AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

[Yaayuh!]

Intel suck

I have no words... *facepalm*

@RavenXXX2 I think that's worthy of it's own thread to be honest.

 

[humbug]

My response... a constructive one.

Thanks for your response.

Amongst a lot of other things i use Blender, not Cinema 4D but yes, its the same thing really.

Games, yes there is no denying Intel are faster, overall, but its not by a huge amount, you’re talking about the 9700K, great CPU, its about 5 to 15% faster in most games, tho strangely it looses to Ryzen 3000 by a small but significant margin in a couple of game including CS:GO, of all things.
So here is the thing about that, this is only true with an RTX 2080TI at 1080P.
I would bet the percentage of people who run an RTX 2080TI and at 1080P is tiny, If you are someone with such a setup, i agree they do exist, then a 9700K or 9900K is the best thing for you, but for the vast majority running GPU’s anything less than that? There is only a margin of error if any difference between a 9900K and a Ryzen 3700X or even a Ryzen 3600. for about half the cost, that’s around $200 you can put to a better GPU or a new screen, a really good TB NVMe Drive…. you see this is the price difference, its the cost of a significant chunk of hardware and you still get a huge amount of performance from the CPU.

The reason why i have pulled Intel up on this here, this “Real World Performance” marketing has been going on since AMD launched 3'rd gen Ryzen, is because Intel are trying to redefine what “Real World Performance” is, while not inaccurate, but far less relevant than what ‘coincidently???’ Ryzen 3000 excels in, no pun intended.
Some people care about 10% better FPS on a $500 CPU vs a $300 CPU, but no one cares about Chrome running faster when that faster is something no one would ever actually experience. they care far more about how fast they can get the video encoded for YouTube.

 

[humbug]

Intel suck

I love this slide bashing AMD's AGESA Update showing a drop in performance.

This is an 'actual' real world test, which CPU's are faster????

 

[DragonQ]

"Transparency" on an Intel slide, that's a good one. When was the last time they actually responded to community concerns or questions about their products? Oh it was probably when they told people to stop overclocking their K-series chips.

 

[RavenXXX2]

Heads up, if you are running realtek sound and have NahimicService running in taskmanger, disable that ****, it slows system responsiveness and performance. It keeps clocks running high and high idle voltage.

 

[DragonQ]

Heads up, if you are running realtek sound and have NahimicService running in taskmanger, disable that ****, it slows system responsiveness and performance. It keeps clocks running high and high idle voltage.

Realtek audio drivers are probably the most bloated I've ever seen. Some packages are over a gigabyte ffs. Considering the audio works perfectly fine without installing any of their crap, I'm not sure what the point is.

 

[humbug]

I don't even have them installed, Windows will run the Realtek audio without the Realtek drivers.

Besides that i use a Corsair HS70 Headset anyway., i haven't had speakers for years.

 

[SiDeards73]

Lol @ Intel, that video above is hilarious... Ryan Shrout is a moron as well, he was paid by Intel for many years to "Review" their products, or as i call it "make them look better than they actually are" and finally got his dream job with them. You simply cannot trust a single word Intel or their reps spout it seems.

 

[humbug]

On that there is one more response from me and Ryan Shrout in out conversation.

Continuing on from here.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...itor-hinting.18825852/page-1241#post-32996506

Here.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...itor-hinting.18825852/page-1241#post-32996846

And here.
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/t...itor-hinting.18825852/page-1242#post-32996974



Ryan:

Your comment on gaming is interesting. I can tell youthat there are many gamers out there with 120Hz or even 240Hz displays that do want to run at 1080p and higher frame rates, which is a great example where that additional performance Intel Core parts can offer to gamers. You can surely make the cost and benefit argument with going with a slower or differently featured processor to use that money to improve the GPU, or improve the SSD, etc. but again, I think ALL of those options are viable ones.

I don’t look at us trying to “redefine” the idea of real world performance but instead to define it for this consumer segment for the first time. If you look at the history of graphics card testing, it was at one point literally just 3DMarks plus a timedemo of Quake III. Then people started to realize that those benchmarks could be gamed, made to insinuate things that didn’t actually impact the true gameplay experience. Thus began the journey of testing actual games, real world testing, experience-based metrics, etc. I think that same thing can and should occur when it comes to consumer processors.

Me.

On those “experience-based metrics” in CPU game performance testing, increasingly that is starting to happen, and one thing that i have seen reviewers say in these reviews where they use an RTX 2080TI at 1080P is that everything and including the 9600K down stutters in a couple of games at these very high refresh-rates, its down to its 6 threads being saturated to 100% load trying to keep up with that RTX 2080TI, the 3600 having 12 threads is smooth, Hardware Unboxed was one of those i remember making this point, another was Digital Foundry tho thats older 7600K vs Ryzen 1600, Digital Foundry called it catastrophic cratering on the 7600K. That one i remember clearly and i have it time stamped URL here https://youtu.be/4RMbYe4X2LI?t=335

You’re right Bar-charts are only so good as to give you an indication, but if we eliminate for example the lack of threads spoiling that experience Coffeelake does look better than Ryzen 3000 in games, yet that performance difference is nothing like what it was back in AMD’s junk Bulldozer days.
In the link below scroll down to the bottom where the accumulative slides are, it gives you the percentage for each of 36 games in a single slide, broadly its around 5% to the 9900K, at best for Ryzen 3000 its +4%, at worst its +15% to the 9900K, 3900X is a 12 core and complete overkill a 3700X will give you the same results. this is at 1080P with an RTX 2080TI.

Ryzen 9 3900X vs. Core i9-9900K: 36 Game Benchmark
A battle that needs no further introduction, we're pitting the new Ryzen 9 3900X head to head against the Core i9-9900K…
www.techspot.com
Anyway, i’m looking forward to your entry into the Gaming GPU space, that’s a market that needs a shake-up.

No further responses from Ryan.

 

[TrixX]

No surprise he stopped responding. He's been an Intel boy bought and paid for from years past, he just landed his dream job shilling for them hard. Problem is he's talking scheiße...

 

[Woodsta888]

I remember how hard he (Shrout) was all over FCAT (Frame Time Analysis Tool) when AMD caught up with Nvidia in FPS. Rightly so though as it did show the variance to not be even, in delivering frames as stutter.

 

[jigger]

I remember how hard he (Shrout) was all over FCAT (Frame Time Analysis Tool) when AMD caught up with Nvidia in FPS. Rightly so though as it did show the variance to not be even, in delivering frames as stutter.

PC Paid Perspective.

 

[sajtion]

why are clocks speeds on amd zen 2 so crap? if amd went from 14 nm to 7 nm in last decade why are cpu clock speeds not nearing 10gh by now?

 

[michty_me]

why are clocks speeds on amd zen 2 so crap? if amd went from 14 nm to 7 nm in last decade why are cpu clock speeds not nearing 10gh by now?

Clock speeds don't mean much really. Whats the deal with wanting to hit a certain number? Pub talk figures?
Whats the point in having a huge clock speed if it already matches another CPU in performance but at a lower speed?

 

[L0rdMike]

Clock speeds don't mean much really. Whats the deal with wanting to hit a certain number? Pub talk figures?
Whats the point in having a huge clock speed if it already matches another CPU in performance but at a lower speed?

Like the old Athlon days the 2000+ ran at 1.67ghz

 

[michty_me]

Like the old Athlon days the 2000+ ran at 1.67ghz

I think I had an Athlon CPU. I went for it from recommendations on here. Then after that I went for a 2500K which I'm still using. Now looking to go back to AMD on a 3600.

 

[spoffle]

why are clocks speeds on amd zen 2 so crap? if amd went from 14 nm to 7 nm in last decade why are cpu clock speeds not nearing 10gh by now?

Clockspeed is irrelevant when it comes to actual performance.

 

[Potatowithearsontheside]

Clockspeed is irrelevant when it comes to actual performance.

This comment should be a mandatory statement displayed on every post.

 

[TrM]

why are clocks speeds on amd zen 2 so crap? if amd went from 14 nm to 7 nm in last decade why are cpu clock speeds not nearing 10gh by now?

Amd fx cpu’s Could hit 5gz and how good was those cpu’s? Clock speed whilst have some impact we can see from intel 9900k vs 3900x that it can still ekk out that extra little bit of performance in the right situation.

But amd ryzen cpu have been getting higher and higher clock speed with each generation same as intel. Intel didn’t really have a 5ghz all core cpu till the 9900ks which we still haven’t seen the cooking requirements to stop the throttling yet.

And no cpu will hit 10ghz on silicon it’s a limit I doubt we will see.

Zen 2 clock speeds are very good and the cpu’s Are amazing tbh

 

[humbug]

What we have to remember is Intel's 14nm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++ is extremely mature.

Broadwell (i7 6800 / 6900 series) was Intel's first 14nm CPU, did they hit 5Ghz? 4.5Ghz at best and like a toaster oven.

7nm is brand new, give it time to mature.