1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by Jamin280672, Jul 20, 2018.

  1. Scramz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 25, 2013

    Posts: 1,673

    Location: Kent

    It seems Easy is trying to say the Ryzen was clock well over 4.7Ghz which would give the IPC crown to 9900k. But in that case if the Ryzen is running 5Ghz on the power draw it was then Amd have come leaps and bounds.

    And their 12/24 and 16/32 parts will be monsters and will destroy Intel offerings and great price to performance.

    If they price them right they can go for the kill and drown Intel for a while.
     
  2. easyrider

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 24, 2005

    Posts: 39,370

    Location: Autonomy

    I’m not saying anything but I’ll test my power draw again at 5ghz and report back running the same benchmark...if that 9900k is using more power at 4.7ghz then something’s not right.
     
  3. iakhtar

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 29, 2009

    Posts: 145

    Tbf a well clocked 2080 can be 10-15% faster in Timespy than a 1080ti

    https://www.3dmark.com/compare/spy/4460810/spy/5650930#

    Sorry for being abit OT
     
  4. RBImGuy

    Gangster

    Joined: Apr 26, 2017

    Posts: 288

    Intel have no cpu that can compete with Ryzen 3
    Feels good man
     
  5. TrixX

    Hitman

    Joined: Oct 4, 2017

    Posts: 590

    Location: Australia - Sunshine Coast

    May want to post your CB score too just to see if it's in the same ballpark @5GHz or 4.7GHz...
     
  6. easyrider

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 24, 2005

    Posts: 39,370

    Location: Autonomy

  7. RavenXXX2

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 6, 2007

    Posts: 17,626

    Location: North West

  8. kitfit1

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 24, 2003

    Posts: 3,513

    Location: Stourport-On-Severn

    Link to proof that your 9900K is 24/7 stable in the first place ? You have been spamming this thread so much i really can't be arsed to go back through your posts to find it.
     
  9. Doobedoo

    Mobster

    Joined: Jul 24, 2016

    Posts: 2,739

    Location: South West

    Again, I think we need a bit of perspective. It now shows Amd can compete with Intels best but we only got a glimpse of what that is, still many blanks that need filling in yet.

    I’m excited and think I finally have something worth upgrading too, but I won’t part with my cash until I see them in the flesh.
     
  10. Vince

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 30, 2003

    Posts: 9,679

    Location: Essex

    Just to be sure they did say that mce was on did they not?
     
  11. sidthesexist

    Hitman

    Joined: Jul 23, 2006

    Posts: 923

  12. easyrider

    Caporegime

    Joined: Dec 24, 2005

    Posts: 39,370

    Location: Autonomy


    5ghz 2138 score

    I’m Pulling 157 w


    Hmmm in the video in CES the 9900k is pulling 179w at 4.7ghz



    [​IMG]
     
  13. Scramz

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Oct 25, 2013

    Posts: 1,673

    Location: Kent

  14. Journey

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,828

    Location: West Midlands

    Yes your CPU is pulling 157w, the AMD demo was the whole system. As confirmed by the Anandtech article. :;)
     
  15. mostlynice

    Associate

    Joined: Feb 28, 2017

    Posts: 83

    Location: Sunderland, UK

    :D
     
  16. Stephanie Peterson

    Hitman

    Joined: Jan 9, 2019

    Posts: 887

    The claim that that AMD were running an overclock on there 8 core chip.. well there is no proof for that is there? absolutely none what so ever. I mean would you want to run an overclock in a live demo streamed around the world to beat an opponents chip just for a few % points? What if it crashed? Heck these are all ES stuff, beta bios and boards... flipping heck folks its more than likely under clocked.. think about it.
    Also AMD would have ran the intel chip at 100% stock, why? They know fine well the first thing every salty 9900k owner is going to do is replicate there test. If it comes out that normal (non MCE buggery) stock clocked 95w 9900ks were being reported as say 15% faster in the real world then Intel would have a field day with them not to mention the press and fan boys.

    No come on... the AMD chip was running on beta/ES kit - probably (but not necessarily) on clocks that were Lower than final as this tends to be the case.
    The intel chip was configured for its normal 95w mode... which everyone knows is like using a three legged donkey but That is intels STOCK mode so ... take it up with intel.

    Finally i repeat again, why do folk have trouble coming to terms with this being a mid range Ryzen 5? Really know the chiplets are 8 core designs and we also know the chip + io can take 2 chiplets.. so come on folks... really its not hard to join the flipping dots..
     
  17. Journey

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,828

    Location: West Midlands

    Just for easy.

    [​IMG]
     
  18. RavenXXX2

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 6, 2007

    Posts: 17,626

    Location: North West

    The 9900k was running at 4.7Ghz, as shown by the score, no hobbling there.
     
  19. kitfit1

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 24, 2003

    Posts: 3,513

    Location: Stourport-On-Severn

    Bloody hell that's fast..............................it even manged to give you the score before the CB run finished :D
     
  20. Stephanie Peterson

    Hitman

    Joined: Jan 9, 2019

    Posts: 887

    So is that stock? i dont know what the stock 9900k CB multi score is? if that stock then fine.

    If thats got MCE and all sorts of other fancy little bits of bios crap turned on then it rubbish.