Ryzen 3000 is almost here!!! What are you planning to buy???

[WallacEngineering]

2 hours ago, nnfancois said:

bruh why are you acting so triggered i just was saying not to assume,dont be so paranoid.

Oh I thought you were triggered lol

[kiwibacon]

The one with fastest clock speed.

[Dreamer758]

3rd gen ryzen 7 ony 8 core 4.5 ghz 

[xg32]

rip intel lol

 

edit: nvm, no 16core announcement yet

[Mister Woof]

The hype train was real lol....

 

None of the leaks were really true. No 5ghz chips.

 

200mhz more overall than the current chips. 15% more IPC. Their biggest argument was PCIE 4.0, on a synthetic benchmark, which is 1) meaningless in application,  2) needs a new motherboard to get, and 3) will also be meaningless in the next generation Intel chipset when its not exclusive.

 

This places the difference between Ryzen 3000 and Intel Coffeelake at still worse delta between Ryzen 1 and Coffeelake.

 

Hope they're cheap.

[Dreamer758]

1 minute ago, Plutosaurus said:

The hype train was real lol....

 

None of the leaks were really true. No 5ghz chips.

 

200mhz more overall than the current chips. 15% more IPC. Their biggest argument was PCIE 4.0, on a synthetic benchmark, which is 1) meaningless in application,  2) needs a new motherboard to get, and 3) will also be meaningless in the next generation Intel chipset.

 

This places the difference between Ryzen 3000 and Intel Coffeelake at still worse delta between Ryzen 1 and Coffeelake.

 

Hope they're cheap.

you are right on the money my dude

[Mister Woof]

3700x $329

3800x $399

3900x $499

 

They have nothing about the biggest most important segment, the Ryzen 5 lineup. I guess that came after the 7 originally, too. So no harm, no foul.

 

3700x might be worth it. The 3800x seems like a waste, if overclocking is there on the 3700x like it was for the 1700 was. Unless of course they are so tightly binned and so limited in frequency headroom (like Ryzen 1 and 2) you need to pay out to get the frequency.

 

Ryzen 9 3900x is overkill for 99% of users. The fact it gives you 50% more cores for the same price as the 9900k, doesn't really matter since most people weren't going to buy 9900ks anyway.

 

Personally, none of these are compelling. Give me a Ryzen 5 6/12 at 4.5ghz for $199 then we'll talk.

 

 

[wildgg]

i wonder how much overclock room there will be on these above the boost clock.

[xg32]

they needed to beat intel in single core, the 12 core sitting at 4.6boost might be a hint on how the chips oc, looks like it's a tie or slight beat as expected, now we need to know how fast the 16core is later down the line, somewhat disappointing, no reason/info for upgrade.

[melete]

22 hours ago, melete said:

Yeah I've been following the x570 leaks, but I'm just a VRMs novice and I need Buildzoid to tell me who's got the best VRM designs for overclocking a 12 core CPU.

RIP to my 12 core Ryzen 7 dreams. 

 

Hello to 8 core 3700X!

[Phentos]

After tonight? None. I got suckered into the rumor hypetrain about a 12 core part for ~$400, only to find out it's $500 with lower boost speeds than I hoped for.

[Mister Woof]

Remember those adore tv leaks.... Ryzen 3 6/12s, Ryzen 5 8/16s......

 

Lol death by its own fans hype

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Plutosaurus said:

the Ryzen 5 lineup.

possibly,just possibly no ryzen 5 this time? 

[WallacEngineering]

6 hours ago, Phentos said:

After tonight? None. I got suckered into the rumor hypetrain about a 12 core part for ~$400, only to find out it's $500 with lower boost speeds than I hoped for.

Do you guys do realize that the rumors were nearly true, right? Its literally the table just slid down one bracket. Weird that. AMD says 16 Core SKU is still coming but that Ryzen 9 is the 12-Core chip. So what, 16-Core SKU is going to be called Ryzen 11??? WTF is going on here lol.

 

Regardless, even with the clock speeds coming up short, you guys fail to realize that the IPC improvents have officially put AMD over Intel in gaming, multitasking, everything! They straight up proved it on stage! And for still a much lower cost. A 12 Core Intel chip will cost you over $1000, so quit complaining about the AMD one being $500. Considering the AMD chip is faster, thats one hell of a value.

 

The Hype Train is still going strong, and with Linus on board, Im pretty sure the hype wont ever be stopped. Plain and simple, AMD has taken the crown in the world of computing. Refreshing change of pace, took them long enough, that is for sure lol!

 

 

[WallacEngineering]

9 hours ago, Plutosaurus said:

3700x $329

3800x $399

3900x $499

 

They have nothing about the biggest most important segment, the Ryzen 5 lineup. I guess that came after the 7 originally, too. So no harm, no foul.

 

3700x might be worth it. The 3800x seems like a waste, if overclocking is there on the 3700x like it was for the 1700 was. Unless of course they are so tightly binned and so limited in frequency headroom (like Ryzen 1 and 2) you need to pay out to get the frequency.

 

Ryzen 9 3900x is overkill for 99% of users. The fact it gives you 50% more cores for the same price as the 9900k, doesn't really matter since most people weren't going to buy 9900ks anyway.

 

Personally, none of these are compelling. Give me a Ryzen 5 6/12 at 4.5ghz for $199 then we'll talk.

 

 

Now you are just being unreasonable, you want a 6-Core chip for $200? What is wrong with you guys, this is still huge. So what if you have to pay an extra $100 over what the rumors were, the fact of the matter is AMD is now beating Intel in both Single and Multi-Thread at far less cost in each category. So you were going to spend $2000 on a new Ryzen system before but now you wont spend $2100 on one? That doesn't make any sense.

 

Also, yea most people never needed a 9900K, but alot of people want one. Remember that the R9 3900X gives you enough cores to do workstation computing and professional editing while still getting better gaming performance than Intel for just $500? Talk about a future proof system. An R9 3900X build would probably remain extremely high class for the next decade or so. So, theres the value you were looking for.

 

Im certainly still getting the 12 Core chip. If anything, now Im just wondering why they delayed the 16-Core and what the 16C will be called considering the naming scheme so far.

[Mister Woof]

1 hour ago, WallacEngineering said:

Now you are just being unreasonable, you want a 6-Core chip for $200? What is wrong with you guys, this is still huge. So what if you have to pay an extra $100 over what the rumors were, the fact of the matter is AMD is now beating Intel in both Single and Multi-Thread at far less cost in each category. So you were going to spend $2000 on a new Ryzen system before but now you wont spend $2100 on one? That doesn't make any sense.

 

Also, yea most people never needed a 9900K, but alot of people want one. Remember that the R9 3900X gives you enough cores to do workstation computing and professional editing while still getting better gaming performance than Intel for just $500? Talk about a future proof system. An R9 3900X build would probably remain extremely high class for the next decade or so. So, theres the value you were looking for.

 

Im certainly still getting the 12 Core chip. If anything, now Im just wondering why they delayed the 16-Core and what the 16C will be called considering the naming scheme so far.

Huh?

 

Ryzen 1600 and 2600 were Street priced at around $200

[Poor Gamer]

Do you guys know if amd will release ryzen 3 3rd gen? 

[SituationSoap]

1 hour ago, WallacEngineering said:

Do you guys do realize that the rumors were nearly true, right? Its literally the table just slid down one bracket.

 

And the prices were all wrong. And the processor frequencies were all off. 

 

If I was that kind of "nearly true" at what I do, I wouldn't be able to find a job.

[WallacEngineering]

3 hours ago, Poor Gamer said:

Do you guys know if amd will release ryzen 3 3rd gen? 

Probably later on, the same thing happened the last 2 generations.

[WallacEngineering]

3 hours ago, Plutosaurus said:

Huh?

 

Ryzen 1600 and 2600 were Street priced at around $200

Oh yea I guess I was thinking about Ryzen 7

[nick name]

After the launch I've begun looking at Shih-Tzus instead of Maltese puppies.  

[Phentos]

9 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

Do you guys do realize that the rumors were nearly true, right? Its literally the table just slid down one bracket. Weird that. AMD says 16 Core SKU is still coming but that Ryzen 9 is the 12-Core chip. So what, 16-Core SKU is going to be called Ryzen 11??? WTF is going on here lol.

 

Regardless, even with the clock speeds coming up short, you guys fail to realize that the IPC improvents have officially put AMD over Intel in gaming, multitasking, everything! They straight up proved it on stage! And for still a much lower cost. A 12 Core Intel chip will cost you over $1000, so quit complaining about the AMD one being $500. Considering the AMD chip is faster, thats one hell of a value.

 

The Hype Train is still going strong, and with Linus on board, Im pretty sure the hype wont ever be stopped. Plain and simple, AMD has taken the crown in the world of computing. Refreshing change of pace, took them long enough, that is for sure lol!

I wasn't really interested in the 16 core chip personally. I know it'll be a great chip but it doesn't suit my uses as much as a 12 core with possibly higher clocks would.

 

AMD is better than Intel in their own benchmark runs. Idk what variables they may have introduced deliberately or accidentally but I'd rather wait for independent benchmarks before I agree with that claim.  

 

I got burned with the 1st gen Ryzen being hyped up to be like the second coming, only to end up with a bad overclocker which bottlenecked my 1080TI pretty badly in most of my games and took me a solid week to get the RAM optimized for it.

[ch3w2oy]

10 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

Also, yea most people never needed a 9900K, but alot of people want one. Remember that the R9 3900X gives you enough cores to do workstation computing and professional editing while still getting better gaming performance than Intel for just $500? Talk about a future proof system. An R9 3900X build would probably remain extremely high class for the next decade or so. So, theres the value you were looking for.

Most people can't even utilize the 8700K to it's fullest potential.. Don't worry about those acting "meh" about AMDs progress.. The new X570 motherboards are INSANE, better than Z390 by a long shot, IMO.. I'll be grabbing the 3900X along with either a top Asus or MSI motherboard..

 

Seriously.. Who the fuck cares if you can utilize 12 cores right this second.. I kind of think you actually kind of need the cores first before programs, developers and games become better optimized to utilize them.. Like Ray Tracing.. Did you think every game was going to get ray traced optimized before cards were capable of ray tracing?

 

Mehhhh...

 

I'll never understand the way some people think.. If you have money and like tech like I do then it just doesn't matter.. I don't need to justify spending that type of money on the processor other than the fact that  I want one of those sexy ass motherboards (I plan to do a lot with my computer srsly too).. Z390 now looks dated, and I thought they were great upon initial release.. Some people (a lot) spent that kind of money on the 9900K just because it was the best LOL.. Now it's a dumb idea to buy a 12 core at the same price point (lol)..

 

Manufacturers of motherboards (and other categories) are finally realizing the impact Ryzen/AMD is making on the PC community as a whole.. Asus just brought over like all of their top motherboards to AMD (Formula, Hero, Impact, etc..), this is the best thing that's happened to the PC community in a long time.. So those acting MEHHHH, can just keep meehhhing.. If it was Intel doing the exact same thing I bet most people with an 8700K and up (obv they got money), would be upgrading as well (for a fucking fact bro)..

 

I, for one, CAN'T FUCKING WAIT.. Fuck the haters..

[Zberg]

If they can get great deals on the 6/12 and 8/16 CPU's with good clock speeds (boost to at least 4.5), that would be a budget gaming beast.  Also would offer serious competition to the overpriced 9900k which is much needed.  Would much rather spend in the 200-300's on that very reasonable, very capable clock (that won't bottleneck any GPU short of a 2080 ti SLI combo) than a 500$+ 9900k.

 

I really hope AMD pulls it out, and makes intel step up their game (rather, lower their costs!)

[WallacEngineering]

11 hours ago, Phentos said:

I wasn't really interested in the 16 core chip personally. I know it'll be a great chip but it doesn't suit my uses as much as a 12 core with possibly higher clocks would.

 

AMD is better than Intel in their own benchmark runs. Idk what variables they may have introduced deliberately or accidentally but I'd rather wait for independent benchmarks before I agree with that claim.  

 

I got burned with the 1st gen Ryzen being hyped up to be like the second coming, only to end up with a bad overclocker which bottlenecked my 1080TI pretty badly in most of my games and took me a solid week to get the RAM optimized for it.

This is true, they can always manipulate the media they show to benefit them, but there is no argument that AMD is ahead of Intel at this point. AMDs transistors are now about half the size of Intels, so theres basically no way they could possibly be slower.

 

On one hand, yes Ryzen 1000 did dissapoint a little bit but honestly, Im still loving my Ryzen 5 1600 running OC at 3.975 GHz all-core. Its more than fast enough to play any game at ~80-100 FPS, has plenty enough power for multitasking, and still feels like a basically brand new machine to this day (I do run NVME Boot Drive and SATA SSD games drive).

 

To be honest I could still probably live with my current PC for the next 3-5 years, easily. The thing is, though, building a matured 7nm Ryzen 4000 system next year will get me out of the mid-tier and into the high end, especially considering I now have a much better job and can afford to do things like get a nice X570/X670 board instead of this weak $50 B350. I can afford to put a 1TB NVME in the new system instead of the tiny 250GB I have now, and upgrade the SSD from 500GB to 2TB. Essentially all of my storage needs a massive overhaul regardless of what system I build.

 

But the thing is if this Ryzen 1600 build has lasted this long, and still continues to impress, I can only imagine the pinnacle of technology badass matured 7nm chips. I mean based on the release specs, Im sure a couple lucky buyers will get binned Ryzen 3000 chips that will OC very closely to 5.0 GHz with some good cooling, at least on a single core anyway. And with their IPC now being better than Intel, you can only imagine what kind of performance that will bring to the table.

 

One VERY IMPORTANT THING that everyone seems to be forgetting is that we are essentially at the end of the life of Silicon improvements, right this moment. There is a reason that Intel is struggling so hard with 10nm and there is a reason why Fabs have only just now began whispering about even the remote possibility of 5nm even being physically possible (dont hold your breath, there WILL be serious issues developing it for years to come). At 5nm, the additional transistors output more heat than what the IHS can even dissapate, basically creating an internal oven that even phase change cooling cannot tame. Right now computer scientists are very seriously considering accepting the reality of it being impossible and moving on from Silicon-Based CPUs, which would mean a completely new and revolutionary world of computing, nothing like what is is today.

 

Its going to be a very long time before the next step in computing can take place. Obviously companies will continue to improve on efficiency and maybe even clock speeds slightly, but these wont be anywhere near close to justifying an upgrade for years to come. What this means is the computer you build now can ACTUALLY be realistically expected to stay relevant and up-to-date for at least the next 5 years, possibly even 10 years. The GPU is the only thing you may consider upgrading in the meantime. As far as I can tell, GPUs can still advance in a number of significant ways over the next few years, especially as Ray-Tracing becomes a more mainstream technology.

 

I have literally been planning my Ryzen 4000 build for years, since the day I built this R5 1600 system in fact. I knew the 7nm barrier was coming but needed a decent rig in the meantime as not kidding, the only machine I had at the time was literally an AM3 (Non-Plus) Phenom II X4- based system that was highly outdated and struggled to run ANYTHING with any kind of decent speed. So I picked up a $125 used R5 1600, $50 MoBo, the cheapest 3000 MHz 8GB x 2 RAM I could find, and a $150 used GTX 980 and slapped it all together to hold me over in the meantime. Turns out, I built one hell of a rig for literally less than an entry level APU system. 

 

Always remember, clock speeds are a very small piece of the puzzle. The IPC improvements make those speeds essentially higher than what they seem, because all 4.5 Million clocks per second now all have 15% more data in them. Essentially, to match a single core of my 1600 to a single core of one of the new premium gaming chips, the thing would have to essentially be blocked at MORE THAN 6.0GHz. Thats a pretty impressive feat if you ask me.