*** 48HR SPECIAL: AMD 3700X ONLY £259.99 !! ***

[Aretak]

the real reason most people hold off on the 3700 and 3800s is the allcore speed. not doing 4ghz or low 4ghz is not great for gaming or as good as it should be.

Unlike you to be spreading misinformation, Dg. Both 3700Xs I've had have sat at ~4150MHz flat out 100% all-core load, and around 4250-4300MHz during gaming. That's during a "heavy" gaming workload such as running RPCS3, incidentally, which stresses the CPU more than 99.999% of games out there. In lighter games it's higher. Equally, the idea that people are turning away from them en-masse due to concerns about all-core turbo boosting is complete nonsense (as is the idea that it'd be having some major shift in sales if they boosted 100-150MHz higher during gaming), along with the notion that they're "not great for gaming" in general. They're fantastic CPUs for gaming, even at high refresh rates, and only beaten by a handful of the very top end Intel ones. And even then we're talking about them being 6-7% slower when using a 2080 Ti at 1080p - a completely unrealistic use case scenario for anyone with half a brain.

But hey, most people here are well aware of your agenda by now. Always good to call you out on it though, lest some newbie be taken in by one of your regular spews of BS.

 

[RavenXXX2]

Stock 3800X running constantly at 4.3Ghz+ when gaming

 

[~>Dg<~]

i will be buying a amd system soon. no agenda. this is the problem with guessing peoples motives or if there is a agenda. the truth of it is and this is no lie. the all core performance isnt what is sold on the box. we all know this. low 4gz yet advertise 4.4 -4.5 is not the same. this is why you see some people dissapointed when they can hardly run 4ghz on some chips.

they are great chips as said i will be buying to make a amd system soon. so take any assumptions about intel fan boy out your heads. as the amd chips are really good. the all core is just not quite there yet but that will come with the 4000s. which many are waiting for. sorta like the first ryzens. most wouldnt do 4ghz. then next revision were better.

 

[FoxEye]

Unlike you to be spreading misinformation, Dg. Both 3700Xs I've had have sat at ~4150MHz flat out 100% all-core load, and around 4250-4300MHz during gaming. That's during a "heavy" gaming workload such as running RPCS3, incidentally, which stresses the CPU more than 99.999% of games out there. In lighter games it's higher. Equally, the idea that people are turning away from them en-masse due to concerns about all-core turbo boosting is complete nonsense (as is the idea that it'd be having some major shift in sales if they boosted 100-150MHz higher during gaming), along with the notion that they're "not great for gaming" in general. They're fantastic CPUs for gaming, even at high refresh rates, and only beaten by a handful of the very top end Intel ones. And even then we're talking about them being 6-7% slower when using a 2080 Ti at 1080p - a completely unrealistic use case scenario for anyone with half a brain.

But hey, most people here are well aware of your agenda by now. Always good to call you out on it though, lest some newbie be taken in by one of your regular spews of BS.

Your text says one thing...

...only beaten by a handful of the very top end Intel [cards]...

...but the graph shows a 9600k being tied in games with a 3900X (at 1080p, sure, a res which you appear to be pretty dismissive of, despite the vast majority gaming at that res)

So... not sure how the graph supports your statement.

In any case we all know AMD doesn't have the single-thread crown yet, and for them to take the true top spot in gaming this what they need.

I don't have a dog in this race, I'll be buying a 4000 series when they come out, as hopefully then AMD *will* have the best single-thread perf.

 

[jigger]

AMD have the single thread crown too. Intel need upto a 25% frequency increase to match AMD.

 

[Skynet5]

3800x and aorus elite on discount and I've just got my bonus.

Bingo.

 

[FoxEye]

AMD have the single thread crown too. Intel need upto a 25% frequency increase to match AMD.

You're being disingenuous there.

Intel can and do have the single thread crown, regardless of differences in frequency, Intel CPUs can process a single-threaded workload faster than AMD CPUs.

 

[hominid]

Jigger is probably talking about IPC, which AMD is fastest, Intel beat AMD as their frequency is able to get higher.

A good point to make is that going from 14nm to 7nm and lower is that Intel will probably have to combat the regression in max frequency with smaller nodes. No longer can you move to a smaller node and get an almost automatic frequency boost for free, you will still get the size/power benefits but no longer will max frequency be higher!

That's why you need higher IPC, to combat the reduction in frequency. Intel surely know this and, along with all the other manufacturing issues they are sorting, the design teams need to pull there fingers out, hence Jim Keller building a new CPU core, they really need it.

Nothing will happen unless they get 10/7nm out the door, it has to happen fast as it's years overdue. No point backporting new designs to 14nm+++ as size, and heat, will be massive.

 

[ljt]

Not sure what DG means by misadvertising by AMD. They state the max single core boost, just as intel do... Neither claim an all core boost as the "max boost" on the box. I.e. my 3700x states 4.4Ghz, which is correct as a single core boost. In gaming it sits around 4.25/4.3Ghz and in Cinebench it will do about 4.1Ghz.

 

[Overlag]

You're being disingenuous there.

Intel can and do have the single thread crown, regardless of differences in frequency, Intel CPUs can process a single-threaded workload faster than AMD CPUs.

no, at equal clocks AMD are faster. Thats the point of his post. However Intel clock MUCH higher so overtake.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

no, at equal clocks AMD are faster. Thats the point of his post. However Intel clock MUCH higher so overtake.

And they have lower latency, at least at the moment

 

[FoxEye]

no, at equal clocks AMD are faster. Thats the point of his post. However Intel clock MUCH higher so overtake.

I know what the point of his post was, and why he said it. It's not exactly difficult to work out @jigger's motives.

IPC is not the same thing as "single-threaded performance" which is why I said he was being disingenuous. Which he was.

IPC is one factor determining single-threaded performance, but it isn't the whole story.

@jigger said, "AMD have the single thread crown." They don't.

 

[jigger]

I know what the point of his post was, and why he said it. It's not exactly difficult to work out @jigger's motives.

IPC is not the same thing as "single-threaded performance" which is why I said he was being disingenuous. Which he was.

IPC is one factor determining single-threaded performance, but it isn't the whole story.

@jigger said, "AMD have the single thread crown." They don't.

You mean apart from the times they do.

 

[FoxEye]

You mean apart from the times they do.

There are no limits to your AMD cheer-leading. You'd be quite happy to use false pretences to get more people to buy AMD, because you seem to have some kind of pathological hatred of Intel.

In the majority of single-threaded benchmarks Intel wins. It really is that simple.

There are one or two outliers. Overall, Intel has the single-threaded perf crown.

By all means, continue with your pro-AMD trolling tho.

e: Actually I'm not even sure if there are *any* single threaded applications where AMD wins. Just noticed that the benchmarks showing AMD winning in ST perf are where reviewers limited the clock speed of the Intel chips to match the clock speed of the AMD. Again, disingenuous.

So @jigger, got any ST benchmarks where AMD wins? Any at all?

 

[jigger]

There are no limits to your AMD cheer-leading. You'd be quite happy to use false pretences to get more people to buy AMD, because you seem to have some kind of pathological hatred of Intel.

In the majority of single-threaded benchmarks Intel wins. It really is that simple.

There are one or two outliers. Overall, Intel has the single-threaded perf crown.

By all means, continue with your pro-AMD trolling tho.

e: Actually I'm not even sure if there are *any* single threaded applications where AMD wins. Just noticed that the benchmarks showing AMD winning in ST perf are where reviewers limited the clock speed of the Intel chips to match the clock speed of the AMD. Again, disingenuous.

So @jigger, got any ST benchmarks where AMD wins? Any at all?

Trust me you really don’t want me to run Intel vs AMD tests. AMD win in every metric apart from clock speed. And when I say win I mean destroy.

 

[gupsterg]

i will be buying a amd system soon. no agenda. this is the problem with guessing peoples motives or if there is a agenda. the truth of it is and this is no lie. the all core performance isnt what is sold on the box. we all know this. low 4gz yet advertise 4.4 -4.5 is not the same. this is why you see some people dissapointed when they can hardly run 4ghz on some chips.

they are great chips as said i will be buying to make a amd system soon. so take any assumptions about intel fan boy out your heads. as the amd chips are really good. the all core is just not quite there yet but that will come with the 4000s. which many are waiting for. sorta like the first ryzens. most wouldnt do 4ghz. then next revision were better.

Prior to Ryzen I was on Intel for over a decade. So I'd class myself as I buy what I believe is best for my needs.

When you go on the Ryzen product page and hover over the " i " near max boost you'll see:-

Max boost for AMD Ryzen processors is the maximum frequency achievable by a single core on the processor running a bursty single-threaded workload. Max boost will vary based on several factors, including, but not limited to: thermal paste; system cooling; motherboard design and BIOS; the latest AMD chipset driver; and the latest OS updates.

The fact of how boost works on Ryzen is not hidden. Any purchaser just needs to read up and check. Then you can also go and see reviews like TPU's R9 3900X or R7 3700X or R5 3600/X and see clocks. I have spoken to W1zzard about the app he uses for clocks tests, it's custom application.

 

[~>Dg<~]

i said its not clear what you get speed wise in black and white multicore wise. its done for a reason. they know this so do others. when you buy something you want to know what you getting. in reality you dont know what multicore speed you will be getting. they only tell you the single core speed which when you selling multicore processors and its the main reason to buy them its a little shady how they are advertised.

 

[jigger]

i said its not clear what you get speed wise in black and white multicore wise. its done for a reason. they know this so do others. when you buy something you want to know what you getting. in reality you dont know what multicore speed you will be getting. they only tell you the single core speed which when you selling multicore processors and its the main reason to buy them its a little shady how they are advertised.

Same for Intel. Should we demand a fixed speed? Maybe.

 

[DarkHorizon472]

i said its not clear what you get speed wise in black and white multicore wise. its done for a reason. they know this so do others. when you buy something you want to know what you getting. in reality you dont know what multicore speed you will be getting. they only tell you the single core speed which when you selling multicore processors and its the main reason to buy them its a little shady how they are advertised.

You are right and it is unclear unless you understand it fully.

 

[marms]

This is the AMD specs for the 3700x

AMD Ryzen™ 7 3700X
Specifications
# of CPU Cores
8
# of Threads
16
Base Clock
3.6GHz
Max Boost Clock
Up to 4.4GHz
Total L1 Cache
512KB
Total L2 Cache
4MB
Total L3 Cache
32MB
Unlocked
Yes
CMOS
TSMC 7nm FinFET
Package
AM4
PCI Express® Version
PCIe 4.0 x16
Thermal Solution (PIB)
Wraith Prism with RGB LED
Thermal Solution (MPK)
Wraith PRISM
Default TDP / TDP
65W
Max Temps
95°C


I don't know what's misleading about that.