9 months ago
Hey guys I’m debating between getting the 1600 or the 2600 I would like the 2600 but seriously is 10 more FPS worth $150? What do you guys think?
If you don't wanna pay for it, don't. Currently the price difference is $30
Right about that... extra $30 isn’t that much lol
If there's a $150 difference, definitely not worth it. But I think you should be debating whether you should get these or wait three weeks for third generation Ryzen.
my advice is, if you have an ok system already just wait, if you don't then go right ahead, the new Ryzen CPUs are going to be more expensive then 2nd generation, and their main take away as it seems right now is having more cores, which doesn't effect gaming very much if at all.
I don’t have a pc right now at this moment. This is going to be my first build and was trying to get a cheap build but that’s also very good so I was debating on which one I should get. I would like to get the 3rd generations but I think I can wait for it. :D
Nah, if the rumour that AMD is making 6 cores, 12 threads entry-level Ryzen CPUs, they will be straight up cheaper than the current first generation and second generation 6 core, 12 thread CPUs. That's because the new 6 cores 12 thread CPUs will be Ryzen 3, where as the old ones are Ryzen 5, so there's no way they'll price Ryzen 3s higher than Ryzen 5s, because they just won't be entry-level if they priced them like that. To illustrate my point, i5-7600, 4 cores, 4 threads, $210+ RRP, next generation, 4 cores, 4 threads became entry-level, i3-8100, $110+ RRP. CPUs are priced in relation with the current generation, not the previous generation(s), otherwise they'll only get forever more expensive as they develop. I don't expect third generation entry-level CPUs to be the same price as the 2200G, given inflation, R&D, plus a larger profit share, but I can't see them being more expensive than current Ryzen 5s. Even if the rumour turns out to be false, second generation will undoubtedly go on sale as the launch date closes in, otherwise it's just going to be leftover stock, so if there's no immediate need, waiting three weeks will see a potential price drop, it's still worth it, if you ask me.
Pricing of a new CPU has a lot more to do with the competition in the market and where that new CPU can be priced to offer a compelling value alternative to the competition.
The i3-8100 launch offering 4C/4T at the entry level, had nothing to do with the i5-7600, and everything to do with an alignment to offer a value alternative to AMD's product stack that was offering 6C/12T at i5-7600 prices and 4C/4T at less than the cost of an i3.
When Ryzen 3rd gen launches, AMD will price it into the existing market. There's no reason for them to offer a newer, better 6C/12T processor at lower prices than existing 6C/12T processors unless the market is offering competition to drive the price of that new product down.
If AMD gets a new 6C/12T product that they are calling a "Ryzen 3 3600" or similar, to market before Intel makes any big changes, they're going to price that product as high as they can get away with. I expect this to be a $200 product (give or take $20) on launch if it is as good or better than a 2600X.
There's also a very high likelihood, that the low end of the product stack will continue to be made up of 1st and 2nd gen Ryzens for many months after 3rd gen launch. It's feasible they will only begin shipping the high end products that fit into a slot ABOVE the 2700X for the first several months to tap into that $400+ segment of the CPU space on consumer platforms, and then role out lower SKU's as inventory of previous generation stuff is depleted, and/or as Intel responds with tougher competition in the low range.
No, the point was, being an i3, naturally, it would be cheaper than an i5, even though it was a newer generation and offered the same core and thread count. This is likely going to be the case for the new CPUs coming up. Yes, competition is a big factor, but I can't agree with "no reason for them to offer a newer, better 6C/12T processor at lower prices than existing 6C/12T processors" simply because, like I explained, if new Ryzen 3s had 6 cores, 12 threads and were more expensive than Ryzen 5s with 6 cores, 12 threads, they just won't be "entry-level" because the current Ryzen 5s are mid-level CPUs and aren't considered entry-level, so logically speaking, it makes no sense that entry-level are priced higher than mid-level CPUs. Yes, they're different generations, but it doesn't change the fact that they're aimed at a specific market segment with each generation, which is why an i3 from a new generation wouldn't be priced higher than an i5 from the last generation. If they did that, the prices would just constantly spiral up and entry-level would never be entry level since people can't enter at all. Entry-level isn't just about capability, it's about pricing too, specifically, entry-level means affordable pricing. We'll see soon enough, they're meant to be announced at Computex, so hopefully there'll be prices, but even if not, we're probably just over a month away from official release.
If I had to guess the price based on launch prices, with the Ryzen 3 1200 at $109, Ryzen 3 2200G at $99, Ryzen 5 1600 at $219 and Ryzen 5 2600 at $199, if next generation Ryzen 3 was 6 cores, 12 threads, my guess the price for the cheapest one to be $100 - $130. I'm not buying so much into leak prices, since they're not confirmed, and realistically speaking, $100 is a little too hopeful despite possible, so I'd guess $120. Anything higher than $130 would literally cut out the "entry-level" market and force everyone to effectively buy mid-level CPUs given the pricing, and with Ryzen still trying to claw market share, I can't see this happening. With Intel falling behind, offering the unbeatable value for entry-level now is probably their best shot at getting as much market share as possible which will get them a lot more profit in the long run than trying to maximise profit now by charging an extra $50 per CPU.
All speculation, but we'll see who has a more intuitive insight.
A week ago, I said:
"When Ryzen 3rd gen launches, AMD will price it into the existing market. There's no reason for them to offer a newer, better 6C/12T processor at lower prices than existing 6C/12T processors unless the market is offering competition to drive the price of that new product down."
Today, we have confirmation (chart borrowed from Anandtech):
Ryzen 9 3900X 12C 24T 3.8 4.6 105W $499
Ryzen 7 3800X 8C 16T 3.9 4.5 105W $399
Ryzen 7 3700X 8C 16T 3.6 4.4 65W $329
Ryzen 5 3600X 6C 12T 3.8 4.4 95W $249
Ryzen 5 3600 6C 12T 3.6 4.2 65W $199
As I said, they will price Ryzen 3000 into the existing market to maximize profit.
Go back and read my prediction for the launch price of the 6C/12T "3600" product.
Might be wrong on some of this, but here is where I find those low price points ($130 for 6c/12t gen 3) to be the issue:
This topic has been moved from "Systems > Part List Opinions Wanted" to "Hardware > CPUs".
10 more FPS worth $150
10 more FPS worth $150
At 1080p, probably not worth it because the loss in fps will not be game breaking and may only be an issue for a competitive or pro gamer in competitive online shooters - even then internet connection more important than fps ;).
Conversely, people do indeed pay $400 - $500 more on OC 2080 TI's rather than 2080 to get that extra 10-15fps. At 4K every little helps :D
Go for the best rig you can afford. I strongly believe in the concept "more power is better than less".
wait until the new ryzen chips come out, see some numbers and see what prices do
it could very well be worth the wait
I was planning on just getting the 2000 series and wait a year or 2 for the new ones to drop in prices or whatever.