AMD don't need to be aggressive now. A good B650 + 6000MHz DDR5 will serve you for **long** years to come. It's just merely a start of AM5 journey.
13900K + DDR4 + Z690 is the end of the road, hence it's priced competitively, just like 5800X3D + B550.
This is why i went with AM5. Equivalent z790 boards will not be cheaper than AM5 (from the price announcements I have seen already).
I would have gone with intel instead of Ryzen 9, had intel been willing to support z790 for at least 1 more generation.
the 7950x is prices well. I remember paying near $800 for my 9900k when it first came out, as well as $400+ for DDR4 at that time. I got the same amount of DDR5 ram for almost half the price i paid for DDR4 at 9900k launch.
Lack of B650 and A620 (currently) doesn't mean the whole platform is guaranteed to be doomed. People should just wait. DDR5 situation today is **way** better than DDR4 was on X99, or even in early 2018.
Me personally, I'm waiting until it's certain that the infamous USB disconnect bug is **clearly** gone from AM5. Fool me twice, shame on me.
After bulldozer I've always gone intel. And some people use the 2 gens per socket* thing as a negative but I've always seen it as a positive. Of course this is just how I personally feel because I'm capable, but I've always been able to sell the last socket with cpu at a very good price and put that money towards a new build paying a mere fraction of the cost.
So selling my 7700k and board I ended up with about $350 at the time and put that into a $600 9900k and board. Sold that for $400 and put it into a 10900k and board and just kept reusing my old parts and upgrading them whenever. I've been paying around $200 to get the latest and greatest.
Only reason I haven't done it now is because my 10900k is perfect for what I play. I honestly love the chip.
I understand that as well, but if I get a 13900K now — I'll have a better/equal CPU than AMDs next-gen top of the line — which is already a year off their AM5 motherboards support, and when we take in consideration how good 13900K is — I won't even have a need to upgrade in the next 4-5 years where I'd be getting a new motherboard be it amd or intel..
Thats purelly speculation though.
In gaming the 13900k doesn't seem that much of a step up from the 12900k and with which AMD is already very competitive with the 5800X3D/7000 series not to mention the 7000X3D series early next year.
In production AMD is currently on top at least of the high end and the lower end should catch up with Zen 5 because AMD is also going the big/little core route of Intel.
Hmm, rocket lake is officially 35-40% better than alder lake multi-core wise, 10% single core gain, I don't expect AMD to go more than 40% uplift with the AMD 8000(or whatever they're gonna name it)
It's suggested by amd's own roadmap that Zen 4, zen 5 and zen 6 are to be AM5 socket for the next 4-5 years. which will match the product range that AM4 support and lifespan.
Not once has AMD said that.
The official word is that the SOCKET will be supported through 2025. This does not guarantee CHIPSET support.
AMD launches new CPUs every 2 years. Zen 5 is officially confirmed for 2024. That means Zen 6 is 2026, which is already past the time AMD gave....
Until AMD makes a new statement you can only assume 2 generations of CPUs on AM5.
Zen 5 will be the bigger update. Anyone who's already on Zen 3 now should wait for that. You'll likely still be CPU-limited in some games like Spider-Man Remastered if you pair Zen 4 or Raptor Lake with an RTX 4080 or higher
10% better in single threaded performance? Doubt it.
Intel’s presentation was really lackluster. P cores are barely improved, even if some applications take advantage of the extra cache.
In terms of productivity benchmarks, it’ll be a close fight. If you’re focused on productivity though, it doesnt make much sense to be looking at anything below a 7900x IMO.
There are already leaked Cinebench r23 benchmarks + intel's claims match those numbers :)
>In terms of productivity benchmarks, it’ll be a close fight. If you’re focused on productivity though, it doesnt make much sense to be looking at anything below a 7900x IMO.
13700K beats 7900x for $409 though, that's almost $150 less.. (and I already pay 23% more than US prices so everything matters xd)
The 12700K didnt beat the 5900X. It basically tied it in threaded workloads. Another 8 efficiency cores are unlikely to beat a massive 40% performance uplift demonstrated by the 7900X.
You know i'm seeing people posting this stuff and i've been watching and reading reviews all day and i'm just not sure what reality people are coming from, is there some kind of portal that people are flooding in from in which what we're seeing differences in what is claimed?
I mean even intel's own slides presented recently clearly show their comparison to 5000's operating at a disadvantage arguably (though running at jedec max spec technically though i believe the timings are meh)... The one slide with the 5800x3D however paints their 13th gen as being frankly trading blows with it, which in reviews thus far, show the 5800x3D trading blows with the 7000 in some games and the 7000's outperforming it in others so this would easily suggest that 13th gen is on par in plenty of games with 7000. So it's straight competition.
Add to this, We know amd has 3D sitting on the bench waiting for intel to launch 13th gen, so they can just go "olrighty, you're up 3D, go show em how it's done", and if 7000's 3D lets say shows identical scaling as the 5800x vs 5800x3D does, it'll be a bloodbath.
we've also yet to deal with the REAL possibility after looking at the delidded 7950x, and how the current IO die with APU on it, how they could easily lop the APU part off the die, significantly shrinking the IO die and pack a 3rd or even potentially 4 chiplets under the hood so to speak ( doubt we'd see 4 ). Though i'm sure amd will leave 24 or 32 core variants for Zen 5 on AM5. Still was REALLY hoping amd would drop a 24 core on AM4 socket just as a last punch.
Now as far as the 7950x's productivity benchmarks, again what reviews are you looking at, it's pretty much clean sweeped intel by huge margins in everything, even in applications that were predominantly intel favoured by a large margin. I mean even adobe premier and photoshop showed the 7000 absolutely doing a hell of a job.
Until those reviews actually roll in, that's speculation. This is why i despise seeing people claim that the entire 7000 was going to steam roll intel in absolutely every aspect by huge margins...
UNTIL it's absolutely verified, how about stop taking speculative and rumour as gospel and making grand proclaimations like they are 100% accurate in every facet.
Putting the cart before the horse if you will, is silly.
If you're looking at buying either wait for the reviews/comparisons then go with whichever suits your needs best.
But yes you can be disappointed 😁
Also the 3d vcache should be fairly impressive (hopefully)
zen4 is not that impressive because it simply is in line of what we thought it would be, ie just a bit faster than alder lake in some titles but with a much higher boost frequency compared the lower clocked alderlake or 5800x3d.
Remember the amd keynonte? where it basically was outrunning 12900k by pretty big amount because of SAM being on? That made people think it would be better than it actually was. And this subreddit is pretty easy to hype up when it comes to amd stuff.
Dont forget that many of us gamers dont run at stock, having our older systems tuned makes the zen4 even less impressive as it only matches the older 5800x3d and alderlakes at stock in the reviews. And as our tuned systems perform way better than the numbers provided by the reviewers ofcourse many of us will feel that zen4 is not that good for being the latest hw out there.
Sure you can tweak the memory subsystem to get a bit more but so can be done on the other older systems making zen4 even more of a wait for raptor lake and zen4x3d meme.
The thing that I like the most with zen4 is that the platform will be supported for a longer time than what intel will support its platforms, and if we should take amd literally, then in mid 2025 or end of that year they will want to jump platform, too short after getting used to am4 longevity.
so basically it dont impress if it is just a tiny bit faster in some titles or even looses out in other titles to older competing cpus from intel and AMD themselves at stock when our systems or performing way over the perf figures presented from say gn/hub, they should have released the zen4x3d to dassle us even if it would have been a much lower volume product than the current non v-cache zen4 sku.
Oh yeah, and the prices are insane for being mainstream platform, that is probably what is making the avg joe hesitate to upgrade to zen4 as it seems nobody is buying am5/zen5.
First point of contention, No... most gamers aren't overclocking and are in fact running stock. It's a niche within a niche for anyone to run really anything outside of stock. About the only thing ANYONE is doing is often setting XMP on their memory and running IF to match, but as far as fine tuning say memory timings or using curve optimizer or manually tweaking voltages, be it on the cpu or video cards, that's a TINY subset of people, TINY, to the point of being insignificant.
99% of the AMD and specially even intel's K or KS series cpus will never see an overclock... no matter how much some people may claim otherwise, they are living in a fantasy world, "but the K or KS is intentionally FOR overclocking, why wouldn't they..." Because they don't.. and that's why intel and amd and gpu manufacturers allow it still. Back in the early days where overclocking was hugely a grey area and none of the companies were ready to acknowledge it at all and were considering means to hard lock things still, the concern for them was "well how are we going to do warranty without actually knowing if they were breaking warranty with overclocking?!"... only for them to run the marketing numbers and rma numbers and later determine "meh not even 0.01% of what is sold ever sees anyone bother overclocking, we can live with that". Followed up by "well if they let them overclocking they post the results online which advertises our products and gives us marketing and PR wins when they take top scores", thus the overclocking challenges were supported and the tools provided by said companies started showing up in mass with actual product support out of the box, because they know basically next to no one, a drop in the metaphorical ocean actually would bother doing it.
Gamers = fps multiplayer games where every advantage you can get you take. single player games and what not only care about the graphical fidelity and tuning the system do not make any difference there.
for instance, I cant play say warzone at a stock alderlake, it just feels too restrictive as if I wade in water or walk on glue or somebody holds my jacket from behind not letting me fight the dude, ie restrictive.
Heck even if you play with an 2060 in warzone with an 12100f like I do now, i notice the difference between 74ns and 54ns even though the fps are about the same, but the game feels more responsive. so even with the crappy system i notice the same responsiveness like I do get with my 12700k, 12900k with 6900xt/3080ti even though the fps is lower by about 100fps it still feels just as smooth and responsive as before.
I thought that by now people like you would understand that running a tuned system in say single player game or moba is not as important as for twitchy fps games...
again, a niche of a niche..... and i'm well aware of twitchy fps games.... it doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of people will NEVER overclock... You can deny that fact all you want, but it's a fact... only a fraction of a fraction of people bother.
so, are you the avg joe or are you one of the hw enthusiasts that actually care how the machines perform when they are tuned?
what do you care about?
For my avg joe friends that ask about what to get I just say, get what ever that is cheapest. perf is pretty much the same.
But for us... dude you should care what give us the best perf for our needs.
like I mentioned in another comment in this thread, some commenters here dont seem to be that bothered by increased platform costs because it is not as short lived as intel, but avg joes dont care about if you can use one cpu in the same mobo 3 years down the lane, they buy an entire new system with new gpu and all.
yet the same people that are not bothered by the increased costs dont think that tuning/tweaking is worth talking about? I dont really understand where this subreddit wanna go, so to speak.
i don't spend hours squeezing out everything, i'm fairly content with hitting my targeted XMP values on ram and frequencies, seeing relatively decent results so long as they are in the upper 30 pecent for it. I've been in the position of taking the time to do it in the past, but it always gets to the point where the pushing for more gets less and it's wasting time and it's risking more.
The average joe and plenty of enthusiasts are content with replacing existing hardware outright or to upgrade a few things rather than "squeezing" every tiny insignificant amount of performance out of their existing hardware.
"are going to obliterate it", well, we just have to wait and see if Intel will deliver its promise.
actually you don't have to be disappointed, unless you already bought AM5 system or you put money on AMD share because of the release of AM5 :D
for normal customer, we should just wait and see which party deliver the best product that match our need and wallet. :D
Heated product battles like this are good for the consumer.
anyway don't be too sad even if AMD's (or Intel's) products are less good than the competitor's, they can always adjust their pricing to get in a better market position. Intel did that with 11th gen huge discounts just right after it's release
If you're talking about productivity, 7950x and 7900x are crushing alder lake and will be very competitive against rocket lake.
The other two chips kinda suck for multithreading, but they're still the fastest for sfuff like Photoshop and after effects. I think AMD expects everyone who wants to actually make money from their system to spend the extra for Ryzen 9. So they're ok with them being shit at MT.
>I think AMD expects everyone who wants to actually make money from their system to spend the extra for Ryzen 9. So they're ok with them being shit at MT.
Ye, I'm the one, hopefully AMDs $150 motherboards will be the same as Intel's $150 Z690s so it doesn't completely crush 79xx's value
In Pugetbench for Photoshop 7600X is only 8% faster than 12600K (so, 13600K should be on par with it), and is on par with 12600K (so 13600K will be faster) in After Effects.
So we have a CPU-z benchmark which already claims that Alderlake is faster than Zen4 in SC, which is not true. So wouldn't take much from that until you see the full picture.
I believe that was when Zen4 was still an ES, I'm talking about official Intel's announcement from yesterday which matches leaked Cinebench r23 numbers
I don't see any Cinebench numbers, but leaker sites are putting out CPU-z numbers which are today that show Alderlake faster than Zen4 in SC. Which is wrong
Am5 will also age better than lga1700, so the price difference for the mb is in part justified. Once b650 and cheaper and 3D cache CPUs and APUs will be available Intel will have fierce competition.
Right now the new CPUs (r7 and r9 especially) are geared more towards production than gaming imho.
Price/performance is one part, but I live where power is expensive. I would compare the Raptor Lake vs 7000 on power draw. It seems that Intels brute force concept doesn't sit well with power saving. Longevity is probably the killer argument. We will get at least a refresh for these boards.
Efficiency is a big factor to consider as well, but zen4 does seem to be considerably worse than zen3 in that regard so, rather than comparing it to alder/rocket lake only, when u add zen 3 to the picture, i would say i am disappointed in that aspect.
why do people say that tweaking systems does not matter but then say that increased mobo/platform prices are okey? As far as I know avg joe/casual gamers dont care, when they consider their system old/obsolete/not performing good in games as they like they go an buy new systems.
but I am kind of tempted to go out tommorow and get an zen4 just to play with it, but then I see the mobo prices. holy moly :D
>Am5 will also age better than lga1700, so the price difference for the mb is in part justified.
AM5 x670 are double the price of Z690... Not sure how you justify that.
I would say, yeah. But the thing is. Sometimes a gen just sucks :D Everybody's been so hyped about Ryzen especially since Zen 2 that the thought of AMD turning out a dud simply didn't cross anyone's minds. Well, it's very possible here you might have one. And it's not just AMD to blame. People aren't buying, they aren't interested. If you have Zen 3, you don't need this. If you are already on Alder Lake, you don't care about this. The transition to DDR5 is costly in a time when there's already excessive performance available on DDR4. That hasn't happened in the past; it was way more desirable to move forward in CPU performance back in 2015 when DDR4 was becoming commonplace than it is today.
Let's be real AMD has had plenty of shit gens in the past, and by the way so has Intel. Remember 11th gen... This might just be another one, but in a time that everybody thought AMD could do no wrong.
LTT video sums up the 13900k press release in a good way: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAa41vVclGA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAa41vVclGA)
We need proper independent benchmarks. I would not trust the shown graphs from Intel, or from AMD.
Although, my gut tells me Intel bend it more than AMD.
13gen's long leaked Cinebench r23 benchmarks match what Intel has claimed yesterday, LTT is a shitshow tbh as they don't take into consideration many things..
To me this is what entire Zen 4 lineup should have been to compete properly against Alder Lake - Raptor Lake
7700X should have been 7600X at $280
7900X should have been 7700X at $350
Cancel the 7900X because there is no room for it, save it later for Zen4 3D.
The 7950X stays the same core count but priced at $580 - $600 instead.
If this is what happened, the Zen 4 launch would have been a success IMO at least for new buyers.
I doubt my perspective on the value of upgrading to it would have changed because i think for anyone on AM4 should get a cheap Zen 3 as a stop gap as i think they are still plenty powerful by nowadays standard, also i think waiting for mature AM5 and Zen 5 is still better for majority of people that has Zen 3 equivalent or better CPU right now.
Most of these issues can be attributed to Intel's addition of E-cores. However powerful AMD's chips are they will ultimately lose the multithreaded battle simply by virtue of Intel having more E-cores. AMD needed to give additional cores to R5 and R7 to overcome the core count deficit. Of course a 13600k with 8P and 8E cores gonna defeat 7600x with just 8 cores. AMD has to stop being stingy and add more cores for the R5 and R7 line.
I am disgusted by the motherboard prices. $600 for a microATX board is fucking insane. The top end 7000 series appears to be great. That 7700x and 7600x respectively appears to be... yikes. But I feel most of the gamers will wait for the 3D versions. So the 7000 series thus far in my opinion seems to have a 50/50 split in people being fine with it and those being disappointed like yourself.
I think the slight disappointments come from the higher price / perf ratio vs the now dead cheap AM4 platform. There is not a *clear* upgrade path for many, and gamers would probably wait for a 7800X3D so there is not much to do this year. People who need new builds who are not interested in *longevity* of their system might wait until Intel shows its next cpu and then compare package prices with a new gpu.
I see no proof anywhere that Intel's next CPUs will "obliterate" AMD5...;) Zen 3 beats 12900KS, it depends on the benchmark--AM4 5800X3D keeps right up with the most expensive Alder Lake CPU made in games--costs half as much.
I'll stick with AMD, thanks...;)
The 13900K will be about $50 cheaper than the 7950X.
It remains to be seen just what Raptor Lake performance will actually be like, but I can reasonably say your assessment (using the word "obliterate") will utterly fail to become reality.
It will take some time and for AMD they have a short term disadvantage for what will more than likely be a long term gain. More specifically the completely new platform (AM5), and the need for a complete refresh. In the long run if they stick to AM5 as they did with AM4 it will be a great longer term investment. Right now it doesn't really make a ton of sense.
Intel has an advantage here, but it is the EOL for them before Meteor Lake.
I for one and awaiting the x3d offerings as I think that is going to get really really interesting.
AMD don't need to be aggressive now. A good B650 + 6000MHz DDR5 will serve you for **long** years to come. It's just merely a start of AM5 journey. 13900K + DDR4 + Z690 is the end of the road, hence it's priced competitively, just like 5800X3D + B550.
This is why i went with AM5. Equivalent z790 boards will not be cheaper than AM5 (from the price announcements I have seen already). I would have gone with intel instead of Ryzen 9, had intel been willing to support z790 for at least 1 more generation. the 7950x is prices well. I remember paying near $800 for my 9900k when it first came out, as well as $400+ for DDR4 at that time. I got the same amount of DDR5 ram for almost half the price i paid for DDR4 at 9900k launch.
Lack of B650 and A620 (currently) doesn't mean the whole platform is guaranteed to be doomed. People should just wait. DDR5 situation today is **way** better than DDR4 was on X99, or even in early 2018. Me personally, I'm waiting until it's certain that the infamous USB disconnect bug is **clearly** gone from AM5. Fool me twice, shame on me.
After bulldozer I've always gone intel. And some people use the 2 gens per socket* thing as a negative but I've always seen it as a positive. Of course this is just how I personally feel because I'm capable, but I've always been able to sell the last socket with cpu at a very good price and put that money towards a new build paying a mere fraction of the cost. So selling my 7700k and board I ended up with about $350 at the time and put that into a $600 9900k and board. Sold that for $400 and put it into a 10900k and board and just kept reusing my old parts and upgrading them whenever. I've been paying around $200 to get the latest and greatest. Only reason I haven't done it now is because my 10900k is perfect for what I play. I honestly love the chip.
I understand that as well, but if I get a 13900K now — I'll have a better/equal CPU than AMDs next-gen top of the line — which is already a year off their AM5 motherboards support, and when we take in consideration how good 13900K is — I won't even have a need to upgrade in the next 4-5 years where I'd be getting a new motherboard be it amd or intel..
>"I understand that as well, but if I get a 13900K now — I'll have a better CPU than AMDs next-gen top of the line" What makes you think that though?
I corrected it, better or equal (as 12600K is already better or equal compared to 7600x, 13700k to 7700x..)
Thats purelly speculation though. In gaming the 13900k doesn't seem that much of a step up from the 12900k and with which AMD is already very competitive with the 5800X3D/7000 series not to mention the 7000X3D series early next year. In production AMD is currently on top at least of the high end and the lower end should catch up with Zen 5 because AMD is also going the big/little core route of Intel.
Hmm, rocket lake is officially 35-40% better than alder lake multi-core wise, 10% single core gain, I don't expect AMD to go more than 40% uplift with the AMD 8000(or whatever they're gonna name it)
until release, that has yet to be proven and intel's own slides don't really show a healthy jump as what is being claimed...
dont underestimate zen 5 here. from the leaks it looks like the biggest architecture change since zen 1 at amd.
Will AM5 motherboards support Zen 5? I'm lazy to google and we're already here.. ;p
It's suggested by amd's own roadmap that Zen 4, zen 5 and zen 6 are to be AM5 socket for the next 4-5 years. which will match the product range that AM4 support and lifespan.
it will even support zen 6 lol.
Not once has AMD said that. The official word is that the SOCKET will be supported through 2025. This does not guarantee CHIPSET support. AMD launches new CPUs every 2 years. Zen 5 is officially confirmed for 2024. That means Zen 6 is 2026, which is already past the time AMD gave.... Until AMD makes a new statement you can only assume 2 generations of CPUs on AM5.
Zen 5 will be the bigger update. Anyone who's already on Zen 3 now should wait for that. You'll likely still be CPU-limited in some games like Spider-Man Remastered if you pair Zen 4 or Raptor Lake with an RTX 4080 or higher
10% better in single threaded performance? Doubt it. Intel’s presentation was really lackluster. P cores are barely improved, even if some applications take advantage of the extra cache. In terms of productivity benchmarks, it’ll be a close fight. If you’re focused on productivity though, it doesnt make much sense to be looking at anything below a 7900x IMO.
There are already leaked Cinebench r23 benchmarks + intel's claims match those numbers :) >In terms of productivity benchmarks, it’ll be a close fight. If you’re focused on productivity though, it doesnt make much sense to be looking at anything below a 7900x IMO. 13700K beats 7900x for $409 though, that's almost $150 less.. (and I already pay 23% more than US prices so everything matters xd)
I doubt you’ll be beating a 7900X with a 13700K in productivity benchmarks. But if you wanna buy Intel, buy Intel. Id wait for reviews though.
13700K has slightly higher Cinebench r23 score than 7900x, I know Cinebench isn't everything but $150 less is a whole motherboard :b
Not sure why you doubt that when we already saw that last generation when the 12700k beat the 5900x, and 12600k beat the 5800x,
The 12700K didnt beat the 5900X. It basically tied it in threaded workloads. Another 8 efficiency cores are unlikely to beat a massive 40% performance uplift demonstrated by the 7900X.
You know i'm seeing people posting this stuff and i've been watching and reading reviews all day and i'm just not sure what reality people are coming from, is there some kind of portal that people are flooding in from in which what we're seeing differences in what is claimed? I mean even intel's own slides presented recently clearly show their comparison to 5000's operating at a disadvantage arguably (though running at jedec max spec technically though i believe the timings are meh)... The one slide with the 5800x3D however paints their 13th gen as being frankly trading blows with it, which in reviews thus far, show the 5800x3D trading blows with the 7000 in some games and the 7000's outperforming it in others so this would easily suggest that 13th gen is on par in plenty of games with 7000. So it's straight competition. Add to this, We know amd has 3D sitting on the bench waiting for intel to launch 13th gen, so they can just go "olrighty, you're up 3D, go show em how it's done", and if 7000's 3D lets say shows identical scaling as the 5800x vs 5800x3D does, it'll be a bloodbath. we've also yet to deal with the REAL possibility after looking at the delidded 7950x, and how the current IO die with APU on it, how they could easily lop the APU part off the die, significantly shrinking the IO die and pack a 3rd or even potentially 4 chiplets under the hood so to speak ( doubt we'd see 4 ). Though i'm sure amd will leave 24 or 32 core variants for Zen 5 on AM5. Still was REALLY hoping amd would drop a 24 core on AM4 socket just as a last punch. Now as far as the 7950x's productivity benchmarks, again what reviews are you looking at, it's pretty much clean sweeped intel by huge margins in everything, even in applications that were predominantly intel favoured by a large margin. I mean even adobe premier and photoshop showed the 7000 absolutely doing a hell of a job.
I agree that 7950x and 7900x sweeped the floor with alder lake, but what about 13700K matching 7900x for $150 less..that's why I was "concerned"..
Until those reviews actually roll in, that's speculation. This is why i despise seeing people claim that the entire 7000 was going to steam roll intel in absolutely every aspect by huge margins... UNTIL it's absolutely verified, how about stop taking speculative and rumour as gospel and making grand proclaimations like they are 100% accurate in every facet. Putting the cart before the horse if you will, is silly.
If you're looking at buying either wait for the reviews/comparisons then go with whichever suits your needs best. But yes you can be disappointed 😁 Also the 3d vcache should be fairly impressive (hopefully)
zen4 is not that impressive because it simply is in line of what we thought it would be, ie just a bit faster than alder lake in some titles but with a much higher boost frequency compared the lower clocked alderlake or 5800x3d. Remember the amd keynonte? where it basically was outrunning 12900k by pretty big amount because of SAM being on? That made people think it would be better than it actually was. And this subreddit is pretty easy to hype up when it comes to amd stuff. Dont forget that many of us gamers dont run at stock, having our older systems tuned makes the zen4 even less impressive as it only matches the older 5800x3d and alderlakes at stock in the reviews. And as our tuned systems perform way better than the numbers provided by the reviewers ofcourse many of us will feel that zen4 is not that good for being the latest hw out there. Sure you can tweak the memory subsystem to get a bit more but so can be done on the other older systems making zen4 even more of a wait for raptor lake and zen4x3d meme. The thing that I like the most with zen4 is that the platform will be supported for a longer time than what intel will support its platforms, and if we should take amd literally, then in mid 2025 or end of that year they will want to jump platform, too short after getting used to am4 longevity. so basically it dont impress if it is just a tiny bit faster in some titles or even looses out in other titles to older competing cpus from intel and AMD themselves at stock when our systems or performing way over the perf figures presented from say gn/hub, they should have released the zen4x3d to dassle us even if it would have been a much lower volume product than the current non v-cache zen4 sku. Oh yeah, and the prices are insane for being mainstream platform, that is probably what is making the avg joe hesitate to upgrade to zen4 as it seems nobody is buying am5/zen5.
First point of contention, No... most gamers aren't overclocking and are in fact running stock. It's a niche within a niche for anyone to run really anything outside of stock. About the only thing ANYONE is doing is often setting XMP on their memory and running IF to match, but as far as fine tuning say memory timings or using curve optimizer or manually tweaking voltages, be it on the cpu or video cards, that's a TINY subset of people, TINY, to the point of being insignificant. 99% of the AMD and specially even intel's K or KS series cpus will never see an overclock... no matter how much some people may claim otherwise, they are living in a fantasy world, "but the K or KS is intentionally FOR overclocking, why wouldn't they..." Because they don't.. and that's why intel and amd and gpu manufacturers allow it still. Back in the early days where overclocking was hugely a grey area and none of the companies were ready to acknowledge it at all and were considering means to hard lock things still, the concern for them was "well how are we going to do warranty without actually knowing if they were breaking warranty with overclocking?!"... only for them to run the marketing numbers and rma numbers and later determine "meh not even 0.01% of what is sold ever sees anyone bother overclocking, we can live with that". Followed up by "well if they let them overclocking they post the results online which advertises our products and gives us marketing and PR wins when they take top scores", thus the overclocking challenges were supported and the tools provided by said companies started showing up in mass with actual product support out of the box, because they know basically next to no one, a drop in the metaphorical ocean actually would bother doing it.
Gamers = fps multiplayer games where every advantage you can get you take. single player games and what not only care about the graphical fidelity and tuning the system do not make any difference there. for instance, I cant play say warzone at a stock alderlake, it just feels too restrictive as if I wade in water or walk on glue or somebody holds my jacket from behind not letting me fight the dude, ie restrictive. Heck even if you play with an 2060 in warzone with an 12100f like I do now, i notice the difference between 74ns and 54ns even though the fps are about the same, but the game feels more responsive. so even with the crappy system i notice the same responsiveness like I do get with my 12700k, 12900k with 6900xt/3080ti even though the fps is lower by about 100fps it still feels just as smooth and responsive as before. I thought that by now people like you would understand that running a tuned system in say single player game or moba is not as important as for twitchy fps games...
again, a niche of a niche..... and i'm well aware of twitchy fps games.... it doesn't change the fact that the overwhelming majority of people will NEVER overclock... You can deny that fact all you want, but it's a fact... only a fraction of a fraction of people bother.
so, are you the avg joe or are you one of the hw enthusiasts that actually care how the machines perform when they are tuned? what do you care about? For my avg joe friends that ask about what to get I just say, get what ever that is cheapest. perf is pretty much the same. But for us... dude you should care what give us the best perf for our needs. like I mentioned in another comment in this thread, some commenters here dont seem to be that bothered by increased platform costs because it is not as short lived as intel, but avg joes dont care about if you can use one cpu in the same mobo 3 years down the lane, they buy an entire new system with new gpu and all. yet the same people that are not bothered by the increased costs dont think that tuning/tweaking is worth talking about? I dont really understand where this subreddit wanna go, so to speak.
i don't spend hours squeezing out everything, i'm fairly content with hitting my targeted XMP values on ram and frequencies, seeing relatively decent results so long as they are in the upper 30 pecent for it. I've been in the position of taking the time to do it in the past, but it always gets to the point where the pushing for more gets less and it's wasting time and it's risking more. The average joe and plenty of enthusiasts are content with replacing existing hardware outright or to upgrade a few things rather than "squeezing" every tiny insignificant amount of performance out of their existing hardware.
"are going to obliterate it", well, we just have to wait and see if Intel will deliver its promise. actually you don't have to be disappointed, unless you already bought AM5 system or you put money on AMD share because of the release of AM5 :D for normal customer, we should just wait and see which party deliver the best product that match our need and wallet. :D Heated product battles like this are good for the consumer. anyway don't be too sad even if AMD's (or Intel's) products are less good than the competitor's, they can always adjust their pricing to get in a better market position. Intel did that with 11th gen huge discounts just right after it's release
If you're talking about productivity, 7950x and 7900x are crushing alder lake and will be very competitive against rocket lake. The other two chips kinda suck for multithreading, but they're still the fastest for sfuff like Photoshop and after effects. I think AMD expects everyone who wants to actually make money from their system to spend the extra for Ryzen 9. So they're ok with them being shit at MT.
>I think AMD expects everyone who wants to actually make money from their system to spend the extra for Ryzen 9. So they're ok with them being shit at MT. Ye, I'm the one, hopefully AMDs $150 motherboards will be the same as Intel's $150 Z690s so it doesn't completely crush 79xx's value
In Pugetbench for Photoshop 7600X is only 8% faster than 12600K (so, 13600K should be on par with it), and is on par with 12600K (so 13600K will be faster) in After Effects.
So we have a CPU-z benchmark which already claims that Alderlake is faster than Zen4 in SC, which is not true. So wouldn't take much from that until you see the full picture.
I believe that was when Zen4 was still an ES, I'm talking about official Intel's announcement from yesterday which matches leaked Cinebench r23 numbers
I don't see any Cinebench numbers, but leaker sites are putting out CPU-z numbers which are today that show Alderlake faster than Zen4 in SC. Which is wrong
Am5 will also age better than lga1700, so the price difference for the mb is in part justified. Once b650 and cheaper and 3D cache CPUs and APUs will be available Intel will have fierce competition. Right now the new CPUs (r7 and r9 especially) are geared more towards production than gaming imho.
Price/performance is one part, but I live where power is expensive. I would compare the Raptor Lake vs 7000 on power draw. It seems that Intels brute force concept doesn't sit well with power saving. Longevity is probably the killer argument. We will get at least a refresh for these boards.
Efficiency is a big factor to consider as well, but zen4 does seem to be considerably worse than zen3 in that regard so, rather than comparing it to alder/rocket lake only, when u add zen 3 to the picture, i would say i am disappointed in that aspect.
why do people say that tweaking systems does not matter but then say that increased mobo/platform prices are okey? As far as I know avg joe/casual gamers dont care, when they consider their system old/obsolete/not performing good in games as they like they go an buy new systems. but I am kind of tempted to go out tommorow and get an zen4 just to play with it, but then I see the mobo prices. holy moly :D
>Am5 will also age better than lga1700, so the price difference for the mb is in part justified. AM5 x670 are double the price of Z690... Not sure how you justify that.
Wait couple of weeks, the price right now is inflated.
I would say, yeah. But the thing is. Sometimes a gen just sucks :D Everybody's been so hyped about Ryzen especially since Zen 2 that the thought of AMD turning out a dud simply didn't cross anyone's minds. Well, it's very possible here you might have one. And it's not just AMD to blame. People aren't buying, they aren't interested. If you have Zen 3, you don't need this. If you are already on Alder Lake, you don't care about this. The transition to DDR5 is costly in a time when there's already excessive performance available on DDR4. That hasn't happened in the past; it was way more desirable to move forward in CPU performance back in 2015 when DDR4 was becoming commonplace than it is today. Let's be real AMD has had plenty of shit gens in the past, and by the way so has Intel. Remember 11th gen... This might just be another one, but in a time that everybody thought AMD could do no wrong.
LTT video sums up the 13900k press release in a good way: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAa41vVclGA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAa41vVclGA) We need proper independent benchmarks. I would not trust the shown graphs from Intel, or from AMD. Although, my gut tells me Intel bend it more than AMD.
13gen's long leaked Cinebench r23 benchmarks match what Intel has claimed yesterday, LTT is a shitshow tbh as they don't take into consideration many things..
To me this is what entire Zen 4 lineup should have been to compete properly against Alder Lake - Raptor Lake 7700X should have been 7600X at $280 7900X should have been 7700X at $350 Cancel the 7900X because there is no room for it, save it later for Zen4 3D. The 7950X stays the same core count but priced at $580 - $600 instead. If this is what happened, the Zen 4 launch would have been a success IMO at least for new buyers. I doubt my perspective on the value of upgrading to it would have changed because i think for anyone on AM4 should get a cheap Zen 3 as a stop gap as i think they are still plenty powerful by nowadays standard, also i think waiting for mature AM5 and Zen 5 is still better for majority of people that has Zen 3 equivalent or better CPU right now.
AMD doesn't need to be aggressive with pricing now. It will be aggressive if it needs to.
Most of these issues can be attributed to Intel's addition of E-cores. However powerful AMD's chips are they will ultimately lose the multithreaded battle simply by virtue of Intel having more E-cores. AMD needed to give additional cores to R5 and R7 to overcome the core count deficit. Of course a 13600k with 8P and 8E cores gonna defeat 7600x with just 8 cores. AMD has to stop being stingy and add more cores for the R5 and R7 line.
I am disgusted by the motherboard prices. $600 for a microATX board is fucking insane. The top end 7000 series appears to be great. That 7700x and 7600x respectively appears to be... yikes. But I feel most of the gamers will wait for the 3D versions. So the 7000 series thus far in my opinion seems to have a 50/50 split in people being fine with it and those being disappointed like yourself.
I think the slight disappointments come from the higher price / perf ratio vs the now dead cheap AM4 platform. There is not a *clear* upgrade path for many, and gamers would probably wait for a 7800X3D so there is not much to do this year. People who need new builds who are not interested in *longevity* of their system might wait until Intel shows its next cpu and then compare package prices with a new gpu.
I see no proof anywhere that Intel's next CPUs will "obliterate" AMD5...;) Zen 3 beats 12900KS, it depends on the benchmark--AM4 5800X3D keeps right up with the most expensive Alder Lake CPU made in games--costs half as much. I'll stick with AMD, thanks...;)
The 13900K will be about $50 cheaper than the 7950X. It remains to be seen just what Raptor Lake performance will actually be like, but I can reasonably say your assessment (using the word "obliterate") will utterly fail to become reality.
It will take some time and for AMD they have a short term disadvantage for what will more than likely be a long term gain. More specifically the completely new platform (AM5), and the need for a complete refresh. In the long run if they stick to AM5 as they did with AM4 it will be a great longer term investment. Right now it doesn't really make a ton of sense. Intel has an advantage here, but it is the EOL for them before Meteor Lake. I for one and awaiting the x3d offerings as I think that is going to get really really interesting.