Associate
- Joined
- 12 Jul 2015
- Posts
- 1,694
Should be easy to top that off with 200-300MHz.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Skylake-X Lineup Leaked: i9-7980XE 18 Core Flagship Processor
- Thread starter WingZero30
- Start date
Should be easy to top that off with 200-300MHz.
Soldato
Where did you get those figures that Intel only needs to be 3.5Ghz to be on par with 4Ghz AMD?
Where is this magic 20% performance coming from?
Soldato
Read the small print on the slide on the front page. It refers to the maximum dual core frequency.
that's the 4.5ghz boost, the cpu had two boost functionalities.
boost 2.0 boosts ALL cores (it's the same boost as on 7700ks 4790ks etc)
boost 3.0 is for individual cores, whoch has now been upped to two 'best cores'
Intel literially tweeted that 4.3ghz is the all core boost speed.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11464...ng-18core-hcc-silicon-to-consumers-for-1999/3
skylake is already around 10% faster clock for clock than ryzen, it is 400mhz faster out of the box than an 1800x (on all cores)
the l2 cache is a pretty large change in the setup, with the prefetching changes there's less misses which increase how many instructions get handled per clock cycle.
that's why the broadwell 5775c was often faster than a 6700k in games(clocked slower with slower architecture) purely thanks to a larger l4 cache,obviously l2 cache is far more.important, a 4 fold increase is fairly substantial.
So your saying that intel said their own slide is wrong?
Soldato
No it isn't. Not sure where you have decided that from but here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE9MAmFJllw
Soldato
Someone has been reading the intel slides
Was kinda my point. Not a chance what Intel published will stack up. If we go by every other slide they have ever shown in regards to performance boost and what it has been in real world I don't think we are likely to see any performance boost other than when all cores are utilised.
that's a 4 core 4 thread vs a 6 core 12 thread in multi threaded titles.
so what you're saying is it takes over double the threads for amd to compete?
here you go https://youtu.be/6yh9doMXt3I
a single threaded game, 4ghz 6700k vs 4ghz 1700.
only one thread is used, so it's a clock for clock comparison, why's the ryzen up to what? 40% slower?
Lol, Arma is a massive outlier and clearly can't properly use RyZen. IPC wise RyZen is 7-10% in tests compared to Kabylake.
Other games that were also massive outliers have needed specific developer patches to address the issue since the games were out long before RyZen and it's new topology.
Plus if you think Intel are going to manage over gigahertz on massive multi core processors using cheap TIM you're in for a surprise in regards to temps.
Other games that were also massive outliers have needed specific developer patches to address the issue since the games were out long before RyZen and it's new topology.
Plus if you think Intel are going to manage over gigahertz on massive multi core processors using cheap TIM you're in for a surprise in regards to temps.
How much would the 7980XE cost speculatively in UK ?
Because the game was written and performance tested against Intel's architecture? AMD have had nothing to even bother testing against for years so most developers haven't bothered. We've already seen that a simple patch can boost a game's performance with Ryzen by up to 50% (see Rise of the Tomb Raider). This is why it largely depends on what kinds of games you play - if you're always playing the newest titles, Ryzen fares better and will get even better in the next year or two. The 6c/12t version already beats the equivalently priced Core i5 in the majority of AAA games used for benchmark suites right now and we are not going to go back to single-threaded games.
Soldato
facepalm.jpeg
We all know arma is a piece of **** for anything under 5ghz. That engine needs to die.
About £2k probably, I'm not sure why anyone needs over 8 cores but it's nice to have the option I guess.
10% behind clock for clock on average and 10-15% lower clock speeds.
http://hwbot.org/benchmark/cinebench_-_r15/rankings?cores=10#start=0#interval=20
the new cinebench scores show skylake x definitely has about 15% ipc over broadwell e, if you take away the 300mhz difference (approx 100) you're roughly seeing a 15% clock on clock over broadwell e, which means that Intel are correct and skylake x should have higher ipc than skylake s
the 1800x falls behind sandy bridge more often than not
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...iew-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks?showall=1
it's slower than Haswell, broadwell, skylake and kabylake, soon to be coffeelake too.
so ryzen is only 5 gens behind instead of 10 gens behind Intel
Haha I was just curiousAbout £2k probably, I'm not sure why anyone needs over 8 cores but it's nice to have the option I guess.
So in order to get the UK price we first convert the US price to UK equivalent via the exchange rate and then add the VAT ?? Correct ??
This is such nonsense. Even using gamers nexus' strongly criticised zero-day benchmark numbers, Ryzen is certainly not behind anything pre-Haswell. Are you looking at a single game benchmark in an entire suite or something? "More often that not" my arse.the 1800x falls behind sandy bridge more often than not
http://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreview...iew-premiere-blender-fps-benchmarks?showall=1
it's slower than Haswell, broadwell, skylake and kabylake, soon to be coffeelake too.
so ryzen is only 5 gens behind instead of 10 gens behind Intel