Back to Today's Deal

It's Still 2019 - Time to Hype New Releases or something


lol what? in tech this would always be a thing then. :rofl:
87k is 2 years “old” already and you’re “disappointed” in comparing it to a new release? :smile:
the 9900k(“last gen”) are in line with both 37 and 38 ryzen(next gen) -the only one that’s impressive being 39, and purely from the MT point it seems
so basically intel has every chance to see the exact same increase on their "next gen"whatever since it’s a few point in each step, making even the performance per dollar at glance appear about even on those
The interesting is the R9 3900 being both “cheap” compared to the chosen multi core equivalent and still blowing them all away with the performance gain for multi threaded tasks to such high degree/low dollar, that it will make it curious how intel would/could respond to 3900x. Because the 2 others are nothing special at all compared to the i9, on that chart
and ofc there is always the “what are you even doing with you cpu”, because 3900x would be mighty pointless if not doing something that would even benefit from 12 cores for some people :man_shrugging:

it almost seem like the same statement when a couple of people get upset at a next gen gpu reveal “argh i should have waited for the 1080ti instead of 980ti” etc etc… tick tock, pretty much the same every year, always a couple of point gains on the last/from eachother or when they release in staggered dates/“years” from one another…


I just built mine though, different thing. Someone from a year ago and needing a PC? No, in their case, waiting is not a good option unless they can just leave the budget aside for it or can freely upgrade every time something comes out. But for someone who rarely upgrades their components (every 4-6 years), a 1-2 month way is nothing. :sweat_smile:

The performance difference between a higher end Ryzen 3000 and a i7-8700k is going to be immense if these benchmarks are accurate. Just saying with my tight budgets, wish I had waited until Computex before building, but I did need my PC then so…guess the choice was difficult to make.

so basically intel has every chance to see the exact same increase on their "next gen"whatever since it’s a few point in each step, making even the performance per dollar at glance appear about even on those

The reason this is a big stir is because Intel’s next line is slated for 2020-21 (delays and delays due to 10-7nm), while AMD’s is out in July and at an already confirmed cheaper price point. I’m sure Intel will eventually pull out an insane performance gain (probably not great though if prior gens are an indication of “performance gains”) but the price will be outrageous as always. AMD is going to win with incredible prices and a, in real world environments, 10 FPS difference. Their prior Ryzen line was already popular and it wasn’t this good.


win what tho?
people that already have an i9 would not have a reason to upgrade over a few % points
and for most people with something between the last couple of years it would still be a minor upgrade for a big price, which is only for sorta the higher end enthusiast
since for most even if it was just the cpu and not swapping entire platform(intel to amd) 3-400$ is still a lot of money for most people, that’s only going to see a slight gain for the expense
the only real gain here is the potential push it forces on Intel to step up their game, but unless you got spare cash willing to toss at it, this wont affect most one bit.

combined with the “intel scare” tho, it’s great for AMD to have been able to pull this out before Intel can bring anything “significant” to the table, since those types of headlines are more likely to make the public aware/consider AMD on their next purchase, than a performance/dollar chart -still doesn’t mean Intel can’t/won’t make the exact same leap in 1-2 years, seeing the same turnaround that AMD might here
^where you will then have the couple of gangs being “i wonder if i wait it’s gonna get even better” :smile:


Maybe, but what would the price have been though? I’m still wanting to get a system come October.


This year (and potentially next year’s) lineup of affordable and yet powerful CPUs of course. They’re competing against each other for that very reason. Unless Intel has been red herring us about its inability to push its next Gen desktop CPUs out (mobile only) and can do so before Q4 of 2020 or somewhere in 2021, AMD could dominate the time between then. Which is good for everyone in my opinion, forces Intel to actually try to improve their CPU line and make them put them at more affordable prices.

This kind of stuff isn’t really aimed at people who just upgraded to a brand new CPU gen. Those people are called enthusiasts and if they’re putting it towards Intel’s flag ships and high ends, doubt they are going to be iffy about price if they’re figuring to make up for an upgrade anyhow.

These lineups are for people like me and Dana, and others mostly. Upgrading from real low end stuff who would vastly benefit from the 20% increase from prior Ryzen and a near 50% from others. Or others who do not have a PC yet.

If this is accurate (and seems extremely accurate to prior pricing):

Cheaper CPUs (the “i3s and i5s” so to speak) in the line would be $199 and about $220-230.


except that’s not how it works, because most consumers don’t upgrade on that schedule

these are consumer desktop cpu’s it’s like the smallest sliver of the market, and while indicative of what mobile cpu could stand to benefit, it still doesn’t matter
CPU desktop lineup/launches/performance don’t mean diddly squat for the vast majority of the public, and it’s more significant to the average joe, who don’t follow ces computex gtc, what brand reputation is.
Which is why the Intel scare is much more likely to impact sales than synthetic test’s 30% performance increase on a chart they are unlikely to ever see.
OEM manufacturers choosing AMD over Intel would also be much more significant
likewise laptops matter a ton more, and if “everything” is getting pushed with Intel SKUs, that’s what people “know”/are familiar with and are more likely to be what they pick in their next, unless you have a clerk that pushes amd or OEMs that start focus their lineup more heavily on it so it’s the more apparent “choice”

if price/performance and innovation/increase per yearly release/lineup mattered the slightest; Nvidia/Intel would never have been able to get away with their pathetic dollar-performance increases year by year. Even after AMD gpu’s resurgence it still didn’t matter, and people happily gobbled up RTX despite being possibly the biggest vaporware tech yet with only a handful of games actually using it. To the point where a time when it actually might be utilized you could’ve safely waited and gotten that gen’s gpu. But Nvidia/Intel sports an enormous amount of clout, regardless of the most linear performance increases and high prices year in and out
Specs only matters tho the few/select group that actually bothers/cares about it, for the rest of majority of the public it’s all about brand and marketing. -if a store is pushing Nvidia/Intel on you despite having a shelf of AMD right next to it, it doesn’t matter if they are cheaper/better price-performance, if you have someone that insist "this is the best"
and to those that do care/are aware/conscientious about price or performance, the segment is also possibly not grand, because they are likely to have “already” spent their limited budget “earlier”. So those that would then be willing/able to upgrade would need to be part of groups even further back than the previous Intel/Ryzen dust-offs, -because most people just don’t upgrade their desktop that frequently if they “just” have in recent years.

i’m sure there was even a solid reason why you chose 8700k vs Ryzen 2XXXx despite Ryzen having the about the same “chart”/generational multithreaded increase/advantage +cheaper prices over Intel before this reveal, given at the time Intel’s were constantly only 4 cores, and the i9 was/is “expensive”.
^i’m suggesting there might be other factors than just pure performance or price tags when selecting a cpu/upgrade for people, than merely what charts showcases from the latest/new releases

i’m not saying the 3900x isn’t significant, but from a purely gen to gen comparison, the 3700 and 3800 is obviously not impressive, thus not really significant
and what will likely overall mater more than the tick’s in performance or their usual pricing, is the year of “Intel scare”
-hell most people don’t even know how many cores their cpu has, let alone their performance


If I understand what you mean, most consumers wouldn’t upgrade 2019 and then again in 2020 anyhow unless they have money to throw around. Consumers looking for upgrades generally do look at release schedules though. And when Intel/AMD releases new generations they aren’t just focusing on people needing to upgrade, they’re focusing on people who do not have PCs at the moment or haven’t touched PC parts in years. And if you look over at r/buildapc etc you’ll see tons of people waiting for their lineups to build their PCs to see what could offer the best for their money.

It happens all of the time.

CPU desktop lineup/launches/performance don’t mean diddly squat for the vast majority of the public, and it’s more significant to the average joe, who don’t follow ces computex gtc, what brand reputation is.
Which is why the Intel scare is much more likely to impact sales than synthetic test’s 30% performance increase on a chart they are unlikely to ever see.

You’re right. The average joe won’t care what happens in Computex or even understand graphs, but they almost always seek out those who do. And naturally they are going to use information gathered from Computex, benchmarks, etc. People aren’t going to make a decision because of a chart, no one ever should, but if what we are seeing of Ryzen 3000 is true, tons of people will be asking across dozens of sites what to upgrade to or buy with their stuff, and anyone without bias will be hard pressed not to suggest Ryzen 3000 against current Intel Gen when they get more power in most cases or the same for far, far less.

That’s a completely different thing though. I was discussing actual in world performance (and AMD winning it that regard) and pricing rather than perception of what is better. Though I believe those who understand even a bit of PC related information generally out number those who walk into a store and can get manipulated by someone blinded by a side they support, you are right they exist. Brand loyalty is cancerous. :grimacing:

I disagree entirely. The 3700(x) and 3800(x) each have 8/16 cores/threads with 36mb of cache with base and boost clocks of 3.9/4.5ghz & 3.6/4/4ghz. That’s incredible, especially since they have price tags of $399 $329 (and cheaper, presumably, for the non-x variant of the 3700). In a world where games are quickly becoming multi-threaded as well? These CPUs on top of their performance and price points are incredible deals, especially since they compete with their much pricer Intel brothers.


most consumers, regardless of having money, don’t even upgrade their pc on a 3year basis… so those that already have “recently” are highly unlikely to take note of this release

which applies to intel equally, and so you aren’t winning a year, you are just grabbing a portion of the previous leftovers, which gets smaller each time as people stay on their system a while, and it’s likely people that already got grabbed by AMD’s boost did so in the previous Ryzen gen, leaving the current more limited/less appalling despite another tick in performance

again, this is a “small” group of people. The vast majority of people don’t do this. the people that does are exactly the group that cares do one degree more or another
(and i’ll grant you the enthusiasm is growing so the group is increasing, but it’s still a small portion of the general consumers)

nope, again that’s the people that slightly care, they compare benchmars etc or get input from knowledgeable peopel. Average Joe either goes in a store and buys a prefab, lets a custom shop assemble 1 without input, or picks a complete assembled online from a brief “recommendation”, to minimize their “hassle”. Even for “interested people” you get this, and have Alienware pc’s etc… most don’t actually do the comparisons, so to the average joe, those charts mean nothing

no it’s not? it’s literally the “specs” that applies the real world performance, and the graphs that showcase said -both which most consumers wont see/look up but are more likely to get “clerk” input. And Amd ain’t “winning” diddly squat on those specific RL performances, again, it’s the same generational increase as last time, exception being 3900x
and it’s nothing about brand loyalty as it is salesmanship/marketing. You don’t have to be “loyal” to a brand to continuously stick with it, or routinely “get suckered” in to buying it. Marketing or the clerk at the store can do that, and previous experience can lead to a sense of “comfort” -“it worked last time i’ll pick this”, which has nothing to do with the red vs green fan loyalty, but just human nature of being lazy/perceptible and persuaded easily

it, literally, matters nothing, not just in terms of the concept of getting consumers to pick it “because of it”, but in terms of generational increase…

  • Ryzen 2700x
    Cores: 8
    Threads: 16
    Base clock: 3.7GHz
    Boost clock: 4.3GHz
    L3 cache: 20MB
    TDP: 105WRyzen 7
    Price – $329
  • 3700X
    8 cores with 16 threads
    3.6 GHz Base Clocks
    4.4 GHz Boost Clocks
    36mb cache
    Power Draw – 65w TDP
    Price – $329

literally the only “significant” generational increase is the cache and TDP of the lower models, since above 3700x you still get 100+TDP
i do not understand where you see this huge leap in advancement elsewhere? cores remain the same, and cache has been been increasing in bigger steps each year. (tho jumping this much/price is still something)
and again the benchmark showcase the same trend in performance increase, you’ll find the same Cinebench results with similar %increase of Ryzen and previous gen intels -which is damn logical because of intel’s insisting of 4 cores, which is exactly why the i9, tho expensive was interesting, and the comparisons/gain suddenly even out
^so all it does is “force” intel to step it up on the price front, since they already had the same generation performance ticks. Hell they wouldn’t even have to wait until their next lineup, they could literally just slash their prices, since despite double-triple the cache and cores they are still comparable in gains it seems.
and AMD has always been about the better price with Intel being the stupid/stubborn, so not much different there this year either

and since you mention real world performance, “not just benchmarks” they tend to be around the same, and is funnily enough why synthetics are used to baseline compare,
-and a cpu is the lest efficient way of upgrading to increase fps compared to gpu, ie 400$ on a new cpu is less likely to give you better realworld performance than putting those 400$ towards next gen gpu, as the specific leaps are usually greater/more direct. And even if you already have new GPU cpu is still a silly upgrade “for that reason”(it should have to be because of multi-threaded workload), especially if it’s an entire platform upgrade and you’re suddenly looking at an even bigger cost with the additional hardware.
^few people, and especially an average joe, would benefit very little from this generational increase if they have anything from the last couple of gens, (specially for gaming, assuming you hinted of that with the mention of 10fps). Future-proofing is the stupidest idea/concept in hardware, and is mostly always just wasted/expensive in the end

i’ll hold my stand that the only significant one here is the 3900x, not just because of the massive leap in performance increase, but the crazy price point blowing intel away/forcing them to step up their multi core competition way more now.

anyways, feel like i’m rambling at this point, have a good night, will have to revisit this in 6months or something


Well I’m not the only one who thinks it is a huge improvement. It isn’t a technological mind blower for sure but in a market controlled by Intel and its overpriced CPUs (which currently the top have no hyperthreading) that don’t really improve much by generation, the AMD Ryzen line and the Navi announcement is incredible for performance and consumers.

Just check out PC sites. They’re raving over the news too. AMD, if they can stay true to their claims and benchmarks, have swamped Intel by price to performance, price to core, and of course TDP to performance. The newest Ryzen is a 65w and Intel isn’t even seemingly close to release its 14nm architecture and other architectures for the desktop. That’s years of AMD having room over Intel. For Intel to catch up to this, they will have to slash prices and somehow catch up to performance.

Of course things can and most likely will change very soon (I do not expect Intel letting this go on, perhaps they can force 10nm out this winter?) but for now AMD just pulled a fast one on the market and it’ll be hard to get it back this year and probably early into the next year, at least until Intel manages to get that 10nm mess tightened up.

Now, we won’t actually know the performance of these CPUs until they arrive in July and get benchmarked (to conclude how the IPC performs outside of Cinebench etc), but given Ryzen history I’m putting all bets on the claims to be true.

But yea, we’ll have to wait a few months until release and a few weeks after to properly judge performance, but doesn’t mean we can’t drool over the details now. :laughing:


you mean like last time, and every year? :thinking: :wink:

and the 65tdp is only on the 3700x and 3600, with 36x 38x 39x is still 100tdp, so yea, i’m not understanding the rave yet, and see this as “regular scheduled”/usual new release gains :man_shrugging:
it all depends on what Intel counters with next time (tho with their track record i’m also not expecting much bother as they are usually lackluster on both price and improvements)

and HT isn’t disabled tho from zombieload, even apple didn’t disable it by default only google did, it wasn’t even really recommended as “necessary” for regular consumers/"not at risk"users(tho would also make sense Intel saying “please don’t gimp the hardware and dislike us for it”:sweat_smile:)…
even if you do, it’s still a bit of a coin toss for gaming concerns, since some see gains, with a few seeing loss with HT, and a bunch still don’t really see much/any diff as they still just don’t bother doing much with 8-12-16threads


“Incorporates 3rd-party DRM: Denuvo Anti-tamper”

Well, guess I’ll get it for Switch…second hand.


considering sqeenix does this regularly, and even did it with a free game :man_facepalming:; i’d really not be surprised to expect it being the norm for stuff they are involved with
i’ll be curious what you people think of it(Octo) tho in general, and ofc how the pc port got treated


I understand that you’re having fun over there, but allow me to post something non-geek :rofl:

Seems like a good run, I like the art.


doesn’t that actually prove they’re not using that merely against piracy? This simply shows that the real reason they’re using Denuvo must be something else entirely.


No if anything it shows that it’s a standard thing they put into all their publishing contracts with no regard as to what the published title even is.


This. Maybe wait for release or something. :woman_shrugging:

On a side note, thanks @delenn13 for linking to that FPS! Looks amazing. Waiting for their anouncement – or denial – of a Linux port. :penguin:


broking the computex thread

check this new indie


Added to my WL, thanks @yoel666.

It looks like zelda+minit+swords of ditto in traditional pixel art form. (I find the time limits to be a little bit annoying, so I probably will have to wait and think on this one for a bit. :smiley:


enjoy that


Got this one from @yitzilitt’s WL:

And I have the first one: