• 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:
so lets just keep guessing until its out. :p

based on 15 years being behind you think it would be underclocked to match a 9900k ? :D

i love postivity but that is some leap. :p

on that basis 10 core 5ghz underclocked cpu faster than anything intel for £200. not bad.
Click to expand...

I sense skepticism in your post. Though obviously your estimate on price wont be true.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
so lets just keep guessing until its out. :p

based on 15 years being behind you think it would be underclocked to match a 9900k ? :D

i love postivity but that is some leap. :p

on that basis 10 core 5ghz underclocked cpu faster than anything intel for £200. not bad.
Click to expand...

Possible, but unlikely, again...

And...

on that basis 10 core 5ghz underclocked cpu faster than anything intel for £200. not bad.
Click to expand...

No, just...no.




awaybreaktoday said:
ZEN2 has been delayed until 2021
Click to expand...

:D :D :D :D

 
CuriousTomCat said:
It's possible that a 4.5GHz Ryzen 3000 CPU has the same FPS in games as a 5GHz Intel CPU, we just dont know yet. Too many people are obsessing over clockspeed. Two pages ago, DG was saying how important it is that AMD hit's 5GHz to stand a chance of beating Intel, like clockspeed is all that matters in games. This train of thought winds me up so I thought Humbugs "clockspeed is irrelevant" comment was justified in the context of the discussion and I'm surprised people took it so literally as if to say he has a disregard for IPC.

IPC is far more important for AMD to get right than clockspeed.
Click to expand...

5ghz is for marketing purposes and with IPC as it stands AMD will beat Intel at half the power.
7nm is king
 
KungFuSpaghetti said:
Yeah not really sure what you're getting at to be honest, as I don't disagree that clock speed on it's own is irrelevant... pretty sure I never said it was. My point was simply that AMD may be able to match Intel for IPC clock for clock, but having a chip 20% lower clocking put the advantage firmly back with Intel again.

As for the engineering sample, it showed awesome promise, but that was a threaded test which favours AMD as SMT is simply better than HT. I've zero doubts that had that test instead been gaming benchmarks, then the results would have certainly favoured Intel. Probably not by much, so this is why I'm hyped for the new series, especially the 12 and 16 core high clocking parts (if they clock as per leaked guesses and can do that all core). As for it's clockspeed being irrelevant, well, that's your opinion, I disagree. If it was 4.7 or whatever would show that there's zero IPC improvement and AMD have simply increased clocks, then that's bad... if it was 4.0ghz and the higher end parts are going to be 5.1ghz, then that's absolutely awesome.
Click to expand...

I agree with you and does this seem familiar? https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/ryzen-2.18795677/page-93#post-31722514
 
~>Dg<~ said:
they proven that in cinebench its quicker. dont be making up the rest. previously in cinebench amd had quicker chips. guess what that meant in games ? slower than a 8400. cinebench is just cinebench. not gaming.

as to humbug . i honestly dont know what to say.without making stuff up like many. if they have matched 9900k at cinebench with whatever clock they have vs a stock 9900k erm..im kinda so so. as said above. previous amd chips did this with intel and look how that turned out. plus you can oc the intel more. so its mainly about price now.
Click to expand...

Nice try, but the Intel 9900K even at stock boosts to 5ghz, and although the AMD chip had undisclosed speeds, I dont think it was hitting 5ghz, personally I think it was around 4.5ghz which makes it even better, they didnt use there top dog CPU's speculated to be nearly and above 5ghz, those are 16 core and 12 core parts, they used what will now be there mid range CPU's 8 core 16 thread, and non of those are speculated to be 5ghz, even on a single core boost.

Previously in Cinebench multicore tests, AMD beat Intel purely on core count, AMD had twice as many as Intel, AMD obviously won, but like you said, single core wasnt there, but this time its was 8 core vs 8 core, no advantage to either team, and the only thing we really knew is what speed the Intel 9900K was running at.
 
Thekwango said:
Get a notification that nashathedog has quoted my post - then see this?? Really hope it’s not me you think is scary :(:(

Really intrigued now by what you wrote originally??
Click to expand...

Nothing important mate, I quoted you from many pages back, although I've forgot what it was now, After posting it & reading on I saw a lot of posters arguing on the same topic so I decided to delete it rather than start it all up again. :D
 
Jamin280672 said:
Nice try, but the Intel 9900K even at stock boosts to 5ghz, and although the AMD chip had undisclosed speeds, I dont think it was hitting 5ghz, personally I think it was around 4.5ghz which makes it even better
Click to expand...

The 9900K at stock can only boost 1 core to 5GHz. During all-core workloads I think it's limit is 4.7GHz??? We can safely assume that the Ryzen CPU was clocked around 4.5GHz so it's almost guarenteed that AMD has the highest IPC.
 
kitfit1 said:
If that is the case, then 8Pack will have the same information.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who would pass information on to him, Debau8er I can imagine that happening. Even if they have the same parent company doesn't mean they pass sensitive information between each other.
 
4K8KW10 said:
I am losing my attention on Ryzen 3000, still pretty long wait more.
Click to expand...

That's only because of the leaks. Without leaks, CES would have been the first time we officially heard about Ryzen 3000 so the wait is only 5 months. Instead, it's been dragged out for over a year and hyped so much.

Obviously we still knew about Zen2 from the projected roadmap 2 years ago but there would have been less fanfare.
 
CuriousTomCat said:
That's only because of the leaks. Without leaks, CES would have been the first time we officially heard about Ryzen 3000 so the wait is only 5 months. Instead, it's been dragged out for over a year and hyped so much.

Obviously we still knew about Zen2 from the projected roadmap 2 years ago but there would have been less fanfare.
Click to expand...

7nm Zen 2 is late, look at what TSMC is doing with its 7nm capacity, already.


TSMC's 7 nm Fabrication Becomes Biggest Share of Revenue in 4Q18
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom