Ye I always paid the Overclocking warranty and run MAx volts 24/7 if it dies it dies ill get another one
Do i detect a bit of sarcasm there Zeed ?
-
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
Do i detect a bit of sarcasm there Zeed ?
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2019
- Posts
- 32
- Location
- Versailles, France
9900k is still ahead in some games, but I think the difference won't be noticeable.Ouch, even the 3900s mullered
AMD has finally catch up Intel for good this time regarding gaming perfomance!
Moreover with better power efficiency thanks to its 7nm.
That's really good for consummers
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,515
- Location
- Warwickshire
He's such an angry guy, not at all fitting the red-headed Irishman stereotype.
As far as the two Ryzen chips go, it's likely the beefier FPUs causing the higher power consumption with Zen 2.
Small game selection, but looking at minimums, they look nice.
Can’t say I give a rats about 480 and 720p testing. Give me a real world please with big game and program selection.
The 1600 vs 7600k was also a joke at those resolutions two years ago. Now the 1600 is the better CPU overall, outside of Arma, FarCry, and Tomb Raider.
Can’t say I give a rats about 480 and 720p testing. Give me a real world please with big game and program selection.
The 1600 vs 7600k was also a joke at those resolutions two years ago. Now the 1600 is the better CPU overall, outside of Arma, FarCry, and Tomb Raider.
It isn't true, though, is it. There is a large difference coming from somewhere at low resolutions. It exists and will be there:
ROTR 1280x720
i9-9900K 181.1 FPS (+52.7%)
9 3900X 149.9 FPS (+26.4%)
7 3700X 147.5 FPS (+24.4%)
7 2700X 122.9 FPS (+3.6%)
5 2600X 118.6 FPS (100%)
+1
If I wanted to play at 720p, I would either go the APU route with an Athlon 220GE, or pick up a Ryzen 3 1200 for £50 and some second-hand RX 550 for around the same price. Heck, I bought a 4 GiB RX 460 for £70, and you can find RX 570s for only £30-50 more. I just didn't have the option back then.
Nobody plays at 720p with such CPUs. I can only assume that these tests are to see just how much Zen 2 has improved when severely CPU bottlenecked. An absolute worst-case scenario, and it doesn't paint a very good picture against Intel's architectures.
If you look at the latest Steam Survey, 74% of players play at ~1080p, 16.4% at ~720, and only 9.6% at 2k, 4k and ultrawide combined.
So we see a wild, out of the blue review that shows the new chips winning in some and losing in others. Exactly as AMD was reporting by the looks of it. I game at 1080p though so not that interested in them results
I want the full range. 1080, 1440, and 2160p.
Intel kept harping on recently they want realistic tests run. Who buys these chips, or an 8700 - 9900k and plays 720p low. Outside of CS Source folks.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Jun 2019
- Posts
- 32
- Location
- Versailles, France
Even without playing at this low resolution, it's important to benchmark in CPU bottleneck scenario to estimate the future proof potential in few years when games will be more demanding on CPU even at higher resolution.
Most of those at 720P are probably on a lappy, which is why I stressed desktops.
Cling to that hope! Yeah AMD are gonna smash it!So we see a wild, out of the blue review that shows the new chips winning in some and losing in others. Exactly as AMD was reporting by the looks of it. I game at 1080p though so not that interested in them results
a lot of watts there, least should help people with why x570 has a lot of VRM
might change minds of those looking for b450 and 12 cores overclocked to max
I think b450 can handle 12 core with XFR (not PBO), but yeah I would not go higher than 8 cores on b450 if manually OC with high wattage.
For me its either the 3600X or 3700X so 6 or 8 cores, 12 is overkill.
XFR usually is as good as it gets tho, are these new zen2 supposedly much better to overclock manually than ryzen 2? PBO doesnt seem to gain much more than 100mhz.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 966
The i9-9900K has really helped AMD and to a lesser extent also the i7-8086K.
Prior to that and for a long time the top price for a mainstream desktop CPU was around $359; as with the i7-8700K.
If that hadn’t changed then it would be a big leap to push the mainstream top end pricing up by over 100% to $750.
Sure you get more cores but you expect that when moving to a much smaller node.
Look at it this way, the i7-8700K is a 6C/12T with enough space taken up by the GPU to produce at the same die size at least a 10C/20T chip with no GPU.
So at 10nm you’d be looking at roughly 16C/32T which is where AMD are soon to be at.
So rather than 16C being over double the price of a top end desktop chip from a year ago we could be looking at $400-500.
This is seemingly why some people were expecting Zen2 to top out at $400-500 even for 16C.
If it wasn’t for Intel’s 10nm disaster and the i9-9900K that might have been the case.
But hey, the chips are still cheap but not the revolution in pricing that some had hoped for.
It’s all Intel’s fault of course; everything is!
Without serious competition a pricing revolution is not going to happen.
I’m curious now as to what Intel are cooking up for 7nm as they can’t hope to compete with a monolithic CPU/GPU.
At worst they need a GPU-less monolithic CPU which would need a ring bus.
2021 should be really interesting with AMD at 5nm hopefully.
Prior to that and for a long time the top price for a mainstream desktop CPU was around $359; as with the i7-8700K.
If that hadn’t changed then it would be a big leap to push the mainstream top end pricing up by over 100% to $750.
Sure you get more cores but you expect that when moving to a much smaller node.
Look at it this way, the i7-8700K is a 6C/12T with enough space taken up by the GPU to produce at the same die size at least a 10C/20T chip with no GPU.
So at 10nm you’d be looking at roughly 16C/32T which is where AMD are soon to be at.
So rather than 16C being over double the price of a top end desktop chip from a year ago we could be looking at $400-500.
This is seemingly why some people were expecting Zen2 to top out at $400-500 even for 16C.
If it wasn’t for Intel’s 10nm disaster and the i9-9900K that might have been the case.
But hey, the chips are still cheap but not the revolution in pricing that some had hoped for.
It’s all Intel’s fault of course; everything is!
Without serious competition a pricing revolution is not going to happen.
I’m curious now as to what Intel are cooking up for 7nm as they can’t hope to compete with a monolithic CPU/GPU.
At worst they need a GPU-less monolithic CPU which would need a ring bus.
2021 should be really interesting with AMD at 5nm hopefully.