AMD Computex 2019 Lisa Su CEO Keynote: Live Blog

[lordofdusk95]

Ohoho Im soo exited with this announcement. My old 3770k & RX480 already served me well. My wallet is ready

 

[Metroid]

so the rumors were indeed lies, no 5ghz boost.

I bet overclocked 9700k still beats AMD at 1080p sadly... not that it matters, but just sad... I was hoping for bigger performance jump this round. silicon is just a dying beast is all there is to it.

There were no lies, those leaks were Engineering Samples chips. That was an unfair demo, pairing 9700k x 3700x was terrible.

 

[xkm1948]

With what we have seen so far, 4.6GHz is gonna be the cap for RyZen 3000 using conventional cooling. Also highly likely each tier of RyZen would have heavily binned chiplets. OC a 3700X upwards maybe more difficult than people think

 

[TheGuruStud]

There were no lies, those leaks were Engineering Samples chips. That was an unfair demo, pairing 9700k x 3700x was terrible.

9700k is $400....more than fair, plus it consumes twice the power.

I thought AMD would go cheaper to really undercut, but it looks like Lisa has had enough of that shit.

 

[phanbuey]

With what we have seen so far, 4.6GHz is gonna be the cap for RyZen 3000 using conventional cooling. Also highly likely each tier of RyZen would have heavily binned chiplets. OC a 3700X upwards maybe more difficult than people think

that's basically the current cap for SK-x basin falls using conventional cooling.

 

[Mussels]

Real world TDP will be higher.. 65w does not mean exactly it..
Probably Ryzen 3500 may be 65w

If i'm sidegrading from a 2700x (105W) to a 3700x (65W), both measured by AMD's standards i know i'm in for a big drop in wattages and temps, and i'm frigging excited for that

 

[xkm1948]

that's basically the current cap for SK-x basin falls using conventional cooling.

I just want a 20+ core TR3 to replace my X99.........

 

[Metroid]

9700k is $400....more than fair, plus it consumes twice the power.

It wont be $400 for long. Price wise yes, core wise, no. Comparing apples to oranges is not fair no matter how you look at.

 

[TheGuruStud]

It wont be $400 for long. Price wise yes, core wise, no. Comparing apples to oranges is not fair no matter how you look at.

I'm pretty sure the point is that intel just disabled HT and still charges you an arm and a leg. Every comment on this sounds like it comes from salty intel 8 core owners.

 

[R0H1T]

It wont be $400 for long. Price wise yes, core wise, no. Comparing apples to oranges is not fair no matter how you look at.

The 9900k would likely beat the 3700x but be beaten by 3800x as well, they've positioned Ryzen 7 vs i7 & Ryzen 9 vs i9 ~ fairly self explanatory.

 

[HwGeek]

With what we have seen so far, 4.6GHz is gonna be the cap for RyZen 3000 using conventional cooling. Also highly likely each tier of RyZen would have heavily binned chiplets. OC a 3700X upwards maybe more difficult than people think

Pay attention the TDP limit of 105W - same as old generation so they can be compatible with all the boards, they could release 125W with higher clocks but they could have got bad PR from customers that aren't happy that their cheap A320 board doesn't support the new CPU's,

 

[ShurikN]

It wont be $400 for long. Price wise yes, core wise, no. Comparing apples to oranges is not fair no matter how you look at.

They compared the 3800X core wise with the 9900K. It's not AMD's fault Intel decided to disable HT on a product 3700X is competing with.

 

[Metroid]

The 9900k would likely beat the 3700x but be beaten by 3800x as well, they've positioned Ryzen 7 vs i7 & Ryzen 9 vs i9 ~ fairly self explanatory.

9900k x 3800x would have been an even match, 16 threads x 16 threads, it just made no sense 9700k 8 threads x 3700x 16 threads. That was one of the greatest bullshit that I have ever seen in my life.

 

[GoldenX]

Pay attention the TDP limit of 105W - same as old generation so they can be compatible with all the boards, they could release 125W with higher clocks but they could have got bad PR from customers that aren't happy that their cheap A320 board doesn't support the new CPU's,

Meh, Phenom II saw Nforce 4 65w only boards and no one complained, same with the last years of 775.

 

[R0H1T]

Like I said they've positioned the i9 vs Ryzen 9, that's the only thing I can come up with. Though 8c/8t vs 8c/16t was otherwise unfair.

 

[Metroid]

They compared the 3800X core wise with the 9900K. It's not AMD's fault Intel decided to disable HT on a product 3700X is competing with.

Oh yeah in gaming with a variable fps, that was another fail, I wanted a single or multithread benchmark apples to apples and that did only happen on the 12 cores. 3900x x 9920 and plus ryzen had a 200mhs difference. 4.4 x 4.6, but in all fairness this was much more fair than 8 threads to 16 threads, even though it had 200mhs more for 3900x.

 

[phanbuey]

Meh, Phenom II saw Nforce 4 65w only boards and no one complained, same with the last years of 775.

Those boards were notoriously crap tho... I used to hate them (775).

Used to have to do that or the OC would be unstable

 

[TheGuruStud]

9900k x 3800x would have been an even match, 16 threads x 16 threads, it just made no sense 9700k 8 threads x 3700x 16 threads. That was one of the greatest bullshit that I have ever seen in my life.

 

[Wavetrex]

When companies talk about "competition", they mean products having the same price.
If the "competition" has a single core 8-bit CPU at 3Mhz for $329, that's what they will compare the new product with.

So 9700K was a totally fair comparison, price wise.
It's not AMD's fault that Intel chose to cripple an i7

 

[EatingDirt]

9900k x 3800x would have been an even match, 16 threads x 16 threads, it just made no sense 9700k 8 threads x 3700x 16 threads. That was one of the greatest bullshit that I have ever seen in my life.

That's not how it works. Price points are what matter, not the physical makeup of the chip. The 9700k is $400, the 3700x is $330. If you compare the 9900k to the 3700x you're comparing a $500 CPU to one that's almost $200 cheaper than it. They're products competing in a wildly different price segment.

 

[ShurikN]

Oh yeah in gaming with a variable fps, that was another fail, I wanted a single or multithread benchmark apples to apples and that did only happen on the 12 cores. 3900x x 9920.

Maybe the should have done a full 30 page review. Go on for about 40 minutes... Just because YOU wanted it...

 

[Xzibit]

Like I said they've positioned the i9 vs Ryzen 9, that's the only thing I can come up with. Though 8c/8t vs 8c/16t was otherwise unfair.

Price segment both are MSRP $399. Give Intel a month to lower prices to clear inventory, Such a nice gesture.

 

[R0H1T]

Like I said in the other thread, Intel doesn't lower prices. Call it ego or whatever but they won't do so & frankly don't need to, considering they still have the OC headroom.

 

[Metroid]

When companies talk about "competition", they mean products having the same price.
If the "competition" has a single core 8-bit CPU at 3Mhz for $329, that's what they will compare the new product with.

So 9700K was a totally fair comparison, price wise.
It's not AMD's fault that Intel chose to cripple an i7

Remember that is amd is on the attack here, late in the game, not intel and its price, amd is trying to price its price based on the competition had for some months. Blame amd not intel.

That's not how it works. Price points are what matter, not the physical makeup of the chip. The 9700k is $400, the 3700x is $330. If you compare the 9900k to the 3700x you're comparing a $500 CPU to one that's almost $200 cheaper than it. They're products competing in a wildly different price segment.

As per my previous post, amd set that price now, intel had its price for a long time. Like I said before, Intel will set the 9700k much lower as amd launches the 3700x and then you trolls will say, intel was not fair hehe and amd will not move the price and you trolls will cry about it.

 

[R0H1T]

Remember that is amd is on the attack here, late in the game, not intel and its price, amd is trying to price its price based on the competition had for some months. Blame amd not intel.

Frankly it's the buyers that need to be blamed, many of them want AMD to lower prices just so they can get cheaper Intel or Nvidia products. We've seen it time & again, AMD is not a charity!