Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
Frankly I think it is just to storm intel in marketing and keep things rolling in their direction.
-
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 Zen 2 (Refresh) 3900XT/3800XT/3600XT
Frankly I think it is just to storm intel in marketing and keep things rolling in their direction.
Caporegime
The 4XXX series would do that though while probably giving meaningful increases and making Intel look worse than they are.
Caporegime
I made a review thread - so please add any reviews I have missed:
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/ocuk-ryzen-3000xt-series-review-thread.18892585/
https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/ocuk-ryzen-3000xt-series-review-thread.18892585/
Caporegime
I use TPU's combined GPU results a lot to get an idea of overall performance but i don't like their CPU results, not when 4 core and 8 core CPU's are all in the same <10%> lump, its like they run medium settings and then run around looking at the sky.
Its like they are perpetuating the "you only need 4 cores" tripe and then tweaking the way they run benchmarks to make that true, it seems contrived.... probably just seems that way, they are the sort of people who think they are being clever by reducing everything down to the minimum thinking that moves the workload to the GPU.
Which in simplistic terms is right but they are not quite clever enough to realize the CPU actually does a lot more than just feed the GPU simple draw calls, at least it does when you turn on or up game features and quality settings, turning all that off the CPU is tasked with far less workloads and with that less worker threads are required hence low threaded CPU's look better than they actually are.
Hardware Unboxed seem to understand this much better.
Its like they are perpetuating the "you only need 4 cores" tripe and then tweaking the way they run benchmarks to make that true, it seems contrived.... probably just seems that way, they are the sort of people who think they are being clever by reducing everything down to the minimum thinking that moves the workload to the GPU.
Which in simplistic terms is right but they are not quite clever enough to realize the CPU actually does a lot more than just feed the GPU simple draw calls, at least it does when you turn on or up game features and quality settings, turning all that off the CPU is tasked with far less workloads and with that less worker threads are required hence low threaded CPU's look better than they actually are.
Hardware Unboxed seem to understand this much better.
No review spoke about FCLK that I could see. Gamers Nexus very briefly talked about it which seems to state 1900 FCLK is now supported on most if not all XT models.
He said a video with 3,800 CL13 memory is coming soon which should let us know if it can be pushed higher.
He said a video with 3,800 CL13 memory is coming soon which should let us know if it can be pushed higher.
It says 1080p Ultra on the graph, not medium settings. WHy do you think there is going to be a big difference between CPU's with 4 and 8 cores when most games available now are not multi-threaded enough to show a benefit beyond 4 cores?
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,456
I use TPU's combined GPU results a lot to get an idea of overall performance but i don't like their CPU results, not when 4 core and 8 core CPU's are all in the same <10%> lump, its like they run medium settings and then run around looking at the sky.
Its like they are perpetuating the "you only need 4 cores" tripe and then tweaking the way they run benchmarks to make that true, it seems contrived.... probably just seems that way, they are the sort of people who think they are being clever by reducing everything down to the minimum thinking that moves the workload to the GPU.
Which in simplistic terms is right but they are not quite clever enough to realize the CPU actually does a lot more than just feed the GPU simple draw calls, at least it does when you turn on or up game features and quality settings, turning all that off the CPU is tasked with far less workloads and with that less worker threads are required hence low threaded CPU's look better than they actually are.
Hardware Unboxed seem to understand this much better.
How does an i7 non-K top their charts?
More to the point how are Techpowerup's 3900X and 3900XT overclocks so bad? Their 3900X struggles to do 4ghz and their 3900XT only does 4.2ghz @ 1.425v when running all core OCs? Something is going very wrong there, they're 200mhz to 300mhz behind other reviews based off the 3900X alone. I love their hi res pcb photos in their motherboard and gpu reviews and some of their in-house software is great, but I wouldn't pay too much attention to the actual content...
Caporegime
3900XT slower than 3900X on newer optimised bios. AMD recommending bios based on AGESA v1 1.0.0.4 r2 for the 3900XT and AGESA v2 1.0.0.2 for 3600XT and 3800XT to reviewers.
I'm still on 1.0.0.3 abba as everything since has been crap on my MSI B450i, so lets see how that compares I guess. Bitpay payment cleared, waiting on OCUK shipping notification
I'm still on 1.0.0.3 abba as everything since has been crap on my MSI B450i, so lets see how that compares I guess. Bitpay payment cleared, waiting on OCUK shipping notification
Last edited:
Soldato
Level1Tech shows some interesting results for the 3600XT. Arguably the only XT out of the 3 to be tangibly worth it out of the box.
Soldato
A shame it's completely pointless when for only £30 more off the same site, you can have another 2 cores and 4 threads inline with next gen consoles.
I so love Aussies, they're so direct and honest!First line of the Hardware Unboxed review
Soldato
Seems that some are finding FCLK at 1,900MHz much easier but some reviews don't mention it at all. Awaiting someone actually testing it(them) properly to see if they can hit 2,000Mhz FCLK and 4,000MHz on the RAM, that is where the real gains are.
AMD are becoming the new turds on the block, wtf? I am going to invoice the useless fkrs for my time looking here and elsewhere and for even daring to announce this POS as a 'new product'. I'm tempted to go Intel with my next upgrade just to punish them for having the gall to pretend that this is even worth calling by a different name. At least Intel would have just quietly introduced them without bothering to reprint the packaging/point of sale material but AMD are back to their old ways. Lisa Su, Queen of turds! I'd never imagine any 'launch' could be quite so underwhelming. Way to lose the dressing room.........I'm buying Ampere too now just to punish them twice over. Nvidia and Intel wouldn't dream of doing this and I despise both of those companies...this is a new low.
Soldato
I don't know what is funnier your attitude or the actual post. Waste of time launch I agree 100%, why do you care so much though? It's been done purely to keep Ryzen in the review cycle, and keep the reviews testing it, and comparing it to the Intel parts. It is a 'marketing excersize' pure and simple and marketing grows market share, which is exactly what AMD are trying to do when they have no 'new' products to launch.
OK I've had a couple of beers but this crap makes my blood boil. It's such a big fat nothing...I know I should let it go but I'm starting to suspect RDNA2 will be a 5700XT+0.1% with a new name. I want to be wrong, OK I'll go and lie down, just breathe.....
