[SOLVED] Questioning the Ryzen 3000 Series, 12 Cores/16 Cores (7nm)? FX Stunt?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,132
8
19,315
21
if the recent Tom's article about Ryzen 3000 is accurate, now even the new R5 will have 8 cores (3600X at 4.8 GHz boost?), with the former lowly R3 newly having 6c/12t? Impressive!

(Intel has best move up their 10 nm desktop launch ASAP...; delaying 2021 is now just sad!)
All the news "hyped up" news articles about ryzen 3000 series was from 1 person made some bs rumor on his youtube channel ...then all articles started to follow his stuff. Hyped up the "AMD buyers" too...sadly.

AMD good at improving performance only in Cinebench apparently -
 
All the news "hyped up" news articles about ryzen 3000 series was from 1 person made some bs rumor on his youtube channel ...then all articles started to follow his stuff. Hyped up the "AMD buyers" too...sadly.

AMD good at improving performance only in Cinebench apparently -
Wait and see before you can say that. Adored TV has leaked RTX cards correctly before they were announced.
 

DMAN999

Notable
Apr 17, 2019
1,126
288
1,190
32
^
What about us best performance for the best price fans? (I am way too old to be considered a boy, LOL)?
I don't care if a product is Intel, AMD or Nvidia based as long as it provides me with good performance for a decent price.
I currently have a Ryzen 5 2600 OC'd to 3.95 GHz and an MSI GTX 1660 TI Armor 6G OC on an ROG Strix B450-F Gaming mb.
I only spent just over $400 for my MB, CPU, CPU Cooler, RAM and PSU.
I did spend $200 on my 1660 Ti (after selling my GTX 1060 3 GB card).
A similar performing Intel based system would have cost me at least $200 more and would not be as upgradeable.
So why spend extra money for little to no performance increase and no upgradeability?


PS
WHAT'S UP WITH ALL THOSE CAPS?????
 
Last edited:
That is one flaw of AMD currently. They offer a lot of cores which is great for workstation tasks, however, they require fast ram (cheap now) and tend to be memory starved.
Threadripper is better with 4 channel, but still is memory starved and has issues with Adobe software
 
^
What about us best performance for the best price fans? (I am way too old to be considered a boy, LOL)?
I don't care if a product is Intel, AMD or Nvidia based as long as it provides me with good performance for a decent price.
I currently have a Ryzen 5 2600 OC'd to 3.95 GHz and an MSI GTX 1660 TI Armor 6G OC on an ROG Strix B450-F Gaming mb.
I only spent just over $400 for my MB, CPU, CPU Cooler, RAM and PSU.
I did spend $200 on my 1660 Ti (after selling my GTX 1060 3 GB card).
A similar performing Intel based system would have cost me at least $200 more and would not be as upgradeable.
So why spend extra money for little to no performance increase and no upgradeability?


PS
WHAT'S UP WITH ALL THOSE CAPS?????
A similar performing Intel based system would have cost me at least $200 more and would not be as upgradeable.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/19.html
Your 2600 O/C to 3.95 is exactly on par with a stock i3-8350k in gaming and about 20% faster in general CPU workloads,they are also pretty much exactly the same price ...the i3 is easily overclockable by another 20% making them exact equals, with the i3 kicking the ryzens butt in anything older and less threaded.
On the ryzen platform you can only upgrade to 2 more cores +SMT ,on the intel platform if you got a compatible mobo you can upgrade to the 9th gen with 8 cores 16 threads, so intel is more upgradable on your performance level.
You would need to invest more into a good motherboard because you would actually overclock to a positive degree with the i3 and not basically just lock it to max turbo.
 
Reactions: valeman2012
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/19.html
Your 2600 O/C to 3.95 is exactly on par with a stock i3-8350k in gaming and about 20% faster in general CPU workloads,they are also pretty much exactly the same price ...the i3 is easily overclockable by another 20% making them exact equals, with the i3 kicking the ryzens butt in anything older and less threaded.
On the ryzen platform you can only upgrade to 2 more cores +SMT ,on the intel platform if you got a compatible mobo you can upgrade to the 9th gen with 8 cores 16 threads, so intel is more upgradable on your performance level.
You would need to invest more into a good motherboard because you would actually overclock to a positive degree with the i3 and not basically just lock it to max turbo.
It'd be quite hard (for me anyway) to imagine anyone intentionally getting an i3-8350K (even 18 months ago, much less today) and then pairing it with a $150-$250 Z370/390, with intent of replacing the CPU later(leaving an orphaned $170 CPU now useless/wasted) as a viable upgrade path...(yes, the 8350K does quite well in single threaded stuff, but, it's essentially a rebadged 7600K, which, with only 4 threads, is circling the proverbial drain in usefulness for gaming , even if it does 'ok' for many folks to this day by virtue of it's clock speed)
 
Reactions: rigg42

DMAN999

Notable
Apr 17, 2019
1,126
288
1,190
32
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/19.html
Your 2600 O/C to 3.95 is exactly on par with a stock i3-8350k in gaming and about 20% faster in general CPU workloads,they are also pretty much exactly the same price ...the i3 is easily overclockable by another 20% making them exact equals, with the i3 kicking the ryzens butt in anything older and less threaded.
On the ryzen platform you can only upgrade to 2 more cores +SMT ,on the intel platform if you got a compatible mobo you can upgrade to the 9th gen with 8 cores 16 threads, so intel is more upgradable on your performance level.
You would eed to invest more into a good motherboard because you would actually overclock to a positive degree with the i3 and not basically just lock it to max turbo.
I never even considered an i3 when I was researching my build.
I only really considered the i5-8600K and i7-8700K both of which were quite a bit more expensive than the Ryzen 5 2600.
I will say that my current rig with all cores at 3.95 GHz and my Ram at 3400 MHz gets better scores in benchmarks than a stock 2600x, which is about what I figured it would do.
So I was looking only at intel cpu's that would outperform the 2600x.

All I know is that when I did research into CPU's/MB's at the same approximate performance level of the 2600x. (+ or - 10% or so)
The Ryzen 5 2600 OC'd was by far the best deal I could get.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: rigg42

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
449
144
390
11
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/19.html
Your 2600 O/C to 3.95 is exactly on par with a stock i3-8350k in gaming and about 20% faster in general CPU workloads,they are also pretty much exactly the same price ...the i3 is easily overclockable by another 20% making them exact equals, with the i3 kicking the ryzens butt in anything older and less threaded.
On the ryzen platform you can only upgrade to 2 more cores +SMT ,on the intel platform if you got a compatible mobo you can upgrade to the 9th gen with 8 cores 16 threads, so intel is more upgradable on your performance level.
You would need to invest more into a good motherboard because you would actually overclock to a positive degree with the i3 and not basically just lock it to max turbo.
Your logic is flawed. This post is silly.

The i3 doesn't have a stock cooler and a Z board costs more money than what he already bought. It's not the same price.

Zen 2 is around the corner and is compatible with his current motherboard. His board has just as good of a chance of running a zen 2 8 core ( or the rumored zen 2 12 core) as you would of running a 9900k to full load max all core turbo (4.7ghz) on a cheap Z370/390. Upgrading to a 9900k (in the time frame a 4 thread CPU will be completely unusable in modern titles) is still going to cost a shit ton of money. Not that it would make any difference anyway without a massive GPU upgrade.

The 8350k doesn't have turbo boost.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: DMAN999

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,132
8
19,315
21
That's AMD holding back because they don't to be split due to a monopoly.
That is actually Intel doing....they stepping back to avoid being split and this is obvious . Allowing AMD to "rise". They can "shortage & delays" very easily, but they decided not to.


valeman2012, we get it, you hate AMD. This entire thread has been nothing but you trolling, and verbalizing in a way that sounds like an angry 12 year old on a sugar rush. Stop it.


If you have nothing useful to contribute, don't post.
Not about hate, but mostly going for product that is deemed "better" which is obviously Intel and despite Intel stepping back letting AMD rise.. The main question of this is...If AMD going pull another FX related stunt again.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/19.html
Your 2600 O/C to 3.95 is exactly on par with a stock i3-8350k in gaming and about 20% faster in general CPU workloads,they are also pretty much exactly the same price ...the i3 is easily overclockable by another 20% making them exact equals, with the i3 kicking the ryzens butt in anything older and less threaded.
On the ryzen platform you can only upgrade to 2 more cores +SMT ,on the intel platform if you got a compatible mobo you can upgrade to the 9th gen with 8 cores 16 threads, so intel is more upgradable on your performance level.
You would need to invest more into a good motherboard because you would actually overclock to a positive degree with the i3 and not basically just lock it to max turbo.
So basically gamers will be saving big bucks with Intel because the performance from Intel long lasting then those "AMD Ryzen CPU". It almost like AMD Ryzen want you upgrade more because their performance is short lasting making you waste more money. Sadly is true unless AMD display they are "Fully" better Intel.
 
Last edited:
You are saying intel saves money since they are more future proof. The chip in question was a 4 thread I3... Not nearly as future proof as a ryzen 5, which is even cheaper and has 3 times the amount of threads. You are biased to the point you dont even listen to the evidence proving otherwise.

I dont get what you are saying. Intel would not simply give up a ton of their consumer cpu market share. They wouldnt fake a cpu shortage causing them to loose money and even more market share.

Again, if ryzen 3000 is even remotely close to ryzen 2000 in design, there is no way it will have FX level issues. The only thing that could go wrong is a potential memory bandwidth limit, which would still allow for better performance than ryzen 2000, just noy ideal performance.
 
Reactions: rigg42

DMAN999

Notable
Apr 17, 2019
1,126
288
1,190
32
I really have no dog is this fight because I have always used which ever CPU provided me with the best value at the given performance level I was looking for and good upgradability.

So, this thread just makes me laugh.
How some people can blindly buy one brand over another based solely on their personal BIAS is hilarious to me.
Thank you for the free entertainment.
 

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
449
144
390
11
I really have no dog is this fight because I have always used which ever CPU provided me with the best value at the given performance level I was looking for and good upgradability.

So, this thread just makes me laugh.
How some people can blindly buy one brand over another based solely on their personal BIAS is hilarious to me.
Thank you for the free entertainment.
I agree with this. I own and sell hardware from both companies. The 9900k is the best CPU i own right now. I've been mostly defending AMD in this thread. My reasoning for this is the value is clearly in favor of AMD for most people as it stands. The vast majority of people aren't going to have enough GPU to see any real performance advantage from Intel.

I think its pretty simple for gamers. Are you going to be GPU bound in the games you play at the resolution you are using? If not Intel might be a better choice right now. Should anyone be buying a CPU that their livelihood doesn't depend on before ryzen 3000 is announced? In my opinion......no. Unless it's an R5 1600 from micro center for $80. Or you don't care about saving money. The chances that there isn't a significant shakeup in CPU pricing in the next 3 months is basically zero. Both companies should have a significant shift in price looming. Intel is also releasing a bunch of new 9th gen CPU variants. Some of these could actually end up being decent value if they keep trending towards price competitive products like they did with the 9400f. We'll have to see when these CPUs start hitting store shelves.

Right now the consumer desktop CPU market is a mine field. There are a ton of CPU product releases looming in the next few months. Competition is good. Wait for the dust to settle.
 
It'd be quite hard (for me anyway) to imagine anyone intentionally getting an i3-8350K (even 18 months ago, much less today) and then pairing it with a $150-$250 Z370/390, with intent of replacing the CPU later(leaving an orphaned $170 CPU now useless/wasted) as a viable upgrade path
What is the difference with doing that with a $160 2600?You can sell your CPU second hand if you decide to do so.

(yes, the 8350K does quite well in single threaded stuff, but, it's essentially a rebadged 7600K, which, with only 4 threads, is circling the proverbial drain in usefulness for gaming , even if it does 'ok' for many folks to this day by virtue of it's clock speed)
Look again at my link but also any other benchmark you can find,if the 8350k is circling the proverbial drain in usefulness for gaming then so is the 2600 since they get the same FPS in heavily multithreaded games.The 2600 is already running all cores for today's games proof of that is that the 2700 get's you more frames.

Your logic is flawed. This post is silly.

The i3 doesn't have a stock cooler and a Z board costs more money than what he already bought. It's not the same price.
You don't need to be on par with the 2600 in productivity?You don't even need the k version,I'm just showing people where the performance tier is,you want to go as cheap as possible without the possibility of future O/C you can get a cheap mobo and the i3-8300.
Even better you can get a i3-9320 that one turbo boosts to 4.4 without being a k model and will come very close to the 2600 even in productivity.

Zen 2 is around the corner and is compatible with his current motherboard. His board has just as good of a chance of running a zen 2 8 core ( or the rumored zen 2 12 core) as you would of running a 9900k to full load max all core turbo (4.7ghz) on a cheap Z370/390. Upgrading to a 9900k (in the time frame a 4 thread CPU will be completely unusable in modern titles) is still going to cost a shit ton of money. Not that it would make any difference anyway without a massive GPU upgrade.
The bench I linked shows only modern titles that already use all the threads of the 2600,the i3 will share the same fate that the 2600 will.
Yes the 9900k costs a lot but then again look at benchmarks the i7-7700k has the same FPS as the 9900k in all modern titles wich means that if you get a 9900k you get double that.
You are saying intel saves money since they are more future proof. The chip in question was a 4 thread I3... Not nearly as future proof as a ryzen 5, which is even cheaper and has 3 times the amount of threads. You are biased to the point you dont even listen to the evidence proving otherwise.
You are biased to the point you don't even see that the 12 threads are only 20% faster ,against 4 cores stock, even in the best case scenario of productivity software.
 

99StefanRO

Commendable
Oct 25, 2016
82
13
1,535
0
I just sold my 7th gen Intel i5 to buy a 2600 (that I got for 80 USD) and I feel much better with it now. The reason is simple: Intel stood in 90-100% usage in gaming making my background apps (mainly discord) stutter. What do I have now for 80 USD (and much more money in my pocket)? Well I got 40-50% usage in games that were 100% on Intel, I lost (maybe) 10 FPS in some game and the difference is just unnoticeble. Actually now it feels just much better to have that headroom.

I loved intel until the moment I had no money to upgrade to a better intel. I learned that, in gaming, AMD does just fine, less FPS but still great for me and many others.
And why is that guy writing in bold, big font? It makes him look stupid.

EDIT: And I don't know why, but AMD seems to have a personality unlike intel who just makes CPUs with money on their mind.
 
Reactions: DMAN999

DMAN999

Notable
Apr 17, 2019
1,126
288
1,190
32
Stepen,
My CPU utilization is only between 30-50 % when playing current games and my GPU utilization with a GTX 1660 Ti is up around 80 to 95 %.
I game at at 1080p/60 Hz and get anywhere from 85-120+ fps on ultra settings.
And I really like that my CPU never gets above 56C even after 3-4 hours of gaming.

EDIT:
Looking at this:
https://www.gpucheck.com/en-usd/gpu/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1660-ti
I can say that my FPS in every game listed that I actually play is higher than these listed for the i7-8700K when paired with a 1660 Ti.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: 99StefanRO

RobCrezz

Titan
Herald
I just sold my 7th gen Intel i5 to buy a 2600 (that I got for 80 USD) and I feel much better with it now. The reason is simple: Intel stood in 90-100% usage in gaming making my background apps (mainly discord) stutter. What do I have now for 80 USD (and much more money in my pocket)? Well I got 40-50% usage in games that were 100% on Intel, I lost (maybe) 10 FPS in some game and the difference is just unnoticeble. Actually now it feels just much better to have that headroom.

I loved intel until the moment I had no money to upgrade to a better intel. I learned that, in gaming, AMD does just fine, less FPS but still great for me and many others.
And why is that guy writing in bold, big font? It makes him look stupid.

EDIT: And I don't know why, but AMD seems to have a personality unlike intel who just makes CPUs with money on their mind.
So your upgrade lost you FPS, but you have lower cpu usage, so that better?

I dont get your logic tbh.
 
Agreed i would rather have higher fps, but id imagine the ryzen 5 would really shine in battlefield titles which tend to love threads. The low usage is caused by all of those threads underutilized by that particular game. I agree the extra threads would be nice to not have background applications freeze tho.
 
Not about hate, but mostly going for product that is deemed "better" which is obviously Intel and despite Intel stepping back letting AMD rise.. The main question of this is...If AMD going pull another FX related stunt again.
It is all about hate and trolling.

It started all with some kind of leak, none of which can be confirmed. Not any official word. But you don't even stick to that. EVERY BIT of your speculation and assumption is nothing more than AMD-bashing.
  • The title of your thread calls it an "FX stunt" - as if you're trying to convince people that AMD would go BACKWARD from the Ryzen architecture to an FX-type architecture
  • You complain about AMD never beating Intel at gaming, or only being good at cinebench, as if the ONLY measure of success is gaming performance, and not only that but gaming performance that specifically MUST outdo Intel. Not close, not equal, must outdo.
  • You complain that it might be an April fool's joke.
  • You "hope" it's not a Bulldozer stunt - again, how stupid do you have to be to think they'd alter their existing design to go back to a 10 year old design again?
    • You repeat that same BS claim (ZERO evidence, just you being a troll) again in a later post: "We just have wait and see if AMD is really going pull off another bulldozer stunt. 🤣 "
    • And again later: "Mostly AMD fanboys are being blindsided by AMD trolling.Let wait and see if they are not going pull a FX stunt,"
  • You talk about Intel being better at games, yet, that's not the only measure of a CPU.
  • You claim "AMD Fanboys Believes "AMD being ahead" means better than Intel (CPU) or NVIDIA (GPU) in gaming performance overall." and then link to YOUR OWN post crowing about how "Intel does not see AMD as a threat." - projection much? You accuse others of what you are doing.
    • Similarly, while being a trolling fanboy, you claim "AMD Fanboys : Cinebench scores is better means Intel is beaten rofl"
  • Another claim that you insist Ryzen 2 will remain behind Intel with the same emoji. It may be, it may not be, but you're again trolling.
It goes on and on.


You're lucky, the mods here are far more forgiving than I would be. I'd give you exactly ONE warning, if not a temp-ban for trolling. And had you replied to that the way you replied to other people pointing out your trolling, I'd boot you.

EVERYTHING you have posted in this thread has been trolling.
 
Last edited:

99StefanRO

Commendable
Oct 25, 2016
82
13
1,535
0
So your upgrade lost you FPS, but you have lower cpu usage, so that better?

I dont get your logic tbh.
You don't have to get my logic. I just feel better this way. I am not affected by any means because I have -10 FPS since I swapped my CPU. I feel better to know I can use background apps while gaming without having to ALT TAB just to say something on Discord. That's all. I prefer -10 FPS for a much better multitasking.
 
Reactions: PdxPetmonster
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts