AMD Offers Enthusiasts More Choice Than Ever Before with New Ryzen 3000XT Processors

[dicktracy]

Small gains in Cinebench, 0% gain in gaming. Facts.

 

[Vya Domus]

The 10600K is still a better buy than a 3900X for pure gaming given the fact it can overclock without the issues of degrading

Nice FUD bro.

In a way it's a good thing that we've reached a point where a bloody refresh in between two architectures that are going to be separated by at most 1 and a half years is the biggest offender. People's standards are increasing, that's a good thing. Although, these kind of comments aren't from people with high standards, this is just some weak ass Intel damage control. It's laughable.

It's consuming less than a 3950X whilst outperforming it in games, is that not enough for you? Not to mention it's only $280 against $750.
View attachment 159245
10600K pulls less than a 3900X stock to stock and outperforms it significantly and you mention "power"?

Imagine proudly arguing that a CPU with half the cores draws less power, what a colossal achievement from Intel.

Again, straight up laughing stock.

 

[tfdsaf]

So basically the only change is 100-200MHz to the boost clock.

Totally legit reason to delay Zen 3 to 2021...

What you said is so dumb! Do you really think AMD are delaying Zen 3 because they OC'd their current processors by 5% and are selling them as XT? They are releasing these CPU's because Zen 3 got delayed, likely due to the limited availability of TSMC's n7p process.

 

[ARF]

What you said is so dumb! Do you really think AMD are delaying Zen 3 because they OC'd their current processors by 5% and are selling them as XT? They are releasing these CPU's because Zen 3 got delayed, likely due to the limited availability of TSMC's n7p process.

This is just speculation. Link to sources ?
The guy was ironic, I don't know why you jumped over so seriously his comment.

Yes, this "launch" is very poor and you can see by the rating of this thread - barely over 50 comments so far...

 

[dyonoctis]

It's consuming less than a 3950X whilst outperforming it in games, is that not enough for you? Not to mention it's only $280 against $750.
View attachment 159245
10600K pulls less than a 3900X stock to stock and outperforms it significantly and you mention "power"?

PCIe 4.0 controllers are useless given Q1T1 performance is appalling, latency isn't great for the drive either and it's just nothing but "MOAR SEQUENTIAL" which can be achieved for similar pricing using raid. So what "I/O"?
Future proof memers are a joke, take the 3770K for example for being "PCIe 3", why aren't you using that after all it's an excellent platform to pair a 2080ti with!!!!! can literally guarantee people would've upgraded off that platform by the time it's actually relevant or used to its complete potential, and it ends up being useless by the time it's utilised......

Really? The 3950X pulls more power if anything... whilst providing less gaming performance.

Quite ironic, isn't it?

How about that 3700x who's consuming less power than that i5 while having more cores ? smh, you always see those people calling out fantrolls , but they are shamless about becoming trolls themselve. Why is there even a comparison between an i5 and a ryzen 9 ? It's not the same target, you are only a gamer get that i5 and get on with your life, let the people who need 12 or 16 cores, enjoy their render times. Geezus effin krist. And at first I honestly though that you had a few valid points. No one is going to deny that zen 2 xt is just a way for them to make more cash, but you don't have to pull out that kind of thing.

What's next, ranting about how the Intel Core i9-10920X is not that great and people should just get an i5 10600k because it games better and cost less ? without taking into consideration why someone would get a 12 core cpu in the first place ?

 

[Deleted member 178884]

Imagine proudly arguing that a CPU with half the cores draws less power, what a colossal achievement from Intel.

Again, straight up laughing stock.

Do you need to learn to read? An angry AyyMD user like yourself tried to claim a 3950X pulled less power than a 10600K, straight up trolling like you do on a daily basis, it's a colossal achievement AMD basically does fuck all for CPU improvements and just rams more cores continuously and ignores single thread throughput and makes a joke excuse of a refresh and fools like you proudly defend a CPU with 100mhz on the boost clock slapped on for $84 with no process improvements or anything (they don't even own their own fabs )

How about that 3700x who's consuming less power than that i5 while having more cores ? smh, you always see those people calling out fantrolls , but they are shamless about becoming trolls themselve. Why is there even a comparison between an i5 and a ryzen 9 ? It's not the same target, you are only a gamer get that i5 and get on with your life, let the people who need 12 or 16 cores, enjoy their render times. Geezus effin krist. And at first I honestly though that you had a few valid points. No one is going to deny that zen 2 xt is just a way for them to make more cash, but you don't have to pull out that kind of thing.

It was to make a valid point, if all you want is pure gaming performance, why not compare AMDs best to intels lineup? Seemingly there's still the old "MORE CORES" = "MORE PERFORMANCE" going around, when realistically a 3600 or 3700X is ultimately the best buy on the AMD side for gaming, the 3950X is the sheer fastest for games undeniably on the AMD front which makes it an excellent CPU to compare against, yet stock to stock the 10600K pulls ahead of course, however people like to cover up that fact and pretend the more "IPC" or similar buzzwords automatically make it faster in any case.
Yes a 3900X/3950X is meant for rendering and similar, and you shouldn't be buying an AMD CPU for ultra high refresh rate or pure gaming anyways outside of basic titles or more lighter games - they certainly can game however, but they're nowhere near as fast or as good value as the competition at it. And yes the XT series is nothing but a cash grab but people will defend nether the less, and they tend to fail to understand that the infinity fabric is generally a bottleneck on Zen2, not the core clocks.

What's next, ranting about how the Intel Core i9-10920X is not that great and people should just get an i5 10600k because it games better and cost less ? without taking into consideration why someone would get a 12 core cpu in the first place ?

There's a lot more than a 10920X offers than just "more" cores here, such as quad channel, more pcie lanes and AVX512, all of which aren't offered by the "more" cores on AMD mainstream.

 

[Vya Domus]

Do you need to learn to read? An angry AyyMD user like yourself tried to claim a 3950X pulled less power than a 10600K, straight up trolling like you do on a daily basis, it's a colossal achievement AMD basically does fuck all for CPU improvements and just rams more cores continuously and ignores single thread throughput and makes a joke excuse of a refresh and fools like you proudly defend a CPU with 100mhz on the boost clock slapped on for $84 with no process improvements or anything (they don't even own their own fabs )

More cores = more power, basic fact anyone with a glimmer of intelligence can understand. AMD stomps Intel in terms of efficiency, have done so since first gen, deal with it. Sour intel fanboys are the best, they'll scour every chart they can find for a higher or lower number and it's usually something really fucking stupid like : "10600K pulls less than a 3900X stock to stock ".

 

[dicktracy]

Seems like most AMD users “abandoned“ gaming in pursue of a career as an AMD “scientist.” Yes gaming no longer matter folks. Cinebench and Blender are the only reason people build their PCs to further mankind of tomorrow!

 

[Deleted member 178884]

More cores = more power, basic fact anyone with a glimmer of intelligence can understand. AMD stomps Intel in terms of efficiency, have done so since first gen, deal with it. Sour intel fanboys are the best.

Sour AMD fanboys are the best, shame they get triggered everytime you mention a $750 top of the line processor and it just gets stomped by a mid range i5 with only 6 cores and 12 threads, even at stock use with XMP ram...... Who even mentioned intel being more efficient with more cores - the only comparison here was a 6/12 intel part and a 16/32 AMD part because some fool was spreading misinformation (not yourself this time, shockingly.)? Nice strawman though.

 

[Vya Domus]

Who even mentioned intel being more efficient with more cores - the only comparison here was a 6/12 intel part and a 16/32 AMD part because some fool was spreading

So you mentioned it and not mentioned it simultaneously ?

Early onset Alzheimer and cognitive dissonance plagues sour Intel fanboys.

 

[Deleted member 178884]

So you mentioned it and not mentioned it simultaneously ?

Early onset Alzheimer and cognitive dissonance plagues sour Intel fanboys.

Learn to read before spewing crap and trying to troll on a thread, the only mention here was a 10600K and 3950X, read the thread before you jump in with your salty little snarky AMD fanboy comments, here I even underlined what the topic is about:

Again, stop crying over your little ryzen processor, it's irrelevant to the main topic of this thread and it's already been derailed enough by meat shielders such as yourself, It's evident intel still has a gaming lead whether you like it or not, and your comments don't change that fact either. It's quite a shame how ironic your statement is really, but then again people really don't like the truth when it hurts, don't they?

And to go back on topic to summarize my points made:
XT is basically a waste of your time and money given proposed pricing, so buy zen2 instead (3600/3700X/3900X to clarify since they're basically the same thing) and for pure gaming you're better off on intel and wait for zen3 instead if you want a real improvement rather than a mediocre joke excuse of a clock bump from an arch that's held back by memory latency and not core performance - not to even mention how far away Zen3 is.... In addition to this point, The fanboyism is unreal here, gotta love when angry insecure AMD fanboys go around defending AMD for slapping 100mhz more on a CPU on the boost clock and apparently it's perfectly fine and intel is "bad" in every way possible, it's always excusable for an underdog to do this though isn't it $84 more for 100mhz more just screams value to me not to mention how much that'll equate to actual gains.

 

[phill]

Guys it's a CPU nout more.. It's really not worth stressing or arguing about...

Personally, I'm stunned at AMD for doing this. Waste of time in my opinion. I hope that the 4 series is a much bigger step up than what little increases we are seeing here.. Such a shock

 

[Deleted member 178884]

Guys it's a CPU nout more.. It's really not worth stressing or arguing about...

On that note, I'm done here, it's silly arguing any further pretty much, if anything we should await Zen3 to see how that comes along, that'll be a lot more than just a minor clock bump.

 

[Vya Domus]

Dude, you're genuinely dense, the 3950X and practically every other Zen 2 CPU with more cores is more power efficient than a 10600K.

Why don't you show gaming power draw if you're so concerned about playing games, It's pathetic how little power AMD needs to drive twice or almost three times as many cores. It not even funny.

 

[phill]

On that note, I'm done here, it's silly arguing any further pretty much, if anything we should await Zen3 to see how that comes along, that'll be a lot more than just a minor clock bump.

I bloody hope it is mate.. This just gives me chills as it's like for me Intel realising a new CPU and motherboard platform for a small bump in performance... No trolling or anything like it meant, but I can't think why AMD would even consider doing this?? Which numpty made this decision??

 

[$ReaPeR$]

I bloody hope it is mate.. This just gives me chills as it's like for me Intel realising a new CPU and motherboard platform for a small bump in performance... No trolling or anything like it meant, but I can't think why AMD would even consider doing this?? Which numpty made this decision??

So it can be covered in more news cycles while "stealing" Intel's thunder .. it is really not that hard to figure it out. Maintaining the perception of competitiveness is just as important as being actually competitive. It helps in the short run until Zen 3 reaches the market.
I really don't get the complaints in this thread.. they are introducing better binned samples while lowering the price of existing parts. What is there to complain about? Ffs

 

[ARF]

So it can be covered in more news cycles while "stealing" Intel's thunder .. it is really not that hard to figure it out. Maintaining the perception of competitiveness is just as important as being actually competitive. It helps in the short run until Zen 3 reaches the market.
I really don't get the complaints in this thread.. they are introducing better binned samples while lowering the price of existing parts. What is there to complain about? Ffs

Too late, the difference is too small, barely visible, no new features, not much improvements in the real bottlenecks in the PC platform as a whole, and of course Zen 3 is not on track anymore, which is just sad.

 

[dyonoctis]

It was to make a valid point, if all you want is pure gaming performance, why not compare AMDs best to intels lineup? Seemingly there's still the old "MORE CORES" = "MORE PERFORMANCE" going around, when realistically a 3600 or 3700X is ultimately the best buy on the AMD side for gaming, the 3950X is the sheer fastest for games undeniably on the AMD front which makes it an excellent CPU to compare against, yet stock to stock the 10600K pulls ahead of course, however people like to cover up that fact and pretend the more "IPC" or similar buzzwords automatically make it faster in any case.
Yes a 3900X/3950X is meant for rendering and similar, and you shouldn't be buying an AMD CPU for ultra high refresh rate or pure gaming anyways outside of basic titles or more lighter games - they certainly can game however, but they're nowhere near as fast or as good value as the competition at it. And yes the XT series is nothing but a cash grab but people will defend nether the less, and they tend to fail to understand that the infinity fabric is generally a bottleneck on Zen2, not the core clocks.

There's a lot more than a 10920X offers than just "more" cores here, such as quad channel, more pcie lanes and AVX512, all of which aren't offered by the "more" cores on AMD mainstream.

If anything intel 10th gen is only being ridiculed because the platform doesn't feel fresh and bleeding edge. Tech nerds Bragging rights. Intel being the premium brand, they get judged way harder on those things. If you present yourself as being the best cpu maker in the world, with the most refined fabs, architecture, people are going to come down hard on you the day when you have some troubles, or you seem to be behind when it comes to have a tech lead.
(Like it so often happens with Apple vs everyone else).

Meanwhile AMD is the company that nearly went exctinct, and had to pull a miracle. Even ryzen is still sometimes being looked at with suspicious eyes for potentially being a spurt of luck, on mainstream communities...AMD will need a decade of good chips without failure to get a good rep for the average guy. Thus they have more sympathy. It's basically the poor guy trying to make it big vs the rich shady white collar who still wants more.

I don't have any cold hard data on this,but most of the pure gamers that I've seen (so far) going with AMD are people who really are on a budget (and before intel 10th gen). Gaming on a 1080p/1440p 60hz screen, and rocking a 1660 super/ 2060 super at best. At 379€ that 10600k isn't budget anymore, at that price I would hope that people know what they buying those parts for. That's a 100€ premium over the locked 10600, wich to me is the real hidden gem of that gen. Heck, even the 10500 is not even 2% slower in average than the 10600k at stock.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I honestly see zero reason to be upset or complain. These XT versions ARE NOT replacing the non-Xt versions, AMD is just giving more options and a slight performance boost while leaving the MSRP exactly the SAME. Seriously, what is there to complain about? I also heard that AMD is going to discount the Non-XT versions further as well, so at least to me this seems good all around...or am I missing something here?

Yeah, if you had to chose between the two, who wouldn’t go with the XT version if it’s the same price? The in-box cooler is a bonus that most could live with out.

 

[95Viper]

Well, the next one who throws out insults will be awarded the prize of the day... along with any runner ups.
Stop the insults and have a civil discussion.

Thank You and Have Marvelous Day/Night.

 

[Bee9]

Seems like most AMD users “abandoned“ gaming in pursue of a career as an AMD “scientist.” Yes gaming no longer matter folks. Cinebench and Blender are the only reason people build their PCs to further mankind of tomorrow!

This type of comment is quite popular and I think it is very destructive.
If I were to return the favor, it would be: Grow up kid, stop playing games and go to work. That would be totally inappropriate, so I do apologize for typing this out just to get my point across. Stop attacking people personally and get to the point with numbers.

I'm 40 years old and I feel like gaming is no longer a priority. I have a 9900KS and 3900x and a 3950x machine running non-stop in my home office. The AMD platform gives me more threads for my work and the Intel gives me raw FPS performance. However, I don't see any noticeable difference between AMD and Intel in current title with the current GPU technology. 2080Ti sometimes cannot drive the games well at 4K and 5K resolution.
Hence, I understand why people tend to present current AMD line up as offering more value for the dollars/
Each target market speaks differently, so professional gamers will definitely prefer Intel for their rig. Streamers on the other hands enjoy AMD + nvidia because background encoding, uploading and rendering consume more threads. Content creation, depending on the software will choose differently. Most renderers will prefer AMD. Photoshop users still love Intel.
Use the right tools for the jobs, people.

Edit: add more thoughts
Product comparison is good but I don't see the idea of protecting my CPU name. Yes, AMD is slower in games. Intel is slower in other multi-threaded tasks. What's the point of arguing the facts.

 

[Bee9]

This thread is about more choices for the market. Consumers have more CPU to choose from.
Then it turned into a troll fest of AMD better or Intel better. We already benchmarked those CPUS to dead already and they still can't figure it out. It's sad.

 

[95Viper]

OK now... stay on topic.
The topic is not about old times or this thread turning into whatever.
Read the Title and opening... discuss that, please.

Thank you.

 

[heflys20]

This thread is about more choices for the market. Consumers have more CPU to choose from.

Yep, just more choices. Consumers can make up their mind whether they want this or not. Personally I'm not impressed. I lost interest when I read the price point and lack of coolers. These are definitely for somebody though.

 

[Bee9]

Yep, just more choices. Consumers can make up their mind whether they want this or not. Personally I'm not impressed. I lost interest when I read the price point and lack of coolers. These are definitely for somebody though.

The heat is just outside of the cooler thermal envelope. So it's best not to include one to embarrass themselves. The previous version is still on sale for $400 and that's a good bang for your bucks.
The new gen will be delayed, so it's best to release something to capture market attention.