• 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 ***

Doobedoo said:
So it’s defiantly not unreasonably to assume that retail cards will outperform what we saw at CES and probably on par (at least in cinebench) with a 5+ghz 9900k.
Click to expand...

Yep, no doubt in my mind based on my own past experience. If you look at the system draw on both bench runs, we all know what a 9900K draws and you then look at the AMD ES system draw......................the AMD ES is not breaking a sweat and is no where near all the leaked power draws for the rumoured top end SKU's.
 
A couple of you need to tone things down and stop trying to single people out who do not have the same opinion as themselves.

Take this as a warning, anything further will result in action taken. Discuss and debate as adults.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i have i have shown that cinebench scores count for notihng in gaming. 2700x is slower than a i5 8400 in most games. proven and benchmarked. yet a 2700x is better in cinebench. id say that pretty much is a solid opinion with proof showing cinebench isnt everything.
Click to expand...
You shown a complete inability to understand that it is not the CB result itself that matters.
It's what the change in CB from one generation to the next can tell us about the improvements between generations, and how this improvement is likely replicated in other aspects of CPU performance.
You know for certain that they didn't invest so much in 7nm node so that they could solely boost their CB numbers; the improvements will be across the board, even if by varying amounts.

In simple English: it was never about the CB result. Do you understand?
 
~>Dg<~ said:
i have i have shown that cinebench scores count for notihng in gaming. 2700x is slower than a i5 8400 in most games. proven and benchmarked. yet a 2700x is better in cinebench. id say that pretty much is a solid opinion with proof showing cinebench isnt everything.
Click to expand...

Here is a classic example,

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-ryzen-5-1600-1600x-vs-core-i5-7500k-review

jpg


Remember a 1600 ryzen is slower than a 7600k, just remember, exactly what you said about the 2700x and 8400 comparison which is true it is slower!

If the 2700x was used to it's fullest it would match the ryzen 1600 lead over the 7600k or shall i say the 8400, do you agree it does not have the max fps (ips/instructions per clock), only low/min fps (multi core advantage).

Those proven benchmarks your on about only tell half the story, as with this classic example above.

Anyways games vary with how many cores they use, if the 2700x was used to it's fullest it would stomp the 8400 mate with much higher min fps, exactly the same with the 1600 beating a 7600k above with the image.

Exactly the same way cinebench uses the extra cores so that score equates into the game like above with the image.
 
Last edited:
Sc00p007 said:
^^this is what i agree with most.

From my perspective as a gamer with a 9900k 5.2ghz, i have a feeling this will be a side grade. If games turn out similar to the cinebench in games, i wont be buying. 1440p and 4k i dont even see much gain over lower tier chips. Its ahead of the curve for the demands of gaming aswell as a number of other intel chips. 2700 amds are abead of the curve too.
If these chips turn out like the hype, it excites me to what my next upgrade will be. The cpu market just got exciting again. I just hope games develop as quick as the cpu market is :)
16+ core that clocks the same as an 8, will be crushing at the HEDT market.
Click to expand...
I agree with this for the most part.
Existing 9900K owners shouldn't be looking to buy the Ryzen 8c chip, nor is it targeted at them. The 9900K is going to viable for those that already own it for quite some time. However, anyone looking to buy would have to seriously justify to themselves why they think the 9900K was worth the premium for similar performance, on a dead platform, and at nearly double the power...and without PCIe4 (so potentially bottlenecking it within its likely 5-8 year relevant lifespan; GPU or storage could/should use the extra bandwidth within that timeframe).

I'm glad that there is at least one rational 9900K owner here making comments.
 
If in game you stare at a wall or an empty vista you can make a higher clocked dual core look faster than anything, the reality however is very very different when you ask the same CPU to actually do something in said game.

4690K @ 4.6Ghz: 33 FPS

6sR6qPL.png

My Current Ryzen 1600 at 3.85Ghz: 85 FPS

B0KnK71.jpg
 
humbug said:
If in game you stare at a wall or an empty vista you can make a higher clocked dual core look faster than anything, the reality however is very very different when you ask the same CPU to actually do something in said game.

4690K @ 4.6Ghz: 33 FPS

6sR6qPL.png

My Current Ryzen 1600 at 3.85Ghz: 85 FPS

B0KnK71.jpg
Click to expand...

Thanks humbug, i was looking for this above ^,

It just had to come to light in this thread that's all.

Yep due to a higher ghz with a better ipc over the ryzen processor, if you look at a wall it will be much faster then a ryzen processor as you say.

But the multicore and threads of the ryzen blows that concept out of the water but it is indeed slower then intel chips due to ipc/instructions per clock.

Either way that comparison some people might attack and say look this is a 4xxx series of intels and not an upto date intel processor like the 9 series but i am still confident that the ryzen will still blow the latest intel processor out of the water or say look the i7 with 4 cores and 8 threads will be faster, but i still think the ryzen would even beat the i7 with 8 threads for sure.

Varying on the intel processor, that is with retrospect amd processor equivalent, direct competition between amd and intel, so the 7600k competition is the ryzen 5 1600 for example, because they cost like the same back then, you see for one.
 
Last edited:
lltfdaniel said:
Thanks humbug, i was looking for this above ^,

It just had to come to light in this thread that's all.

Yep due to a higher ghz with a better ipc over the ryzen processor, if you look at a wall it will be much faster then a ryzen processor as you say.

But the multicore and threads of the ryzen blows that concept out of the water but it is indeed slower then intel chips due to ipc/instructions per clock.

Either way that comparison some people might attack and say look this is a 4xxx series of intels and not an upto date intel processor like the 9 series but i am still confident that the ryzen will still blow the latest intel processor out of the water or say look the i7 with 4 cores and 8 threads will be faster, but i still think the ryzen would even beat the i7 with 8 threads for sure.

Varying on the intel processor, that is.
Click to expand...

With that on the 8400, a direct review with it vs the 2600 none X.

The 8400 boosts to 4Ghz all core, the 2600 to 3.4Ghz all core, or is it 3.6? i can't remember....

0S3MLtf.png


Yes i have collected these, for exactly these arguments that repeat themselves over and over and over................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom