It would be funny for people upgrading their 5.3ghz 10900k 10c/20t for 4.2ghz 11900k 8c/16t. Intel this days...:D

Undying:

It would be funny for people upgrading their 5.3ghz 10900k 10c/20t for 4.2ghz 11900k 8c/16t. Intel this days...:D

I downgraded 9900k with 3900x 😉 Though, I don't use it for gaming 😛

Undying:

It would be funny for people upgrading their 5.3ghz 10900k 10c/20t for 4.2ghz 11900k 8c/16t. Intel this days...:D

They reduce core count because of TDP and thermals , gona bet money on that.

karma777police:

As I said, it will beat the crap out of new Zen 3 in gaming and anything requiring up to 8/16 which is 98% of scenarios today.

If what you are saying is not true though, the forum will literally come over to your house and force you to eat actual crow. We value your opinion but we aren't ****ing around here.

karma777police:

As I said, it will beat the crap out of new Zen 3 in gaming and anything requiring up to 8/16 which is 98% of scenarios today.

I'm mostly brand agnostic and usually try to not get involved too much in the AMD versus Intel versus nVidia debates. But if there's one thing i hate is how when AMD is on top (if they are let's wait for 3rd party reviews) then it's always wait for Intel but when Intel and/or nVidia are on top it's always AMD is late for the party. I mean those cpus are rumoured to be released around half a year after Zen 3 and close to one year after Intel previous offering. And if we are to believe AMD and Intel numbers (i'm not) those new Intel cpus will barely beat Zen 3 (if they even are) and only in gaming. I would certainly expect them to beat AMD better than that personally considering they're likely going to be close to half a year late. And when these cpus will be released you will be able to say the same thing you just said but the other way around. AMD will beat them in 6 months to 8 months or so. At the end of the day since Zen 2 was released AMD dominated workstation duty and Intel gaming. The last offering by Intel was good with finally (about ******* time) HT across all the lineup which made the i5 finally a viable option for people not just gaming. But these cpus were released many months after Zen 2 and were not able to dominate Zen 2 in all use cases. If AMD is finally able to dominated all uses case with Zen 3 then Intel will definitely be trailing behind. When you look at history every time AMD was trailing behind they got trashed for it. Even if they would release competitive products. Remember Vega. Vega was competitive performance wise. But it was requiring more power, was running kind of hot, was late to the party and it was trashed for that. Why should it be different for Intel? If AMD delivers then until proven otherwise (3rd party reviews in both case) Intel architecture will not be as good, they will be late to the party and while they will still be competitive performance wise if all this happens then Intel definitely should get the same treatment Vega did. What i see here is barely any improvement with 8 cores. An improvement at 4 cores that should put it very close to AMD (if both AMD and Intel numbers are true). So if AMD numbers are real it doesn' look that great for those cpus considering they'll be half a year late. I mean 3.6% improvement at 8 cores you have to question at this point if it will even clearly beat Zen 2 in workstation duties ...

MonstroMart:

I'm mostly brand agnostic and usually try to not get involved too much in the AMD versus Intel versus nVidia debates. But if there's one thing i hate is how when AMD is on top (if they are let's wait for 3rd party reviews) then it's always wait for Intel but when Intel and/or nVidia are on top it's always AMD is late for the party. I mean those cpus are rumoured to be released around half a year after Zen 3 and close to one year after Intel previous offering. And if we are to believe AMD and Intel numbers (i'm not) those new Intel cpus will barely beat Zen 3 (if they even are) and only in gaming. I would certainly expect them to beat AMD better than that personally considering they're likely going to be close to half a year late. And when these cpus will be released you will be able to say the same thing you just said but the other way around. AMD will beat them in 6 months to 8 months or so. At the end of the day since Zen 2 was released AMD dominated workstation duty and Intel gaming. The last offering by Intel was good with finally (about ******* time) HT across all the lineup which made the i5 finally a viable option for people not just gaming. But these cpus were released many months after Zen 2 and were not able to dominate Zen 2 in all use cases. If AMD is finally able to dominated all uses case with Zen 3 then Intel will definitely be trailing behind. When you look at history every time AMD was trailing behind they got trashed for it. Even if they would release competitive products. Remember Vega. Vega was competitive performance wise. But it was requiring more power, was running kind of hot, was late to the party and it was trashed for that. Why should it be different for Intel? If AMD delivers then until proven otherwise (3rd party reviews in both case) Intel architecture will not be as good, they will be late to the party and while they will still be competitive performance wise if all this happens then Intel definitely should get the same treatment Vega did. What i see here is barely any improvement with 8 cores. An improvement at 4 cores that should put it very close to AMD (if both AMD and Intel numbers are true). So if AMD numbers are real it doesn' look that great for those cpus considering they'll be half a year late. I mean 3.6% improvement at 8 cores you have to question at this point if it will even clearly beat Zen 2 in workstation duties ...

My sentiments exactly. I'm going to wait for third party reviews but if Zen3 is as good as AMD said then I expect Rocket Lake to be really close on IPC and loose to AMD in any CPU > 6 cores. Rocket Lake will be competitive but to scream its going to dominate AMD is just silly. If you simply look at Zen2 IPC then the 19% Zen3 IPC improvement Rocket lake is simply going to be very comparable.

nizzen:

I downgraded 9900k with 3900x 😉 Though, I don't use it for gaming 😛

That would be an upgrade if you dont game on it. Even if you do i dont consider it a downgrade.

Back in my younger years I would have taken "ocing to be as fast" as a challenge. Now a days I just want to pop a chip in and go. I saved $850+ back in the day by Ocing my operon 144 to 3.0GHZ(which was where the FX64 was). With Zen 3 I hope that the 8c chips will have the headroom to reach the 16c clock speeds or more then we will be able to likely match Intels Rocket lake. Might have to get back into the OC game.

karma777police:

As I said, it will beat the crap out of new Zen 3 in gaming and anything requiring up to 8/16 which is 98% of scenarios today.

Definition of fanboy right here. Please remember though these chips won't be here till March at the earliest which is what 4/5 month away? By then AMD will be prepping Zen3+ possibly for launch Q2 2021. So 11k series will be up against it also. It's good for the consumer with prices and performance. I often switch from Intel to AMD an back an forth depending who's doing the best.

k3vst3r:

Definition of fanboy right here. Please remember though these chips won't be here till March at the earliest which is what 4/5 month away? By then AMD will be prepping Zen3+ possibly for launch Q2 2021. So 11k series will be up against it also. It's good for the consumer with prices and performance. I often switch from Intel to AMD an back an forth depending who's doing the best.

The AMD CPU's seem to be coming out around every 14 months or so, "time will tell, sooner or later time will tell..."\ As for Userbench it's the worst benchmark one can use, even having an application like a web browser open can cause your score to plummet, also it gives zero PC specification so fk knows how they are configured thats how great the benchmark it is. In the past Zen 2 was configured with dual 2133MHz Ram as part of the leaks.

nizzen:

Nice! Give us the benchmark numbers in the games that 5600x is faster, so we can try to close the gap with overclocking 😉

Closing gap on 65W by OCing 10700k to point it consumes 160W? GG, what a value proposition.

UserBenchmark is useful as a weak but comprehensive pecking order. If you look at the lists of which is best, the order of CPUs and GPUs is a pretty fair estimation. (all benches averaged out) As for our individual numbers and "motorboat" scores, useless...

Stopped reading after saw userbenchmark....

0blivious:

UserBenchmark is useful as a weak but comprehensive pecking order. If you look at the lists of which is best, the order of CPUs and GPUs is a pretty fair estimation. (all benches averaged out) As for our individual numbers and "motorboat" scores, useless...

Considering its proven UserBenchmark fudge their own scores for money I wouldn't take any info from that site

This seems really strange that Intel would have such a low frequency and low core count on their top parts, theres something wrong with it regardless of its performance. We'll get answers in the coming months. hurr duhh Intel wins again... in like 9 months time when AMD will just drop its prices which will seem ideal considering they went up

karma777police:

As I said, it will beat the crap out of new Zen 3 in gaming and anything requiring up to 8/16 which is 98% of scenarios today.

Karma karma karma 99% of the time you make up 100% incorrect numbers. 98% of the time you spew 100% BS around the forum. 99.5% of the time you post to 100% troll the forum. 100% of the time you are 100% useless to the forum. Just to add some useless, made up percentages, as you do.

I guess it's a ES, well at least judging by the past on such early leaks. Final clock will be higher for sure.

Dazz:

The AMD CPU's seem to be coming out around every 14 months or so, "time will tell, sooner or later time will tell..."\ As for Userbench it's the worst benchmark one can use, even having an application like a web browser open can cause your score to plummet, also it gives zero PC specification so fk knows how they are configured thats how great the benchmark it is. In the past Zen 2 was configured with dual 2133MHz Ram as part of the leaks.

It looks like AMD might be able to bring XT in the middle of next year though. Doesn't look like what they'll release is the best they can do binning wise (power and temp looks very good) and they'll likely be able to bin for half a year and then get another 3-5% over the 5800 and 5900. I hate binning like that but both Intel and nVidia have been doing it for age so even playing field sadly. The Zen 2 XT were uninteresting because AMD was already on top workstation wise and gaming wise they were just too far to make any difference but depending on were they'll stand this time XT models could bring them back on par. Ultimately personally i think it's kind of pointless to make any statement before 3rd party reviews. It's just assumption. If you build this fall and AMD is better than go AMD. If you build next year then wait for Intel and see where their new CPUs stand.

karma777police:

As I said, it will beat the crap out of new Zen 3 in gaming and anything requiring up to 8/16 which is 98% of scenarios today.

Ehehehe. Nice trolling! 🙂

Poor Intel... the situation is so critical that now they need to compare gains from an I9 to I7.... The lowest Ryzen 5600 is faster than the 10900k at USD 200... I am really curious to see what prices they will sell this waste 14nm+++++ (lost the count) CPUs...