Possible 12-Core 24-Thread Third-Gen Ryzen 'Matisse' CPU Pops up in UserBenchmark Database

[USAFRet]

People...no personal attacks.
Speak to the facts.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

... Ryzen's are always massively overpriced ...

Above is a quick summary why no can, nor should, take your views seriously.

If that's your opinion, you are welcome to have it, but how you come to form opinions is obviously now in question.

Good job trying to lie. It is obvious from the posts here that this was written:

You can't save a few buck when the new Ryzen's are always massively overpriced. They need to be like the $100 R5 1600. That is real value. See:
https://www.microcenter.com/product/478826/ryzen-5-1600-32ghz-6-core-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-spire-cooler

Making up false statements is all you can do when you have no valid points, so you resort for false personal attacks.

And when I asked if anyone can a better value here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/answers/id-3871506/beat-1600-100-price-performance-gaming.html

There were no alternatives provided. So explain to how the 2700x is NOT massively overpriced compared to a R5 1600? The dollar per fps, per watt etc, just show how badly overpriced the 2700x is .

You are welcome to your opinion, as I said. We already heard it a few times.

 

[SkyBill40]

People...no personal attacks.
Speak to the facts.

He WAS speaking to the facts. A subjective, anecdotal opinion being put forth as a fact was what occurred and he simply called him out on it. There's nothing even remotely close to resembling a personal attack there. No name calling, no insults... just pointing out what it was and nothing more.

"Overpriced" is subjective. What isn't considered at all in that claim is all of the back end costs that go into the production of that CPU. Additionally, AMD will charge what they believe consumers will pay for it; Intel does the exact same. That said, AMD regularly charges far less for their products than Intel while giving very close or often better performance yet the pundits and detractors still complain profusely and buy Intel hand over fist while levying nonsense insults equating AMD purchasers as "cheap", "broke", or whatever negativity they want to lob in order to make themselves feel better.

While none of that has gone on in this thread, we all know it's how it goes. THOSE are personal attacks.

 

[USAFRet]

People...no personal attacks.
Speak to the facts.

He WAS speaking to the facts. A subjective, anecdotal opinion being put forth as a fact was what occurred and he simply called him out on it. There's nothing even remotely close to resembling a personal attack there. No name calling, no insults... just pointing out what it was and nothing more.

And you didn't see the Alert that was tossed up on this.
That is the only reason I commented in here...a preemptive warning.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

So explain to how the 2700x is NOT massively overpriced compared to a R5 1600? The dollar per fps, per watt etc, just show how badly overpriced the 2700x is .

Easy ... the 2700x is not a competitor to the 1600, nor does it try to be ... So using that comparison as a justification for your mere "opinion" is not really appropriate at all.

I am sorry you are not happy with the $300 dollar price tag on the 2700x. I believe Very few share that opinion with you, if anyone in the world at all.

Also note that you are not your opinions.

 

[nobspls]

[...
"Overpriced" is subjective. ..

Really? Says who? Since when? Here is the reality:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3958vs3919

The 2700x is going for $280 see:
https://www.microcenter.com/product/505632/ryzen-7-2700x-37ghz-8-core-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-prism-cooler

The 1600 is going for $100, a fact that is already established.

$280/$100 = 2.8x
The effective performance gain, however you look at as provide already is effectively 1.21x-1.29x
2.8x is much larger multiplier than 1.29x by a large margin. So while "massive" may be subjective, overpriced is not . This is the real facts.

Also fact is that, as history has shown is that AMD will put ridiculously high price on their "newest" top CPU only to see its price drop drastically in 6-9 months. Why is it that he 1700x which was priced at over $400 now at $150?

See:
https://www.microcenter.com/product/485473/ryzen-7-1700x-34-ghz-8-core-am4-boxed-processor

The market reality show that stuff is being overpriced, the evidence is plain as day for everyone to see. You do not even need to bother with considering Intel to see this simple truth.

 

[nobspls]

Easy ... the 2700x is not a competitor to the 1600, nor does it try to be ...

That is an arbitrary subjective criteria you are trying to impose on everyone. If they are being sold in the marketplace, they are competitors. And for the goal of building the best for the buck gaming build, the 2700x is going to be shown to be a very poor competitor.

I am just calling it now. Matisse pricing is going to play out the same way, so very disappointing. AMD is not the ally to gamers like it once was back in the socket 939 days.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

People...no personal attacks.
Speak to the facts.

He WAS speaking to the facts. A subjective, anecdotal opinion being put forth as a fact was what occurred and he simply called him out on it. There's nothing even remotely close to resembling a personal attack there. No name calling, no insults... just pointing out what it was and nothing more.

"Overpriced" is subjective. What isn't considered at all in that claim is all of the back end costs that go into the production of that CPU. Additionally, AMD will charge what they believe consumers will pay for it; Intel does the exact same. That said, AMD regularly charges far less for their products than Intel while giving very close or often better performance yet the pundits and detractors still complain profusely and buy Intel hand over fist while levying nonsense insults equating AMD purchasers as "cheap", "broke", or whatever negativity they want to lob in order to make themselves feel better.

While none of that has gone on in this thread, we all know it's how it goes. THOSE are personal attacks.

I attacked his opinions, and questioned his ability to form sound opinions.

But some people are confused about where the line between between their opinions are, and their "person" is, and thus equate any opposition to their beliefs as an attack on themselves and act out in that manner.

The mod got his alert as a result of this, and thus felt the need to somehow respond to show he wasn't ignoring his duties.

That's the way the cookie crumbles ...

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Easy ... the 2700x is not a competitor to the 1600, nor does it try to be ...

That is an arbitrary subjective criteria you are trying to impose on everyone. If they are being sold in the marketplace, they are competitors. And for the goal of building the best for the buck gaming build, the 2700x is going to be shown to be a very poor competitor.

I am just calling it now. Matisse pricing is going to play out the same way, ...

I am trying to impose the positioning of a company's products on everyone? I think the company selling the product does that. I didn't do that.

By your logic, because Lamborghinis and lettuce are both in the marketplace, they are competitors?
You not making a good argument for you opinion, in fact its getting more poor with each post.

You also seem to be claiming things that you do not know at all. Like the final pricing, the final performance. You don't know these things and its obvious you do not (no one does), but are claiming to know these things ... I don't want to use the word "lies", (no need for you to bother the mods again), but maybe the word "disingenuous" would be appropriate here?

 

[Onus]

IMHO, the "flagship" of any line will always be priced way above any possible linear extrapolation of performance; i.e. the law of diminishing returns is in full effect. Everyone does it, and pretty much always has. When you buy the flagship, you're also buying bragging rights, and the opportunity to feel smug, at least for a little while.

 

[nobspls]

...
By your logic, because Lamborghinis and lettuce are both in the marketplace, they are competitors?
You not making a good argument for you opinion, in fact its getting more poor with each post.
...

Yep more personal attacks. Reality check time, the Lambo and lettuce are competitors. Heck even gas for the Lambo and lettuce are competitors. Guess what the poor federal workers being forced to work without pay very much have to make the difficult decision of buying gas or buying food.

Rather you have provided no proof of any sort of how the stuff in the marketplace are not competitors. People have only finite dollars and they have to make tradeoffs all the time, and naturally stuff will compete.

 

[nobspls]

IMHO, the "flagship" of any line will always be priced way above any possible linear extrapolation of performance; i.e. the law of diminishing returns is in full effect. Everyone does it, and pretty much always has. When you buy the flagship, you're also buying bragging rights, and the opportunity to feel smug, at least for a little while.

I fully recognize the situation of diminishing returns, and the companies/sellers will do this to maximize profits, which means some stuff will be overpriced. And I get that people want to pay more for bragging rights.

But what bragging rights does the 2700x get when it can't even get on the board like a 8700K does. See:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0

I would feel really cheated, because the bragging rights is missing.

At least with my $100 R5 1600, I can brag about the best bang for buck.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

...
By your logic, because Lamborghinis and lettuce are both in the marketplace, they are competitors?
You not making a good argument for you opinion, in fact its getting more poor with each post.
...

Yep more personal attacks. Reality check time, the Lambo and lettuce are competitors. Heck even gas for the Lambo and lettuce are competitors. Guess what the poor federal workers being forced to work without pay very much have to make the difficult decision of buying gas or buying food.

Rather you have provided no proof of any sort of how the stuff in the marketplace are not competitors. People have only finite dollars and they have to make tradeoffs all the time, and naturally stuff will compete.

Very strange perspective ... You may not want to let that anger toward your job build up so much - it might end up debilitating, or perhaps even flow out into your opinions.

 

[USAFRet]

And yet, a couple of years ago, people were paying $1200 for a GTX Titan that gave marginal improvement gaming over a much cheaper 770.
http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GTX-TITAN-vs-GeForce-GTX-770

Why? Some people have more money than brain, and flagships always have a price premium.

 

[SkyBill40]

People...no personal attacks.
Speak to the facts.

He WAS speaking to the facts. A subjective, anecdotal opinion being put forth as a fact was what occurred and he simply called him out on it. There's nothing even remotely close to resembling a personal attack there. No name calling, no insults... just pointing out what it was and nothing more.

And you didn't see the Alert that was tossed up on this.
That is the only reason I commented in here...a preemptive warning.

Understood.

 

[nobspls]

...
Very strange perspective ... You may not want to let that anger toward your job build up so much - it might end up debilitating, or perhaps even flow out into your opinions.

Really even more personal attacks. "Anger", "debilitating"... what other false name calling mis-attributes you like to apply?

The perspective is not strange. It is only "strange" to you. The whole notion of capitalism rides on the fact that everything competes in the market place. This is basic Econ 101, anger not required to know such simple truths. Also fact is that there are many things overpriced relative to their performance, and the R7 2700x is just one more especially compared to a R5 1600.

My position is very simple, the price premium AMD puts on their newest stuff is unjustified, because they don't get bragging rights and they don't hold up over time either. A more fair price premium would be that the 2700x get priced at $210 or something. The pricing decay for the R7 1700x is particularly egregious going from $400 plus to $150.

And considering how minimal the gains the 2700x got over the 1700x see:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-1700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3915vs3958
Where do you think the price of the 2700x will end up and in very short order too?

And how very little gain we see with the 3rd gen Matisse, people should not be fooled a third time. How does the old saying go:
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fool_me_once,_shame_on_you;_fool_me_twice,_shame_on_me

 

[SkyBill40]

[...
"Overpriced" is subjective. ..

Really? Says who? Since when? Here is the reality:
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-1600/3958vs3919

The 2700x is going for $280 see:
https://www.microcenter.com/product/505632/ryzen-7-2700x-37ghz-8-core-am4-boxed-processor-with-wraith-prism-cooler

The 1600 is going for $100, a fact that is already established.

$280/$100 = 2.8x
The effective performance gain, however you look at as provide already is effectively 1.21x-1.29x
2.8x is much larger multiplier than 1.29x by a large margin. So while "massive" may be subjective, overpriced is not . This is the real facts.

Also fact is that, as history has shown is that AMD will put ridiculously high price on their "newest" top CPU only to see its price drop drastically in 6-9 months. Why is it that he 1700x which was priced at over $400 now at $150?

See:
https://www.microcenter.com/product/485473/ryzen-7-1700x-34-ghz-8-core-am4-boxed-processor

The market reality show that stuff is being overpriced, the evidence is plain as day for everyone to see. You do not even need to bother with considering Intel to see this simple truth.

What *you* deem personally to be overpriced and what others may feel are different; hence, it's governed by subjectivity. How do you not see or understand that? Further, the law of supply and demand often figures into that which skews the numbers somewhat. One man's "overpriced" may be another man's "spot on." Just because you disagree doesn't make it so. Your own metric is just that: Your own.

Manufacturers set prices based on several factors, one of which is what they feel is the right price given the divided manufacturing costs and their profit margin (if any). If the market doesn't bite on what they set, they'll drop the price to attract interest and get the products to move. Does that mean they're "overpriced" per se? Not necessarily. It's ultimately up to the end consumer to decide what he or she feels to be an acceptable price for said project. Again, subjectivity... and basic economics.

Finally, what second gen (Zen+) prices are going for now as opposed to when they were first released isn't anything necessarily reflective of them being "overpriced" and is, conversely, more akin to the fact that new stuff is soon to come out. They're simply cutting costs on existing products to clear inventory but are still looking to reap some financial benefit from them. If you want the bleeding edge stuff and are willing to pay what the manufacturer sets it to be at release, that's on you and that premium for being first is baked into that price. If you wait a while, the prices will always come down. Why are first gen prices so cheap now? Because they're OLD. Come on, man.

Your arguments or points, while understandable, seem to not be taking things objectively but instead of someone who is more in the Intel camp and is more interested in down talking AMD no matter what they do. I say that not as an attack of any kind but of direct observation based on the tone and context of your posts.

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

Easy ... the 2700x is not a competitor to the 1600, nor does it try to be ...

That is an arbitrary subjective criteria you are trying to impose on everyone. If they are being sold in the marketplace, they are competitors. And for the goal of building the best for the buck gaming build, the 2700x is going to be shown to be a very poor competitor.

I am just calling it now. Matisse pricing is going to play out the same way, so very disappointing. AMD is not the ally to gamers like it once was back in the socket 939 days.

Wait... what? The Athlon 64 performance was good, but it was pretty close to appropriately priced... the halo products like the Athlon 64 FX were outrageously priced. I'm afraid that you are remembering things a bit wrong. Yes, they were fast, but no, they were not cheap. If Intel were still having problems like they were with the Pentium 4, but with their Core lineup and were charging the same prices they are now, and the analogy somehow holds with all the ifs and maybes, you'd have been looking at a Ryzen launch with the 1800X being a $1000 CPU! Your 1600 would have easily been a $400 CPU. The Ryzen 3 1200 would have been a $170 CPU.

Dude, this rose tinted look at the past falls apart immediately when you go back and look at the pricing of these CPUs.

This is an excerpt from ExtremeTech at around the launch of the Athlon 64 4000+ dated October 19 2004:
AMD cuts prices
AMD also slashed the price of the majority of its chips in its own runup to the holiday selling season.
AMD cut the prices of its 3700+ through 2800+ Athlon 64 models, with prices now ranging from $470 to $144, versus $507 to $173 a month ago, a price drop of about 8 to 20 percent.
Whole article: https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/73618-amd-debuts-athlon-fx55-4000-chip-cuts-prices

Yes the Athlon 64 was a monster of a CPU, and better than the Pentium 4, but holy cow man... they were not cheap. Now, they did GET cheap, but by the time they did AMD was milking an old architecture and had Phenom on the way. It was also around the time that the Core2 CPUs came out from Intel... and those were very competitive.

What you're remembering is the tail end of AMD's glory days, when old Athlon 64 x2 CPUs could still game and were cheap. I had a 4200+ and it was a great CPU... and it was CHEAP when I got it in 2007. I'm not taking anything away from the performance... but it was FAR from the best CPU of its day. Core2 Duos and Quads were out and performing well, and AMD had just launched the original Phenoms.

AMD wasn't being friends with gamers, they were shipping CPUs that happened to be the fastest at the time. When performance moved on they dumped the price and moved on... just like they did with the FX CPUs when Ryzen launched. Just like Intel would do if their CPUs had reasonable performance increases over each generation.

 

[nobspls]

... If you wait a while, the prices will always come down. Why are first gen prices so cheap now? Because they're OLD. Come on, man.

Everyone knows in tech stuff, often it pays to wait. But seriously, for the Ryzen is the payoff for waiting is enormous and anomalous. What do 8700K go for still now that the 9700K is out? Or the 7700k? See:
https://www.microcenter.com/product/486088/core-i7-8700k-coffee-lake-37-ghz-lga-1151-boxed-processor
https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-7700K-Desktop-Processor-unlocked/dp/B01MXSI216/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1548449061&sr=1-1&keywords=7700k

We know Intel is overpriced, but they've basically all sold out and the demand is essentially exceeeding supply and the overpricing continues. On the flip side AMD had to lower their price to unload the stuff which meant they were way overpriced to start with. This is the reality of trying to charge a price premium without the matching bragging rights.

 

[nobspls]

.... I'm afraid that you are remembering things a bit wrong. Yes, they were fast, but no, they were not cheap. If Intel were still having problems like they were with the Pentium 4, but with their Core lineup and were charging the same prices they are now, ..

Who are you to tell me I remembered it wrong? Intel didn't have any Core 2 duos until later 2006, and their real availability was more like mid 2007. I got my receipts here from 2004 and 2005. And I got the A64 3200+ for $180 and a A64 3500+ newcastle for $240, and they more than matched the performance for equivalent P4s that were often 2x the price. Later on in late 2005, I even got the 4400x2 toledo for $250 to use in the same motherboard. Between my builds, and builds I did to help my friends, we know full well what the A64 prices were and how the FX and extreme edition was a waste of money, and how Intel was overpriced, and how Doom3, Unreal Tournament 2 would be like phenomenal with a nVidia 6800GT with an A64.

I also remember all the Intel people harp about how the Intel was still slightly better sometimes on productivity benches, that didn't do jack for gaming. Just like how moar cores right now does not help gaming for Ryzen.

 

[SkyBill40]

... If you wait a while, the prices will always come down. Why are first gen prices so cheap now? Because they're OLD. Come on, man.

Everyone knows in tech stuff, often it pays to wait. But seriously, for the Ryzen is the payoff for waiting is enormous and anomalous. What do 8700K go for still now that the 9700K is out? Or the 7700k? See:
https://www.microcenter.com/product/486088/core-i7-8700k-coffee-lake-37-ghz-lga-1151-boxed-processor
https://www.amazon.com/Intel-i7-7700K-Desktop-Processor-unlocked/dp/B01MXSI216/ref=sr_1_1?s=pc&ie=UTF8&qid=1548449061&sr=1-1&keywords=7700k

We know Intel is overpriced, but they've basically all sold out and the demand is essentially exceeeding supply and the overpricing continues. On the flip side AMD had to lower their price to unload the stuff which meant they were way overpriced to start with. This is the reality of trying to charge a price premium without the matching bragging rights.

Of course waiting makes the most sense. All we need to emphasize that clearly is the example of the new RTX based cards. "Just buy it" wasn't ever a logical choice though some did do precisely that... and they definitely paid for it.

Using Microcenter as a key isn't all that ideal since many of their best deals require an in-person purchase. Seeing that they're not in every state, I'd rule them out. Fry's Electronics falls into the same perspective as it's the closest thing to MC as we have in my location. Using Amazon is fine.

Intel has always been expensive and always will be. Supply and demand being what they are has driven the short stock to ridiculous levels but Intel seems to have minimal concern about that and all it does is drive consumers to AMD. The performance gap isn't nearly as wide as it used to be and gets tighter all the time.

The reality of things is that Intel and AMD are going to charge what they see most prudent.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

...
Very strange perspective ... You may not want to let that anger toward your job build up so much - it might end up debilitating, or perhaps even flow out into your opinions.

Really even more personal attacks. "Anger", "debilitating"... what other false name calling mis-attributes you like to apply?

I didn't name call. And whatever attributes you express are yours, whether I point them out or not does not make them exist or not exist - that is clearly outside of my control and within yours. You have done nothing but expressed anger towards AMD and even a few members ... whats your goal?

--------------------

Anyway, I need some advice ... I need to buy a new processor and I'm not sure which one I should get ... 2700x? now, pony up for 9900k and a new PSU and cooler to support it? wait to see Zen2 launch? ... or should I just bite the bullet and get Lettuce?

 

[justin.m.beauvais]

.... I'm afraid that you are remembering things a bit wrong. Yes, they were fast, but no, they were not cheap. If Intel were still having problems like they were with the Pentium 4, but with their Core lineup and were charging the same prices they are now, ..

Who are you to tell me I remembered it wrong? Intel didn't have any Core 2 duos until later 2006, and their real availability was more like mid 2007. I got my receipts here from 2004 and 2005. And I got the A64 3200+ for $180 and a A64 3500+ newcastle for $240, and they more than matched the performance for equivalent P4s that were often 2x the price. Later on in late 2005, I even got the 4400x2 toledo for $250 to use in the same motherboard. Between my builds, and builds I did to help my friends, we know full well what the A64 prices were and how the FX and extreme edition was a waste of money, and how Intel was overpriced, and how Doom3, Unreal Tournament 2 would be like phenomenal with a nVidia 6800GT with an A64.

I also remember all the Intel people harp about how the Intel was still slightly better sometimes on productivity benches, that didn't do jack for gaming. Just like how moar cores right now does not help gaming for Ryzen.

If that is your measurement of a good deal, same performance for half the price then look no further than the Ryzen 5 3600x, basically the CPU demoed at CES that will be the same price as the 2600x and matched the Core i9 9900K in Cinebench... The $500 Intel CPU being matched by a $225 AMD CPU. Yes, one benchmark doesn't make the CPU, but lets be honest, Cinebench scores especially the single core tests are pretty indicative of the performance you can expect in the real world. Intel always has the higher single thread score, and is better at gaming and blah blah blah, but now AMD can match that score. With a preproduction engineering model no less. So what exactly are you complaining about? That it is too good to be true, because I feel I smashed that myth over in one of the other threads. It is not only technically possible, but it is in AMD's best interests to release CPUs that have this kind of performance, even if they are really quite a lot faster.

You are judging this 12 core 24 thread Zen 2 chip that has REALLY low clock speeds, an early engineering sample. The silicon it is on is capable of clocks in excess of 4.5 GHz, possibly 5 GHz. You clearly have no idea about how IPC works, despite my simplified and condescending explanation of it. So what exactly is your angle here? Complain about everything until we give up and that makes you right? No. Absolutely not. You might have personal preferences on performance for price, but you twist facts to say what you want them to say and not actually what they say. In that way you are wrong. A bunch of people have tried to explain this to you. You seem to understand but refuse to accept the reality of it all.

AMD doesn't fail because they fail to meet your expectations. They are actually doing really well. They have all but caught up with Intel. They are on the verge of exceeding them. That is a heck of a turn around for a company that was on death's doorstep not too long ago. Who's last competitive product was a completely flawed design (read Phenom) and by the time they were back on track (Phenom II) they had been passed.

You can claim doom and gloom, but evidence is not on your side. The next generation of Ryzen is actually shaping up to be good, and that is the conservative scenario. How can you ignore the evidence? Your 1600 is clocked at 3.9 GHz. It is matched in single core performance by a CPU clocked 300 MHz less. That is a big leap in IPC for a CPU clocked that much lower to match one clocked that much higher. Quad core and multicore performance from that point is just tuning. The next time we see a CPU with this configuration, it is going to be a monster of a chip.

You know, this is really pretty amazing stuff. The last time I saw things looking this good for AMD was right before they launched the original Athlon, the slayer of Pentium III's. Well, you know what happened after that, apparently better than I remember it. Athlon rocked Intel's world. It was amazing. Watching AMD go from K6 to K7 was a treat. I wish all the kids running around here could have watched it happen. One day Intel was sitting pretty, and the next they were struggling, like 9990K struggling. Trying to squeeze more and more out of the Pentium IIIs, matching or trying to leapfrog the Athlon pushing to past 1 GHz with AMD beating them to the milestone, then trying to push those Pentiums more... right up until they broke. They probably won't... but I want to see Intel release a Skylake based CPU that just breaks because they pushed it too far (fingers are crossed for the 9990K being that chip). Those were the best times to be an AMD fan.

Oh... sorry for the nostalgia. Summary: You are wrong. That is all.

 

[SkyBill40]

Anyway, I need some advice ... I need to buy a new processor and I'm not sure which one I should get ... 2700x? now, pony up for 9900k and a new PSU and cooler to support it? wait to see Zen2 launch? ... or should I just bite the bullet and get Lettuce?

At this point? I'd just wait for Zen 2 and call it good seeing we're not that far out. As the release approaches, you might find the prices of Zen+ to be too tempting to pass on given the prices that are speculated on the new CPUs. I've been salivating at a new build for quite some time seeing that my FX8350 is pretty long in the tooth compared to today's gear but still, I chug on awaiting the best upgrade possible and which, for me, will be Zen2. Your results or outcome may vary.

 

[joeblowsmynose]

Anyway, I need some advice ... I need to buy a new processor and I'm not sure which one I should get ... 2700x? now, pony up for 9900k and a new PSU and cooler to support it? wait to see Zen2 launch? ... or should I just bite the bullet and get Lettuce?

At this point? I'd just wait for Zen 2 and call it good seeing we're not that far out. As the release approaches, you might find the prices of Zen+ to be too tempting to pass on given the prices that are speculated on the new CPUs. I've been salivating at a new build for quite some time seeing that my FX8350 is pretty long in the tooth compared to today's gear but still, I chug on awaiting the best upgrade possible and which, for me, will be Zen2. Your results or outcome may vary.

Thanks,

Zen2 so far, we know very little but there's a lot that has been rumored .. I don't really like that ratio. That said, the little bit of solid info that has been coming out from AMD themselves seems to be indicating that there is at least some truth to the rumours - more and more. I initially had strong doubts on the rumours, but now it's looking like it may come together ...

I'm not liking Intel much at the moment (I place value on companies as a whole, not just their products) and I think that 9900k, while impressive is a hard sell, a good example of a massively overpriced product in my opinion.

With your 8350, even if Zen2 doesn't pan out in performance, or in price (since absolutely no one knows what these will be even if they claim otherwise), then by then 2700x may be even more affordable (I'm going to assume 8 or more cores is important to you) so you could always get bangin' deal on one of those, considering they are currently the best bang for your buck in any task that uses more than a few threads, and it would be a very pleasant upgrade from the 8350.

I currently have 1700 (non X), and the 2700x, while tempting at the price (same now as what I paid for my 1700), and would provide at least an additional 400-500mhz over what I have - it sounds small, I know, but I do a lot of 3D rendering (art is my passion), so even small gains there over 16 threads can be valuable to me, might not really be worth it (unless I don't need the $$ otherwise, which is rarely the case).

I have heard recently though that a head of Lettuce with 1 core is also quite competitive, but I don't think it will fit my socket ...

I actually am very excited to continue hearing the news and rumours around Zen 2, no one in their right mind would write them off at this point, that is for sure, we still have up to 5 months for this to play out, but I have a sneaking suspicion we'll be hearing a lot more from AMD at GDC in March.

All that said, I am a little excited to see what Intel brings to the table to counter zen2, it just seems like with Intel though, we better wait until real products emerge. (ahem .. 28 core 5gz anyone?)