• 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.

8 core coffeelake on Z370 ?

IT Troll said:
And even then, the VRM is only a problem on low-mid end boards. The VRM on my Z170 is better than the equivalent Z370 board.
Click to expand...
Sometimes the issue is that the next generation uses a newer VRM and/or power delivery spec so it's just not compatible which has nothing to do with the quality of the components.
 
kitfit1 said:
I beg to differ, this is my resullt: https://www.3dmark.com/spy/4065102
Click to expand...

Nice try but nope.

Accorded to your result that your 1080 Ti was overclocked to 2,025 MHz, memory overclocked to 1,492 MHz, 32GB RAM and has GPU score 10596 compared to inteldesktop1's result with 1080 Ti at stock clock 1,873 MHz, stock memory clock 1,377 MHz, 16GB RAM and has GPU score 9725. Your 2700X CPU score is 9901 while i9-9900K ES CPU score is higher at 10719.
 
Not sure how much RAM could affect this 3dmark benchmark but with Intel a simple B-die kit like the 8Pack 3200 c14 one can run 4000 17-17-17-28 pretty easily
 
AthlonXP1800 said:
Nice try but nope.

Accorded to your result that your 1080 Ti was overclocked to 2,025 MHz, memory overclocked to 1,492 MHz, 32GB RAM and has GPU score 10596 compared to inteldesktop1's result with 1080 Ti at stock clock 1,873 MHz, stock memory clock 1,377 MHz, 16GB RAM and has GPU score 9725. Your 2700X CPU score is 9901 while i9-9900K ES CPU score is higher at 10719.
Click to expand...

Ohhhhhhhh dear me. Excuse my stupidity..............................it never ocurred to me that when when running a benchmark it had to be run on stock settings :rolleyes: Of course the 9900K was run at stock as well ?...................................kiss my hairy one.
 
Chaos666 said:
@kitfit ... your score is higher overall... but 9900k has a higher CPU score...

we wont be able to compare until they are both running 1080ti with the same clocks :p

look at the COMPARE :p
https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/4126457/spy/4065102

so why do you want to compare scores with higher clocked gpu when we talk about cpu performance?
Click to expand...

It's not anything special to clock a 1080ti to my clocks, it's on air and just using Afterburner. The poster could have done the same, but chose not to.

I posted what i did because all the Intel fan boys love to keep telling all us AMD users how crap our 1700's and 2700X's are in games and benchies. As soon as as i posted that bench........................................suddenly it's "unfair" because i had my 1080ti clocked higher :D............................give me strength lol......................the 9900K was at 5Ghz, my 2700x was at 4.2Ghz.............................do you see me complaining about that ?
 
I'm not an intel fanboy.... I'm using a 4 year old cpu which is still perfectly adequate for my needs...
I simply stated the fact that we are talking about cpu performance... and you posted your score thinking is better but in fact its not.... (CPU wise)

it seems to me that you wanted to prove something "I posted what i did because all the Intel fan boys love to keep telling all us AMD users how crap our 1700's and 2700X's are in games and benchies" but this is not the case...

p.s: YES i do think that your 2700x is perfectly fine for games
 
While i am sure the new 8 core covfelakes are going to be faster than the 2700x (although the stock 8 thread one might be tight) the real competitor for these parts will be Zen2 based next year.
So yeah they might look good now but i doubt they will be the bees-knees 6 months from launch.
 
kitfit1 said:
The 9900K was at 5Ghz, my 2700x was at 4.2Ghz....do you see me complaining about that ?
Click to expand...
As long as both are tested either at stock or both over-clocked I don't see anything to complain about.
But isn't 5GHz the stock speed for that for 1 or 2 core loads so nothing to complain about anyway!
 
The i9-9900K being faster than the R7 2700X is obvious. The question is how much does it cost, how much heat does it pump out at those extreme clock speeds, and how much is the performance gonna drop when security patches are later applied. :p
 
DragonQ said:
The i9-9900K being faster than the R7 2700X is obvious. The question is how much does it cost, how much heat does it pump out at those extreme clock speeds, and how much is the performance gonna drop when security patches are later applied. :p[/

exactly How much will it cost when compared to AMD`s Cpu`s , with Intel still living in the past probably to much.
Click to expand...
 
DragonQ said:
The i9-9900K being faster than the R7 2700X is obvious. The question is how much does it cost, how much heat does it pump out at those extreme clock speeds, and how much is the performance gonna drop when security patches are later applied. :p
Click to expand...

Exactly this. Isn’t the 9900k just a 8700k with two cores tacked on?

All that really matters is the cost that i9 badge tacks on.
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
Zen 2 is supposed to be aiming for Ice Lake, so if these Coffee Lake chips are as fast or faster than Zen 2 then that will be disappointing from AMD.

I still think Ice Lake will be faster in games but we'll see.
Click to expand...

Even if Zen 2 can’t compete on single thread performance I suspect they’ll just up the core count and under cut Intel on price as AMDs multi chip approach is more flexible.
 
I suspect the next iteration from AMD will significantly overtake intel in IPC - well by 5 -10% but that significant for intel! - and at least match intel in clock speed.

Not good times for the blue team in 2019.
 
sideways14a said:
I suspect the next iteration from AMD will significantly overtake intel in IPC - well by 5 -10% but that significant for intel! - and at least match intel in clock speed.
Click to expand...
If they could manage that versus CL it would be a hell of a thing considering they were in the dust 18 months ago, unless you mean versus Intel's 10nm!!!
Well maybe that might be less of a surprise given the way that 10nm is panning out to be down the pan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom