• 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.

Core 9000 series

chrcoluk said:
No as it was using AMD's gaming mode, I accepted his reason for enabling it plus he said it improved results for half of the games.

Enabling something called gaming code is not the same as going in a bios and purposely gimping something which the public seem to be implying he did.
Click to expand...

AMD Gaming Mode is for Threadripper CPU's, not the likes of a 2700X, which most owners of these dont even install Ryzen Master for anyway.
I installed it when i first got my 2700X and found it near useless. It is for TR as stated on one of those videos, there is so many cores on TR that it can cause black screen and game crashes. I cant remember but either Steve from GN or Steve from HU said this.

Ryzen Master is essentially accessing the BIOS while in Windows, MSI have had a program doing this for years, it was called MSI Control Centre back on the Intel Z68 platform. But a reboot is needed, just like with Ryzen Master.

I'd just like to add about coolers, when Intel CPU's in the past have had a stock cooler in the Retail Box, does that mean reviewers had to use those coolers in testing? I think not, just because AMD have a fancy looking RGB cooler on a 2700X, does NOT mean it is any good, in my own use of it i would say its 'Ok' but too noisy. And regarding fan speeds, on my own Ryzen system the motherboard CPU fan had to be slowed down, it was, if not.. near 100% anyway.

For the all years of experience PT claim to have, those years must have been spent in a bubble and they never looked at any other reviewers on the internet.
 
IT Troll said:
Two sets of CMK16GX4M2B3000C15. The consensus still seems to be that B450 boards, especially mATX, do not like 4 sticks of Hynix.
Click to expand...

Given that your DIMMs are single ranked, running 4 in a board should not be an issue regardless of the physical size of the board, the mATX board I mentioned earlier should be fine as it has a 3 plus 3 layout on the VRM, the MSI board with 4+2 might be better for the CPU, but not so good for the SoC/RAM.
 
Journey said:
Given that your DIMMs are single ranked, running 4 in a board should not be an issue regardless of the physical size of the board, the mATX board I mentioned earlier should be fine as it has a 3 plus 3 layout on the VRM, the MSI board with 4+2 might be better for the CPU, but not so good for the SoC/RAM.
Click to expand...
The Asrock? OK I'll do a little more reading up on that and RAM compatibility. A guy in the Zen thread has just purchased a Gigabyte Aorus mATX to use with some very similar RAM and so I am interested to see how he gets on.
 
gavinh87 said:
What tosh. It isn't the board, its the IMC.
Click to expand...

I can tell you from experience board's can most definitely prevent you from running 4 dimms at high speed.

There is 3 things backing him up in my view.

1 - My own experience that my secondary dimm slots wont go above 3000mhz, and then asrock tech support telling me only the primary slots were designed for XMP speeds.
2 - Motherboard manuals "commonly" state that primary dimm slots should be used in a 2 dimm configuration, this is probably in the knowledge many people will have a 2 dimm XMP configuration with ram at least 3000mhz spec. There is only one reason that is logical for such a thing to be stated in the manual, and that would be that only the primary slots are fully spec'd for high speed ram. This sadly has never really been tested as reviewers nearly always only use 2 dimms on mainstream boards. Instead we get IMC's and mismatching pairs been blamed all the time without anything but theory backing it up.
3 - The number of complaints on the net about people unable to get either 4 dimms, or 2 dimms in secondary slots working stable at high speeds.

I have also now confirmed this personally on 3 boards, not just my asrock, 2 asus boards and my asrock.
 
muon said:
He's rather have 8C/16T. I'm not sure what point you are making.

If he wanted a 4C/8T he'd buy a 7700K.
Click to expand...

ok if the 9900k was 16/16, would you guys be moaning that its not 16/32 instead of calling it a good chip? I bet you would.

Still doesnt justify what he said anyway in my view as a 8/16 chip is there its the 9900k. Plus the AMD 8/16 chips.
 
MyBrains said:
AMD Gaming Mode is for Threadripper CPU's, not the likes of a 2700X, which most owners of these dont even install Ryzen Master for anyway.
I installed it when i first got my 2700X and found it near useless. It is for TR as stated on one of those videos, there is so many cores on TR that it can cause black screen and game crashes. I cant remember but either Steve from GN or Steve from HU said this.

Ryzen Master is essentially accessing the BIOS while in Windows, MSI have had a program doing this for years, it was called MSI Control Centre back on the Intel Z68 platform. But a reboot is needed, just like with Ryzen Master.

I'd just like to add about coolers, when Intel CPU's in the past have had a stock cooler in the Retail Box, does that mean reviewers had to use those coolers in testing? I think not, just because AMD have a fancy looking RGB cooler on a 2700X, does NOT mean it is any good, in my own use of it i would say its 'Ok' but too noisy. And regarding fan speeds, on my own Ryzen system the motherboard CPU fan had to be slowed down, it was, if not.. near 100% anyway.

For the all years of experience PT claim to have, those years must have been spent in a bubble and they never looked at any other reviewers on the internet.
Click to expand...

Does the AMD software or manual tell you that its only for TR chips?
 
chrcoluk said:
ok if the 9900k was 16/16, would you guys be moaning that its not 16/32 instead of calling it a good chip? I bet you would.

Still doesnt justify what he said anyway in my view as a 8/16 chip is there its the 9900k. Plus the AMD 8/16 chips.
Click to expand...

Well a 16C/16T chip for £500-£600 would be a pretty good chip. Won't get any complaints from anyone.
 
gavinh87 said:
The 9700K is 8C 8T yes. Should be faster than the 8700K though. Prices are just dumb however.
Click to expand...

I don't think it will in any helpful ways.

For gaming it will be no different.

For multi thread, even in multi thread benches 12 thread even hyper threaded will edge out 8 thread 8 core.

There maybe one bit of software that's faster on 8 real cores but not worth it to most.

Strange move from Intel.
 
IT Troll said:
Cinebench gains 30% from HT (which is pretty much best case and synthetic). 2 extra cores gains 33% across all multi-threaded workloads. Consistent 33% is better than a possible 30% at best.
Click to expand...

That assumes that synchronisation across cores is no more expensive than synchronisation across HTs, as multi threaded loads will have to communicate with other threads at some point.
I've no idea if that's true or not (like most perf stuff, i'd expect a solid 'it depends'), but I wouldn't make assumptions about how well the two compare without solid numbers, and is inevitably going to be application specific.
 
For those believing that the additional cores will add performance linearly to the 6 core have to realise that adding 2 extra cores, adds extra hops on the Ring increasing those cores latency.
 
ricid said:
I've no idea if that's true or not (like most perf stuff, i'd expect a solid 'it depends'), but I wouldn't make assumptions about how well the two compare without solid numbers, and is inevitably going to be application specific.
Click to expand...
True we need more data for the new CPUs, but this has been tested and shown to be the case on Xeon platforms. One leaked result had the 8700K at 1421 and the 9700K at 1476. Which is 4%.

Panos said:
For those believing that the additional cores will add performance linearly to the 6 core have to realise that adding 2 extra cores, adds extra hops on the Ring increasing those cores latency.
Click to expand...
Not an issue until you approach 12-cores. Unless you have data proving otherwise.
 
IT Troll said:
Cinebench gains 30% from HT (which is pretty much best case and synthetic). 2 extra cores gains 33% across all multi-threaded workloads. Consistent 33% is better than a possible 30% at best.
Click to expand...
While maybe not common for average user 3D rendering is certainly real workload.
Unlike some SuperPi.
 
EsaT said:
While maybe not common for average user 3D rendering is certainly real workload.
Unlike some SuperPi.
Click to expand...
Cinebench is still a synthetic benchmark though. OK it is using a real render engine but it is designed to be to be convenient, consistent and repeatable and doesn't reflect a real workload which will not have been optimised to the same level. Rendering a scene in a full render package would better represent a real workload.
 
humbug said:
£600 for the 9900K, £500 for the 9700K.

What do you guys think of that pricing? genuine interest.

Edit... £400 for the i5.
Click to expand...

If this was the first CPU at 7nm I would almost be on board with it, but it doesn't look like this will be another "classic" product like for example the E(or Q)6600 or the i7 920.

That said after having spent 800£ for a 2080, knowing GPUs "have to be upgraded" every gen, spending 100£ on a new platform doesn't seem that crazy.
And I think it's what Intel is counting on, those who didn't mind spending money for a useless 1080ti with extra promises.

What might stop me from throwing money to it (instead of doing the sensible thing which would either be 2700x or 7nm Zen) is that there are no CPU heavy games coming soon. The one I was the most afraid of, BFV, ran just fine with my CPU and I don't think either RE2 or Metro will be bothered by my old Haswell.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom