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

[gupsterg]

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.

If I go to the Intel 9900K web page and hoover my mouse over the " i "for Max Turbo Frequency I get:-

Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating using Intel® Turbo Boost Technology and, if present, Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost. Frequency is typically measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.

For base frequency it says:-

Processor Base Frequency describes the rate at which the processor's transistors open and close. The processor base frequency is the operating point where TDP is defined. Frequency is typically measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second

Both "tooltips" are very similar to what the Ryzen product page has for base/max frequency. Looking at TPU review for it is boost frequency curve doesn't look too dissimilar from Ryzen 3000. All the prior graphs plus Intel I've placed here.

I paid ~£220 ish for a ASUS ROG Crosshair VI Hero on pre-order at launch in 2017. That same board can take 1000/2000/3000 series CPUs and very likely will have 4000 series as well, I can't say I have ever done that on Intel in the past decade.

On that same mobo the max core/thread count in ~2yrs went from 8C/16T to 16C/32T, again I can't say Intel gave me that in the past decade. Yeah it may not OC like a bitach like my devil's canyon CPU did, but I have a better PC that can game and when I do encoding, etc it wrecks a like price point Intel CPU.

 

[~>Dg<~]

you trying to use intel as a arguement to amd issue. buying a new amd cpu you dont know what you going to get on multicore. its that simple its not a intel issue or bias. one could be 4ghz next could be 4.4.

atleast with the intel cpus you talking about you know what multicore speeds you getting minimum or even most likely max. amd you dont. £250 is a good price at the moment for the 3700x. hopefully amd sort out more clearer their speeds on advertising selling practices.

 

[Orange Nexus]

you trying to use intel as a arguement to amd issue. buying a new amd cpu you dont know what you going to get on multicore. its that simple its not a intel issue or bias. one could be 4ghz next could be 4.4.

atleast with the intel cpus you talking about you know what multicore speeds you getting minimum or even most likely max. amd you dont. £250 is a good price at the moment for the 3700x. hopefully amd sort out more clearer their speeds on advertising selling practices.

It seems you do not have any idea what you are talking about. I own GEN 1, 1+, and 2. I know exactly what their multi-core speeds are at stock on multi-threaded apps like Cinebench.

I thought recently you are making sense but it seems you have reverted back to your old ways.

 

[~>Dg<~]

how did you know those speeds ? after you brought it. point totally missed. you can debate argue all you want. you dont know what you getting until you brought the product. which shows you how its badly advertised sold from a customers buying point of view. amd love it.

 

[Orange Nexus]

how did you know those speeds ? after you brought it. point totally missed. you can debate argue all you want. you dont know what you getting until you brought the product. which shows you how its badly advertised sold from a customers buying point of view. amd love it.

You are the only one who is so concerned about it. Funny thing is, you don't even own a single Ryzen. Just stop the BS.

What matters is i can do what i need to do with my rigs.

 

[~>Dg<~]

i do . as said previously. older 1st gen. along with other pcs. stop guessing. all ive said is you dont know what multicore you will get from buying amd cpus. which is the whole point of buying a multicore cpu. you dont want to know about single core performance. your trying to make it personal to suit your response because you have one. take bias out of your reply. look at the facts. there is no listed multicore actual speeds for these amd cpus you are guarenteed to get. dont quote me reply. its not needed especially if its just biased to suit your own response. ive said the cpus are good. amd got it sown up. i said the 3700x is also good at £250 current pricing. my only issue is you dont know what you getting till you own it handed over your money. which amd have done on purpose. why the marketing is done as it is. it means they can just bin chips at anything they want. lazy.

 

[Orange Nexus]

Shut the hell up. lol

 

[KungFuSpaghetti]

you trying to use intel as a arguement to amd issue. buying a new amd cpu you dont know what you going to get on multicore. its that simple its not a intel issue or bias. one could be 4ghz next could be 4.4.

atleast with the intel cpus you talking about you know what multicore speeds you getting minimum or even most likely max. amd you dont. £250 is a good price at the moment for the 3700x. hopefully amd sort out more clearer their speeds on advertising selling practices.

Tend to agree, AMD don't bother to state all core speeds as I don't think or would help their sales to the less informed. Slightly misleading perhaps, but doesn't really matter, most people will Google benchmarks and see negligible differences in gaming and applications if they have owt about them.

My 3900x only does 4175mhz all core in cinebench, however on the flip side playing pube g 2 cores are at 4.6ghz, 3 at 4.575 and the remaining core on ccx1 at 4.550. So performance is their either way, my GPU is the weak point now.

More than happy with it tbh as I can still re encode a blue ray and/or stream at the same time (not that anyone would want to watch me as I suck).

 

[Troezar]

i do . as said previously. older 1st gen. along with other pcs. stop guessing. all ive said is you dont know what multicore you will get from buying amd cpus. which is the whole point of buying a multicore cpu. you dont want to know about single core performance. your trying to make it personal to suit your response because you have one. take bias out of your reply. look at the facts. there is no listed multicore actual speeds for these amd cpus you are guarenteed to get. dont quote me reply. its not needed especially if its just biased to suit your own response. ive said the cpus are good. amd got it sown up. i said the 3700x is also good at £250 current pricing. my only issue is you dont know what you getting till you own it handed over your money. which amd have done on purpose. why the marketing is done as it is. it means they can just bin chips at anything they want. lazy.

A friendly tip, capitalise the first letter of each sentence. People are much more likely to read your posts if you make it easier to read.

 

[Orange Nexus]

Tend to agree, AMD don't bother to state all core speeds as I don't think or would help their sales to the less informed. Slightly misleading perhaps, but doesn't really matter, most people will Google benchmarks and see negligible differences in gaming and applications if they have owt about them.

My 3900x only does 4175mhz all core in cinebench, however on the flip side playing pube g 2 cores are at 4.6ghz, 3 at 4.575 and the remaining core on ccx1 at 4.550. So performance is their either way, my GPU is the weak point now.

More than happy with it tbh as I can still re encode a blue ray and/or stream at the same time (not that anyone would want to watch me as I suck).

The i9 9900K has a base clock of 3.6GHz. A boost clock of 5GHz. Do you know its clocks running Handbrake at stock clocks?
My R7 2700 has a base clock of 3.2GHz. A boost clock of 4.1GHz. Do you know its clocks running Cinebench 15 Multi-threaded?

In both cases you would not know until you own these CPUs and run those tests, respectively.

So he is full of BS.

 

[FoxEye]

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.

You talk as tho benchmarks for single threaded perf (and all the other metrics) don't already exist... they do...

So nobody needs you to run any tests. I don't consider you an unbiased source so I'd be loath to trust any results you came up with anyhow.

 

[jigger]

N

You talk as tho benchmarks for single threaded perf (and all the other metrics) don't already exist... they do...

So nobody needs you to run any tests. I don't consider you an unbiased source so I'd be loath to trust any results you came up with anyhow.

So you’ll need no further explanation.

I was shocked to see how far ahead AMD are of Intel.

 

[BigEars]

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.

Interesting. What about one of the most used ST benchmarks out there, SuperPi. I've picked an old CPU around 7 years older IIRC, an i7-3770k @ 4.0GHz and SuperPi 32M for you to compete against at same clock speed.

https://hwbot.org/submission/2451553_robert_luisant_superpi___32m_core_i7_3770k_7min_59sec_641ms

Look forward to your result.

 

[gupsterg]

you trying to use intel as a arguement to amd issue. buying a new amd cpu you dont know what you going to get on multicore. its that simple its not a intel issue or bias. one could be 4ghz next could be 4.4.

atleast with the intel cpus you talking about you know what multicore speeds you getting minimum or even most likely max. amd you dont. £250 is a good price at the moment for the 3700x. hopefully amd sort out more clearer their speeds on advertising selling practices.

In the previous post I think you missed:-

If I go to the Intel 9900K web page and hoover my mouse over the " i "for Max Turbo Frequency I get:-

Max turbo frequency is the maximum single core frequency at which the processor is capable of operating using Intel® Turbo Boost Technology and, if present, Intel® Thermal Velocity Boost. Frequency is typically measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second.

For base frequency it says:-

Processor Base Frequency describes the rate at which the processor's transistors open and close. The processor base frequency is the operating point where TDP is defined. Frequency is typically measured in gigahertz (GHz), or billion cycles per second

Both "tooltips" are very similar to what the Ryzen product page has for base/max frequency. Looking at TPU review for it is boost frequency curve doesn't look too dissimilar from Ryzen 3000. All the prior graphs plus Intel I've placed here.

Instead of link I've now placed clock frequency graphs in spoiler with Intel 9900K, most Ryzen 3000 models.

Spoiler

 

[Zartar117]

you trying to use intel as a arguement to amd issue. buying a new amd cpu you dont know what you going to get on multicore. its that simple its not a intel issue or bias. one could be 4ghz next could be 4.4.

atleast with the intel cpus you talking about you know what multicore speeds you getting minimum or even most likely max. amd you dont. £250 is a good price at the moment for the 3700x. hopefully amd sort out more clearer their speeds on advertising selling practices.

I agree. It's similar to the MCE stuff in terms of dishonesty. They both didn't technically lie about such things but mislead people nonetheless. But people love to attack Intel at every opportunity while giving AMD a pass every time.

That said, the reason why this hypocrisy exists is because it's slightly more annoying when the dominant player cheats because it solidifies their monopoly. I think that's why people are more lenient towards AMD with regard to dishonest marketing since Intel have been jewing us with their monopoly for years in which they reinforced themselves by various anti-competitive tactics (OEM bribery, Intel compiler "optimizations", misleading marketing, etc..).

Still, as an AMD investor and 1600X + Vega 56 owner, I cannot stand the AMD fanboys making excuses for all of AMD's mistakes or product weaknesses while trashing everything Intel-related. Too much of what they say is disconnected from reality.

 

[Orange Nexus]

I agree. It's similar to the MCE stuff in terms of dishonesty. They both didn't technically lie about such things but mislead people nonetheless. But people love to attack Intel at every opportunity while giving AMD a pass every time.

That said, the reason why this hypocrisy exists is because it's slightly more annoying when the dominant player cheats because it solidifies their monopoly. I think that's why people are more lenient towards AMD with regard to dishonest marketing since Intel have been jewing us with their monopoly for years in which they reinforced themselves by various anti-competitive tactics (OEM bribery, Intel compiler "optimizations", misleading marketing, etc..).

Still, as an AMD investor and 1600X + Vega 56 owner, I cannot stand the AMD fanboys making excuses for all of AMD's mistakes or product weaknesses while trashing everything Intel-related. Too much of what they say is disconnected from reality.

You succumbed to his BS? The i9 9900K base clock is 3.6. In handbrake, it boost to 4GHz all core. Is that misleading? I think that's a bonus. My 2700 has a base clock of 3.2GHz, all core it boosts to 3.3GHz. Seems to me a bonus too. It is only suppose to boost to 4.1GHz in one core. I notice its been boosting to 4.1 on four cores. Was I misled? I guess in a good way.

 

[Zartar117]

You succumbed to his BS? The i9 9900K base clock is 3.6. In handbrake, it boost to 4GHz all core. Is that misleading? I think that's a bonus. My 2700 has a base clock of 3.2GHz, all core it boosts to 3.3GHz. Seems to me a bonus too. It is only suppose to boost to 4.1GHz in one core. I notice its been boosting to 4.1 on four cores. Was I misled? I guess in a good way.

You don't understand the difference between Coffee Lake/Pinnacle Ridge and Matisse's boost behavior. Coffee Lake/Pinnacle Ridge's single core boost clock is practically guaranteed on any or all cores if the cooling solution and power delivery are good enough. And the boost clock is sustained for much longer (indefinitely if the cooling and motherboard power delivery is good enough). Matisse's boost clock is only guaranteed on one core and it is sustained for much shorter times, so short that many times it is never seen at all. I've tested with a 3600 myself and was let down by the results (one core reaching 4.175 GHz and none of the others going over 4.05 GHz on water cooling running cinebench).

It's still a great CPU but it's clear that the new definition of boost clocks was done to maximize yield at the expense of consistent core quality.

By comparison, all the cores on my 1600X can hit 4.1 GHz when boosting with just MCE (MSI's version) enabled.

 

[FoxEye]

Still, as an AMD investor and 1600X + Vega 56 owner, I cannot stand the AMD fanboys making excuses for all of AMD's mistakes or product weaknesses while trashing everything Intel-related. Too much of what they say is disconnected from reality.

Well said. A lot of us are happy to see AMD on the rise whilst at the same time sick to death of the fanboys.

 

[Orange Nexus]

You don't understand the difference between Coffee Lake/Pinnacle Ridge and Matisse's boost behavior. Coffee Lake/Pinnacle Ridge's single core boost clock is practically guaranteed on any or all cores if the cooling solution and power delivery are good enough. And the boost clock is sustained for much longer (indefinitely if the cooling and motherboard power delivery is good enough). Matisse's boost clock is only guaranteed on one core and it is sustained for much shorter times, so short that many times it is never seen at all. I've tested with a 3600 myself and was let down by the results (one core reaching 4.175 GHz and none of the others going over 4.05 GHz on water cooling running cinebench).

It's still a great CPU but it's clear that the new definition of boost clocks was done to maximize yield at the expense of consistent core quality.

By comparison, all the cores on my 1600X can hit 4.1 GHz when boosting with just MCE (MSI's version) enabled.

He is claiming that with intel you know exactly what you are getting as advertised. So, i asked, what is the clock of the i9 9900K at stock running Handbrake? Obviously, he does not know cos he does not own one. You need to have one on hand to know or based on reviews. Same with matisse. Their all core OCs are not advertised.

These cpus been out a awhile and reviews been done.

It is the BS that i am calling out.

BTW, my R5 3600 at stock boost to 4.2GHz in two cores.

 

[jigger]

You don't understand the difference between Coffee Lake/Pinnacle Ridge and Matisse's boost behavior. Coffee Lake/Pinnacle Ridge's single core boost clock is practically guaranteed on any or all cores if the cooling solution and power delivery are good enough. And the boost clock is sustained for much longer (indefinitely if the cooling and motherboard power delivery is good enough). Matisse's boost clock is only guaranteed on one core and it is sustained for much shorter times, so short that many times it is never seen at all. I've tested with a 3600 myself and was let down by the results (one core reaching 4.175 GHz and none of the others going over 4.05 GHz on water cooling running cinebench).

It's still a great CPU but it's clear that the new definition of boost clocks was done to maximize yield at the expense of consistent core quality.

TBH I think it’s you that don’t understand. The 3600X is the higher performance part, but how would the 3600 fair against its Intel counterpart.