it is faster. lets just end it there.
-
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.
OcUK Ryzen 3000/Zen 2 review thread
- Thread starter CAT-THE-FIFTH
- Start date
it is faster. lets just end it there.
Soldato
You'd literally be better off talking to a brick wall, or a plant, you'd get a better conversation.
It’s faster and more expensive, but so are 9700k and 9900k #endof
we already done the 9700k thing. its hardly any dearer than a 3700x. it just comes down to whether you just game or...if you believe the extra threads will make a difference in the time you own the chip.
none are bad decisions whichever way you go.
none are bad decisions whichever way you go.
That was not your, or anyone else's argument. You have setup a strawman to knock down so you get to say I won an argument that was never even being debated.
- Humbug posted a video and stated that there is only a few % in it between an 8700K and a 3700X at 1080p with a 2080. This was an accurate conclusion from the video he linked as evidence. It is also backed up by numerous 3700X reviews on the internet.
- You responded that an 8700K overclocked to 5GHz will be "quite a bit faster".
- To which I replied with evidence, that it would only be marginally faster even with a top end GPU and that at higher resolutions (or mid-range GPUs) the 8700K OC does not help much.
Last edited:
Soldato
Wrong thread.
Last edited:
They are motivated to make what they reviewing look better.
So
AMD product launch = Ommit intel OC figures.
Intel product launch = Include intel OC figures.
So I've heard this enough times that I got curious.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1877-core-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-9-3900x/
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-9-3900x-7-3700x-review,6214-6.html
https://bit-tech.net/reviews/tech/cpus/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-review/7/
Just because you didn't see doesn't mean you looked.
Exactly. It's easier to cry foul and ignore the evidence presented. Every review I have seen of Zen 2 has been positive and state the gap for gaming has narrowed to insignificant levels even when overlocked. They do all state the Intel top end CPUs are still better for twitch gaming on a high end GPU, but every other scenario there is no advantage. On the other hand for content creation Zen 2 wins hands down due to core count.
The MSI B450 Tomahawk has problems:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MSI_Gaming/comments/ch9qud/msi_livestream_conclusion/
https://www.reddit.com/r/MSI_Gaming/comments/ch9qud/msi_livestream_conclusion/
MSI LiveStream Conclusion
- B450 Tomahawk will stay on GSI Lite and will not recieve the Click Bios 5 again, at least for Ryzen 3000 Series and upcoming. Users of 1000/2000 Series should stay on their BIOS.
- GSI Lite BIOS will not going to have OC profiles again. Update: They are looking into it. No promise. Quote: " ***MSI Gaming:*** just checking some bios release note, OC Profiles might be back in future GSE-Lite bioses "
- MSI is *now* aware of the problems regarding the Tomahawk and CPU Debug light issues and will investigate that problem. They hopefully have some new Infos next week, but no promise.
- "Old" B450 MB (including Tomahawk) will have Ryzen support until 2020 (?)
- If you just bought any B450 Board, you should return it and buy a MAX board instead. Its more "futureproof" for upcoming BIOS updates and its no hassle with Ryzen 3000 Series. (Official statement on livestream from MSI, wow.) Timestamp on stream: 1:40:29, you can watch it here -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_elcRHeVjI
- After i asked this question: "Will there be an option to RMA an not working B450 Tomahawk and recieve an B450 Tomahawk MAX (maybe with additional charge) ?" They closed the stream. Quote: " ***MSI Gaming:*** Sorry it seems the stream dropped, anyway we are out fixing your Tomahawk issues. thanks for joining this was the last topic anyway. Thanks for joining and see you next week, hope to have an update on Tomahawk... no promise."
I never said it applies to every single reviewer.
The problem is they dont test everything and when they do its often flawed methodology, after getting some results back from a friend I can tell you intel outperforms in a few games we tested that are not twitch shooters. Now is the performance huge or at least big enough to be an issue, thats not necessarily the case, but reviewers games testing is extremely narrow, and they also tend to do only minimal testing on stuff that isnt content creation or gaming.
Of course what is significant and not significant is also a matter of opinion, the reviewers only state an opinion in that regard. Some people will spend insane money to gain a few %.
There are reviews with overclocked Intel CPUs - its the whole point of me going to the effort of putting every review I can find and every issue I can find into this thread.
Also, almost all the people I know who got K series CPUs never bothered overclocking them,and just got them for the higher default clockspeeds. The Intel 65W non-K parts tend to boost somewhat worse overall. Plus its quite clear by now even overclocking the AMD parts means nothing, when the lower parts are within a margin of error compared to the higher parts in terms of actual clockspeeds,unless 100MHZ actually means anything.
Edit!!
Also the maximum overclocks argument has never played well with me,as people never compare "safe" kinds of overclocks in forums,but everything at best possible case suicide voltage level. I have known people read into these claims on forums,and ended up with lemon CPUs.
I remember back in the day getting a Q6600 which had high VID,and it didn't overclock as well as what people were getting on forums,because people with the poor overclocking CPUs won't be generally boasting about them anyway.
Second Edit!!
An example:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_8600k/
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_9600k/
Based on 11000 entries,the average overclock of a Core i5 8600K/9600K is around 4.6GHZ~4.7GHZ which is much lower than what you see on forums.
Gamersnexus had their own Core i5 9600K at 5.2GHZ against a stock and "overclocked" Ryzen 5 3600.
Their Core i7 9700K was at 5.1GHZ in their Ryzen 7 3700X review.
Nearly 8000 entries,has the average at 4.95GHZ:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_9700k/
That is normal people using a range of motherboards and different cooling solutions,so is as close to what an average enthusiast is getting from these CPUs over their lifespans.
If you look at the Ryzen 3000 CPUs,they are all at 4.2GHZ~4.3GHZ on average.
Last edited:
The Ryzen 5 3600 scored higher on the A320 motherboard!!
Yep it does indeed and you can pick up A320 board for £40 so a good option if you want a cheap gaming pc.
Yes, they are supposed to come later in the year
Permabanned
And thats why Intel is doing this 9900ks. Its more like 3000series in a way aka runs at MAX out of box.There are reviews with overclocked Intel CPUs - its the whole point of me going to the effort of putting every review I can find and every issue I can find into this thread.
Also, almost all the people I know who got K series CPUs never bothered overclocking them,and just got them for the higher default clockspeeds. The Intel 65W non-K parts tend to boost somewhat worse overall. Plus its quite clear by now even overclocking the AMD parts means nothing, when the lower parts are within a margin of error compared to the higher parts in terms of actual clockspeeds,unless 100MHZ actually means anything.
Edit!!
Also the maximum overclocks argument has never played well with me,as people never compare "safe" kinds of overclocks in forums,but everything at best possible case suicide voltage level. I have known people read into these claims on forums,and ended up with lemon CPUs.
I remember back in the day getting a Q6600 which had high VID,and it didn't overclock as well as what people were getting on forums,because people with the poor overclocking CPUs won't be generally boasting about them anyway.
Second Edit!!
An example:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_8600k/
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i5_9600k/
Based on 11000 entries,the average overclock of a Core i5 8600K/9600K is around 4.6GHZ~4.7GHZ which is much lower than what you see on forums.
Gamersnexus had their own Core i5 9600K at 5.2GHZ against a stock and "overclocked" Ryzen 5 3600.
Their Core i7 9700K was at 5.1GHZ in their Ryzen 7 3700X review.
Nearly 8000 entries,has the average at 4.95GHZ:
https://hwbot.org/hardware/processor/core_i7_9700k/
That is normal people using a range of motherboards and different cooling solutions,so is as close to what an average enthusiast is getting from these CPUs over their lifespans.
If you look at the Ryzen 3000 CPUs,they are all at 4.2GHZ~4.3GHZ on average.
Hardware Unboxed tested the Core i5 9400F against the Ryzen 5 2600 and Ryzen 5 3600,using the included coolers. Of the 8 games they tested,Kingdom Come Deliverance and BFV,the Core i5 9400F had stuttering.
https://youtu.be/vGNG9AZKtsg?t=382
