Ryzen CPU prices fall as third-generation chips draw closer

[Evernessince]

You also demonstrated you don't know how to read the data. It is obvious the OP was talking about overclocked results, as anyone who has a R5 16000 or R7 1700 knows, you need to OC them. So only the OC results really matter. In games and such it is even less than 6%.

My friend, he never mentioned anything about overclocking. Ctrl+F does not lie.

I'm the bad guy for not cherry picking overclocking only results?

I'm not sorry but cherry-picking overclocking only results based on your assumptions is not "how to tread the data".

And anything faster than a GTX1070 or more than $300 is really wasted on Ryzen build.

I guess the 1080 Ti I've had for the last 2 years hasn't really been getting 188 FPS on average at 1440p high graphics.

 

[John832]

My friend, he never mentioned anything about overclocking. Ctrl+F does not lie.

Yep Ctrl+F does not lie and you obvious do not know how to use it. See this:

And for the value bang for the buck people, there is no good justification to pay for overpriced 2600x or 2700x, when you can get $80 R5 1600 or $150 1700x and OC them to 4.0Ghz and essentially par 2600x/2700x for games or compute.

And if you were only getting 188FPS then you could have been getting 200FPS with a 7700K. But since you like mediocre results, more power to ya.

 

[Evernessince]

Yep Ctrl+F does not lie and you obvious do not know how to use it. See this:



If you were only getting 188FPS then you could have been getting 200FPS with a 7700K. But since you like mediocre results, more power to ya.

Actually no, I'm GPU bottlenecked on my current settings.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1180-overwatch-benchmarks/

Perhaps you should do a little research before speaking on a topic you have no experience in. In fact a stock 3770K produces similar results to a 6700K in overwatch. It is not at all CPU intensive. And no, a 7700K is within margin of error performance wise with the 2700X. According to you that's "mediocre".

On your first sentence, it changes nothing to the fact that it is still cherry picking results from a extremely flawed benchmark.

 

[RattyRatty]

LOL @ dorks that think CPUs are only for games. The games industry is worth what, a few billion a year? Meanwhile, the work done with computers as a whole is worth a minimum of tens of trillions a year in just the United States alone. Many people use computers for many different things, and gamers are a really niche segment of the market -- tech doesn't revolve around you.

 

[harm9963]

R5 1600 been on sell for over a month or more at Microcenter 3/12/2019, in store only.

 

[darkgtx]

Probably about to stop selling 1st gen ryzen altogether soon enough. Get them while you can lol. My local frys doesn't even carry the vanilla 2600 anymore. Said they stopped selling them.

 

[Stark]

This is a blatant distortion of facts and reality.

...
...
8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX
....

See:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

See:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-9700k,38046.html

There is nothing AMD has got that can match the gaming performance of the 8700k, 9700k, or 9900K. This just bogus to even treat them as equal "=".

See, for top gaming performance and benchmarks, Intel is unmatched:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

We can only hope this will change drastically with 5.0Ghz 3700x and the likes, but until then.

yep sure we will have that 13% game difference when we game at 720p as everyone who buys a 2700x/9700k will do.
they are pretty evenly matched now after the various Intel patches, and at 1440p and above there is virtually no difference. Ryzen is pretty much now at equal footing when it comes to gaming and it wins application benchmark anyways, due to more cores at lower price point.

 

[jpuroila]

With a $330 3700x price point, AMD is finally pricing with value in mind. Which means that 2700x, 2600x has been massively overpriced all this time. Terrible value, especially considering the $80 R5 1600. The 2700x should be no more that $180 and the 2600x should be like $140. And it will trend to that in relatively short order just as past pricing trends has demonstrated, like you can get a 1700x for $150 right now, (or $120 effectively if you consider the mobo discount):
https://www.microcenter.com/product/485473/ryzen-7-1700x-34-ghz-8-core-am4-boxed-processor.

This all hinges on the 3700x at 5.0Ghz being able to par or beat 8700k/9700k/9900K for gaming performance. Basically the single code IPC better deliver this time with AMD, or else it will be overpriced once again.

Now you're just being silly. 2600x and 2700x haven't been overpriced at all(and they in fact offer great value). Ryzen 1000-series is just selling for well below what it's worth because suppliers and stores are trying to get rid of their stock before Ryzen 3000-series arrives. Intel is the one selling overpriced CPUs.

 

[Palladium1987]

R5 1600 been on sell for over a month or more at Microcenter 3/12/2019, in store only.

$80 for R5 1600 is a steal, unless you happen to be one of those e-peen waving Youtubers and their deluded followers who thinks anything less than a 9700K is complete garbage.

 

[144hzGamer]

This is a blatant distortion of facts and reality.

...
...
8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX
....

See:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

See:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-9700k,38046.html

There is nothing AMD has got that can match the gaming performance of the 8700k, 9700k, or 9900K. This just bogus to even treat them as equal "=".

See, for top gaming performance and benchmarks, Intel is unmatched:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

We can only hope this will change drastically with 5.0Ghz 3700x and the likes, but until then.

I gave up ... This website has a lot of amd bias ppl. They will tell you that amd is only 5fps lower and "not noticeable". Meanwhile when I had a 2700x at 4,2ghz 3200 CL14, I couldnt even lock Battlefield V and Blackout at 138fps (for gsync) at freaking 1080p low settings with a 1080ti. My gpu usage was 40% with these settings.

Pathetic CPUs for anything higher than 60hz. Awful 1% lows, inconsistent frames. Only the cpu usage was very good (less than 50% always). Even the i7 8700 non k rounds circles around ryzen.

Ignore the bots, this wont go anywhere on this website, trust me. They are all casuals or single player gamers, or either win thousands of dollars from video/rendering.

 

[harm9963]

This is the total cost for 1700X /MB/ RAM 3200 2X8 for $292.21

 

[EndRessentiment]

With a $330 3700x price point, AMD is finally pricing with value in mind. Which means that 2700x, 2600x has been massively overpriced all this time. Terrible value, especially considering the $80 R5 1600. The 2700x should be no more that $180 and the 2600x should be like $140. And it will trend to that in relatively short order just as past pricing trends has demonstrated, like you can get a 1700x for $150 right now, (or $120 effectively if you consider the mobo discount):
https://www.microcenter.com/product/485473/ryzen-7-1700x-34-ghz-8-core-am4-boxed-processor.

This all hinges on the 3700x at 5.0Ghz being able to par or beat 8700k/9700k/9900K for gaming performance. Basically the single code IPC better deliver this time with AMD, or else it will be overpriced once again.

2600X massively overpriced and terrible value? Where does that leave Intel? I don't see how this can be anything else but fanboying. If the 2600(X) were often praised by TechSpot and others, how can they be of terrible value?

 

[seeprime]

This is a blatant distortion of facts and reality.

...
...
8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX
....

See:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

See:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-9700k,38046.html

There is nothing AMD has got that can match the gaming performance of the 8700k, 9700k, or 9900K. This just bogus to even treat them as equal "=".

See, for top gaming performance and benchmarks, Intel is unmatched:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

We can only hope this will change drastically with 5.0Ghz 3700x and the likes, but until then.

Actually, the author of Level1Tech wrote a scheduling program that fixes problems in Windows 10 where the OS gets confused and over uses resources on AMD CPUs. With this unofficial patch, AMD single threaded performance exceeds Intel in a considerable amount of workloads.

Would you kindly post a link to the patch? Thanks.

 

[yRaz]

This sounds interesting. Do you have a link?

Please provide a source. Even with a scheduler patch, it's not going to overcome Intel's 20% clockspeed advantage.

Would you kindly post a link to the patch? Thanks.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1385...eadripper-2-performance-and-windows-scheduler

 

[John832]

With a $330 3700x price point, AMD is finally pricing with value in mind. Which means that 2700x, 2600x has been massively overpriced all this time. Terrible value, especially considering the $80 R5 1600.

2600X massively overpriced and terrible value? Where does that leave Intel? I don't see how this can be anything else but fanboying.

Really resort to name calling when the facts were laid out plainly. Intel is super horrid value, but at least people have shown they can get bragging rights when they go all in like those 3DMark charts.

 

[John832]

R5 1600 been on sell for over a month or more at Microcenter 3/12/2019, in store only.

So it is essentially $50. Anything more than $150 will need to deliver at least 3x the performance to match the bang for the buck.

Even with permitting dimishing returns, you hope to get at least 2x the performance at $150 or more right? But there is no way the 2700x can even deliver that at $200 for 4x the price.

 

[John832]

I gave up ... This website has a lot of amd bias ppl. They will tell you that amd is only 5fps lower and "not noticeable". Meanwhile when I had a 2700x at 4,2ghz 3200 CL14, I couldnt even lock Battlefield V and Blackout at 138fps (for gsync) at freaking 1080p low settings with a 1080ti. My gpu usage was 40% with these settings.

Pathetic CPUs for anything higher than 60hz. Awful 1% lows, inconsistent frames. Only the cpu usage was very good (less than 50% always). Even the i7 8700 non k rounds circles around ryzen.

When you tell the truth they will abuse the report function and get people banned. But thank for being brave and speaking the truth.

 

[John832]

LOL @ dorks that think CPUs are only for games. ...

Yep resort to name calling when you got nothing else.

If it weren't for gamers, there would be no push for CPU development. The gamers are the ones pushing the tech envelope, they are the ones volunteering to be on the bleeding edge. Your data center, IT, compute stuff for the cloud, etc. don't need bleeding edge tech, they want want dollar profit efficiency and they could care less for any of this desktop stuff. They would run everything on a massive horde of ARM CPUs built from bunch of old donated smartphones if there were a zero dollar transition path that exists for them.

The whole point of having a gaming PC is for the experience, the the low latency, low input lag, etc., and the machine needs to be in close local proximity and why you need the high performance single core IPC. If you just wanted massive compute power, it is both cheaper, smarter, less hassle to have a much of redundant VMs remotely in the cloud.

 

[Evernessince]

Really resort to name calling when the facts were laid out plainly. Intel is super horrid value, but at least people have shown they can get bragging rights when they go all in like those 3DMark charts.

Pot meet kettle. Here you are calling out others for naming calling right after throwing insults yourself. You should remember when you said this:

"You also demonstrated you don't know how to read the data.".

Instead of attacking the topic you made a personal attack on my intelligence. Of course I easily disproved it but don't act like you are some saint. You are just as bad as those calling names.

I gave up ... This website has a lot of amd bias ppl. They will tell you that amd is only 5fps lower and "not noticeable". Meanwhile when I had a 2700x at 4,2ghz 3200 CL14, I couldnt even lock Battlefield V and Blackout at 138fps (for gsync) at freaking 1080p low settings with a 1080ti. My gpu usage was 40% with these settings.

Pathetic CPUs for anything higher than 60hz. Awful 1% lows, inconsistent frames. Only the cpu usage was very good (less than 50% always). Even the i7 8700 non k rounds circles around ryzen.

Ignore the bots, this wont go anywhere on this website, trust me. They are all casuals or single player gamers, or either win thousands of dollars from video/rendering.

Another subjective experience with no data to back it up? Right, you owned a 2700X . You are a lot like that Sausagemeat guy, both of you apparently buy a lot of AMD products just to bash them. Either that or you fabricate stories to try and foist your argument. Let's see the receipt buddy.

The elitism here is hilarious. According to you people either buy Intel or are "casuals or single player gamers".

At the least it's entertaining. I'm still waiting for someone to debunk the points in my earlier posts but hey if no one can that's fine.

 

[mailpup]

No more personal comments please. Thank you.

 

[Toju Mikie]

I'm fortunate enough to live close enough to a Micro Center. About a 45 min to 1 hour drive. Amazing deal

 

[pyro226]

https://www.anandtech.com/show/1385...eadripper-2-performance-and-windows-scheduler

Ok, so when you say "AMD CPUs", that article is referring to two particular Threadripper models as well as server Epyc models. Specifically, the 24 core and 32 core variants. The other variants of Threadripper and Ryzen were not impacted. The Threadripper 24 core variant is priced above $1,000. It's high end enthusiast, not mainstream by any means.

The article you link doesn't compare AMD and Intel single thread performance.

Hardware unboxed locked an 8700K and a 2600X to 4ghz to compare IPC.

Intel's mainstream CPUs up to the 9900K, Intel use a ringbus network between cores. For higher core counts, it uses a mesh network (that increases latency and thus hurts IPC a bit). AMD uses Infinity Fabric. Infinity Fabric is closer to the mesh network; Intel's ringbus is faster. One thing interesting to note is that Cinebench doesn't stress the cache systems. This means it won't show AMD's weakness in accessing data across CCX modules.

AMD is still hit particularly hard in games. The video was made 1.5 years after Ryzen released, which means that the games were already ryzen patched to an extent.

This is before taking clock speed into consideration. Ryzen can only reach around 4.2 ghz. Intel can reach around 5 ghz.

There's another video comparing Ryzen 2000 series to the Skylake X processors and it fares better, but that's still when they're limited to the same 4 ghz clockspeed.

Edit: sorry, linked wrong video for 2nd link

 

[Evernessince]

Ok, so when you say "AMD CPUs", that article is referring to two particular Threadripper models as well as server Epyc models. Specifically, the 24 core and 32 core variants. The other variants of Threadripper and Ryzen were not impacted. The Threadripper 24 core variant is priced above $1,000. It's high end enthusiast, not mainstream by any means.

The article you link doesn't compare AMD and Intel single thread performance.

Hardware unboxed locked an 8700K and a 2600X to 4ghz to compare IPC.

Intel's mainstream CPUs up to the 9900K, Intel use a ringbus network between cores. For higher core counts, it uses a mesh network (that increases latency and thus hurts IPC a bit). AMD uses Infinity Fabric. Infinity Fabric is closer to the mesh network; Intel's ringbus is faster. One thing interesting to note is that Cinebench doesn't stress the cache systems. This means it won't show AMD's weakness in accessing data across CCX modules.

AMD is still hit particularly hard in games. The video was made 1.5 years after Ryzen released, which means that the games were already ryzen patched to an extent.

This is before taking clock speed into consideration. Ryzen can only reach around 4.2 ghz. Intel can reach around 5 ghz.

There's another video comparing Ryzen 2000 series to the Skylake X processors and it fares better, but that's still when they're limited to the same 4 ghz clockspeed.

Edit: sorry, linked wrong video for 2nd link

That's a good question, did that thread mismanagement by windows affect gaming performance on not-TR CPUs. Don't think I've seen that tested yet.

 

[havok585]

This is a blatant distortion of facts and reality.

...
...
8700K = 2600X
9900K = 2700X
i9-7980XE < Threadripper 2970WX
....

See:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html

See:
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/ryzen-7-vs-core-i7-9700k,38046.html

There is nothing AMD has got that can match the gaming performance of the 8700k, 9700k, or 9900K. This just bogus to even treat them as equal "=".

See, for top gaming performance and benchmarks, Intel is unmatched:
https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/port+royal+3dmark+score+performance+preset/version+1.0/1+gpu

We can only hope this will change drastically with 5.0Ghz 3700x and the likes, but until then.

You are doing it wrong!

Dont compare CPU's just by their FPS (gaming)criteria, dude..

I own the 8700k, but I like the Ryzen 2k more and we have on the horizon the 3k series coming !

Ryzen 2700x destroys 8700k in every benchmark (except Single threaded gaming, which is just one area of use for a CPU).
Multicore performance is what most people should look up to, the future is scalability and intel has lost the fight to AMD for now.

 

[pyro226]

That's a good question, did that thread mismanagement by windows affect gaming performance on not-TR CPUs. Don't think I've seen that tested yet.

I doubt it. Performance scaling between 4, 8, and 16 core CPUs would have likely been worse if it was.impacted.

Windows had problems with Numa mode (non-uniform memory access, where some cores access memory faster than others).

For the low core count Threadrippers (based on 2 ccx modules) and all of ryzen (1 ccx module), the CPUs present themselves as one big monolithic die (UMA mode - uniform memory access mode), despite the small differences in cache access they all have equal access to system RAM. CPU cache is fast enough that ignoring the differences only results in a small performance penalty. In Threadripper, there is a bios switch for UMA / NUMA. The default is UMA for chips where it was available. If the user set low core count Threadrippers to NUMA mode or if the option is available for Ryzen, they both probably would have encountered problems if aet to NUMA mode.

Because the 24 and 32 core dies only have 2/4 of the CCX modules with direct RAM access, they could only present the CPUs as NUMA (non uniform memory address mode). Thus they encountered Windows NUMA bug.

I believe the scheduler bug was only in Windows 10 and maybe 8. Windows 7 didn't have problems with NUMA mode if I recall correctly.

 

[NotABadSlime]

..
You are doing it wrong!

Dont compare CPU's just by their FPS (gaming)criteria, dude..

Why not? How is it wrong? Those are arbitrary value judgements. To gamers and most ethusiasts, Gaming performance is paramount it is what matters and what counts. If I am shopping for compute power for work I wouldn't bother with desktop CPUs anyways.

But when I am building PC for me, gaming comes first. FPS is the most important. I think Techspot and Steve at least acknowledges this simple fact for a lot of the enthusiasts. Why else would this have been written:

https://www.techspot.com/review/1829-intel-core-i5-9400f-vs-amd-ryzen-5-2600x/
"When it comes to gaming it’s fair to say there’s no wrong option here and the Ryzen 5 2600X and Core i5-9400F are evenly matched. "

And similarly:
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/page8.html
"Having established that the Core i7-8700K is hands down faster than the Ryzen 7 2700X for gaming"

In summary, in simple terms, as demonstrated by Techspot:
2600x is equivalent to a 9400F
2700x is slower than a 8700k