Jump to content

(16core added)AMD 3000 specs! 4.7 GHZ, R9 3950x, R7 3700x, 3800x.

Origami Cactus
 Share
Posted
49 minutes ago, SupremeGOAT said:

you guys think intel will cut the prices of the 9 series in half to compete? I hope they do because that would be beneficial to everybody... doesnt matter to me either way im upgrading to 3700x so i can run RPCS3 and future emulators flawlessly... heehee 

Not yet. But they will when they see the market share slip away from them. And Zen2 has the potential to do that ESPECIALLY if it ends up actually ahead of the 9900k in games, even if it's just 1-2%. Because from what I've noticed, all the people coming on here wanting the 9700k and a 2070 (Which is most of the young people who don't have a clue what they have just chosen) defend their choices because 'Intel is better in games'. Just 1% ahead of Intel will shift all those people over to AMD, and there's loads of those people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 hour ago, SupremeGOAT said:

you guys think intel will cut the prices of the 9 series in half to compete?

Yes, in 10 years when they need to offload the last 2 9900KS chips to a retro part collector.

Come Bloody Angel

Break off your chains

And look what I've found in the dirt.

 

Pale battered body

Seems she was struggling

Something is wrong with this world.

 

Fierce Bloody Angel

The blood is on your hands

Why did you come to this world?

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

The blood is on your hands.

 

The blood is on your hands!

 

Pyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
2 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Yes, in 10 years when they need to offload the last 2 9900KS chips to a retro part collector.

Nah, those will be sold in 25 years at inflated prices as the last working examples of Intel's dominance in the CPU market. B|

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
Just now, SupremeGOAT said:

erm I don't think that's long enough 

Key difference: That's part of the first generation, intrinsically more valuable.

Come Bloody Angel

Break off your chains

And look what I've found in the dirt.

 

Pale battered body

Seems she was struggling

Something is wrong with this world.

 

Fierce Bloody Angel

The blood is on your hands

Why did you come to this world?

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

Everybody turns to dust.

 

The blood is on your hands.

 

The blood is on your hands!

 

Pyo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
13 hours ago, SupremeGOAT said:

you guys think intel will cut the prices of the 9 series in half to compete? I hope they do because that would be beneficial to everybody... doesnt matter to me either way im upgrading to 3700x so i can run RPCS3 and future emulators flawlessly... heehee 

Nah Intel have never really done that before.. Maybe if everyone all of a sudden jumps to AMD they might have to think about their prices but I dont see them dropping by 50%..

Ill prob end up getting the 3900x well depending on reviews.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

And out of my PC my 8700k goes, as soon as the 3900x is released.

 

I'm not sad for the 8700k, but my Hero X...

My Gaming PC:
Inno3D iChill Black - RTX 4080 - +500 Memory, undervolted Core, 2xCorsair QX120 (push) + 2xInno3D 120mm (pull)
AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D - NZXT x72
G.SKILL Trident Z @6000MHz CL30 - 2x16GB
Asus Strix X670E-E Gaming

1x500GB Samsung 960 Pro (Windows 11)

1x2TB Kingston KC3000 (Games)

1x1TB WD Blue SN550 (Programs)

1x1TB Samsung 870 EVO (Programs)
Corsair RM-850X

Lian Li O11 Vision
ASUS ROG Swift OLED PG27AQDM (240hz OLED), MSI Optix MAG274QRFDE-QD, BenQ ZOWIE XL2720

Logitech G Pro Wireless Superlight
Wooting 60HE

Audeze LCD2-C + FiiO K3

Klipsch RP600-M + Klipsch R-120 SW

 

My Notebook:

MacBook Pro 16 M1 - 16GB

 

Proxmox-Cluster:

  • Ryzen 9 3950X, Asus Strix X570E F-Gaming, 2x32GB3200MHz ECC, 2x 512GB NVMe ZFS-Mirror (Boot + Testing-VMs), 2x14TB ZFS-Mirror + 1x3TB (TrueNAS-VM), 1x 1TB Samsung 980 Pro NVMe (Ceph-OSD), 10G NIC
  • i7 8700k delidded undervolted, Gigabyte Z390 UD, 4x16GB 3200MHz, 1x 512GB SSD (Boot), 1x 1TB Samsung 980 Pro NVMe (Ceph-OSD), 2,5G NIC
  • i5 4670, 3x4GB + 1x8GB 1600MHz, 1x 512GB SSD (Boot), 1x 1TB Samsung 980 Pro NVMe (Ceph-OSD), 2,5G NIC

Proxmox-Backup-Server:

  • i5 4670, 4x4GB 1600MHz, 2x2TB ZFS-Mirror, 2,5G NIC
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
3 hours ago, caldrin said:

Nah Intel have never really done that before.

Not true.

Intel did cut prices.

 

Here Proof:

https://www.ubergizmo.com/2009/07/intel-cut-desktop-cpu-prices/

 

And that's just a random one I've found. There were much bigger cuts in the past.

"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
32 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Not true.

Intel did cut prices.

 

Here Proof:

https://www.ubergizmo.com/2009/07/intel-cut-desktop-cpu-prices/

 

And that's just a random one I've found. There were much bigger cuts in the past.

No I meant in response to competition.. 

Yeah they reduce prices when the CPU range get replaced by newer Intel ones..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
23 hours ago, Jurrunio said:

Making predictions is where I think rumour reporters go too far. To me, they are basically the one to do the talking for those that cant, not the one making the leaks

 

The real issue is that a lot of people repeat what he's stated as speculation as if he stated it as fact. He naturally get real defensive when people then try and use that to attack him.

 

They also don't tend to pay any attention whatsoever to his temperisations. He noted pricing and naming could change before release fairly early on in his spec leaks. (For that matter now i look at the numbers again he was spot on for the Halo chip price and fairly close down the rest of the stack, AMD just shifted the entire stack by making the 12 core not the 16 core the launch halo chip).

 

Basically whilst he absolutely gets stuff wrong on occasion, his fans, (and detractors), tend to blow everything way out of proportion and take a lot out of context and then he gets blamed for their messing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
15 minutes ago, CarlBar said:

he was spot on for the Halo chip price and fairly close down the rest of the stack, AMD just shifted the entire stack by making the 12 core not the 16 core the launch halo chip).

That's not how it works. It should follow core count, not product stack. If AMD launches the 16 core from the start it would have costed more than $500 as the 12 core 3800X (or is it 3700? Not sure) does now.

CPU: i7-2600K 4751MHz 1.44V (software) --> 1.47V at the back of the socket Motherboard: Asrock Z77 Extreme4 (BCLK: 103.3MHz) CPU Cooler: Noctua NH-D15 RAM: Adata XPG 2x8GB DDR3 (XMP: 2133MHz 10-11-11-30 CR2, custom: 2203MHz 10-11-10-26 CR1 tRFC:230 tREFI:14000) GPU: Asus GTX 1070 Dual (Super Jetstream vbios, +70(2025-2088MHz)/+400(8.8Gbps)) SSD: Samsung 840 Pro 256GB (main boot drive), Transcend SSD370 128GB PSU: Seasonic X-660 80+ Gold Case: Antec P110 Silent, 5 intakes 1 exhaust Monitor: AOC G2460PF 1080p 144Hz (150Hz max w/ DP, 121Hz max w/ HDMI) TN panel Keyboard: Logitech G610 Orion (Cherry MX Blue) with SteelSeries Apex M260 keycaps Mouse: BenQ Zowie FK1

 

Model: HP Omen 17 17-an110ca CPU: i7-8750H (0.125V core & cache, 50mV SA undervolt) GPU: GTX 1060 6GB Mobile (+80/+450, 1650MHz~1750MHz 0.78V~0.85V) RAM: 8+8GB DDR4-2400 18-17-17-39 2T Storage: HP EX920 1TB PCIe x4 M.2 SSD + Crucial MX500 1TB 2.5" SATA SSD, 128GB Toshiba PCIe x2 M.2 SSD (KBG30ZMV128G) gone cooking externally, 1TB Seagate 7200RPM 2.5" HDD (ST1000LM049-2GH172) left outside Monitor: 1080p 126Hz IPS G-sync

 

Desktop benching:

Cinebench R15 Single thread:168 Multi-thread: 833 

SuperPi (v1.5 from Techpowerup, PI value output) 16K: 0.100s 1M: 8.255s 32M: 7m 45.93s

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
9 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

That's not how it works. It should follow core count, not product stack. If AMD launches the 16 core from the start it would have costed more than $500 as the 12 core 3800X (or is it 3700? Not sure) does now.

3900x is the $499 CPU

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
17 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

That's not how it works. It should follow core count, not product stack. If AMD launches the 16 core from the start it would have costed more than $500 as the 12 core 3800X (or is it 3700? Not sure) does now.

 

Actually it is how it works. If they'd launched only a cheap halo product it wouldn't have had that bling factor and people would have assumed their was some hidden catch, (also why price it lower if people will pay more). if they'd launched with a 16 core at say $700 you'd have a 2080Ti situation on your hands where regardless of how good the chip was people would remember the extreme pricing.

 

It's about market expectation. People have certain expectations for a halo Product, (generally either lower quality than the competition but significantly cheaper, or better than the competition at a similar price). You buck the expectation too hard and you hurt yourself by leaving a bad impression.

 

In addition it benefits AMD's bottom line.

 

The thing you have to remember is a Halo product isn't really there for sales. Halo products are too expensive for that. It's job is to establish an impression of the product line,. Too expensive and the whole product line will be marred by the "overpriced" moniker, too weak or two cheap and it will sour the impression the other way, (you can get around 1 of the latter two by combining them both as AMD has traditionally done). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
18 minutes ago, caldrin said:

3900x is the $499 CPU

 

He's saying he pricing should be tied to core count. But thats not how it works, people being people, (MIB quote anyone), have certain expectations and that means your naming scheme and pricing have to reflect those. You can't launch with a naming scheme that makes your holding back a better product skew too obvious and your pricing for your best launch product has to reflect it's flagship status, (though what that means depends on how the product performs relative to the competition).

 

A large part of the job of a marketing scheme isn't actually advertising the product as much as it is manipulating people into liking your product regardless of its actual worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
7 hours ago, caldrin said:

No I meant in response to competition.. 

That was in response to competition.

I can look back tot he Pentium 4 Times...

 

For example this one:

https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-cuts-pentium-4-prices/

 

Here a direct comparisation with AMD:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/01/intel-cuts-cpu-prices-q9650-now-316/

Quote

Yeah they reduce prices when the CPU range get replaced by newer Intel ones..

No, they don't.

They only reduce prices when they have to and are forced by the competition.

"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

 

Although I'm not planning to upgrade to Ryzen 3000(*1), I was hoping they'd have a larger leapfrog in IPC.  Basically, consider how far was Bulldozer or Piledriver in single-threaded IPC behind Kaby Lake (*2) (Intel's then-current architecture right before Ryzen 1st gen launched), and I wanted Zen 2 to jump ahead of Coffee Lake Refresh or even Ice Lake, by how far Bulldozer was behind Kaby Lake.

 

*1 - I'm currently using an i7-4790K in my desktop, and an i7-6700K in my laptop.  My plan is to wait for Socket AM5, DDR5, PCI Express 5.0, etc, and upgrade my desktop then.  Also I was going to wait for DDR6 or DDR7 to upgrade my laptop, but since my Clevo isn't getting the patches even for Spectre/Meltdown, I might upgrade when DDR5 comes or a year later.  

*2 - I've been having a bit of difficuty researching it, due to inconsistencies with sites like userbenchmark or passmark, and having trouble finding single-core cinebench results, but ... I get the idea that Kaby Lake has about 80-100% better IPC than Bulldozer.  (That would mean that Kaby at 2 GHz would have equaled Bull at 4 GHz, if it was a 100% IPC difference.)


 

Spoiler


 

On 5/28/2019 at 10:01 AM, RejZoR said:

CPU's may not clock as high, but at the clocks they have, they do more work. As it was showcased in the keynote where they compared same core count CPU's from Intel and AMD. Sure it depends on workload and all that, but if they could make a same core count CPU with lower clock do work faster than Intel's, they certainly are up to something. Besides, 4.6GHz isn't that far away from 5GHz.

 

On 5/28/2019 at 1:30 PM, Senzelian said:

15% IPC improvements? So finally on the level of Intels last gen? 

I guess at least the price is right.

 

On 5/28/2019 at 1:34 PM, Drak3 said:

Skylake+ (Every generation since has had the same IPC in existing instructions) was ~5% ahead of Ryzen (which was tied with Haswell). A 15% increase puts Ryzen 3xxx ahead of Intel chips clock for clock.

 

On 5/28/2019 at 1:53 PM, Senzelian said:

Sure, that's probably true, but I'm still disappointed because of the difference in clock speed.

It just isn't enough to be ahead of Intel, even tho Intel didn't even do anything yet. As you said, it's still the same old architecture.

 

On 5/28/2019 at 1:55 PM, The Benjamins said:

So you are not happy that amd beat Intel in single core performance and multi core?

 

On 5/28/2019 at 2:06 PM, Senzelian said:

I'm happy that they did, but I wish they beat them by a larger margin.
1% better single core performance and 2% better multi-core performance compared to a now almost 1-year-old CPU, which is based on an aging architecture just isn't interesting, even tho this is AMD's own chart!

Spoiler

 

COMPUTEX_KEYNOTE_DRAFT_FOR_PREBRIEF.26.0

 

 

That's why I said, at least the price is right.

 

On 5/29/2019 at 9:34 AM, RejZoR said:
Spoiler

 

You don't need to run it at 5GHz if 4.6GHz gives same results thanks to IPC increase. It seems AthlonXP history is repeating where clock isn't everything. Intel was boosting clocks to 3.2GHz back in the day and AthlonXP processors had only 2333MHz (Athlon XP 3200+, Barton core) clock and could easily rival 3200MHz Pentium 4's. Yet people were again only looking at the clock. AMD made the + scale to somewhat counter that. And I can tell you it wasn't a lie. I had the AXP 2400+ that put 2400MHz Pentiums to shame. At only 2000MHz! And with overclocking I got it up to 3200+ performance.

 

So, if Ryzen 9 3900X 4.6GHz delivers same performance as Intel's CPU at 5GHz, then this is exactly that. 4.6GHz to 5GHz is around 8% clock difference (I doubt it's also 8% performance increase). AMD is claiming up to 15% IPC boost over Zen+. And knowing Zen+ (Ryzen 7 2700X) was already on par with Intel in IPC department, AMD actually being faster than Intel at lower clock isn't that suprising because that's what IPC is. More work done at same or lower clock. Or in worst case scenario, is at least the same.

 

 

I too was hoping for 5GHz Ryzens, but seeing how they make up the clock difference with IPC, it's looking really interesting.

 

On 5/30/2019 at 7:19 PM, BiG StroOnZ said:

2.) "4.4GHz Zen 2 = Intel Core i9-9900k @ 5GHz in CB." There were many people in this thread that were pretty certain, that if what AMD exclaimed in their slides and presentation were correct. That essentially, AMD would have surpassed Intel in IPC. Which would in turn mean they would be able to match Intel at lower clocks. Now even if this is incorrect for the 8c16t part, since the "leak" doesn't explain specifically what part this is that beats the 9900k @ 5GHz, it could simply be a case of it being the 12c24t part that is pulling this off.  

 

 


 

 

For those of you who say Intel doesn't cut prices (and yes, a couple quotes here do mention they have cut prices in the half), I leave you with these links to past news articles, Google searches, etc, and this is mostly just regarding the Q6600.

Links / table in spoiler.

Spoiler


date, misc new $ q6600 link
     
     
     
q6600 price cut  
5/14/2007 266
7/23/2007 300
7/23/2007 266
4/21/2008 266
to $266 266
7/22/2008 193
     
     
cpu-world graph  
     
     
q6600 $851  
12/20/2006 851
12/28/2006 851
1/7/2007 851
1/8/2007 851
1/8/2007 851
1/8/2007 851
1/8/2007 851
1/9/2007 851
1/10/2007 851
     
     
q6600 $530  
3/14/2007 530
     
     
q6600 $266  
3/12/2007 266
5/16/2007 266
7/23/2007 266
     
     
q6600 $224  
7/24/2007 266
4/21/2008 224
4/22/2008 224
4/23/2008 224
     
     
q6600 $193  
7/21/2008 193
7/21/2008 193
7/21/2008 193
7/21/2008 193
7/21/2008 193
7/22/2008 193
7/25/2008 193
8/22/2008 193
9/25/2008 183
10/21/2008 183
10/21/2008 183
10/21/2008 183
10/21/2008 183
     
     
q6600 $183  
4/23/2007 530
4/21/2008 244
7/21/2008 1993
10/23/2008 183
11/28/2008 183

 

 

 

 

Also NVidia has done price cuts in the past - just look up the GTX 280, GTX 285, and whatever AMD had at the time.  (280 launched at I think $649, then 285 launched at like $369 several months later.)

Spoiler


 

On 6/2/2019 at 9:40 AM, SupremeGOAT said:

you guys think intel will cut the prices of the 9 series in half to compete? I hope they do because that would be beneficial to everybody... doesnt matter to me either way im upgrading to 3700x so i can run RPCS3 and future emulators flawlessly... heehee 

 

On 6/2/2019 at 9:41 AM, Trixanity said:

Doubt it. Intel doesn't really need to compete on price.

 

On 6/2/2019 at 10:19 AM, Origami Cactus said:

They will at most cut the cost at 10-12.5%, half is way too big of an assumption. You have to take into account Intel's market dominance and Brand reception.

 

On 6/2/2019 at 10:28 AM, BabaGanuche said:

Intel does not really cut prices, they are already selling all of the CPUs they can make at the current prices. I would expect almost no price cut.

 

On 6/2/2019 at 10:34 AM, MeatFeastMan said:

Not yet. But they will when they see the market share slip away from them. And Zen2 has the potential to do that ESPECIALLY if it ends up actually ahead of the 9900k in games, even if it's just 1-2%. Because from what I've noticed, all the people coming on here wanting the 9700k and a 2070 (Which is most of the young people who don't have a clue what they have just chosen) defend their choices because 'Intel is better in games'. Just 1% ahead of Intel will shift all those people over to AMD, and there's loads of those people.

 

On 6/2/2019 at 11:16 AM, Drak3 said:

Yes, in 10 years when they need to offload the last 2 9900KS chips to a retro part collector.

 

On 6/2/2019 at 11:27 AM, ravenshrike said:

Nah, those will be sold in 25 years at inflated prices as the last working examples of Intel's dominance in the CPU market. B|

 

19 hours ago, caldrin said:

Nah Intel have never really done that before.. Maybe if everyone all of a sudden jumps to AMD they might have to think about their prices but I dont see them dropping by 50%..

Ill prob end up getting the 3900x well depending on reviews.. 

 

15 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Not true.

Intel did cut prices.

 

Here Proof:

https://www.ubergizmo.com/2009/07/intel-cut-desktop-cpu-prices/

 

And that's just a random one I've found. There were much bigger cuts in the past.

 

15 hours ago, caldrin said:

No I meant in response to competition.. 

Yeah they reduce prices when the CPU range get replaced by newer Intel ones..

 

8 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

That was in response to competition.

I can look back tot he Pentium 4 Times...

 

For example this one:

https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-cuts-pentium-4-prices/

 

Here a direct comparisation with AMD:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2009/01/intel-cuts-cpu-prices-q9650-now-316/

No, they don't.

They only reduce prices when they have to and are forced by the competition.

 

 

 

 

Wow I think that could be the most people I've quoted in a single post.  (I only went back to about page 14 I think, didn't go all the way back to the beginning of the thread looking for what I was replying to.)  Hey, if I was to put them in spoilers (so the post doesn't appear to be so long), would they still get notifications that they were quoted (or @ mentioned)?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
  • Author
21 minutes ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

 

Yes, if you put us in spoilers we would still get notifications. Consider putting the intel price table in the spoiler also.

Wow that must be the longest comment i have ever seen on ltt forums.

I only see your reply if you @ me.

This reply/comment was generated by AI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:

Snip.  (I couldn't delete the table) (table deleted)

 

Regardless of Whether Intel did  or how often or by how much,  I think people in this thread are relying too much on what they want to be the cause rather than realities.  Sure Intel might have reduced prices in the past to sell more than AMD (or even just to prevent people buying AMD). but  they haven't "needed" to reduce the price for that reason.  They undertook that huge anti-trust and tried to fuck AMD over, but the Net gain for them was on top of already dominant sales and market leadership.   In other words Intel could only have done what they did because of  the position they held, a position that means they don't "need" to reduce prices due to competition.     Instead they can afford court cases.   The company that has to constantly price below and doesn't have any market leverage to engage in anti trust practices are forced to price according to competition.

 

This is not me saying any company should engage in anti trust, I'm just saying a company can only do it if they are in a leading market position and is not under any pressure from the competition.

Edited by leadeater
Removed unwanted content

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 hour ago, PianoPlayer88Key said:
Spoiler

 

 

Although I'm not planning to upgrade to Ryzen 3000(*1), I was hoping they'd have a larger leapfrog in IPC.  Basically, consider how far was Bulldozer or Piledriver in single-threaded IPC behind Kaby Lake (*2) (Intel's then-current architecture right before Ryzen 1st gen launched), and I wanted Zen 2 to jump ahead of Coffee Lake Refresh or even Ice Lake, by how far Bulldozer was behind Kaby Lake.

 

*1 - I'm currently using an i7-4790K in my desktop, and an i7-6700K in my laptop.  My plan is to wait for Socket AM5, DDR5, PCI Express 5.0, etc, and upgrade my desktop then.  Also I was going to wait for DDR6 or DDR7 to upgrade my laptop, but since my Clevo isn't getting the patches even for Spectre/Meltdown, I might upgrade when DDR5 comes or a year later.  

*2 - I've been having a bit of difficuty researching it, due to inconsistencies with sites like userbenchmark or passmark, and having trouble finding single-core cinebench results, but ... I get the idea that Kaby Lake has about 80-100% better IPC than Bulldozer.  (That would mean that Kaby at 2 GHz would have equaled Bull at 4 GHz, if it was a 100% IPC difference.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For those of you who say Intel doesn't cut prices (and yes, a couple quotes here do mention they have cut prices in the half), I leave you with these links to past news articles, Google searches, etc, and this is mostly just regarding the Q6600.

 

 

date, misc new $ q6600 link
     
     
     
q6600 price cut  
5/14/2007 266
7/23/2007 300
7/23/2007 266
4/21/2008 266
to $266 266
7/22/2008 193
     
     
cpu-world graph  
     
     
q6600 $851  
12/20/2006 851
12/28/2006 851
1/7/2007 851
1/8/2007 851
1/8/2007 851
1/8/2007 851
1/8/2007 851
1/9/2007 851
1/10/2007 851
     
     
q6600 $530  
3/14/2007 530
     
     
q6600 $266  
3/12/2007 266
5/16/2007 266
7/23/2007 266
     
     
q6600 $224  
7/24/2007 266
4/21/2008 224
4/22/2008 224
4/23/2008 224
     
     
q6600 $193  
7/21/2008 193
7/21/2008 193
7/21/2008 193
7/21/2008 193
7/21/2008 193
7/22/2008 193
7/25/2008 193
8/22/2008 193
9/25/2008 183
10/21/2008 183
10/21/2008 183
10/21/2008 183
10/21/2008 183
     
     
q6600 $183  
4/23/2007 530
4/21/2008 244
7/21/2008 1993
10/23/2008 183
11/28/2008 183

 

 

Also NVidia has done price cuts in the past - just look up the GTX 280, GTX 285, and whatever AMD had at the time.  (280 launched at I think $649, then 285 launched at like $369 several months later.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow I think that could be the most people I've quoted in a single post.  (I only went back to about page 14 I think, didn't go all the way back to the beginning of the thread looking for what I was replying to.)  Hey, if I was to put them in spoilers (so the post doesn't appear to be so long), would they still get notifications that they were quoted (or @ mentioned)?

 

 

 

So I don't get it how does this relate?

if you want to annoy me, then join my teamspeak server ts.benja.cc

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
4 hours ago, Origami Cactus said:

Yes, if you put us in spoilers we would still get notifications. Consider putting the intel price table in the spoiler also.

Wow that must be the longest comment i have ever seen on ltt forums.

Thanks for the tip. Edited and done. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

For me the R5 3600 is a bit of a disappointment. Still 6 cores, only ~0.3 GHz more boost clock, etc.

 

3rd gen architecture better be a real deal breaker because right now R5 2600 with a stealth cooler is still 50 dollars cheaper then MSRP for the 3600.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
16 minutes ago, realpetertdm said:

For me the R5 3600 is a bit of a disappointment. Still 6 cores, only ~0.3 GHz more boost clock, etc.

 

3rd gen architecture better be a real deal breaker because right now R5 2600 with a stealth cooler is still 50 dollars cheaper then MSRP for the 3600.

It's called IPC improvement. More boost clock is just an added bonus for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
28 minutes ago, Settlerteo said:

 It's called IPC improvement. More boost clock is just an added bonus for us.

That "IPC improvement" really gotta have some amazing improvements. I'm not going to pay 60+ more for a 10~15% increase

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
2 minutes ago, realpetertdm said:

That "IPC improvement" really gotta have some amazing improvements. I'm not going to pay 60+ more for a 10~15% increase

No one says you have to. You won't be seeing big leaps anymore so most people can easily manage with the same CPU for five years. If 15% isn't enough you'll be waiting a few years for more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing Tech News

×