• 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

So 95deg flatout overclock at 5ghz 1.4v on all 8cores or 70deg 4.7/4.8?1.2v on all 8. (On that particular chip)

Going to be a pretty good performer. I wonder how much the 9900k will suffer with ht?
 
AndreiD said:
That i9 9900K geekbench result looks pretty beefy, ~30% gain in multicore vs 8700K,
~5% higher single and ~30% higher multi vs 8700K, no IPC improvements, the single bump is due to clocks
~30% higher single and ~25% higher multi vs 2700X

The main factor on how much they can snuff AMD is going to be pricing.
Click to expand...

A 2700 must surely crack 32K, Hell my my humble 1700x @ 3.9 does a tad over 30k. singles crap @ 5k.
 
humbug said:
Intel are not selling many HEDT chips, they are not very good, at least if the rainforest best sellers list is anything to go by they are constantly lagging well behind the competition, even Bulldozer is consistently outselling them.

This is their attempt to reinvigorate some of that mindshare, to a limited extent it probably will work, few people will be buying the 9900K as gaming CPU's but some of those looking at the 7820-X and thinking "nope i think i'll go for this Threadripper" will go back to Intel.

Short term that's great for Intel, but in about 6 months with Ryzen 3000 the 9900K is going to be obsolete, very obsolete.
Click to expand...

Unless Intel had a new design up it's sleeves the 9900K was obsolete 12 months ago.
 
Destination said:
Either they are salvaging broken 9900s and gimping them making them 9700 that work, or...
Click to expand...
I think this is quite likely. Would make sense that 9900s which don’t meet the boost frequencies are turned into 9700s without HT and with a slight boost/clock reduction. Doesn’t make sense to intend to make a non-HT part.

They couldn’t really bin these as slower 8/16 CPUs because fast 6/12 CPUs would start to encroach.
 
Last edited:
To re-irritate what Panos said a few pages back, and to put my own spin on it i think if you're spending £400+ on a GPU you're not an average joe user, you are an enthusiast in which case you probably understand your GPU well enough to tweak it to get the most out of it.
 
pete910 said:
Is windows that bad with ryzen? Here's mine

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9782552
Click to expand...

humbug said:
I got near 22K on my 1600. https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/9789609

26K on a 2700X also seems a bit low to me, i think Worzel's 30K seems more realistic.
Click to expand...
If you browse the 2700X scores all the high scores are either running Linux or have a heavy overclock on Windows. Not sure if this is a Windows issue or just the Windows version of Geekbench.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&page=1&q=2700x&sort=multicore_score

The 26K score is the overall average across all user results.
https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2080
 
IT Troll said:
If you browse the 2700X scores all the high scores are either running Linux or have a heavy overclock on Windows. Not sure if this is a Windows issue or just the Windows version of Geekbench.
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?dir=desc&page=1&q=2700x&sort=multicore_score

The 26K score is the overall average across all user results.
https://browser.geekbench.com/processors/2080
Click to expand...

So very little difference between a 1'st gen 6 core and a 2'nd gen 8 clocked higher.

I think its probably Windows yet again unable to deal with anything with more than four cores :rolleyes:

It must be because the Linux score is hugely higher.

7.zip is the same, compression it doesn't scale at all in Windows, yet in Linux it scales perfectly.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom