• 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 to unveil Zen 4 CPUs at CES 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.
R23.

12600K: 17,660 $299
12700K: 22,812 $420

7600X: 13,175 $299
7700X: 18,258 $399

How....

5600X: 10,988
5800X: 15,228

10,988 + 9% IPC = 11,977 + 10% clocks? = 13,175
15,228 + 9% IPC = 16,599 + 10% clocks? = 18,258
 
Its like the VRam argument, isn't it?

You would never buy something that is 'just' enough on the day, no, not unless you were very budget constrained, you would want something that has some headroom, do i need to explain why? No, i don't, so this argument makes no ###### sense.

So the argument that you would only review something up to the point of performance on the day because that's all you need to know is Leninist tripe. Looking at you Steve Walton.

But that isn't the discussion. At no point has the we've tested at 720p and this CPU is 30% faster thus got more headroom resulted in results where in 2-3 GPU generations there be this 30% performance drop. If the gap was only 5% at 1440p, three generations on GPU wise those CPUs are still showing only a 5% performance difference, not the 30% you are going to suggest because of "head room".

When going from a 980, 1080, 5700xt system with a 4790k the performance there compared to the 9900k was the same % difference within reason between the two CPUs although at 720p there was a larger % delta to start with. So then what?
 
Indeed it would be. But if you are buying a CPU every 3 yrs (I assume you mean 3 generations) and we are suggesting a new GPU every 2 generations then you don't need to worry about the performance difference of the CPU beyond two generations and thus the 720p is irrelevant.

With that it all depends what performance uplift you actually get at 1440p which is my point. If I get a 25% performance uplift in one CPU gen I would possibly consider that okay bang for buck. If it is only 5% then that fine and I will wait till the next gen. I wont know what that 1440p uplift is or not without that review and the 720p doesn't answer that.
I mean buying a GPU every 2 years when the new gen arrives with a CPU every 3 years.

I'm running a 5800X with a 3080, I'll probably buy a 4080 or 7800XT but pass over a CPU upgrade for another year.

If you buy a GPU every other generation so every 4 years then it always makes sense to buy a new CPU at the same time.

You can see if your current CPU has headroom and how much by lowering the resolution or graphics settings and see if fps increases.
 
R23.

12600K: 17,660 $299
12700K: 22,812 $420

7600X: 13,175 $299
7700X: 18,258 $399

How....

5600X: 10,988
5800X: 15,228

10,988 + 9% IPC = 11,977 + 10% clocks? = 13,175
15,228 + 9% IPC = 16,599 + 10% clocks? = 18,258
It's probably why AMD avoided R23 this time around in their reveal.

It could be because the all core boost caps out around 5ghz in heavy workloads, zen 4 looks optimized for high SC which isn't a bad thing and there will probably be some room for curve optimizer tinkering for upping the MT.
 
Does anyone think $400 is too much for an 8 core CPU? Probably gonna cost ~£400 inc VAT.

I suppose AMD is hoping the multithreaded performance of the 7600X will be 'enough' for the low-mid end market.
For me it is, about $300 was just right. However, if the people buy them...
It will depend how things go, but 6c/12t might not be enough down the road.
 
R23.

12600K: 17,660 $299
12700K: 22,812 $420

7600X: 13,175 $299
7700X: 18,258 $399

How....

5600X: 10,988
5800X: 15,228

10,988 + 9% IPC = 11,977 + 10% clocks? = 13,175
15,228 + 9% IPC = 16,599 + 10% clocks? = 18,258

That's interesting. I get anything between 16173 - 16611 on a i9 10900K. I thought the 5800X was higher?
 
Jufes like to tune his systems and uses them for comparison vs out of box. His personal goal and his audience goal isn’t plug n play but optimal gaming configuration. Comparing his findings vs out of box is just weird…given he’s never catered to that goal.

https://kingfaris.co.uk/blog/10900k-vs-5950x/summary As demonstrated here by a buddy, tuned 10900k was a different beast esports or not.

As usual, amd is a great plug n play, out of the box platform and that’s fine for majority of the users as demonstrated on here.

His whole argument apart from complaining about SAM as far as I can tell is that he is saying when you manually tune timings on ddr4 and you get the latency to under 60ns then on AMD CPUs it causes deep dips in the 1% lows in games that don't occur when memory latency is over 60ns and for that reason he doesn't like amd CPUs and tells his viewers not to buy them because they don't "feel smooth"

Whether that's true or not who knows
 
His whole argument apart from complaining about SAM as far as I can tell is that he is saying when you manually tune timings on ddr4 and you get the latency to under 60ns then on AMD CPUs it causes deep dips in the 1% lows in games that don't occur when memory latency is over 60ns and for that reason he doesn't like amd CPUs and tells his viewers not to buy them because they don't "feel smooth"

Whether that's true or not who knows
He has no idea about tuning AMD GPUs or CPUs. He didn’t even have SAM enabled initially. I pointed out several things to him via YT comments, including to enable SAM. He said if I made one more comment on his channel I’d be banned. A few days later he makes a video telling his viewers to enable SAM. You can safely disregard anything he says regarding AMD. That said, I’m sure he’s more knowledgeable on the Intel/Nvidia front.
 
It's probably why AMD avoided R23 this time around in their reveal.

It could be because the all core boost caps out around 5ghz in heavy workloads, zen 4 looks optimized for high SC which isn't a bad thing and there will probably be some room for curve optimizer tinkering for upping the MT.
Ill be happy with 5ghz on all cores or more in heavy workloads. Is that for 16 cores, 8 cores or both?
 
That's interesting. I get anything between 16173 - 16611 on a i9 10900K. I thought the 5800X was higher?

Depends on the motherboard, some allow more power to it than others, but overall, no actually, in R23 MT the 10900K is a little faster, it is after all 20 threads vs 16, but there really isn't a lot in it.

According to CPU Monkey, which is where i get all my R23 scores from, the 10900K scores 15,945, which is in the ballpark of your lower estimate.

Stock i score a little higher than CPU monkey, about 15,500, tho i'm probably using better cooling than they used.

OC i'm at 16,142, according to the R23 thread the highest scoring 10900K, or in this case 10850K is 16,440, that's at 5Ghz. I'm at about 4.8Ghz with my score.


 

so long raptor lake if this is true, that cache size is nuts!
 

so long raptor lake if this is true, that cache size is nuts!

Yes/no

Don't forget that cache doesn't matter if the game already fits in the cache. For example csgo gains no extra performance on a 5800x3d, why? Because the game's main thread already fits inside the cache of a standard 5800x.

This means that when you have very little cache and you start adding more you see immediate benefits, but then as you keep adding more and more the benefit greatly diminishes- its like we keep adding more vram to graphics cards and it doesn't make them any faster unless your previous graphics ran out of vram in your games.

So while extra L3 cache would be nice, the 5800x3d is likely already not far away from the optimal amount of cache of games. You'll still see AMD pushing more L3 cache on EPYC, they're trying to 500mb of L3 on EPYC and the reason for that is because those chips are used for multithreading where you're running multiple application threads at the same time and you can have each in your cache at the same time.

Gamers don't need that much cache and there is no reason to add more cache than is needed for games on ryzen because the more cache you add the more of your cpu socket power limit you have to give to the cache which means less power for your CPU core so lower clock speeds. Cache also takes up space which means less space for your CPU core's transistors (I.e you end with a cpu that has less cores than it could have)
 
how a 15 to 20% performance gain vs the 5950X, all the ones that lost the most to the 5950X, conveniently.

Now, the thing is the 10900K can boost to 5.1Ghz on 4 cores simultaneously, to get those sort of performance boosts it
Care to add any actual data to that? Data has no feelings.
We had the same argument a couple of months ago, I was telling you that the 10900k most of the time was faster than the 5950x in gaming and you were saying otherwise. I have personal experience with the cpu, and im telling you that it can easily support 4400-4600 c15/c16 ram. Im not even talking about cache and cores oc, just by tuned ram it flies past zen 3 in most games. You cna literally get down to 36ns of latency with a 10900k.

Especially in the very popular warzone, although the 5950x had better max and probably average fps (it could get up to 400 in empty areas of the map), in the more busy locations it dropped to 150 while my 10900 had a minimum of 200.
 
R23.

12600K: 17,660 $299
12700K: 22,812 $420

7600X: 13,175 $299
7700X: 18,258 $399

How....

5600X: 10,988
5800X: 15,228

10,988 + 9% IPC = 11,977 + 10% clocks? = 13,175
15,228 + 9% IPC = 16,599 + 10% clocks? = 18,258
Where did you get these numbers from? I Think the 7600x will be around 15k in CBR23, at least that's what one of the leaks suggested. Keep in mind though, the 13600k will be 60% faster at 24.5k
 
Where did you get these numbers from? I Think the 7600x will be around 15k in CBR23, at least that's what one of the leaks suggested. Keep in mind though, the 13600k will be 60% faster at 24.5k
My 12600k

Hovering around 20k on a 12600k requires minimal effort.

unknown.png
 
Do you think RPL will retain the ability for bclk overclocking non K as a $200 13400F would offer insane performance per dollar on something like a B660 PG riptide?.

Bclk oc on non K is technically not supported my intel. It’ll be upto mobo vendors if they want to or not.

Basically if the board has an external clock gen then intel can’t stop it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom