-
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
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 2,263
It's due to thermal density issues. If the solder was bad, you'd see a massive drop from de-lid and LM.
And that's because people want their 9900k to run at 5ghz all core or have some expectation of such.
You can run at 9900k at stock frequencies just fine similar to Ryzen 3xxx.
Caporegime
And the thing with the 9900K is people just expect them to do 5Ghz as a matter of course, that's just not true, not properly stable at least, according to Silicon Lottery only about 30% actually do 5Ghz.
Edit: IMO its because Intel send the best binned chips to reviewers who then put the overclocking data out there without questioning it.
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 2,263
Early models were fine in that they could run 5ghz more often than not. The headroom was good. Mine is a launch batch for example.
Once they started binning for the KS sku, then your chances of getting a good chip dropped dramatically.
But to your point, the expectation of a 9900k at 5ghz is a holdover from previous iterations.
If the whole thing was an intel hoodwink effort, silicon lottery wouldn’t be able to supply 5ghz 9900k’s. Their stats are a good sample size.
I got nothing against the Silicon Lottery but should we trust them regarding their findings.? It's in their best interest to promote the stuff they sell. It's like a second hand car seller that will tell you the car he sells is in top notch condition even if the car is only good for a scrapyard...
Ok maybe that is slight exaggeration but you know what I mean....
Silicon lottery recently pointed out it’s own demise so I don’t see why they would fudge numbers. 5Ghz is far from certain on a 9900K not that it matters now AMD are ahead in performance per core.
AMD are ahead of Intel in performance per watt but not performance per core or are they..???
Soldato
True, the 10% better ipc (with 3200 CL14 MHz ram) is a boon, making the standard 4.550 2 core boost and 4450 all core boost, 4.9Ghz effective.
And we can just overclock IF to 1900 and RAM to 3600-3866 and we get an extra 10-36% more FPS. (game depending).
Caporegime
That's a fair point.
This, its actually quite scary to think what might be if they are retested with high speed DRam Calc tuned timings.
I think Hardware Unboxed have something like that in the works.
Soldato
Gamers Nexus & Linus have already such videos also.
Caporegime
If you're talking about the video's i think you are that's not what i mean.
I'm talking about Ryzen 3000 with high speed RAM and tuned timing vs Coffeelake of the same in large game benchmarks.
https://community.amd.com/community...ios-updates-for-boost-and-idle-plus-a-new-sdk
Latest community update re bios and a new AMD Ryzen master.
Latest community update re bios and a new AMD Ryzen master.
Soldato
Link requires login.
Caporegime
It does now, it didn't about 20 minutes ago.
Both.
AMD is behind in the laptops chips with 15W-25W.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-1065G7+@+1.30GHz&id=3466
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+3500U&id=3421
Last edited:
Not sure. With or without the security mitigation?
AMD is behind in the laptops chips with 15W-25W.
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-1065G7+@+1.30GHz&id=3466
https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+5+3500U&id=3421
I like how you cherry pick the processors.
It may seem so but I am really not. You are free to try with the Ryzen 7 3700U. Its result is ~8000 Passmark points.
I don't have all the existing CPUs in my head - these are the first that I found.