Search results

Well then your equation is wrong because its giving too much value to SMT. I'm pretty sure that 16c / 16t TR will be faster than 1920x in all workloads, unless AMD somehow (magically) increased SMT performance so much that its actually giving over 35% perf. increase per core. That is also the...

Wohoo, you bring couple of cases where you show that 7900X can win against 12C 1920X. I never even argued that it couldn't. My line clearly says that 7900X is a bit faster (3%) than 1920X when using avarages (according to the review you chose) but I guess you didn't bother to read that. But why...

No, It seems you didn't read the hardware.fr review. It actually proves my prediction and makes your look silly (and completely wrong). Yes, 7900X is tiny bit faster than 1920X when comparing across multiple programs, where some of the programs can't utilize all those threads properly...

No, you are reading it wrong. Stock clock scores with my math: i9 7900X Score: 2200p i9 7960X Score: 3168p (math to get this score: 2200p * 1.6 * (3.6/4.0) TR 1950X Score: 2900p (math to get this score: 3400p * (3.5/4.1) Second math...

My beloved C-ray... I don't even care about that program but I posted it because it had the biggest win for AMD :LOL: And you could have posted those total throughput graphs as well. There's a reason why I quoted those lines from article. Perf. per Core is important but there are lots of other...

Yep, around 20% difference when comparing against stock 7900X @ 4Ghz all core turbo vs stock TR 1950X @ 3.5Ghz all core turbo. But when we compare against 16c 7960X, performance gap drops to ~9%. And as we know, there is no such thing as 16c / 32t Core i9 with 4.0Ghz stock all core turbo...

You could have posted the link to review... https://www.servethehome.com/dual-amd-epyc-7601-processor-performance-and-review-part-1/ And please, your bias is showing a lot. Posting charts of only perf / per core in a multi-socket & core environments :whistle: Lets counter with only one pic...

Wrong. It doesn't say anywhere that its gonna be 1-core boost. And we know that Ryzen boosts 2 cores to max XFR. I'm more inclined to believe its gonna be 4-core turbo at 4.2Ghz with Threadripper because 2-dies. Epyc is max boosting with 12 cores.

Good... very good :vamp: Now lets hope Intel isn't greedy and prices 8700K under 7800X to make things more interesting. But this is Intel we are talking about... :cautious:

You mean earlier revision... :whistle: The chart I posted is from 7820X review... which was published two days ago. But I don't really wanna continue this this back and forth bickering. The biggest problem comes from mobo makers as there's a huge skeleton in the closet in the form of "stock...

So we have have Xeon-SP Gold 6154 with 3.7Ghz all core turbo and 205w TDP and then we supposedly have i9-7980X with 4.2Ghz turbo and 165w TDP. I'm just gonna say it: 4.2Ghz Turbo 2.0 is going to be for 2 cores max and all core turbo is going to be in the ballpark of 3.3-3.4Ghz just by looking...

It is a funny thing that I did not say a word about Ryzen's TDP on my post but you are still bringing it up all the time. As someone has pointed out already: TDP does not equal to WATTS. You are also saying that Toms measured 250w watts after overclocking but when I am seeing this chart, I...

Just gonna leave this here: Notice how certain 10 core is adhering its rated TDP value and the other 10 core is not.

https://www.eteknix.com/intel-coffee-lake-hexacore-lineup-leaked/ Sooo... what the hell, I was expecting higher turbo clocks (at least 4.5Ghz) judging from what -Sweeper_ has been hinting for a while now. 4.3Ghz single and 4Ghz all core is :meh:. Oh well, hopefully it behaves like Kaby and...

I tend to agree with guys who have been somewhat reliable in the past when doing hardware reviews and not just some random picture from god know where (4chan?). Then again, I do wanna see more tests with mesh OC but nobody hasn't really done them that much and we don't know if the mesh was...

We already saw that overclocking the mesh didn't really do much from Hardware Unboxed video but I guess you don't trust them. There is a reason why 1600 is the best selling AMD cpu. Heck its selling more than 7600K (same price bracket) at mindfactory (one of the biggest e-tailer in eu area).

Yeah AMD did price cut on 1800X as it was a bit overpriced and imo still is but 1700X and 1700 hasn't seen any cuts which are official. Sure some stores have cut the prices but that doesn't make it official. And did you have some insider info about TR being more than 2 SKU's because everyone...

Well, we know that 7920X is going to cost 1189$ and its base frequency is going to be 2.9Ghz... we can only estimate turbo frequencies but I'm pretty sure the all core turbo frequency is going to be lower on the 7920X compared to 7900X. Turbo 3.0 (2 cores) freq might actually be the same.

I don't get this... some peeps are saying EPYC is going to be huge success and will get big market share right away in data center market, other peeps saying they will not gain any market share at all because it will fail and there's nothing good about it. Don't you even remember (or maybe you...

ServeTheHome we need you! Bring us a proper Epyc vs Xeon review already.

EPYC 7601 vs Xeon Platinum 8176 @ Anand Not gonna comment with the results expect for maybe that good showing from both vendors.

From 3DCenter: Fury X @ stock vs Vega @ 1052 / 800mhz. CPU is different but it doesn't really matter that much in superposition. That's a quite big regression in IPC compared to Fury X if you ask me. I guess we can rename NCU to SCU (slow compute unit).

Nooo, I really need to migrate to green side if I want more performance :cry: There are evil men on that side, even on this forum :depressed:

The performance increase is going the be staggering.... or not

He was getting like 33mh/s.. heck my fury X was doing 28mh/s

Ok its official.. We have a dud... time to go back to hibernation.

define is doing the tests on disqus: https://disqus.com/by/klaudiuszkaczmarzyk/ At least it seems to be pretty good card in SpecView. Performance is comparable to P5000. Seems that AMD ran their tests with native resolution (4k?) when they were comparing it against Titan XP.

So its around 30-35% faster than Fury X according to 3dmark... good job AMD :facepalm:

I have hard time finding these numerous sites which show 1800X consuming more than 6900K at stock frequencies. Can someone Google those for me because most sites I checked have 1800X under the 6900K in the power consumption graphs. We all already know 1800X consumes more than its rated tdp but...

Are you comparing single-thread performance there? Or was those just for kicks? Let me help you: random 1700x result: https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/3135075 I guess this means TR is going to be only as fast as 1700x even though it has double the cores / threads. But we all know that...

200mhz more with 10-15c cooler core temps with even higher vcore when not using toothpaste. I just don't understand why people are defending the use of that toothpaste. Heck I would prefer no IHS at all like we had back in the old days. Oh well, 5ghz on 10-core chip certainly looks promising.

It doesn't really reflect on these charts but AMD is selling every polaris (Ellesmere) die they can produce at the moment and we all know why... Expect another price crash on used gpu's in couple of months.

This is sales data from from one of the biggest European tech store (Mindfactory.de): docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NQU0FtsxI6qrX1ioDIOKMiFhZ9uBVClK29tf4vYjpUk/edit#gid=974860809 R5 is selling pretty nicely, R7 so-so, Kaby Lake as it should and Intel X99 is pretty much dead. Still doesn't...

Time to bring this back to topic, can you humanoids stop bickering on things which shouldn't belong to this thread. Hardware.FR 2+2 vs 4+0 test with games. Clear penalty when accessing data from different CCX, at least with games. Here is another: PCGH.de So when are we going to get a proper...

There is no need to even ask, that's why I put the if there.

But there's big difference with games and some applications vs all the other applications that are multi-threaded like Cinebench, Blender, etc. Their threads are not dependent on each other like games are. Cinebench doesn't need the data from each of the 16 frame its rendering until one of them...

From Ryzen: Strictly Technical thread @ Anand: Clearly shows that there is a performance penalty when threads are on different CCX. Second video shows that Windows scheduler just assigns the threads "randomly" and why we are seeing such a varied results from game benchmarks. I'm 100% sure...

I just don't get it, why the hell are people angry and pissing with each other? Its a good chip, not the best at everything but considering the price / perf vs different workloads and it looks pretty good (1700 is a steal imo if you need more than 4 cores). Where the f*** does all this hate come...

Futuremark Press Releases — A Closer Look at Asynchronous Compute in 3DMark Time Spy Deeper explanation how Futuremark implemented Async.