Jump to content

VagabondWraith

Member
  • Posts

    2,599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by VagabondWraith

  1. My comment was tongue-in-cheek. As for Volta, I'm interested to see what performance is going to be like. It's on 12nm which isn't much of a jump like 28>16/14nm was. It's supposedly a brand new architecture from the ground up. Will be interesting to see what they have in store to tackle DX12 optimizations whilst maintaining their DX11 footprint. I wonder if they'll incorporate a hardware scheduler/ACEs type stuff or if they'll continue with software based DX12. Volta is supposed to be even more efficient than Pascal so I wonder if including a HW scheduler is even possible with a lower TDP.
  2. There ain't no Ryzen beating my Cinebench score of 2133 unless on LN2.
  3. I have a 7820X and I absolutely LOVE it. Performance is amazing. Nothing else out there is beating it currently except the 7900X.
  4. He needs to get an overclock on his keyboard. Too bad using AMD doesn't allow for an overclock on anything.
  5. Why you yelling at me? I didn't do the test. If you have a problem, take it up with Digital Foundry. I'm just showing you their findings. You choose to believe it or not, that's not my problem. All I'm saying is, Skylake-X can game, and do it damn well.
  6. Digital Foundry released their benchmarks. Apparently, Skylake-X is awesome for gaming. (We're still in the process of updating our AMD stats, and Ashes of the Singularity and Rise of the Tomb Raider have had Ryzen optimisation updates, so we've omitted our library results here.) The only outlier is: Techspot 7800X Witcher 3 results - 114 Digital Foundry - 132 Clearly shows that X299 is not a bad gaming platform, contrary to popular belief. Expensive gaming platform? No doubt. But it can certainly game and beat just about all CPU's.
  7. I would consider X99 far worse as you can now get a 10 core for $750 less (let alone 12, 14 & 16 for less than last years 6950X) and an 8 core for $400 less. Not seeing the issue here. Fact is, they lowered prices so I no longer have to pay $1000+ for an 8 core.
  8. Really? So the 6950X must've been the best thing they've ever done. ?
  9. I think both. For instance, people complain about NVidia's prices, yet that's twofold. For one, AMD is nowhere to be found. For two, why does NVidia charge higher prices? Because they can. Jen Hsun Huang once said, the market doesn't set the price, the competition does. He's right. With no AMD, NVidia is free to charge what they want (within reason). It's vital that all companies push forward.
  10. NVidia is bringing improvements despite the absence of AMD all-around. But I suppose that's what makes NVidia so great... they don't rest and continue to push forward.
  11. That's what I noticed with Digital Foundries video; performance scaling up the tier. 7900X was sometimes 10 FPS ahead of the 7820X; whereas both were considerably ahead of the 7800X. It shouldn't be a cache issue as all Sky-X CPU's have the same amount of L3 at 1.375 per core. Maybe it's because the 7800X has less total L3 than the other two, but then again, it still has more total L3 than the 7700K/7740X.
  12. I may conduct my own tests with some of these games by disabling 2 cores and running these benchmarks and report back.
  13. What do you mean by demo? Going through the list of games there's a different frequency for memory which tells me he's using different GPU's. At least Digital Foundry was uniform in their testing, using a Titan Xp and overclocking the CPU's to 4.4. Their testing showed that the 7800X beating the 7740X in all but Primal. That's an outlier that apparently doesn't like more than 4 cores.
  14. My question is, why is he using a GTX 1050 in some of his benchmarks? Why is he capping his framerate? His testing looks flawed. Digital Foundry found that the 7800X often beats the 7740X.
  15. It was pointed out over at overclockers through testing that the 6-8 core do in fact support full AVX512 throughput. @done12many2 & @TahoeDust can confirm this.
×