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

[chrcoluk]

htt/smt affect on gaming?

https://youtu.be/a8yXqsfXWcM?t=7m55s

or

and skip to 7:55

Also note how cinebench skews the affect which is why I always said its not a reasonable test to assess gaming performance impact.

I do accept that low core "and" low threaded chips in "certian" games can have min fps issues tho due to nvidia's dx11 threading model.

 

[Orange Nexus]

htt/smt affect on gaming?

https://youtu.be/a8yXqsfXWcM?t=7m55s

or

and skip to 7:55

Also note how cinebench skews the affect which is why I always said its not a reasonable test to assess gaming performance impact.

I do accept that low core "and" low threaded chips in "certian" games can have min fps issues tho due to nvidia's dx11 threading model.

https://i.imgur.com/zH8kQy2.jpg

 

[chrcoluk]

yes you picked a rare game, the vast majority of games dont max out all cores (on modern high end i5/i7/ryzen2). I dont think I have ever played a game thats pegged all my cores to 100%. Thats when htt does help when cores are maxed, which is why its good for cinebench and encoding.

also what game is that? curious how its so badly coded.

 

[Stephanie Peterson]

Really not all that bothered if games come out much faster to be honest, i am more interested in general usage grunt and a very fast disk system.

Good job M2 drives have dropped in price, half the amount they are when i got my 840 evo.. raid again

 

[Orange Nexus]

yes you picked a rare game, the vast majority of games dont max out all cores. I dont think I have ever played a game thats pegged all my cores to 100%. Thats when htt does help when cores are maxed, which is why its good for cinebench and encoding.

Rare? A lot of people play that game. It was that way even in BF3.

Maybe if we have a 12 core cpu, then HT/SMT won't matter anymore for awhile. Today, nah. If a player has a 6-core without HT all of a sudden wants to play Battlefield, he/she has no HT to turn on.

I think this video has a hidden agenda. Covering for you know who.

 

[awaybreaktoday]

 

[alec]

14555000 VND for r9 3850x and 12555000 VND for r9 3800x

That 627 and 537 usd

 

[MyBrainz]

Looks shopped to me.

 

[humbug]

That 627 and 537 usd

They have pretty high tax over there....

 

[Stephanie Peterson]

Looks shopped to me.

Me too, looked at it under magnification and some additional highlighting and the artifacts around the numbers and text look iffy.

Might be legit but i wouldnt bet on it.

 

[Fire_fly]

Rare? A lot of people play that game. It was that way even in BF3.

Maybe if we have a 12 core cpu, then HT/SMT won't matter anymore for awhile. Today, nah. If a player has a 6-core without HT all of a sudden wants to play Battlefield, he/she has no HT to turn on.

I think this video has a hidden agenda. Covering for you know who.

To be fair you have to feel bad for the people who have gone from 4c8t i7s to the equivalent of an i5. Battlefield can trun into a bit of a horror show when your minimums plummet faster than bf5 player numbers.

 

[Panos]

htt/smt affect on gaming?

https://youtu.be/a8yXqsfXWcM?t=7m55s

or

and skip to 7:55

Also note how cinebench skews the affect which is why I always said its not a reasonable test to assess gaming performance impact.

I do accept that low core "and" low threaded chips in "certian" games can have min fps issues tho due to nvidia's dx11 threading model.

His test is GPU bottlenecked. Using 1440p with GTX1080Ti on 3 games that hit the card hard, and then used 1080p on Metro, which even RTX2080Ti would have hard times.
He doesn't say if using DX11 or DX12 also. On top is using Time Spy not Firestrike, which is greatly affected by CPU.

However when he compares AMD vs Intel on videos is using, for the last 8 months, an overclocked RTX2080Ti and low resolutions like 1080p on older games which are more CPU sensitive like FarCry5 etc, here completely ignores that fact.
On top on his test the 8700K is all core overclocked to 5GHZ, and the worst part is when says to turn off HT as it won't affect performance.
Completely ignoring the fact that a HT OFF 8700K is an 8600K. A CPU costing less than HALF the money compared to 8700K.

And again completely ignores that AMD 2700X is there within 1 fps from the 8700K @ 5GHZ (with HT ON) with GTX1080Ti on those exact games and resolutions he is using.

Of course when AMD comes out with Ryzen 3000 he is going to test at 720p to avoid GPU bottleneck scenarios, like many other youtuber hypocrites.....

 

[Grim5]

Without watching that video, I'll just go ahead and say yes if you have enough cores you don't need hyperthreading. But if you don't have enough cores, then yes you need hyperthreading

I say this because every game benchmark I've looked at has the 9700k and 9900k at pretty much the same performance. While the 8700k and 7700k fall behind.
One could then make the argument that if you have at least 8 cores, then you should turn hyper threading off for games because it's a waste of electricity

 

[Rroff]

One could then make the argument that if you have at least 8 cores, then you should turn hyper threading off for games because it's a waste of electricity

Not really worth it the difference in power on average will be marginal - if you have enough real cores to cover the game workload and any additional background threads, etc. then disabling HT can give a tiny performance boost, depending on how CPU demanding a game is - usually around +3-5%.

 

[Beren]

That 627 and 537 usd

It is possible, especially when you look at the potential competition. The 9900k is $661 USD in OCUK right now and if the performance figures match the price it is going to have very similar single core boost performance but double the cores and threads and that 4.3ghz base clock across all cores before XFR kicks in? It could really knock out the Intel chip - and at a lower price.

AMD also historically are not afraid to price their flagship chips high. It also points to the 12 core chip being significantly lower price than the 9700k so they are going to cover the intel stack all the way down.

-Obviously based on the mountain of salt that the product and price are real...-

 

[Troezar]

It is possible, especially when you look at the potential competition. The 9900k is $661 USD in OCUK right now and if the performance figures match the price it is going to have very similar single core boost performance but double the cores and threads and that 4.3ghz base clock across all cores before XFR kicks in? It could really knock out the Intel chip - and at a lower price.

AMD also historically are not afraid to price their flagship chips high. It also points to the 12 core chip being significantly lower price than the 9700k so they are going to cover the intel stack all the way down.

-Obviously based on the mountain of salt that the product and price are real...-

Agreed, I'm wondering if it will be £599 and £499 for 16C parts and £399 for the 12C part. If performance is as good as rumoured Vs Intel prices they'd still be relatively cheap. I'd prefer £50 lower than those prices but you don't always get what you want

 

[beany_bot]

Because you have very weak market penetration, maybe?!

Weak market penetration? Huh. You mean beside all the massive commercial contracts AMD keep winning? Oh and the little matter of this...

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/289199-amd-continues-to-outsell-intel-21-at-european-retailer

 

[RavenXXX2]

£599 and £499 for 16C parts and £399 for the 12C part, That will kill any AMD desktop come back in its tracks.

 

[beany_bot]

£599 and £499 for 16C parts and £399 for the 12C part, That will kill any AMD desktop come back in its tracks.

So 9900k is £450. AMD cant release a 12/24 part (lets assume same gaming perf) for £399.

4 more cores for £50 less and you think that's crap?

 

[RavenXXX2]

Intel aint the ones sitting on less than 20% market share. AMD aint shaking anything up at that pricing.