Why not show them all? I have nothing against CB, but i feel it plays into AMD core strength too much, while hiding memory latency/bw effects too much. Why not add some gaming, GeekBench 4 into the mix? And JavaScript is fine to me as well, i am certain ZEN2 will shine in it due to great cache subsystem.
Where do you get that from?
It's one hell of a claim to make. Gonna need some sources to support it.
You don't know what CPU they were using for their demo. You can pretty much guarantee that it wasn't an ES for a live demo of a partner's game, especially if that partner is on stage with you.
Let's entertain that it was an ES for a moment; you know that is only running at a comfortably stable clock.
Either way, there's absolutely no indication of anything from that demo.
While I was hoping for more out of the release, there is no way in he|| that Zen 2 will be worse at gaming than Zen+.They did show Forza horizon 4 with Vega VII. Looks like Zen2 8 Core cpu will have between 10-15% less gaming performance than ryzen 2700x.
Wasn't it said that it was Zen 2? Can't check right now.You don't know what CPU they were using for their demo. You can pretty much guarantee that it wasn't an ES for a live demo of a partner's game, especially if that partner is on stage with you.
Let's entertain that it was an ES for a moment; you know that is only running at a comfortably stable clock.
Either way, there's absolutely no indication of anything from that demo.
Wasn't it said that it was Zen 2? Can't check right now.
Under promise, over deliver? They did that for ROME demo because ROME release is imminent. Ryzen release will happen a little later than ROME release. In the mean time, AMD still has to sell Ryzen 7 2700X and ThreadRipper 2950X for the next 6 month.I dont understand amd. I would just have showcased the 16c variant at 4100 points with some standard big air cooler. And with some vague information its same tdp as the configured 9900k.
More fun. More enthusiasm. And actually less information.
I dont understand amd. I would just have showcased the 16c variant at 4100 points with some standard big air cooler. And with some vague information its same tdp as the configured 9900k.
More fun. More enthusiasm. And actually less information.
All this based on one demo. Okay.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.
Reminds me of the people who did not believe 9900K would be obsolete in under 12 months from launch.
Obsolete is a bit strong. How about severely overpriced. The price will have to be slashed nearly in half once this demoed R5 releases.All this based on one demo. Okay.
I'm not absolutely sure.
The 9900k is pushed well past the ragged edge of efficiency, and has a silly TDP as a result. While it is the fastest single thread/gaming chip it has a purpose. If it loses that crown then who would actually buy it? The crazy enthusiasts will go for the new fastest things, and everyone else is significantly better served with something slightly more moderate in the first place.
(Either from Intel or AMD, it won't matter )
To be frank, I'll be ecstatic to see AMD take the crown in everything right now if it means Intel will come back with a vengeance 2 years down the road. However, seeing how games love latency, it's probably mission impossible for the zen architecture in it's current iteration to best Intel's ringbus in the 9th gen chips.I agree on a new purchase of a 9900k, but obsolete isn't the word I'd use to describe it. There's still a chance that the 9900k retains the gaming crown which means it's not obsolete, it's just very poorly priced. If Intel wants to sell 9900k's this summer they'll absolutely have to slash prices dramatically.
I'm excited to see gaming performance on Zen2, that's really the only arena that's still a big unknown at this point.
To be frank, I'll be ecstatic to see AMD take the crown in everything right now if it means Intel will come back with a vengeance 2 years down the road. However, seeing how games love latency, it's probably mission impossible for the zen architecture in it's current iteration to best Intel's ringbus in the 9th gen chips.
There is a reason why AMD choose this configuration for the demo. Performance being more predictable, less worries about threads jumping chiplets. Chances are that it works more stable on currently available platforms and less need to have perfect microcode available.Same. I'd love to see AMD best the 9900k across the board at a reasonable price. I'd love to have a reason to pickup a 16 core Zen2 setup without making sacrifices to gaming performance, especially with Navi and the 3000 series on the horizon.
Yeah, all this based on one demo. And if you remember what was said in that discussion, I repeatedly said it was to be made obsolete by Intel themselves, more exactly that a significantly cheaper Intel product would offer the same or higher level of performance.All this based on one demo. Okay.
Maybe people who have better experience with this particular game can chime in, but I'd like to point out one detail.I just looked at a youtube video that was getting upwards 140fps with ryzen 2700x and here is another picture with same setting amd claims.
Amd zen2 was getting about 110-120fps.
In the game's day-0 patch, Playground Games "Added visual presets for Nvidia RTX 2070, 2080 and 2080Ti" graphics cards, allowing the game to be pushed well beyond the game's Ultra graphical preset.
Yeah, also important to note is that the Radeon 7 was at 99% utilization.Maybe people who have better experience with this particular game can chime in, but I'd like to point out one detail.
The RTX 2080 benchmark example is on Ultra settings preset. Lisa Su said on stage this game was running on "maximum settings". As far as I can tell, this game has a higher than ultra settings.
My point was that a small difference in CB (so it's not 5% but 10+ % ) still makes a big difference in userbenchmark,that's what I was answering to.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?
If the 9900K at 5.1 GHz scores 2212, then at 4.7 GHz it would have scored around 2040, which was exactly what it scored in the demo. Thus it drills holes into your claims about the 9900K being gimped in any way.