AMD, pull yourself together and drop a 7600X3D. I can't see AM5 being an overnight success with supposedly $450/+ X3D offerings. I wouldn't touch it at that price. A $300-$350 7600X3D would do it nicely for me... otherwise the 5800X3D it is.

The problem is the AM5 mobo prices, not the cpu ones.
And the funny thing is that AMD reduced their cpu prices because they can't control the AIBs.

((The mobo manufacturers don't want to sell a mobo that will last 5+ years, so in order to gain as much as possible, they exaggerated a little in their pricing. That's another reason why they love Intel...))

WTaF, the other day we see headlines only coming to 7600 and 7700. Now it's back to what we were originally told, 16, 12 and 8. Are they doing a 6 core as well, because they need it. 7900X3D would make me wait to see how it fares against 13700K in non-gaming software, I know it will kick the crap out of RL for gaming. But the price will be $649 well more like $1100 in Australia so 13700K still looks like the way to go.

Minus InfinityWTaF, the other day we see headlines only coming to 7600 and 7700. Now it's back to what we were originally told, 16, 12 and 8. Are they doing a 6 core as well, because they need it. 7900X3D would make me wait to see how it fares against 13700K in non-gaming software, I know it will kick the crap out of RL for gaming. But the price will be $649 well more like $1100 in Australia so 13700K still looks like the way to go.

Save your money and look at the i7 13700 / 13700F.

Minus InfinityWTaF, the other day we see headlines only coming to 7600 and 7700. Now it's back to what we were originally told, 16, 12 and 8.

AMD did their NDA policy pretty tight, so AMD rumors are usually just "rumors".
Intel "rumors" on the other hand are usually pretty accruate.

Why_MeAMD's Zen 4 is taking a beating atm and I don't see these X3D cpu's helping them all that much when the majority of gamers aren't going to want their budget ate up by the board and cpu.

Well... I suspect that a large portion of the hundreds of thousands of people who paid nearly $2000 for the 4090 are willing to pay $500-800 for a processor that can wring every last drop of performance out of their overpriced GPU.

DenverWell... I suspect that a large portion of the hundreds of thousands of people who paid nearly $2000 for the 4090 are willing to pay $500-800 for a processor that can wring every last drop of performance out of their overpriced GPU.

I've learned over the years that Nvidia users lean towards Intel cpu's and vice versa.

Ayhamb99He has a point because there are not that many people that are willing to take the DDR5 and B650/X670 Tax

I also think they are expensive, and raptor lake is very fast, but from my current stage (R9 5900X), i'll probably wait for the 8000 series and buy a X670 Extreme. The same i did long ago when i bought the X470 Taichi Ultimate that was pretty expensive for the time ($250) and lasted me 4 gens (Zen 1 - Zen+ - Zen 2 - Zen 3)(And still going). The X670 Should last for 3 generations i guess. Last jump would be 10000 series.

Why_MeSave your money and look at the i7 13700 / 13700F.

And when are they releasing?

wheresmycarAMD, pull yourself together and drop a 7600X3D. I can't see AM5 being an overnight success with supposedly $450/+ X3D offerings. I wouldn't touch it at that price. A $300-$350 7600X3D would do it nicely for me... otherwise the 5800X3D it is.

AMD is more oriented towards the premium markets as of the last 1-2 years and will stay there as it seems.
Margins and profit are larger and if they have production capacity at TSMC (just as every company have, except Apple maybe)) they are doing right to focus on the higher tiers.
Intel will stay the value choice for new system builders this and next year.

Minus InfinityAnd when are they releasing?

January 3rd.

videocardz.com/newz/intel-to-launch-13th-gen-core-non-k-cpus-and-b760-motherboards-on-january-3rd-2023

wccftech.com/intel-b760-motherboards-13th-gen-non-k-cpus-to-launch-on-3rd-january-2023/

Does anyone else remember AMD having a press-release saying they were going to release more than just the 5800x3d on AM4?
Been hoping AM4 gets a minor-refresh, and said zen3d.

Why_MeSomething isn't right. The 7950X is the last cpu in the new AMD lineup that anyone with an IQ above 100 would purchase for a gaming build yet AMD is making a X3D version of that cpu while skipping the 7600X which would seem to be the go-to cpu for most gamers looking at a new AMD build.

If its for a gaming build, then all one needs is 8 strong threads or cores. After all, Sony & MS havereported there will not be any major console upgrades until 2028. And as you know for sure, devs aim games at consoles first, then PC. That's why I'm sticking to 8 cores & disabling HT on my rig. Besides that anything above 1440p is GPU bound anyway.
But yeah, its nice to have a lot of cache however other hardware affects the gaming performance as well. :)

Why_MeSomething isn't right. The 7950X is the last cpu in the new AMD lineup that anyone with an IQ above 100 would purchase for a gaming build yet AMD is making a X3D version of that cpu while skipping the 7600X which would seem to be the go-to cpu for most gamers looking at a new AMD build.

A lot of PC enthusiasts get stuck in the head space of "just 100 more dollars gets me a bit more performance". It's not stupid, they just budget differently than you. Especially when it's just a drop in part. Are all the people driving Corvettes and Porsches around on the road stupid because they drive the speed limit? You sound like you're stuck in your own reality.

dwarfcowA lot of PC enthusiasts get stuck in the head space of "just 100 more dollars gets me a bit more performance". It's not stupid, they just budget differently than you. Especially when it's just a drop in part. Are all the people driving Corvettes and Porsches around on the road stupid because they drive the speed limit? You sound like you're stuck in your own reality.

I agreed up until the car metaphor jumped in out of nowhere.
;)

sepheronxHopefully with this beast of a cpu, Intel will be forced to lower prices on their current higher end CPU's so I can take advantage of.

Not to bust your bubble but Intel very rarely l lowers prices if ever. Before 12gen Intel was behind on price/ performance for almost 3 generations and prices didn't move.

Space LynxI would like to be able to play like Cyberpunk 2077 and RDR2 at 165hz 165 fps maxed out... BUT i am ok with putting settings on medium to make that happen... so eh. lol

I have a 165 fps 1440p monitor. That's my preferred refresh rate. Anything higher is a bit hard to notice. I have a 260hz version of the same monitor and don't notice much. I'd rather go 4k or OLED next time. 144hz feels a bit slow but 165 and 180hz are more than enough.

Cyberpunk needs the fastest CPU you can buy.

AlwaysHopeIf its for a gaming build, then all one needs is 8 strong threads or cores. After all, Sony & MS havereported there will not be any major console upgrades until 2028. And as you know for sure, devs aim games at consoles first, then PC. That's why I'm sticking to 8 cores & disabling HT on my rig. Besides that anything above 1440p is GPU bound anyway.
But yeah, its nice to have a lot of cache however other hardware affects the gaming performance as well. :)

There have been many CPU limited games released recently. Gotham Knights. Marvel's Spiderman. Many more. If you put ray tracing on, you need even more CPU power. Now that the 4090 is here the GPU equation is solved but not the CPU one. Small increases don't cut it. We need a step change. That's the hope of 3Dcache. It allowed a step change in performance for certain games. 20+ percent faster.

The 7700X was just slightly faster than the 12900k (which was only slightly faster than the 5800X for gaming), it didn't do much for gaming like 3Dcache might.

I think AMD catered to "general consensus", that consoles now consist of 8 cores so anything below that would hindering your system to play at console level. I know it sounds stupid but many think 6 core 5600 will not be enough for today's AAA game.

1d10tI think AMD catered to "general consensus", that consoles now consist of 8 cores so anything below that would hindering your system to play at console level. I know it sounds stupid but many think 6 core 5600 will not be enough for today's AAA game.

Its a valid concern. I think 8 core should be the minimum to buy right now for mainstream gaming.

VarioIts a valid concern. I think 8 core should be the minimum to buy right now for mainstream gaming.

What a fine example.



Some of devastating loss were 4c8t i3-10105F beating 8c16t Ryzen 7 2700x, 4c8t i3-12100 beating 8c16t 9900k or in a manner of speaking 6c12t 5600x beating 10c20t i9-10900K. I don't get the idea of 8 core being a bare minimum for playing console port game.

Why_MeIt's going to get even worse for AMD imo when Intel releases their locked cpu's and B760 boards January 3rd.

You can already get 12th and b660, no need for 13th. It seems people just don't want a dead platform nor a overpriced one.

1d10tWhat a fine example.



Some of devastating loss were 4c8t i3-10105F beating 8c16t Ryzen 7 2700x, 4c8t i3-12100 beating 8c16t 9900k or in a manner of speaking 6c12t 5600x beating 10c20t i9-10900K. I don't get the idea of 8 core being a bare minimum for playing console port game.

First, you are comparing some fairly old architectures. Second, game developers understand that the trend is moving towards an 8 core mainstream, and will design upcoming games accordingly.

Dave65So much for the bought and paid for tech channels with "THERE WILL BE NO 12 or 16 core X3D models..

They have to help move the existing inventory.

I pity the chums that bought them at original MSRP, only to have them heavily discounted 2 months later, and made obsolete in 6 months by AMD. The price you pay for cutting edge…

VarioFirst, you are comparing some fairly old architectures. Second, game developers understand that the trend is moving towards an 8 core mainstream, and will design upcoming games accordingly.

Third, I wrote "8 core", no more no less.
Fourth, which game developer said that? Care to share a link?
Fifth, another most CPU demanding game to date...




Trends still continues, 6c12t i7-8700k beating 8c16t Ryzen 7 2700x, or better yet, the same 6c12t Ryzen 5 5600x beating 10c20t Core i9-10900K. Heck even 16c32t Ryzen 9 3950x get a beating left and right.
Please convince me that 8 core is bare minimum for playing newest AAA games.

VarioFirst, you are comparing some fairly old architectures. Second, game developers understand that the trend is moving towards an 8 core mainstream, and will design upcoming games accordingly.

No, Dev target a specific performance level.

Still today, A 6 core CPU that have more single thread performance than a 8 core will have same or better gaming performance.

Core aren't slot that Dev fills to make their game. Think about it like a boss with a set of employee. Let say he have 6 incredible employee and another boss have 8 average employee. Both boss run a ghost writer shop and need to produce a 100k word book. (Aka A Frame for gaming)

There are two task, writing the words and at the end editing it. Editing would be done only by 1 staff to make it consistent. (It's the main thread in gaming that control and sync all the other)

Boss A 6 employee can write 1300 words per hours each and review at 5200 words pour hours
Boss B 8 employee can write 1000 words per hours and review at 4000 words per hours

so each boss need to start scheduling the work. He first assign all employee on the first hours into writing words

Boss A would be at 7800 words and Boss B would be at 8000 words.
Then one of the employee would start to review the text for editions,

For boss A, the 5 remaining employee would be done writing 11.8 hours later but they would have to wait for the reviewer. He would be done 19.23 hours later. (for a total time of 20.23 hours)

For boss B, the 7 remaining employee would be done writing 11.5 hours later but the editor would only be done 25 hours later (for a total of 26 hours.)

The fact that the boss B had more "Slot" to put the work into didn't mean they had the job done earlier.

Game work exactly that way. They are way more multithreaded than in the past, but there is still a main thread that is criticial. This is why gaming performance don't scale linearly. (Unlike rendering that have an almost linear scaling since all the job can be done by themselves).

What you need to think is there is by example for each frame x amount of CPU operation per seconds to do in the main thread, and there x amount of cpu operation to be done that can be multithreaded.

A faster core is able to do more operations per second. A really faster core can even do those one after another before the slower 2 core can complete them.

It still the case today, and it will be still the case in the future. Because game have to run a main core as fast as possible then spread the defined amount of load to other core. If faster core finish earlier, they can grab more work before a slower cpu with more core complete it's first job.



Again, in the current gen. 7600x 6 core beat all 8+ core from the previous generation. This is also why the E-core doesn't really help.

One of the gain right now of having a more core CPU is they are binned to run at higher clock. I would like to see what a 7600x running at the same frequency as the 7950x would do. I am pretty sure they would be very close.