Ryzen 3000 spec/price leaked (supposedly)

Off-Topic Games, Gaming and Hardware
61

Uhh… yeah. Its 1080p.

You have a point there genius? 95% of people are playing at 1080p. Christ, do you TRY to be that dense, or is it just natural?

Uh, no. Because i never said that. Strawman much? Oh, right, it’s like… your go-to move, after attaching rockets to your goalposts.

No, actually i’ve never said that. I rarely discuss the 1060 at all, especially recently (the last 6 months) since the RX 580 is and has been a much better buy that entire time.

… CPUs at stock settings. (Sub 4-ghz for the first one, so he what, turned the turbo-boost OFF?) Even then…

What. Is. Your. Effing. POINT?

The game is totally playable at 1080p max settings on mid-range hardware?

OH MY GODS WHATEVER WILL I DO?!

Its funny you think you’re important enough for me to lie to. Hate to break it to you, but you’re not important enough to be worth lying to. I couldn’t care less what you think.

Also… theyre recording. And running a bunch of other stuff in the background that regular users do not do. Get. It. Through. That. Overly. Thick. Piece. Of. Bone. That. You. Substitute. For. A. Skull.

You do not represent or understand what the majority of people need or do. You never have. Every post you make just makes that more and more clear. You’re incapable of stepping outside of your own anecdotal experience and realizing that you dont represent anything. Every person on this forum who is an enthusiast is an outlier. Including me.

99% of people do not game and record.
99% of people do not game and stream.
95% of people play at 1080p OR LOWER.

Strawman combined with ad-hominem but no real argument or point.

Because they aren’t doing daily-driver tasks i wouldn’t tell them a damn thing. Do you even understand what the conversation is about you utter troll?

Then they should probably talk to their IT department about cleaning those machines of bloatware. A quad core i3 is not slow at web browsing. Thats just hyperbolic dog-poo. Given the source, though, its par for the course.

Because you didn’t say “Ryzen is always unlocked”, you said “AMD is always unlocked”.

So, flying goalposts again.

Here’s your exact quote, which you neatly excised from your reply to try not to get caught lying:

Ruh Roh Raggy.

Strawman. Straight up, textbook Strawman.

I never told people they shouldn’t be able to OC the Athlon if they can find the board that lets them.

You’re arguing against something i never said.

Seriously, which Straw company do you have stock in?

maybe you could try refuting the actual arguments (which you dont even bother to quote) rather than relying to … half a dozen strawmen and 2 ad-hominem attacks in one reply?

Then again, consider the source.

1 Like
62

Okay, well I’m not talking about 4. We’re just now coming off of 4. Benchmarks are showing 4 core chips are still quite fine, if they have SMT/HT.

The whole point of my argument is the baseline Ryzen 3 3300 being an overclockable 6 core 12 thread chip makes the rest of the lineup pretty much pointless for most people, and I’m not changing my opinion of that.

It’s taken the industry over 10 years to even go beyond 4 threads. Going beyond 12? It will take another 10 years.

63

So yeah, Sal and Kag, if you decide you want to ignore You fool, let me know. It takes about 15 seconds to setup. I won’t bring it up again, but know that the offer stands as long as the CSS script works :slight_smile:

64

You linked a video that says 1440p and its actually 1080p, hence misinformed info

Plus your video does not include any MSI afterburner info, no clock speed, just some random benchmark with no detailed info

You did :astonished:

Your 2nd reply still refers to your old post too

40-50 fps with stuttering is not playable… I don’t even like it myself on my 4k setup, any AAA game that is too demanding for 4k I’d go back to 1440p monitor because I have a dual monitor setup

Then again on a thread long time ago before Ryzen existed you told me that my FX 8350 being able to do 40 fps on boss fights is unplayable so :thinking:

Steam hardware survey of November 2018, 60% of steam users are using 1080p, number keeps going down every month while 1440p goes up

You are half true about that, but I really don’t think anyone is playing below 1080p except maybe laptops, but this thread is a bout a desktop chip

Microsoft Office, email, researching is not daily driver task?

The i3 7100’s are 2 core 4 threads… idk where you got this quad core i3 on a 7th generation :thinking:

PCs are not even a year old and they suck bad :laughing:

This thread is about ryzen, that athlon is made the same architecture as Ryzen but its not… Ryzen…

65

Who knows…

10 years of Intel saying 4 cores was enough to do anything and they sat on recycling that for awhile till Ryzen existed

I remember people here saying the 4 cores is enough for years to come and now games are taking advantage of multithreaded…

If I go back on the old forums I can probably find someone here saying the 7600k is plenty for years

but based on AAA games like shadow of the tomb raider… its being maxed out at 100% making the fps drop so…

steam hardware survey, 6 cores and 8 cores % of steam users are going up

AMD will put out more cores, then Intel will, then back to AMD then back to Intel back and forth

I can legit see low end CPUs being 8, possibly 10 cores the minimum within 5-7 years.

1 Like
66

Anyone that purchases AMD doesn’t mind playing at medium settings since they can’t max out anything :rofl::rofl::rofl:

67

Again:

YOUR EXACT QUOTE:

“AMD Chips”

Not “Ryzen”

AMD Chips.

Thats what you said.

The thread title is irrelevant.

Fly them goalposts. FLY!!!

68

That post is over a YEAR OLD YOU MORON.

40-50fps with stuttering? What videos were you watching? I saw 1080p and a 1% low that never dropped below 60.

Weird. Some alternate reality you live in.

And… 40-50fps is better thant he consoles do. 30fps is playable.

Again, your head is so far up your anecdotal butt you cant understand that YOUR VIEWS ARENT COMMON NOR DO THEY REPRESENT THE AVERAGE USER IN ANY WAY.

Im done trying to explain reality to you.

Seriously. Wouldn’t call the ambulance if i saw you on fire in the street.

1 Like
69

Yeah i’ve had enough. Hook a brother up.

70

The videos I linked…

71

Glad I waited, I had a feeling they may be scamming with those shiny black friday deals then “oh look our next product line” shortly after. The real question though is how much better will it be than Intels current line. Good timing on AMD’s end, Intel just released theirs and AMD’s latest CPU’s aren’t that far behind Intels so if they deliver these should be faster than coffee lake which if they are I guess I’ll take the risk of buying AMD for the first time. Even more interesting is their GTX 1080 competitor which if the prices on it are true…there’s gonna be some stiff competition. I only bought my 980ti a couple years ago, but for that price I just may do a full system upgrade. Hopefully AMD delivers.

1 Like
72

the thing is even if ppl dont LIKE AMD…they SHOULD want them to have good stuff as this forces Intel to make better stuff and lower prices on lower to mid end stuff. (intel had no challenge and that was why 2years ago they had outageous prices on cpu’s)

Also Intel has 1 thing goign agaisnt them…they are having issues with 7nm…and have been for ages. AMD is not having trouble and plan to have cpu AND gpu using it by next year.
Intel is still stuck on 14nm for years.

Im an Intel fan. (as AMD wasnt so good in the past when I started liking computers and i just have that stigma in my head even if it isnt exactly true anymore) But I am all for AMD hopefully out performing intel as it will make Intel stop sitting on their butts and innovate again and that means better stuff for consumers as a whole.

competition benefits all.

73

I’ve got no real beef with any of them. They both have made great products and they both have made crappy products.

They both have done shady stuff and they’ve both had their ups and downs.

Overall, I think I’ve owned pretty much the same amount of AMD products as Intel.

1 Like
74

https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-is-pleased-with-its-progress-on-7nm-believes-it-will-spark-moores-law-again/

ORLY?

Also, AMDs 7nm is more like 10nm. GN did a good video about how all lithographies are not created equally.

2 Likes
75

and why they are still mainly using 14nm while amd is on 10nm and WILL hit 7nm before Intel as intel’s plan states 2019/2020 for ice lake using 10nm+.

dont expect 7nm before atleast late 2020 at earliest…

and? still ahead of intel. and they ARE improving faster than intel has over recent years.

also talkign about this vid?

it does state that there isnt a “true” defined version of nm.
however the guy states his assumption would be they’d be similar. not an actual fact.

1 Like
76

Yup, exactly what I thought as well, the more competition the better for consumers in any case. It’s kinda bs there’s there’s almost a monopoly with PC hardware, there needs to be more than 2 companies competing. Supposedly Intel’s sticking its hand in GPU’s now so I guess that’ll help a little, but intel is already a borderline monopoly with CPU’s we need new engineering companies showing up to take their place in the consumer computing market.

I’ve been against AMD in the past, but they seem to be stepping their game up for sure. I’m frankly getting very sick of the shady business practices of intel and nvidia.

1 Like
77

yeah :confused:
intel is slowly stepping into the GPU section so thats good news possibly.

iirc qualcom might step into CPU section for computers but that wont be effective for years at earliest :frowning:

I like Nvidia but they are too money hungry :frowning: same for intel.

AMD shows u can get performance for cheaper.

also keep hopign someday gsync gets cheaper as they’d sell a lot mroe <_<

78

AMD only offers the price advantage now because they have to.

I guarantee if they were in the same position as Nvidia/Intel, they would be charging just as much as them.

Companies don’t just sell things for less lower prices than they can out of altruism.

1 Like
79

Going to mention a few things. As many of you know I do real world testing not theoretical testing. The reason being is, GPUs will always be the bottleneck. I had a 1440p monitor back in 2012 and had an HD 7950 which was arguably tied for the second best card at that time. It struggled to keep up in 1440p gaming in modern titles, I had to tweak the settings. In 2018 Ghost Recon Wildlands, to stay ahead of 60 fps average I HAVE to tweak the settings, same with Ashes and other demanding games. In 2014 I had a 4k monitor with 970s in SLI. They were $300/each brand new (on sale too!). They struggled to game at 4k forget the tearing and such. Now $600 current gen GPU’s still cannot push 4k, in fact many modern games struggle to get above 30 FPS Average.

So as you’ll see in my video I am dropping soon, clock for clock, Intel is 5% ahead of AMD right now. That 5% will never become noticeable to the end user. But to add, 61% of the population on Steam games at 1080p, 4% at 1440p and 1.5% at 4k. So in 6 years that 1440p Panels have been affordable, only 4% of the market has them and 4 years that 4k has been affordable 1.5% of the market has them. Both current gen Intel and AMD can push 1080p 144Hz gaming, and unless there is noticeable shuddering which there is not on either platform, that 5% is not relevant.

Lastly, a vast majority of my customers that I build for stream to twitch, run multiple monitors and record. The reality is, people do not game with every program closed. They often run Discord, watching a stream on a second monitor, and do other things. The target customer of mine is usually parents with teenage kids and your ideal profile Kag of 99% doesn’t stream/record and 95% only use 1 monitor is way wrong. BTW, I don’t count people playing on old laptops running 1366x768 playing LoL in this area. I mean people that get Gaming PCs.

80

GPU limited resolutions are a given.

At 1080p (not GPU limited), with detail settings aimed at high refresh rate, Intel is FAR beyond 5%, closer to 25-30%, faster than Zen+.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3378-intel-9900k-cpu-review-solder-vs-paste-delid-gaming-benchmarks-vs-2700x/page-4

And in streaming, Intel presently does well, by more than 5% in some cases.

 https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3378-intel-9900k-cpu-review-solder-vs-paste-delid-gaming-benchmarks-vs-2700x/page-3

Also, 6/12 is plenty for the majority of background tasks in addition to gaming.

Myself I always run two monitors, an ASUS VG248QE and an ASUS VG245H. Games in 1080p 144 with settings to get the fps, and Netflix on the other. The only time I can’t get the fps is due the GPU, not CPU.