-
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
Then you dont know many "normal" consumers - normal consumers dont overclock and it is as simple as that.
Since an 8700k and 9900k are so close it's really not much different tbh.
TDP is a valid reason but I agree, it's stupidly unlikely that they will clock to say 4.8+ GHz if they only advertise 4.6 GHz boost.
Question is.. is that figure an all core boost or is it the xfr figure? This is the question.
Not really, a decent board is still £130-150 and £300+ for extreme end. So the AMD decent boards would need to be £250+
Users begin to know overclocking when they need more performance and it's a viable option to extract some more performance while keeping the needed costs for this low or null.
It makes zero sense to overclock an already monster CPU as i9-9900 something.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2013
- Posts
- 5,511
That and mobo prices are too much.
Really you think consumers look to get more performance from a current system by overclocking or running out of spec and not just think about buying something new that is faster for their workload? I think we both know the real answer here.
Never once has a normal non enthusiast said to me "How about we overclock it to find more performance" it just doesn't happen.
In fact many, or even most systems, housing the 9900/k will be some kind of oem system where they are locked into tdp limits. You know what I mean, systems like the HP Z4 G4.
Last edited:
Boost clocks are always single core because bigger numbers look better.
Unless they are deliberately changing it either to hide something or fall more inline with how Intel now market their chips. Didn't they recently change the way that they market or even don't market boost clocks? I personally think something in this picture is missing, I may be wrong but it's not fully adding up for me. I hear the silicon quality argument but am not sure I am fully on board with that one.
But even here the other members recommend overclocking instead new purchases for systems housing ivy bridge, haswell, even sandy bridge, etc...
Absolutely this.
In my many years of being involved with PC's, both personally and professionally, the amount of people I've known who overclock their CPU's and GFX is minimal.
Even on this forum a lot of people don't overclock!
I think the truth of all this is there is no simple answer. There is no better or worse. There is only better at XXX, add your own task of choice. Sometimes it will be AMD and sometimes it will be Intel.
As said by others indicators like the large number of new high quality motherboards being sold say a lot about the performance.
Associate
- Joined
- 2 Jan 2019
- Posts
- 617
IMO it is more honest to list the all-core boost rather than a single core boost.
Irrespective of this, I find it hard to justify listing a single core boost on a product that's upper bounds is ultimately limited to your choice of cooling solution...as XFR2 seemingly suggests.
Irrespective of this, I find it hard to justify listing a single core boost on a product that's upper bounds is ultimately limited to your choice of cooling solution...as XFR2 seemingly suggests.
@Kelt @Vince thats why I think 3900k should be compared to 9900ks 
as 9900k is basically overclocked 9900k and 3900k and its XFR is basically self overclocking chip. Just look how AMD's last few years of products are.. They are runnin on 95% of chips maximum operational performance out of the box leaving slim to no gain from overclocking. Both GPU's and CPU's and this 9900ks is basically same thing running on almost max out of box. 3 Years ago I said Intel go it kinda planned..
If they need they add cores then more cores then Solder the IHS and bump clocks.... I WAS RIGHT. They are selling same tech with tweeks since what ?? 7700k ?? just making EZ gains.. TBH I dont think they can get away with more than this 9900ks can deliver its last thing they could have donw with 14nm PLUS PLUS PLUS ++++++ and few more PLUS
as 9900k is basically overclocked 9900k and 3900k and its XFR is basically self overclocking chip. Just look how AMD's last few years of products are.. They are runnin on 95% of chips maximum operational performance out of the box leaving slim to no gain from overclocking. Both GPU's and CPU's and this 9900ks is basically same thing running on almost max out of box. 3 Years ago I said Intel go it kinda planned..If they need they add cores then more cores then Solder the IHS and bump clocks.... I WAS RIGHT. They are selling same tech with tweeks since what ?? 7700k ?? just making EZ gains.. TBH I dont think they can get away with more than this 9900ks can deliver its last thing they could have donw with 14nm PLUS PLUS PLUS ++++++ and few more PLUS
After few of out Zen overclocking members from OCN had cpus fried by XFR putting too much volts in cpus. I stay away from it. It's ok for gaming and rendering not for heavy benching sadly TESTED. On the good side AMD replaced all of the dead cpus
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 May 2007
- Posts
- 3,221
That’s what interests me, the all core overclocking potential without going right to the limits. It would need to be at least an easy 4.5Ghz for me to upgrade.
Agreed
yup thats why 9900ks came to life heheehe