• 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.

Intel 10th Gen Comet Lake thread

sideways14a said:
I have never really seen a reference AMD card be 100w+ over its equiv Nvidia card.. well not without overclocking or something.
50w yeah but over 100... maybe from an AIB squeezing every last Mhz out of vega or something.
Click to expand...

GTX 1080 v Vega 64 = a big difference:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-founders-edition/31.html

power_average.png
 
sideways14a said:
I have never really seen a reference AMD card be 100w+ over its equiv Nvidia card.. well not without overclocking or something.
50w yeah but over 100... maybe from an AIB squeezing every last Mhz out of vega or something.
Click to expand...

Here is one for you. I just went and check and the RTX2070 and Vega 64 have on average the same performance.
I'm using Vega 64 because at a time the 2070 was for sale and Radeon 7 did not exist, so these cards are competitors.

RTX 2070 TDP: 175w
Vega 64 TDP: 295w

Data taken from techpowerup database, using reference cards for both.
 
smilingcrow said:
GTX 1080 v Vega 64 = a big difference:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-rtx-2080-ti-founders-edition/31.html

power_average.png
Click to expand...

It's not that bad with the right Bios https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64/images/power_average.png while losing minimal performance - https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64/images/perfrel_2560_1440.png

AMD, giving the user so many options, I'd say they knew the GPU was pushed far beyond it's normal "limits", so it can reach gtx1080 performance at the time - more so as the drivers weren't at their peak most likely.

Right now, I see it gained some terrain compared gtx1080 https://tpucdn.com/review/gigabyte-...-gb/images/relative-performance_2560-1440.png .

So now, while using the best of power saving modes and only around 5% behind the gtx1080, should be:

1080 = 166w
vega64 = 200w

with some more power to the card, so the 214w range for v64, should be about the same with the gtx1080.
 
Calin Banc said:
It's not that bad with the right Bios https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64/images/power_average.png while losing minimal performance - https://tpucdn.com/review/amd-radeon-rx-vega-64/images/perfrel_2560_1440.png

AMD, giving the user so many options, I'd say they knew the GPU was pushed far beyond it's normal "limits", so it can reach gtx1080 performance at the time - more so as the drivers weren't at their peak most likely.

Right now, I see it gained some terrain compared gtx1080 https://tpucdn.com/review/gigabyte-...-gb/images/relative-performance_2560-1440.png .

So now, while using the best of power saving modes and only around 5% behind the gtx1080, should be:

1080 = 166w
vega64 = 200w

with some more power to the card, so the 214w range for v64, should be about the same with the gtx1080.
Click to expand...

that's not a fair comparison.

If you going to tweak the vega card then you should tweak the pascal and turing too, they can also use a lot less power for minimal performance loss.
 
If the rumors are true about Intel's 10 core Comet Lake burning over 300W, then AMD's Ryzen 4000 series will make this thing look like Intel was trying to resurrect an old dinosaur! :p
 
NinjaCool said:
If the rumors are true about Intel's 10 core Comet Lake burning over 300W, then AMD's Ryzen 4000 series will make this thing look like Intel was trying to resurrect an old dinosaur! :p
Click to expand...

Is not rumours unfortunately given the 8core cpu burns 240-260W at stock settings. Add 30% more cores and power would escalate over the 300W.
Motherboard companies have said during the CES that the 1200 socket specs are for some serious power delivery and all of them have the boards ready over two months now. However Intel is delaying the release because the over 300W power consumption trying to find a solution.

Lets repeat that. 300W with stock settings where barely a core can hit 5Ghz. If someone goes to overclock this to all core 4.8Ghz let alone 5Ghz the 1000W Platinum PSUs would be back in fashion like during the 295X2 era :D

Funny bit is that is still slower than the 3900X & 3950X in multithread loads :D
 
Grim5 said:
that's not a fair comparison.

If you going to tweak the vega card then you should tweak the pascal and turing too, they can also use a lot less power for minimal performance loss.
Click to expand...

There's no manual tweak done to the card as a user will normally do it, but comes as a standard setting from the producer that you can chose. If gtx1080 would come with something like that from the factory, than by all means, you could compare it using such a bios with power saving. ;)

LE: Of course, if there are v64 cards that don't have those options with BIOSes, then in real life cards (depending by model), would be different, but as a thought exercise, judging by those cards, v64 doesn't look that bad considering is not a dedicated gaming card (like 1080 is).
 
Last edited:
So they're just reselling a 7700k/8700k/9900k on yet another platform and I bet the pricing on these will be bad (it always is on new Intel cpus) and thats not even considering the cost of the new motherboards esp the ones that need beefy VRM's to run the high core count cpu's.

Unless you want the 10 core which it seems has its own problems, why not just pick up an 8700k/8086k/9900k second hand when the 10 series hits and save money and get prob 90-95%+ of the performance.

Or pick up a Ryzen now and drop in a 4xxx chip when they release or you can pick up a high core count Ryzen 3xxx when the prices reduce.
 
G J said:
So they're just reselling a 7700k/8700k/9900k on yet another platform and I bet the pricing on these will be bad (it always is on new Intel cpus) and thats not even considering the cost of the new motherboards esp the ones that need beefy VRM's to run the high core count cpu's.

Unless you want the 10 core which it seems has its own problems, why not just pick up an 8700k/8086k/9900k second hand when the 10 series hits and save money and get prob 90-95%+ of the performance.

Or pick up a Ryzen now and drop in a 4xxx chip when they release or you can pick up a high core count Ryzen 3xxx when the prices reduce.
Click to expand...

You forgot 4770K/4970K/6700K as the architecture hasn't moved at all since Haswel who came out 2013.

And yes they do look more expensive, on a new board socket which doesn't bring anything new than the Z170/270/370/390. Same 16pcie 3.0 lanes from CPU and the rest to the chipset. Cannot even run an M.2 without been bottlenecked by everything else around it.

And lets not forget Z490 is 1 generation socket. As soon 10nm are out, new motherboards, socket and chipset is needed. And again new motherboards and ram needed for the generation after that (2021). Assuming Intel is dump enough to not get the first 10nm desktop CPUs to DDR5 straight on.

No wonder Asus, with 30 Z490 board lineup ready over 2 months now, is annoyed having it's reps spilling the beans at CES about all this happening behind the curtains.
Because the more Z490 is delayed, the hard would be to sell £500+ motherboards when in 6-8 months would be redudant by Intel. Who can forget the Z270 and 7700K? How many of those motherboards remained unsold in just 7 months when Z370 with 8700K came out?
 
hominid said:
lowest figure: 240W 8c/16th. 240/8 = 30W per core. X10 = 300W.
highest figure: 300W same CPU. 300/8 = 37.5W per core. X10 = 375W.

So I can see this being somewhat true.
Click to expand...

I don't believe it would be that bad, but bad enough to need over 300W power and huge 360mm AIOs to cool it down.
 
Those vega numbers must be with the second "turbo" mode bios which basically overvolted the dam things so... fair enough :D
I had a v56 and even with the 64 bios and power mods never seemed to go beyond 270ish watts - well unless i pushed it right to the wall and went into silly power use territory.

Dont understand why AMD just doesnt bin there video cards a bit more, they are actually capable of "reasonable" power usage. My 56 was great, well up until i broke it with... er with the aforementioned silly mods.... :rolleyes:
 
sideways14a said:
Those vega numbers must be with the second "turbo" mode bios which basically overvolted the dam things so... fair enough :D
I had a v56 and even with the 64 bios and power mods never seemed to go beyond 270ish watts - well unless i pushed it right to the wall and went into silly power use territory.

Dont understand why AMD just doesnt bin there video cards a bit more, they are actually capable of "reasonable" power usage. My 56 was great, well up until i broke it with... er with the aforementioned silly mods.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

The 5700XT AE is very well binned GPU. :)

But I believe we have moved away from the discussion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom