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.
Wait eternity is still young...there are still plenty of possibilities for a last desperate attempt to stop AMD.I'll be zoinking that Ryzen 9 the day it comes on sale. The 9900ks will be dead on arrival and will be remembered as Intel's last desperate attempt to stop AMD.
Of course valeman and the other fanboys will be in denial as always.
Maybe because it was in CBr15 and now they have to use r20?If you remember an 8 core beat a 9900k at cinebench in ces.
I wonder why they didnt show that again.
It doesn't need to, 12 cores all running at 4Ghz will still match if not beat the 3900x just use the power needed to run the 8 cores at 5ghz to run 12 cores at 4Ghz.Well, who knows what Intel has up their sleeve. I don't think their architecture can possibly deliver much more performance than the 9900ks, so it wont be an easy fix.
Or it might be for a specific TDP and no IPC gain at all...that's how all hardware makers sell most new hardware lately.Im not sure. I think the 15% ipc increase might mean amds ipc is higher than intel.
Assuming the Intel roadmap leaks from a month or so ago are legit, we DO know what Intel has up its sleeves: nothing significant for the mainstream until 2021 as we're stuck on 14nm++++, more '+' pending.Well, who knows what Intel has up their sleeve.
Well, who knows what Intel has up their sleeve. I don't think their architecture can possibly deliver much more performance than the 9900ks, so it wont be an easy fix.
Exactly, their architecture is maxed out. They need to ramp up desktop 10nm development or else they will get tied by amd, which sometimes comes in with more cores or a lower price.We know what Intel has up their sleeve, a 9900k with 2 more cores. Highly binned and possibly even faster boost clocks than the 9900ks. Of course you'll need a new $500 motherboard for it because no z390 board on the market can deliver enough power to keep that abomination running. You'll also need a 2000w chiller to keep it from melting itself under stock clocks.
We have already seen how fast intel can just add cores to their lineup and without changing anything else be the fastest again.
Better than getting inteled because that would mean pay more money for no gain.Look like people got AMD`d.
Exactly, their architecture is maxed out. They need to ramp up desktop 10nm development or else they will get tied by amd, which sometimes comes in with more cores or a lower price.
What about it?It's not like it's gonna run at 5ghz or something.Except actual, real-world TDP (not to be confused with Intel's officially-stated TDP)
Icelake's IPC improvements (much like Zen 2's) comes from bumping cache sizes and other structures as needed while also widening the scheduler and execution back-end. Without a process shrink, the significant added complexity will negatively impact achievable clock frequencies, negate the IPC gain and increase die size so you may end up with a chip that has 18% better IPC but clocks 20% lower, is 30% bigger (25% wider scheduler/exec, 50% larger L1D and double the L2 go directly to the chip's tighs) and costs 40% more to make for a given number of cores.Intel I believe is going to try adapt some of the things they wanted to do with Ice Lake into a 14nm chip, where they are getting high yields and clock speeds. But with some of Ice Lake's IPC improvements.
What about it?It's not like it's gonna run at 5ghz or something.
If you set it at some specific TDP it will clock pretty competitively I believe.
If you let it run wild then yes it will be stupid high consumption but then again even AMD is preparing for 300w usage.
Intel is getting beat down to there knees on every end of the spectrum. Price/Performance, Security, and even Raw multi-core performaceI 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.
AMD demonstrated the 16C32T in private and someone took a screenshot showing it running at 4.25GHz, 1.57 Vcore and 200ish watts.Ah, gotcha - a "many people are saying" thing...