I agree with most of your post here, but not all of it. We already have plenty of proof where Ryzen2 is flat out better, and you seem to ignore these things, even though you say you will acknowledge when there is proof. There is proof, that Ryzen2 is on a 7nm finFET, while Intel has been stuck on 14nm for ages, and consistently missed their deadlines to get to even 10nm. Where is your congratulations to AMD for this? I haven't seen it. Also, Ryzen1,2&3 are all MUCH more efficient chips. The TDP on these chips are much lower than Intel's best efforts. Where's you congratulations on that? What about AMD pricing their processors well below those of Intel's, some of them more than half the price, while offering better architecture and more efficiency? That's better. So here are things we already know for sure. Yet, you are silent on them. What about AMD beating Intel to all of these accomplishments, when they were well behind for decades? How did that happen? What about AMD being the first with PCIe4? Again, silence on this as well. So, IF you are a person of your word, and you say you would be the first to congratulate AMD when we have proof, here are several things we know now. What say you?
Well that has a reason. First of all I stopped caring about litology a long time ago when I realized that it doesn´t matter as much as I thought. AMD´s 7nm aren´t really 7nm, more like equivalent to an Intel 10nm. I do appreciate lower power consumption, but I care more about that on GPUs because the differences are massive.
For example, Even with a Cheaper Vega VII than a 2080, I would prefer the nvidia GPU because it uses way less power, even when overclocked. We are talking about 100w differences when both are max overclocked, and that´s a lot. However on the CPU department I don´t care about 30w or 40w difference and that´s on stress testing, because when you use your CPU in real world scenarios, you won´t be using that much power.
9700k can use as much as 130w/140w at 5ghz on a benchmark, but then you start playing games and you will be lucky to see it going above 80w and most likely it will be around 60w, depending on the game.
AMD will use less power than Intel but can already see it suposely needs 1,35v to reach 4,6ghz across all cores (according to recent leaks). 1,35v is already on the high side and I suspect the 7nm advantages go away once you start pushing these Chips, because is a new node and is not 100% optimized yet.
All in all, at the end of the day, unless there are 80w/100w differences between 2 different CPUs, what matters to me is raw performance. I don´t care if it is 5nm or 20nm, as long as it doesn´t use 100w more but has better performance. Same goes for pricing. I seen MRSP for 3700x being 360 dollars. That will be 400€ here in Europe. 9900k costs 480€. Alright, 80€ is money but is not enough money to bother me or to opt for the "weaker" cpu (in case it its worse than 9900k, this is just an example). Now if it was 300€... that would start to be different story.
3600 MRSP 230€ on Europe, but I7 8700 non K with a 4,4ghz turbo boost all cores costs 250€ here. Again, small difference.
The big thing on this launch for now, to me, is the 3900x because it is 3 times cheaper than intel equivalent, and that intel equivalent uses a way worse arch that is even worse than Coffee lake, minus the quad channel memory. The other models, for now, didn´t impress me, BUT as I said, 7th July will tell me if they are impressive or not, after seeing benchmarks. And if they are as good as 9700k/9900k at 5ghz in games and handbrake etc, or even only 5% slower, but cheaper and using way less power, then AMD wins, no argument. And if they are even better than Intel? Then I will turn into a troll and spam "RIP Intel" everywhere, with pride
