AMD Formally Announces Ryzen 7 9800X3D Specs - Should Be Great For Linux Creators

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 5
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by avis View Post
    Had Intel ever started charging this much for a midrange CPU
    This is not a midrange cpu, and the fact that you won't accept that just makes the rest of your post meaningless and not worth responding to any further.

    Leave a comment:

  • DumbFsck
    replied
    Originally posted by avis View Post

    Disingenuous is your entire post and the knowledge of history.
    Wrong. I'll go point by point, but it is really telling how you didn't address the main point of my post, that it was disingenuous saying "slight". Focusing instead on the historical comparison, which I said I "thought", so you could just say, " oh you thought wrong, the 5700x3d is not a more apt comparison", but you also ignore that it exists.

    Originally posted by avis View Post
    • 9800X3D will not be the top of the line CPU, there will be 9900X3D and 9950X3D both even more expensive and faster.
    • Is there any CPU on the market that offers more FPS? That is what I meant when I said it isn't "mid tier" as you keep repeating.

      Originally posted by avis View Post
    • Only 2600K was faster than the 2500K and not by a large margin. 9950X3D will be significantly faster in MT scenarios.
    I quote the 2700K because it was the most expensive Sandy Bridge, and also because Intel was so stingy with HT back then.

    Originally posted by avis View Post
  • 2500K used to cost $216, 2600K $317. 9800X3D is now known to cost almost $500, and I guess 9950X3D will be close to $750.
And as I said, you can get great performance with the 5700x3d in games, you can get more cores for MT with the (N)9xx ir you don't need x3d cache, etc.

The market is segmented further, but if you want better performance in MT there are plenty of options.

Also, how much was a loaf of bread back in Sandy Bridge times? How much is one today? And have loafs of bread gone through similar evolutions as CPUs going from 32nm to "7" and having complex packaging with different node dies on the same package etc etc? Also, for how long would Intel have kept us with four cores at best had Zen failed?

Originally posted by avis View Post
But it's the fastest CPU by AMD, so it's totally fine. Had Intel ever started charging this much for a midrange CPU, albeit very fast in games and games only, all the hell would have broken loose.
[/QUOTE]

It is the CPU on the market that offers the largest absolute number of frames per second in games. Regardless of who makes it. And it is *somewhat* impressive that AMD was able to change the way they package the "3D vcache".

Back when Intel was hurriedly shipping the 13 and 14 900k sucking 500W to top the charts, what did you say about them? I can't remember. But nowadays all of these companies folding themselves to make a CPU or GPU top whatever chart sparing no expense (like AMD did with that god aweful 295 GPU) that is what gets shipped out.


Will I ever buy a 9800x3d? Probably not, only if they come way down in price in the used market in like five years. Will I buy a latest gen Arrow Lake CPU? Probably not ever.


Do you think the 285k justifies its price?


I, of course, don't know how hard or easy it is to put more cores per CCD for AMD, or how hard or easy it is to put the 3dvcache on top or on bottom and how much each of these things cost, although you guys seem to have a lot of information on the matter. What I know is that for gaming I can get an 5800x3d for a fair price and get great performance, and for MT workloads I can get an i5 14xxx or a 5950 or a 7900 or 7950 if I want those newer chipsets features.

Though I'd be more likely to go AMD simply because of how long they support their sockets and chipsets, that is an advantage I actually took advantage off.


But yeah, if more refined Intel P+E cores show their worth, that will be awesome, like I said up top about Zen forcing intwl to go beyond 4c/8t, Intel's 13/14xxx didn't convince AMD of making more cores than them (was it at the top 16 vs 24?), so maybe now we'll get more for less.

Zen5 and Arrow Lake, both, feel like the setting up of a good foundation for Intel and AMD to build up from (as I believe I said in the first release of each of them to market). Instead you, avis, say zen5 is a failure.

Leave a comment:

  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by avis View Post
    You're right, those were not HPC, those were workstation CPUs, again a wholly separate lineup.
    As I said, gamers don't care, if it's faster in gaming it will be bought.
    Is the 9800X3D is a workstation CPU? No? Then what the hell are you talking about?
    What is a workstation CPU? When you look at Core i7 3970X, just the same core with sometimes more mem channels and most times more cores than desktop. The later iterations that were actual server CPUs like Threadripper you also got massive IO capabilities.

    But essentially if you don't go back to Sun, DEC, NeXT times it's just a stronger desktop CPU.
    And oh my boy you use underperforming Intel as a fucking excuse to justify being ripped off by AMD. Whoa.
    I'm not sure what your mental issues are but I'm just trying to explain really simple reality in a capitalistic world (the fact I need to explain this to you is already telling). Why do you get your dick out and masturbate like a lunatic?

    Why didn't Intel use your excuse for more more than a decade when AMD was in the dumpster?
    Pleas read what I wrote, I'm not excusing anything and if you look at my table above you will see that Intel did exactly that, they charged an arm and a leg for a 8 core until AMD became competitive, then they charged roughly the same and now that they are loosing they make their stuff cheaper and cheaper. That's just how the market works.

    They could have easily made their CPUs three times as expensive, yet they didn't.
    No they couldn't if they wanted to sell a reasonable amount.

    justify being ripped off because it's AMD.
    Dude where have I been ripped off? Your just running wild in your fever dream.

    9800X3D costs less than $150 to produce.
    Much less I would argue, non X3D is even cheaper. And it's for sure cheaper to produce than Intels 200 series.

    Leave a comment:

  • avis
    replied
    You're right, those were not HPC, those were workstation CPUs, again a wholly separate lineup.

    Is the 9800X3D is a workstation CPU? No? Then what the hell are you talking about?

    And oh my boy you use underperforming Intel as a fucking excuse to justify being ripped off by AMD. Whoa.

    Why didn't Intel use your excuse for more more than a decade when AMD was in the dumpster? They could have easily made their CPUs three times as expensive, yet they didn't.

    Again, like I said earlier you are ready to make up 100 layers of crappy arguments to justify being ripped off because it's AMD. Poor Intel, workstation CPUs, or whatnot.

    9800X3D costs less than $150 to produce. I guess if it's a "gaming" CPU, it's OK for AMD take a page off NVIDIA's book and fuck their customers.

    Fuck this crap. I'm done here.

    Leave a comment:

  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by avis View Post
    Both Core i7 3820 and the 39XX were for HPC
    What, do you even know what HPC is? You're just making stuff up whenever you realize that you wrote total bullshit. This was a workstation class CPU from Intel. And of course, gamers couldn't care less.
    It's NOT an HPC CPU, never has been.
    Yeah of course, but that was just your straw men.
    $310 245K in MT scenarios handily beats 9700X which was announced at whopping $360 and it's still "All fine, please disperse":
    Well guess which midrange CPUs won in MT back in 2011 and the reason they got sold below 200 $ was just because they weren't overall competitive.
    Intels 245K is not even consistently winning against an 8 core 7700 from last gen. 300 dollars is just too much for such a special case niche product.

    Leave a comment:

  • avis
    replied
    Originally posted by Anux View Post
    They were bought and used by gamers and there were gaming benches for them. Also there is no mentioning by Intel that you shouldn't buy those for gaming.

    You are the one making up bullshit, Threadripper is not for gaming, you could easily conclude that just by looking at the frequencies or if you find any, gaming benchmarks.

    Yes we all know that you go straight to insults when you don't have any arguments. I shouldn't have replied, that's on me.

    Meanwhile you're defending Intel pricing to death.
    Both Core i7 3820 and the 39XX were for HPC, just like Theadrippers are.

    9800X3D barring the failure of Zen 5 in general and its pathetic performance increase should have been a mainstream architecture instead. It's NOT an HPC CPU, never has been.

    Now you have an anemic "standard" Zen 5 line-up which already costs an arm and a leg, and "premium" X3D CPUs, a whole "new" segment for AMD fans who are willing to pay a LOT more.

    They are literally being robbed of their hard-earned money for what should have been a standard desktop CPU at, I don't know, $330 (which is outrageous considering AMD hasn't increased core count in over five years) or so for the 9800X3D, instead they are salivating at the prospect of paying almost $500 for it.

    $310 245K in MT scenarios handily beats 9700X which was announced at whopping $360 and it's still "All fine, please disperse":

    Intel Core Ultra 5 245K Review
    https://www.techpowerup.com/review/intel-core-ultra-5-245k/10.html
    The Intel Core Ultra 5 245K is the company's most affordable Arrow Lake release today. While its 6+8 core config without Hyper-Threading might make it appear weak at first, it actually punches well above its weight, especially in applications. Unfortunately gaming isn't working so well.


    God, that's crazy. An "underdog" company they said. The best bang for the buck they said. AMD's bean counters are laughing all the way to the bank.

    Have a nice day. I'm done with this fruitless exercise in arguing with people who are fine with being ripped off.
    Last edited by avis; 05 November 2024, 09:20 AM.

    Leave a comment:

  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by avis View Post
    The Core i7 3820 and the 39XX were for a whole different market. Stop making shit up.
    They were bought and used by gamers and there were gaming benches for them. Also there is no mentioning by Intel that you shouldn't buy those for gaming.
    And AMD has Threadrippers for that matter that you have conveniently forgotten about:
    You are the one making up bullshit, Threadripper is not for gaming, you could easily conclude that just by looking at the frequencies or if you find any, gaming benchmarks.

    Once again, AMD fans are willing to bend reality to put their company in a good light.

    The AMD cult is the worst cult I've ever dealt with.
    Yes we all know that you go straight to insults when you don't have any arguments. I shouldn't have replied, that's on me.

    Meanwhile you're defending Intel pricing to death.

    Leave a comment:

  • avis
    replied
    Originally posted by Anux View Post
    No, there was the Core i7 3820 and the 39XX (6 core) variants they all were faster and much more expensive (not only the CPU but the platform too.).
    Don't hurt me, the naming bullshit is on Intel, but it was the sandy bridge top die and released with the 2000 series.

    Would it? How can you know that? The Intel Core i7 3970X was the fastest gaming CPU back then (15% faster then 2500K) and it did cost 1000 $.
    So your theory is, that because it was the highest end CPU, the price tag was justified but half the price is not justified for the fastest gaming CPU?
    I don't wanna argue about what happens if Intel goes the way AMD did back then. Surely AMD will charge whatever they can and release as little as they need to, too stay on top, that's just what capitalism dictates you to do. That's why we need Intel dearly to release just one good CPU architecture.
    The Core i7 3820 and the 39XX were for a whole different market. Stop making shit up.

    And AMD has Threadrippers for that matter that you have conveniently forgotten about:

    https://www.amd.com/en/products/processors/workstations/ryzen-threadripper.html


    Once again, AMD fans are willing to bend reality to put their company in a good light.

    The AMD cult is the worst cult I've ever dealt with.

    At least Apple fans admit the company is ripping them off, AMD fans will create 100 layers of justifications for the same attitude from their idol.

    Leave a comment:

  • Anux
    replied
    Originally posted by avis View Post
    [*]Only 2600K was faster than the 2500K and not by a large margin.
    No, there was the Core i7 3820 and the 39XX (6 core) variants they all were faster and much more expensive (not only the CPU but the platform too.).
    Don't hurt me, the naming bullshit is on Intel, but it was the sandy bridge top die and released with the 2000 series.
    Had Intel ever started charging this much for a midrange CPU, albeit very fast in games and games only, all the hell would have broken loose.
    Would it? How can you know that? The Intel Core i7 3970X was the fastest gaming CPU back then (15% faster then 2500K) and it did cost 1000 $.
    So your theory is, that because it was the highest end CPU, the price tag was justified but half the price is not justified for the fastest gaming CPU?
    I don't wanna argue about what happens if Intel goes the way AMD did back then. Surely AMD will charge whatever they can and release as little as they need to, too stay on top, that's just what capitalism dictates you to do. That's why we need Intel dearly to release just one good CPU architecture.

    Leave a comment:

  • avis
    replied
    Originally posted by DumbFsck View Post

    Why are you so disingenuous ?

    It can be anywhere from double the performance (at worst) to 6x (peak) the 1700. On average I guess something closer to 2.6~3x. That is not "slight" by any means.

    And while AMD had their chips made from shit, the FX8xxx and co., Intel absolutely was not giving more than this (and AMD couldn't have passable performance, let alone respectful improvement).


    Also disingenuous saying this is a mid tier CPU. They price it as top of the line, they use top of the line tech both in process node and packaging (the x3d memory on die can't be cheap), binned from other skus with similar CCD topology, etc etc., going for the highest number of Frames per Second twey could get out of anything they make. That is not a mid range CPU.


    And they have other CPUs, they have cheaper CPUs with x3d but fewer cores, less clock, other process nodes etc., they have CPUs with tons more cores for much less money, also for much more.

    But you say it is a slight improvement to a CPU that offers less than half it's performance, released 6 years ago, and say that it is midrange, why don't you compare the 2500k (a legendary processor, but also partly because intel failed to improve much with the 3xxx and 4xxx and IMO only around the 6xxx started being worth upgrading - while AMD had its head stuck in the sewer) with the 5700x3d? A mid tier that is closer to the 9800x3d than the 2500k was to the i7 2700k (I think) but is also cheaper than the 2500k was and tjat is with today's money...


    That would be a more apt comparison. And before you make a strawman out of me, I love what Intel is doing with their new cores and expect that with maturity of next or maybe second next gen they should have a monster as well. I know current day tests don't show but I believe they will be much more energy efficient than Zen (6 or whatever number). I think their advanced packaging is much more interesting (although Zen and Vega were absolutely revolutionary in their own rights)
    Disingenuous is your entire post and the knowledge of history.
    • 9800X3D will not be the top of the line CPU, there will be 9900X3D and 9950X3D both even more expensive and faster.
    • Only 2600K was faster than the 2500K and not by a large margin. 9950X3D will be significantly faster in MT scenarios.
    • 2500K used to cost $216, 2600K $317. 9800X3D is now known to cost almost $500, and I guess 9950X3D will be close to $750.
    But it's the fastest CPU by AMD, so it's totally fine. Had Intel ever started charging this much for a midrange CPU, albeit very fast in games and games only, all the hell would have broken loose.

    Leave a comment:

    • Previous 1 2 3 4 5 template Next
    Working...
    X