3600 is $199, 9900k is $500.

It seems like 3600 was overclocked.
New leaked 3700x is slightly behind 9900k in single core.

medi013600 is $199, 9900k is $500.

It seems like 3600 was overclocked.
New leaked 3700x is slightly behind 9900k in single core.

Yeah via LN2 there's no way your average user will get that kind of score
Here's your average benchmark
www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+7+3700X&id=3485

mahoneyThis smells of an LN2 oc

Nope, Passmark doesn't allow it in stock clock comparisons and the utility checks the clock speeds to verify.

AMD have chance to kill Intel now.
But they don't want to use that chance and thousands people who thought to buy high end AMD CPU 3900X or 3950X will delay until price of motherboards drop and then will Intel show up.
When Intel show up with DDR4 AMD will be in position to seriously decrease price.
What Intel could launch to attract customers who thought on X570.
New socket, new chipset, CPU with 10 cores and 5.0GHz Turbo for less then 500$ with PCI-E 4.0 and AMD price will go down 30%.
Many many customers will not pay price of Rampage Apex or Rampage Extreme for Crosshair boards.
AMD had chance to increase price and reach same level as Intel mainstream, but they go on prices of X299 motherboards and that will revenge them badly because a lot of people don't want to buy budget motherboards any more for expensive processors and graphic cards. They want at least ASUS Hero and Crosshair VIII Hero look FANTASTIC, Nicest AMD board for now to me nicer then even Zenith.
But price is problem.
Reason why AMD don't want to sink Intel completely maybe is in supplies of new generation and want to sell to people who want to pay highest price first or because make favor to Intel.
Same as Intel make small performance improvement when AMD is not ready.
But with normal price of motherboards and correction of processors AMD had chance to take 20% of market more from Intel hands.
Instead to concentrate on situations where PCI-E 4.0 improvement is best visable they will left to people think that graphic card will not profit from PCI-E 4.0 and that's it.
No more reason for investing in Gen 4.0. Then after 12 months people who now upgrade to Intel will thought what we done.
Intel stay as good option for people who buy processors for surfing with plan to play games with Internal GPU.
i9-9900K is not high end any more, it's obsolete platform. Important new standard with capability to improve speed of GPU, SSD, Wi-Fi ... etc is here.

Vlada011AMD have chance to kill Intel now.

Kill?
Give me a break.
Army of "buy blue, no matter what" is second only to the army of "buy green, no matter what".

medi01Kill?
Give me a break.
Army of "buy blue, no matter what" is second only to the army of "buy green, no matter what".

lolololhahahahahawtfbbq. The irony is THICK Yo! Glass houses..stones. Pot and kettle... black as F!

Vlad's ramblings are like listening to the town drunk. Good for entertainment, bad for accuracy/reality. :)

I seen the full leaks of this and 2 things that make think these performance benchmarks show signs they are bogus. Single threaded benchmarks show that amd 3600 has ~3% lead over intel 9900k. So you have a 6 core part (amd) beating an 8 core part (intel) in single threaded. No issue there in that is very possible. The problem is when you get to benchmark from same piece of software that shows multi-threaded performance. Some how with same single threaded performance that 3600 is still neck and neck vs a cpu that has 2 more cores to work with 20,209 (intel) vs 20,134 (amd). Don't see how that is possible when single core is that close but still close when all cores are used. Leaks are to be taken with a grain of salt to start with since its only 1 benchmark and that has a nortorius history of not being full story of how a piece of hardware ends up doing in real world work.

arbiterSeen this earlier, I question how legit benchmarks are. In single thread it says its matches a 9900 but when you look at what seems to be multithreaded. Some how that 6 core part scores on par with that i9 9900 cpu which is an 8 core part. So that intel cpu should had benchmark should had 9900k ahead unless they disabled some cores.

arbiterSome how with same single threaded performance that 3600 is still neck and neck vs a cpu that has 2 more cores to work with 20,209 (intel) vs 20,134 (amd). Don't see how that is possible when single core is that close but still close when all cores are used.

It's been pretty well known that Ryzen's SMT is more efficient than Intel's HT.

I dont know how much exactly (look at some reviews), but it is notably more efficient so that is at least part of it.

Wait we are still not sure that new Ryzen really beat Intel i9-9900KF.
That must be checked on default system. When I say default I think on Turbo Frequency because they are enable by default in motherboard BIOS.
At least for Intel. And if AMD beat Intel in that scenario that's amazing.

LocutusHWhy is the 9900K/F only running at 3.6ghz?

9900K is only a 3.6GHz CPU with a 6 cores @4.7GHz and 2 @5GHz Turbo

The 9900KS is a 4GHz CPU with all 8 cores @5GHz Turbo

@the end of the day the 8086K is still the fastest 6 cores CPU ever built. Intel 8086K is faster than the 3600X across the board.

Same thing going to happen with AMD 3800X as the Intel 9900KS will wipe the floor clean, 9900KS is the fastest 8 cores CPU ever built.

Both 8086K and 9900KS are clocked much higher with base 4GHz/5GHz Turbo and both untouchable in benchmarks.

I would hope so... it has two more cores and four extra threads.

TheMadDutchDudeI would hope so... it has two more cores and four extra threads.

Whats that got to do with it?

PassMarkSingle Thread Performance

That’ll teach me for not opening a link.

Passmark is BS anyway. I wouldn’t use it for performance metrics. That’s just me, though.

Passmark. The noobiles way of judging performance.

Is this like AMD Athlon 64 all over again ... looks like it. Still, it's bitter sweet because there's a way to go and it should have been sooner, generally speaking for the industry.

More leaks for 3900X and 3700X

I mean the 9900k doesn't make any sense to get right now in any possible scenario. 9900k is about 6% faster on 1080p vs 3700x, but who in their right mind would spend $500 on a cpu+ probably around 70 on a beefy cooler or even more for a closed loop water cooling system, only for them to buy a say GTX 1660ti and game at 1080p resolution. It doesn't make any sense. They would likely be buying a RTX 2080ti, in which case at 1440p the performance difference between the two is less than 3% AND the 3700x is MUCH faster in productivity/compute workloads, runs cooler even on its stock free cooler, is much more power efficient and costs less at the same time.

You literally get a cooler, cheaper, more efficient, faster in workloads processor, 2 extra cores for future proofing processor that at worst performs 3% slower at 1440p resolutions in gaming.

$500 9900k 3% faster at 1440p OR $330 3700X 10-15% faster in general computing, cooler, more efficient, much better value? I mean look if the 9900k was priced at $330 to be in direct competition with the 3700x it might be worth while, especially if you ONLY GAME and nothing else. But if you do any sort of other work on your pc, or even game and stream, then the 3700x would still be the better choice, even if the 9900k was $330.

tfdsafI mean the 9900k doesn't make any sense to get right now in any possible scenario. 9900k is about 6% faster on 1080p vs 3700x, but who in their right mind would spend $500 on a cpu+ probably around 70 on a beefy cooler or even more for a closed loop water cooling system, only for them to buy a say GTX 1660ti and game at 1080p resolution.

When you put it that way, nobody.

But that said, if you overclock the 9900K to around 5 GHz, that gaming lead increases significantly in a lot of titles atn1080p. If you are chasing FPS, for example High FPS/Refresh rate gaming, double digit percent difference (due to ~700 MHz clock difference) is quite noticeable. There are a lot of people running high fps machines that want to minimize any bottlenecks.

tfdsafI mean the 9900k doesn't make any sense to get right now in any possible scenario. 9900k is about 6% faster on 1080p vs 3700x, but who in their right mind would spend $500 on a cpu+ probably around 70 on a beefy cooler or even more for a closed loop water cooling system, only for them to buy a say GTX 1660ti and game at 1080p resolution. It doesn't make any sense. They would likely be buying a RTX 2080ti, in which case at 1440p the performance difference between the two is less than 3% AND the 3700x is MUCH faster in productivity/compute workloads, runs cooler even on its stock free cooler, is much more power efficient and costs less at the same time.

You literally get a cooler, cheaper, more efficient, faster in workloads processor, 2 extra cores for future proofing processor that at worst performs 3% slower at 1440p resolutions in gaming.

$500 9900k 3% faster at 1440p OR $330 3700X 10-15% faster in general computing, cooler, more efficient, much better value? I mean look if the 9900k was priced at $330 to be in direct competition with the 3700x it might be worth while, especially if you ONLY GAME and nothing else. But if you do any sort of other work on your pc, or even game and stream, then the 3700x would still be the better choice, even if the 9900k was $330.

You do realize the new Ryzen cpu's are only equaling the stock 8700k/9600k and still losing to a 9900k in most games?
I'd love to know where amd got these results

mahoneyYou do realize the new Ryzen cpu's are only equaling the stock 8700k/9600k and still losing to a 9900k in most games?
I'd love to know where amd got these results

9900k is a $500 part, AMD's equivalent is 3700x a $330 part and that is without taking into account a cooler purchase, which if you are getting a 9900k are likely to buy a beefy cooler, which will set you back $70 to $100, maybe even more for a closed loop water system.

So you are getting a 9900k performance within 3% difference at 1440p for $200 less and literally 30% more performance in applications.

Yes no point to buying 9900K when the 9900KS is coming out.

9900KS is the last Intel 300 series boards upgrade....im planning to sell my 8700K for 9900KS.

A stock 9900KS will be faster than 3800X and should be able to OC the 9900KS from 4GHz base to 5.3GHz AVX-0 OC...with a good aftermarket cooling system like Swiftech or EK.... Would be sweet.

ToxicTaZA stock 9900KS will be faster than 3800X and should be able to OC the 9900KS from 4GHz base to 5.3GHz AVX-0 OC...with a good aftermarket cooling system like Swiftech or EK.... Would be sweet.

5.3 ghz is awfully optimistic... especially without an avx offset.

Thank god some teamblue guys keep buying overpriced power hungry (was it +80Watt over 3700x?) Intel chips.
Else we'd have shortages of Ryzens, hehe.

medi01Thank god some teamblue guys keep buying overpriced power hungry (was it +80Watt over 3700x?) Intel chips.
Else we'd have shortages of Ryzens, hehe.

It's about us guys with Intel 300 series boards doing a 8700K trade in for 9900KS and having a faster than 3800X CPU.

I'm "Cooled by EK" why do I have to worry about Watts?

Anyone who has an Intel 300 board can drop in 9900KS (4GHz/5GHz) and have factory binned CPU that's cheaper than silicon Lottery performance.

9900KS is not for anyone but only for a few guys that want untouchable bragging rights performance.

Anyone that gets there hands on a 8086K and 9900KS have the fastest 6&8 cores CPUs ever made.

Limited Edition & Special Edition

There not for the everyone, if you want cheaper less Watts set up next generation consoles level then 3700X and 5700 is minimal. If you want faster than next generation consoles then get 3800X and 5700 XT.

If you want a crazy fast PC then get 3900X/3950X and Radeon 7 or the fastest 8 cores CPU and GPU money can buy 9900KS and 2080 Super setup.

Quad channels and TU102 are above all that. So just buy what you can afford.

People are very upset not having 8086K & 9900KS top performance, so they talk about what they do have better prices and less Watts.

EarthDog5.3 ghz is awfully optimistic... especially without an avx offset.

Sorry I meant 5.3GHz AVX-2

9900KS is only at best 200MHz over 9900K best all cores 5.1GHz OC.

Yes you're right :toast: