BlueBirdCharmOk, I literally made an account to go "haha"

Its too bad that's the court jester. ;)

Edit: on a serious note, I just dont think intel panicked in this response. I believe they have high enough profits and riding the wave until they could steal some thunder and respond to what Intel has. Yes... it is a response, as can be expected, but I dont see it as a panic move. Market share will change, a slumbering giant will awake, and we'll all have better options for it.

EarthDogIts too bad that's the court jester. ;)

What do you mean?

EarthDogIts too bad that's the court jester. ;)

Edit: on a serious note, I just dont think intel panicked in this response. I believe they have high enough profits and riding the wave until they could steal some thunder and respond to what Intel has. Yes... it is a response, as can be expected, but I dont see it as a panic move. Market share will change, a slumbering giant will awake, and we'll all have better options for it.

well intel did announce they are lowering prices by 15% as of a couple days ago. so I guess they did hit the panic button a little bit :) I'm just sad that ryzen 3000 does not beat Intel at every game at 1080p... only beats them in about half of games at 1080p, nice improvement, but still just I am sad... was hoping 7nm was going to be a true leap forward.

It's still not in a panic. It's a natural response to the market. Nothing you've said supported it was in a panic. Lol.

We havent seen any legit benchmarks yet on the new cpus...so let's not make a rush to judgement my hilarious friend. :)

EarthDogIt's still not in a panic. It's a natural response to the market.

This. It's not surprising, it's something that has happened many times in the past and will not be the last time.

I agree that it's no panic (the half-assed launch of a 9900K with the most negligible OC is more among those lines, but more of a flailing counterpunch after being jumped in a proverbial dark alley), but it's still a more or less unprecedented move for Intel, and while one could say they've been padding their margins for years and that this is a "natural correction", reading it as "Intel is worried" is just as correct.

Worried.. sure. Panic? No. :)

Mindshare retention
News relevancy

The cost (in time and resources) for Intel to bin this SKU is hardly worth the ROI, especially with such competitively priced AMD CPUs.

XzibitNOTEBOOKCHECK: The Core i9-9900KS scores up to 12% lower in 3DMark than the Ryzen 9 3900X; 9% less than the Ryzen 7 3700X too

lol,3dmark

3900x oc loses to stock 9700k in gaming,I don't think 9900ks will be slower.

cucker tarlsonlol,3dmark

What's wrong with 3DMark?

cucker tarlson3900x oc loses to stock 9700k in gaming,I don't think 9900ks will be slower.

That depends greatly on the game. As TPU's own testing shows the 3700x trading blows with the with the 9700K in gaming, the 3900X is more than a match for the 9700K in most processes and at a lower price.
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/

lexluthermiesterWhat's wrong with 3DMark?

More cores score higher than less cores. It's just core count winning... and not by much. Also, just the physics score should be used.

EarthDogMore cores score higher than less cores. It's just core count winning... and not by much. Also, just the physics score should be used.

That argument doesn't hold when you take into account that many of the games tested are still thread limited in addition too the productivity testing that was done, much of with is thread limited as well.

lexluthermiesterThat argument doesn't hold when you take into account that many of the games tested are still thread limited as well as the productivity testing that was done, much of with is thread limited as well.

I wasnt talking about games. Just the 3dmark score like I quoted. Games are a different ballgame.

EarthDogI wasnt talking about games. Just the 3dmark score like I quoted. Games are a different ballgame.

Fair enough.

more than six cores dosnt really count in gaming performance..

nether do temps because most of the cores/thread are not being used..

my 9900k only runs around 70 C playing a game but running something that loads all its cores/threads it will easily hit 100C...

a 9900k will not produce more fps than a 9700k at the same clock speeds ether.. i am currently running my 9900k at 5 ghz 1.216 core voltage with hyper threading off..

my system runs better and cooler this way.. nothing i do needs more than 8 cores at 5 ghz..

trog

lexluthermiesterWhat's wrong with 3DMark?

That depends greatly on the game. As TPU's own testing shows the 3700x trading blows with the with the 9700K in gaming, the 3900X is more than a match for the 9700K in most processes and at a lower price.
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900x/
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-7-3700x/

9900KS is faster than the 3800X

The only thing the 3900X has over the 9900KS is multi-core advantage, 9900KS has the fastest single core performance!

Both 8086K and 9900KS remain the fastest 6&8 cores CPUs for now.

It's all about the Base 4GHz/5GHz Turbo

I can't wait to get my 9900KS CPU upgrade...

Isn't the 3800X single core performance faster than the 3900X as well?

ToxicTaZ9900KS is faster than the 3800X

The only thing the 3900X has over the 9900KS is multi-core advantage, 9900KS has the fastest single core performance!

Both 8086K and 9900KS remain the fastest 6&8 cores CPUs for now.

It's all about the Base 4GHz/5GHz Turbo

I can't wait to get my 9900KS CPU upgrade...

Isn't the 3800X single core performance faster than the 3900X as well?

At Games, and thats about it.

MelvisAt Games, and thats about it.

i would say faster in everything that dosnt use more than 8 cores/threads.. which is most things in general usage..

trog

trog100i would say faster in everything that dosnt use more than 8 cores/threads.. which is most things in general usage..

trog

Not going by all the reviews ive seen on youtube/online. AMD IPC is faster/better then Intels and therefore shows better performance in applications or multithreaded apps over the 9900k, just that clock speed wins when it comes to games so intel wins there, as always.

MelvisNot going by all the reviews ive seen on youtube/online. AMD IPC is faster/better then Intels and therefore shows better performance in applications or multithreaded apps over the 9900k, just that clock speed wins when it comes to games so intel wins there, as always.

Exactly! Clock for clock, AMD is king. Intel's advantage is clock speed. Even though Ryzen3 can do more per clock, Intel CPU's can be pushed to higher clock speed to compensate but that only makes a difference in certain situations, which is why AMD's top tier CPU's are trading blows with Intel's.

MelvisNot going by all the reviews ive seen on youtube/online. AMD IPC is faster/better then Intels and therefore shows better performance in applications or multithreaded apps over the 9900k, just that clock speed wins when it comes to games so intel wins there, as always.

????
amp.hothardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-vs-core-i9-9900k-ipc-shootout?page=3

Here too.. intel mostly wins...: www.anandtech.com/show/14605/the-and-ryzen-3700x-3900x-review-raising-the-bar/6

Literary the first two things I looked at... 3900x IPC and then ju.ped to AT as I know they test IPC.

I dont think its fair to say they are the IPC king...but are right on the heels overall and wins in a few tests. Really it depends on the benchmark and method it seems. Now, you go all c/t and add its superior SMT efficiency, yup. But true IPC it looks like that are, on average, still a bit behind.

The problem with YT reviews (and forums, lol) is every slack jawed yokel has a voice...and because it's on the web, its the truuuuuf.

EarthDogI dont think its fair to say they are the IPC king...but are right on the heels overall and wins in a few tests. Really it depends on the benchmark and method it seems. Now, you go all c/t and add its superior SMT efficiency, yup.

That's because you missed the point. When clocked equally, IE when the 9900K and 3700X are both at 4ghz, the 3700X wins on most metrics(see video below), especially single core performance, thus the IPC(Instructions Per Clock) performance win goes to Ryzen3... The only reason Intel is winning out in some metrics is because they clock higher. This is literally the exact same place AMD and Intel were at during the AthlonXP VS P4 days. Like back then, AMD's offering were the better value. The only difference now is operating temps. The AthlonXP's ran way hot compared to the Pentium4's. In that area AMD is looking good these days as all of the Ryzen CPU lines run at acceptable temps.
Power users will be best served by a Ryzen CPU, even those who do a great deal of gaming because the GPU is the more important variable in that equation.

lexluthermiesterThat's because you missed the point. When clocked equally, IE when the 9900K and 3700X are both at 4ghz, the 3700X wins on most metrics(see video below), especially single core performance, thus the IPC(Instructions Per Clock) performance win goes to Ryzen3... The only reason Intel is winning out in some metrics is because they clock higher. This is literally the exact same place AMD and Intel were at during the AthlonXP VS P4 days. Like back then, AMD's offering are the better value. The only difference now is operating temps. The AthlonXP's ran way hot compared to the Pentium4's. In that area AMD is looking good these days as all of the Ryzen CPU lines run at acceptable temps.

Power users will be best served by a Ryzen CPU, even those who do a great deal of gaming because the GPU is the more important variable in that equation.

Stock vs stock....or If you're talking about OC then the 3.6GHz 9900K OC to 5.1GHz is crazy fast!

3800X is faster than 3700X.
9900KS is faster than the 3800X.

9900KS factory super binned can OC too Intel top Coffeelake/Coffeelake Refresh GHz barrier of 5.3GHz with good aftermarket cooling. EK Swiftech etc etc...9900KS hole sol purpose is to keep the fastest 8 cores Gaming CPU for this year.

Just as good old factory super binned 8086K blow away 3600X... the 9900KS will do the same to the 3800X.

But Bravo AMD on cheaper 6&8 cores CPUs and bring those stupid Intel prices down. Intel been riding on the no competition train since 2700K till 3900X/3950X release. 3900X is definitely AMD best Ryzen 3000 series CPU Right now till Intel 10th generation.

Love to see what would happen to AMD top 8 cores 3700X/3800X all cores @5GHz+ without LN2

ToxicTaZLove to see what would happen to AMD top 8 cores 3700X/3800X all cores @5GHz+ without LN2

Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. The limitation, and this is only a theory currently, is that the limiting factor of Ryzen going beyond 4.5ghz is the CCX and the way it interacts with the cores. The CCX is part of what makes Ryzen amazing, but also what's holding it back from the OC's that the cores should be able to do. Kinda like BCLK overclocking for Intel CPU's. Used to be a great thing, but now it's impossible.