Question Anyone else slightly disappointed by the new Ryzen?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

alross016

Dec 10, 2018
24
2
15
Atm I'm slightly disappointed with how the new Ryzens are looking, I was hoping to get a 8/16 but I need to Get a 3800x for that, and there isn't much point in that, 429$. I can buy a 2700 for 200$ atm what is the point apart from the pcie 4.0
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
DMAN999 said:
^ Personally if I can get a Ryzen 7 3700x for around $300 next year and can sell my Ryzen 5 2600 for $100, I will be very happy as long as the 3700x performs as well as I believe it will.
But obviously I will not make any decision regarding upgrading until I see how the 3700x performs on my ROG Strix B450-F Gaming MB.
For me the worst case scenario I foresee is that I upgrade to a Ryzen 5 3600 and OC it like I am currently doing with my Ryzen 5 2600.
Either way I am happy with my current setup and won't even consider upgrading for at least six months or so.
Click to expand...
Keep your 2600 and wait for 4th gen. You can make a decision to go new 4th gen or used/new 3rd gen in 2020. The 2600 is still more than capable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pupq1 and DMAN999
Upvote 0 Downvote
SgtScream said:
Keep your 2600 and wait for 4th gen. You can make a decision to go new 4th gen or used/new 3rd gen in 2020. The 2600 is still more than capable.
Click to expand...
I completely agree that my 2600 meets and even exceeds my current needs.
I have absolutely no need to upgrade.
But if I can get a 3700x next year for around $200 or even a 3600 for $100 (after selling my 2600) I will probably go for it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
New releases of widget X|Y|Z are always accompanied by peak prices. The same thing applies to widget(s) A|B|C which are intended to augment the aforementioned widgets. Prices will drop, as history has repeatedly demonstrated.

That's the first of two reasons why it's best to step-back and let others have at it at release time, and wait until things settle-down.

The second reason is because new releases will always be accompanied by bugs and incompatibilities.

If people are happy paying higher prices for the privilege of crash-testing new technology, more power to 'em. I'll wait until the products are more stable, and prices drop....like they always do.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AllanGH said:
True, but Intel has been that way from the outset, so I stopped expecting them to come down to the same level that the rest of us live on.

Of course, Xerox and IBM had the "We're the best. They'll be back." attitude, and look at what they lost because of it. Neither is a shadow of what they used to be.
Click to expand...
Xerox, half agreed. IBM, you can't be more wrong.

IBM not producing consumer stuff does not mean they're not developing their own solutions for enterprise and other wacky projects.

As for your overall point, yes, everyone should expect price drops for stuff that's been in the market for a while when new stuff appears. Companies that don't do it, is because they have no competition.

Cheers!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Admittedly, I was thinking more of the consumer end of both businesses; however, what is left of IBM's consumer computing division?

Ask Lenovo.

As to Xerox....I'm not certain what is left that is functional of Xerox RMA or Fuji Xerox, but their USA domestic reprographics and field service arm is a hollowed-out shell. Canon started kicking their ass in the 1980's and never let-up, producing innovation after innovation with reasonable consumer-level pricing.

You can't compete with that.

############################

I worked for both Canon and Xerox, back in....well, too long ago, by now....and developed a fairly good analysis of both corporations; which gives me more to say about them than anyone wants to read, so I have mercifully trimmed those off.

Suffice it to say that I was shocked, and more than disappointed, by the corporate philosophy of Xerox. Their decline is self-inflicted.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
fagetti said:
Is there any info if these new Ryzen will overclock better than previous generations? Or does intel cpu:s still be the best for oc potential
Click to expand...
If all turbo functions well then OC is not needed. Why would you want to bather with OC if CPU can run at it's maximum as it is. OC is to fix flaws, not a goal unto itself. With proper testing at manufacturer they can be divided according to performance and you would get exactly what you bought.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fagetti
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well yes, if you can't produce a product of consistent quality, all products that can't produce consistent maximum performance, can be considered as flawed. Intel partially solves that by adding K at the end of part number so you know that this particular CPU can go higher under changed circumstances (higher voltage etc.) than base model with no K. There would be no reason for K model if they were not selling flawed CPUs so they don't have to throw them away.
AMD does it somewhat differently, they call it X for fully successful CPU (used to be called Black edition) which can boost to it's maximum and non-x with which you might get close to max performance by overclocking. Result is same, if it works at all don't throw it away, sell for less but no 100% performance of an x model and less of CPUs thrown away.
Until Ryzen 3, both were actually attempting to make one processor but samples that had something wrong with them (like bad cores or needed voltage higher than set limit) would end up either with disabled cores or non-k/non BE practically locked for any OC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fagetti
Upvote 0 Downvote
CountMike said:
... There would be no reason for K model if they were not selling flawed CPUs so they don't have to throw them away.
...
Click to expand...

But again, how overclocking FIXES the flaws of manufacturing is what is intriguingly illogical to me. The flaws in the CPU I buy are what they are, I can't fix them by overclocking. I will only expose them when I reach the limits of what I won in the silicon lottery, this is even true with a 'K' CPU. Not all 9900K's will do 5.1Ghz, as I understand it.

I think maybe your meaning is that that marketing non-K CPU's is something that fixes an inherently flaw-filled manufacturing process. Not that I believe Intel's shunts only seriously flawed CPU's to the non-K SKU's though. I'm perfectly confident it's the marketing types who've segmented the market such that Mfg. and Engineering are obligated to fill the pipeline with dies that could just as easily be sold with a 'K' suffix.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
drea.drechsler said:
But again, how overclocking FIXES the flaws of manufacturing is what is intriguingly illogical to me. The flaws in the CPU I buy are what they are, I can't fix them by overclocking. I will only expose them when I reach the limits of what I won in the silicon lottery, this is even true with a 'K' CPU. Not all 9900K's will do 5.1Ghz, as I understand it.

I think maybe your meaning is that that marketing non-K CPU's is something that fixes an inherently flaw-filled manufacturing process. Not that I believe Intel's shunts only seriously flawed CPU's to the non-K SKU's though. I'm perfectly confident it's the marketing types who've segmented the market such that Mfg. and Engineering are obligated to fill the pipeline with dies that could just as easily be sold with a 'K' suffix.
Click to expand...
For the first part. that's more about binning, best ones are binned highest within same series so some 9900k can't hit 5 or 5.1 GHz but some I have seen can be OCed to 5.3GHz. If they could all of them would work at 5.3GHz but they can't.
No, anything that came out of production less than perfect is flawed in some way.
As for second part, yes, marketing can have something to do with it. I remeber AMD Phenom II x2 550BE. it was intentionally sold as 2 core while they could invariably be unlocked to 4 core and still be OC.ed considerably, all so they could be sold at lower price and still not cut down on sales of same CPUs but with 4 cores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fagetti
Upvote 0 Downvote
gettyimages-911985014.jpg


War?

What war?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DMAN999
Upvote 0 Downvote
Wait can you guys be more specific please?
What exactly disappoints you about the Ryzen 3000 based only on what we know BEFORE the release?
Just by looking at the numbers and specs and prices I honestly thought these were the best cpus ever made, and then after looking at the benchmarks, dude, they are f***ing BEASTS man. Like seriously how can the $200 Ryzen beat the freaking I9 9900k in some benchmark related to multi-core performance that I don't remember what it was about and it doesn't even matter because the 3600 beats a three times more expensive cpu which actually blows my mind
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ElectrO_90 said:
This just appeared 5 minutes ago -
Click to expand...
Just keep in mind that the sample sizes there are still too low to draw any definitive conclusions from. Currently, they stand at 3 user benchmark runs for the 3700X, 1 run for the 3600X, 14 runs for the 3600, and no runs for the 3800X and 3900X. Plus, there can be other performance differences that appear in real-world software that are not necessarily reflected by this benchmark, and most people will likely be more interested in how real-world performance compares. : )

Pupq1 said:
Wait can you guys be more specific please?
What exactly disappoints you about the Ryzen 3000 based only on what we know BEFORE the release?
Click to expand...
Note that this thread was from back in May, just after the prices and specifications were announced. Prior to that, there were some rumors going around about unrealistically-low pricing. I wasn't buying those rumors, but was a little disappointed to see that AMD didn't even match their 2000 series launch pricing. The 3600 is the same price as the 2600 was at launch, but the 3600X is $20 more than the 2600X was. And considering there are two 8-core parts, just as there were before, the 3700X could arguably be considered a successor to the 2700, but priced $30 higher, and the 3800X a successor to the 2700X, but priced $70 more. That's not exactly a straightforward comparison though, since the 3700X does appear to outperform the 2700X by a fair margin, but it was a little disappointing to not see a lower-clocked 8-core for $300, as there had been before. As it is now, the lowest-priced 8-core costs 65% more than the lowest-priced 6-core. For most current usage scenarios, adding those two extra cores seems like a more difficult upsell than it had been before. Of course, these chips do appear to be more competitive than ever to Intel's offerings from a performance standpoint, so many might be willing to pay a bit more for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pupq1
Upvote 0 Downvote
I have just seen some CB r15 benchmarks, 3600 is giving some 195 points while my 2700x is 176 in single core. That's not bad considering that single core of mine is pushing 100MHz more than 3600's boost clock. It's just few hours until NDA ends and there will be flood of real benchmark scores all over the place.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
CountMike said:
I have just seen some CB r15 benchmarks, 3600 is giving some 195 points while my 2700x is 176 in single core. That's not bad considering that single core of mine is pushing 100MHz more than 3600's boost clock. It's just few hours until NDA ends and there will be flood of real benchmark scores all over the place.
Click to expand...
Do you have a actual Time it can be shown? It's late afternoon where I am and still nothing. 🙁
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom