Yup. I am very content with my 480 right now. No reason to upgrade if they don't give any cost incentives.
Yup. I am very content with my 480 right now. No reason to upgrade if they don't give any cost incentives.
Well, Nvidia's launch pricing does tend to be quite high, but I wouldn't say they don't do price drops. When the GTX 1080 launched, it was $700. Nine months later, the much faster 1080 Ti was launched at that same price point, and the 1080 dropped to $500. And Vega wasn't even coming out for another five months, so it's not like they had any real competition for the 1080 at the time. I suspect they wanted to head off AMD's new cards before they had a chance to make headlines though. Currently, we're nearing nine months since the 20-series launched, so it wouldn't be surprising to see somewhat faster cards take existing price points, and existing cards see their prices slashed to some extent. 20-series pricing was widely considered to be underwhelming relative to what the 10-series had already been offering, so I'm sure a lot of people had been holding off on upgrades due to the pricing of these cards. Reduced prices could help Nvidia tap that market, while disrupting the launch of AMD's new cards.Nvidia and Intel are two companies with very similar approaches to doing business. They very simply hate to lower the costs of their products especially if they still hold an edge somewhere no matter how small of an edge that may be.
It will undoubtedly happen eventually, and you may even see lower performance gains than that, or longer time between generations. Each manufacturing node becomes harder to achieve than the last, and eventually we will get to the point where it becomes impractical to gain performance by shrinking transistors. There might be major breakthroughs in processor design that work around that, but for the most part it seems likely that CPU performance will continue leveling off in the long term. That will also likely affect performance gains for other components as well....lets hope we never go back to overpriced processors offering a whopping 4, 5% IPC gain over the previous generation with the same core count as the previous generation...
The 2060 already is priced slightly lower than a 5700. At least going by US pricing, the 2060 has an MSRP of $350, and it's possible to find some single-fan models on sale for even less than that. AMD is claiming that the 5700 will be around 10% faster, but it has an MSRP of $380.What we may see is Nvidia dropping the cost of the 2060 to slightly lower than the 5700 but keeping the 2070 at $450 - $470 and charging a premium for their "Super" line.
I'm chiming in late here and I know the conversation has moved on, but I just wanted to respond to this...Undercut, yes. Undercut by less than half? No. There is no way they would undercut Intel by that much.
I'm not ok with the 3600 clock speeds when comparing to AMD's own existing 1600 and 2600 parts, you're not getting much other then IPC unless this thing overclocks well. Personally I'll go to AMD's new mid-range during the holiday season and get a 3800 or 3800X. I don't need the 3900X or 3950X at this point.
I am curious about the 3000-3500X line up and what that will bring to the truly budget constrained.
$50 is not a lot of money for a binned 3600 CPU. I for one would opt for the 3600X ;-)Well Its about time for me to update my system (7 years), and I'm debating between the 3600 & the 3600x I'm not sure the difference is worth the extra green stamps.
The 3600 clocks at 4.2Ghz boost (all cores), and the 3600X boosts at 4.4Ghz (all cores). Be careful comparing single core boost clocks from some of the Intel CPUs with all core boost clocks from AMD. My 2700X boosts to 4Ghz all cores regularly with no issues whatsoever. I plan to upgrade to the 3950X, which boosts to 4.7Ghz. For me, the 3950X is a bargain compared to anything Intel makes today. $750 vs. $1500 is all I need to see. Even if Intel's upcoming 10nm CPUs have better IPC and higher clocks, it's not worth double or even triple the price. Intel will never learn.
Who said those are the all core boost speeds? Those are the max boost clocks, you're not going to get all cores running at that speed under load at stock settings.The 3600 clocks at 4.2Ghz boost (all cores), and the 3600X boosts at 4.4Ghz (all cores).
Except they have had better value many times. Its all dependent. he Q6600 was $300 when the QuadFX was well more than double the price and was vastly and inferior product (double the cost, way more power draw, less performance)
If AMD gets to a certain point or equivalent performance with they will price accordingly.
And until the reviews come out I don't think the 3950X is 4.7GHz on all cores. Even with AMD all their boost has been certain cores just like Intel with the highest clocks going to single core clocks. When you set the boost yourself its different. Hell most overclocking since then has been setting boost to all cores at a certain clock which is what most people do. Although Intel is killing even that with the 9900KS which is just 5GHz no matter what.
They didnt call it xfr either.
If the turbo speed is like the ryzen 3000 series, it will be a 1 thread turbo.
Even though the 2600s turbo is 3.9ghz, it usually is around 3.7/3.8 on all cores.
@Redneck5439 I think Ryzen's multi core boosts are still restricted by the CPU power limit, regardless of temp. You can use PBO or whatever to remove/adjust those limits, but I would still consider that to be non-stock operation the same as if you enable MCE on Intel platforms.
Oh, don't get me wrong, it sounds like a great feature from everything I've heard. I'm just saying that, IMO, when somebody talks about Ryzen multi-/all-core boost clocks that should be without PBO enabled. Unless one is specifically talking about tweaked/OC'd performance. In the same way that I would never claim that an 8700K has a 4.7 GHz all core turbo, even though all that may take is flipping on a single BIOS setting (which some boards may even enable by default).
Lisa Su said they should be on level in single core performance. That makes sense, given Zen's IPC deficit was about 5%. A 15% increase should put it around 8-10% ahead. In terms of clock speed, Ryzen 3000 is only about 5-10% behind as well, depending on the price point. That would put them right on par with Intel, before security patches are applied.Except Lisa said they should be on level IPC wise. And even if its only 12.5% more cores it still is an entire core plus the SMT threads.
Lisa Su said they should be on level in single core performance. That makes sense, given Zen's IPC deficit was about 5%. A 15% increase should put it around 8-10% ahead. In terms of clock speed, Ryzen 3000 is only about 5-10% behind as well, depending on the price point. That would put them right on par with Intel, before security patches are applied.
The gaming performance is more interesting, because the additional L3 cache will not benefit each game equally. The Windows 1903 scheduler update may make up for the difference, and it hadn't been installed yet in AMD's slides. From my personal experience, some games really did improve 10-15% on my 2600X, which doesn't even have the chiplet problem.
All in all, although the gaming results may be cherry-picked to a degree, AMD seems to have a lot of performance in hand over Intel as well. They seem to be looking to exceed their pitched expectations this time, which is always good marketing.
It's unfair to compare Zen 2 to Bulldozer. Zen 1 did live up to AMD's claims, even if those claims were only for it to be equal to Broadwell. Also Lisa Su said that AMD actually expected a full Ice Lake launch this summer, which hasn't happened.Every single benchmark that comes from the manufacture is cherry picked. Its why they compare only certain CPUs in certain cases or sections. Its why they can never be trusted. AMD did this with Bulldozer. Every single slide made it look like it was better than Intel. Then the third party sites got a hold of the chips and did their reviews and the truth as not as clear as AMD made it out to be.
As someone else already mentioned, that's only a 12.5% difference in the number of threads. If the 3950X has the same all-core boost behavior under strong cooling we've seen from Ryzen 1000 and 2000, I see no reason why an upset couldn't be true, although 30% is another story. But if we look at AMD's own slides for the 3900X vs the 9920X, I wouldn't hold my breath for this so quickly. Regardless, the difference will be minimal. Maybe Geekbench benefits massively from the larger L3 cache for some reason, which would make it an outlier.I still don't see a 16 core 32 threaded CPU beating an 18 core 36 threaded CPU by 30% in a high thread count optimized scenario much like I wouldn't see Intels 12 core beating AMDs 16 core either.
This is mostly true, which is why the L3 cache is so huge. AMD is trying market it as some revolutionary gaming feature, but the truth is that they can't do without it.The chiplet design will present some issues. Mainly communications will be constraint to probably the same speeds as memory since the interconnect does seem to show reliance on that. We shall see when reviews hit.
It's unfair to compare Zen 2 to Bulldozer. Zen 1 did live up to AMD's claims, even if those claims were only for it to be equal to Broadwell. Also Lisa Su said that AMD actually expected a full Ice Lake launch this summer, which hasn't happened.
As someone else already mentioned, that's only a 12.5% difference in the number of threads. If the 3950X has the same all-core boost behavior under strong cooling we've seen from Ryzen 1000 and 2000, I see no reason why an upset couldn't be true, although 30% is another story. But if we look at AMD's own slides for the 3900X vs the 9920X, I wouldn't hold my breath for this so quickly. Regardless, the difference will be minimal. Maybe Geekbench benefits massively from the larger L3 cache for some reason, which would make it an outlier.
This is mostly true, which is why the L3 cache is so huge. AMD is trying market it as some revolutionary gaming feature, but the truth is that they can't do without it.
The IF's clock is still tied to the memory clock, but the link width has doubled to 512 bits, which should improve throughput tremendously, even at the same transfer rate. The real problem is the the extra latency because the I/O die is an extra 'hop'. The new Windows scheduler will alleviate much of this problem, until threads start to spill over to the other die.
I am not comparing Zen 2 to Bulldozer. Just the marketing. Its the same tactic that was used. Compare specific areas only to CPUs that it wins against. Considering the 3950X is a mainstream processor I wonder why it is not being compared even in power to its main competition, the 9900K.
Its a big reason why I don't trust OEM slides with performance comparison. The only ones I do trust are when they compare to their own previous products. Its why everything performance wise I wait until TH, Anand etc do a proper review.
I don't see the R9 3950X as as the i9 9900Ks main competition. I don't see how it could be... The 9900K is a ~$500 CPU and the 3950X is a $750 CPU. The 9900K is 8 cores and 16 threads, the 3950X is 16 cores and 32 threads. The two processors aren't in the same competition space no matter how you look at it. The 3900X at $500 is at the same price point as the 9900K, so the argument can be made that it is the 9900K's main competition, however even with this we are comparing a 12 core processor to an 8 core processor. You could also compare the 3800X as it is also 8 cores and 16 threads, however it isn't in the same price bracket as it is only $400.
Really the i9 9900K's main competition would have to be the R9 3900X as they are both in the $500 range. The 3950X really doesn't have a direct competitor as it is priced$250 more than the 9900K and ~$250 less than the next closest Intel processor the 10 core i9 9900X ($1000) and$450 less than the 12 core i9 9920X ($1200). If AMD comes anywhere close to the performance most think the 3000 series will have they are priced to downright dominate the market and Intel will be forced to lower their extreme overpricing.