New AMD GPUs to launch July 7th.

[Random_Matt]

Bofferbrauer2 said:

Cerebralbore101 said:

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

Been reported as most likely fake.