• 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 ***

Soldato
Joined
6 Jun 2008
Posts
11,616
Location
Finland
The issue with some cases re airflow is the lack of a semi open dust meshed front. There's so many cases that are decent but let down by front air intake having to rely on side slits to draw in air.
Open front is direct noise escape path leaking slightest noise out unmuffled.
Air again is pretty darn low viscosity fluid and doesn't mind much about doing couple turns if path is properly done.
Of course if fans are some pressure impotent Noctua S12s, then then any airflow impedance is problem.
Though blocking direct noise escape path would also allow increasing fan speed some.
 
Associate
Joined
4 Oct 2017
Posts
590
Location
Australia - Sunshine Coast
as with any review benchmark take with pinch of salt. most have bias especially when they have relations with certain companies. intel have had the gaming scene cpu wise mopped up for over 10 years. we all know that. we just hoping amd have this finally caught up with these new cpus. not long now.
Take anything ~>Dg<~ says with a bucket load of salt as it's usually biased hot garbage. There's so many examples of Ryzen being good in games, it may not hit the highest averages but for the most part it does smash out those 1% and 0.1% lows far better than many of the Intel counterparts. As usual there's scenario's where single core performance is king like with X3 Albion Prelude, iRacing and CS:GO, but the usual suspects in this category are usually DX11 or older based games.
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Jun 2006
Posts
33,484
Location
Notts
its not worth debating about. if you cant see or work out intel are faster better for gaming and have been for about 15 years then just leave it there . you wont ever be convinced.
 
Associate
Joined
31 Dec 2011
Posts
801
I guess its all down to what you want from a PC but I remember buying a phenom 6 core black edition and selling its swiftly due to games being pretty rough compared to the sandybridge 2500k I replaced it with. I then stuck with intel for 8 years but having recently replaced my i4790k with a Ryzen 2600 (soon to be whatever turns out to be best bang for buck) I would not go back to intel. Gaming is great as far as I am concerned + 75fps at 1440p with a vega 56 but also productivity is much improved, as a dev who uses multiple IDEs (Visual Studio, Android Studio, Visual studio Code, SQL server PGadmin etc etc) the ability to have them all run at the same time and all be extremely responsive I would not go back to a lower core count and intels pricing.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
There's still a gap where AMD might dip to (example) 80fps in a game where Intel would be around 95+ even at 1440p. I wouldn't really say 100hz or so was silly since there's a clear difference over 60 but to each his own.

:o
Huh, if the CPU load stays as low as negligible 14% during gaming, it's definitely not AMD to turn to...

The Enfusion engine is Bohemia Interactive's new game engine that DayZ Standalone is currently running on (DayZ still isnt fully optimised btw).

Heres my 2700X CPU usage while running the game with nothing else running in the background.. apart from Windows 10 of course :)

ZlhtKHh.png
 
Associate
Joined
4 Oct 2017
Posts
590
Location
Australia - Sunshine Coast
its not worth debating about. if you cant see or work out intel are faster better for gaming and have been for about 15 years then just leave it there . you wont ever be convinced.
Having used both AMD and Intel CPU's during the past 15yrs and both flavours of GPU too, I can safely say with authority you are talking utter tripe. There's games that benefit Intel and there's games that don't. There's been the bulldozer and piledriver fiasco from AMD where they couldn't compete with a wet paper bag, but then there was the Pentium 4 that couldn't handle an Athlon64 so how far back do you want to go? Hell I'll go back to a Cyrix if you like which was killed off by Quake...

You keep talking like you know ****. Unfortunately we agree, you know ****.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
3 Jan 2009
Posts
1,271
Location
Wiltshire
Considering I have a Zotac GPU with the fan control problem, which makes one fan run at 100% when ever I load a game (and stay there until I restart), I think I can handle these actively cooled motherboards :D That's not to say I would not rather have a silent motherboard, but at least I know it won't be a deal breaker.
 
Associate
Joined
4 Oct 2017
Posts
590
Location
Australia - Sunshine Coast
Funny thing is no-one's denied that all thread. Just ~>Dg<~ and his Intel Superiority Complex. I had a 3930K for 6 years and it was a damn good CPU, but none of the newer Intel's offered a meaningful upgrade path that competed with Threadripper for the money. Not going back to mainstream for my main editing rig either.
 
Soldato
Joined
19 Apr 2003
Posts
13,513
The real question is. Why (other than trolling) is DG even in this thread? Just to constantly big up Intel? Makes no sense. This is a Ryzen 3000 discussion.
Hey, don't wreck what little entertainment us voyeurs have reading this thread - as it finely tunes itself, with leaks, until eventual release. :D
 
Caporegime
Joined
20 May 2007
Posts
39,655
Location
Surrey
As anyone would AMD are going to show their products in the best light, Sniper 4 is an AMD title and Mantle which likes high core count CPU's.

But at the time this was also true for a lot of other games, at least when comparing Ryzen 5 to Core i5, Including Tomb Raider, the higher thread count gave the Ryzen 1600/X much more consistent and much higher performance in the demanding parts of AAA games making it a much better gaming CPU, in that range.

Trust me, this CPU replaced an i5 4690K @ 4.6Ghz, the 1600 is vastly better.

CHmOGdu.png

j2RUaEQ.png

Man i remember those grass scenes in Crysis 3. It is what made me upgrade from an i5 (2500k to 3700k). Frame rate almost doubled in some scenes! That grass loves cores/threads.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Jan 2012
Posts
3,882
Location
Derbyshire
As anyone would AMD are going to show their products in the best light, Sniper 4 is an AMD title and Mantle which likes high core count CPU's.

Exactly, they picked their best case scenario. That is why if they demo zen 2 with games their choice of game is going to be as important as the frame rate. If they demo it in game where AMD are strong already (forza) you should be asking question as to why the did this. If they are show zen 2 matching a 9900k in a game where a 2700x is already very close close to a 9900K the they are not really telling you very much about how much better the new architecture is are they.
On the other hand if they go with a game that is a very strong performer on the 9900k ie Tomb Raider's inbuilt benchmark and show zen 2 matching the 9900k, like they did with Cinebench at CES, then we are in for good things. They did this at the original zen launch with the Blender render, they took an application were Intel was traditionally very strong in compared to AMDs older CPUs and showed themselves beating 6900k and demonstrating the much improved design of Zen over Piledriver and that it was now better the Intel compeating CPU.

With these type of reveal events and the leaks leading up to the them it is often more important to pay attention to what you are not being shown rater than what you are. It's not what your sure of it's what you don't know.

Trust me, this CPU replaced an i5 4690K @ 4.6Ghz, the 1600 is vastly better.
I know, check my sig, i made a similar jump from a 3570k to make BF1 playable.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,380
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Exactly, they picked their best case scenario. That is why if they demo zen 2 with games their choice of game is going to be as important as the frame rate. If they demo it in game where AMD are strong already (forza) you should be asking question as to why the did this. If they are show zen 2 matching a 9900k in a game where a 2700x is already very close close to a 9900K the they are not really telling you very much about how much better the new architecture is are they.
On the other hand if they go with a game that is a very strong performer on the 9900k ie Tomb Raider's inbuilt benchmark and show zen 2 matching the 9900k, like they did with Cinebench at CES, then we are in for good things. They did this at the original zen launch with the Blender render, they took an application were Intel was traditionally very strong in compared to AMDs older CPUs and showed themselves beating 6900k and demonstrating the much improved design of Zen over Piledriver and that it was now better the Intel compeating CPU.

With these type of reveal events and the leaks leading up to the them it is often more important to pay attention to what you are not being shown rater than what you are. It's not what your sure of it's what you don't know.


I know, check my sig, i made a similar jump from a 3570k to make BF1 playable.

No augment from me. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom