That s about 100% sure, in the range of 15% excess power out of the 65W or so it consumed in the demo.
The 75W stated by AT is the estimated delta measured at the main assuming that system idle power was 55W, actually the delta should be a little higher at 84W, wich is 65W at the SoC level.
15% higher score than a 2700X at 65W is perfectly in line with 2x the perf/watt at isofrequency but not isoperf, the 15% delta in perf imply 0.5 x 1.15 = 0.575x the power, wich is exactly the ratio between this SKU and a 2700X, so much that this point to the test being done at 4GHz wich is the 2700X all core turbo in CB.
FTR the numbers stated by AMD imply that power increase by at least 16% from 4 to 4.2GHz, if it were such a frequency clocking the Zen 2 there would be no way that it could be at only 65W when we add an excess voltage, 15% higher throughput and an I/O still in 14nm.
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.
I think TheELF was simply pointing out that we were shown Cinebench only. And it is reasonable to assume that AMD has chosen the best case scenario for their chip.
But a proper (CES spirited) test for new chip would have been some CPU limited gaming scenario, AMD has just moved I/O and MC further away from cores, that's where THE real questions are.
I tend to enjoy playing the games that I play, not watching the frame counter fluctuate.
Saying that, I'm pretty crap at playing games so maybe I should start watching the frame counter.
I'm not sure how to tell you this but there are people out there using computers for things other than videogames.Wow, I was just playing cinebench last night. Really had a lot of fun. Cant wait to get home from work tonight and play it again. Guess I can ignore my whole steam library now. I have no problem with cinebench as a preliminary benchmark, but it *is* pretty much a best case scenario for AMD. We will just have to wait for more benchmarks, but gaming is still a question, and a primary use case for many (most) users. Final clocks may be better, but actually the only thing I am impressed with so far is the power consumption. By the time it comes out it will be almost a year after the 9900k, and to only match it in a best case artificial benchmark is underwhelming to me.
I'm not sure how to tell you this but there are people out there using computers for things other than videogames.
You don't need one for playing games either because you're going to be GPU bottlenecked except for some very specific scenarios. Yet here we are.Well, yeah, like Web Browsing, Emails and Office. But you don't need a $500 CPU for that.
You don't need one for playing games either because you're going to be GPU bottlenecked except for some very specific scenarios. Yet here we are.
Yeah many people do, want the fastest PC for doing web browsing, streaming video and the like. How many Ferrari owners drive 200 mph in the U.S? 1%? Same with top of the line PC owners who do mainstream stuff excluding gaming and video editing.Well, yeah, like Web Browsing, Emails and Office. But you don't need a $500 CPU for that.
Then i don't see a problem with 16C... I mean we have plenty of headroom for more W. Even if AVX512 uses 40% more power ~ 90W for CPu die x2 = ~ 180W + 55W +10W for I/O
If I/O is low latency (high freq) then probably it will use more power ~20W which means 55W for CPU * 1,4 for AVX 512 = 77W * 2 = 154W (more heat more power + x1,05) + ~ 25-30W for Uncore / iF
So basically we have +15W as ~i9 9900K running AVX2 at 4,3GHz+LLC4GHz?
We could also look at techpowerup's O/C result, then we have ZEN 2 at 2057 and 9900k at 2212It's funny that you don't read your own sources thoroughly because if you did you'd know that the 9900K in the TPU review was not maintaining boost clocks, hence making the gap to the 2700X look closer than it really is under proper turbo configurations.
This.Based on the numbers Anandtech gave us (75W) and assuming 15W for the I/O they could probably fit the second chiplet with only a 5% drop in clocks for this workload.
Your point was that AMD purposefully made the 9900K look bad in order to compare favourably with the Zen 2 sample. Where is your proof?We could also look at techpowerup's O/C result, then we have ZEN 2 at 2057 and 9900k at 2212
So unless AMD pulls another 10% clocks out of their ZENs they will still be slower on 7nm and intel will bring out another 14nm model just because they can still compete on ancient tech.
He's probably unaware that stock 9900K does 1760 points in CB15. AMD let 9900K run for it's life, then sent Zen 2 to play tag while running at 60% power.Your point was that AMD purposefully made the 9900K look bad in order to compare favourably with the Zen 2 sample. Where is your proof?
Well, we are comparing a new architecture 7nm CPU to a several times recycled architecture 14nm CPU.
I remember the Q9550 doing pretty well in gaming with its memory controller glued on as well.Very much so.
What interests me is that with Zen+ a 3% CB improvement resulted in a 5% gaming improvement, primarily because the gains were down to improved memory latencies.
If we're going to see the same with Zen 2, then I suspect that the uplift in gaming will be pretty significant. As you said, the clocks alone will provide a chunky uplift, moreso if the ST boost is up near that 5.0GHz mark.
My only concern really us that IF changes haven't really been talked about much anywhere, as there were rumours of decoupling IF clocks from Memclock. If that is the case, then we're definitely likely to see memory latencies decrease, even if somewhat offset by having gone the MCM route.
I don't envision the Ryzen 3xxx CPUs to be behind in gaming at all, except in some very niche cases.
Zen is a new architecture.We are comparing a new node to a node that made multiple iterations with improvement in power and efficiency. And calling Zen2 a new architecture ... improved architecture yeah, but "new" :/