nizzen:

Do you have benchmark of that? If no, why lie?

Why yes, I do, as a matter of fact-- the 3950x laying the smack down on the 10980xe in 3d Mark. Its no lie my man, why spew venom at me? The 3950x is going to be $200 to $250 cheaper, far more efficient, and equal or better single and multicore performance than the 10980xe. Its a fact, be honest and admit it-- there absolutely no reason to pay $250 more for less performance and less efficiency. https://www.techpowerup.com/260317/amd-ryzen-9-3950x-beats-intel-core-i9-10980xe-by-24-in-3dmark-physics

jortego128:

Why yes, I do, as a matter of fact-- the 3950x laying the smack down on the 10980xe in 3d Mark. Its no lie my man, why spew venom at me? The 3950x is going to be $200 to $250 cheaper, far more efficient, and equal or better single and multicore performance than the 10980xe. Its a fact, be honest and admit it-- there absolutely no reason to pay $250 more for less performance and less efficiency.

That is not an official benchmark. Intel had way lower memorypeed than Amd. It's apple vs orange "test" My 7980xe is getting 37-38k in that cpubenchmark. (Physics bench) 10980xe is not slower than 2 years old 7980xe. Try again 😉

Stop fighting, the good news is that I'll be reviewing all the procs mentioned. Make your choices then, not now.

Thanks in advance HH!!! 🙂

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Stop fighting, the good news is that I'll be reviewing all the procs mentioned. Make your choices then, not now.

When?

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Stop fighting, the good news is that I'll be reviewing all the procs mentioned. Make your choices then, not now.

Wise words, Sir! Looking forward to the reviews. Methinks Intel 'will be busy in all forums' once the reviews come out 😉

Mesab67:

Wise words, Sir! Looking forward to the reviews. Methinks Intel 'will be busy in all forums' once the reviews come out 😉

Lots of people want PCIe too, not everyone is using just GPU and one M.2 drive, some people have more device or want to add but cant. AMD 16 core is great CPU for both gaming and work, but Intel after lowering its prices now offers HEDT amount of PCIe lanes for CPUs starting from 500USD, its a big plus. AMD/Intel need to give a consumer platform at least x16,x8,x4,x4 and between then couple x1 slots and at least two m.2 full speed slots that dont get disabled and 6-8 SATA ports and one U.2, and all connected to CPU of course. Personally thats all I need.

Good processors. Very bad prices. At current prices they are both massive ripoffs. 3960X = 2x 3900X ... it should cost $999 ... $1099 3970X = 2x 3950X ... it should cost $1499 ... $1699 The markups for the platform are plain disgusting ( +$400, +$500 ). Just $100-200 markup would be more acceptable. I expect the entire media to blast them for terrible pricing... and most likely they'll drop soon after launch, because at this price people would just build AM4 systems with 3900X and 3950X and forget TR exists, or look at Intel's new 10-series with their lower prices.

nizzen:

That is not an official benchmark. Intel had way lower memorypeed than Amd. It's apple vs orange "test" My 7980xe is getting 37-38k in that cpubenchmark. (Physics bench) 10980xe is not slower than 2 years old 7980xe. Try again 😉

Its very silly to claim you only will consider "official" benchmarks and then right after that lay claim to one of the highest 7980xe FSE physics scores in the world (as if that would be realistic). You have to overclock the piss out of the 7980xe to get 38k in FSE physics-- in fact, thats better than the #4 fastest score of all time, hardly an "official" benchmark (which you claimed you wanted to see). How stupid do you think people are? Gn only got a 35000 score with a 4.6GHz OC, while drawing ~500W-- stock score was 26474. To score ~38k you would have needed at least a 4.8GHz OC or higher, which would draw way over 500W. The 10980xe is just a rebranded 7980xe with perhaps a bit better binning and some security patches. Its not getting close to the scores you claim under normal operation. Its not even getting there with a moderate overclock, you are talking extreme OC to get to 38000. It will indeed still take some kind of OC to reach 32000 with a 10980xe. If you want to save $250 and yet still have a faster, more efficient chip with no need to OC, a 3950x is an easy choice.

wavetrex:

3960X = 2x 3900X ... it should cost $999 ... $1099 3970X = 2x 3950X ... it should cost $1499 ... $1699

I'm not going to pretend to know what AMDs margins are, however, your idea that they are only "2x" or something else is wrong, and has nothing to do with individual markups. The 3900x vs 3950x for instance have the same dies in them just some cores disabled, therefore, the "markup" of the 3950x is higher then the "markup" of the 3900x Why state this you ask? Because the 3900x and 3950x both have 2 dies (not including the IO die) AKA same relative cost. And if you base their "markup" on how many dies they have, which you seem to be doing because you believe that more cores = linear cost increase and should have linear "markup", then: 3900x and 3950x have 2 dies and range from $500-$750 3960x and 3970x have 8 dies, and according to your linear idea of what markup should be, should therefore cost $2000-$3000 How many cores a product on AMDs lineup doesn't denote costs or markup. There's really nothing overpriced about these processors. Was i hoping they'd be a little lower? Sure. But high-end products have high-end pricing because not as many people will buy them and therefore the margin needs to be higher to offset the higher overhead cost. And they pretty much fit right in line with with even Intels lowered pricing. But again, to make it exceptionally clear, cores do not denote margins, markup, or costs. If i were in your shoes with your line of thinking i'd be more upset that the Althon 3000G is releasing at $50, and has 2 cores in it. Which in your line of thinking would mean: 2 cores = $50 4 cores = $100 8 cores = $200 16 cores = $400 24 cores = $600 32 cores = $800 Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

wavetrex:

Good processors. Very bad prices. At current prices they are both massive ripoffs. 3960X = 2x 3900X ... it should cost $999 ... $1099 3970X = 2x 3950X ... it should cost $1499 ... $1699 The markups for the platform are plain disgusting ( +$400, +$500 ). Just $100-200 markup would be more acceptable. I expect the entire media to blast them for terrible pricing... and most likely they'll drop soon after launch, because at this price people would just build AM4 systems with 3900X and 3950X and forget TR exists, or look at Intel's new 10-series with their lower prices.

I believe AMD does this to catch the OLD Intel clients that same people that were buyiung the 18 core for 2K last years, AMD wants them to buy their 32 core This year, because there is no Alternative from Intel Im 99% sure thats how their pricing/marketing teams brainstormed

jortego128:

Its very silly to claim you only will consider "official" benchmarks and then right after that lay claim to one of the highest 7980xe FSE physics scores in the world (as if that would be realistic). You have to overclock the piss out of the 7980xe to get 38k in FSE physics-- in fact, thats better than the #4 fastest score of all time, hardly an "official" benchmark (which you claimed you wanted to see). How stupid do you think people are? Gn only got a 35000 score with a 4.6GHz OC, while drawing ~500W-- stock score was 26474. To score ~38k you would have needed at least a 4.8GHz OC or higher, which would draw way over 500W. The 10980xe is just a rebranded 7980xe with perhaps a bit better binning and some security patches. Its not getting close to the scores you claim under normal operation. Its not even getting there with a moderate overclock, you are talking extreme OC to get to 38000. It will indeed still take some kind of OC to reach 32000 with a 10980xe. If you want to save $250 and yet still have a faster, more efficient chip with no need to OC, a 3950x is an easy choice.

Physics Score, not total score... Physics benchmark is the cpu test 🙂 https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/fire+strike+physics+score/version+1.1

Aura89:

3960x and 3970x have 8 dies, and according to your linear idea of what markup should be, should therefore cost $2000-$3000

You are wrong, they have 4 dies, the exact same dies used in 3900x and 3950x These are NOT EPYC cpus with full 8 dies ! The entire Zen2 system is designed to be "cut" in half/quarter depending on market: EPYC = 8 memory channels, 6-8 IF links to 6-8 x (4-6-8c) dies TR(2019) = 4 memory channels, 4 IF links to 4x 6-8 dies so half-size I/O die TR(2020) ... if it will be introduced, it will use the EPYC layout. But TODAY's TR does NOT use that. Ryzen 7, 9 = 2 memory channels, 1-2 IF links to 1 or 2 dies of 6-8c) so quarter-size I/O die, and those with two are 3900x, 3950x So.. TR 3960X, 3970X is almost exactly double of the silicon real estate of 3900X, 3950X... but costs 33-40% more than double (1400 instead of 1000, 2000 instead of 1500) Let's see the Der8auer delid video when these are released, and find out who is right. I'm 99.999% I will be, since using only 4 dies instead of 8 is exactly the same procedure as 3600, 3700X, 3800X use... just 1 die instead of 2. It makes no sense at all to use "dummy" ones in Zen 2 design !

wavetrex:

You are wrong, they have 4 dies, the exact same dies used in 3900x and 3950x These are NOT EPYC cpus with full 8 dies !

Without proof there's no reason to expect AMD would do anything different then what they have previously done with threadripper. Regardless, it doesn't matter, as i stated, if you're upset with this, then why are you not upset that 32 core CPU is not $800 based off of the Ryzen 3000g? Why are you not mad that the 6 core 3600 is $200, yet twice the cores on the 3900 is not $400, rather is $500? etc. etc. etc. i can find countless scenarios like this. Again, it doesn't work the way you are apparently visualizing.

nizzen:

Physics Score, not total score... Physics benchmark is the cpu test 🙂 https://www.3dmark.com/hall-of-fame-2/fire+strike+physics+score/version+1.1

Yes, Im just pointing out that your "38000" physics score is not typical or remotely normal. Sorted by physics its still top 60 on the planet. Sorted by total score it equals 4th on the planet. Getting more than that requires delidding and active cooling or something like LN2. Heres some more benches, once again the 3950x is beating the 10980xe.

Aura89:

Without proof there's no reason to expect AMD would do anything different then what they have previously done with threadripper.

http://dl.wavetrex.eu/2019/tr3000.jpg How about this for proof ? It comes straight from AMD's presentation video: [youtube=JFd-UodssUc] Charging $400 and $500 more than it should just because they can and Intel has no response. Capitalism 101.

wavetrex:

http://dl.wavetrex.eu/2019/tr3000.jpg How about this for proof ? It comes straight from AMD's presentation video: [youtube=JFd-UodssUc] Charging $400 and $500 more than it should just because they can and Intel has no response. Capitalism 101.

I like how you continue to not answer why you're not upset that this has been how it works everywhere, with every company, always. Including, but by far not limited to, other Ryzen 3000 processors, of which i have made multiple examples for, that you're not upset about, but for some reason, you're upset about threadripper, which is literally no different then every other example i have made. But you apparently won't reply about those exact same examples. Again, the way you feel it should work is never and will never be the way it will be.

jortego128:

Yes, Im just pointing out that your "38000" physics score is not typical or remotely normal. Sorted by physics its still top 60 on the planet. Sorted by total score it equals 4th on the planet. Getting more than that requires delidding and active cooling or something like LN2. Heres some more benches, once again the 3950x is beating the 10980xe.

Yet again they use 2666mhz ram Try 4266 that is official supported 😉

Not sure if this is old news tho https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Ryzen-9-3950X-beats-pricier-Intel-Core-i9-10980XE-and-Core-i9-9980XE-in-Geekbench.442122.0.html

nizzen:

Yet again they use 2666mhz ram Try 4266 that is official supported 😉

2933 is max for i9-10980XE, even if motherboard says higher.