Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Jul 7, 2019.
you certainly are good at taking people's words out of context...
Well I would take 3800X over 3700X too, better boost in general. I think those extra 70-80€ would be a worthy investment in the longer run.
I see it with 4770K, still does anything I throw at it, if I skimmed back then and got 4670K it would suck bad right now lol ok in this 3800X case it's just OC, but still.. at least I could OC tiny bit better on it.
The other side is that the 1800X was able to hit 4GHz no problem. My 1700X was in no shape to come close. 3.915 was the best I could achieve without the voltage increase starting to look like an exponential curve. The 1700X was the weird chip. The 1700 and 1800X were the ones to get. They did learn, they eliminated the middle chip and only offered the bottom and top 8 core variants.
According to Debauer the 3800x amounts to 50Mhz on average over the 3700x and that the 3800x is not getting its advertised speeds. I’d pay the $80 premium over the 3700x if it guaranteed 200Mhz but 50 ain’t worth it.
You're right. Zen 3 is 7nm+ so 2020 release.
That got me thinking...take these with large salt rock. Some are based on rumors, others on my personal observations and forward thinking with somewhat realistic goals.
- Up the core count slightly
- Higher clocks
- 3-4 SMT per core
- 2400MHz Infinity Fabric? Allows for 4800 DDR4 at 1:1
- Lower Latency
- More Cache
- USB4 support?
- PCI-Express 5 support?
Zen 3 should beat Skylake in gaming and single core performance by 20%
Most companies also exclusively buy intel anyway where i live it's the case. I don't think i ever saw an AMD cpu installed in a business workstation.
3700x. Same core/thread count as 3800x. Thats the main thing. Sure, 300mhz less base clock (100mhz less boost/turbo) but at 35w less and probably a little cooler. The frequency diff will make virtually no perceivable difference for me. Those on 1080p might appreciate the extra few mhz.
Frankly, I'm not even upgrading for perf, 7700k serving me well as is. Just have this longing for a new alternate platform to Intel, and to no longer be pestered by microcode updates that shave off a little perf here and there every time. Gaming-wise, it will do nothing for me. Unpacking RARs, occasional (rare) vid encoding tasks will probably the only thing I might appreciate perf-wise.
I really wish my company would invest in some AMD hardware. I have a workstation system at home with a 16c/32t CPU and 32 GB of RAM while my work system is a 4c/8t system with 16 GB (used to be 8). Then again, it's not just CPUs where we're woefully behind - we're still using 720p monitors. I suppose it's okay for accountants and HR people, but I'm a developer - it's amazing that I can get any work done at all!
Can someone ban this guy already? His posts are garbage and I'm tired of reading them.
We have three 1080p monitors at my company with a ssd at every workstation. But we are stuck with core i5. They are not bad but they are certainly not great for productivity.
I’m using two 1080p monitors and a optiplex 7010 haswell i5 PC for my terminal. Mostly use chrome, ADP/CDK and edge/MPI. The processor is fine for this but I wish we had more RAM. I’d like 16GB but had to beg to gets second 4GB stick. Had to show the IT guy how slow the PC got with just my main work programs up and using chrome to open the parts catalog.
Haha Intel isn’t getting any IPC boost for years.
We upgraded to 8gb maybe 2 years ago and man 4gb is brutal. It makes the workstation pretty much unusable at time.
Only way they are getting a new wave of cpus that are not incremental upgrades out this year is it was already mostly done and they were waiting to be forced to release it.
I really enjoy it. It's not the same amount of difference as going from 60Hz to 120Hz, but the difference is there. Obviously it's not possible to see the individual frames, but there's a substantial increase in smoothness and responsiveness, which is especially noticeable in FPS games. I would actually say you feel it (e.g. with mouse aim) more than you see it.
Past a certain point, the visual difference does basically become imperceptible — to my eyes, at least. If I have the monitor running at 240Hz, I can easily eyeball the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS. Usually, I can see the difference between 120 FPS and 240 FPS too, but not always. That being said, you can easily feel it in the mouse aim (faster feedback from the screen).
200 FPS vs. 240 FPS, though? Not really. Diminishing returns do play a major factor.
A buddy of mine has a 1440p 165Hz monitor and swears by it. I love the monitor I have, but I think I'd be perfectly happy with that monitor too. So it depends on what you want.
I think Zen 3 will be amazing. Zen 2 is already an epic processor and if Zen 3 can improve 10-15 percent then we’re looking at top class performance.
That's the funny thing there. Person with 3700X can just test stable voltage for few clocks and set those into Custom P-States.
Because I did not like PBO voltages with new BIOS, I did set up P-states.
Now I have All cores clock at 4.125GHz (still on 2700X) and CPU downclocks to 2.2GHz when not under load.
From my point of view difference between 3700X and 3800X is ability to check how given CPU works and manual settings in BIOS.
Other thing is binning. There's good chance that 3800X will in case of manual settings behave better. But I still do not feel like that performance difference is worth that kind of price difference.
Looking at price jump between 3700X and 3800X makes actually 3900X look very attractive as one gets full 50% total CPU performance for similar price jump.
Ok seriously what's with all this speculative forward looking with intel 10th gen and zen 3 for performance and features. Did no one here learn lessons about predicting the future from back to the future 2?
I do not think that most of those are intel's "employees". But surely many who got in recent years quite expensive 4C/8T which is relatively good at gaming are subconsciously not very happy seeing similarly priced chips with double total performance.
Or much cheaper chips which are still 50% stronger.
AMD's mainstream solution, since Zen1, is 6C/12T. And as they improved clock and IPC over iterations, those are quite lovely CPUs.
That's why you get those arguments about tiny fps potential difference at top end where most of given people do not even have screen that can display such frame rate.
Even with Zen+, one could say that difference was large enough for competitive fps gamer to consider costly intel's chip over alternative.
But now, one can at most hurt himself. Entry level gamer with 144Hz screen can get 3600 and use saved up money for better GPU.
People who do a lot with computer can get 3700X and again get better components around.
And insanity of 3900X/3950X with 12C/24T or 16C/32T which almost none of us would expect to be available on AM4...
If CPU business was directed by intel, we would have around 6C/12T marked as i9 for $500. And that's what gets on people's nerves... the speed at which AMD increases core count and performance makes their chips rapidly "morally" obsolete. (They still have as good gaming chips as before release of Zen2, but they feel that huge difference.)
according to The Stilt, there has been a mistake in the 0066 BIOS which invalidates all reviews on the Asus MB CHVIII
Asus is working on a new BIOS
07/08/2019 6:33 PM (GMT) - Update on the bios issue on Crosshair VIII Hero motherboard ("the thing").
Intel doesn't need to enlist employees to do propaganda for them when hyperbolic/misinformed users are already hard at it. This isn't some Cambridge Analytica grade stuff /S -seriously