-
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
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
absolute nonsense have a look bf5 for eg. even with the 15 percent touted extra performance once ocd most intel will still be faster in almost all games. yet you waiting another 6 months for this !
Well, if you are going to use a potato resolution.....
New Ryzen beat 9900K with an engineering sample 8 core chip.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
We should be really clear on this. AdoredTV's sources in no way said Ryzen was going to be monolithic, this was purely AdoredTVs fantasy.
https://youtu.be/ReYUJXHqESk?t=288
His three sources who told him, according to him, that they'd be monolithic told him
First one firstly confirms nothing by saying they don't know, they are guessing it's no I/O die but they still say it's going to be chiplets.
Does anyone see the word monolithic here? It's likely any list of parts anyone receives probably calls them 7nm parts even if some of it is 14nm, still in no way says monolithic.
One source, who we don't know, who may have only have gotten a snapshot of what is in production at one point in time says they only saw a huge I/O chip.... but in no way says the words monolithic, in no way says the words there is no smaller I/O die, in no way says anything for certain. It's a throw away comment where the source is saying they can't confirm Ryzen is chiplets with an I/O die, this is a world away from what Adoredtv claims which is that the source is confirming it's monolithic without an I/O die.
Somehow adoredtv on the base of 3 sources, one of whom straight says it's chiplets and none who state monolithic, decides it's monolithic. He also had lots of other truly awful reasoning like shipping costs. Literally everything AMD currently makes is from Global and gets shipped across the planet for packaging... but Ryzen is going to be monolithic because shipping millions of chips at a ridiculously low cost, when they already do that, is financially problematic for Ryzen so Ryzen will be monolithic instead?
He's on twitter in the past day pushing this entirely onto the sources who 'misled him' and there are so many people saying he was right or saying his sources got it wrong but he didn't believe it. Adoredtv thought Ryzen would be monolithic, got almost every single thing in that latest video on Ryzen wrong, got that it would be monolithic completely wrong and every single part of his reasoning was absurd.
The really big issue seems completely unnoticed. Look at what his sources told him and then look at how he interpreted those statements into whatever the hell he wanted it to mean. The same way he wanted there to be a secret RX490 that would make Polaris the best thing since sliced bread and on par with a 1070, he interpreted power tables to mean what he wanted, completely against usual industry standards/usages to show efficiency was insane and a RX490 exists. There was nothing in the slightest to back up what he was saying, he just randomly interprets anything to mean what he wants it to mean to match his theory. The guy never had any real credibility.
absolute nonsense have a look bf5 for eg. even with the 15 percent touted extra performance once ocd most intel will still be faster in almost all games. yet you waiting another 6 months for this !
You're mind set is all about gaming. Thats where you are falling down in this thread.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
Gaming in very specific titles. with the worlds fastest graphics card, at a 2004 resolution. WTF.
And at 1440p (they didnt even bother with 4K but ran 720p...FFS) anyway.... At 1440p they are the same.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,458
- Location
- Planet Earth
Second chiplet baby....
Hmm,there is 8 indents in the substrate there in what looks like 4 identical quarters. I do wonder whether the way Zen2 is arranged internally with regards to the CCX will be somewhat different compared to the earlier CPUs??
in the titles that show cpu power. its simple to see in games they already behind and not even out for 6 months ! many here will want them for gaming. using a cinebench benchmark against a gaming intel chip to show off when the gaming chip is in games the intels wipe the floor with chips not even out.
people are talking about uses. the i9 9900k is a gaming chip. they using cinebench to show they close yet not games ? why cause they slower.
That is probably what you have been looking at. Try going into that etailer in incognito. Also.. look at marketshmarketshare/sales not what is presented to you at an etailer.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
Yup, but at 1080p where I imagine most people play, then Intel has a large advantage in gaming, furthered with the 9 series. I want AMD to do well and be faster than Intel, purely because that's the platform I went for this time around, but I wont be surprised if they don't manage it. Either way, I don't think there will be much in it, however it gives AMD a huge edge if they can be as fast or faster in gaming and destroy the i9's everywhere else productivity wise. What I then don't want is Intel to not be able to come back with something, as AMD will basically become Intel lol.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,458
- Location
- Planet Earth
You only have to look at AMD revenue when compared to where they were before Ryzen was launched. Its dramatically gone up,and that is even taking into consideration semi-custom and RTG are probably slowing down too. Their last finanical report had Lisa Su saying CPUs now account for 70% of their revenue.
Last edited:
9% faster at 1080p and 4% faster at 1440p is a far cry from 15-20%
Take away the outliers like SC2, Wreckfest and the difference is sub 5% for the most part.
AMD's 8-core CPU bested Intel's 8-core CPU because they are slower?
It's very early days, AMD are playing their cards close so they are not going to give away anything to the opposition. Intel are in a bad spot at the moment and you know it.
they are faster at cinebench !
why didnt they show games comparision. where most here will be buying them for ? stop with nonsense. use logic.
i chose the most upto date game that uses cpu power. bf5. the chips are in the budget value range for most buyers. they arent going to be mainly playing with 100-200 pound cpus at 1440. they will be at 1080 res with a mid to low range card.
dont change the goal post look at where the product sits what its actually going to be used for. its not cinebench scores is it ? budget chips for gaming rigs. with budget cards at 1080 res is realistically what many on here will be using them for. yes others will do higher im talking about the main percentage of gamers. not nonsical cinebench scores. which like the last ryzens were higher than intel but upto 30 percent behind in big games people actually play daily at 1080 res. cinebench means nothing to mass users.
why didnt they show games comparision. where most here will be buying them for ? stop with nonsense. use logic.
i chose the most upto date game that uses cpu power. bf5. the chips are in the budget value range for most buyers. they arent going to be mainly playing with 100-200 pound cpus at 1440. they will be at 1080 res with a mid to low range card.
dont change the goal post look at where the product sits what its actually going to be used for. its not cinebench scores is it ? budget chips for gaming rigs. with budget cards at 1080 res is realistically what many on here will be using them for. yes others will do higher im talking about the main percentage of gamers. not nonsical cinebench scores. which like the last ryzens were higher than intel but upto 30 percent behind in big games people actually play daily at 1080 res. cinebench means nothing to mass users.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
Not sure its really worth arguing over 1 cinebench score, why not wait and see a full run down of what it can do before we all turn on raging fanboy mode. 
where most RTX20180Ti users play at... uhuh. very good pull the other one!
Yet that is one of the biggest strawmen going. Gaming is a terrible way to determine CPU performance. No two games run the same, they all have very different requirements. When Dual Universe comes out there's going to be a lot of crying about CPU's overheating and even being used 100%. From what I've seen there, my Threadripper was 100% loading that and it looks to be nCore scaling too. People with 7700K's were complaining of the load times, yet mine loaded in less than 30s after the initial load which cached a lot of info. Games in the current market are mostly 4 core optimised and barely any use more than that. That's changing and The Division was one of the first to try using more cores. Unsuccessfully I may add as beyond 8 threads it just started duplicating work and loaded CPU's with nonsense calculations which resulted in lower performance. When it released though, people weren't gaming on 16c processors.
I race a lot in iRacing and if there's any game that's CPU limited that's it. IPC and GHz is where it's at and for VR it's pretty much a requirement to use an 8600K or better to get 5.2-5.3GHz and feed the GPU with enough info to be able to perform at reasonable FPS. The interesting part is the Ryzen's and ThreadRippers seem to hold better 1% lows a lot of the time with much less variance between the Avg FPS and the 1% and 0.1% lows. This improves the gaming experience far more than having 500FPS in CS:GO for instance. Actually looking at the 0.1% and 1%'s of CS:GO show that high clocks only really increase the average, the lows are the same, highlighting a bottleneck likely in the software rather than anywhere else.
So really you just don't seem to see the scope of the claims you are making. Even if a CPU is behind in outright max or avg FPS, it can still be a better choice if the lows are higher and the gap between the avg and the lows is lower.