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.
The chipset is irrelevant to a consumer. Do you mean mass availability from release? If so there is literally no info on that and you've just picked random speculation.
In terms of single core performance. Indeed it seems lower than expected but the multicore is solid improvement still. Was expecting more but as a total platform it seems reasonably solid if you upgrading from a system 3yr + old.
Going by the presentation I think you will be fine, x670 will only have 1 chipset so fine for ITX. The 2 chipset designs look like there exclusive on the X670 extreme range which supplies extra PCI-E lanes to the 2nd PCI-E slot.What do we think the itx boards will be like, do you think they will fit two chipsets and also be the high-end x670e, I'm looking forward to an Asus itx impact board.
I suspect they are sandbagging given what they have shown before. Intel has Raptorlake coming and AMD could lose that advantage if Intel starts winning consistently again. I remember the Bulldozer years (not that this is in any way close to that) and that relentless stagnation along with very high prices is what we get when Intel dominates. I don't want to go back to that or even begin to do so, at least until AMD have built up a huge war chest of cash so they can withstand it and compete against Intel on an equal footing (I am sure Intel will attempt to crush them next time, there is no more taking AMD lightly).Why? if you look at retailers that publish sales comparisons its obvious that AMD are still outselling Intel in retail CPU's, and by significant margins.
To release a CPU that is better than the one currently outselling Intel in retail is not going to do that any harm is it?
So really Zen3+ whilst getting the platform ready for Zen5?This is likely just Zen 3 ported to TSMC's N5, resulting in gains in clock speed and efficiency, with DDR5 and updated IO.
Seems like the actual Zen 4 microarchitecture, the one which we were expecting a 15-20% IPC uplift, wasn't ready for release this year, so AMD is going to plan B. It remains to be seen whether that microarchitecture will be released next year or if AMD is skipping it entirely and prioritises getting back on track for the actual Zen 5 (i.e. the successor to the actual Zen 4, not this) for a combined 35-40% IPC uplift.
The chipset is irrelevant to a consumer. Do you mean mass availability from release? If so there is literally no info on that and you've just picked random speculation.
In terms of single core performance. Indeed it seems lower than expected but the multicore is solid improvement still. Was expecting more but as a total platform it seems reasonably solid if you upgrading from a system 3yr + old.
Lots of publications have likened it to a Zen 3+ so I guess that's fair to say.So really Zen3+ whilst getting the platform ready for Zen5?
True but it is fun There's also not a lot going on whilst we're waiting for new CPU's and GPU's. That said, I feel quite happy with my 5800X3D so not all bad!I hate speculation about things we have absolutely nothing to go on.
Gaming performance is an unknown quantity, it could range anything a little better than Zen 3 and much better than Zen 3D, we have no idea what the impact of the larger L2 and DDR5 has, all we know for certain is it clocks 10 to 15% higher in games.
No one thought the 3D Cache would have an impact to the extent it has, MLID was wrong about that, just as he was wrong about Intel GPU's and he was wrong about Zen 4.
The Cinebench / productivity performance is what it is, they are not sandbagging, no point in looking for that, just as there is no point in getting depressed about what this all means for gaming performance, Zen 2 vs Zen 3 offered +20% in productivity but up to +50% in games, that's not to say Zen 3 vs Zen 4 will be like that but its just another example about how trying to make these predictions is daft.
I hate speculation about things we have absolutely nothing to go on.
Gaming performance is an unknown quantity, it could range anything a little better than Zen 3 and much better than Zen 3D, we have no idea what the impact of the larger L2 and DDR5 has, all we know for certain is it clocks 10 to 15% higher in games.
No one thought the 3D Cache would have an impact to the extent it has, MLID was wrong about that, just as he was wrong about Intel GPU's and he was wrong about Zen 4.
The Cinebench / productivity performance is what it is, they are not sandbagging, no point in looking for that, just as there is no point in getting depressed about what this all means for gaming performance, Zen 2 vs Zen 3 offered +20% in productivity but up to +50% in games, that's not to say Zen 3 vs Zen 4 will be like that but its just another example about how trying to make these predictions is daft.
15% ST performance increase is with high end, expensive DDR5, 6000Mhz C30. As per 99% of the official 12900k reviews, on launch day I imagine they'll use 4800Mhz/5200Mhz 'standard' DDR5, so could see less performance than this in reviews.
Zen 4 VCache is next year according to rumours, but AMD could surprise us and release Zen 5 that year too (although I agree it will probably be in 2024).I seem to recall Mike Clark at AMD saying how excited he was for Zen 5, which did make me wonder if Zen 4 would be underwhelming.
It seemed an odd thing for the 'Chief Architect of Zen' to say about a year before Zen 4 would even hit the market.
Is Zen 5 due next year?
With the world as it is, maybe 2024 is more realistic!
Linus says the 12900K beats the 5950X by a very small margin in short Blender tests like the one shown in AMD's demo (even though the 5950X wins in longer tests):
That 31% performance increase over the 12900K is hugely impressive then.