• 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 ***

~>Dg<~ said:
what if the sample being used is a cherry picked engineering eg ? and everything else is less ? its not the first time its been done. its all guess work. all im basically saying is we can all come up with a rough idea of what might be. doesnt mean it will be. we have no actual figures or data to go off. only a cinebench score. which as i said doesnt mean anything. the 2700x scored more than many intel chips when released where was it in gaming ? it was slower than a 140 quid i5 in almost all games !
Click to expand...

Now you're clutching at straws.
 
Well, they do kinda prove that Zen 2 has progressed beyond Zen +.
If you progress on one aspect of design, then it's likely that you may also have progresses in other aspects.
It's true that the CB won't mean much when other benches are out, but for an earlier indicator it clearly shows progression. No amount of your nonsense can deny this. The scale of that progression is all that is up for debate, and since this is a speculation thread for the most part, it's fair to speculate based on the information that we do have. Just like it's fair to make reasonable assumptions that we cannot 100% prove/evidence just yet, but clearly can infer.
 
Journey said:
You live under a rock? R7 1700X - £160?
Click to expand...

i didnt put with better ipc to match intel which apparently they now have. so in other words a intel equivelent 8 core cpu at 4ghz. which they currently dont have cause its 15-20 percent behind. for £200
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i didnt put with better ipc to match intel which apparently they now have. so in other words a intel equivelent 8 core cpu at 4ghz. which they currently dont have cause its 15-20 percent behind. for £200
Click to expand...
It could be under £300 and it will still be quite an achievement, spend more and get even more performance.

As you are a self proclaimed amd tinker you surely are excited at what’s ahead.
 
Doobedoo said:
It could be under £300 and it will still be quite an achievement, spend more and get even more performance.

As you are a self proclaimed amd tinker you surely are excited at what’s ahead.
Click to expand...

thats the thing i will buy a 8 or more core amd cpu. so many just judge. or guess its a great thing for competition i will have one of the chips i see best value in to tinker with.
 
what it proves it many on here just cant debate about a topic without trying to berate any person who offers a differing opinion to their own.
 
Potatowithearsontheside said:
Is this another one of those facts that proves that you own more AMD builds than Intel?
If it is, I suspect that I know where you get your facts from; right out of your behind. :p
Click to expand...
You would have thought he’d have a least one 8700k or 9900k considering how considerably superior they are for gaming.

He is a troll, end of, he’s like it in almost every thread I have ever seen him in.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
what it proves it many on here just cant debate about a topic without trying to berate any person who offers a differing opinion to their own.
Click to expand...
You haven't offered an opinion, just spouted nonsense.
You asked questions which when turned back to yourself you simply avoided answering.
How does one match a CB score on similar core count if not by either increasing clocks or increasing IPC?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom