 57/590 all the way to the top Navi.. I suppose the unfortunate is, the pricing of the Navi parts are not likely to really put any pressure to drop pricing of say the 570s .. hard to say if it will actually cause them to jump a wee bit (e-tailers tend to be douches)

If the summer goes well and can save enough, I smell a 3900x and top Navi as well (provided wattage/temps/noise is not overkill :p
 

TheRookie

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
173
It's far from negative, just not much to get hyped about and not as good as expected.Still good and welcomed competition, but I hoped for more because AMD can't afford to be just slightly better than Intel. It's nice to have 12/24 and more for that elusive day (more) software finally catches up, but I was hoping for better 6/12 - 8/16 range. There's nothing there for Intel 7-9xxx >6/6 owners. There's barely anything for me with a seven years old 6/12 OCed Sandy.
I guess you didn't watch the presentation because Lisa Su made it clear that AMD wants to be in the position of leadership, not just a cheap alternative to Intel.

Also, most people who just bought Coffee Lake wouldn't be upgrading anyway.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,512
I guess you didn't watch the presentation because Lisa Su made it clear that AMD wants to be in the position of leadership, not just a cheap alternative to Intel.
"Wants"

She can want all she... wants, but she has a long hill to climb with AMD. There's so much they have to deliver to get to a leadership position that it's staggering.

Also, most people who just bought Coffee Lake wouldn't be upgrading anyway.
Unless they're doing production video encoding or graphics rendering, why would they switch out to something slower?

;)
 

TheRookie

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
173
"Wants"

She can want all she... wants, but she has a long hill to climb with AMD. There's so much they have to deliver to get to a leadership position that it's staggering.
She's already far up the hill from where she started as CEO


Unless they're doing production video encoding or graphics rendering, why would they switch out to something slower?

;)
...and you know this because you have have already tested 3rd gen Ryzen, right?
 

TheRookie

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
173
I'll criticize either company and any other- so I'll say that 'weak' isn't really applicable. Getting within a few % of Skylake is an achievement for AMD; being able to produce CPUs with more cores economically is also an achievement. We expect that AMD is fudging the numbers one way or another, not only because this is marketing, but also because being seen as not catching up to Skylake would indeed look weak. Skylake is old.
That's quite an accusation.

I expect AMD to be cherry picking, but not "fudging the numbers"
 

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,835
I expect AMD to be cherry picking, but not "fudging the numbers"
They often have a tendency for "creative" number spinning for sure, but more so on the GPU side. CPU wise they've been relatively tame since Bulldozer. Better the product, less the need to bullshit since you can let it speak for itself.
 

TheRookie

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
173
I have, almost two years ago, and still have nothing to upgrade to from either AMD or Intel. So, while I can appreciate AMD's progress, it's not exactly mind blowing. Yeah, yeah, moar corezz, whatever. Not useful for the majority.
The last time I cared about efficiency achievements in CPU beyond academic interest was never. Sure, it's great for the company, but of zero use to me. I mostly care about performance in the 4-8 cores range today, and there 's nothing here for me. Why is that so hard to understand? And for the specific high thread use case I could have had a benefit for, it mostly moved on to GPU by now.

So, yes, I can appreciate the progress and what AMD is able to do as an underdog, but for the end user there are limited benefits of it all unless you haven't upgraded in years and have a need for many cores.
You keep saying that you have nothing to upgrade to.

What do you have right now?
 
Last edited:

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,835
You said you care about performance up to 8 cores.

Ryzen 7 3700X and Ryzen 7 3800X have two more cores than the Core i7-8700K.

So there you have it.
Performance of 6/6 - 8/16 CPUs as that is the max useful core count for the majority of use cases today. So, better IPC and clocks in that range are preferable to more cores and we are stagnating in that regard for too long.
 

thebufenator

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,221
Pretty certain Microcenter dropped their Ryzen prices due to these new CPU's from AMD. While I will be waiting for some reviews on these news ones before I replace my desktop, it was hard to ignore the recent price cuts.

Notably, the R5 1600 is down to $80, and the 1700 is down to $130.

I just bought a 1600 and an open box X370 Taichi for $138 total. New fileshare / hypervisor to replace my FX8320e :D
 

readeh

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
296
Performance of 6/6 - 8/16 CPUs as that is the max useful core count for the majority of use cases today. So, better IPC and clocks in that range are preferable to more cores and we are stagnating in that regard for too long.
Obviously things has been slowing down the last couple of decades, but there is still progress for every cpu generation, although not at the same percentage we use to have.
You can say that technology has slowed down, but we all know the reasons, still I don't see why complaining about it changes anything? Your 8700k at 4.8 is still at the top and you will likely have many years use of it.
Having the urge upgrade is cool and all, but what exactly would you use a 20% IPC improvement for if you could get it tomorrow?
 

Flexion

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,607
Anyone think that AMD is releasing these while they slowly bin "golden samples" (lol) and put out the mini AM4 threadripper (16c/32t) around December? One can only wish.

I'm glad all this is happening. Intel would happily sell us quadcores at 4ghz at 14nm until 2025. Lmao.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

jfreund

Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
984
15% IPC gain is impressive. Even if it works out to 10% in real world usage, that's pretty good. I was hoping for higher clocks, but the increase is nothing to sneeze at. What disappoints me is the highest clocks are on the part with the most cores. Fewer cores should run higher clocks in the same TDP.

I'm not going to upgrade my 2700X for moar corz, when I upgrade it will be for moar clokz.
 

Snowdog

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Messages
10,215
15% IPC gain is impressive. Even if it works out to 10% in real world usage, that's pretty good. I was hoping for higher clocks, but the increase is nothing to sneeze at. What disappoints me is the highest clocks are on the part with the most cores. Fewer cores should run higher clocks in the same TDP.

I'm not going to upgrade my 2700X for moar corz, when I upgrade it will be for moar clokz.
AMD usually specifies higher boost on higher end parts. Amount of cores is irrelevant for top boost clock since that only applies to 1 or 2 cores before it starts ramping down.
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,335
Something I havent seen mentioned is the security flaws with Intel. That to me would be a big thing because it does lower performance for Intel. Sure people will post paid Intel slides and show the impact being minimal but until the micro bios comes out, and honest reviewers come out we won't know the entire impact....as of right now there is no way to know.

Intel has been hit with so many security flaws that lowers performance, it would be a no brainer to go AMD. Now if you do own a 8700k or even a 9900k there would be no point to switch platforms, but there are a lot of people that can't afford the Intel route. Now they have a better way to get the same if not better performance for a lower price.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,512
Why is it assumed AMD = Skylake?

That seems very facetious
Because that's the five year old uarch they're trying to catch up with.

...and you know this because you have have already tested 3rd gen Ryzen, right?
I have AMD's numbers and can adjust for 'marketing optimism'.

That's quite an accusation.

I expect AMD to be cherry picking, but not "fudging the numbers"
Cherry picking can fudge the numbers a lot. This is marketing.
 
Top