JEMC said:
Well, as I said a couple posts above, if the 4070Ti doesn't sell at its current price, maybe Nvidia will get the message that people aren't willing to pay as much as they thought and start pricing their cards more accordingly. And they could do that starting with those two. Mind you, the chances of that happening are quite low (and that's being optimistic).
One thing I don't understand about these 3D cache CPUs is the 7800X3D. My understanding was that launching the 5800X3D with lower clocks than the 5800X was a bit problematic for AMD, because there were some instances where the extra MHz made the regular CPU faster than the more expensive 3D one, and I thought that the launch of the 7700X was their answer to avoid that again, allowing AMD to launch a 7800X3D with the extra cache and the same or even higher clocks as the 7700X. But then you look at the specs, and see that the 7700X has a max boost of 5.4GHz while the upcoming 7800X3D will only boost to 5.0GHz. So the question is, why? Why launching the 7700X and not call it 7800X if they were going to make the same "mistake" again? Even the 7700 non-X will have a bigger boost, to 5.3GHz! |
The stacked v-cache causes a clock rate hit. It's the reason only the the 7800X3D has lower clocks. It only has one CCX. On the 7900X3D and 7950X3D only one of the CCXs have the additional cache. It's my only real concern for the 7900X3D and 7950X3D. If the scheduler isn't up to the task they won't perform as well as they should. As it stands the CCX with additional cache is supposed to be prioritized for gaming. We'll see if Windows is up to the task.
Essay Pro