AMD Confirms 3rd Gen Ryzen and Radeon Navi for Q3 2019 - Sensationalist Headlines

Don't forget the performance penalties with all these exploits that are out now exclusively for your Intel processor

Classically this, but because of how the AMD infinity fabric seems to work we really don't know if that's the case anymore. We'll see I guess.

-20% is fine. Perfectly fine.

Intel has switched to solder on their -K SKUs

Sadly in the scientific computing world Nvidia has a HUGE advantage because of CUDA

Even the latest games really like having single threaded performance, I don't think the 8-core 2700x beats the 6-core 8700k in a single game.

Are they doing it now or is it a future thing?

They started doing it with the 9th gen.

Eh, in some it does. Like Total: Warhammer and Civ VI. But the overall performance between the 2700x and 8700k (especially in 1440p and upwards) is almost identical. I mean, we're talking about +- 1 or 2 FPS here. Don't get me wrong, the 8700k is a really good CPU. But at this point I see AMD taking the lead with Zen 2.

about time

The difference becomes pretty large when you're CPU bound: https://www.techspot.com/review/1730-intel-core-i9-9900k-core-i7-9700k/page4.html Though, I'm not sure there's a lot of people who would sacrifice a lot of visual quality to play AAA games at 100+ fps.

Since I was just in the market for buying an old server for rendering and running other stuff, I can say without a doubt the higher core count would win in rendering over higher single core speed. Even the small difference in number of cores we were looking at made a big difference. It was between 2x 4c/8t and 2x 6c/12t, with the quad cores being 400Mhz higher on turbo boost, yet the quads only managed to get 75% of the total raw rendering power of the hexacores because there were simply more cores. So yes, different people will have different use cases, but for tasks like rendering, higher core count is king no matter what way you look at it.

Comparing the 9700K to the 2700X isn't really fair considering the 2700X costs almost 100USD less and comes with a really competent cooler, meanwhile the 9700K doesn't come with a cooler at all

The problem is with Gen 9 Intel's CPU prices went absolutely bonkers. The 8700k (which is really a great CPU) jumped from ~315€ to 470€. Yeah, it's at 370€ right now, but compare that to AMD's 2700x's price, which has been a steady 300€. Bottom line: That's more money you can put towards a good GPU, which is usually bottlenecking resolutions higher than 1080p.

It's a relevant comparison, it shows that a 9700k can have an advantage in certain situation. That extra $100 is worth it for some people. Neither CPU is good value for gaming though, a 2600/x is more than enough for most

I think you're forgetting the part where the rendering performance was similar between the CPUs I were talking about to begin with. I wasn't going to get more performance out of the choice with more cores.

It really depends on the application, but by this point AMD cores are close to Intel cores performance-wise, and AMD's SMT implementation is more efficient (read: AMD's Zen 1 cores are faster than they can be fed). And with the price of AMD cores being what they are ($25/ AMD Core vs $56/ Intel Core) you can just afford to buy more performance with AMD than on Intel. If you need the ST performance then just buy a 4 core Intel part and OC it to hell, and for your parallel tasks grab a dirt cheap 1950X, and run the respective tasks on the hardware they prefer.

Oh yeah they've definitely gone beyond Intel now.