Well, being one of the "clairvoyant" people, I'd guess that zen3+ with 3d cache would AT LEAST close the little gaming performance gap vs intel parts, unless it performs worse than the vanilla zen3 parts lol.
Intel Core i9-12900K Review: Alder Lake Arrives
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
- Status
Gimp65
Posts: 84 +169
It took AMD one attempt to deliver a product that had better mutlicore performance and better power efficiency. I just wrote that it took up until Zen 3 to beat intel in single core, not sure why you are acting like I said otherwise
Ofc we all know intel is still the biggest out there marketshare wise in most markets, thats no news to anyone. Im talking about performance of course, and no intel is not very competitive with their Xeons vs EPYC, it's been like that since Rome came out. Dont act supprised I know very well that intel still offers more as they are a much bigger company, again im reminding you im talking about CPU's and their performance.
"Single core is what matter", well it's not the most important metric if you want to make money thats for sure, here multicore performance and performance per watt is king, that is why AMD keeps making in roads in the server market, taking away share from Intel. Had AMD come out with Zen 1 only delivering better singlecore and loosing out in the other metrics, AMD would not be where they are today. They focused and delivered on the most important performance metrics.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
Lmao so yeah the 3950X and the 3900X were $50 cheaper at MSRP than the 5000 equivalents. But for the parts that most people bought, the difference is more than double your claim. Thankyou for proving yourself wrong.There is no need to lie when the information is all over the internet.
Zen 2 MSRP
- AMD Ryzen 9 3950X: $749 (about £570, AU$1,070)
- AMD Ryzen 9 3900X: $499 (about £390, AU$720)
- AMD Ryzen 7 3800X: $399 (about £310, AU$580)
- AMD Ryzen 7 3700X: $329 (about £260, AU$480)
- AMD Ryzen 5 3600X: $249 (about £200, AU$360)
- AMD Ryzen 5 3600: $199 (about £160, AU$290)
Zen 3 MSRP
- AMD Ryzen 9 5950X: $799 (around £620, AU$1,100)
- AMD Ryzen 9 5900X: $549 (around £420, AU$760)
- AMD Ryzen 7 5800X: $449 (around £350, AU$630)
- AMD Ryzen 5 5600X: $299 (around £230, AU$420)
AMD Zen 3 release date, specs and price: everything we know about AMD Ryzen 5000
Imagine Zen 2 but even betterwww.techradar.com
Also the 3000 series consistently sold under MSRP, in fact I never saw the 3900X at $500, it was always a lot less than that. When I bought my 5800X it was selling for $400 and I was tempted to save money to get one but opted for better single core performance as for me single core performance is far more important than multithreaded.
AMD hiked prices so high with Ryzen 5000 that Intels new Alder lake stuff looks cheap by comparison lol.
Sausagemeat
Posts: 1,597 +1,423
Yoh are deeply misinformed. AMD have been making CPUs for decades before Ryzen. And even then, AMD delivered the same core counts as Intel just for cheaper with worse single core performance. This forum is not the correct place for a lesson, please DM me and I will educate you on the history of these parts. Ryzen is in its 4th version right now but it is no where near its first attempt to beat Intel by AMD. Prior to a Ryzen was the FX series which was a disaster.It took AMD one attempt to deliver a product that had better mutlicore performance and better power efficiency. I just wrote that it took up until Zen 3 to beat intel in single core, not sure why you are acting like I said otherwise
Ofc we all know intel is still the biggest out there marketshare wise in most markets, thats no news to anyone. Im talking about performance of course, and no intel is not very competitive with their Xeons vs EPYC, it's been like that since Rome came out. Dont act supprised I know very well that intel still offers more as they are a much bigger company, again im reminding you im talking about CPU's and their performance.
"Single core is what matter", well it's not the most important metric if you want to make money thats for sure, here multicore performance and performance per watt is king, that is why AMD keeps making in roads in the server market, taking away share from Intel. Had AMD come out with Zen 1 only delivering better singlecore and loosing out in the other metrics, AMD would not be where they are today. They focused and delivered on the most important performance metrics.
No you were wrong.
And clearly don't understand how the market works. As I stated in my other post. After MSRP the retailer will put their own mark up on the price which is not coming from AMD.
There is nothing to add to this after my last post.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
You lied when you claimed the 500 series was only $50 more than the 3000 series. And you even proved yourself wrong by publishing the MSRPs.
I clearly have a far better understanding than you. I mean apparently you genuinely believe Ryzen 5000 was only $50 more than Ryzen 3000! Are you even able to read coherently? Also, no one has claimed retailers sold above MSRP! Most sold well under for the 3000 series, hence why the difference was even bigger than MSRP which is itself a greater difference than $50.
You were proven wrong, just accept it and stop being such a fan of AMD, its quite pathetic. Its just a billion dollar American corporation dude...
There's nothing clairvoyant, it's called being informed and using your brain for your own thinking, not just waiting to be spoon fed.
Alder Lake's lead in performance in games in lower than 10% (7% actually on average) and Zen 3D will bring a 15% performance increase in games (already shown by Lisa). So you do the math...
So far in the last 3+ years none of the benchmark claims from AMD were lying, so I have no reason to not believe that +15%.
Shadowboxer
Posts: 2,074 +1,655
Looking at the numbers Alder lake beats Zen 3 by a larger margin than Zen 3 beat the Intel 10th gen. Gaming always has small gains these days because most of these CPUs are overkill for it. r
Also, I guess you must be new here. Nobody takes these corporations performance claims at face value. A good rule is if they claim a 20% increase, then expect that only in some niche scenario with certain factors. This includes lots of AMDs claims over the last 3 years.
Zen 3 could be better but claiming it is before its released is just stupid, im sorry. We have had dissapointments in the past, from both AMD and Intel. But in this case we dont even have any leaked benchmarks or anything at all to go on. You just sound desperate to discredit Intel.
Ludak021
Posts: 775 +590
So, Lisa is clairvoyant, ok.
edit: she can't show something that hasn't yet been made, she could show a wish slide, and I might be true, or it might not. Unlike you, I don't trust slides. Intel's AMD's anyone's. I trust reviews. I'll believe it when I see it.
And AMD did "lie" many times, one of the lies was that Zen3 wont be able to work on anything but newest 5xx chipsets. That's for starters.
Everybody lies.
edit: Also, ADL exists now, 3D cache doesn't exist now. What you call those, ah yes, "Apples and Oranges" comparisons. Right now, 12600K is better than any Zen3 AMD, for gaming that is.
Last edited:
Crinkles
Posts: 253 +222
The hotness for that Tuf x570 is lost when they remove so many ports, weld on a combo PS/2 connector and don't even bother to stick the backplate on with silly-con.
/Asus
But a Crosshair w/ WiFy is ~$400
Intel fanboys really want Intel to win.
Just let them have their 2021 Christmas gift...
Rest of us (with deep pockets
) will wait for V-cache.How can 5950X be overpriced when there's such a thing called lowering prices?
Crinkles
Posts: 253 +222
Here's a Ryzen 3900X I bought from B&H in 2020 -> Subtotal $433.07 minus sales tax. I had this one on several motherboards, it never ran as fast as it should just wasn't a high quality processor.
Intel fanboys really want Intel to win.
Just let them have their 2021 Christmas gift...
Rest of us (with deep pockets
How can 5950X be overpriced when there's such a thing called lowering prices?
Define Intel fanboy? I buy both, I don't care who's winning the megahurtz/ipc race.
Crinkles
Posts: 253 +222
Cost of Ryzen today, Amazon.
Check up top too.
Check up top too.
"she can't show something that hasn't yet been made" Are you for real? Those CPUs are already working since many months ago in AMD's labs, they are real, they are not fictitious...
All the benchmarks slides provided by AMD, I mean ALL of them from Zen1 to Zen3 and all the RDNA1 and 2 slides proved to be correct and not lies and any difference was margin of error, as shown in the reviews at launch.
Are you living under a rock? How can you not see this what everyone saw in the last 3 years...
AMD lies about a feature and ends up making it better actually, yeah I am really pissed about that, lmao. Who need logic...
In the mean time, intel lied so much about graphs in the past that's not even funny. Even the latest Alder Lake benchmarks shown by intel before launch were using Win11 and without the patches for AMD just to give them more performance than the actual reviews showed.
No you won't believe it when you see it, you're clearly that type that won't because you would have known all I said above that already happened, that already was proved, yet you do not.
Source? AMD never said that IIRC. There are no technical limitations why Zen3 wouldn't work on every AM4 motherboard but BIOS support would create quite mess.
Unless you can provide source, I consider you're lying.
mAdmAnDingo
Posts: 94 +82
I don't see where he is lying Shadowboxer, let's look at the prices again, but I will remove the irrelevant CPUs/SKUs from the list.
Zen 2 MSRP
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X: $749 (about £570, AU$1,070)
- AMD Ryzen 9 3900X: $499 (about £390, AU$720)
- AMD Ryzen 7 3800X: $399 (about £310, AU$580)
- AMD Ryzen 5 3600X: $249 (about £200, AU$360)
AMD Ryzen 9 5950X: $799 (around £620, AU$1,100)
- AMD Ryzen 9 5900X: $549 (around £420, AU$760)
- AMD Ryzen 7 5800X: $449 (around £350, AU$630)
- AMD Ryzen 5 5600X: $299 (around £230, AU$420)
That is indeed a $50 MSRP increase SKU to SKU, there is no lie there, that is fact. We compare SKU to SKU, otherwise it is like comparing an 12006K's launch MSRP to an 11400's launch MSRP, that would be incorrect, it is 12600k vs 11600k MSRP. AMD had no equivalents of the 3700X/3600 with the 5000 line, so 5000 does not have those SKU segments, it was not drastically increased MSRP compared to Ryzen 3000 equivalents, it was an $50 MSRP increase over 3000 equivalents.
And we look at MSRP prices, not retailer marked up prices, nor do we look at discount prices, as you said yourself to Steve in this very thread, we shouldn't use deals on Tuff X570 MBs in place of MSRP in these reviews, so then why are we comparing knocked down prices and deals on two year old Zen2 CPUs to new Zen3's launch MSRP? That is like comparing knocked down prices on old 10600k/11600k and saying Intel raised prices drastically because the 12600k is much more expensive by comparison. No, we don't do that, we compare 11600k MSRP launch prices to 12600k launch prices, same goes for AMD. And we don't compare compare retailer mark-ups to MSRP either, that is on the retailer, AMD didn't get any extra cash for retailer above MSRP markups, neither does Intel.
What retailers do with pricing after AMD and Intel have set MSRP has nothing to do with the official MSRP launch prices. So it makes no difference if retailers choose to sell them higher or lower priced even at their launch, it has nothing to do with the official launch MSRP prices set by Intel and AMD. So you cant compare an 3800X that sold somewhere (or even if it was everywhere) for under MSRP at launch for $300 and claim that shows the 5800X was drastically more expensive, because that $300 price had nothing to do with AMDs set MSRP, that's on the retailer, not AMD.
The official MSRP is the offical MSRP, no if's, and's, or buts. As far as AMD and Intel are concerned, the launch MSRP is what they should sell for at launch, any other prices retailers may charge has nothing to do with them, but supply and demand is usually at play here, so when stock is plentiful and demand can be met or exceeded, then prices tend to be lower (like we saw with 3000 series), and the inverse is also true, when supply is short and demand cannot be met (like we saw with 5000 series and now I am seeing it with the Intel 12900k as well), then prices tend to be higher.
But I digress, so official launch MSRP vs official launch MSRP it is, and SKU vs SKU it is, as it really should be of course when looking at launch prices of gen vs gen CPU/SKUs, same goes for Intel. And all publications also compare launch MSRP to launch MSRP when doing the same gen vs gen SKU vs SKU launch price comparison, as can be seen when publications took notice that AMD raised 5000 series prices by $50 per SKU compared to 3000 series, or when Intel does the same, and the same applies when launch MSRP prices are lower than previous gen with publications.
And on a side note, I don't think Steve is wrong for including deals that can be found (even more so when they are common enough), and I think it is also perfectly fine when Steve does the same thing for Intel, and I believe readers may have even taken advantage of some of the deals going around at the time thanks to Steve, and that would be a good thing. It's not about Intel vs AMD, it's about helping the readers, and that is a good thing.
And readers should in addition to looking for the deals shown here, also always look for deals themselves as well regardless of the platform they go with (check local and online, which is what I do), you can usually find good deals somewhere (at least as good as could be expected with the current market and it's numerous issues), so best to always check for oneself as well. Either way, you are of course entitled to your thoughts and opinion, and I will leave you to it.
Last edited:
Then you should buy an alderlake cpu, it's extremely more efficient than zen 3 in every single workload except rendering.
https://www.igorslab.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/82-Power-Efficiency-Mixed.png
https://www.igorslab.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/05-720-Efficiency-1.png
Enjoy your new alderlake, you are welcome
Ludak021
Posts: 775 +590
That video didn't contain anything you say. I ask again source for your claim:
Again, AMD never said that. AMD said there are no plans to bring BIOS updates for older motherboards to support Zen3. That outright makes your claim "Zen3 wont be able to work..." blatant lie.
Rendering happens to be situation that usually puts high load on all cores. That also tells quite a bit what happens when games start to use more cores. So yes, Alder Lake is very inefficient.
Crinkles
Posts: 253 +222
LINK TO
Might find a link to AMD's blog post there, google it if needed.
Again, AMD never said that. MD said there are no plans to bring BIOS updates for older motherboards to support Zen3. That outright makes your claim "Zen3 wont be able to work..." blatant lie.
Yes they did and you commented on the article posted here on TS, read.
"I really would like to know how. First, they never promised anything. Second, x570 was released right with Zen2 CPU's. Third, there are tons of AM4 motherboards that do not support even Zen+."
"Those who bought B450 with Zen2 CPU didn't care about latest tech (PCIe 4.0). Now suddenly they care about future CPU tech. It's normal that you just cannot cherry pick latest tech. Either you take all the way latest or then accept that not-so-latest tech may have drawbacks."
That pov is terrible for customers who bought certain motherboards earlier with a promise that AMD would [make/keep] them up-to-par for new cpu's.
AMD simply didn't want to do the coding and configuring work for new cpu's and it blew up in their face.
Stick with original claim, thank you.
Won't be able to work = doesn't work because of physical reasons. Basically, boards with 5xx chipset has different socket or some other hardware compatibility check. Well, there was not. All was needed was BIOS update.
What I wrote, stands still. Again, AMD didn't promise Zen3 support for older motherboards, because motherboard vendors decided to put 16MB BIOS chips and that caused problems. It caused problem even when AMD decided to offer support for Zen3. Because adding Zen3 support also meant some motherboards lacked support for older CPU's after BIOS update. Good reason not to promise full support because AMD couldn't guarantee that.
Again, I would like to see where AMD promised Zen3 support for older AM4 motherboards. Support for socket AM4 until 2020 is not that.
Crinkles
Posts: 253 +222
Were you dropkicked across the universe or something?
Shilling, nothing but, I wouldn't try to back that up either after a dozen pro AMD posts essentially telling everyone they're lying because they want what they paid for.
No higher level of *******ry exists. Give it a break the link is in the post (look for) "link"
Someone claims AMD lied. I prove AMD didn't. You tell me I have a problem
Link has nothing to prove original claim right. Unless you're trying to prove me wrong, you're wasting your time. And even if you try, you're still wasting time since I'm right about this one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
Latest posts
-
Tech giants are spending more on AI amid slow returns, and that's spooking investors- Squid Surprise replied
-
Seagate's new Mozaic 3+ HAMR hard disk drives can last longer than conventional PMR HDDs
- Squid Surprise replied
