warlord:

It will be a disastrous age for blue team. 2019 will be the most important year for Intel's future.

Seriously...AMD gradually crawling out of the near infinite crevice they dug for themselves with Bulldozer and acquiring ATi, doesn't automatically imply a bad time for Intel. Just time for them to pay some attention to the market , maybe actually releasing something the market wants (oh to hell with 'the' market, just what WE want LOL), instead of mirroring what the competition does.

Venix:

Who buys a 32 core for gaming???? Also even if you do fork 1500 for a cpu alone it is safe to asume you are aiming for 4k... where the perfomance is identical across all cpus, almost ..... That said if anyone buy this just for gaming then....he is an idiot ! With money to burn though!

I always find it funny when people mention gaming for HEDT CPUs. It's like criticizing a quad-core CPU for being slow at rendering. "I am not a AMD fanboy but Intel is still the slower of the two, even at 5+ GHz they still can't match AMD's faster 32-core in rendering." 😛 All kidding aside, I'm curious to know who would want to buy a 32-core consumer CPU? Even a 16-core CPU is overkill for most things, and it's not like prosumer apps will scale perfectly. I may be wrong in thinking this, but CPUs like the 2990X might be more of a status symbol than anything else (at least until multi-core apps catch up).

Witcher29:

I still prefer intel cpu,s for gaming.

....and? You can prefer anything you want, that's your prerogative, as i said in the previous post. Doesn't mean squat to the topic at hand about what you "prefer" vs reality of the performance of CPUs. Are you going to tell me next that your 1-wheel drive car is better then my 4 wheel drive car since that 1 wheel drive can spin in the air faster then the 4 wheel drive car?

I'm even more curious what the 16-core refresh will be capable of. 32 is nice for serious content creators (4K editors, encoders, 3D rendering), but for the most of us is overkill. On the other hand a 16-core that can do 4.3-4.4 Ghz on a few of those cores in normal circumstances would be awesome !

I think it's going to be 2X2700X at least with 200W TDP. My guess: CB R15 1T:184 points CB R15 Multi: 3630 points CB R15 Multi OC: 3800 points.

Aura89:

....and? You can prefer anything you want, that's your prerogative, as i said in the previous post. Doesn't mean squat to the topic at hand about what you "prefer" vs reality of the performance of CPUs. Are you going to tell me next that your 1-wheel drive car is better then my 4 wheel drive car since that 1 wheel drive can spin in the air faster then the 4 wheel drive car?

Performance is reality and Intel has the performance crown still in 2018. Never lost it per same core/thread CPU from AMD. Games love Intel for a reason. Only an idiot or an autistic person would choose a ryzen+ 2600X over i7 8700(non-k). Average person do not give a sh** about threads count. I am sorry but I have PC since 90s and those pros like me have more realistic needs than e-peen and glorious task manager's cpu performance stats count boxes in late windows. AMD is near, goes aggressively towards Intel but they are not prepared.

warlord:

Performance is reality and Intel has the performance crown still in 2018. Never lost it per same core/thread CPU from AMD. Games love Intel for a reason. Only an idiot or an autistic person would choose a ryzen+ 2600X over i7 8700(non-k). Average person do not give a sh** about threads count. I am sorry but I have PC since 90s and those pros like me have more realistic needs than e-peen and glorious task manager's cpu performance stats count boxes in late windows. AMD is near, goes aggressively towards Intel but they are not prepared.

I would not call someone who sees $100 difference in prices of those 2 chips. Following sounds weird and out of place, man: "pros like me".

warlord:

Performance is reality and Intel has the performance crown still in 2018. Never lost it per same core/thread CPU from AMD. Games love Intel for a reason. Only an idiot or an autistic person would choose a ryzen+ 2600X over i7 8700(non-k). Average person do not give a sh** about threads count. I am sorry but I have PC since 90s and those pros like me have more realistic needs than e-peen and glorious task manager's cpu performance stats count boxes in late windows. AMD is near, goes aggressively towards Intel but they are not prepared.

That's funny, since the average person would do just fine with a 2600X. You talk about reality but the actual reality is that most gamers play with a GPU cap; the strength of Intel CPUs is in low-resolution gaming but these are little more than synthetic tests, with very little relevance in the real world. Ask r/buildapc about a potential build and you will invariably get a configuration with a GPU cap (hardly anybody would recommend a 1080 Ti with a 1080p monitor). And if you want to talk about "pros", I've had a PC since the 80286 and I prefer AMD of late simply because they deliver far more performance for the buck (as old-time PCMR, my interests go far beyond just gaming). I'm a professional programmer and I hate the fact that my workplace still uses quad cores for developers - I'd rather have an octa-core or TR for professional workloads. And finally, Intel easily takes the cake for e-peen - the release of the 8700K was the ultimate e-peen contest, with shops offering binned and delidded CPUs for absurd prices (spending hundreds of dollars more for a 0.2 GHz difference), and the 8086K further exemplifies this (spend $70 more for a 0.2 GHz difference on one core, LOL). The closest thing that AMD has to being a e-peen purchase is the upcoming 2990X, although one can easily find a practical purpose for them (aside from heavy content creation, they can be used to mine Monero or facilitate scientific/medical research via BOINC/folding@home).

So to get this straight warlord... someone is stupid to get a 2600x over an 8700 non k? Why for the marginal better fps on 1080p? And that only with a 1080 or 1080 ti. If you have those cards or planning to get em you aim for at least 1440 p where the diference is gone already, now if you aim to pair the 8700 with the 1060 ....then for roughly the same money can get the 2600 and 1070 ....at the first case you save 100usd + and at the second case you spend the same and you are climbing at least atier on your gpu.... i guess you can go intel for their awesome spectre and meltdown support !

warlord:

Performance is reality and Intel has the performance crown still in 2018. Never lost it per same core/thread CPU from AMD. Games love Intel for a reason. Only an idiot or an autistic person would choose a ryzen+ 2600X over i7 8700(non-k). Average person do not give a sh** about threads count. I am sorry but I have PC since 90s and those pros like me have more realistic needs than e-peen and glorious task manager's cpu performance stats count boxes in late windows. AMD is near, goes aggressively towards Intel but they are not prepared.

@ least u think clear cant say that to everybody here in this forum.

warlord:

Performance is reality and Intel has the performance crown still in 2018. Never lost it per same core/thread CPU from AMD. Games love Intel for a reason. Only an idiot or an autistic person would choose a ryzen+ 2600X over i7 8700(non-k). Average person do not give a sh** about threads count. I am sorry but I have PC since 90s and those pros like me have more realistic needs than e-peen and glorious task manager's cpu performance stats count boxes in late windows. AMD is near, goes aggressively towards Intel but they are not prepared.

I'm sorry you're stuck in the past and/or in an alternative reality. I'm even more sorry you consider yourself a "pro". You do know that's not a title you can give to yourself right? You have clearly shown you do not care for the future of PCs, you say it right there even "Average person do not give a sh** about threads count." , you're calling yourself an average person, yet also calling yourself a "pro"? Logic defies you. But again you're defending this " @Witcher29 " guy for coming into a thread and saying he does not understand how people could think that AMD has the better bang for your buck....on a 32 core processor topic. Why? Because AMDs 32 core processor can't beat Intels 6 core in very specific, low resolution, low settings, with a very high end GPU, something that no one would even game at anyways? Umm... Again, i'll state what i stated in the very first place: You can't fault AMDs higher core count processors for not "beating" Intels 6-core processors in unrealistic foolish environments and sit there and pretend that Intels higher core processors can't "compete" in these unrealistic foolish environments as well. This is fact. If you're going to fault AMD for that, you're going to have to fault Intel for that as well, so at that point, where is the fault? And just a reminder for what is ACTUALLY being talked about here in terms of price for your performance: 32 core AMD estimated to be around $1500 18 core Intel: $2000 Hmmmm......... Yup, anyone who doesn't see the obvious there is purely blind or simply an Intel fanboi or, better yet, Intel employee.