• 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.

The thread which sometimes talks about RDNA2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I gotta say I want a 6800XT but I'm really not looking forward to the gouging/stock nightmare which playing out at the moment with GPUs/CPUs, really puts be off!
 
JediFragger said:
Like you say it depends who you trust on the reviews. We'll agree to disagree :)

image.png
Click to expand...
Weren't TPU the site that had vastly different results to everyone else? :D
 
JediFragger said:
They didn't though, at best they matched them.
Click to expand...

GN

CIV VI.
5900X: @ 4.7Ghz. 26.5. 110%
10900K: @ 5.2Ghz. 29.3. 100%

RDR 2.
5950X: @ 4.7Ghz. 169 FPS. 100%
10900K: @ 5.2Ghz 180 FPS. 106%

Three Kingdoms Battle.
5950X: 206 FPS. 106%
10900K: @ 5.2Ghz. 195 FPS. 100%

Three Kingdoms campaign.
5600X @ 4.8Ghz. 144 FPS. 115%
10900K @ 5.2Ghz. 125 FPS. 100%

Division 2.
5900X @ 4.7Ghz. 251 FPS. 110%
10900K @ 5.2Ghz. 226 FPS. 100%

Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
5950X @ 4.7Ghz. 214 FPS. 108%
10900K @ 5.2Ghz. 198 FPS. 100%

F1 2020
5950X @ 4.7Ghz. 355 FPS. 109%
10900K @ 5.2Ghz. 198 FPS. 100%

AC Origins
5950X: 156 FPS. 100%
10900K @ 5.2Ghz. 102%

GTAV
5950X: 146 FPS. 108%
10900K @5.2Ghz. 135 FPS. 100%

GN Zen 3 is on average 10% faster than a 5.2Ghz overclocked 10900K. its beaten even by the 5600X.


Guru 3D

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_5_5600x_review,22.html

Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
5950X. 204 FPS 117%
10900K. 173 FPS. 100%

FC5
5900X. 177 FPS. 110%
10900K. 161 FPS. 100%

SB
5950X. 372 FPS 105%
10900K. 354 FPS. 100%

Codemasters F1
5950X. 229 FPS 101%
10900K. 226 FPS. 100%


Again the 10900K is convincingly beaten.

LtMatt said:
Weren't TPU the site that had vastly different results to everyone else? :D
Click to expand...

Yes, TPU themselves said that.
 
Pretty much the majority of tech tubers showed AMD beating Intel on Single Core gaming perf. So take your pick. As mentioned. TPU was the only one who found different results, and they acknowledge this themselves.
 
Kashinoda said:
Who trusts Tech Jesus though, he's a shill.
Click to expand...

Steve Burke an AMD shill?

No. but take him out then, you still have Guru 3D, JayZ2Cents, Hardware Unboxed, Linus Tech Tips.... all have Zen 3 ahead of Intel in gaming, the only outlier are TPU and they admitted they need to look into their results because they are so different to all other big reviewers.
 
jonneymendoza said:
can you link the post that Gibbo wrote?
Click to expand...

Its in one of the 3xxx series update threads.

In any case if you want to know the current situation this pretty much sums it up across the board. :)

GIGA-Man said:
Hello all,

Here is some info on the models to arrive in OCUK in the next day or so from us, sorry it took me a while to collect the info and I was away yesterday.

GV-N3070AORUS M-8GD 1.0 = High teens

GV-N3070AORUS M-8GD 1.1 = Low number

GV-N3070EAGLE OC-8GD = Very high teens

GV-N3070EAGLE-8GD = Very small number

GV-N3080AORUS M-10GD = Very small number

GV-N3080AORUS X-10GD = Very small number

GV-N3080GAMING OC-10GD = Low teens
Click to expand...
 
There's a new techtuber Framechasers, and he goes into how the results are skewed as there is an inbalance in the testing methods via the cpu settings.
But tbh with gaming performance onpar with a 10900k and with the step up in productivity, the new Ryzen chips pretty much are the best value cpus for the majority of users.
It's all AMD really needed to do was to match the best Intel could do in gaming, and keep on upping their game with workplace performance.
Still makes me curious to what Intel's answer will be
 
varkanoid said:
They dont want to admit it and its probably a business decision. If you tell customers we only had 20 then its unlikely you would shop there again for the next release due to low numbers. The fact is everyone had low numbers so no one wants to brag about it. I think we all know full well now the numbers were small like in 00's.

I can remember the days when Gibbo announces he has enough stock for a launch as ordered 10,000 units yet in his recent posts a large amount is like 300. Like he said in his big post in the update thread the distribution for GPU's seems abysmal as you have to deal with loads of different points unlike CPU's when they generally come from one place.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the 5000 launch seems to be along similar lines. Gibbo ordered thousands of CPUs but only received a fraction of those. More are coming in dribs and drabs, 20, 35, 85 pieces. It doesn't bode well for the 6000 launch and seems to be the trend for launches. Hopefully it's Covid related and once we're back to some form of normality launches will improve.
 
Apologies this is probably a duplicate question but I can't find a clear answer. Do we know yet what the 6000 series launch is going to look like? Are we only seeing "founders edition" cards on the 18th before AIB models? Will they be sold at OCUK and similar retailers, or through AMD only? How come we haven't seen any listings online yet like we did for Ryzen 5000 or RTX 3000 series?

Just like to get as prepared as possible to try and secure one on launch - however unlikely.
 
Richdog said:
No, you are just making excuses and your own rationalizations for them. Reviews should be done and seen before a product is launched, that is the way it has traditionally been done and it is the honest and transparent way to do things. This new move from AMD of not allowing reviews until launch day is a really bad trend.
Click to expand...

Damned if they do, damned if they don't. It would be all complaints about paper launches and not having stock, along with price gouging and scalping.

If you're not happy, then don't buy until the reviews arrive. Being upset by it is a choice you make, unless you are not in control of your own emotions. You're just rationalising because you have no self control and are being driven by fear of missing out and what the marketing people want you to feel. There's no need for any of that.
 
When you look at the way AMD did it its not hard to understand.

First they unified the L3 Cache, AMD actually gave us a preview of this in Zen 2 with the 3300X, the 3100 is identical in everyway to the 3300X, the only difference is the 3300X uses a single side of the CCX, so it has a dedicated 16MB L3 vs the 2X 8MB of the 3100.

The result of that alone is a 16% jump in IPC in gaming. its actually 13% ahead of Intel in gaming IPC.

ViJVP77.png

Zen 3 has 32MB 8 core Chips.

On top of that there is an up to 19% boost in per core IPC... and on top of that a small bump in clock speeds.

The end result at the highest level i have seen yet Zen 3 is 48% faster in games than Zen 2.

j0bL1qJ.png
 
Steampunk said:
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. It would be all complaints about paper launches and not having stock, along with price gouging and scalping.

If you're not happy, then don't buy until the reviews arrive. Being upset by it is a choice you make, unless you are not in control of your own emotions. You're just rationalising because you have no self control and are being driven by fear of missing out and what the marketing people want you to feel. There's no need for any of that.
Click to expand...
What a load of kindergarten-level, pseudo-psychology twaddle.

Criticizing a company for not allowing reviews of a very hyped GPU before they go on sale is perfectly acceptable and it is extremely bizarre that you are suggesting otherwise.
 
Hotwired said:
It's reviewer friendly and it's AMD friendly.

All these reviewers have had the goods for weeks to do testing and have confidence that fellow reviewers will not be jumping the gun. Reviewers are definitely not hating on this.

AMD has less to police and it's harder to accuse them of sale twisting bias if they're not picking reviewers to do pre-launch reviews which cannot be verified until launch. It loses all value to cherry pick reviewers if they are only allowed to drop reviews when people are in a position to double check them.

The average consumer loses nothing. They get a huge quantity of reviews at once which can be easily cross checked for whacky results. Then in theory they are fully equipped to make a purchase or not of the product which is now available.
Click to expand...
I'm not really getting your point. What is the issue with lifting the review embargo 24 hours before they are on sale as Nvidia have done for recent launches? It would be fair for all the reviewers and the customer would have enough time to look at number of reviews.
There was so little stock of CPUs (check the queue numbers being posted), looking at reviews would reduce you're chance of obtaining one.
I'm not sure why AMD persist in doing this, especially when have an excellent product.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom