AMD Ryzen 5000 launch: "Fastest gaming CPU," higher clocks, higher prices

So you are saying he clarified a misunderstanding you had about his post and that is why you started raging? Yes, I think we can all see that ...

BTW ... I never said you removed "double". You removed his word "nearly" ... its all right there in your post. We can all see it.


It must admit it takes a lot of effor to be so wrong that often and consistently. So let's address your lies again.

I said:


"So Nvidia increases prices by 50 -100 USD, you lose it.

AMD does something similar, it is reasonablie, trust us!"



and then he quoted me and replied :

"Nvidia nearly DOUBLED prices. WTF are you talking about "50-100 increase". They took the $700 1080 Ti and hiked the price to $1,200 with the 2080 Ti.

Please, not even in the same universe of price increases."

You tried, you failed.
 
Yeah I have a different definition since 3900x is slower than 8700k.

You keep moving the goal post, eventually you will find something you can argue for. I was talking about matching 9900k which didn't happen because 3900x is slower than 8700k. But keep moving the goal post, keep using different words than me so you can pretend we are talking about the same thing and you are right.


Also, I would suggest you to check Gamer nexus to actually see how "fast" 3900x is because he actually knows how to do a proper review. The difference is even higher than 10% and 3900x is often slower than 9600k or 3700x.

You do know CPU's do more than just run games right?

Also best look at games on a per case basis, as there are a few titles that clearly favor intel by quite a bit that does alter the avg on list like these. But most people dont care that rocket league runs 20fps faster on intel when you are going well over 100fps regardless....

Which is why Zen 2 has been so popular, as gaming performance is in the same ballpark as high end intel chips. If ESport titles are your goto, Intel was clearly the best option.

Zen 3 changes one of the core reasons why game performance has been down on AMD. The 4core CCX. This is a massive change and intel should be scared. Even titles that heavily favor intel may still come out faster on Zen3. And this is something that been expected ever since they've announced the change to a 8core ccx.
 
It must admit it takes a lot of effor to be so wrong that often and consistently. So let's address your lies again.

I said:


"So Nvidia increases prices by 50 -100 USD, you lose it.

AMD does something similar, it is reasonablie, trust us!"



and then he quoted me and replied :

"Nvidia nearly DOUBLED prices. WTF are you talking about "50-100 increase". They took the $700 1080 Ti and hiked the price to $1,200 with the 2080 Ti.

Please, not even in the same universe of price increases."

You tried, you failed.
Ahhh... your problem is comprehending English... let me try and help...

You claimed that people should be mad at AMD because they raised their prices by $50... And people were mad at Nvidia when they raised their prices by $50-100...

You were then CORRECTED by someone who told you that Nvidia DID NOT raise their prices by $50-100... they raised them by NEARLY double (yes, $700 to $1200 counts as NEARLY double in almost everyone's books - except yours).

You were also asked to state WHEN people were mad at Nvidia - you never provided this evidence... because it doesn't exist! They were mad at Nvidia for nearly doubling their prices... THAT was the reason for the anger - not the $50-100 increase of their mid-level cards.

You then lost your sh1t and started posting nonsense...

Happy now?
 
While I won't dispute that the 3900 is slower IN GAMING than Intel's products... I'd like to point out that the person "moving the goal posts" is clearly you. Your argument started with the 3900 vs 9900 and has now moved to the 8700... You also had some nonsense about Borderlands and bottlenecking which, despite me having re-read it 3 times, still can't see what your point is...

Yes, there are plenty of AMD fanboys that think that everything the company makes is made of gold.... but this time it looks like they may be right!

Anyways, no one will actually know whether the AMD claims are lies or not until the CPU is released next month. Maybe wait until then before spouting off?

As to the lack of coolers... most gamers usually chucked the included coolers and bought their own anyways. And while stock users will miss the included cooler, they're pretty cheap and easy to install...

The only "gripe" I can empathize with is the added price. While one fool said that the price has doubled (apparently math wasn't his strong point), a $50 increase (for me closer to $75 as I'm a Canadian) seems like a "we can, so we will" kind of mentality. The thing is, there really isn't any competition for these chips - so AMD could have charged $100 more and they'd probably still sell.

Excuse me? My point was that by AMD benches 3900x matches 9900k which is a lie and pointing at the fact they can not even match 8700k.


Dude, your logic, exceptional. My point is pretty clear. I said "3900x can't match 9900k" but in the AMD provided bench they are equal. He nitpicked my "remotely close" statement without the context and established it as a new goal post and trying to disprove my initial claim about "3900x being unable to match 9900k in gaming" by rebuting and redefining the meaning of "remotely close".
 
Excuse me? My point was that by AMD benches 3900x matches 9900k which is a lie and pointing at the fact they can not even match 8700k.


Dude, your logic, exceptional. My point is pretty clear. I said "3900x can't match 9900k" but in the AMD provided bench they are equal. He nitpicked my "remotely close" statement without the context and established it as a new goal post and trying to disprove my initial claim about "3900x being unable to match 9900k in gaming" by rebuting and redefining the meaning of "remotely close".

You are clearly not going to win any arguments in this thread.

Accept the L and move on.
 
AMD looks to have a nice winner - obviously pure gamers with top Intel chips could hold off to next year to see new platform.

As for those complaining about price - AMD will need to build reserves .
Intel can now only drop the price .

Just wait 6 months and get a discount or get a great price soon on a 3600 or 3700x

Would like to see the Downfall/Hitler video for Intel
 
It must admit it takes a lot of effor to be so wrong that often and consistently. So let's address your lies again.

I said:

"So Nvidia increases prices by 50 -100 USD, you lose it.

AMD does something similar, it is reasonablie, trust us!"

and then he quoted me and replied :

"Nvidia nearly DOUBLED prices. WTF are you talking about "50-100 increase". They took the $700 1080 Ti and hiked the price to $1,200 with the 2080 Ti.

Please, not even in the same universe of price increases."

You tried, you failed.


So where's the part again about where he wasn't referring to a specific sku and that he just said "Nvidia doubled prices" which you argued a few posts back?

Back further (post 75) you said:
... Nvidia nearly doubled the price of one product, he suggested Nvidia doubled PRICES which is again a LIE.

The post of yours I am responding to now quoted proves that you falsely accused him of lying, and are now trying to use the truth to defend yourself, the same truth that you claimed earlier was a lie.

You argue like my ex wife, lol.
 
AMD Radeon RX 6000 Big Navi (which model?) early benchmark shows It trailing GeForce RTX 3080 however by how much. Looking at the benchmarks the RTX 3080 is at 76 FPS on Gears 5 @4K Ultra Settings (Hardware Unboxed review link below) compared to the AMD RX 6000 series presented at 73 FPS.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2110-nvidia-rtx-2080-1440p-gaming-bottleneck/

The footnote from the presentation is interesting:

RX-532: Testing done by AMD performance labs 09/26/20 on a system configuration with a new AMD graphics card, graphics driver 2009241322_20.45. Ryzen 9 5900X CPU, 16GB DDR-3200MHz, engineering motherboard and bios, on Win10 Pro x64 19041.508. Games tested at 4K as follows: Borderlands 3 (DX12 Badass). Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (DX 12, Ultra). Performance may vary. GPU Confidential. RX-532

Notice they are only using DDR-3200MHz which indicates the benchmarks from Techspot (Steve from Hardware Unboxed) using a Core i9-10900K and DDR-3200MHz is a good comparison compared to other reviews.
 
Well that's that. For the first time in history, one CPU maker has the other one beat in EVERY SINGLE METRIC. When AMD was at its worst, it still had better performance/price than Intel despite losing in everything else. Now AMD has Intel beat in single and multi-thread performance, power efficiency, gaming and price over all four platforms (mobile, desktop, HEDT and server) and at the same time, AMD STILL has the better performance/price ratio because despite being better in every way, AMD CPUs are STILL cheaper to buy (even with the $50 increase) and you don't have to pay extra for a decent cooler!

I never thought that I'd see this day come (and I've been using a home PC regularly since 1986) but I sure am glad that it has. The little silicon manufacturer that was almost bankrupt five years ago has stormed back and pummeled Intel into the dirt. No one can describe AMD as "Not as good as Intel but cheaper" any more because now that gaming's gone, there is literally nothing for them to grasp at but straws. Now people will have to describe AMD as "Better than Intel but cheaper" which is exactly how you win a market.

Intel won't die and Intel won't stop so this competition will go on for a long time which will be good for ALL of us! :heart_eyes:

On the ATi side, that little 3-game teaser shows that RDNA 2 is NOT going to be a letdown by any means. Steve Walton measured an average FPS of 72 in Gears 5 with the RTX 3080 at 4K Ultra and as far as I'm concerned, if Steve says it, take it to the bank!
4K_Gears.png

AMD showed that ATi's new card (and I found it odd that they didn't say which one) beats the RTX 3080 in Gears 5 by 1fps! Now, I'm not delusional. I know that this is not what anyone would call an actual win but it does show where ATi was aiming when they came out with RDNA 2 and they DEFINITELY hit the target! Normally, I wouldn't take much stock in a company's own benchmark but this is a simple display of the average frame rate in a specific game at a specific resolution using a specific graphics preset. You can't fake that.
EDIT: It has now been revealed that ATi was using the built-in benchmark like (apparently) everyone else so that only adds to its validity.
2020-10-08-image-24-j.webp


I tell ya, 2020 has been a terrible year because of SARS-CoV-2 but we can still consider ourselves lucky because never before in our beloved industry has competition ever been so healthy. When GPU competition was healthy, CPU competition wasn't. When CPU competition was healthy, GPU competition wasn't. Now, FINALLY, we have both at the same time! When I think of how long I've waited for this to happen (decades), I get all giddy! :heart_eyes:

I would say that 2020 is the greatest year that the PC industry has ever seen despite all of the current hardships and we are all lucky to be living in it. ?

EDIT: It appears that it was in fact the RX 6800 XT and not the RX 6900 XT(X) that was teased. Here's a math equation for you:
R9-5950X + RX 6900 XT + October = RED OCTOBER
 
Last edited:
Ahhh... your problem is comprehending English... let me try and help...

You claimed that people should be mad at AMD because they raised their prices by $50... And people were mad at Nvidia when they raised their prices by $50-100...

You were then CORRECTED by someone who told you that Nvidia DID NOT raise their prices by $50-100... they raised them by NEARLY double (yes, $700 to $1200 counts as NEARLY double in almost everyone's books - except yours).

You were also asked to state WHEN people were mad at Nvidia - you never provided this evidence... because it doesn't exist! They were mad at Nvidia for nearly doubling their prices... THAT was the reason for the anger - not the $50-100 increase of their mid-level cards.

You then lost your sh1t and started posting nonsense...

Happy now?

Ironically, you can't understand English either and keep making stuff up. Projecting again your own shortcomings towards others.

I never claimed that people should get mad at AMD.

Again, I was pretty clear, I only described how differently people behave when those 2 companies perform similar actions.

Nvidia didn't nearly double the PRICES, they nearly doubled the price of a single gpu. PRICE. PRICE. SINGULAR.

I was talking about the prices of 2080, 2070, 2060 and lower, because those were increased within that range and people got upset due to that. He refuted me that Nvidia had "NEARLY doubled PRICES" which is a lie.

He literally said that " "Nvidia nearly DOUBLED prices. WTF are you talking about "50-100 increase"

I will quote him again "WTF are you talking about "50-100 increase"

Again, so you get it "WTF are you talking about "50-100 increase"


Tell me, how can one be so wrong for so long?
 
Last edited:
AMD Radeon RX 6000 Big Navi (which model?) early benchmark shows It trailing GeForce RTX 3080 however by how much. Looking at the benchmarks the RTX 3080 is at 76 FPS on Gears 5 @4K Ultra Settings (link below) compared to the AMD RX 6000 series presented at 73 FPS.

https://www.techspot.com/review/2110-nvidia-rtx-2080-1440p-gaming-bottleneck/

The footnote from the presentation is interesting:

RX-532: Testing done by AMD performance labs 09/26/20 on a system configuration with a new AMD graphics card, graphics driver 2009241322_20.45. Ryzen 9 5900X CPU, 16GB DDR-3200MHz, engineering motherboard and bios, on Win10 Pro x64 19041.508. Games tested at 4K as follows: Borderlands 3 (DX12 Badass). Call of Duty: Modern Warfare (DX 12, Ultra). Performance may vary. GPU Confidential. RX-532

Notice they are only using DDR-3200MHz which indicates the benchmarks from Techspot (Steve from Hardware Unboxed) using a Core i9-10900K and DDR-3200MHz is a good comparison compared to other reviews.
Well, I don't know about 76fps but Steve Walton's RTX 3080 review shows the RTX 3080 getting 72fps at 4K Ultra:
4K_Gears.png

Now, I don't know why the discrepancy but a 1fps win and a 3fps are both margin of error and Steve would be calling it a tie. Either way, nobody can say that the RX 6000 series can't touch the RTX 3080.
 
Where do you get "almost" Intel performance for "almost" Intel prices? Intel STILL charges more for their CPUs (and you have to buy a damn cooler separately) despite AMD's CPUs now being superior in EVERY SINGLE METRIC.

Only the 6 core AMD has a cooler.
Also Intel doesn't charge more compared to this new gen, an i7-10700f is 8 core but the price is close to the 6 core 5600x

An 10850k is 10 core but around the price of 8 core 5800x.

Intel will actually be cheaper per core so unless you need more than 10 cores or pci4.0, Intel seems like a better choice.

Like I said, very disappointing from AMD to raise prices the instant they claim they have a better product stack.
 
Avro Arrow
I was going to like your comment until the last paragraph - all this is great - but it's not game changing - like Apple 2 or C64 or Amiga or getting colour, floppy drives, 8bit sound etc - Nerds were literally getting high on that stuff.

I think the next big exciting thing - with be building modular semi alive systems - adding dozens of senses, different AI processing units, scalar CPUs , power gens , mobility etc
 
Well, I don't know about 76fps but Steve Walton's RTX 3080 review shows the RTX 3080 getting 72fps at 4K Ultra:
4K_Gears.png

Now, I don't know why the discrepancy but a 1fps win and a 3fps are both margin of error and Steve would be calling it a tie. Either way, nobody can say that the RX 6000 series can't touch the RTX 3080.

Agree but to be fair the first Techspot review used a AMD Ryzen 9 3950X and the later review I have linked here uses a Intel Core i9-10900K. For both reviews Steve however has used DDR-3200MHz memory.
 
AMD showed that ATi's new card (and I found it odd that they didn't say which one) beats the RTX 3080 in Gears 5 by 1fps!
^This. They did not mention which card that was used in the benches AND did not give a hint about GPU power usage.

1- Even if it was the top GPU, there's a possibility that it is much more power efficient than the 3080. This may be a selling point for this GPU.
2- If it was not the top part, then what?...
 
Well, I don't know about 76fps but Steve Walton's RTX 3080 review shows the RTX 3080 getting 72fps at 4K Ultra:
4K_Gears.png

Now, I don't know why the discrepancy but a 1fps win and a 3fps are both margin of error and Steve would be calling it a tie. Either way, nobody can say that the RX 6000 series can't touch the RTX 3080.

It is 84 fps on other sites on Ultra if paired with 10900k/9900k.

This site tested a 3080rtx with 3950x thus the results are not representative in plenty of games.
 
It is 84 fps on other sites on Ultra if paired with 10900k/9900k.

This site tested a 3080rtx with 3950x thus the results are not representative in plenty of games.
Yes but the AMD benchmarks are using DDR-3200MHz which indicates the benchmarks from Techspot (Steve from Hardware Unboxed) using a Core i9-10900K and DDR-3200MHz is a good comparison compared to other reviews.
 
Oh, is that right? Here it is again: https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/

5% with both CPUs OCd over a broad range of 36 games (therefore not cherry picked) - exactly as I stated ... Why are you making up new lies? We're not even done with your old ones yet ... ;)

Oh, moving the goal post again.


We were talking about 3900x and 9900k. You are now moving towards OC.

SURE! Enjoy getting rekt.


Techpower up:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-amd-3900-xt-vs-intel-10900k/27.html

>>> 10% slower


OC and tweeked RAM

OC and RAM tweaked 3900x is up to 19% slower than a tweaked and overclocked 9900k



Gamer Nexus, with overclocked cpu and tweaked ram in one case

9900ks review


10900K review



3900xt review


3900x review

tweaked i5 spanking 3900x and beating 10900k


3900x is a 9600k competitor, just lol.

Give it up.
 
Last edited:
It was just a launch today..bit of razzmatazz as always.
While most of the semi-serious comments emanate from the graduate of the Sarah Sanders school of spin I'm thinking about a new motherboard of repute to get the ball rolling.
 
Oh, moving the goal post again.


We were talking about 3900x and 9900k. You are now moving towards OC.

SURE! Enjoy getting rekt.
... <trimmed unrelated nonsense> ...

Nope its not me moving the posts.

I posted the exact same link I posted earlier, that only reviewed the 3900x vs the 9900k which is what we are referring to here, claimed the exact 5% I claimed earlier - you know, the 5% written in the article that you said was actually 10%, you know, that 5%? Hmmm ... someone is lying ... and then accusing me of something I didn't do ... I wonder who that is?

And I also mentioned the OC - with the 9900k at 5.0ghz, in both posts - again you are accusing me of changing that as well ... hmmm. let's look back and see, shall we?

Here's the link to that original post of mine to prove it: https://www.techspot.com/community/...gher-clocks-higher-prices.265478/post-1844993 -- and do note the lasted edited timestamp before you waste your time accusing me of changing it after the fact.

Why are you making up even more lies? You have zero credibility left and you did that all yourself. If you are going to blatantly lie, maybe not pick things that can be so easily outed as lies? You're simply embarrassing yourself at this point - well probably not, considering who you have revealed yourself to be, but I for one, and am sure others as well, are starting to get embarrassed for you. Yikes. I'm starting to feel like I'm beating up on a little kid who just won't stop trying to fight me ... I had better just stop and let your continue to trainwreck yourself without me (of which I have no doubt you will do). Have fun. :)
 
Last edited:
Oh, moving the goal post again.


We were talking about 3900x and 9900k. You are now moving towards OC.

SURE! Enjoy getting rekt.


Techpower up:

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3080-amd-3900-xt-vs-intel-10900k/27.html

>>> 10% slower


OC and tweeked RAM

OC and RAM tweaked 3900x is up to 19% slower than a tweaked and overclocked 9900k



Gamer Nexus, with overclocked cpu and tweaked ram in one case

9900ks review


10900K review



3900xt review


3900x review

tweaked i5 spanking 3900x and beating 10900k


3900x is a 9600k competitor, just lol.

Give it up.
Looks like Zen 3 announcement made you forgot your pills or something. Take it easy dude, AMD won this round let's just wait for Intel answer.
 
Back