• AMD Confirms 3rd Gen Ryzen and Radeon Navi for Q3 2019
    48 replies, posted
https://videocardz.com/80709/amd-confirms-radeon-navi-and-3rd-gen-ryzen-available-in-q3-2019 I hope Navi's good, I'd love to buck nVidia.
I was really about to swap from my 2700x to an i9 next go around, but if I can drop in their new top end AM4 chip into my existing board and gain that IPC and clock speed, seems like a no brainer. Especially with a more secure chip. Shame it's later in the year.
Why would you ever?
Since Intel's chips can't use Hyperthreading without being prone to attacks now, I reckon this could be AMD's year.
Faster Memory Support and Faster Single Core. But seems that Zen2 should close the gap.
AMD is really kicking it with their CPUs and while I do really damn love the RX 570 that I got I wish to have some more higher end cards from them so I can eventually upgrade with another AMD card instead of Nvidia.
There are a number of rumors going around about the new Ryzens supporting DDR4 @ 5000MHz. Not to mention, single core performance is going to be measurably similar to the upper end 9000 series chips. Anything modern is going to see a significant performance from multicore performance vs single, and Ryzen absolutely dominates that. Then there's the fact you can probably dual socket Ryzen 7s for the same price you can get a single 9900K.
Ok, well if literally any of that ends up being true. That's great. Good for them.
I didn't think most software even can look for two CPUs in the same system, much less use them.
Correct me if I'm wrong but I was under the impression dual CPUs are seen by software as a single one with many cores.
Ah that old meme
It appears some research is in order. Sure there's lots AMD fanboys here and have been since day one, but Intel doesn't really have any crown worth wearing anymore, other than on die cpu memory speed. Everything else is either overtaken or simply not worth the asking price in apples to apples comparative value. Them's just facts. Given that every consoles will be using multicore tech for gaming next gen, even the fps's is no longer intel's undisputed stomping grounds.
Q3, huh. A bit disappointed, but I've waited so long already after expecting it to be out Q1. Plus I had to eat into my fund for the parts recently due to various expenses, so this'll give me time to save back up.
That's just the maximum memory ratio you can select in your BIOS. Intel boards can select up to like 8 ghz. The only way to reach those speeds is with god tier silicon and liquid nitrogen.
3200CL14 was a struggle on my CH7. And it only is stable on an early bios. And I've tested multiple 2700x's. Just gotta win the lottery 4Head. So I'm skeptical of people claiming one generational change will see such a jump.
There are 14 i9 CPUs with higher single-core performance than the 2700X Explain the meme to me, cause I don't get it
Looking it up, it seems that games tend to ignore one CPU and that it only really works with parallel computing.
The meme is the price. There is literally no reason to pay incel®©™ price for minimal performance
He's right about the SC perf being better, but honestly I wouldn't swap a AM4 chip for an Intel right now, the difference is not that much and you'll get more AM4 support in the future while Intel is likely to drop their current socket soon.
When I bought my i9-7900X, I found it to be very similarly priced to the equivalent AMD CPUs, at least in Norway. (IIRC the TDP was distinctly lower than the AMD equivalent as well)
Lmao. The 9900X is an 8 core CPU. 2970WX is a 24 core CPU. Delet this
That performance difference can save you money in the long run if you run a business.
It's 10-core. And why would I delete my post? Octane said there's literally no reason to go for the Intel, I disagree and I posted a reason. Is there anything wrong? Please elaborate. When I was in the market for a high end CPU, I just wanted processing power for rendering. Didn't matter to me how many cores the CPU would have. My choice was between a Threadripper (I don't recall which) and the i9-7900X. They were so closely matched in price and performance that I ended up going for the Intel, because I knew I'd get the bonus of slightly better single-core performance.
Even better. If your pricing was similar for those processors, your workload was rendering, and you went with the Intel instead, you lost. https://www.anandtech.com/show/13516/the-amd-threadripper-2-cpu-review-pt2-2970wx-2920x/6
Oh yeah damn the new Threadrippers are ridiculous in these benchmarks. Weird how different Passmarks' results are. It was probably the Threadripper 1920X or the 1950X I was looking at back then, so if I lost out on any performance it wasn't much
PSA for people with Ryzen who want to optimize their RAM speed: use the Ryzen DRAM Calculator (Download DRAM Calculator for Ryzen | TechPowerUp) Was able to tighten the timings on my 3200CL14 kit for a nice 15% performance boost with barely any chance to voltage. The default XMP is very conservative.
and most importantly, no toothpaste
Rendering benefits greatly from multiple cores. Having slightly worse single core performance but also a bunch of extra cores can make a massive difference.
These things are opposites, and have been since like... since whenever Pov-Ray came out.
Multi-core performance and single-core performance is not mutually exclusive. Some people might benefit from the higher core count, others might benefit from the lower core count. But we're talking about CPUs with high core counts regardless. When I picked between the Threadrippers and the i9, it ultimately came down to the small details because they were so similar in overall performance.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.