one core...... eee in CB run tahts it. Even when when playing WoW that uses like 1 core it does not boost to 4.35..... was plain marketing crap lolWell it turbos to 4.35GHZ so close enough. Not bad on a secondhand Samsung process node made for mobile phones instead of Intel's 14NM+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
node.
-
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 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,376
- Location
- Planet Earth
Just like the 5GHZ stock clockspeeds with Intel CPUs - all marketing. I had Intel for the last 10 years,and none of my Xeons ever hit max single core Turbo either for that long too,with better than normal cooling.
But the Ryzen stlll hit 4.4GHZ at stock,which you said it wouldn't hit! You never specified how many cores or for how long!
Maybe you should have said 4.5GHZ~4.6GHZ instead.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,376
- Location
- Planet Earth
Also all this clockspeed talk,made me realise how low our expectations must be now - if you look at most high end SKUs,they are lucky to see upto 10% extra on average(maybe a tad more) through overclocking when compared to the max boost clockspeeds.
I remember back in the day,getting 25% to even 70% overclocks on CPUs,and price/performance increased with overclocking. Now overclocking seems to make price/performance worse especially at the high end.
I remember back in the day,getting 25% to even 70% overclocks on CPUs,and price/performance increased with overclocking. Now overclocking seems to make price/performance worse especially at the high end.
Cos while playing wow your Spotify is using another core and therefore reducing available OC to the single heavy use core. Similar problem that AMD has now run into though the method used is more flexible than Intel's currently. I would assume that eventually they'll be copying the GPU's and improving this over time, likely based on thermal/wattage limits, maybe even on a per core basis.
Yup that's what I'm expecting 4.5 all cores after overclocking and gains from IPC. Like someone calculated 10% ipc jump is worth 500mhz clockspeed of performance, So purely out of my ass I think/hope Zen2 at 4.5 can match intel at 5. Not beat but be around 1:1.
Honestly I expect more than 300mhz extra from moving from 12nm+ to 7nm process. What i really hope for is that they overlock more than 100mhz like current AMD chips. Like old old days where you could buy a cpu and get 600-700mhz overclock out of it. I understand AMD architecture is not setup for speed like Intel but i really expect 4.7-4.8ghz with good cooling and motherboard and some experienced overclocking. I suppose no way of really telling right now but we can hope anyway.
For AMD to match Intel on whole new node process its not enough they really have to beat Intel now to make use of their advantage they currently have. Because at one point Intel will also transition to 7 or 10nm or whatever they have.
What is the fascination with GHz or am I missing something?
If AMD can match or exceed Intel in performance what does the speed its running at matter, in fact it would be better for cooling and power if they can match them on performance while running slower.
If presented with two CPUs at equal performance and the only difference was speed I know which one I would pick
If AMD can match or exceed Intel in performance what does the speed its running at matter, in fact it would be better for cooling and power if they can match them on performance while running slower.
If presented with two CPUs at equal performance and the only difference was speed I know which one I would pick
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,376
- Location
- Planet Earth
AMD is also improving IF,IPC,etc and probably adding more cores - so I still expect between 4GHZ~4.5GHZ overall for the CPUs.
Intel don't have any more juice in their 100th generation Sandy Bridge refresh, so it's now become about raw clock speed to get more performance. As a result, if AMD can't hit 5GHz on all cores like Intel can, then clearly AMD are trash
It's become the new benchmark, with a hefty dose of deflection. And now that the 9000 series Sandy Bridges have also hit the GHz barrier, it'll be interesting to see how the goalposts shift when Ryzen 3 lands next year and (hopefully) removes the overall performance deficit.
Some games still require GHz over multi-core, so of course PR will focus on it to get into the heads of the avg punter that unless you can do 5GHz you're going to have a terrible experience. It's rubbish of course but that's how it goes.Intel don't have any more juice in their 100th generation Sandy Bridge refresh, so it's now become about raw clock speed to get more performance. As a result, if AMD can't hit 5GHz on all cores like Intel can, then clearly AMD are trash
It's become the new benchmark, with a hefty dose of deflection. And now that the 9000 series Sandy Bridges have also hit the GHz barrier, it'll be interesting to see how the goalposts shift when Ryzen 3 lands next year and (hopefully) removes the overall performance deficit.
Hopefully with an 8c/16t Ryzen 3xxx CPU hitting 4.6GHz with a nice IPC increase we'll put that nonsense to bed. Would be funny if they did bring out a 5GHz CPU though. Either way my next machine needs raw single core throughput, so whatever combination of IPC and GHz works will be what I use. AMD or Intel doesn't matter for that build.
Iirc the cpu to go for was the 2500"Barton" never had one meself but I heard they overclocked like a demon. The"Durons" were fantastic clockers as well.
Ah the good old days.
Mine was a Athlon 3000 until I built my sons pc in May with the 2200gI think my last AMD chip was a tbird
I think my last AMD chip was a tbird
Ordered mine from the States as was cheaper and couldn't actually get hold over here on release . I miss that chip . came from a 800mhz duron and was impressed
Same, although I built two other PCs for family members with an Athlon XP and Athlon 64 X2. After my 1.2 GHz Thunderbird, I got a laptop for uni, then my first build for myself was X58, which I am still using as we speak.I think my last AMD chip was a tbird
The Barton 2500 was my 2nd AMD CPU, after my 1.4GHz T’bird. All you had to do was up the FSB and you had a 3200 for the low price of £120.
Such a great CPU and still in the days of applying the thermal paste directly to the core.