Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jul 7, 2019.
Well one things for sure.... the fan isn't in the box........
To be fair it is included on non-K SKU’s.
The inability of Zen 2 to surpass the 9900K in most gaming tests means that Intel will have very little reason to drop prices. They've managed to retain the gaming and clock speed crown so they can charge whatever they want - if you want top FPS, you gotta pay top dollars I think those Intel fans who expect a price drop in the near future will be severely disappointed.
The pricing of Ryzen 3000 and X570 also puts into doubt any meaningful price drops by Intel. At $499, the 3900X isn't exactly cheap (it's the same price that AMD originally charged for the 1800X, except you can't just buy a lower SKU and overclock this time), and although the lower SKUs are significantly cheaper, the additional expense of X570 nullifies it. Of course consumers can always pair a 3000 chip with a X470/B450 or earlier board, but I'd imagine a lot of customers would want the latest and greatest platform, especially those building an entirely new system. Although I myself plan to use my existing X470 board, the e-peen factor of X570 and PCIe 4.0 is strong (chipset fans aside).
The real threat is the 3600/X, which is expected to be the new top-seller, and Intel might need to make some adjustments there. For high-end gaming though, they probably don't need to do much. Of course all this could change if Zen 2 starts gobbling up market share in a major way.
In that case you should prepare for some unsettling news relatively soon, because when Ryzen 3k series-optimized compilers hit the developer street in a couple of months you are going to see some drastically different game results than what you currently believe to be the case. Right now, there are 0 games with engines optimized for R 3k--R 3k is materially different than R 1, don't forget--so different that x570 mboards don't support R 1 CPUs--while game engines and benchmarks are as optimized for Intel architectures as they will ever be.
I thought this very in-depth look was worth viewing--the guy makes some excellent points, imo. Quite detailed.
I highly recommended reading more than one review, as others I've read come to the opposite conclusions with much different test results--In Hot Hardware's review, for instance, all he does is make the ~$1.9k x9980XE look like a terrible buy... But it's funny how people see what they want to see, as we all do, I suppose--but objectively, right now, AMD cpus are eating up 7 of the top ten CPU sales slots on Amazon US.
to be even more fair hardly anyone buys a non K.
True unless you are getting a prebuilt rig where it is quite common
Actually you would be surprised. A lot of the gaming PC’s I build for people end up not using K SKU’s. Most people that want to game just want something stable and fast out of the box and using a non-k on a n H370 board or equivalent is cheap. As I said I do it a lot, most PC’s I build are the sub $900 range.
that doesn't really count when considering if a fan is included with the CPU or not.
Amazons top 10 best sellers are mostly AMD and all K series chips. the first chip to pop in as a non K is the 9400F at # 11 and then all the way at # 18 is the 8700. Plus the 7700K is outselling it 8700 for some reason. Needles to say no one in this thread is going to be touting their non K chips since this is a thread about AMD and anyone's argument about Intel being faster is based off of the assumption of OC'ing.
Dude learn to use muti-quote.
Of course top sellers on system builder sites are going to have lots of K SKU's as the top seller, though newegg has a locked i5 in what appears to be the #8 position and only the fifth Intel CPU on the list. If non-k's didn't sell Intel would not offer them in retail, they would only be available in TRAY form.
Another thing to keep in mind is the number of SKU's in a line. Take the i5 coffee lake line there are 4 SKU's only one is K; 8400, 8500, 8600 and 8600k. If you chose a non-K then you have three choices not just one. But I understand I'm asking you to think critically when all you have been doing untill now is just $hit posting.
Well if you want to use that argument then we have to say that any cpu for sale on any site sells well since they are all for sale. Of course I'm not saying "they don't sell" let alone the fact that most people don't build their own PCs. What it comes down to is taking a joke way too seriously.
Wasn't the 9980XE always a terrible buy?
The R5 2600 was #1 on Amazon before the release of Ryzen 3000, so this isn't really surprising. AMD is doing very well in the DIY market and will probably continue to do so for a while. Intel still make a good amount of revenue though due to higher prices of their products.
It's no different in EU.
No Intel HEDT was ever a good buy.
And the 3600 WILL be the go to for almost everyone with budget gaming builds and some not really that budget too. It really is the most attractive CPU in this launch. I can't wait to see Hilbert's review of it.
What does it look like after the 3000 CPU's are removed from the list. Those skew it a bit because of the release (i.e. of course they are the best sellers right now)
BTW I feel sorry for the people buying the 3400G thinking it's Zen2.
It's how it shows.. current trend. Not just newcomers..
In UK it's a bit different 9900k is more on top, but nothing special.
Wanted to point this out, I was really wanting to try the AMD cpu's. I do a lot of game testing for some devs I have know for a long time. One I had told about building a new PC, We started discussing games and performance in general. He had told me that most games are built off a console specs, unless it is a PC exclusive. He also stated that the new console will be more powerful (he is also under NDA). One of the things he discussed about was that many devs can create games that look as great as a Transformers movie. But devs understand that many people in the world can not afford thousands of dollars for a PC to play them.
One last thing here, Sorry if this is off topic. The folks here on guru are some the best people I have seen when it come to help/support. Thank you all for your awsome help! This will be my last PC in this life time. So the boss (wife) said get what you would like. Thanks again guru's!
At a Microcenter after the Ryzen 7/9 reviews came in.
They sold out in atlanta georgia..."closest one to me"
The 3800x is pointless in the face of the 3700x. Seriously I thought AMD learned this lesson with the 1800x.
If i were in the market it would have to be a 3900x simply due to the fact a 9900k would be more economical in my case if I wanted to upgrade to an 8 core.
I'm waiting for the 3950X.
As well as letting the drivers and firmware mature a bit...
If I had to choose among the current batch I'd go with the 3900X though. The 3700X is great for sure but if I were stepping down I'd just go all the way to the 3600, it seems to me that there would be few use cases where 6/12 cores/threads aren't enough but 12/24 are too many.
Not everyone overclocks, or wants to get rid of the lower overall wattage usage from locking their CPU into 3.9Ghz. 3800x makes this an option.