I meant it solely in the way you meant thisI don't have issues with AMD at all.
I frequently suggest AMD CPUs to people.
In fact, I just tried to steer a poster to AMD from Intel.
We don't need childish games, though.
They don't make AMD look good to me.
It makes them look childish.
I have a feeling that AMD intentionally downclocked their EPYC sample to show a clear lead over Intel in that head-to-head without tipping their hand too too much. There's no need for AMD to show off their maximum performance advantage this early on. They even said that it is a sample and that clocks aren't final.in their EPYC demo they did run 2*28 cores against 1x64 cores
and AMD was 15% faster, doesn't that mean Zen2 probably closed the IPC gap
for that application because the EPYC had 15% more cores.
Meaning each core intel and amd worked at the same performance, we don't know the clocks though. (increasing intel to 64 cores would give them the same speed)
Intel was at 2*205W for 56 cores and AMD assume around 200W? for 64cores (180W)
I'm fairly certain that I heard Lisa Su say that the Epyc chip was clocked pretty low. Don't hold me on that though.in their EPYC demo they did run 2*28 cores against 1x64 cores
and AMD was 15% faster, doesn't that mean Zen2 probably closed the IPC gap
for that application because the EPYC had 15% more cores.
Meaning each core intel and amd worked at the same performance, we don't know the clocks though. (increasing intel to 64 cores would give them the same speed)
Intel was at 2*205W for 56 cores and AMD assume around 200W? for 64cores (180W)
Yeah, there was some rumors about a 1.8 GHz LP (or Low Power) EPYC 2 sample that popped up. EPYC 2 is rumored to have final clocks in-line with EPYC 1, or about 2.2 GHz - 2.3 GHz thereabouts. If the sample they used in the head-to-head was that 1.8 GHz sample, I would not be surprised to see AMD extend that 15% lead over Intel's current fastest 2x28 Xeon 2-socket configuration by another 22-28% for a grand total of 40-47% performance gain in heavy multi-threaded applications when they ship their flagship EPYC 2 product.I'm fairly certain that I heard Lisa Su say that the Epyc chip was clocked pretty low. Don't hold me on that though.
As I understand it, gaming is more sensitive to memory latency than some other applications. How well Ryzen 3000 does against Intel for gaming will probably be very dependent on how well designed and thought-out AMD were with respect to the new IO die. If they've worked out any potential issues regarding latency (read: competitive with Intel) then the fastest 8C will be probably as fast as the 9900K, if not faster.So TR also double cores to 64c?
How fast will be ryzen for gaming?
View attachment 2307
Look closely below the top die, what do you see when its titled at this angle?
R.I.P - Shintel
Mid 2019 is May-June, likely Computex. Ice Lake desktop is not coming until 2020.the real question is the availability of the 7nm ryzen parts...I see it as september when they sa q2-q3 ..which means too close the the icelake release if Intel finally recovers from the Brian Krzanich disaster (he should have a drink with Hector Ruiz)..
We don't need childish games, though.
They don't make AMD look good to me.
It makes them look childish.
Just put out a good product at a good price and you won't need to play such games.
Let your product do the talking.
The 2700 improved a whole bunch on cinebench over the 1700 but overall the 9900k is still 38% ahead,If you look at benchmarks between the 1700 and 9900k, the latter is about 44% better on average. AMD said the clocks weren't final either, so it could well end up that you can get a 50% bump over a 1700. I think that's certainly worth considering. The additional gains with Zen 3 probably won't see a similarly substantial jump.
Part of the delay may be waiting for X570.I can totally live with a mid 2019 release... gives me a chance to stash away a bit more funds and allows my 1700 to have one last good hurrah. Seems like the PCIe 4.0 support might prompt a board upgrade though.
I believe those were system power draw, not CPU power draw.Unbelievable that that the 9900k runs at 170Watts+... Thats near the suck down of my friggin 16 core threadripper. Jesus christ.. They literally riced out a civic (ringbus) w/ NoS on that processor ... (Vttaaacchhh turboooo swwwwwuuuufffffftttt)
So you are saying the benchmarks that were shown today at CES are fake ? That the new cores are now NOT on par with the 9900k ?The 2700 improved a whole bunch on cinebench over the 1700 but overall the 9900k is still 38% ahead,
one branch of computing doesn't really tell you anything about a different branch of computing.
https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Core-i9-9900K-vs-AMD-Ryzen-7-2700/4028vs3957
I mean according to AMD the first ZEN was already supposed to blow intel out of the water,they made it look sooooooo gooooood against intel hedt in their presentation.
You can bet your shirt that they selected the best combination of hardware that made the 9900k look as weak as possible,just as they did at the original presentation of ZEN.So you are saying the benchmarks that were shown today at CES are fake ? That the new cores are now NOT on par with the 9900k ?