Oh great, another 10 pages of rambling
Nah, i can see this thread being upto 570+ pages before launch of Ryzen 2
-
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.
AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
Nah, i can see this thread being upto 570+ pages before launch of Ryzen 2
What about 180% at £500?
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,236
- Location
- Scotland
Well theoretically if they can match the 9900X with an 8 core cpu and there actually is a 16 core one coming it would technically be "twice as fast". It's stretching our understanding of 'fast' but it would still meet those words in a way.
It's worth noting as well that the 8C chip used, isn't even the fastest variant of 8C, the RAM speed was gimped as well. If the rumours are true, then the 16C chips will be more than twice the speed, at least in Cinebench and for £400-450.
One 8 core ccx, one latency penalty gone. DRAM controller moved to another chip, a potential new penalty introduced. I think Zen 2 is going to be a very mixed bag depending on the application at hand.
Still probably going to go jump at a 16c variant though
Still probably going to go jump at a 16c variant though
Deleted member 209350
Deleted member 209350
Not sure if its been mentioned, but Lisa Su's interview basically confirms more cores are coming
She specifically mentions the extra space on the chip for another chiplet, so 12c and 16c seem very likely to be coming
She specifically mentions the extra space on the chip for another chiplet, so 12c and 16c seem very likely to be coming
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,236
- Location
- Scotland
Don't give them ideas. It'll end up like Mitsubishi Lancer numbers.
Intel Core i3 Evo 8 FQ 340 incoming.
Not sure if its been mentioned, but Lisa Su's interview basically confirms more cores are coming
She specifically mentions the extra space on the chip for another chiplet, so 12c and 16c seem very likely to be coming
The positioning of the CPU die leaves no room for interpretation
The Epyc reveals, with naked die on show and this Ryzen teaser have been uncharacteristically well done for AMDDeleted member 209350
Deleted member 209350
The positioning of the CPU die leaves no room for interpretation
Of course, it was obvious with anyone with a brain to see.
But there were a couple of extreme intl fanboys on here a couple of days ago, and now they've disappeared
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,236
- Location
- Scotland
I hope AMD keep pushing as hard as they can and don't rest on their laurels like Intel did for so long.
It really is amazing to me that such a 'small' company like AMD can compete on 2 massively expensive fronts so well (less so in gpu but still admirably).
It really is amazing to me that such a 'small' company like AMD can compete on 2 massively expensive fronts so well (less so in gpu but still admirably).
It depends how its connected. If it communicates the same way as it does as when it as the same piece of silicone the extra latency will be a few extra NS, the extra cache and improved branch predictor will offset that. If it has to go through the infinity fabric then it could be a large cost. It could be connected with a separate interconnect to the first CCX and then go back to the normal infinity fabric connections for more CCX's like Zen. We shall have to wait and see.
Well we still have Zen 3, 4 and 5 to go yet, and they're also going to be 7nm+ and 5nm. By which time Intel should have at least fixed 10nm and moving to their first refinement. AMD can't rest on their laurels, realistically they only have technology leadership for 2 years before Intel come back swinging.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
That video was probably the least insightful Adoredtv video that I've seen in a while. His comment about it being a 3.7GHz base 4.5GHz boost, probably averaging 4.2GHz in the CB run, is simply naive.
CB 15 MT is so short a run that anything can sustain ACT for its duration.
He mentioned that it says nothing about its IPC gains, but if it runs at 4.5GHz then there are no IPC gains.
I think that he was massively stretching his numbers in that video.
I get that Ryzen might be pulling 66w at idle across the system, which does make the cores incredibly power efficient, but he definitely was pulling stuff out of his ass regarding 21w this that or the other.
CB 15 MT is so short a run that anything can sustain ACT for its duration.
He mentioned that it says nothing about its IPC gains, but if it runs at 4.5GHz then there are no IPC gains.
I think that he was massively stretching his numbers in that video.
I get that Ryzen might be pulling 66w at idle across the system, which does make the cores incredibly power efficient, but he definitely was pulling stuff out of his ass regarding 21w this that or the other.
micheal jackson could have gone to the moon. it could be true.
Of course, it was obvious with anyone with a brain to see.
But there were a couple of extreme intl fanboys on here a couple of days ago, and now they've disappeared
no its just not worth debating. many are just pro amd. so all they see is these chips are like jesus has made them. with no real evidence. i dont think its worth debating about it for another 6 months only to see the new amd chips not as fast or slower in many applications. imagine right now if they did pre orders. people would be handing over cash yet nothing apart from a cinebench score has been shown lol. this has been amds tactic for how many years now ? how many years did they pull it off again ? 0!
how people are blindly jumping in both feet is amusing not only that because people offer against the grain opinion you must be a fanboy of intel ! pretty weak minded arguement because you cant back up show anything to prove how fast the chips are yet.
what is even funnier is over last few days its gone from close to intel or faster to now possibly twice as fast LOL. the forums are great entertainment.
If the 8c/16t part matches the Intel flagship, why wouldn't a 16c/32t version be nearly twice as fast? You're just spouting out of context nonsense as usual.
you have a cinebench benchmark yet now you pulling out twice as fast. with no evidence. twice as fast at what ? state what you talking about with proof. you have no proof. of anything. im talking logic.
if the matches this...
if the matches that...
whole lot of ifs...
show me one thing that proves anything your saying ? just one !
Still crying I see Dg.
Funny how you stamp your feet demanding proof that obviously can't be given, yet you're perfectly happy to dismiss everything without anything to back you up either. Do you actually get bored of trolling, or are you enjoying that people still rise to your bait?
In the absence of actual proof though, if a single chiplet engineering sample 8 core CPU can match the 9900K at 30% lower power, why is it so hard to believe that doubling up the core count will massively boost performance? OK, it won't be exactly twice as fast, but 16 cores of what we've seen demonstrated will absolutely batter the 9900K. You just can't deny it. Well, you can but you'll look like a buffoon in doing so.
Funny how you stamp your feet demanding proof that obviously can't be given, yet you're perfectly happy to dismiss everything without anything to back you up either. Do you actually get bored of trolling, or are you enjoying that people still rise to your bait?
In the absence of actual proof though, if a single chiplet engineering sample 8 core CPU can match the 9900K at 30% lower power, why is it so hard to believe that doubling up the core count will massively boost performance? OK, it won't be exactly twice as fast, but 16 cores of what we've seen demonstrated will absolutely batter the 9900K. You just can't deny it. Well, you can but you'll look like a buffoon in doing so.
look at your statement , reply. " in the absence of actual proof " LOL. then add in what you want to try and quantify the make belief. on paper the chips sound amazing. yet there is no proof of what many are getting carried away with. yet again im trolling for saying there is no proof or provide it to show these chips are faster or even x2 as fast as people are " claiming. im only responding to what people are putting. yet when you ask where are you pulling this proof from and ask for it to show people know what they talking about they cant ! cause there is none. yet im trolling. why not just call this thread add in what details you want. its true. we have no evidence proof but its true. cause its not a intel chip. anyone who dissagrees is a troll or a fanboy lol.