• 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 ***

Potatowithearsontheside said:
I thought that you said that you ran 5.0GHz stable. Pretty sure that's the CB result that you were asked to provide, yet your bench there was at 4.7GHz as yu are saying now.
As you know, the orange colouring represents the current run score.
So I'm confused. Are you running 5.0GHz stable? Or is that just hot air? You surely didn't have enough time between when asked to perform the run, and when you provided a result, for you to change the clocks down. :)
Click to expand...

Dude just go and read the 9900k thread...Its all in there.....Lots of testing at 4.7 on a Asrock mobo lots of testing at 5ghz on my new Hero mobo.
 
And that Reddit link you posted is a month old! And again, you fail to understand the difference between "announce" and "launch".

Ryzen was NEVER launching at CES. If you don't understand words then the disappointment is entirely of your own making.
 
humbug said:
2138, great score, amazing tho don't you think when you realise that is overclocked and just 4% faster than an unreleased midrange Ryzen 3600X whose clocks have not yet even been finalised, incredible how in just a few months a CPU costing less than half that will likely beat that ^^^^

Isn't competition great? that heat tho... wow thats an inefficient CPU. eh?
Click to expand...

Yes competition is great and I'll no doubt ditch 9900k for Zen 3700x depending on final specs and results.
 
LePhuronn said:
Are you special?

Firstly, you cannot accuse AdoredTV or WCCFtech to be "liars" if their sources prove to be incorrect. Secondly, exactly what did AdoredTV lie about? Jim said Ryzen 3000 will be announced at CES. It was. He even posted a video having to make an unnecessary clarification on how words work, clearly explaining the difference between "announced" and "launched".

And as for the HU troll? How were they right? They said that Ryzen 3000 was not getting a single mention AT ALL AT CES. And yet he had a goddamn cinebench run showing an 8c/16t engineering sample match a 9900K!

Jesus wept, man!
Click to expand...

Are you crazy? You have very short memory. Don't you remember that AdoredTV published the tables of the entire lineup with specifications and pricing?
Don't protect him. He has 0 credence from now on.
 
I'd have liked to have seen a longer MT load test with the Intel at spec. The 9900K would have then clocked down to 4.2GHz at 95w, and been significantly behind performance whilst likely still consuming more power. A real world metric. Well, at least it would be if running a 9900K at stock was even possible straight out of the box, which it ain't.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Are you crazy? You have very short memory. Don't you remember that AdoredTV published the tables of the entire lineup with specifications and pricing?
Don't protect him. He has 0 credence from now on.
Click to expand...

He didn't say all of them would be announced, also... Lisa said Ryzen 3000 wont be limited to 8 cores

https://twitter.com/markhachman/status/1083097464624693248

https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1083099086880952320

I don't see what the problem is, can you explain it?
 
4K8KW10 said:
Are you crazy? You have very short memory. Don't you remember that AdoredTV published the tables of the entire lineup with specifications and pricing?
Don't protect him. He has 0 credence from now on.
Click to expand...
They were leaks from a credible source. If anything, it's his source that would no longer credible.
It's ironic though; his own credibility is being questioned despite nothing he revealed being categorically wrong. He was the first to go feet first on chiplets, though his later source did see him retreat a little on that. Turns out he was right in the first instance.
Sure, we don't have SKUs listed, or specs, and he did state that his source was suggesting announcements at CES, which didn't happen. That's not him being categorically wrong; it's his sources being wrong and him maybe giving too much credance to them. His reasoning behind potential clocks was perfectly fine; his analysis was that the figures were plausible, and they are. Whether they are correct, nobody actually knows yet, and we won't for a while.
 
Tell you what, 4K8K, I'm going to have a cigarette and calm down a little, because work isn't very nice right now so I have very little patience for people and whinging. So in the interest of being a rational human being, I invite you to post a proper bullet point list of exactly what your issues are and why you think they're issues.

Because right now I don't understand what your panties are in a bunch about and it's difficult to get past the foam around your lips and to the crux of the matter.
 
Potatowithearsontheside said:
I guess next question, multiple choice to make it easier for you, is:
Given that your 4.7GHz score is in the right ballpark of what we'd expect a 9900K to score, do you think that the Ryzen 8c ES, that scored a similar CB score yesterday, was...
a) clocked above 4.7GHz,
b) clocked at 4.7GHz, or
c) clocked below 4.7GHz?
Click to expand...

I asked him this and he didn't provide a response. I wonder why. :D
 
It either:
Clocked the same and has the same or very slightly higher IPC.
Clocked lower with higher IPC
Clocked higher than 4.7Ghz and holy cow where did AMD get these clocks from so early in its complete silicon?

Which is it do we think?
 
Potatowithearsontheside said:
It's a simple question. Are you running 5.0GHz stable? If so, how did you get a 4.7GHz score?
I'm saying that the facts suggest that you aren't running 5.0GHz stable. Maybe you could, but you aren't.
Click to expand...


Go look in the 9900k thread. Ive been running 5ghz for the past couple of weeks since Christmas If you want me to performance some additional testing for you just post in there.

But I doubt this request would be based on genuine interest more of an agenda that only you hold.
 
humbug said:
It either:
Clocked the same and has the same or very slightly higher IPC.
Clocked lower with higher IPC
Clocked higher than 4.7Ghz and holy cow where did AMD get these clocks from so early in its complete silicon?

Which is it do we think?
Click to expand...
I think its the middle one.
 
I have no doubt its fine for gaming and day to day tasks but after 10 seconds of using AVX and its in the mid 70's @easyrider
-------------------

This is what i managed to find.

Ryzen 2700X @ 4.4Ghz: 1964
Ryzen 3600X? = 2057 (+5%)

The 2700X would have to be running at 4.62Ghz to match that score.

IMO its probably running at about 4.3Ghz all cores and has 7% higher IPC, final silicon might be 4.5Ghz which would give it a score of 2119.

fxJW91L.png


https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,9.html
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
It either:
Clocked the same and has the same or very slightly higher IPC.
Clocked lower with higher IPC
Clocked higher than 4.7Ghz and holy cow where did AMD get these clocks from so early in its complete silicon?

Which is it do we think?
Click to expand...


Isn't smt more efficient than ht?

The clocks and ipc could be roughly equal between intel and amd with the better smt picking up the slack.

I'm not saying this is the case, but it certainly is possible as an explaination.
 
humbug said:
It either:
Clocked the same and has the same or very slightly higher IPC.
Clocked lower with higher IPC
Clocked higher than 4.7Ghz and holy cow where did AMD get these clocks from so early in its complete silicon?

Which is it do we think?
Click to expand...

I'm going to say 4GHz base with all core boost enabled (~4.5GHz, but XFR disabled)

Bare in mind that Ryzen 1xxx ES chips were 3.00GHz for stability/platform testing, they have said 7nm was "better than expected"
 
easyrider said:
Go look in the 9900k thread. Ive been running 5ghz for the past couple of weeks since Christmas If you want me to performance some additional testing for you just post in there.

But I doubt this request would be based on genuine interest more of an agenda that only you hold.
Click to expand...
I think most people just want you to stop dismissing everything as false just because it conflicts with your rationale as to why the 9900K is so good. No-one is even doubting hiw good that 9900K is; its about getting you to accept that it likely is no longer as good as we once thought it was - tech moves on, and your 9900K effectively got shown up (big time) only 2 months after its launch and little more widespread availability.

We just want an answer to where you THINK the ES chip was clocked at, primarily so that we can then follow the logic of your thoughts. Whether you choose option a) b) or c) is moot, since each one branches off into a logical discussion. We'd be happy to have all three of you, but you'd have to promise to let go of that cognitive dissonance first.
 
easyrider said:
Go look in the 9900k thread. Ive been running 5ghz for the past couple of weeks since Christmas If you want me to performance some additional testing for you just post in there.

But I doubt this request would be based on genuine interest more of an agenda that only you hold.
Click to expand...

Bump your uncore to 4.7 and see how that impacts your cinebench score. I posted mine in that thread a while back and were much higher at 5ghz. Shouldn’t be that much difference.
 
Slightly yes, the 2700X at 4.6Ghz would score the same as the 9900K does at 4.7Ghz.

I think that Ryzen 3000 was running at 4.3Ghz to achieve 2057 and final clocks will be 4.5Ghz all core, so a combination of higher IPC and higher clocks, i just can't see it running at 4.7Ghz out of the box.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom