R5 3000 beats 9900k retarded piece of shit housefire

>7nm chip is withing margin of error with 14nm chip at stock settings.
If you wanna see it as a win sure

>OC'd to hell
Then why was it drawing so much less power than the 9900k?

Because he's a retard who thinks he's just pretending to be retarded

Surely Intel will wipe Ryzen 3000 in 2025 when they get down to 7 nm

>R5
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

AMDRONES ARE DELUSIONAL

>j-just wait, intel is going to make a huge advancement soon
lol
Wouldn't surprise me if this was the low end chip.

It was drawing 100W less than the Intel one and the PCB was completely bare. I can't see how anyone would think that was a R7 or R9.

3.4ghz base clock not sure about the boost id say anywhere from 3.8 to 4.2

*blocks your path*

Attached: 1547058948119.jpg (1280x720, 65K)

>have to put up with six months of headcanon made up """leaks"""
zzzzzzzz
just give me the thing now amd

i9-9900K boosts up to 5.0Ghz.
But I think It may have been thermal limited.
I think they said something about stockcooler?

They said stock frequencies. I don't think the 9900k comes with a stock cooler.

What does stock means?
If it means its out of the box then It would boost itself automatically.

>i9-9900K boosts up to 5.0Ghz.
im talking about the AMD engineering sample, a leak said that the ipc would be about 20-25% better than first gen ryzen and if the engineering sample had a 3.8 to 4.2 ghz boost over its 3.4 base then that lines up pretty well with the 9900k

>if the engineering sample had a 3.8 to 4.2 ghz

I'm more interested how the i9-9900K was configured.
If it was allowed to boost lets say up to 4.7 Ghz.
Then those clock speeds seems bit low for the ES.
Was i9-9900K allowed to boost up to it's max stock boost which is 5.0 Ghz.

>I'm more interested how the i9-9900K was configured.
tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i9-9900k-9th-gen-cpu,5847-8.html
AMD got about 2040 i think so its at stock so 4.7 ghz all core

Stock probably means out of the box.

how is it overclocked while using nearly 60 watts less of power?

your right, maybe it was the R3

Didn't AMD say that The ES wasn't with final clock frequency?
If i9-9900K was all core boosted lets say up to 4.7 Ghz and The ES was 4.5 Ghz, It would mean that the Zen2 has better IPC than intel AND lower power consumption.
That would be end of Intel.

>cpu that isn't even released is the same as cpu that was released a year ago

CPU that was released less than 3 months ago*

Attached: 1525631361022.jpg (752x548, 282K)

>overclocked engineering sample
lol

Alternately
>overclocked Ryzen 5 beats stock 9900k using way less power
lol

THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING

Attached: 1534595224911.png (807x867, 343K)

This
All this AMDrones furiously masturbating to the idea AYYMD have a SEE PII OUU with higher IPC than Intel are delutional.

What really eats away at the AYYMD baby is the irrevocably fact that no matter what IPC Zen 2 ends up with AYYMD will never beat Intel's marketshare and industry trust. Stay mad AMDrones.

>Zen2 has better IPC than intel AND lower power consumption
Literally this

Mad, Intel-friendo? Marketshare is being taken by AMD, and no one gives a fuck about trust.

Attached: laugh.png (643x537, 231K)

Amazon, Google and Microsoft buying Epyc in droves is not real.

EPYC IS A LIEEEEEEEE
7NM IS A LIEEEEEE

Attached: 1539296460877.jpg (474x415, 37K)

Maybe AMD users can use that saved power for their Radeon 7s

Attached: 1515292607696.png (1228x1502, 1.07M)

rip in pieces

Attached: 1536694146733.png (1200x800, 164K)

new uarch on the way, just wait(tm) until 2025

Attached: 5435534543225343543.jpg (852x480, 106K)

>engineering sample
>OC

retarded in max level

Attached: 1503072379586.png (665x574, 266K)

merely pretending to be retarded XD

Intel shit lake is the final form

>110FPS 1080p
It's still behind in single core performance L M A O

It's over user, submit to AMD and let it dominate your ass with ALL 16 cores.

Attached: 1543970987936.png (1920x600, 357K)

>1080p

Even if the AMD chip ends up shitting on the 9900k housefire, 1080p is a garbage babby resolution. It's not even 1200p, it's fucking half-assed gaymur resolution for esport faggots.

It's an ES

>engineering sample
>paired with an inferior GPU
this thing should fly with an RTX 2080Ti

>1080p
It was running 4K maxed, you dumb shit.

Reminder that the Zen2 ES was running at low clocks.

>lower power draw
>same number of cores
>oc'd to hell
>still beats intel
guess intel's the power hog now then?

They said it was ES stock with turbo of 4.6, so there.

It wasn't even OC'ed any, kek. Literally ES stock with Turbo of 4.6, according to AMD. Not even finalized specs. And TDP is apparently 75W, lul.

You mean, you are still waiting to be able to test it in your own system?

>Intel's marketshare and industry trust
*industry bribe money

Score lines up with multi-core enhancement being on, which actually runs out of Intel spec, so it's mobo defaults, but not technically "stock". That means a 4.7GHz all core boost.

Attached: Cinebench.png (1327x1222, 62K)

the 9900k on stage had about the same score as the stock 9900k in the toms hardware review.

just buy it

I didn't follow the news much.

Did they put out anything decent on the new Zen lineup? Is there like a 3600 that makes the 2600 obsolete for the same price or something like that?

All they did was show an 8 core Zen2 engineering sample that beat out the i9-9900k in Cinebench @ 75w. No info on which Ryzen processor it's supposed to be, but Su said to expect Ryzen processors with more than 8 cores

No specifics about any models, but the onstage demonstration of the engineering sample is showing we're getting AT LEAST singlethreaded parity with a 9900k.

Attached: 1539678681665.png (813x1402, 324K)

They tested with the vega vii right? What does a 9900k and 2080 get on that game at 1080p?

>Su said to expect Ryzen processors with more than 8 cores
No she didn't, we saw the 7nm chiplet that was 8 cores/16threads - the same one running in the demo. We can infer that they could easily place another chiplet there allowing for a 16core/32thread part. All we can do is infer, she made no specific statement on core count.

Oh aight. Oh well, hope that something like what I said is revealed to be half true towards summer.

She inferred there would be higher core count parts to a bunch of press when she was interviewed by them after the keynote. Anandtech's main writer already confirmed.

It just wasn't during the keynote

Attached: 1547066444082.png (500x466, 173K)

>They tested with the vega vii right?
With 4K and maxed. This "1080p" parroting shitposting is seriously tiring me now...like, WHY AND WHERE IN THE FLYING FUCKS they got the imbecillic idea it was at 1080p when AT THE SHOW FLOOR THEY CLEARLY SAID DMC 5 AND PROJECT CARS 2 ARE RUNNING AT 4K MAXED WHILE GETTING THOSE 100+ FPS?! FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

Look at this retard

Forza was at 1080p, she even said so. It was because they were showing how the processor performed while stressed. The gpu games were shown at 4k for the opposite case.

>7nm only managing to match 14nm++++
So how btfo are amd going to be once they don't have the node advantage anymore? It seems like they're relying solely on intel to keep eternally failing at 10nm and not just give up and outsource to tsmc, because when they do either, amd will be rekt.

Attached: 1470615745156.jpg (415x540, 42K)

it was GPU limited lmao

Why don't they say shit like that at the event?!
>show performance on par with intel's best offering
>announce a CPU with twice the core count

FORZA WAS ON XBONE CONSOLE, YOU DUMB SHIT! NOT PC! DMC 5 AND PROJECT CARS 2 WERE PC TESTS!

I would count on a 3600/x to stomp the 2600/x. Despite what shills say about the leaks being BS, what they showed lines up with them. There's still no confirmation is all

>intel outsourcing to tsmc
You must be on drugs. When intel finally delivers 10nm AMD will be on 5/3nm

Lol what? No it wasn't

>budget 7nm CPU sample outperforms Incel's best, outrageously hot and expensive desktop CPU
Fix

Are you actually retarded?

I'm perfectly happy with just a bit of improvement really. It'd be neat to get something like a 2600X at the price of a 2600.

what? are you retarded?
Its the same performance with 38% lower power consumption.
Performance is measured in multiple ways power consumption being one of them.

How will intel compete when these chips are $249 vs $499 of the 9900k?
How will intel compete when they launch the 12 and 16 core models both of which are cheaper than the 9900k?

Fairly certain intel is rekt. They wont have 10nm performance chips until the early 2020 maybe even later than that

I'm wondering, will AMD ever release some kind of tool where people who get their hands on older motherboards with old BIOSes will be able to upgrade these without the need of using an older processor?

>When intel finally delivers 10nm AMD will be on 5/3nm
Isn't that more reason that they'd have to give in and outsource fabrication to someone else? If they can't keep up its going to make their products very non-competitive.
We don't know anything about the pricing yet, that's pure conjecture, if that demo'd chip really turns out to be a ryzen 5 level processor, then they're going to be a pretty impressive top seller.

>and does so while sipping power

While you're correct that there are no confirmed pricing, AMD would have to be out of their fucking mind to hike up the prices beyond their current tiers. $20-30 more at most, but I even doubt that

The best part about all of this is that no matter what if its a 3800 or 3600, it still solidly beats the 9900k.
Nigga, Intel are going to get fucked by infinite yields. AMD is going to able to use literally every single chiplet the fucking madmen.

Attached: 1539454713848.gif (194x269, 498K)

We do know about pricing. We have 8 core ryzen 7 2700s for sale for $250 right now. If they are launching 12 and 16 core parts we can expect those for be 350~ and 450~
AMDs claim in the epyc demo was they are running a single chip vs two intel chips and performing better for half the cost.
AMD will do the same for Zen 2 on desktop. They will price the 16c model the same as the 8c intel part knowing full well intel can not lower the price of the 9900k without losing money.
AMD wont hold back this year against intel. They have a lead and they will run away with it.

Post yfw mommy Su can put two 4 core chiplets, i.e. R3, that can BTFO the 9900k.

Attached: Epyctler.png (580x742, 838K)

7nm is more expensive and you're getting more cores in the same tier; I would only expect competitive pricing like $50 less than a 9900k for the 8c/16t chip used in the demo

that said they can't encroach on threadripper pricing

>7nm is more expensive
I was under the impression that the chiplet design effectively makes the yields really good so that this isn't really the case?

hmmmm, true. Still, I wouldn't expect anything cheaper than current AMD pricing, especially if we are getting more cores.

>450 dollars for a 8 core chip when they currently sell 8 core chips for 250

You think the 16 core model will be 900 dollars?

R5 3600 will be 249 with bundled cooler
R5 3600X will be 269 no cooler

So, Ryzen 3 will run on Ryzen 2x sockets or what?

i don't want to buy another fucking mobo all over again

Oh yeah I'm under no illusion that prices are going to go down, especially with how strong they are already, but there's no way amd are going to charge only $50 less than the 9900k for 8 7nm cores. That would be a huge price hike from where they are now.

yes

consumer wise

What is pricing going to look like as 7nm AMD comes out? Is intel/old amd going to drop in price?

Are the new AMD 7nm going to be high priced because of competitiveness and 7nm process?

Judging by their retarded Vega VII pricing, not as good as we'd like them to be.

I think there'll likely be a small to moderate price increase for zen 2, but nothing huge. Its in their best interest to absolutely demolish intel and leave consumers with no good reason to buy them. They need the market share. I'm sure Zen+ will go on sale.