Competition is a wonderful thing. Hopefully we get a real competition going and it leads to both AMD and Intel dropping their prices

The Goose:

I thought about changing to Amd 3900x from my i7 7700k but for just 5-10 extra fps in the games i play its not worth the money i`d lose selling my current cpu, Asus Prime z270a mobo and 32gig Corsair V pro rgb ddr4 3200, also i dont think the extra bandwidth for my Corsair MP600 2tb would make a massive impact on my life

I think this is very important and not enough people look at things this way. I get the feeling that many (if not most) buy a CPU solely on the basis of the FPS in a few games, mostly those they play, and the margin of difference is going to be just a few frames per second at most resolutions. That makes very little sense to me. Mostly because I never play anything at lower resolution except for on my laptop. For the most part, if you use higher than HD resolution there will be no discernible difference in FPS between CPUs on the same video card so what's the point? I like competition so I will buy from whom ever is the "underdog" in the battle. Buying from the leader does not encourage competition. The exception to this is video cards. Since I do a fair amount of CUDA programming I will be getting a card from Nvidia. I definitely would not if I had a viable alternative but for programming in CUDA the only options I have are differing prices.

Even with gaming at higher than 1080p, you can still see improvements that are noticeable. switched from 3770K and 32gb@2133 to R5 3600 with 16gb@3600, both with 1080@2ghz, and my min frames in siege went from 30-40 fps to +60. even when limiting cpu to 2.2ghz on all cores, win still feels snappier than it was on the i7.

fry178:

Even with gaming at higher than 1080p, you can still see improvements that are noticeable. switched from 3770K and 32gb@2133 to R5 3600 with 16gb@3600, both with 1080@2ghz, and my min frames in siege went from 30-40 fps to +60. even when limiting cpu to 2.2ghz on all cores, win still feels snappier than it was on the i7.

Good for you, but isn't it weird to compare decade old Intel tech with latest AMD tech?

cryohellinc:

Don't. It's a waste of cash and you know it. Your current CPU is perfectly capable, wait this year out and see what happens. Upgrading to 14nm is pointless, down the road core clock won't matter that such - core could will and it will be the most future proof approach. Next year we may see something new from Intel on 7nm EUV, or (doubt it) 10nm. Slap on top of it AMD will release Zen 3 late this year/early next year.

Yeah... I'd be building a new rig sooner but I decided I'll wait out for Ryzen 3K. Even though it's a pita to not be able to upgrade until probably 2021 (availability of AMD CPUs.........), it's more the itch than thinking I need a new one because of horrible performance. With my post I tried to say, I won't buy Intel's current lineup for the price they have. Even 200$ off (~300€) I'd not be sold on a 9900K.

my response was for ppl stating that cpu upgrades for fps sake dont make sense. in my case it allowed the gpu perform much better, i dont have frame drops anymore, and no probs running siege at 1440p with avg of 75 (steady,vsync) when before 60 wasnt even possible on avg. not even mentioning what crap intel offers me at 200$

wavetrex:

...which is precisely until the moment Zen 2 products officially launched and entered the market at retail + Intel is not just CPUs. A lot of that cash flow is from their many, many subdivisions... network, modems, tons of Flash memory and Optane, licensing, etc. etc. Their CPU division sales however is dropping like meteorites every month that passes... both in consumer and enterprise, with very few large installations (supercomputing) continuing to buy Intel, the large majority of announced new supercomputers are based on Rome (Zen 2) Many datacenters are still buying plenty of Xeons, due to inertia of their management, but that won't last long if Intel keeps getting beaten in performance and price so badly. And until right now, their Laptop/mobile products division had basically little to no competition. That is about to change in a BIG way with new Zen2 laptop CPUs/APUs coming, 8 cores on mobile, for half the price of Intel ones... (and better power efficiency, better performance too) Let's see the numbers for this year, then we can talk about it.

till we see numbers, all is just as good as our personal guesses, which is likely not the fact/true so if u feel what ur opinion is the fact, show number and we can all agree with that (u saying it urself) other than that else as good as bs back to topic, well everything is better this way, good-company-rivals = better for consumer now AMD need to hit nvidia too, sooner is better

Khronikos:

3770K here, and I am doing fine. But not gonna lie. Probably going AMD next time. Hell, you can still use Win 7 on some of them, though, by then I probably will be forced to switch anyway.

Holding on my 2500K here. Some games with many mobs punish CPU a lot, still getting playable frames. Wish I got 2600k.... those 8 threads makes life easier.

I went in 2018 from 3570K to 3770K just for CPU bound games like AC:Origins because it was such a stuttering fest. I felt some improvement, but still the CPU was mostly pegged at 90 to 100%. Then I crossed the red river and got the Ryzen 2700. The difference became night and day, since there were so many threads available and everything felt so much more responsive. The idea is that the old quad cores are just not worth keeping anymore. Better switch to 6-8 cores either from AMD or Intel. Gaming sucks on 4 cores.

sverek:

Holding on my 2500K here. Some games with many mobs punish CPU a lot, still getting playable frames. Wish I got 2600k.... those 8 threads makes life easier.

I had 2500k 4.7hgz and i thought the same, shame i didnt get 2600k. Back then no one thought they will need more than 8threads but sold it and went with 12threads 3930k, best choise i ever made, it felt smoother even on stock than my burning 2500k.

tty8k:

Lol, they can barely keep up with stock/production what are you talking about

If their sales numbers were truly good, they wouldn't be cutting prices. That's just basic economics. By limiting stock you can keep prices high, because you are only selling to the segment of market willing to pay those high prices. But this causes revenue and sales to tank. Intel is riding on brand recognition right now but that never lasts forever and people will buy the superior product eventually. Just like Nintendo in the late 90s/early 00s, who also did the limit stock and talk about how you are "sold out everywhere!" game.

tty8k:

I think they ran out of stock because of no competition, first ryzen series were not that great. Why would you limit your stock when you sell like mad at that price anyway, and your competitor is nowhere near? Sales and revenue to tank? It sure looks like that breaking profit numbers ....

Intel is doing well right now, but they will lose market share in the future. A price adjustment is necessary to keep their consumer products somewhat competitive with AMD, just like with the X-series. There's a reason why Swan is expanding the business into the wider silicon market - they know that their dominance in the CPU market will soon be coming to an end.

I will believe it, when I see it! Currently Cascade-X prices are being gouged due to the Intel shortage. Even so, the price structure for current CPU's is too high to justify buying Intel. Intel 16 core is still around $899, while AMD's is $749. Intel's 12 Core is $699 while AMD is $499. Time for Intel to "Put up, or shut up" Waiting six months and Ryzen 4000 series will just about be ready to release...

The Goose:

I thought about changing to Amd 3900x from my i7 7700k but for just 5-10 extra fps in the games i play its not worth the money i`d lose selling my current cpu, Asus Prime z270a mobo and 32gig Corsair V pro rgb ddr4 3200, also i dont think the extra bandwidth for my Corsair MP600 2tb would make a massive impact on my life

yeah its very minimal for avg fps improvements, but overall stability is way better, check frametimes and 1% lows

anticupidon:

This situation reminds me of the Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4 era. then Core2Duo emerged. Hope that Intel wakes up and gets a grip of the reality. They need it, we need it. Competition is always in our benefit. Until then, I am just enjoying my 3700X.

sure they could come up with a core0.5duo this time around, silicon keeps getting exponentially harder to improve, so at this rate AMD will do the same in response, they seem equally capable now

tty8k:

Lol, they can barely keep up with stock/production what are you talking about

Can barely keep up with production... of server and mobile chips. The reason that desktop chips are in short supply is because almost all of their fab capacity is full of gigantic server die wafers and mobile CPUs, where they actually make their money. If you want to see real shortages, look no further than the 3 month wait time to get a server delivered that we were seeing last year. They don't really care much about the desktop market, and haven't for a few years. Between being lower priority and the larger die size they have needed in order to compete with AMD (meaning fewer chips per wafer), they are just not willing to put out more desktop chips, thus creating a shortage there. That's why they are shipping "F" SKUs made up of chips that would have been binned into salvage before this shortage - they won't give up more wafer production to fill desktop orders, so they resorted to selling literal trash instead to try and get product out. If we see any price drops on the desktop side, it will be because they are shifting mobile to 10nm and freeing up some production. Even with that, they won't prioritize desktop until after their server backlog is filled. I would not expect to see a lot of price reductions on the desktop end of things as a result. This is where AMD's tech absolutely shines - they make ONE chiplet design at 7NM, and it fills ALL of their needs. They don't need to re-tool an assembly line to swap between server, HEDT, and desktop chips like Intel does.

Debating if i should buy a video card upgrade for my Intel I7 7700 next month for birthday, ((current video card Geforce 1050 2gb)) EVGA 1660 Super, or if i should skip that and wait and see what happens in 2021 and do a whole system upgrade to maybe AMD Ryzen based Bought this Intel System in September 2017 after purchasing a year before a Cheap Refurbed Asus M32CD AMD FX 8310 system, and it still lagged me alot in games, could've been the video card that was in that one, not sure, R7 240, came across more money in August 2017, i was like ok buying faster system, Friend suggested i go back to Intel then, so i was like ok, and bought this Asus G11CD Someday maybe will go back to AMD based, but not sure when though

Depends your games and what the card delivers right now. I sold my 1080 and used a backup gtx570 was able to run siege, but not at 1440p since it only has 1gb vram. As long as you dont have problems getting steady fps at native res, upgrade cpu/board and be ready for e bigger gpu when the time comes. And even if you get x570 and 3xxx cpu, you wull have at least one upgrade option without board swap.

Yeah right now games are Need For Speed Payback, GTA V, Battlefield 4, American Truck Simulator and Euro Truck SImulator 2, decent framerate yes right now, resolution 1080P, 1920x1080 on my newer Monitor, Asus VG245H, So guess if comes down to it, could hold off on video card upgrade, and continue saving money for x570 based system if i choose to.

Doesn't matter the discount for many people, last gen PCIe and security flaws hold these back compared to the competition, as it stands today.