• 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 4" thread (inc AM5/APU discussion) ***

MSI's pricing is appalling. I know x670 isn't the mainstream boards, but do AMD honestly expect AM5 to have any adoption rate. New CPU, Mobo and RAM is going to be a huge pill to swallow. Same with 40 series, i see these launches becoming flops.
 
I like the look of the 7700 @ 65w for a mITX build for a mix of gaming & productivity. Nice upgrade to my aging 4770 build!

I'll wait for prices to cool down a bit though. One for January.
 
Last edited:
Ross Thomson said:
how many people in this thread are a 2d/3d artist. How many 2d/3d artists watch silly youtubers.
Click to expand...
Waves :P

Cinebench is a relatively easy way to gauge performance in my 3D apps if they use all cores, higher scores means faster renders and if you have a benchmark from something you use already you can use a bit of simple maths (it's basically linear scaling) to work out roughly what real world time benefits would be.


Honestly from what I've seen, I'm not disappointed that I bought a 5950x and chose to skip 'first gen am5'... Performance for the increase in hardware cost just doesn't seem worth it imo.

My home office can already get unbearably hot in summer and higher cpu load temps won't help that, especially if you end up having a high end gpu kicking out heat as well.
 
Linus review said that 5800x3d is better for gaming. 6 and 8 cores are also around 12700/12900ks performance, with the real stars being the 12 and 16 cores. Seems to be a wide margin ahead for productivity.

TBH, I'm glad they poured water on it. I was itching to upgrade, but now I see the sense in others who said they'd wait for zen 5 or the 3d cache versions, because the 7600x doesn't look that compelling.
 
TrixP10 said:
If you're interested in how wonderfully efficient the 12600k / 12900k are then Tom's review is up.
www.tomshardware.com

AMD Ryzen 9 7950X and Ryzen 5 7600X Review: A Return to Gaming Dominance

DDR5, PCIe 5.0, 5nm, AM5, and 5.7 GHz
www.tomshardware.com www.tomshardware.com
Click to expand...
I know how efficient 12900 is. 24.5k CBR23 at 125w (stock PL1). Just a tad less efficient than the 5950x at stock. Granted, out of the box is kind of irrelevant, at least for me, but it's actually a fact that in CBR23 the 12900k at stock PL1 is more efficient than the 7950x at stock.
 
humbug said:
You know, there was a time when tech journalists used to say 150 watts was too much for a CPU, that 200 watts was insane, and anyone who did that got ridiculed for it.

Now few of them even seem to care enough when one of them is clearly just taking the pee and ignore the other who seems to be getting it right, what's more they all jump on the environment bandwagon when that suits them, just not for this...
Click to expand...
buy a full tower and get with the program :D
=XDC=FluphyBunny said:
Tech power up is garbage. So many of their results are GPU bound as they only used a 3080
Click to expand...

they did some tests on 720p doesnt look like a great product for gaming.. not with those rumored motherboard prices, maybe they should have tested more rts games, but clearly i would wait for what intel has to offer
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom