Funny that - ~36-50% more power used at the same performance level - reminds me of something.
Nail on head?
Last edited:
-
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.
(Video) The i5 is Dead...Long Live the i5?
- Thread starter fs123
- Start date
Funny that - ~36-50% more power used at the same performance level - reminds me of something.
Nail on head?
Seems at logger heads with tech spots review.
https://www.techspot.com/review/283-geforce-gtx-400-vs-radeon-hd-5800/page10.html
You'll never get through, too far gone. I remember the fit he had when I told him the HD5770 was faster the the 216 GTX260. It took weeks for that to sink in.
Dunno about the rest but their RE5 results are at odd with most other places - happen to know as I extensively benchmarked RE5 on the 470 at the time.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/geforce-gtx-470-480-review,28.html
I don't remember that at all but first hit for a comparison doesn't bare that out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SdqeDQitHw
EDIT: Glad you dragged that up https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/8800gt-upgrade-5770-advice.18132092/page-2 as I said at the time those benchmarks were done on the 195.xx drivers that didn't perform like the drivers before them (as seen in that video I linked) or subsequent drivers as can be seen in the comparisons here for instance:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/geforce_gtx_460_review_(roundup),22.html
You have to dig up later results for benchmarks like the 460 where older cards are included as some sites continued (techpowerup one of the worst for it) to insert the old initial runs on 195 drivers into their later results without redoing them as can be seen in the test setup section of the relevant reviews.
Last edited:
They are using newer than release drivers. Not that it matters to me personally but from what I can see Amd were the better choice at the time. It's kind of how it is now but a role reversal. Nvidia was also 6 months late to the party.
Last edited:
There was only a relatively brief blip of those 195 drivers - the 197 as can be seen in that link were significantly better and in most cases you could go back to slightly older drivers and get better performance than the 195 branch without any real issues as very little if anything actually needed the 195 drivers.
Yeah - can draw a lot of comparisons between Vega and Fermi except Fermi just about managed to edge the performance envelope - hot, used a lot of power and late to the party.
In DX11 games. Not sure if anyone has measured power use with other API's.
That will happen, it's just a question of when.
For now the 6 core i7's are more than capable.
i9's are upto 18 cores already. With a shrink I think that will become 22 cores. Looks like Ryzen will be 32 cores on the desktop soon.
8 cores are the norm now.
I think the VRM's on those cheaper boards would melt with 32 cores. Unless they release a new socket, oh noes!
Why what are they rated at?
Not sure what the socket has to do with anything. I'll mark that down to fanboyism and core even.
Usually a shrink - which would be needed really - comes with power reduction for the same performance level, etc.
Asus prime b350m
http://ru.gecid.com/mboard/asus_prime_b350m-a/
92c on an 8 core doesn't bode well for a 32 core.
True, but I think am4 32core is being very optimistic.
8 cores with TDP of 65 watts isn't much of a problem. Six phases at 35 watts a pop. I haven't looked in any dept at the power delivery of the latest boards but I'd imagine 35 watts per phase is a easy even with lower end components.
So 65x4 = 260watt -15% from a respin say. So a little over 220 watts on the current fab. With a shrink maybe close to a 30% reduction. 6 modest phases should be fine.
64 cores on Threadripper might be pushing it.
So 65x4 = 260watt -15% from a respin say. So a little over 220 watts on the current fab. With a shrink maybe close to a 30% reduction. 6 modest phases should be fine.
64 cores on Threadripper might be pushing it.
Last edited:
At stock no, they should be fine. However a lot of these boards are el cheapo 4+2 and will die with any sort of overclock in place. They cannot risk the end user putting in the 1800x equivalent and throwing it in the worst possible board.
The 92c above was a 1700x with a very modest overclock of 3.8 @ 1.36v
Are you seriously talking about overclocking a 32 core CPU on a £50 board, or just making silly points as an excuse for an argument to why AMD are terrible?
4 phases should be fine at 60 watts each.
Nope, I'm saying they cannot risk it. They need to ensure their CPUs will work on ALL AM4 boards.
It's not a silly point at all. If you are limited by motherboard power delivery they might aswell release a new socket.
With that in mind I'm saying 32cores on AM4 is very optimistic.