no, i didn't
-
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
- Thread starter orbitalwalsh
- Start date
no, i didn't
You realise this point you keep bringing up is completely inane and stupid, right? There is no chance in hell that the i9-9900K will cost less than the R7 2700X; the R7 2700X doesn't need to hit 4.7 GHz to be competitive, that's kinda the point.
Focusing on a single metric with no context is meaningless, it's like saying the R7 2700X is better than the i7-8700K because it has more cores. The i9-9900K is going to be a monster chip but let's not pretend like Intel are chasing MHz as a stopgap for their really bad 10 nm situation.
Right now Intel are doing exactly what AMD did in the Bulldozer days, factory overclocking the CPU higher and higher and higher to stay relevant on paper.
Intel cannot match AMD's price for performance so they are throwing clock speed and high power consumption at it, They still aint going to manage it, 6 months after the core 9000 series AMD will be landing 12 or 16 core CPU's at over 4Ghz with higher IPC for less than what Intel can go to on the 8 core.
Competition is great isn't it?
So how we do know it's hot? Hot in relation to what exactly? The topic that got bought up by this forums biggest AMD fan was heat.
When the 9900k's closest competitor hits the same clockspeed AND runs cooler then he'll have a point. Until then it's nonsense.
Is that not what the ryzen refresh is? Overclocked so high the power consumption goes out of the window. Isn't ryzen 2xxx the first of their CPUs to break their TDP rating?
No its not, my £150 65 Watt CPU is faster than the 95 Watt £220 8600K and the 2600 is faster still on the same TDP as its predecessor for £10 more.
I made this from a well known meme when Ryzen was just rumours, how true it looks now
The R7 2700X has a higher TDP, the others are all the same with higher clocks. Go look at the voltage/frequency charts that Gamers Nexus have comparing Ryzen 1 with Ryzen 2. There is a consistent improvement in efficiency.
No its not, my £150 65 Watt CPU is faster than the 95 Watt £220 8600K and the 2600 is faster still on the same TDP as its predecessor for £10 more.
I made this from a well known meme when Ryzen was just rumours, how true it looks now
AMD has a personal vision of the TDP issue. In practice the consumption is a little higher than what is announced, without being catastrophic. The performance of the 2700X remains consistent with that of the 1800X.
The case of the 2600X is more interesting since it sees a fairly sharp decline in performance, showing that AMD clearly pushes the process to its last limits in terms of tensions to pull the latest MHz possible. This is actually useful for performance but it can be seen here that the 12nm is not a miracle on consumption.
If GlobalFoundries announces more efficient transistors of 10 to 15%, in practice AMD did everything to push the frequencies, it is not surprising.
https://www.hardware.fr/articles/974-6/consommation-efficacite-energetique.html
And just like that, another ryzen thread was created.
You could have in Gavin land. Anything is possible.
Well apart from the small point of the chips the functioning correctly.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
I epect the 9900 to be decent and fast, but then it should be as its out 6 months after is competition (ok a year and a half if you could the 1700/1800), will use a lot more power and cost an arm and a leg.
It will be a short lived rein though.
It will be a short lived rein though.
@gavinh87 don't even suggest it, AMD's TDP is far closer to reality than Intel's, my CPU is a 65 watt CPU/
The 2700X is so efficient it will overclock on its box cooler.
The 8700K you can't overclock it on anything less than a £150 AIO
The 2700X is so efficient it will overclock on its box cooler.
The 8700K you can't overclock it on anything less than a £150 AIO
It will be more, more of the same. Nothing else it could be TBH.
You posted this
As good as you saying it.
Whilst were talking about power consumption, look at this from techpowerup.
You can see both the 2600 and 8700k, both 6 core 12 thread CPU's. 2600 3.4/3.9 & 8700K 3.7/4.7..
Yet they consume the same amount of power, despite the ryzen running at a lower frequency and supposedly on a more power efficient node............
You posted this
As good as you saying it.
Whilst were talking about power consumption, look at this from techpowerup.
You can see both the 2600 and 8700k, both 6 core 12 thread CPU's. 2600 3.4/3.9 & 8700K 3.7/4.7..
Yet they consume the same amount of power, despite the ryzen running at a lower frequency and supposedly on a more power efficient node............
Why does the Coffeelake i3 on that chart use 20% more power than the Coffeelake i7?
It says at the top "lower is better" but it seems inverted from that with the most Effient CPU's higher and top down, look at it again, the 1300X is the least power Effient CPU? i think Wizard needs to redo that chart, its glaringly wrong.
Anyway, back to your main point, i'm quoting what in the article i linked, that is a long way from saying what you claim. are we going to start holding ppl to account for other peoples views now just because it was quoted?
Last edited:
You must have thought it had some significance......
Anyway, here is another power consumption article https://us.hardware.info/reviews/82...he-most-interesting-ryzen-2-power-consumption
Again, same power draw with ryzen clocked lower and on a supposedly better node.........
The reason the techpowerup graph is like that is because
"In this section, we measure the total amount of energy consumed for a SuperPi run (single-threaded) and for Cinebench (multi-threaded). Since a faster processor will complete a given workload quicker, the total amount of energy used might end up lower than on a low-powered processor, which might draw less power, but takes longer to finish the test."
Oh, and dont even look at the power consumption on ryzen single threaded tests, its not great. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/17.html
SuperPI is an Intel benchmark, Ryzen doesn't have the extensions to run it natively, it emulates them so it will complete much slower.
What they did here was take a 15 year old benchmarking application know to run slow on AMD and measure the time taken to complete measured against the power used and called it an efficiency measurement, yeah... its a farce. new found respect for Wizard, that's a very inventive way to BS figures, lol
Do the same with Handbreak or Blender 8700K vs 2700X and it turns that upside down.
Don't get your hopes up, a base clock over 4Ghz yes, maybe 4.3Ghz but i doubt it will be more than that, possibly overclocked yes.
It doesn't matter, this will probably be a £300'sh 12 core 24 thread CPU with a higher IPC than the core 9000.
And in truth that's all Intel have for the next few years, its going to be that until they can get 10nm clocking to the same levels just to get the same or little better performance than Coffeelake. Intel can clock 14nm as high as they will go, as they are doing it doesn't matter its just damage limitation, 2019 and probably 2020 is AMD's year.
Why? Your cheap ass won't be buying it lol.