I am sorry PC world. It’s been a while since I tuned into your videos.. and for that fact, any tech videos. It is good to see you Gordon? How are you? All good in da hood?
*R9-3900x user* Me in 2019: "it's got 12 cores. That should age nicely as games get more threaded" Me in 2024: "a new 6/8-core CPU is 2x as fast as my 12-core in some games? Sigh." (also me in 2024: "I've got enough games so I don't need new games anyway. I'll stick with the hardware I've got. R9-3900x + RTX4070")
Great to see you Gordon. The lack of any pricing is concerning. The last 3 launches have had psychotically high pricing and I worry Zen5 will be the same. I don't know why AMD does this because it makes them look poor in day 1 reviews and they always have to drop prices shortly after. The fact they're comparing the 9900x and not 9950x makes it even more likely that we're going to see yet another $700-$800 top chip.
He won't and if he does, it will be very carefully worded to make sure that his beloved Intel doesn't look too bad. Just look how he keeps doubting AMD in here but doesn't say anything about the many times that Intel has lied in benchmarks.
We've talked about it many times on The Full Nerd podcast and are always sure to bring it back up when there is new movement. After doing the video about Will's degraded 13900K we did testing afterward and it was still just too hard for us and our tools to lock down anything conclusive. -Adam
@@pcworld yes but originally when you talked about it the main idea was that the issue was motherboards being loose with power and voltage settings, but the Wendell /level1techs story is showing it happening in server/workstation motherboards that are much more locked down, I believe it deserves a revisit
*65 Watts means WATT then?* 8-core and 6-core have the same, 65W TDP? I could be wrong, but I thought the "TDP" measurement for modern CPU's meant the sustained, max power consumption at default settings. I've seen these things discussed, but they don't seem to really line up with the results people get when testing. But then MOTHERBOARDS often run CPU's hotter than the TDP calls for so... dunno. I studied electronics but I still don't quite know who to trust on this. But I'm still confused on how any of this can be true when an 8-core which has 33% more cores can draw the same amount of power. It won't be 33% more power as the I/O chip is a factor etc, but it should be more than what the 6-core draws. I can understand lumping different CPU's under the same TDP value if the "design point" is for the cooler itself. But that would suggest the 8-core draws no more than 65W and thus the 6-core would be closer to 50W which I doubt. Anybody got a handle on this?
TDP is meaningless. The 7700x is 90W TDP but if you enable PBO it's ~130W. Them not showing performance comparison with PBO on kind of suggests there might not be a big improvement there.
Actually the 14900k is afraid to use "all the wattage". These are comparisons to a 14900k that's been power limited to like 120w or so. Maybe 170w. Because of the crashes and defects in them now. New BIOS updates.
Its the 2 core boost that shoves high voltage into a stock chip. Many enthusiast instead locks it to all core 5.8GgHz at 1.32-1.4V and you can still unleash ALL the power with good cooling. Its very little chance of degrading this way since you need both high voltage and high temps to get the aggressive degradation some 0.1% users have probably gotten. 1.5V-1.65V Asus AI oc (terrible bad) at 105C can give chip degradation within 6 months. The smart way is to use the all core lock on the 14900k/F/KS models. By the way, this was how cpus were run for many years and I feel its still the best way to run even modern cpus.
@@impuls60 turns out it's likely not degradation that can be worked around. There is some fundamental defect on the 13th and 14th gen 👍 according to recent claims. But the main point here is that Zen5 isn't a huge upgrade to Zen4. People are going to be disappointed. AMD didn't show comparisons to a 7950x for a reason in a lot of workloads. Because it's likely only 5% to 10% faster the majority of the time.
@@impuls60 the heat doesn't help, but isn't required to experience degradation. I have gamer buddies who exclusively use phase change (sub-ambient cooling, negative degrees C) with no heat issues to be seen. Yet, despite the presence of significant heat, the chips are useless now due to degradation by high voltage. Asus AI OC was used in one case. This is after months of "no issue" use with locked voltages and frequencies. My 13900KF has been used with locked frequencies and voltage for a majority of it's life and games occasionally (often) still crash at startup.
@@impuls60take that .1% estimate of yours and multiply it 300 to 500 times and you’ll be much closer to the actual number. But don’t believe me, go check out level 1 tech. Or GN.
So. I have a 3950x. Do I go 5800x3d open box at micro for 239$ Or go complete 7800x3d bundle for $520 at Microcenter Or wait for the 9800x3d? Price? Who knows.? I'm planning on triple 4ks
You have a 16 core 3950X. Do you need all of those cores? If so, 5950X isn't a bad path if the price is right. Of course, if you need those cores-then the 9950X is even much better jump forward. However, if you "just play games" and an X3D would have been the better choice, then that price is quite a nice gaming upgrade provided your GPU is fast enough and you play games at the resolutions that tend to be more "CPU limited."
Gordon, you don't have R9K desktop price, well here's cost and price all gets down to where AMD sets the 'MSRP regulating price cap' if and only if the channel agrees with that on 1st degree pricing. Plus Gordon, you should have figured out the AMD and Intel cost : price / margin formula by now. Again I will state the basic formula that is easy to remember. The price of AMD CPUs to OEM and volume retail, any SKU, basic formula is MSRP / 3 * 1.5. and for Intel $1K price / 2. I want you please to foster awareness of this with the audience so every intro I don't have to go over something that should already be instilled; call the basic formula FTC monitor mike's basic formula for calculating AMD and Intel price to volume retail. Ryzen 9K again is a 1st degree price scheme that lets the channel test MSRP and then decide what to price at and, higher or lower over the long run administering price reduction to spur demand or in step with supply and demand. AMD does not offer price protection on prior gen CPUs in inventory or cash discounts. The AMD price competitive discount in an Intel head-on sales negotiation is typically made up in product. AMD throws in some bundle deal sales close incentive to sweeten a procurement or to present a competitive sales package in relation to Intel. On weighed average, R9K SKU split mirroring percent of SKUs supplies is more or less a repeat of R7K. Average price in a full line procurement is around $229 per CPU and I will confirm this when AMD announces the actual pricing. $1K AWP is $457.15 on SKU weight relying on R7K long run as the example, at less 50% that is OEM or volume retail price = $228.57. Now on the R9K leaked pricing, volume gross for a 16C = $353, 12C = $267. 8C = $214, 6C = $166 that suggests TSMC average price to AMD on full line supply weight is in the range of $152 t0 $165 with a 3D version adding $50 per 32 GB SRAM die. Now we can also plan the price slide from so said R9K introductory price. You will note from volume retail 16C = $353.04, 12C = @267.44, 8C = $213.94, 6C = 165.79 when you add +100% markup that is x2 this equals the so said R9K MSRP. So, it's not AMD taking + 100% margin it's volume retail and with retail in particular because they still have R7K and R5K in inventory to clear and the 'high rent' R9K margin makes up for their margin sacrifice discounting R7K and R5K to clear then from inventory. What AMD has done in mobile is to stack up R4/R5/R6/R7 primary and overage production volume on top of each other to create a 'price performance' graded sales heap and that may now be occurring in desktop. The top basically over time pushes the bottom of the heap out on clearance sale 'price reduction'. PC CPU and dGPU deflationary price slide continues into q1 2025 and all PC component and subsystem pricing continues to collapse basically making the deals better and better. End buyers get what they negotiate, it's a buyer's market, especially in a PC kit buy. Throw in some open box like a case and the toe total buy in drops even lower. Now for an OEM prebuilt the situation might be a bit different for that NEW R9K PC. This is because there's more competition among OEMs for a PC sale and its more difficult to get x2 cost for a NEW CPU from AMD in a prebuilt. Also, the various system components, including the last gen ones, GPUs in particular allow the SI some margin juggling in a PC sale. But for retail, yea, price out the gate x2 cost from AMD is ordinary. I mentioned the R9K sliding discount over time, well that's easy on a 1st degree 'consumer discriminatory' price scheme that discriminates against buyers who can afford, or can price justify that brand new x2 over cost priced R9K on business productivity cost offset for a brand-new performance CPU. So what's the discount from AMD price to the retail outlet after x2, well than its cost * 1.75, and cost * 1.66 and cost * 1.5 that is typically a peak production volume price (volume doubles price drops by < 50%) and then entering run down cost * 1.33 and cost * 1.25 and at the very end cost * 1.10 and entering clearance price to the end buyer = retail cost so the retail seller can clear their inventory that is exactly like now for R7K and R5K. Right now no volume retailer pays anything for 7700, 7600_, 5600_, pays a smidge over AMD cost for 58/5700X3D and 7800X3D and volume retail pays nothing for Hawk APUs they are all bundled into the total AMD procurement. Subsequently the retail outlets make 100% profit on these bundle deal CPUS from AMD and IF THE end buyer knew this they would have a lot more negotiation angles (especially on a kit purchase) BUT ONLY IF THEY KNOW and I have provided this counsel for 5 years and PC Media Land still refuses to say anything in terms of informing, educating end buyers, fostering knowledge on this buying knowledge. By the way for the Inter buyer all SKUs down bin 600Ks cost retail nothing So remember the basic volume cost rule. AMD = MSRP / 3 * 1.5 that is what volume retail pays on average. For Intel its $1K / 2. Gordon, please educate on this so I don't have to every next AMD or Intel introduction. This is really basic and everyone, certainly every enthusiast, should have this knowledge it's just an educational perquisite to know how to calculate seller CPU cost : price / margin. Otherwise on R9K price out the gate its all about where AMD places the price cap regulator for each SKU that is MSRP and whether or not the channel and end sales buy off on that price. mb
I am using a 5900X but on a B450-F mobo, so it's PCI-E 3.0 and DDR4. That does not seem to be much of a limitation so far, so I skipped Ryzen 7000. I might go for Ryzen 9000 though, because it's not just the PCI-E 5.0, but also DDR5 and new USB standards etc. I am not sure I'll use an Asus ROG mobo again though. The Asus mobo I had back in Sandy Bridge days was rock solid and won me over, but this one has been very janky. BIOS updates have improved it, but it was such a dog, e.g., not being able to configure resources for just three USB devices, so I would have to unplug and try various USB ports to find a combination that let the PC boot, or stop dropping USB devices when in use (keyboard, mouse, and audio recording interface). Less jank induced headaches, stability, and mobo component longevity matter more to me than a few extra FPS or slightly faster encoding etc. I am not sure which range of mobos does that best though. I told my nephew not to cheap out on his mobo, but he did not listen and bought a MSI B350 PC Mate. His budget mobo has been far more stable than my much more expensive one though. I dunno. Maybe because that mobo was not trying to win benchmarks in review videos, so they did not push the design into janky territory
The 14900K is not a good comparison, because it burns itself out after ~6 months. Compare with 12900K, the latest Intel CPU which was actually stable over time.
AMD vs INTEL desktop CPU decision making process in 2024.. 1) AMD makes solid CPU's that are power efficient, or 2) INTEL makes failing CPU's that use a lot power Hmmm... gosh... that's a tough one...
Gordon, there's just one thing missing from the video... What's the price? C'mon! You know you know the price, you just don't want to tell it to us! :P
I'm waiting on 5900XT benchmarks per watt, as I stuck between more cores on old platform or less cores on new. Most of what I do is work loads like VMs etc. 5950X and 7900 are all to power drinking and heat producing for me. But if the 5900XT is a 5950X without the cooking it pretty attractive given I have 2x 16GB DDR4 sticks in storage and an AM4 highend board is cheaper than a entry level AM5 board. I thinking budget over high-end power, gaming play no part as don't game on my main machine to many bugs and viruses in Windows. 9900X sound like over ki9ll for gaming and will not game as good as the 7800X3D anyway. The 9000's 65w TDP is a massive selling point living in England and with rocketing power costs. With Russia and Israel at war it not going to get cheaper as we rely still on oil.
4% in Borderline 3, is such a low number, i would not shout it out :) I wonder what´s the change in idle power usage is. Also why put the grey graph´s in this ?, just show AMD´s advantage numbers lol.
Somethings really really fishy with the benchmarks on these slides - Its looking to me like another dodgy bottlnecking like AMD did with its benchmarks recently of 5800XT and 5900XT CPUs - pairing with a Radeon 6600 - Quoting Techspot: (I would put the link but then this comment would disappear): To achieve this deception, AMD heavily GPU-limited their CPU testing, pairing all CPUs with the Radeon RX 6600, an entry-level, previous-generation GPU that's now three years old. This effectively levels the playing field, neutralizing any potential performance differences between the CPUs, resulting in nothing more than an RX 6600 benchmark. ... END QUOTE... Especially the recent slide showing the 9700X to be 12-ish % faster than a 5800X3d while in the same slide saying it would beat a 7800X3d by 2% in gaming.. This is very contradictory since most 3rd party benchmarks show the 7800x3d to be about 15-20% faster than the 5800X3d across a sampling of games... Techspot also has a great article comparing gaming benchmarks for 7800x3d vs 5800x3d which across a suite of 24 games shows the 7800x3d to be 18-20% faster at 1080p and 12-15% faster at 1440p... Seems like AMD may be either bottlenecking the test setup, cherry-picking or both.... Best to await independent 3rd party benchmarks before making purchase decisions... I am glad AMD is talking about lowering TDP and temps and am excited for Ryzen 9000 / Zen 5...
All we know so far is that AMD promised it is going to be "less or as expensive" as Ryzen 7000 hinting that some models pay receive a slight price drop if you compare launch prices.
@@matthiasmartin4355 Im sorry, i was joking/trolling/beind sarcastic. He repeats multiple times at beginning, he doesn't know the price. With all the scandals Intel has lately, they will probably be at least the price as the introduction price of last gen.
"Everything" ? You mean speeds, benchmarks, cpu prices and motherboard prices? You know, the things we are really interested on. Instant thumbs down even before watching the video!
Yeah…no. No IT dep cares about office performance. Office would probably have a hard time maxing your iphone 10. Also, i don’t know a lot of humans capable writing billion words a min - like a benchmark would probably need to see more than a 10% usage
Modern office applications tests no longer test "WPM" but usually system response time. I actually think IT people would like to see more performance metrics for client computing but they are not very accessible.
Gordon it’s so good to see you back. Wishing you all the best.
Great to see you providing new data in only the way that you can present it, Gordon. Keep up the good work and welcome back!
Good to see you Gordon!!
Appreciate the page flip. Seen a few summary vids, but I like the deep dive with the commentary. Thanks.
I am sorry PC world. It’s been a while since I tuned into your videos.. and for that fact, any tech videos.
It is good to see you Gordon? How are you? All good in da hood?
Still kicking homes...
Good to see you, man! Praying for you 🙏🏻❤
Gordon good to see you! Hope you are feeling well.
All hail Gordon!
Thanks, Gordon! Can't wait for the release date to swap my 7950x for a 9950x.
If 9800X3D follows what 7800X3D was compared to the 'normal' parts this is gonna be one of the best gaming CPUs in history
Nothing spells launch hype like 'G.O.R.D.O.N.' thanks for sharing!
You mean GordOn? KEKW
*R9-3900x user*
Me in 2019: "it's got 12 cores. That should age nicely as games get more threaded"
Me in 2024: "a new 6/8-core CPU is 2x as fast as my 12-core in some games? Sigh."
(also me in 2024: "I've got enough games so I don't need new games anyway. I'll stick with the hardware I've got. R9-3900x + RTX4070")
Thank you and welcome back Gordon!
Looking forward to it. I am hoping to get a 9700X, 9700X3D, or maybe a 9900X. Also really waiting to see JDEDC supported speeds of 6400+ in DDR5.
BEST TITLE EVER!
Great to see you Gordon. The lack of any pricing is concerning. The last 3 launches have had psychotically high pricing and I worry Zen5 will be the same. I don't know why AMD does this because it makes them look poor in day 1 reviews and they always have to drop prices shortly after. The fact they're comparing the 9900x and not 9950x makes it even more likely that we're going to see yet another $700-$800 top chip.
I hope the review embargoes lift a couple days before release. Great video!
Thank you for adding subtitle.
Thanks for this very detailed and wonderfully done video.
Would be funny if they just put DNF on all 14900K since they crash so often.
Just 12% uplift over my 5800x3D for a 9700x means I'm waiting for Ryzen 10k
Glad to see you back Gordon! I remember when you took over for The Vede. Best wishes for recovery. These CPUs look fantastic!
Pricing details would be nice AMD.
Gordon you need to cover the Intel CPU degradation issue
He won't and if he does, it will be very carefully worded to make sure that his beloved Intel doesn't look too bad.
Just look how he keeps doubting AMD in here but doesn't say anything about the many times that Intel has lied in benchmarks.
We've talked about it many times on The Full Nerd podcast and are always sure to bring it back up when there is new movement. After doing the video about Will's degraded 13900K we did testing afterward and it was still just too hard for us and our tools to lock down anything conclusive.
-Adam
@@pcworld yes but originally when you talked about it the main idea was that the issue was motherboards being loose with power and voltage settings, but the Wendell /level1techs story is showing it happening in server/workstation motherboards that are much more locked down, I believe it deserves a revisit
*65 Watts means WATT then?*
8-core and 6-core have the same, 65W TDP?
I could be wrong, but I thought the "TDP" measurement for modern CPU's meant the sustained, max power consumption at default settings. I've seen these things discussed, but they don't seem to really line up with the results people get when testing. But then MOTHERBOARDS often run CPU's hotter than the TDP calls for so... dunno. I studied electronics but I still don't quite know who to trust on this.
But I'm still confused on how any of this can be true when an 8-core which has 33% more cores can draw the same amount of power. It won't be 33% more power as the I/O chip is a factor etc, but it should be more than what the 6-core draws.
I can understand lumping different CPU's under the same TDP value if the "design point" is for the cooler itself. But that would suggest the 8-core draws no more than 65W and thus the 6-core would be closer to 50W which I doubt.
Anybody got a handle on this?
Commenting to hopefully see a response. Might be better to post this on a forum.
TDP is meaningless. The 7700x is 90W TDP but if you enable PBO it's ~130W.
Them not showing performance comparison with PBO on kind of suggests there might not be a big improvement there.
Guys, something tells me that he doesn't know the price.
👆
Goat lover.
@@newbiegain117 ?
They haven't released the price yet.
So many fives: Zen 5, AM5, PCIe 5.0, DDR5
Hey Gordon, How much are they going to cost?
Actually the 14900k is afraid to use "all the wattage". These are comparisons to a 14900k that's been power limited to like 120w or so. Maybe 170w. Because of the crashes and defects in them now. New BIOS updates.
Its the 2 core boost that shoves high voltage into a stock chip. Many enthusiast instead locks it to all core 5.8GgHz at 1.32-1.4V and you can still unleash ALL the power with good cooling. Its very little chance of degrading this way since you need both high voltage and high temps to get the aggressive degradation some 0.1% users have probably gotten. 1.5V-1.65V Asus AI oc (terrible bad) at 105C can give chip degradation within 6 months. The smart way is to use the all core lock on the 14900k/F/KS models. By the way, this was how cpus were run for many years and I feel its still the best way to run even modern cpus.
@@impuls60 turns out it's likely not degradation that can be worked around. There is some fundamental defect on the 13th and 14th gen 👍 according to recent claims.
But the main point here is that Zen5 isn't a huge upgrade to Zen4. People are going to be disappointed. AMD didn't show comparisons to a 7950x for a reason in a lot of workloads. Because it's likely only 5% to 10% faster the majority of the time.
@@impuls60 the heat doesn't help, but isn't required to experience degradation. I have gamer buddies who exclusively use phase change (sub-ambient cooling, negative degrees C) with no heat issues to be seen. Yet, despite the presence of significant heat, the chips are useless now due to degradation by high voltage. Asus AI OC was used in one case. This is after months of "no issue" use with locked voltages and frequencies.
My 13900KF has been used with locked frequencies and voltage for a majority of it's life and games occasionally (often) still crash at startup.
@@impuls60take that .1% estimate of yours and multiply it 300 to 500 times and you’ll be much closer to the actual number. But don’t believe me, go check out level 1 tech. Or GN.
So Gordon, Userbenchmark in full all out panic mode now?
No price?
What's the price, tho?!?!?!?!?!
At least several dollars per CPU.
So. I have a 3950x.
Do I go 5800x3d open box at micro for 239$
Or go complete 7800x3d bundle for $520 at Microcenter
Or wait for the 9800x3d? Price? Who knows.?
I'm planning on triple 4ks
You have a 16 core 3950X. Do you need all of those cores? If so, 5950X isn't a bad path if the price is right. Of course, if you need those cores-then the 9950X is even much better jump forward.
However, if you "just play games" and an X3D would have been the better choice, then that price is quite a nice gaming upgrade provided your GPU is fast enough and you play games at the resolutions that tend to be more "CPU limited."
@FakeGordonMahUng I'm just gaming. Sim Racing 100% of the time. I plan on upgrading to triple 4ks . I have a 4090.
9800x can be the 105w part. 9700 series should always be 65w.
Gordon, you don't have R9K desktop price, well here's cost and price all gets down to where AMD sets the 'MSRP regulating price cap' if and only if the channel agrees with that on 1st degree pricing.
Plus Gordon, you should have figured out the AMD and Intel cost : price / margin formula by now. Again I will state the basic formula that is easy to remember. The price of AMD CPUs to OEM and volume retail, any SKU, basic formula is MSRP / 3 * 1.5. and for Intel $1K price / 2. I want you please to foster awareness of this with the audience so every intro I don't have to go over something that should already be instilled; call the basic formula FTC monitor mike's basic formula for calculating AMD and Intel price to volume retail.
Ryzen 9K again is a 1st degree price scheme that lets the channel test MSRP and then decide what to price at and, higher or lower over the long run administering price reduction to spur demand or in step with supply and demand. AMD does not offer price protection on prior gen CPUs in inventory or cash discounts. The AMD price competitive discount in an Intel head-on sales negotiation is typically made up in product. AMD throws in some bundle deal sales close incentive to sweeten a procurement or to present a competitive sales package in relation to Intel.
On weighed average, R9K SKU split mirroring percent of SKUs supplies is more or less a repeat of R7K. Average price in a full line procurement is around $229 per CPU and I will confirm this when AMD announces the actual pricing. $1K AWP is $457.15 on SKU weight relying on R7K long run as the example, at less 50% that is OEM or volume retail price = $228.57. Now on the R9K leaked pricing, volume gross for a 16C = $353, 12C = $267. 8C = $214, 6C = $166 that suggests TSMC average price to AMD on full line supply weight is in the range of $152 t0 $165 with a 3D version adding $50 per 32 GB SRAM die.
Now we can also plan the price slide from so said R9K introductory price. You will note from volume retail 16C = $353.04, 12C = @267.44, 8C = $213.94, 6C = 165.79 when you add +100% markup that is x2 this equals the so said R9K MSRP. So, it's not AMD taking + 100% margin it's volume retail and with retail in particular because they still have R7K and R5K in inventory to clear and the 'high rent' R9K margin makes up for their margin sacrifice discounting R7K and R5K to clear then from inventory.
What AMD has done in mobile is to stack up R4/R5/R6/R7 primary and overage production volume on top of each other to create a 'price performance' graded sales heap and that may now be occurring in desktop. The top basically over time pushes the bottom of the heap out on clearance sale 'price reduction'. PC CPU and dGPU deflationary price slide continues into q1 2025 and all PC component and subsystem pricing continues to collapse basically making the deals better and better. End buyers get what they negotiate, it's a buyer's market, especially in a PC kit buy. Throw in some open box like a case and the toe total buy in drops even lower.
Now for an OEM prebuilt the situation might be a bit different for that NEW R9K PC. This is because there's more competition among OEMs for a PC sale and its more difficult to get x2 cost for a NEW CPU from AMD in a prebuilt. Also, the various system components, including the last gen ones, GPUs in particular allow the SI some margin juggling in a PC sale. But for retail, yea, price out the gate x2 cost from AMD is ordinary.
I mentioned the R9K sliding discount over time, well that's easy on a 1st degree 'consumer discriminatory' price scheme that discriminates against buyers who can afford, or can price justify that brand new x2 over cost priced R9K on business productivity cost offset for a brand-new performance CPU. So what's the discount from AMD price to the retail outlet after x2, well than its cost * 1.75, and cost * 1.66 and cost * 1.5 that is typically a peak production volume price (volume doubles price drops by < 50%) and then entering run down cost * 1.33 and cost * 1.25 and at the very end cost * 1.10 and entering clearance price to the end buyer = retail cost so the retail seller can clear their inventory that is exactly like now for R7K and R5K.
Right now no volume retailer pays anything for 7700, 7600_, 5600_, pays a smidge over AMD cost for 58/5700X3D and 7800X3D and volume retail pays nothing for Hawk APUs they are all bundled into the total AMD procurement. Subsequently the retail outlets make 100% profit on these bundle deal CPUS from AMD and IF THE end buyer knew this they would have a lot more negotiation angles (especially on a kit purchase) BUT ONLY IF THEY KNOW and I have provided this counsel for 5 years and PC Media Land still refuses to say anything in terms of informing, educating end buyers, fostering knowledge on this buying knowledge. By the way for the Inter buyer all SKUs down bin 600Ks cost retail nothing
So remember the basic volume cost rule. AMD = MSRP / 3 * 1.5 that is what volume retail pays on average. For Intel its $1K / 2.
Gordon, please educate on this so I don't have to every next AMD or Intel introduction. This is really basic and everyone, certainly every enthusiast, should have this knowledge it's just an educational perquisite to know how to calculate seller CPU cost : price / margin. Otherwise on R9K price out the gate its all about where AMD places the price cap regulator for each SKU that is MSRP and whether or not the channel and end sales buy off on that price.
mb
26 July 2024 news: AMD is slightly delaying its Ryzen 9000 desktop CPUs ‘out of an abundance of caution’ "directed by robert b weide" meme here
GORDAN: THE KING.
Gordon!!!!!
I am using a 5900X but on a B450-F mobo, so it's PCI-E 3.0 and DDR4. That does not seem to be much of a limitation so far, so I skipped Ryzen 7000. I might go for Ryzen 9000 though, because it's not just the PCI-E 5.0, but also DDR5 and new USB standards etc.
I am not sure I'll use an Asus ROG mobo again though. The Asus mobo I had back in Sandy Bridge days was rock solid and won me over, but this one has been very janky. BIOS updates have improved it, but it was such a dog, e.g., not being able to configure resources for just three USB devices, so I would have to unplug and try various USB ports to find a combination that let the PC boot, or stop dropping USB devices when in use (keyboard, mouse, and audio recording interface). Less jank induced headaches, stability, and mobo component longevity matter more to me than a few extra FPS or slightly faster encoding etc.
I am not sure which range of mobos does that best though. I told my nephew not to cheap out on his mobo, but he did not listen and bought a MSI B350 PC Mate. His budget mobo has been far more stable than my much more expensive one though. I dunno. Maybe because that mobo was not trying to win benchmarks in review videos, so they did not push the design into janky territory
The 14900K is not a good comparison, because it burns itself out after ~6 months. Compare with 12900K, the latest Intel CPU which was actually stable over time.
AMD vs INTEL desktop CPU decision making process in 2024..
1) AMD makes solid CPU's that are power efficient, or
2) INTEL makes failing CPU's that use a lot power
Hmmm... gosh... that's a tough one...
And AMD decided to postpone the release to May 5, 2025. Because it be even cooler.
Gordon, there's just one thing missing from the video... What's the price? C'mon! You know you know the price, you just don't want to tell it to us!
:P
I'm waiting on 5900XT benchmarks per watt, as I stuck between more cores on old platform or less cores on new. Most of what I do is work loads like VMs etc. 5950X and 7900 are all to power drinking and heat producing for me. But if the 5900XT is a 5950X without the cooking it pretty attractive given I have 2x 16GB DDR4 sticks in storage and an AM4 highend board is cheaper than a entry level AM5 board. I thinking budget over high-end power, gaming play no part as don't game on my main machine to many bugs and viruses in Windows. 9900X sound like over ki9ll for gaming and will not game as good as the 7800X3D anyway. The 9000's 65w TDP is a massive selling point living in England and with rocketing power costs. With Russia and Israel at war it not going to get cheaper as we rely still on oil.
Gordon is very thin!
Is Gordon healthy?
I hope he's fine.
The announcement to announce an announcement of another announcement thing is getting old. Just released the chips already!
Time to swap my Ryzen 1800X :)
Still no price? $350 9700X incoming.
4% in Borderline 3, is such a low number, i would not shout it out :) I wonder what´s the change in idle power usage is. Also why put the grey graph´s in this ?, just show AMD´s advantage numbers lol.
Somethings really really fishy with the benchmarks on these slides -
Its looking to me like another dodgy bottlnecking like AMD did with its benchmarks recently of 5800XT and 5900XT CPUs - pairing with a Radeon 6600 -
Quoting Techspot: (I would put the link but then this comment would disappear):
To achieve this deception, AMD heavily GPU-limited their CPU testing, pairing all CPUs with the Radeon RX 6600, an entry-level, previous-generation GPU that's now three years old. This effectively levels the playing field, neutralizing any potential performance differences between the CPUs, resulting in nothing more than an RX 6600 benchmark.
... END QUOTE...
Especially the recent slide showing the 9700X to be 12-ish % faster than a 5800X3d while in the same slide saying it would beat a 7800X3d by 2% in gaming.. This is very contradictory since most 3rd party benchmarks show the 7800x3d to be about 15-20% faster than the 5800X3d across a sampling of games...
Techspot also has a great article comparing gaming benchmarks for 7800x3d vs 5800x3d which across a suite of 24 games shows the 7800x3d to be 18-20% faster at 1080p and 12-15% faster at 1440p...
Seems like AMD may be either bottlenecking the test setup, cherry-picking or both....
Best to await independent 3rd party benchmarks before making purchase decisions...
I am glad AMD is talking about lowering TDP and temps and am excited for Ryzen 9000 / Zen 5...
Gordon. turn off your annoying sounds before you start recording. Do not Disturb mode. Cmon man.
It turned it self back on... 😮
You forgot to say anything about the price!
All we know so far is that AMD promised it is going to be "less or as expensive" as Ryzen 7000 hinting that some models pay receive a slight price drop if you compare launch prices.
@@matthiasmartin4355 Im sorry, i was joking/trolling/beind sarcastic. He repeats multiple times at beginning, he doesn't know the price. With all the scandals Intel has lately, they will probably be at least the price as the introduction price of last gen.
"Everything" ? You mean speeds, benchmarks, cpu prices and motherboard prices? You know, the things we are really interested on. Instant thumbs down even before watching the video!
also 13 and 14 series intel is a dumpster fire
Yeah…no. No IT dep cares about office performance. Office would probably have a hard time maxing your iphone 10.
Also, i don’t know a lot of humans capable writing billion words a min - like a benchmark would probably need to see more than a 10% usage
Modern office applications tests no longer test "WPM" but usually system response time.
I actually think IT people would like to see more performance metrics for client computing but they are not very accessible.
@@FakeGordonMahUng as in micro second vs nano second? I guess that would matter a lot for data from Star trek