• 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.

Ryzen "2" ?

Doobedoo said:
You brought ryzen and a few months down the line realised it wasn't much better than what you already had, I saw you also take the word of a newly joined forum member and get all giddy about his 5+ghz coffee lake claims albeit it was true but you gave his opinion as one of the reasons you were all giddy. Anyway it wasn't a personal attack just merely pointing out that we have all gone a bit weak at the knees on occasion and with this one I would exercise caution.

The poor volta thing was wordplay on poor voltage with the G and E not being visible. Was it intentional? Who knows, but ultimately it was people like you see on this forum putting 2+2 together and coming up with 7. If it was intentional then Amd wouldn't the first company to do that, but luckily for us that is the graphics part of Amd and not the cpu side.

Their is no need to get hyped up anymore than their is a need to be all pessimistic. 3 or 4 months ago you would have maybe posted the video yourself perhaps :).
Click to expand...

Wasn't much better is an understatement :)
I wouldn't say hyped, but as it happens it turned out to be true, silicon lottery posted 100% pass rate for 4.9ghz over 100 CPU's
Not sure on the "poor voltage" poster although that would be ironic given ow much power vega needs :)

All I'm saying is that I'm willing to bet money that this is fake.
 
gavinh87 said:
Wasn't much better is an understatement :)
I wouldn't say hyped, but as it happens it turned out to be true, silicon lottery posted 100% pass rate for 4.9ghz over 100 CPU's
Not sure on the "poor voltage" poster although that would be ironic given ow much power vega needs :)

All I'm saying is that I'm willing to bet money that this is fake.
Click to expand...
If you were smart you would have done what we done and wait, but nevermind can't change the past :).

Yeah we know that but that wasn't confirmed at the time it was just leaks and an opinion. anyway moving on.

Maybe they were warning people ;) and people as I said just misinterpreted it. But again that's the gpu division, not the cpu, so moving on.

And that's exactly what I'm saying in a less negative way.
 
gavinh87 said:
The fools are the ones that think this is real lol, £100 says the 2600x won't be doing 1823 multi and 250 single in cinebench R15 @ 4.2ghz as this video suggests.
Click to expand...

I haven't even watched the video :) Is it not possible that Cinebench is reading a base clock and this part could be massively overclocked under ln2 or something equally ridiculous?
 
Jono8 said:
How you can believe this is beyond me. That was not an accident
Click to expand...
It's not that I believe it or not it doesn't really matter to me anymore than it's relevant to that video. My point is people chose to interpret it the way that they did, Amd did not come out and say this product is going to blow volta out of the stratosphere. Just goes to show how easily people are manipulated.
 
Vince said:
I haven't even watched the video :) Is it not possible that Cinebench is reading a base clock and this part could be massively overclocked under ln2 or something equally ridiculous?
Click to expand...

Possible? Yes, likely? No, imo
The 1800x under Ln2 at 5.2ghz manages 2454 in CB15.

The math makes no sense, assuming this is the successor to the 1600x;
Single core increase of 39%
Multicore increase of 38%

With a clockspeed increase of 12% AMD either have some magic sauce or this video is fake.
 
gavinh87 said:
The fools are the ones that think this is real lol, £100 says the 2600x won't be doing 1823 multi and 250 single in cinebench R15 @ 4.2ghz as this video suggests.
Click to expand...
The chances are are it probably is, the reality is you don't really know, at least not enough to be calling people fools. Keep your money mate I'm not the gambling type :).
 
gavinh87 said:
Possible? Yes, likely? No, imo
The 1800x under Ln2 at 5.2ghz manages 2454 in CB15.

The math makes no sense, assuming this is the successor to the 1600x;
Single core increase of 39%
Multicore increase of 38%

With a clockspeed increase of 12% AMD either have some magic sauce or this video is fake.
Click to expand...
So what is 2454 minus 2 cores?
 
The multi core score certainly makes sense if the 4.2 is base and it boosts to something crazy like 5.0ghz or more. The single core speed would mean they have made a substantial ipc gain or single core breakthrough.

It will send a shock through the cpu world if AMD can indeed put out 6 and 8 core parts boosting to 5.0ghz, or more on all cores, alongside IPC improvements as early next year.

I'm sceptical but it isn't beyond the realms of possibility i suppose.
 
Jono8 said:
The multi core score certainly makes sense if the 4.2 is base and it boosts to something crazy like 5.0ghz or more. The single core speed would mean they have made a substantial ipc gain or single core breakthrough.

It will send a shock through the cpu world if AMD can indeed put out 6 and 8 core parts boosting to 5.0ghz or more on all cores early next year.

I'm sceptical but it isn't beyond the realms of possibility i suppose.
Click to expand...
So it's possible on a cherry picked engineering sample. I'm still not convined as I said I'd expect Zen 2 to be around that figure, maybe even better.

What we do know though is it will defiantly be better that the first iteration, so that's a good thing.
 
Doobedoo said:
That's all presumptions. We have absoltuley nothing that states it's under LN2. If IPC has improved then it doesn't need to be at 5.2ghz.
Click to expand...

As shown, for this to be true at its stock clock (4.2) then the increase would be 38%

Both theories make no sense, at stock its 38% faster (unlikely imo) and also assuming its under LN2 it shows zero IPC increase, also unlikely.
 
But again you have nothing that suggests it's at 4.2. If stock clocks are 4.2 then that means it boosts to 4.5? Does it then overclock above that?

We don't know anything other than what that video shows. We don't know if it's actually the revised 1600 yet alone clockspeed and exotic cooling
 
gavinh87 said:
As shown, for this to be true at its stock clock (4.2) then the increase would be 38%

Both theories make no sense, at stock its 38% faster (unlikely imo) and also assuming its under LN2 it shows zero IPC increase, also unlikely.
Click to expand...

It may well show an ipc increase, think about it, if it is at 4.2 as the video says (still haven't watched it) and isn't boosting beyond that we are effectively saying that at 4.2 it's matching a 1800x at 5.2 if you subtract the two cores plus their SMT siblings. Which in turn would mean a greater single thread score and improved ipc.
 
Vince said:
It may well show an ipc increase, think about it, if it is at 4.2 as the video says (still haven't watched it) and isn't boosting beyond that we are effectively saying that at 4.2 it's matching a 1800x at 5.2 if you subtract the two cores plus their SMT siblings. Which in turn would mean a greater single thread score and improved ipc.
Click to expand...
Good point. For me the multi thread score is believable it's the single thread score that's surprising people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom