Soldato
Aye, but if it cant reach high clock speed then there are plenty of games that it won't be as good with as intel.
-
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.
best CPU for gaming
- Thread starter Subzero85
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
That's right. IF. And if it does?
My R7 2700 with a base clock of 3.2GHz at stock runs Cine15 on all cores at only 3.3GHz getting only 1500 points. At all core of 4.1GHz OC it gets 1900 points. Doubt the 7nm will OC less than a 12nm chip. A lot of IFs.
Soldato
Thing is though... AMD have not had the best single threaded speeds for yonks, well over a decade almost two?
Don't get me wrong... it would be great 'if' it were to happen... but I just dont see it.
As mentioned earlier cinebench is not a game.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
True but not a huge of a gap. Where AMD falls behind is Clocks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4RiaXBiM-A
Soldato
Clocks speed directly affects thread speed, and with regards to the link... the intel cpu can be clocked far higher than the amd cpu... so that gap just gets bigger.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
Exactly what I said. Intels advantage is its Clocks. Against Zen+. Against Zen2?
Soldato
Zen2 might get to 4.5Ghz with a slightly higher boost. Making the gap a bit smaller but with intel still winning, then intel will drop the cpus they have waiting and increase the gap again.
Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
depending on how soon you need it, i would wait for the Ryzen 3000 series to be released and get one of those chips for maximum cpu performance. Same with the motherboards that are going to be released with it.
In the mean time you can look for other components that you can just buy now (monitor, psu, ram etc...) and then buy the mobo/cpu when they're released
In the mean time you can look for other components that you can just buy now (monitor, psu, ram etc...) and then buy the mobo/cpu when they're released
Caporegime
We already know its at least as fast as the 9900K with the same number of threads.
i9 9900K 16 threads = 2040
R5 3600 16 threads = 2057
And those scores are not finalised clock speeds, in fact because of its system power consumption 180 Watts 95 TDP 9900K vs 130 watts this Ryzen sample; its believed it isn't even the higher clocked 3600X but the 65 watt 3600.
Intel are in deep poo, wait is my advice.
Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
Its the dawn of a new age... pc's are finally going to get to crazy levels of performance (from what we've had ALL this time cause of stinktel)
Associate
Well there you have it, cine bench score does not lie, to be honest i think the ipc would be the same or a bit better over the 9900k judgeing from the cinebench score.
Unless there is a way to work that one out since both processors the 9900k and the 3600 score about the same.
I mean come on the 9900k and the 3600 both have the same cores and threads and same score, what not eh... i think they have the same ipc as well which is likely.
So same score same amount of cores same amount of threads, possibly different processor architecture and same ipc.
Unless same score same cores same threads and not same instructions per clock is my argument and not having same instructions per clock should cause the score to go down i think.
Anyways people would know cinebench better than i and know it's strengths and weakness as a benchmark tool?
Either way ryzen 3000 is looking bright.
Dan.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Pinch of salt rumours but in the press briefing before the CES Keynote AMD's representatives were said to have boasted that their lowest end Ryzen 3000 would have the same number of threads as Intel best from 3 months ago (That would be the 8700K) and beat it in performance.
Deleted member 209350
D
Deleted member 209350
Jesus christ.. Its actually taking the **** if you think about what intel has been doing all these years with their pathetic quad cores.
Now that cpu's aren't going to be held back by core count, creators can get really creative and finally unleash the full potential with Ryzen.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,715
Clearly Intel has the most bugs;
AMD bugs
Meltdown-BR
Spectre-PHT (Bounds Check Bypass)
Spectre-BTB (Branch Target Injection)
Intel bugs
Meltdown-US
Meltdown-P (Foreshadow)
Meltdown-GP (Variant 3a)
Meltdown-NM (Lazy FP)
Meltdown-RW (Variant 1.2)
Meltdown-PK
Meltdown-BR
Spectre-PHT (Bounds Check Bypass)
Spectre-BTB (Branch Target Injection)
If you're claiming that AMD has more bugs in games, then that would be down to the game developers for writing sloppy code. Either way, it sounds like you're plucking claims out of the air, in a last-ditch attempt to make AMD look bad.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,715
AMD beat Intel in Cinebench with an equal number of cores/threads. We dont know the clockspeed of the AMD CPU, although it would be better for AMD if the clockspeed was much lower than the Intel CPU.
If some games are heavily optimised for a certain CPU, it doesn't make that CPU faster. It would be like Usain Bolt doing the 100m race uphill and claiming he's a slower runner.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
Didn't intel mitigate those except Foreshadow and Portsmash? But, still, if you have clients data in your network, then it's just ethical to protect them as much you can.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,715
I should hope so. I was just defending AMD from trentlad who thinks AMD make inferior products with more bugs.
Couldn't be happier with my r5 2600. Smooth framegraphs and games just work.. *wink wink* replaced a i7 4790k which when that was bought was a fantastic cpu but was starting to show its age a bit.