The Ryzen 3000 series with 12 cores/ 24 threads or 16 Cores/32 Threads? That all i been seeing...all computer news articles seem to be following it...is it true or going be 8 Cores /16 Thread again....
Last edited:
While 1080 med runs 100FPS faster,do you have any understanding on what benchmarks are?Uhhh....It looks like AMD's CSGO 9900k number pretty much perfectly matches 1080p high AVG in your chart.
Not about hate, but mostly going for product that is deemed "better" which is obviously Intel and despite Intel stepping back letting AMD rise.. The main question of this is...If AMD going pull another FX related stunt again.
I do not think AMD will even beat Intel in gaming ....they can be at 7nm++ for sake and Intel can be at 14nm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ and still be able to beat.
AMD is good at beating Intel at Cinebench (a benchmark software) mostly. That about it.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/19.html
Your 2600 O/C to 3.95 is exactly on par with a stock i3-8350k in gaming and about 20% faster in general CPU workloads,they are also pretty much exactly the same price ...the i3 is easily overclockable by another 20% making them exact equals, with the i3 kicking the ryzens butt in anything older and less threaded.
On the ryzen platform you can only upgrade to 2 more cores +SMT ,on the intel platform if you got a compatible mobo you can upgrade to the 9th gen with 8 cores 16 threads, so intel is more upgradable on your performance level.
You would need to invest more into a good motherboard because you would actually overclock to a positive degree with the i3 and not basically just lock it to max turbo.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/19.html
Your 2600 O/C to 3.95 is exactly on par with a stock i3-8350k in gaming and about 20% faster in general CPU workloads,they are also pretty much exactly the same price ...the i3 is easily overclockable by another 20% making them exact equals, with the i3 kicking the ryzens butt in anything older and less threaded.
On the ryzen platform you can only upgrade to 2 more cores +SMT ,on the intel platform if you got a compatible mobo you can upgrade to the 9th gen with 8 cores 16 threads, so intel is more upgradable on your performance level.
You would need to invest more into a good motherboard because you would actually overclock to a positive degree with the i3 and not basically just lock it to max turbo.
Honestly it wouldn't matter much if the 3700x was 8/16 and the 3800x was 12/24, as long as you could get 20% IPC gains, 5-700MHz bonus and better compatability with the infinity fabric allowing for even better usage of HSR, that alone coupled with a pricetag somewhat less than what Intel is charging for equitable performance is gonna hurt.
"an overclocked 7700K would routinely roughly equal the 9900K's frame rates"If that were true, an overclocked 7700K would routinely roughly equal the 9900K's frame rates...(when both are running at/near same clock speeds, ~all core of 4.6-4.7 GHz)
It does not, and particularly in gaming/streaming scenarios (naturally, they are pretty close in 4k gaming, i.e., in massively GPU-limited scenarios).
Several games are doing well on more cores/threads, such as BF1 and BF5 among others...; comparing CPUs that lack SMT/hyperthreading such as the 9700K, however, do seem to indicate that real cores are more important than just thread count, as the 'only' 8 c/8t CPU still smashes in performance...
As are a lot of games,a fact that most people are more then happy to fully ignore just so they can spam that amd is within 10% of intel and doom and gloom and cats and dogs...BF1 and BF5, even at 'only' 1080P Ultra are still partially GPU limited, although we likely can't really prove this until the next even faster batch of GPUs arrive...
I was about to tell you that the IPC difference in gaming workloads was probably closer to the 10% that was discussed earlier in the thread. Then I decided to poke around for a good real world comparison. I came across an interesting video from Hardware Unboxed:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmhBgLSIneQ&t=628s
The 2600x at stock all core is only 100mhz faster than the 9400f. I was surprised to see how close the results were over 18 games. I was also surprised to see how much stepping up to a z390 and 3400 ram improved performance on the 9400f. Gaming load IPC might be considerably closer than I originally thought.
Yeah you shouldn't look at canned in game benchmarks if you want a real world comparison,they are only good for comparing different GPUs on the same CPU.for a good real world comparison. I came across an interesting video from Hardware Unboxed:
Yeah and it "only" has twice the threads and SMT supposedly "only" gives a ~35-40% boost,real "close" there on the IPC front...The 2600x at stock all core is only 100mhz faster than the 9400f
You can't know that unless you see the CPU usage on both,new game engines SCALE meaning that they run more software threads the more hardware threads they find,that's what my previous comment was all about,if all these games scale and run twice the threads on the ZEN then it will get 35-40% more workload making the 10% less performance much less impressive.I agree. I pointed this out earlier in the thread. I still think that the video I linked is a good example of the IPC difference between 2 very closely clocked CPU's from each team when both are presented with the same gaming load. Average this over an 18 game benchmark and it gives you a pretty good picture of how far AMD is behind in gaming performance clock for clock.
Because you have work that requires quad channel memory and/or the extra PCIE lanes.Why buy first gen threadripper when you can buy a 3700x or whatever.
Or a Russian troll bot.Reading through this thread makes me think valeman is a disgruntled former AMD employee.