• 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 Ryzen 7 5800X3D retail processor has been tested ahead of launch

ChocAndGray said:
Why's that? Bios is generally pretty straight forward to update. Or is your board awkward?
Click to expand...
I just remember I tried doing it a few years ago and I had quite a few problems as I tried updating the bios by the internet rather than through a usb drive and was just probably just unlucky. I just looked at a quick YouTube guide to refresh my memory and it’s seems straightforward enough so probably overthinking it.
 
Iron Man said:
I just remember I tried doing it a few years ago and I had quite a few problems as I tried updating the bios by the internet rather than through a usb drive and was just probably just unlucky. I just looked at a quick YouTube guide to refresh my memory and it’s seems straightforward enough so probably overthinking it.
Click to expand...

Definitely don't do any online downloads, or use software to update the bios through Windows.

Old school way of downloading to USB is best in my opinion.
 
unknown.png


That's so badass! The number you want to pay attention to is the "CPU Game Average." That's what should be compared not the overall average when using SOTTR as a CPU bench test.
 
Dave2150 said:
Most likely crippled with JEDEC DDR54 4800Mhz RAM (or DDR4) to make AMD look better, unless it's explicitly specified.
Click to expand...

Theres quite an easy way to prove it - thats by actually watching the review - since they list every single part used in both systems.

TL:DR

NO, they use the fastest DDR5 - 6400 the system supports, and is £500 worth.
 
Harlequin said:
Theres quite an easy way to prove it - thats by actually watching the review - since they list every single part used in both systems.

TL:DR

NO, they use the fastest DDR5 - 6400 the system supports, and is £500 worth.
Click to expand...

Robert Hallock talked about how due to their technology advances they have many leavers they can pull to keep competitive.

Yeah well they pulled a leaver.... :D
 
LtMatt said:
https://youtu.be/BINipofzYhg?t=36
Click to expand...
In the short, big/little is crap, in theory it should have way better efficiency, but in the practice big/little doesn't work that way, it only supplements MT workloads. It would be better to have fewer big cores than combination of big/little because big cores if tuned correctly are very efficient in light workload, and also less latency which benefits games, not to mention how easier is to optimise software for all same cores design. I say from the beginning that big/little should be erased from the desktop PC. 3D stacking cores isn't far away, and as soon they start using it, no one would need to create small cores.
 
Gondar said:
In the short, big/little is crap, in theory it should have way better efficiency, but in the practice big/little doesn't work that way, it only supplements MT workloads. It would be better to have fewer big cores than combination of big/little because big cores if tuned correctly are very efficient in light workload, and also less latency which benefits games, not to mention how easier is to optimise software for all same cores design. I say from the beginning that big/little should be erased from the desktop PC. 3D stacking cores isn't far away, and as soon they start using it, no one would need to create small cores.
Click to expand...

Intels BIG.little is junk. Its just a sticking plaster for their power issues.
 
Minstadave said:
Intels BIG.little is junk. Its just a sticking plaster for their power issues.
Click to expand...
Fact, it only complicated things, they use big/little not because it is superior, but because they don't have ready chiplet design which will allow them to pack much more big cores, and chiplet design with 3d stacking cores that i mention before is the future and will allow them to put as many cores as they wan't, so Intel will forget those big/little horror.
 
Minstadave said:
Intels BIG.little is junk. Its just a sticking plaster for their power issues.
Click to expand...

Bingo, and their power issues are a result of lacking in other departments, increasing frequency and power draw to compensate. They are still a good few generations away from competing in all areas with AMD.
 
Gondar said:
In the short, big/little is crap, in theory it should have way better efficiency, but in the practice big/little doesn't work that way, it only supplements MT workloads. It would be better to have fewer big cores than combination of big/little because big cores if tuned correctly are very efficient in light workload, and also less latency which benefits games, not to mention how easier is to optimise software for all same cores design. I say from the beginning that big/little should be erased from the desktop PC. 3D stacking cores isn't far away, and as soon they start using it, no one would need to create small cores.
Click to expand...
Some rumours suggest (pinch of salt) AMD will be doing their own version of Big.Little with Zen 5 although different to Intel's approach and the little cores will still be strong.
 
ltron said:
Some rumours suggest (pinch of salt) AMD will be doing their own version of Big.Little with Zen 5 although different to Intel's approach and the little cores will still be strong.
Click to expand...
They don't need big/little design that Intel use, that's the whole advantage of using chiplets, putting more cores while retaining good yield.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom