Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, May 27, 2019.
7nm+ for 4000 ryzen chips? Probably find those hit 5ghz readily.
I'm still using an Intel i7 920 which is from late 2008, and it just can't play open world games at a respectable frame rate. ...So I'm really excited for the Ryzen 7 3700X, because I'll finally be jumping on the PCIe 4.0, DDR4 train with everyone else . I'm just curious about AMD's video cards, I'm currently using the old [but still gold stock] Radeon R9 290X. I don't really need to update my graphics card since I'm still 1080p gaming, but it'd be nice to get something quieter and cooler.
That explains something. Inability to judge value.
From Value perspective 3700X is damn attractive for anyone and everyone. 3800X is for rich. And 3900X has value almost on par with 3700X as it's performance per $ is just tiny bit worse.
But in total, all those chips are smashing. Maybe you can pull 5% more fps from 9900k on average than even 3900X can do. But even then, it has good 50% more total performance while costing same.
Imagine buying car, one has 5% higher top speed, other has 50% higher hp. Both cost same.
Who cares if it was free, blueboy? Seems you are really frustrated. I feel sorry for you.
No you don't have to, but what you could do is to be nice and cozy, responding professional instead of smart-aleck.
Anyway, I think we should all be a little more happy with this news today. Like no reason to defend intel, nor amd.
AMD indeed made a great announcement over here, and the consumer - which is WE - will benefit a lot from it.
Does not look like you do understand value. Maybe you can actually show it.
That's clearly lie since Zen+ has IPC on par and Zen2 has it higher. Do you lie on purpose that casually, or are you trying to make people believe that you actually understood IPC for what it always been till intel strawmaned it?
(Should be noted that intel's tactics actually worked on many people. Intel could no longer claim "Instructions per Cycle" crown, so they started to call it "Instructions per Core". Which itself is as nonsensical as can be as they apparently meant "Instructions per Core per Second". But if they did then everyone would realize that they are trying hard to find metric where they still win. And everyone would note in process that AMD has it for some time now.)
I feel ripped off by purchasing an i7-8700k last year, that is my 1st Intel build together with GTX 1070, coming from an AMD FX-8320 and Radeon HD 7850 build - which I think is not a wise purchase considering all the performance degrading "security" patches being released left and right as opposed to AMD. Glad to hear that AMD got the upper hand right now and got the wheels of progress to roll - lest we could be still munching on this Golden Quad Cores this blueballs team feeding us on.
Well looks like im switching my Intel 8700k for the Ryzen 3900x, as long as i can overclock it abit higher than the 4.6ghz and stay with air cooling id be happy
This was such a nice thread... Oh well.
Yes, keep pretending my reply to your nonsense didn't happen, that should make it obvious that you're not a troll. /s
Yeah, but even through that metric it seems intel will no longer be faster, especially comparing similarly spec'd processors. Just look at the prices on the 9900k ($494) and 9700k ($400) vs ryzen 3800x ($400) and 3700x ($329) respectively. The value here is insanely bigger.
Please be careful here. It is not all fine and dandy. With Zen(+) there was kind of issue. Moment you set up manual multiplier, CPU remained on that clock all the time regardless of load. That's heavy hit for power efficiency.
Other option was to set custom PStates, that's PITA if you want to have multiple stages. As moment you set it incorrectly and system will not boot, you have to reset BIOS and start over.
Current BIOS (0.0.7.2) which is for some new APUs is not good for non-APUs as clock seems to miss middle states. My 2700X cores jump between max clock and 2.2GHz. have not seem single core to be at 2.8/3.3/...GHz.
If 3900X was not that close, I would force myself to set custom PStates, but knowing that it would take few hours to tune proper voltage for each clock...
(On other hand, 3900X is keeper as we are unlikely to see significant improvement in single threaded performance. And in terms of multi-threaded, it is just enough for gaming + streaming or encoding. For me, I can't wait to see how much faster it would compile shaders in UE4.)
Here is one thing I am afraid of:
Agesa 0.0.7.2 does not have Power Draw override on my MB. If it is present in actual BIOS for Zen2, then it will make 3700X practically equal to 3800X in multi-threaded performance as anyone will just set some high value.
And I am afraid that AMD will not enable us to set even 125W for 3900X. I would set like 150W and be happy. If CPU ever needed it, it could use it. But having CPU/GPU limited by power draw is bad. It is always better to stay within limits and not to enter empty cycles or downclock.
See no reason to be. Still a rocking cpu. Got mine locally 2-2,5months after release and considering local prices it can be considered overpriced even by then but honestly? No regrets. It been an absolute champ of a cpu and have nothing but an awesome experience with it.
Yeah I would had love some ̶2̶7̶0̶0̶X̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶e̶v̶e̶n̶ ̶T̶h̶r̶e̶a̶d̶r̶i̶p̶p̶e̶r̶ ̶2̶(̶g̶o̶t̶ ̶c̶l̶o̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶o̶r̶d̶e̶r̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶o̶n̶e̶)̶ ̶o̶r̶ ̶a̶ ̶n̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶9̶9̶0̶0̶k̶ or even the upcoming 3900X but money is tight now and as I said got nothing to regret about it. I mainly gaming nowadays and even that not so often as I would have liked.
If this is mostly regarding the security vulnerabilities, personally besides the latest one concerning the zombieload or hyperthreading or whatever since I haven't research anything on it, I saw no performance degradation. Scores and and fps are same or similar to before.
But yeah I get your main point completely. If I could sell my current cpu/mobo I would swap for a 3800X/3900X in a heartbeat(considering all goes well launch wise, bios, perf etc)
Just saw this. Looks pretty good, especially that 3700x, might buy one of those
Yes, you did: "its better ipc because my cpu can oc". You directly attributed the "better ipc" to the ability of the CPU to overclock. You are wrong, plain and simple (you could not be more wrong if your name was Wrong Wrongly Wrong).
There's always an Intel fanboy or two invading AMD threads to try to spoil the party (all the while complaining about AMD fanboys invading Intel threads - ironic).
To be fair those pre 3rd party review charts are pretty much meaningless. They all lie about it or at least twist the truth in their favor. Nothing is official before web sites like guru3d review the new cpus.
@D3M1G0D : Nothing can spoil 3900X for me now. Till moment I saw that displaced chiplet on 8C/16T sample I was to upgrade to Zen 2 8C/16T. Then I immediately hoped for 12C/24T. As 16T/32T would likely be too expensive for me while having too low single core clock when loaded on more than 8C/16T. (And possibly show memory bandwidth limitation too under full load => reducing gaming experience with productivity running in background).
I would be concerned about the gpu more than the cpu. The i7 8700k is a good cpu and will remain a good one for a while. Overpriced yeah probably but still a good one. The 1070 is not a great card if you plan to play at 2k144Hz or 4k. Considering the price difference between the 1070 and the 1080/Vega 64 and the lack of a clear equally priced upgrade path within the RTX lineup i must say the 1080 was a far better purchase for anyone not playing at 1080p60. I have buyer remorse about the 1070 i bought that's for sure.
While I agree with your point, AMD has been quiet precise reporting zen's performance from the start. So, even if it varies a bit, I think those claims are pretty reliable.
Oh man, you need to work out what ipc really means rather than continuing to create your own definition for it! Your CPU is a good gaming CPU for sure, we should probably leave it there, leave your misguided ipc musings aside.
I think so.
Another interesting thing about todays presentation, is that they are comparing stock performances, and R7 3700x with 16 threads vs. i7 9700K 8 threads, shown equal single core performance, but only a 28% more in multi-thread. That means two things:
- AMD's boost 4.4 GHz performs the same as Intel's boost 4.9 GHz.
- R7 3700x must run at lower cycles on all cores, maybe basic 3.6 GHz, to keep its TPD at 65W, on par with R5 3600.
We still must wait until reviews show real OC potential, but it could end in a performance tie between the chip-makers, if AMD weren't cheaper, safer, cooler, futurer-proofer, moar-corer, etceterer