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

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/



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Around the Network
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

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.



Random_Matt said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

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.

Still, I don't expect Intel to come up with something better than that until their 10nm process has progressed far enough to be ready for the desktop market. Which I fear will only be the case in 2021.



Bofferbrauer2 said:
Random_Matt said:

Been reported as most likely fake.

Still, I don't expect Intel to come up with something better than that until their 10nm process has progressed far enough to be ready for the desktop market. Which I fear will only be the case in 2021.

It will be 2021, laptop and tablets are all 2020.



Around the Network
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

Another issue I realized last night. Most people game with a few other non-game programs still running in the background. Things like Discord and the like. Ryzen is better with handing non-gaming tasks, so for people that don't close every last program out prior to gaming, I bet that 10 FPS advantage would just disappear. Also keep in mind that these 10 extra frames are based on running a 2080 Ti or 2080. I doubt the FPS difference would be as big for somebody running something more modest like a 2060 or 5700. 



The sentence below is false. 
The sentence above is true. 

 

Random_Matt said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Still, I don't expect Intel to come up with something better than that until their 10nm process has progressed far enough to be ready for the desktop market. Which I fear will only be the case in 2021 at best.

It will be 2021, laptop and tablets are all 2020.

At best, which I forgot to write originally. And at this rate, it's more like in the year 2525 (if Intel's still alive). How many pluses will they add to the 14nm process in the meanwhile?

Cerebralbore101 said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

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

Another issue I realized last night. Most people game with a few other non-game programs still running in the background. Things like Discord and the like. Ryzen is better with handing non-gaming tasks, so for people that don't close every last program out prior to gaming, I bet that 10 FPS advantage would just disappear. Also keep in mind that these 10 extra frames are based on running a 2080 Ti or 2080. I doubt the FPS difference would be as big for somebody running something more modest like a 2060 or 5700. 

That's another issue, and one that had been highlighted by both gamers on forums and AMD themselves, though their video comparison between the 3900X and a 9900K was very misleading (3900X totally fluid, 9900K below 10FPS) since no one ever would even try to do the settings AMD used unless they want to benchmark a worst case scenario - but certainly never for transcoding.

I don't think however that Discord, Teamspeak, and the like have much of an effect on the performance. Neither should the browser unless you're short on memory. That leaves us with the streaming, and I guess a 2-5% hit would be pretty close to a real life scenario unlike what AMD showed during the reveal of the 3900X. So, not really a big impact.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 10 July 2019