Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Zarathustra[H], Apr 2, 2019.
And 4 core 7700K beating 8 core 1800X...
What do you expect?
Core i7-7700K is clocked almost 17% higher than Ryzen 7 1800X
Yeah that have been the norm for a while, meanwhile Nvidia just have to make card thats a little better than the last one.
I saw AMD pull a rabbit out of a hat with the CPU's once or twice, there are nothing standing in the way of them being able to do the same with GPU's
And i prefer to be optimistic, though truth be told mostly i am a pessimistic angry old SOB
Nice clearly GTA loves more CPU. Lots of moving objects and stuff that can be assigned independent threads. Does that article list any other games?
Importantly, AMD's issue with GPUs isn't really technology- it's scale.
They don't seem to be able to afford to run parallel gaming-focused and compute-focused lines, especially not large, GDDR-laden gaming focused die. A large, 7nm Polaris with a wider memory controller would likely be competitive, more so than the Radeon VII, in the gaming market (and markets that make use of the lower precision available on gaming GPUs).
lol the 7700k has higher minimum frames.
The main thing standing in their way of replicating their CPU success on the GPU side is money. AMD made the decision a few years back to concentrate investment on the CPU side, which led to Zen but at the expense of GPU advancement, hence we're now looking at what, the fifth iteration of GCN currently, with Navi 10 being the sixth? On the bright side, it looks like Zen has brought in a hefty amount of money for AMD, so they hopefully now have the resources to invest in GPU technology, but that'll come too late for Navi 10.
Hopefully whatever new architecture they come up with for GPUs offers significant improvement on its predecessor. I just think everyone needs to temper expectations somewhat because this isn't the first time that we've been told that AMD's next GPU release will match Nvidia on performance whilst hugely undercutting them on price, only for reality to be a disappointment.
That's... margin of error. The 7600K is up there too.
The game is a good spread of the effectiveness of more cores and more single-core performance. It eats up both, and if you have both, you're at the top (8700K). Given that the game isn't really making use of SMT (see 7600K vs. 1800X), both the 9700K and 9900K should be even faster than the 8700K.
The Ryzen 7 1800x has 100% more cores.
This diversion is kind of about which is more important: cores or clock speed? Apparently it's still clock speed.
I am not arguing that anyone go out and buy a new gaming PC with $1000 GPU and $100 4 core CPU.
But old, but fast 4 core CPUs can still do a decent job, maybe better than competing 8 cores from similar time frame.
And the push to ever higher core count CPUs are are quickly going to run into diminishing returns, because a lot of activities on PC (including gaming) are really never going to be anywhere near fully parallel and Amdahl's law will clobber performance gains from more cores.
Also the kind of SW that is fully parallel,that can actually fully benefit from doubling core counts with near doubling performance are all long running rendering tasks, or tiny niche scientific stuff. Stuff that takes many minutes/hours to run, so you aren't watching it anyway.
Both. The answer is both.
And from a general standpoint, single-core/single-thread performance is more important, as any software can take advantage- using multiple cores, especially many cores, to their fullest requires work and significantly more work when the workload is not easily parallelized.
Just because a game can use more than 4 cores doesn’t mean that it can use every core equally.
For example, Core 0 could be at 100% utilization while Core 5 could be at 30% utilization.
I have never argue that just having more cores is more important than all else.
However, I disagree with you that having more cores bring negligible benefit.
One thing we never see in those review is parking cores for the games while parking other cores for OS,background task.
Having a 12C/24T CPU could mean parking 6C for your game while using the rest for the other task. I'm not sure how developed this is yet and how much it can affect performance but having the ability to do that could help leverage the higher core counts.
I know I like been able to run 2 VMs, Encoding a video and playing a game at the same. I couldn't do that with my old 4C/8T.
Better single core performance.
That will be the deciding factor when I decide to upgrade, hoping these Zen 2 chips have good single core performance, all the cores in the world don't matter much if they aren't fast at what they do.
Buy whatever you want - if you want to stick with a 4C/8T CPU, be my guest!
Also, Intel's Hyper Threading is considered a large security risk now due to the Foreshadow exploit, and the only true fix is to disable it.
SMT on AMD CPUs aren't vulnerable, though.
Use what works!
Anyway one thing I can say is that the clock speeds in the now infamous AdoredTV "leak" are wrong.
AMD doesn't even have any engineering sample that can even clock anywhere near what is claimed in the "leak.
Prices and core count aren't set in stone so, who the h*** knows!
Those threats are far more impactful to hypervisors than desktops.
I know I've patched the ones I manage and loosing 1/2 your logical cores sucks.
I want to go amd in the infrastructure so bad but Intel is still locked in at our c level.
I'm a little different. I value clock speed above core count.
As long as a CPU has at least 6C/12T (though preferably 8C/16T just to have room to grow) I will pick the CPU with the highest clock speed (provided IPC is the same) regardless of price. I will pay more for 6C/12T@5.2Ghz than I will for 12C24T at 4.7Ghz.
Cores are a nice bonus and all, but provided you hvae met the bare minimum (which should be considered 6C12T today) per thread performance is still more important.
With the normal caveat regarding rendering/encoding workloads of course. VM's are also a usage scenario for massive core counts, but I see those as more of a server thing than a desktop thing. (At least that's where I have all of my VM's). Some might argue that if you do massive amounts of multitasking (large number of programs running simultaneously) you will also benefit, but I just don't think workloads that will exhaust a 6C12T in this way are particularly common.
Per thread performance is where it is at, as long as you meet the bare minimum core count.
After the launch, how long is the wait until it can arrive at my door?
…as long as it takes UPS to get there
Will probably find out at launch. I'm going to assume 2 months (edit: after launch), though you may be able to get it sooner if you're quick on the draw and or you don't mind paying a mark-up at 3rd party sellers, and depending on the actual release date is.
My 5 year old machine needs replacement really soon.
well even more awesome, is the Ryzen 9 3850X: 16-core, 32-thread, 4.3GHz to 5.1GHz, 135W, $561
that's what i'm getting.
Is that a joke?
the ryzen 12xXx Bitchinfast7800x? no its real.
April Fools joke
no joke. it's real. google it.
but you figure, at least for me, i need processor, motherboard and ram. add all that up and we're looking at $1350-1500 upgrade. nothing to sneeze at. but hey if i was going intel, i would give you a number and would say "and that's nothing to FART at"
(you know, well because you would be getting ass raped for something with those specs)
These new CPUs will be on the AM4 socket so they'll work on existing motherboards with a simple BIOS update.
Ryzen 3 3300 - 6/12 - 3.2/4.0GHz - 50w - $99
Ryzen 3 3300X - 6/12 - 3.5/4.3GHz - 65w - $129
Ryzen 3 3300G - 6/12 - 3.0/3.8GHz - 65w - $129
Ryzen 5 3600 - 8/16 - 3.6/4.4GHz - 55w - $178
Ryzen 5 3600X - 8/16 - 4.0/4.8GHz - 95w - $229
Ryzen 5 3600G - 8/16 - 3.2/4.0GHz - 95w - $199
Ryzen 7 3700 - 12/24 - 3.8/4.6GHz - 95w - $299
Ryzen 7 3700X - 12/24 - 4.2/5.0GHz - 105w - $329
Ryzen 9 3800X - 16/32 - 3.9/4.7GHz - 125w - $449
Ryzen 9 3850X - 16/32 - 4.3/5.1GHz - 135w - $499
Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/64104/amd-ryzen-9-3850x-zen-2-16c-32t-5-1ghz-499/index.html
That's nothing more than a rumor from a dubious source.
You mean a rumor from a dubious source.
it has been posted at multiple sites and isn't out of the realm of possibility. guess we will see?.
A rumor that has beeb "posted at multiple sites" is still nothing more than a rumor.
I bet AdoredTV is biting his nails now.
If his rumor turns out to be false, as expected, his reputation will go down the toilet.
You are quoting an old rumor from 2018, which is at least partially debunked.
where am i supposed to go for my truthful reviews?
No way they sell their best CPU for $561
P.S. Angular sites don't work me since I have JS disabled. People shouldn't be using that piece of shit framework anyway.
All those prices seem too low.
Can't see them charging >US$600 for an AM4 socketed CPU unless they bring back Opteron badging for near-HEDT or similar to compete with S1151 Xeons.
And at that point, they still need a damn IGP!