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.
So basically Canard PC support Black Market products, they got their samples by buying them from a person that may have also been in the cycle of buying ES samples. One term of NDA is that you cannot sell ES chips. They have no integrity and their testing reasoning is full of contradictions. They claim no difference but then don't post X470 scores when there a re clear reviews out there that show the vast performance difference going A320 to X370 notably load line calibration which is not on A320 boards and chips throttling because the VRM's overheat. There is no justification to put AMD's flagship parts on a entry level board, the 8700K reviews were done on the best Z370 motherboards on the market, not a H110.
ES samples, depending on where they are in the development cycle, shouldn't be too far off end-performance. This has been shown on plenty of occasions and makes sense when you start breaking down the whole development cycle. At engineering sampling, the yield rate may be absolutely atrocious, but the chips that do get validated for use are generally okay.
the real TDP of the 7700k is 152watts juan.
I don't have to I have evidence.So basically you are now changing the version after your original accusation was refuted by CPC as "total bullshit" and not only on-line but with public mention to AMD representative in France.
And let me remark you again that CPC didn't test any ES. They tested retail chips. A photo of the retails chips was given above.
They don't post X470 scores because there is only 1--2% difference. Other reviews show similar minimal differences between boards. For instance R7-1800X in the fastest X370 does only 1.6% higher score in CB15 than 1800x does in Gigabyte A320. The gap is 1.7% in 3DMark, 0.2% in Passmark CPU,...
https://us.hardware.info/comparison...951-386379-386381-386635-391119-391120-386378
The CPC review is representative of real-life performance for non-overclockers.
There is no ES of Pinnacle Ridge. And CPC tested retails chips.
Keep dreaming that.
So basically you are now changing the version after your original accusation was refuted by CPC as "total bullshit" and not only on-line but with public mention to AMD representative in France.
And let me remark you again that CPC didn't test any ES. They tested retail chips. A photo of the retails chips was given above.
They don't post X470 scores because there is only 1--2% difference. Other reviews show similar minimal differences between boards. For instance R7-1800X in the fastest X370 does only 1.6% higher score in CB15 than 1800x does in Gigabyte A320. The gap is 1.7% in 3DMark, 0.2% in Passmark CPU,...
https://us.hardware.info/comparison...951-386379-386381-386635-391119-391120-386378
The CPC review is representative of real-life performance for non-overclockers.
There is no ES of Pinnacle Ridge. And CPC tested retails chips.
Keep dreaming that.
Remember AMD only tests retail chips (they don't make engineering samples anymore apparently) and that non 'R5' 2600 with no QR Code is absolutely a retail chip just because AMD likes to make just one CPU in their CPU line be absolutely different than the rest in the chips in the series.
I don't have to I have evidence.
View attachment 64002
Look juan
I can actually back up my statements with real evidence not made up bullshit.
And let me remark you again that CPC didn't test any ES. They tested retail chips. A photo of the retails chips was given above.
Total system was measured on the 8700k review.If you look at TPU review of the 8700k, their gaming power consumption for 1800x is higher than 7700k, not saying Ryzen isn't a efficient chip, it is efficient especially cramming 8 cores, but something is weird from their 1800x review and their 8700k review when they compare gaming power consumption for 7700k.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i7_8700K/16.html
Total system was measured on the 8700k review.
Doesn't change that at the 1800x review the 7700k used more power than the 95 watt or whatever tdp.
Tpu even commented on it.
Even if it is total system being measure for the 8700K, shouldn't that also reflect a higher power draw for the 7700K? If 1800X beat 7700K on Gaming power draw on their 1800X review, wouldn't that still hold true in the 8700K review?
It's more likely something on th amd platform is drawing more power perhaps the chipset or something.
Tpu would have to measure the same way instead of total system power to get a comparable result.
I know that userbenchmark is not a reliable benchmark and I would probably get laughed out of the room, but userbenchmark indicates:
http://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i7-7820X-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700X/3928vsm475904
Are they giving everyone a HS this time around?
Would make the X models a little more attractive. There was a note on one of the pre-release slides that said, Precision Boost Overdrive on the X470/B450 chipset's will only work on the "X" model CPU's. X models could have more value this time around.
So that 2600 is a retail chip, you said it was. But I guess that chip isn't a retail chip, so they didn't test only retail chips then? What other things are just different than what you say?
CPC tested retail chips. It is in their magazine. The photo with the chips is from computerbase desk as I said in #209.
Some other misunderstanding you want to share with us?
Amazon is now taking preorders
CanardPC has about as much credibility as the National Enquirer does.
No one here gives a #### about CanardPC except you.
I know some of you prefer reviews from sites that don't know basic math about percentages and publish weird power measurements for 7700k as TPU. Now say me something I don't know.
Testing a 105W processor on an A320 motherboard that only supports 65W processors and then publishing the results has to be a new yardstick for stupid.
Even Joe Blow testing the processor on a retail X370 motherboard would have more credibility.
Do you mean that A320 mobo that I mentioned above and that gives only 1.6%, 1.7%, 0.2%,... lower performance for the 1800X when compared to the fastest X370 mobo? Not bad for a board that only supports 65W chips according to you and others here. ROFL
CPC measured performance of 2000-series chips on different mobos and claims the difference between using A320 and X370/470 is only 1--2% on stock settings. Overclocking in France claims the same. And the above review of 24 mobos proves about the same for the 1800X.
So Joe Blow can pair the 2700X with a X370/470 motherboard, but the stock performance will be only 1--2% higher than the performance reported in the CPC magazine. If Joe plans to overclock, then he will see 5--8% higher performance when using one of the top mobos.
Your excuse about performance has been debunked with data from three different sources, and your claim that A320 mobos only support 65W CPUs is untrue.
The itch is strong but with current prices I am second guessing how much of an upgrade is the 2700x going to be over my 2500k @4.4
Pretty significant I would assume. The 2500K is a bad ass processor but its getting old, especially in multithreaded applications, I still have one running also at that speed in my second machine. I think it might be time to bid it farewell & hang it on the wall.
Oh, I am confident in MT performance. How about games? My 1070 isn't the best thing ever but having PUBG and Deus Ex Mankind Divided crawl on me at ~50 min is really annoying but I am not sure it's the CPU that's holding me back at 1080@120. If only every game could run as smooth as Doom...
PUBG from what I hear is very un optimized & probably never will be a fully, isn't that game still in Early Access Beta? DOOM came from a AAA developer that had time to test it, I dont think its fare to compare the two.
Someone from reddit has a 2600 already. Stable at 4.0 crashes at 4.2.