You say zen 2 like that was the top end chip. That was mid tier so if you want even more performance don’t buy mid tier, buy a 7 or 9.
-
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
No I don’t see it...the 2080 is 1% to 2% faster than a 1080ti for like 150 quid more...
The RAD 7 is a disappointment
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 1,751
- Location
- wakefield
What is that reason oh wise one?
The only pessimistic people in ere are those who have just bought 9900k's and who don't want their crown taken. Simple. Salty.
You say zen 2 like that was the top end chip. That was mid tier so if you want even more performance don’t buy mid tier, buy a 7 or 9.
Was it mid tier? As I never heard it...link me to the bit
Oh you can’t as you just made it up.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,398
- Location
- Bournemouth
Yes it is a let down regarding rad 7, but i think amds zen 2 processors are more of a success because this time unlike zen and zen + we now have a 8c/16t processor scoring the same as a 9900k at whichever core clock it is at, something the zen and zen + have not been able to do.
On the contrary I wanted zen to kill the 9900k
Ok so If that zen chip is running 5ghz it’s a success is it even if the 9900k is running 4.7ghz?
Hmmmm
Explain...
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 1,751
- Location
- wakefield
Why would clocks matter, for Ryzen IPC were to be worse the clocks must have been much higher than 4.7Ghz as they are both 8/16. Do you think ryzen can high over 4.7Ghz all cores?
If not and Ryzen can't reach 4.7Ghz then Ryzen IPC will be higher.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,398
- Location
- Bournemouth
Ghz does not mean better performance, it is the ipc where it counts.
The only thing I think I can grumble over is no Navi being mentioned. But she did say there are more high performance GPU's coming this year. Which I'm fine with
I liked the Rad 7. I thought it's design was lovely to look at and it seemed to perform very well. More than enough for my needs at least. Although I think it'll be skipped with me. I'd rather wait for Navi with hopefully similar performance for better cost. Let's see what's around and to see it benchmarked, clocked and reviewed - don't have to wait long.
I liked the Rad 7. I thought it's design was lovely to look at and it seemed to perform very well. More than enough for my needs at least. Although I think it'll be skipped with me. I'd rather wait for Navi with hopefully similar performance for better cost. Let's see what's around and to see it benchmarked, clocked and reviewed - don't have to wait long.
It was already linked further back.
Yes meaning the 9900k is the faster chip and has the faster ipc
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,398
- Location
- Bournemouth
I know your testing my knowledge i know people would think ghz means everything which is not true.
As for ipc, we don't know what ipc the amd processor has yet.
it LITERALLY just got beat. 8core vs 8 core.