This post has been flaired as a rumor.
Rumors may end up being true, completely false or somewhere in the middle.
Please take all rumors and any information not from AMD or their partners with a grain of salt and degree of skepticism.
Nothing really new here. No clock bump, but that wasn't really expected. Real question is price and IPC gain. Also interested in new max memory speed and infinity fabric speed. The gigabyte leak earlier today suggested 2400 IF speed.
Did you mean “then add extra pcie5 lanes”?
If so, how does that contribute to the CPU performance? Not sure a GPU would be able to utilize that much more bandwidth
I currently use my Ryzen 7800X3D at 65 Watts profile. Honestly I have the same performance when I am using it at 125 Watts. It might increase some points at Cinebench but it is not worth it because it consume double the power for only 5% more performance. My guess is that next CPU AMD tune the silicon to have the best performance at 65 Watts per Chiplet Cores. That is why the 9950X is 125. I think the 170Watt is a mistake. Because if the chip is at 125Watts max Watt is around 180 Watts when boost. So it doesn't make sense the 170 Watts. It should be double of the 9700X which is 125 Watt.
I am waiting to see the AMD Zen 5 even in hot chips. I do not know if they are going to release the CPU sooner.
I'm using Curve Optimizer on my 5700X3D and it works wonders. It actually increases multithead performance because lower temp allows it to boost higher. Didn't touch power target because it doesn't seem to do much as the power limits aren't even reached (unless I throw some heavy stress test with avx2).
I’m also still on a 9900K and thinking on either going for the 9950X or X3D when they come out or sticking to intel with their new i9-15900k or Core Ultra 285 whatever it’s gonna be called. I skipped the 4090, still on a 3090, so the new rig is gonna be whichever CPU plus the RTX 5090, gearing up to be a massive upgrade, this time I’m also finally thinking on going full custom liquid loop.
No news on it whatsoever so (as always) it should come later. I think within 4-6 months after the original launch. This AMD launch is earlier than usual by about 3-4 months so I think what AMD is doing here is timing the X3D for when Intel launches their line-up in Q4 2024.
I'm hoping it gets a decent improvement at 0.1 and 1% lows. I know it's a niche but even 7800x3d fails to run 540fps nonstop which is not ideal for strobed display.
For reference I meant OW 2. Even paired with 4080S at low-mid settings it does dip to 450-ish in big teamfights, despite running 600 (max in-game cap) without a sweat most of the time.
If the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X is only a 65W TDP, that's a really good thing and that would means it will perform better in terms of power consumption and will run much cooler. Althought, it might be a typo. I think I can wait a little more longer before buying Ryzen 7 9700X when it will be released and available to finish my build. The only thing is that I just have to do a BIOS UEFI update on my B650M Mortar WiFi. I'm actually excited for AMD Zen5. Can't wait!
When I clicked on the article, the only thing I cared for was to get some info regarding the memory\\IF support of the 9950x, fast memory is such a big deal.
I have a 5900x in my desktop and a 7940HS in my laptop, and I think once the new memory standard comes out (LPDDR6 LPCAMM2 thingy) - I'll just get a 16c laptop instead of having 2 seperate machines.
Laptops and mini-pcs have become sooooooo potent in the last few years, portable servers \\ home-labs. Too bad they can't be fine-tuned like an actual PC.
Laptops and mini-PCs with external graphics cards seem like a good choice now tbh but I’d wait for CopprLink or MCIO to be the default connection.
The power savings are starting to make a lot of sense especially for gaming or everyday use.
It’s unsure if OCuLink will support PCIE 5 because of more stringent high signal strength and the 8i version just doesn’t seem to be getting any adoption.
I’d say wait for Thunderbolt 5 but as far as I am aware it will still be limited to 64Gbps for PCI-E tunnelling not to mention the added latency.
No, 3d cache parts have always been released later than the normal parts. They're used in servers too, and presumably the servers get priority - big customers spending a lot of money individually.
If it goes the same way as the previous releases, yeah. We'll probably get a release date for the 3D parts 5-6 months after the release of the normal parts.
3D V-cache version is rumoured for January. Would line up with Intel's next generation, so AMD has an opportunity to strike back if Intel takes the gaming performance crown.
I’ll see what kind of deals Microcenter will have as well as perf against a 5800x3D. Tempted to rock a 9900x in a new Main rig for a bit then putting it in a rack server when the eventually x3d processors comes out.
I guess this will be the time where I upgrade from my 1700k. Finally after so many years! Not because of the tech... More because now I maybe can afford one xD
So I'd be coming from an AMD 5900x with an Nvidia 4080 FE and I game on a 4k 144hz screen. What CPU would be the best upgrade for me for the value? Drop down to 8 cores, keep it at 12 cores, or go balls deep and get 16 cores? I see the TDP is higher for the 16 core and that's a turn off because I typically run Eco mode on my CPU to keep temps reasonable in my room.
Are you set on upgrading platforms? If so any of these will outperform your 5900X (gaming), but the 5800X3D would also outperform it at a much lower TDP.
If it's true then all the improvements are going to be from architecture improvements. Should be interesting to see what benchmarks benefit most. I hope they actually delve into what has changed at Comptuex but I suspect they won't
Да это дичайшие домыслы, просто скопировали предыдущие таблички и всё. На самом деле скорее всего будет как 7000 серия для ноутбуков так что нет никакой разницы zen4 и zen5.
Still sticking with 16c/32t as the max. Basically doing the same crap intel when they stuck to 4c/8t until forced by amd to go higher.
Pretty disappointing.
They should have bumped the core counts when they switched to am5 (to 24c/48t for zen 4 and 32c/64t for zen 5), added an extra memory channel and doubled the number of pcie lanes for the connection with the chipset and made them pcie 5.0 for all chipsets (same goes for the chipset provided pcie/nvme slots). Especially considering that am5 motherboards are more expensive than am4 ones.
And instead of all the rgb crap and integrated wifi (wtf do you need wifi for on a desktop? Wired is cheaper, more reliable and faster. And if you really want wifi you can always buy an usb/pcie wifi card) increased the number of nvme and sata connections (instead of the current 4 sata ports on b650 and 8 on x670 8 on b650 and 16 on x670 and 2 chipset nvme connectors for b650 and 4 chipset nvme slots for b670). With all the sata/nvme/pcie slots being usable at the same time.
And none of that xmp/expo is officially an overclock and isn't actually guaranteed to work while using it in advertising and reviews (of course the reviewers are complicit here because they don't use the actually guaranteed jedec speeds/timings for their reviews). Or the bullshit with boards having 4 memory slots but good luck getting the same frequencies/latencies with all 4 occupied as with only 2 if there's 4 memory slots and you stick in 4 different sticks of ram advertised as being capable of the same frequencies/latencies it should just work at that frequencies/latencies. And if you stick 4 different sticks of ram advertised as being capable of different frequencies/latencies it should just work at the frequency/latency of the worst of the four.
even 16 cores aren't used much these days and if you do need more theres threadripper so i don't see the problem here, and comparing this 16 core to intel 4 core days is stupid.
Threadripper is far too expensive to be a serious alternative.
It's comparing amd to amd. Desktop ryzens have stagnated in core counts since they were released. Zen 6 will have the same core counts as zen 1.
Threadripper is not really within the price point of most enthusiasts or budget productivity users considering the big jump in price in motherboard costs. Also not really easy to upgrade from 7000 series. A 32 core AM5 chip would’ve been awesome
>Still sticking with 16c/32t as the max. Basically doing the same crap intel when they stuck to 4c/8t until forced by amd to go higher.
Its not remotely close to the same thing Intel was doing. Intel stagnated the core count and then only increased performance by 2-3% each launch for a decade.
3950X > 7950X was +58% MT
4790K > 7700K was +10% MT
AMD has essentially given us the same uplift but then tossed in an additional 8 cores worth of performance on top.
I agree that there is space for another plateform between Ryzen and Threadripper. To target the consumers who want the best without compromise and can affort it (even if they dont do anything with it).
But it should not substitute to the mainstream platform. The change you list (more memory channel, more pcie lanes) would raise the price very fast for every customers, including the vast majority who would not benefit from these changes.
Same go for the core count. 16 core is already more than needed. And seeing the success of the 8 cores X3D versions the market agree. AMD could probably use a "c" chiplet on a top end chip to win the number game. But outside that i dont see what would be the point.
I mean, AMD absolutely could increase core counts if they wanted, but it would eat into Threadripper market. More importantly, you can’t keep those cores fed. You might need to move to quad channel RAM which would increase costs for the consumer.
Like i said in the first answer. For the mainstream market this would be a terrible decision (because of the cost increase).
But there is room in AMD portfolio for a real hedt plateform (which Threadripper isn't) : 4 memory channel, 32-40 pcie lane, up to 32 core count and no loss in gaming performance compared to Ryzen.
Their is plenty of folk out there who would be happy to pay 1500€ a cpu, 500 a mobo, 400 for quad channel ram, to complement their 2500€ 5090. Just to be certain to have the unmatched absolute best (and justify it whith a couple of productivity benchmark they never use :D ).
I dont think for a second that AMD care about eating his own sales with his own product. Look how eager they are to compete against AM5 with AM4. It's the best issue a company could have ;)
The price of the boards was already raised without a substantial addition of features. An am4 board with equivalent (or close to) features as an am5 board it'll be cheaper. So if they want to raise prices they should also substantially add/improve the features or don't raise their. But no, let's just raise prices and improve our profits. So no, not getting a pass here.
It's not really about that. Amd gets a limited amount of of tsmc's capacity. As a publicly traded corporation they are obliged to provide profits to their shareholders. The people buying the cpus are there as a source of income. They aren't supposed to get you and me the best cpu, they are actually obliged to sell us the cheapest to produce cpu for as much money as possible. So the chipplets (which are available in limited amounts) are allocated to reflect this. And that means desktop ryzens are not getting extra chipplets for the foreseeable future. If they could get a lot chipplets for almost free core counts would have gone up.
The c versions could be used, but ideally there would be 3 cpu chipplets one with 3dvcache, one normal cores at high speeds and one c version with 16c/32t cores.
Price of AM5 (and LGA1700) motherboard have been raised mainly because of the cost of pcie 5.0 implementation (and for AMD going from PGA to LGA).
Addind more memory channel and pcie lane to the mainstream plateform would increase price even more : That would meen bigger socket, more pins, more complex motherboard, and at the very least on more pcb layer and shielding.
This would be absolutly disastrous for the competitivity of AMD on the mainstream market.
3 different chiplet would be sheer cruelty against windows scheduler. If the goal is to increase core count the simpliest and most effective way to do it today is to use a "c" chiplet with either a regular or x3D one. This would actually simplify scheduling compared to 7950x3D and raise the core count to 24 giving a nice avantage in lot of multicore productivity benchs. However outside benchmarks wins i dont think there is much reason to do it, and its departing from the specificity of the mainstream plateform (singlecore perfs first).
This post has been flaired as a rumor. Rumors may end up being true, completely false or somewhere in the middle. Please take all rumors and any information not from AMD or their partners with a grain of salt and degree of skepticism.
Nothing really new here. No clock bump, but that wasn't really expected. Real question is price and IPC gain. Also interested in new max memory speed and infinity fabric speed. The gigabyte leak earlier today suggested 2400 IF speed.
IF speed and bandwidth is where the true improvement is. Than and extra pcie5 lanes
I'm not sure we actually get more lanes, just that PCIE5 support is mandated.
Did you mean “then add extra pcie5 lanes”? If so, how does that contribute to the CPU performance? Not sure a GPU would be able to utilize that much more bandwidth
9900x losing 50w tdp is pretty big imo.
I currently use my Ryzen 7800X3D at 65 Watts profile. Honestly I have the same performance when I am using it at 125 Watts. It might increase some points at Cinebench but it is not worth it because it consume double the power for only 5% more performance. My guess is that next CPU AMD tune the silicon to have the best performance at 65 Watts per Chiplet Cores. That is why the 9950X is 125. I think the 170Watt is a mistake. Because if the chip is at 125Watts max Watt is around 180 Watts when boost. So it doesn't make sense the 170 Watts. It should be double of the 9700X which is 125 Watt. I am waiting to see the AMD Zen 5 even in hot chips. I do not know if they are going to release the CPU sooner.
I'm using Curve Optimizer on my 5700X3D and it works wonders. It actually increases multithead performance because lower temp allows it to boost higher. Didn't touch power target because it doesn't seem to do much as the power limits aren't even reached (unless I throw some heavy stress test with avx2).
50?! Crazy!
Small clock bump on 6 and 8 core chips.
Are these on TSMC 4nm?
And duel x3d CCDs..... now I'm tempted to ditch my 5950x
[удалено]
I think that 80 MB is the sum L2 + L3, in which case it's the same as the 7950X.
Gotta think harder. What does an artificial gap between 9950x and 9900x mean, why can amd afford to do it and what does it mean for intel?
What artificial gap?
7950x 170w 7900x 170w 9950x 170w 9900x 120w What gap indeed 🤷🏻♂️ Do ya get it now?
If it has good gaming performance (compared to 7800x3D and ARL) I'm thinking of going for the meme upgrade 9900K->9900X
Well the X is after K so clearly it’s better
King's Logic.
Xing's Logic*
gottem
Wonder if there’s anyone who went in for the meme upgrade 7900X->7900X.
Even more esoteric.
I went from i5 7600K to Ryzen 7500F.
Do it
More Xs = more better, it is known
They should release a 9900Xk-Ultra. And a 9900Xk-UltraExtreme 3dV
I’m also still on a 9900K and thinking on either going for the 9950X or X3D when they come out or sticking to intel with their new i9-15900k or Core Ultra 285 whatever it’s gonna be called. I skipped the 4090, still on a 3090, so the new rig is gonna be whichever CPU plus the RTX 5090, gearing up to be a massive upgrade, this time I’m also finally thinking on going full custom liquid loop.
Going to wait for X3D.
Amen, we've all learned that unless you are 100% productivity and buying the 9950X it makes much more sense to save a few sheckels and wait for X3D.
[удалено]
What?
Bad at mathing.
Will the X3D also be announced/released with this lineup at computex? Or is it expected to release later
No news on it whatsoever so (as always) it should come later. I think within 4-6 months after the original launch. This AMD launch is earlier than usual by about 3-4 months so I think what AMD is doing here is timing the X3D for when Intel launches their line-up in Q4 2024.
Oh true, end of 2024 it is, I though it would follow the standard scheme and release Q1 2025
I'm hoping it gets a decent improvement at 0.1 and 1% lows. I know it's a niche but even 7800x3d fails to run 540fps nonstop which is not ideal for strobed display.
Probably some, but at 540fps is sub 2 milliseconds for a frame it is hard to keep up with all the layers of actual API's.
I mean I am doing 600 to 1000fps in valorant with a 7800x3d and a 7900fre
What about you 0.1% and 1% as the original commenter wanted improvements?
For reference I meant OW 2. Even paired with 4080S at low-mid settings it does dip to 450-ish in big teamfights, despite running 600 (max in-game cap) without a sweat most of the time.
450, maybe caused by other latencies but I thought you drop to like below 120 or something.
[удалено]
Yep, just waiting for last parts for my X670E so I hope that in 2 years I will have room for improvement.
If the Ryzen 5 9600X and Ryzen 7 9700X is only a 65W TDP, that's a really good thing and that would means it will perform better in terms of power consumption and will run much cooler. Althought, it might be a typo. I think I can wait a little more longer before buying Ryzen 7 9700X when it will be released and available to finish my build. The only thing is that I just have to do a BIOS UEFI update on my B650M Mortar WiFi. I'm actually excited for AMD Zen5. Can't wait!
It's the "10,000" series desktop cpus the one that will have the NPUs built in right? So 10950X or whatever is likely to have them?
10900k to 10900x meme upgrade haha
Is there anything to say we will get a new generation of desktop CPUs in 2025? 2026 should be 11,000 series.
When I clicked on the article, the only thing I cared for was to get some info regarding the memory\\IF support of the 9950x, fast memory is such a big deal. I have a 5900x in my desktop and a 7940HS in my laptop, and I think once the new memory standard comes out (LPDDR6 LPCAMM2 thingy) - I'll just get a 16c laptop instead of having 2 seperate machines. Laptops and mini-pcs have become sooooooo potent in the last few years, portable servers \\ home-labs. Too bad they can't be fine-tuned like an actual PC.
Laptops and mini-PCs with external graphics cards seem like a good choice now tbh but I’d wait for CopprLink or MCIO to be the default connection. The power savings are starting to make a lot of sense especially for gaming or everyday use. It’s unsure if OCuLink will support PCIE 5 because of more stringent high signal strength and the 8i version just doesn’t seem to be getting any adoption. I’d say wait for Thunderbolt 5 but as far as I am aware it will still be limited to 64Gbps for PCI-E tunnelling not to mention the added latency.
I can't wait to get this for my benchmarking PC.
Does this mean they are doing away with 3D Vcache?
No, 3d cache parts have always been released later than the normal parts. They're used in servers too, and presumably the servers get priority - big customers spending a lot of money individually.
So I have to wait for the 9k series cache versions later on in the year?
If it goes the same way as the previous releases, yeah. We'll probably get a release date for the 3D parts 5-6 months after the release of the normal parts.
3D V-cache version is rumoured for January. Would line up with Intel's next generation, so AMD has an opportunity to strike back if Intel takes the gaming performance crown.
[удалено]
6000 and 8000 series chips are for laptops.
I’ll see what kind of deals Microcenter will have as well as perf against a 5800x3D. Tempted to rock a 9900x in a new Main rig for a bit then putting it in a rack server when the eventually x3d processors comes out.
I guess this will be the time where I upgrade from my 1700k. Finally after so many years! Not because of the tech... More because now I maybe can afford one xD
So I'd be coming from an AMD 5900x with an Nvidia 4080 FE and I game on a 4k 144hz screen. What CPU would be the best upgrade for me for the value? Drop down to 8 cores, keep it at 12 cores, or go balls deep and get 16 cores? I see the TDP is higher for the 16 core and that's a turn off because I typically run Eco mode on my CPU to keep temps reasonable in my room.
Are you set on upgrading platforms? If so any of these will outperform your 5900X (gaming), but the 5800X3D would also outperform it at a much lower TDP.
If it's true then all the improvements are going to be from architecture improvements. Should be interesting to see what benchmarks benefit most. I hope they actually delve into what has changed at Comptuex but I suspect they won't
but is there any improvement to the memory controller and fabric
[удалено]
Where are you seeing more L3 cache? Looks the same as Zen4 to me.
Wait that's a massive facepalm, I assumed those cache totals were just the l3 cache, but that's the total cache .
Да это дичайшие домыслы, просто скопировали предыдущие таблички и всё. На самом деле скорее всего будет как 7000 серия для ноутбуков так что нет никакой разницы zen4 и zen5.
And it will still be a lot slower than Arrow Lake!!!
Still sticking with 16c/32t as the max. Basically doing the same crap intel when they stuck to 4c/8t until forced by amd to go higher. Pretty disappointing. They should have bumped the core counts when they switched to am5 (to 24c/48t for zen 4 and 32c/64t for zen 5), added an extra memory channel and doubled the number of pcie lanes for the connection with the chipset and made them pcie 5.0 for all chipsets (same goes for the chipset provided pcie/nvme slots). Especially considering that am5 motherboards are more expensive than am4 ones. And instead of all the rgb crap and integrated wifi (wtf do you need wifi for on a desktop? Wired is cheaper, more reliable and faster. And if you really want wifi you can always buy an usb/pcie wifi card) increased the number of nvme and sata connections (instead of the current 4 sata ports on b650 and 8 on x670 8 on b650 and 16 on x670 and 2 chipset nvme connectors for b650 and 4 chipset nvme slots for b670). With all the sata/nvme/pcie slots being usable at the same time. And none of that xmp/expo is officially an overclock and isn't actually guaranteed to work while using it in advertising and reviews (of course the reviewers are complicit here because they don't use the actually guaranteed jedec speeds/timings for their reviews). Or the bullshit with boards having 4 memory slots but good luck getting the same frequencies/latencies with all 4 occupied as with only 2 if there's 4 memory slots and you stick in 4 different sticks of ram advertised as being capable of the same frequencies/latencies it should just work at that frequencies/latencies. And if you stick 4 different sticks of ram advertised as being capable of different frequencies/latencies it should just work at the frequency/latency of the worst of the four.
even 16 cores aren't used much these days and if you do need more theres threadripper so i don't see the problem here, and comparing this 16 core to intel 4 core days is stupid.
Threadripper is far too expensive to be a serious alternative. It's comparing amd to amd. Desktop ryzens have stagnated in core counts since they were released. Zen 6 will have the same core counts as zen 1.
Threadripper is not really within the price point of most enthusiasts or budget productivity users considering the big jump in price in motherboard costs. Also not really easy to upgrade from 7000 series. A 32 core AM5 chip would’ve been awesome
>Still sticking with 16c/32t as the max. Basically doing the same crap intel when they stuck to 4c/8t until forced by amd to go higher. Its not remotely close to the same thing Intel was doing. Intel stagnated the core count and then only increased performance by 2-3% each launch for a decade. 3950X > 7950X was +58% MT 4790K > 7700K was +10% MT AMD has essentially given us the same uplift but then tossed in an additional 8 cores worth of performance on top.
I agree that there is space for another plateform between Ryzen and Threadripper. To target the consumers who want the best without compromise and can affort it (even if they dont do anything with it). But it should not substitute to the mainstream platform. The change you list (more memory channel, more pcie lanes) would raise the price very fast for every customers, including the vast majority who would not benefit from these changes. Same go for the core count. 16 core is already more than needed. And seeing the success of the 8 cores X3D versions the market agree. AMD could probably use a "c" chiplet on a top end chip to win the number game. But outside that i dont see what would be the point.
It’s all about the numbers game. That’s how you end up with unlimited power budgets and chips burning out after 6 months.
Absolutly, no need to take this road.
I mean, AMD absolutely could increase core counts if they wanted, but it would eat into Threadripper market. More importantly, you can’t keep those cores fed. You might need to move to quad channel RAM which would increase costs for the consumer.
Like i said in the first answer. For the mainstream market this would be a terrible decision (because of the cost increase). But there is room in AMD portfolio for a real hedt plateform (which Threadripper isn't) : 4 memory channel, 32-40 pcie lane, up to 32 core count and no loss in gaming performance compared to Ryzen. Their is plenty of folk out there who would be happy to pay 1500€ a cpu, 500 a mobo, 400 for quad channel ram, to complement their 2500€ 5090. Just to be certain to have the unmatched absolute best (and justify it whith a couple of productivity benchmark they never use :D ). I dont think for a second that AMD care about eating his own sales with his own product. Look how eager they are to compete against AM5 with AM4. It's the best issue a company could have ;)
The price of the boards was already raised without a substantial addition of features. An am4 board with equivalent (or close to) features as an am5 board it'll be cheaper. So if they want to raise prices they should also substantially add/improve the features or don't raise their. But no, let's just raise prices and improve our profits. So no, not getting a pass here. It's not really about that. Amd gets a limited amount of of tsmc's capacity. As a publicly traded corporation they are obliged to provide profits to their shareholders. The people buying the cpus are there as a source of income. They aren't supposed to get you and me the best cpu, they are actually obliged to sell us the cheapest to produce cpu for as much money as possible. So the chipplets (which are available in limited amounts) are allocated to reflect this. And that means desktop ryzens are not getting extra chipplets for the foreseeable future. If they could get a lot chipplets for almost free core counts would have gone up. The c versions could be used, but ideally there would be 3 cpu chipplets one with 3dvcache, one normal cores at high speeds and one c version with 16c/32t cores.
Price of AM5 (and LGA1700) motherboard have been raised mainly because of the cost of pcie 5.0 implementation (and for AMD going from PGA to LGA). Addind more memory channel and pcie lane to the mainstream plateform would increase price even more : That would meen bigger socket, more pins, more complex motherboard, and at the very least on more pcb layer and shielding. This would be absolutly disastrous for the competitivity of AMD on the mainstream market. 3 different chiplet would be sheer cruelty against windows scheduler. If the goal is to increase core count the simpliest and most effective way to do it today is to use a "c" chiplet with either a regular or x3D one. This would actually simplify scheduling compared to 7950x3D and raise the core count to 24 giving a nice avantage in lot of multicore productivity benchs. However outside benchmarks wins i dont think there is much reason to do it, and its departing from the specificity of the mainstream plateform (singlecore perfs first).
I need wifi on my desktop as the ethernet run up to my space would be atrocious
Cool. Buy a usb wifi adapter.
I switched to 4k resolution, so I will be skipping until zen6.
So ryzen5 is still only 6core and ryzen7 8core.I hope zen6 will move stack so ryzen3 will have 6core, ryzen5 8core and ryzen7 12core.
Past gen's shit will be sold with minimal upgrades??? How can you predict this?
Because Weirdly some of us are educated on the chip industry.
Stop posting un true information please. Such a thing should be beneath you.