N4CR
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2011
- Messages
- 4,947
Try it at 8Hz... then get back to meIf it takes 1000w to get out 100db, you need better Monster HDMI cables.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Try it at 8Hz... then get back to meIf it takes 1000w to get out 100db, you need better Monster HDMI cables.
Try it at 8Hz... then get back to me
If ANYTHING, can you not appreciate the pricing of this stuff? It might not wear the crown but shit, that damn near almost crown costs half of what the current one costs lol.
I've never even owned an AMD rig and I'm pumped to see what they have coming out.
it's often been the case, recently, with AMD, that their marketing numbers are very accurate. They usually don't tell the whole story (for instance, all you get is a cinebench or blender run and maybe some data to go with it), but those benches have been verified as accurate after release. However, it's always good to be skeptical of marketing material, so I'll be patiently waiting for 3rd party benches and reviews as well.I can- but I'm also not making assumptions, as we don't have detailed independent results, which will be lower than AMD's as a fact of marketing, and we don't have Intel's response, which may erode the value argument. Further, unless you are doing things like rendering, the speed bump from more cores almost completely goes unnoticed after six. If you are, well, I'd expect you to already have an eight-core Ryzen, or Xeon or Threadripper with even more cores.
So on the surface, it's exciting; we just need to see if the final product is as good as AMD is implying. The first Ryzen was good, if you could get it working- most of the issues have been solved and we'll need to see if they remain solved with Zen2 after unhooking all of the cores from the memory controller.
I've owned plenty (and plenty of AMD and ATi GPUs), and it's difficult to overstate my frustration with them post Core 2 / 8800GTX.
They usually don't tell the whole story (for instance, all you get is a cinebench or blender run and maybe some data to go with it), but those benches have been verified as accurate after release.
However, it's always good to be skeptical of marketing material, so I'll be patiently waiting for 3rd party benches and reviews as well.
I can- but I'm also not making assumptions, as we don't have detailed independent results, which will be lower than AMD's as a fact of marketing, and we don't have Intel's response, which may erode the value argument. Further, unless you are doing things like rendering, the speed bump from more cores almost completely goes unnoticed after six. If you are, well, I'd expect you to already have an eight-core Ryzen, or Xeon or Threadripper with even more cores.
So on the surface, it's exciting; we just need to see if the final product is as good as AMD is implying. The first Ryzen was good, if you could get it working- most of the issues have been solved and we'll need to see if they remain solved with Zen2 after unhooking all of the cores from the memory controller.
I've owned plenty (and plenty of AMD and ATi GPUs), and it's difficult to overstate my frustration with them post Core 2 / 8800GTX.
I have AMD's numbers and can adjust for 'marketing optimism'.
In other words you are just speculating.
In other words, I can take AMD's numbers, and say 'less'. I didn't speculate as to how much.
...then, how can you know that it is "slower" when you are just speculating?
Because marketing.
He's saying that since it was the benchmarks that AMD decided to use during a marketing event, it's possible that in real world testing the gains won't be as huge. Aka always take what ANY company claims during ANY event with a healthy dose of salt.What about it?
He's saying that since it was the benchmarks that AMD decided to use during a marketing event, it's possible that in real world testing the gains won't be as huge. Aka always take what ANY company claims during ANY event with a healthy dose of salt.
Hence why in my own opinion, sure the numbers look great, but I'll wait for a good number of tests to be ran before I go reaching for my wallet. I don't have the budget to buy new setups on a whim and hope the event numbers align with real life.
On the other hand, it can be speculated these chips can be OC'd over the event specs, so it really depends on how optimistic you are.
Idk, to me it comes down to conviction. One thing I've noticed while lurking here is convictions run high. I keep seeing these arguments run in a huge circle, both sides convinced they're right. Instead of agreeing to disagree and waiting for real reviews to come out, people just keep hammering away at the same points. I for one don't trust marketing slides, they're almost always trying to show product in the best light possible. My reaction to them is always "That's really cool, hopefully reviews will back that up".He mentioned it as fact, something that he could not possibly know unless he has an review sample.
That's what I am pointing out.
He's saying that since it was the benchmarks that AMD decided to use during a marketing event, it's possible that in real world testing the gains won't be as huge. Aka always take what ANY company claims during ANY event with a healthy dose of salt.
Hence why in my own opinion, sure the numbers look great, but I'll wait for a good number of tests to be ran before I go reaching for my wallet. I don't have the budget to buy new setups on a whim and hope the event numbers align with real life.
On the other hand, it can be speculated these chips can be OC'd over the event specs, so it really depends on how optimistic you are.
Oh no doubt. Trust me, I'd love to replace my 1600 with a gleaming new 3700x. Once I see a few OC results (got a water loop just begging for some heat output), I'll be right on that trigger.Sure companies choose benchmarks that work in their favor, perpetual AMD favorite is Cinebench, because it is an embarrassingly parallel workload, that responds almost linearly to more more cores, and works exceptionally well with SMT...
It would be questionable if this was all AMD showed, but they showed a fair depth of benchmarks, including gaming. So it looks like a fairly solid improvement across the board for Zen 2.
Of course it would be prudent to wait for 3rd party reviews, but this looks like a solid upgrade, and even more of threat to Intel's desktop business.
Oh no doubt. Trust me, I'd love to replace my 1600 with a gleaming new 3700x. Once I see a few OC results (got a water loop just begging for some heat output), I'll be right on that trigger.
I'm just saying, you can't blame someone for being skeptical or marketing slides. Though this huge of a node jump should be offering some significant changes.
I've been pretty lucky with my AMD purchases thus far, as far as overclocking is concerned, but I'm still pre-ordering for a new system build as soon as the 3000 series is available, marketing numbers be damned...
My 1600X runs at 4.195GHz, all-core, 24/7 at great temps but it'll be the one I replace since the new 3000 series are approaching 4.6GHz with less power draw. It's a no-brainer to upgrade when they're released because I know I will see a major increase in performance, regardless of what the "marketing" numbers are. And I don't have to worry about some patch coming out that'll kill 30% of my performance (because Intel)
My only question is whether or not to go with ITX X570 or normal ATX X570 with this build...I'm liking the sheer variety of boards being offered and it'll probably take far more time picking the board than to pick which new CPU I get.
I gave up on overclocking my 1600. I don't know if it is my mb, bios, memory or cpu, but it's just not stable. I'm pretty sure it's my ram, but for now I don't have time to troubleshoot.I wish my 1700x would do 4.2
I haven't been able to crack 4ghz. I'm rock solid at 3.95ghz though.
I gave up on overclocking my 1600. I don't know if it is my mb, bios, memory or cpu, but it's just not stable. I'm pretty sure it's my ram, but for now I don't have time to troubleshoot.
Not yet. Think I'm on F21 (or something like that) if not an older one on the backup bios thanks to GB's buggy recovery feature on this board. I'll probably stick with it until I get a 3xxx series ryzen. it works, just crashes in games randomly. Will probably "refresh" windows at that point also.When I first built my 1600X system I used Patriot Viper 3400MHz DDR-4. The ram ran 2466MHz because it wasn't even on the compatibility list for the board, and I was lucky the system booted at all, let alone worked... (I'd picked up the Patriot RAM for a different build that fell through, and had it on hand when I built the 1600X so I figured I'd use it to save $$$)
After several months my main system (4770K) pooped itself so I was forced to use the 1600X. I did a BIOS upgrade on the board in the hope that Asus had finally gotten off their lazy ass and added an option to disable the built-in BlueTooth on the board (They still haven't...)
After the BIOS Upgrade I loaded optimized settings and rebooted and the Patriot RAM was running at 3200MHz with low latency settings. I decided to try overclocking it and it booted up at 4.4GHz at 1.4v but wasn't stable in benches so I backed off to 4.195 and it's been like that (at 1.37v) ever since.
Have you checked recently (in the past month) for a BIOS upgrade? I'm wondering...since it's an Aorus board, maybe they added a new BIOS revision to support Ryzen 3000 which may improve RAM compatibility like I found by accident with my CH Hero VI
I see the latest version is F31 and came out on 2019/05/06
They only showed gaming improvements compared to Zen+ and not how it does against Intel like they did for Cinebench, which seems suspiciously selective. Reported gains do indicate there will finally be gaming parity with Intel, though, so that gives me hope. Intel will probably keep better OC gains, but that should be much less important compared to current situation.Sure companies choose benchmarks that work in their favor, perpetual AMD favorite is Cinebench, because it is an embarrassingly parallel workload, that responds almost linearly to more more cores, and works exceptionally well with SMT...
It would be questionable if this was all AMD showed, but they showed a fair depth of benchmarks, including gaming. So it looks like a fairly solid improvement across the board for Zen 2.
I gave up on overclocking my 1600. I don't know if it is my mb, bios, memory or cpu, but it's just not stable. I'm pretty sure it's my ram, but for now I don't have time to troubleshoot.
Because that's the five year old uarch they're trying to catch up with.
I have AMD's numbers and can adjust for 'marketing optimism'.
Cherry picking can fudge the numbers a lot. This is marketing.
And what kind of significant jumps has Intel made since Q1 2011? I'm not seeing any.I, for one, wanted 5 GHz with the significant increase in IPC to finally have a jump worth talking about. What did we end up with? Yesterday's Intel level of performance with a limited benefit of more cores.
That is according to you
You're going to make the claim that these numbers are not marketing numbers?
Please be my guest
Cinebench and pubg, but yeah it was for marketing the new generation product
Me neither.And what kind of significant jumps has Intel made since Q1 2011? I'm not seeing any.
Which is it, diminishing returns or just that good? You can't have it both ways.I suggest you take a look at the law of diminishing returns. That will always have a role in technology. The sooner you can accept that the sooner you can realize just how good these Ryzen 2 chips are looking so far.
I think we found where that ipc boost came from, at least part.
What was the latency on Zen and Zen+?