By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - New AMD GPUs to launch July 7th.

Cerebralbore101 said:
1337 Gamer said:
I still dont have much hope. They look ok, but they are still more power hungry than Nvidia cards and arent much better from a performance/ Dollar view. I want AMD to be competitive, but they arent there yet. Ryzen 3 looks great, but unless they drop the price significantly on the RX 5000 series cards, they are gonna be hurting.

Reviews are out, and the cards are okay. I guess. A 2060 has 160 TDP, while a 5700 has 180 TDP. Not that huge of a difference. Temps and performance seem to be about the same give or take a few degrees/FPS. 5700 has 2GB more of RAM so there's that. But it lacks Ray Tracing which is kind of going to be a big deal eventually. 

What kills it for me right now though is the lack of Fans in any of the 5700 models. Blowers are dumb and noisy. Hopefully some company puts together a fan based model for around $300. The official launch editions of new GPUs are always more expensive than the ones that come later. So with any luck 5700 models with a fan will be $50 less than Nvidia's competition. 

P.S. The new Ryzen CPUs are just flat out better than Intel's CPUs. IMO 2700, or 2700X were great bang for your buck CPUs. New Ryzens are even better bang for your buck, and the 3900X beats Intel's best CPU in most everything. 

In fact, according to Hardware Unboxed, the GPU itself of the 5700 is consuming less energy than the 2060 (non-super) while outperforming the 2060 (non-super) across the board, while the 5700XT chip consumes as much as the 2060 super chip, but goes toe to toe with the 2070 super. But AMD's boards consume considerably more power, making their overall power consumption more even to their direct competitors, namingly the 2060 Super and 2070 Super.

I'll wait for some models with different coolers, as the chip has quite some reserves (Steve was able to get the chip to boost to about 2Ghz simply by setting the fan speed to 100%) and the coolers from Sapphire, Asus and Powercolor are generally more performant yet also much less noisy.



Around the Network
Cerebralbore101 said:
1337 Gamer said:
I still dont have much hope. They look ok, but they are still more power hungry than Nvidia cards and arent much better from a performance/ Dollar view. I want AMD to be competitive, but they arent there yet. Ryzen 3 looks great, but unless they drop the price significantly on the RX 5000 series cards, they are gonna be hurting.

Reviews are out, and the cards are okay. I guess. A 2060 has 160 TDP, while a 5700 has 180 TDP. Not that huge of a difference. Temps and performance seem to be about the same give or take a few degrees/FPS. 5700 has 2GB more of RAM so there's that. But it lacks Ray Tracing which is kind of going to be a big deal eventually. 

What kills it for me right now though is the lack of Fans in any of the 5700 models. Blowers are dumb and noisy. Hopefully some company puts together a fan based model for around $300. The official launch editions of new GPUs are always more expensive than the ones that come later. So with any luck 5700 models with a fan will be $50 less than Nvidia's competition. 

P.S. The new Ryzen CPUs are just flat out better than Intel's CPUs. IMO 2700, or 2700X were great bang for your buck CPUs. New Ryzens are even better bang for your buck, and the 3900X beats Intel's best CPU in most everything. 

The 9900K is still the best gaming CPU, probably best you read the benchmarks. Also the GPU TDP is actually the whole board and not just the chip.



Random_Matt said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Reviews are out, and the cards are okay. I guess. A 2060 has 160 TDP, while a 5700 has 180 TDP. Not that huge of a difference. Temps and performance seem to be about the same give or take a few degrees/FPS. 5700 has 2GB more of RAM so there's that. But it lacks Ray Tracing which is kind of going to be a big deal eventually. 

What kills it for me right now though is the lack of Fans in any of the 5700 models. Blowers are dumb and noisy. Hopefully some company puts together a fan based model for around $300. The official launch editions of new GPUs are always more expensive than the ones that come later. So with any luck 5700 models with a fan will be $50 less than Nvidia's competition. 

P.S. The new Ryzen CPUs are just flat out better than Intel's CPUs. IMO 2700, or 2700X were great bang for your buck CPUs. New Ryzens are even better bang for your buck, and the 3900X beats Intel's best CPU in most everything. 

The 9900K is still the best gaming CPU, probably best you read the benchmarks. Also the GPU TDP is actually the whole board and not just the chip.

Yes, the 9900K is still the best one, but the advantage is getting slim. Those few frames are measurable, but rarely felt anymore.

While on the CPU topic, I wonder why there's no tests of the 3800X? With it's higher TDP and clock speeds while still only running on one chiplet, it might actually be the best gaming chip from AMD right now.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Random_Matt said:

The 9900K is still the best gaming CPU, probably best you read the benchmarks. Also the GPU TDP is actually the whole board and not just the chip.

Yes, the 9900K is still the best one, but the advantage is getting slim. Those few frames are measurable, but rarely felt anymore.

While on the CPU topic, I wonder why there's no tests of the 3800X? With it's higher TDP and clock speeds while still only running on one chiplet, it might actually be the best gaming chip from AMD right now.

It's just a higher clocked 3700X, no one will buy it. I would only recommend the 3700X for new builders, and only a 3900X if they need more cores as it is a waste of money for gaming. But going forward 12 cores might be beneficial in games, who knows.



Random_Matt said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Yes, the 9900K is still the best one, but the advantage is getting slim. Those few frames are measurable, but rarely felt anymore.

While on the CPU topic, I wonder why there's no tests of the 3800X? With it's higher TDP and clock speeds while still only running on one chiplet, it might actually be the best gaming chip from AMD right now.

It's just a higher clocked 3700X, no one will buy it. I would only recommend the 3700X for new builders, and only a 3900X if they need more cores as it is a waste of money for gaming. But going forward 12 cores might be beneficial in games, who knows.

I do wait for reviews of the 3800X though, since just like with the 1800X compared to the 2700(X), it could reach higher clock speeds, and comes with a higher TDP to boot this time around. While for normal people the 3700X would certainly be better, the 3800X could potentially be much better for overclockers.



Around the Network
Bofferbrauer2 said:
Random_Matt said:

It's just a higher clocked 3700X, no one will buy it. I would only recommend the 3700X for new builders, and only a 3900X if they need more cores as it is a waste of money for gaming. But going forward 12 cores might be beneficial in games, who knows.

I do wait for reviews of the 3800X though, since just like with the 1800X compared to the 2700(X), it could reach higher clock speeds, and comes with a higher TDP to boot this time around. While for normal people the 3700X would certainly be better, the 3800X could potentially be much better for overclockers.

Perhaps, and the reason for no review is that AMD did not supply any to reviewers. Bit of a calamity to be honest, maybe some users will do some bench marking in time. 

I'm currently deciding if I want to buy the x570 I, potent M-ITX.



Random_Matt said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

I do wait for reviews of the 3800X though, since just like with the 1800X compared to the 1700(X), it could reach higher clock speeds, and comes with a higher TDP to boot this time around. While for normal people the 3700X would certainly be better, the 3800X could potentially be much better for overclockers.

Perhaps, and the reason for no review is that AMD did not supply any to reviewers. Bit of a calamity to be honest, maybe some users will do some bench marking in time. 

I'm currently deciding if I want to buy the x570 I, potent M-ITX.

Unless you're using some PCiE 4.0 NVME SSD, I personally don't really see the point right now in buying an X570 board. I just hope B550 specs and release will get announced soon.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Random_Matt said:

Perhaps, and the reason for no review is that AMD did not supply any to reviewers. Bit of a calamity to be honest, maybe some users will do some bench marking in time. 

I'm currently deciding if I want to buy the x570 I, potent M-ITX.

Unless you're using some PCiE 4.0 NVME SSD, I personally don't really see the point right now in buying an X570 board. I just hope B550 specs and release will get announced soon.

Will do, why not. Not in any rush anyway, quite happy to wait until next year to be honest.



Random_Matt said:
Cerebralbore101 said:

Reviews are out, and the cards are okay. I guess. A 2060 has 160 TDP, while a 5700 has 180 TDP. Not that huge of a difference. Temps and performance seem to be about the same give or take a few degrees/FPS. 5700 has 2GB more of RAM so there's that. But it lacks Ray Tracing which is kind of going to be a big deal eventually. 

What kills it for me right now though is the lack of Fans in any of the 5700 models. Blowers are dumb and noisy. Hopefully some company puts together a fan based model for around $300. The official launch editions of new GPUs are always more expensive than the ones that come later. So with any luck 5700 models with a fan will be $50 less than Nvidia's competition. 

P.S. The new Ryzen CPUs are just flat out better than Intel's CPUs. IMO 2700, or 2700X were great bang for your buck CPUs. New Ryzens are even better bang for your buck, and the 3900X beats Intel's best CPU in most everything. 

The 9900K is still the best gaming CPU, probably best you read the benchmarks. Also the GPU TDP is actually the whole board and not just the chip.

Okay yeah, I retract my statement about it beating it in most everything. 9900K still has a very slight advantage when it comes to games. But IMO 3700X is so damned close that I can't see myself ever bothering with a 9900K. I mean, you'd be spending an extra $170 plus the cost of a cooler for what? 10 extra FPS, when running most games on 1080p at high/ultra settings? Most games are already well over 80 FPS at that point, so I just don't see the big difference between 97 FPS, and 89 FPS (Tomb Raider). And I'm pretty sure most review sites are using AMD's stock cooler vs who knows what they've bought out of pocket to cool their 9900K. I think a 9900K should be ran at whatever is equal to the stock AMD cooler, and not some $100 cooler. 

I'll probably wind up upgrading to a 3900X, get almost as good gaming performance as a 9900K, and be better at doing non-gaming things to boot. Or I'll go the cheap route and get a 3700X. Just waiting on average turn time benchmarks for 4X games like Civ 6, and Endless Legend.

http://blog.logicalincrements.com/2019/07/amd-cpu-ryzen-3000-3rd-gen-update/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ

https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/



Cerebralbore101 said:
Random_Matt said:

The 9900K is still the best gaming CPU, probably best you read the benchmarks. Also the GPU TDP is actually the whole board and not just the chip.

Okay yeah, I retract my statement about it beating it in most everything. 9900K still has a very slight advantage when it comes to games. But IMO 3700X is so damned close that I can't see myself ever bothering with a 9900K. I mean, you'd be spending an extra $170 plus the cost of a cooler for what? 10 extra FPS, when running most games on 1080p at high/ultra settings? Most games are already well over 80 FPS at that point, so I just don't see the big difference between 97 FPS, and 89 FPS (Tomb Raider). And I'm pretty sure most review sites are using AMD's stock cooler vs who knows what they've bought out of pocket to cool their 9900K. I think a 9900K should be ran at whatever is equal to the stock AMD cooler, and not some $100 cooler. 

I'll probably wind up upgrading to a 3900X, get almost as good gaming performance as a 9900K, and be better at doing non-gaming things to boot. Or I'll go the cheap route and get a 3700X. Just waiting on average turn time benchmarks for 4X games like Civ 6, and Endless Legend.

http://blog.logicalincrements.com/2019/07/amd-cpu-ryzen-3000-3rd-gen-update/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3aEv3EzMyQ

https://www.techspot.com/review/1869-amd-ryzen-3900x-ryzen-3700x/

Yeah, the andavantage the 9900K has over the 3700X in games is so small it doesn't really justify the price difference anymore. Add to this the fact that Ryzen crushes the 9900K in productivity reviews, and that announced 15% pricedrop is clearly too little, too late to keep the CPUs afloat until the gen comes out.

Speaking of the next gen, that seems to come in form of 14nm+++ in yet another refresh of Skylake - just with up to 10 cores and 5.2 Ghz this time around.

Cue Facepalm X2 combo

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 10 July 2019