• 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 ***

4K8KW10 said:
I don't see the point in buying, as well, in order to get more for your hard-earned money, honestly think that if AMD can afford to do this, they are no longer on the road to recovery but safe and secure, and honestly hope that intel’s 3rd Core X HEDT Lineup in the autumn will return them back to the Earth from Mars.
Click to expand...

lol - which autumn
 
RavenXXX2 said:
AMD had a great computex. Intel and nvidia on the other hand.

33fc4df761b64a9ef170d2c2b07f129a947110892f7a82dee76705c76c826921.png
Click to expand...
very good if you own AMD stock and still a good time to buy.
 
I'll just leave this here...
2700X @ 4.2Ghz: 16 threads 1879
3990X @ 4.25Ghz 32 threads 4336

1879 X2 = 3758 vs 4346 = +16%

And that's not including the loss from core scaling.

jtqszDA.png


namqpjh.png
 
so just having a gander at the sff x570 boards...

asrock = 6+2 (?A powerstages)
asus impact (mini dtx) = 8+2 (70A powerstages)
asus strix = 8+2 (?A powerstages)
gigabyte = 6+2 (70A powerstages)
msi = ???

looks like if strix has 70A powerstages as well then it's the one to get, specs-wise, as long as it's reasonably priced (asus tax, lol), and willing to gamble with the lack of asus rma support :/
 
Last edited:
4K8KW10 said:
I don't see the point in buying, as well, in order to get more for your hard-earned money, honestly think that if AMD can afford to do this, they are no longer on the road to recovery but safe and secure, and honestly hope that intel’s 3rd Core X HEDT Lineup in the autumn will return them back to the Earth from Mars.
Click to expand...

AMD's 12 core consumer CPU is too expensive.

They'll be punished when Intel release their $3000 enthusiast CPU.

Okay lol.
 
Kashinoda said:
AMD's 12 core consumer CPU is too expensive.

They'll be punished when Intel release their $3000 enthusiast CPU.

Okay lol.
Click to expand...


AMD owners before Ryzen 3000 : We're budget conscious and want Intel beating performance for peanuts!
Also AMD owners: Waah! Waah! Why is AMD not beating Intel yet!??

AMD owners after Ryzen 3000: We're still budget conscious and screw you Intel, AMD will now beat you hahah!
Also AMD owners: OMG Waah! AMD are traitorous sell outs , they're raising their prices and now we can't afford them!
 
4K8KW10 said:
It isn't so much that the top SKU is expensive. It's that there are no other 12-core SKU available. There should be 3 12-core SKU, not 1:

65W Ryzen 12C/24T
100W Ryzen 12C/24T
135W Ryzen 12C/24T
Click to expand...

I didn't realise AMD had launched the whole Ryzen 3xxx stack yet... Oh no, it hasn't, you've just got your knickers in a twist still :D
 
humbug said:
TDP is Thermal Design Power

That's not power consumption, all it is is a recommendation for minimum cooling, its often used, mostly by Intel as something to print on the box to make those who think TDP = Power Consumption think its X amount efficient, for example the 9900K TDP is 95 Watts, ha... ahahaha.... NO!

The way Intel get away with that is print a base clock of 3.6Ghz on the box, at 3.6Ghz the power consumption, and therefore heat output is 95 Watts, but if your MB VRMs are capable of feeding more than 95 Watts and you are using cooling that can dissipate more than 95 Watts of heat it will "boost" higher, upto 4.7Ghz, and in reality the 9900K at 4.7Ghz is a 200 Watt CPU, not 95.
Ryan Shrout, Intel shill extraordinare, on his 9900K review performance benchmarked the 9900K on the best Asus board, but when it came to Power consumption testing, he used the crappiest board he could find, which hard throttled the 9900K to its 3.6Ghz 95 Watt base, and concluded "its a 95 Watt CPU" i propose because with Ryzen at the time showing Intel up for power efficiency they didn't want to get humiliated.
Click to expand...
That's a gross oversimplification, and factually incorrect.
The 9900K has a base of 3.6GHz but that is not the speed at which is 95w is drawn under full load. Turbo works off tye back of thermal headroom, and you cannot have thermal headroom if your base clocks runs at the cooling limit. In reality, under heavy load a 9900K will turbo up to 4.7GHz until the thermal headroom is exhausted and then it will clock down to a clock speed that it can maintain 24/7 under the same heavy load. This clock down speed is where the 95w rated cooling is at its limit. For the 9900K that has been shown to be 4.2GHz.
The 9900K is an incredibly efficient CPU when operating at its TDP. The fact it never runs at spec, by choice, simply hides its actual efficiency.
Anyone that's read by my posts here and on Anandtech would know that I was highly critical of the 9900K's thermals on launch, but that changed once the true behaviour of it when propeely adhering to Intel spec became apparent. You'll recall there was an uproar amongst folk that didn't realise that this was also happening with the 8700K and 7700K too (though less noticeable at the time because they weren't throwing out silly power numbers that warranted further investigation).
In terms source, IIRC it was Gamers Nexus that first properly did a deep dive on what the 9900K was doing, and how it was supposed to operate according to Intel spec.

Edit: https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3389-intel-tdp-investigation-9900k-violating-turbo-duration-z390
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom