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

Page 9 - 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.

rigg42

Prominent
Oct 17, 2018
545
165
640
13
the 3800X requires ~40W more for 100MHz extra boost over the 3700X based on officially announced specs.
There is likely more to the story than the 100 mhz of extra boost. I'm guessing the all core boost is significantly lower on the 3700x than the 3800x. It looks a lot like the 2700 vs 2700x. All core boost is much higher on the 2700x under full load than the 2700. I think its 3.5 vs 4 ghz at stock if I remember correctly. The 2700's stated boost is only 200 mhz lower than 2700x and has a 40w TDP difference.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,178
10
19,315
21
Wait eternity is still young...there are still plenty of possibilities for a last desperate attempt to stop AMD.
We have already seen how fast intel can just add cores to their lineup and without changing anything else be the fastest again.
Maybe because it was in CBr15 and now they have to use r20?
I haven't looked at how much it changes things but this would be my guess.

Yea, Intel clearly have them number and still do. They re just taking a step back.
Better than getting inteled because that would mean pay more money for no gain.
There no Inteld. It just plain AMD Fanboys on forums post and articles posting sectors complain about why Ryzen 7 3700 not 12 Cores...that what you get for following a high "YouTuber" 😏
Many manufacturers have designed they motherboards to handle around 300w. Mamy people speculate the 16 core when overclocked will draw close to 300w.
Since the 16 core isnt announced, we dont have any official facts to back that up.
Intel is getting beat down to there knees on every end of the spectrum. Price/Performance, Security, and even Raw multi-core performace
Intel obviously slowing down on their "process" to allouwd AMD to rise up their business and be ahead on the nm process and to be first to hit dead end of the Moore law...There goes AMD CPU Business once they hits a roadblock. Not only that there also U.S monopoly laws that would hurt Intel badly if did not slow down to let AMD rise.
 
Last edited:
Are you calling intel a lier?
Intel is announcing publicly that they are having shortages and having production 10 nm issues.
So you say this is all a fake? If you want evidence, look for pentium pricing.

Why would someone purposly loose market share and billions of $ of cpu sales to amd?
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator
Why would someone purposly loose market share and billions of $ of cpu sales to amd?
Intel has government contracts and the government cannot sign up provisioning with a monopoly so Intel has to make sure AMD remains viable to avoid getting classified as an effective monopoly and lose eligibility to bid on US government contracts. This scenario could also lead to Intel getting split in two at the end of antitrust proceedings to compete against itself as the only viable remedy to ensure the government does not run out of essential Intel-compatible CPUs to run its infrastructure on.

Letting AMD have the lead for a few years ensures it can afford to pay back some of those loans so this doesn't happen.

Planned or accidental, it is still a long-term win for everyone: we get to not have absolute market dominance until the next time AMD and Intel try to kill each other. Considering architectural maturity on both sides, I have a hard time imagining either side achieving sufficient performance lead to hog the whole market again.
 
I think security patches have hit intel a noticable bit. Not 40%, but noticeable.

I was watching a video comparing the ryzen 5 1600 to the 7600k.
2 years ago, the 7600k won nearly every time in games. Now, the 1600 wins in overall fps and stability nearly everytime in newer games.

The push for new games to use more cores over the past 2 years, ryzen optimizations in newer games, and performance hits from patches are hurting older chips from intel.

I think the same will happen with simmilarly proced locked 6 thread i5s vs 12 thread ryzen. it might take forever, and the k skew i5s might be more immune to this.

The 7600k cost about $200 used on ebay.
The 1600 costs about 80-120 NEW, and it performs better and isnt locked into a dead platform.
 
Last edited:

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,178
10
19,315
21
Wait eternity is still young...there are still plenty of possibilities for a last desperate attempt to stop AMD.
We have already seen how fast intel can just add cores to their lineup and without changing anything else be the fastest again.

Maybe because it was in CBr15 and now they have to use r20?
I haven't looked at how much it changes things but this would be my guess.
Cinebench is like to determinate who is at the best which is goof silly joke.
I think security patches have hit intel a noticable bit. Not 40%, but noticeable.

I was watching a video comparing the ryzen 5 1600 to the 7600k.
2 years ago, the 7600k won nearly every time in games. Now, the 1600 wins in overall fps and stability nearly everytime in newer games.

The push for new games to use more cores over the past 2 years, ryzen optimizations in newer games, and performance hits from patches are hurting older chips from intel.

I think the same will happen with simmilarly proced locked 6 thread i5s vs 12 thread ryzen. it might take forever, and the k skew i5s might be more immune to this.

The 7600k cost about $200 used on ebay.
The 1600 costs about 80-120 NEW, and it performs better and isnt locked into a dead platform.
AMD Named AMD rYZEN 3800X (supposedly A Ryzen 7 3700x) AND AMD rYZEN 3700X (Supposely a Ryzen 7 3700) What is this naming to make it look their above the competitor or what?
 
AMD: Our cpus are great at cinebench!

Intel: if you really so good, show us gaming benchmarks !

AMD: Shows gaming benchmarks with comparable performance to intel.

Also AMD: Oh yea, we also have a record setting 16 core on a mainstream platform that costs hundreds less than your inferior 12 core.

Intel: ...
 
Reactions: rigg42
I think security patches have hit intel a noticable bit. Not 40%, but noticeable.

I was watching a video comparing the ryzen 5 1600 to the 7600k.
2 years ago, the 7600k won nearly every time in games. Now, the 1600 wins in overall fps and stability nearly everytime in newer games.

The push for new games to use more cores over the past 2 years, ryzen optimizations in newer games, and performance hits from patches are hurting older chips from intel.

I think the same will happen with simmilarly proced locked 6 thread i5s vs 12 thread ryzen. it might take forever, and the k skew i5s might be more immune to this.

The 7600k cost about $200 used on ebay.
The 1600 costs about 80-120 NEW, and it performs better and isnt locked into a dead platform.
The only new games that he tested where rage 2 and world war z both vulkan titles both using latest tech both being faster on the intel chip.
All the other titles where from the last 12 month where he just selected all the games that we already saw have terrible scaling and need way too much CPU for what they provide.
 
Reactions: valeman2012

JaSoN_cRuZe

Respectable
Mar 5, 2017
342
24
1,865
25
Some guys forget that we get a 12C24T at the price of Intel's 8C16T and still saying that Intel does better on games which clearly will be more or less on par based on claimed IPC improvements and clock speeds which we will soon find out.

Anyways a person preferring the 9900K after the availability of 3900X is highly unlikely and pretty much useless unless Intel reduces its price.
 
Unfortunately everybody has their own opinions.

I just heard that the benchmark figures amd showed was with none of the latest midigation patches for intel, so intel cpus were helped a lot there.
Also, the benchmarks were done before the latest windows patch that optimized windows for ryzen.

Meaning that performance may be slightly better than expected.
 

rigg42

Prominent
Oct 17, 2018
545
165
640
13
Uhhh....It looks like AMD's CSGO 9900k number pretty much perfectly matches 1080p high AVG in your chart. Hard to draw any solid conclusion since we have no idea what the settings and GPU were used in AMD's chart. Whats your point on the core argument? The only reason the 9900k and 3900x are being compared is because they are in the same price bracket. There isn't a massive difference between the 8 core and 12 core ryzen SKUs in most of these games in AMD's comparison. AMD doesn't need to beat Intel at 1080p gaming benchmarks across the board. It only needs to trade blows to win the argument. The AMD chart certainly isn't definitive, but we'll see what's what when security mitigation's and windows optimizations are factored with independent benchmarks. I'm a 9900k owner. I can see the writing on the wall. Why can't you?

Wow 12/24 vs 8/16 and AMD still looses or only gets the same result in all benches except for cs go where the results do not seem to correspond to what the 9900k is actually capable of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS