• 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

AndreiD said:
You need a combination of node + architecture to be able to reach high frequencies, remains to be seen how high Ryzen 3 on TSMC 7nm or Icelake on Intel's 10nm+ will be able to clock.
Click to expand...
We do know it will perform better that Ryzen 2 though and that already performs very well, better that Ryzen 1 and the change to 7nm from 12nm should be more significant than 14nm to 12nm.

All speculation this far of course.
 
That's the questionable part, do we? GF's 12LP is a mature 14nm, I don't think anyone can for sure say that TSMC's 7nm will be higher performance. Higher density for sure, but if you remember from Intel's slides on 10nm, their initial 10nm was lower performance than 14nm++.
Also to note that 12LP wasn't really a shrink, it just added some libraries, GF basically lied about density increases: https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/1497/vlsi-2018-globalfoundries-12nm-leading-performance-12lp/
 
Doobedoo said:
I’d say 75-80c on a highly overclocked 8 core cpu is pretty good really especially when you consider he didn’t have to void his warranty in the process.

As we already know Ryzen isn’t coffeelake it won’t do 5 ghz as it was never meant too, but his chip is clocked close to the limit of what the chips are supposed to do so the temps are pretty good relatively speaking.

7nm will be a different beast and will perform better as a result maybe even close to 5 ghz, we’ll have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

We have different definitions of *highly* :)
 
AndreiD said:
That's the questionable part, do we? GF's 12LP is a mature 14nm, I don't think anyone can for sure say that TSMC's 7nm will be higher performance. Higher density for sure, but if you remember from Intel's slides on 10nm, their initial 10nm was lower performance than 14nm++.
Also to note that 12LP wasn't really a shrink, it just updated some libraries, GF basically lied about density increases.
Click to expand...
Yeah 12nm is basically 14nm+ and still quite a way off from Intels 14nm +++++++ our however many pluses they on now.

I think most people would expect Ryzen 3 to perform better that Ryzen 2, like I said how much better is yet to be seen but AMD seem to be having a much better time shrinking nodes at the minute.
 
gavinh87 said:
Lol, you know that its the same damn AIO right? :)
So yours was 5 degrees cooler? (wow) Can't really compare though as there are many variables, fan speeds, fan type, thermal paste, ambient temp, etc etc.
But yet again, back to the point that was bought up. Yes everyone mocks intels temps but is 75-80c really that cool?
Do you really think a 5ghz ryzen will be easy too cool? Assuming they ever get there.
Click to expand...
gavinh87 said:
Lol, you know that its the same damn AIO right? :)
So yours was 5 degrees cooler? (wow) Can't really compare though as there are many variables, fan speeds, fan type, thermal paste, ambient temp, etc etc.
But yet again, back to the point that was bought up. Yes everyone mocks intels temps but is 75-80c really that cool?
Do you really think a 5ghz ryzen will be easy too cool? Assuming they ever get there.
Click to expand...

No, it's not the same AIO. The one i have is actually made by Asetek, as the link shows.
If Ryzen ever get's to 5Ghz, it absolutely and clearly needs to run cooler than it does at present. By the way, i fully get where you are coming from on your thoughts on temps. The reality is, there isn't much difference between AMD and Intel when pushing to the limit. But, and there always is a "But", when running twice as many threads as Intel, of course things are going to head towards the toasty department.
 
kitfit1 said:
No, it's not the same AIO. The one i have is actually made by Asetek, as the link shows.
If Ryzen ever get's to 5Ghz, it absolutely and clearly needs to run cooler than it does at present. By the way, i fully get where you are coming from on your thoughts on temps. The reality is, there isn't much difference between AMD and Intel when pushing to the limit. But, and there always is a "But", when running twice as many threads as Intel, of course things are going to head towards the toasty department.
Click to expand...

The corsair AIO is also Asetek :)
 
AndreiD said:
@Doobedoo I wouldn't even call it 14nm+, it's GF's licensed Samsung 14nm with a new 7.5T library, instead of 9T, their marketing just went overdrive and made lots of ridiculous claims: https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/1497/vlsi-2018-globalfoundries-12nm-leading-performance-12lp/
No wonder AMD wanted to move away from GF.

And I agree, TSMC being first to 10/7nm does play really well for AMD, Intel's continued 10nm delays have delayed a lot of products for them.
Click to expand...
But we can agree that it was a slightly better revision of the initial 14nm ryzen 1 cpu though.
 
Doobedoo said:
Of course but your deliberate confusing the higher number to level of relative max performance of the individual architectures.

Basically your trying to compare an apple with an orange and wondering why you have to peel one of them :)
Click to expand...

I was actually comparing boost clock to all core overclock.
Ryzen 1 thread @ 4.3ghz to all core overclock of 4.3ghz
8700k 1 thread @4.7ghz to all core overclock of 5.0ghz

With ryzen you are only bringing all cores upto its boost clock.
On coffelake you are actually getting an increase of frequency across all cores, not the remaining.


This was my reasoning for not calling it highly overclocked :)
 
gavinh87 said:
I was actually comparing boost clock to all core overclock.
Ryzen 1 thread @ 4.3ghz to all core overclock of 4.3ghz
8700k 1 thread @4.7ghz to all core overclock of 5.0ghz

With ryzen you are only bringing all cores upto its boost clock.
On coffelake you are actually getting an increase of frequency across all cores, not the remaining.


This was my reasoning for not calling it highly overclocked :)
Click to expand...
So what do think would be the maximum he could push his chip?

Let’s say a golden sample would reach 4.5? Now a 8700k can reach 5.3-5.4?

Now which one is closer to its limit?
 
Which was exactly my point lol.

He’s running his at 4.3 which is pretty much all that he will get yet we know the 8700k can do more hence the heavily overclocked statement.

Damn your hard work :)
 
So just to recap he’s getting very acceptable temps at close if not the limit of what his chip is designed to do, with 2 extra cores might I add.

Now that took longer than it needed too :)
 
Doobedoo said:
So just to recap he’s getting very acceptable temps at close if not the limit of what his chip is designed to do, with 2 extra cores might I add.

Now that took longer than it needed too :)
Click to expand...

Hahaha, yep its decent enough for a max overclock. But as he admitted, if it hit 5ghz they would be in trouble. I still stand by us having a different definition of heavily mind. They are already close to the limits when they leave the factory so even a small amount is considered max.
The point of the screenshot was to shut jigger up more than anything.


Now, back to the 9000 series :)
 
AndreiD said:
@Doobedoo I wouldn't even call it 14nm+, it's GF's licensed Samsung 14nm with a new 7.5T library, instead of 9T, their marketing just went overdrive and made lots of ridiculous claims: https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/1497/vlsi-2018-globalfoundries-12nm-leading-performance-12lp/
No wonder AMD wanted to move away from GF.

And I agree, TSMC being first to 10/7nm does play really well for AMD, Intel's continued 10nm delays have delayed a lot of products for them.
Click to expand...

No fab is working at it's rated/advertised size. We are still circa 20nm...
 
@jigger Fab nanometers are all marketing of course, but the point is that GF's "shink" to 12nm, which they did advertise as having an "up to 15% improvement in circuit density" was a 0% shrink and the reason why 2nd gen Ryzen is exactly the same die size as 1st gen. That's actually one thing Intel is a lot less misleading than other fabs at, their node refreshes are still 14nm+++, not 12/10nm like TSMC or GF/Samsung would call them.

Also this part with supposedly there being more 'dark silicon' on the 2nd gen Ryzen die was all lies: https://www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600/2
GF literally lied and nobody called them out on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom