Notional
-
Posts
4,621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Status Updates
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store Home
Everything posted by Notional
-
He's comparing boost clocks, guarantee'd by the 1800x to manual overclocks on the 6900k. If you want to do that, the 1800x can do 5+ghz on ln2 and the 6900k can only do 4ghz. See I can do bs comparisons too.
-
So less than 4.5 in general? We don't know what 1800x "gems" can do yet. None the less, the 1800x seems to either match or beat 5960x in plenty of software, but of course it depends on OC.
-
It IS more power efficient. 35w to be precise compared to the 6900k, shown somewhere else here. I still don't get why you talk TDP, when all I've ever mentioned is direct power draw. TDP is heat output, but something tells me you didn't know that.
-
Which is a high overclock on a slower IPC than Ryzen. You're not gonna see 6900k reach that clock rate often.
-
Again, I never mentioned TDP, I mentioned power draw. Keep up.
-
So 35w less at stock, and 37 more OC'd? I don't see a huge issue with that. However your graph doesn't show how much the 6900k or the 1800x are OC'd?
-
Intel has no 8 core that does 4.5ghz "lol". Ryzen 5 might hit those clock rates though, if you need fewer but faster cores. Well I'm not exactly responsible for other people's statements. Based on leaks and what we know, there was nothing pointing to AMD beating Kaby's IPC. What anandtech is showing, however, is the 1800x being damn close to the 6900k in most stuff, again at half price. I'm not comparing TDP, I'm comparing direct power draw, as shown in PCPer's review. You don't have a need for one with a 7700k + a 5960x. I don't understand why you ever thought you would? Intel doesn't have anything better themselves.
-
But the 6900k won't beat an oc'd 5960x either, so why would you think the 1800x would? If IPC was identical, and the clock rate is too, so would the performance be. SO again, just a sidegrade (although the 1800x is much more power efficient). You're basically getting a 5960x with better power usage at half the price. Not sure why people are complaining. Neither is anything Intel makes then. No one ever claimed this CPU would beat the highest end Intel has to offer.
-
So you have their old highest end part and their newest highest end z270. What did you think the 1800x would be better at? The 7700k beats the crap out of that 5960x in games, and the 7700k gets its ass handed in multithreaded apps. 7700k is great at gaming, when games only uses few cores, because they are more clock rate dependent. Not exactly news is it? But you're still missing the point that the 1800x is only 10-15% slower than Intel's 8 core parts, but at half the price. Also 1008x has a lower idle power draw than kaby lake. That's insane!
-
Comparing an 8 core to an 8 core? Not really. Not same platform, and much much cheaper (half price in fact). You'd be an idiot to buy a 6900k over the 1800x (or 1700x), unless you really need those PCIe lanes.
-
Same could be said about the 7700k vs. the 6900k. I guess the 6900k is shit then?
-
I'm not sweeping anything. Read again, I'm stating I don't know what the consequences of that is yet. The 1800x isn't competing with the 6900k, and I haven't claimed it either. 6900k is still TWICE the price for what? ~15% more performance? You would only ever pay that if you need the extra PCIe lanes. Ryzen 7 lies between z270 and x99 as a CPU, but at z270 prices. That is impressive however you look at it. A higher cored CPU running a lower clock rate surprises absolutely no one. It's like that on Intel parts as well. 7700k might very well be better for most old games where clock rate is more important. However, games are getting massively multithreaded, and quad cores are already starting to show weaknesses. Again, if you ever only use 4 cores, why buy an 8 core part? IPC would be horsepower pr rpm, and clock rate would be rpm. I don't know how you could mess up such a simple analogy
-
Latency is higher, but so is the bandwidth compared to the 7700k. Still not sure how these things are affected or if BIOS updates can improve upon them. Handicapped? That's a VERY strong word to use about a CPU that beats the 7700K in multithreaded apps. AMD wins some and loses some, just like Intel, so I hardly see an issue here. The 1800x is ~50% more expensive than the 7700k, but the 1700x is only ~15% more expensive at 100mhz less or so? That's where the price to performance destroys Intel. In the end, of course, it depends on your core needs. If you cannot utilize 8 cores, then look out for the Ryzen 5 instead (hopefully it will be clocked higher). Performance is exactly where we knew it to be: IPC around broadwell levels give or take depending on the software tested.
-
That's even more impressive than I thought. The 6900k is 10-15% faster or so, AT TWICE THE PRICE! Price to performance blows Intel out of the water, not even a contest. I do wonder what the impact of the different RAM setup has: Both Intel systems has 4x8GB vs Ryzen's 2x8GB. Could skew some of the RAM bandwidth intensive tasks.
-
Just checked. If Google's time converter is correct, it should be right.
-
NDA press date is 2nd March 9AM CT (slide 2-51). Make sure the countdown is that time, the guy who made it, might hade derped.
-
https://countingdownto.com/countdown/amd-ryzen-release-countdown-clock
-
Here's a picture of a delidded Bristol Ridge APU, which we know is a single die: 1 die, 2 solder pads, just like Summit Ridge (Ryzen). -
As you can see, that is one die, not 2 fused together. No splitline between them. It's 2 pads, and they don't fuse together, because they are too thin.
-
Well AMD just announced a coop with Bethesda, to get all their (new I guess), games to support Vulkan. So I assume that will be based on the Doom engine or so? Maybe even Prey will support it. Should gain AMD massive performance boosts. Then again, the only reason to prefer Vulkan to DX12, is really the platform agnostic nature of Vulkan.
-
If devs make the effort to get DX12 to work, they will have done a lot of the work for Vulkan too. Good DX12 support should improve Vulkan adoption, not make it worse.
-
Yeah, it made little sense. But unlike Polaris, it also sucked at tessellation and rendered a lot of crap that never made it to the screen. The only thing fiji had going for it was HBM, which ironically became it's biggest problem since games easily use more than 4GB of VRAM these days.
-
Sure.. just like proper asynchronous compute support... Soon ™ Anyways, great news. Now that NVidia doesn't suck ass at DX12, maybe more devs will actually start using it. And maybe the NVidia bribed sponsored games, won't gimp the frack out of DX12 *cough*ROTTR*cough*.
-
Indeed. However, I think a lot of it can be attributed to HBM. Fiji's architecture wasn't good enough (ineffective). Polaris changes that, and Vega will continue that improvement. Waiting for HBM2 might have been a delaying issue, or maybe it's getting such an impressive chip on 14 nm with a new interposer? Who knows. However, I agree with @leadeater that launching this chip outside of NVidia's launch cycles could be very beneficial to circumvent the "mindshare" @adoredtv is talking about. Of course, that can only happen if Vega is actually better than Pascal or at least much better in price/performance. Again, the vast majority of gamers DON'T buy Titan XP's, 1080ti's or even 1070. For most people, a 1070 is very high end (being priced what 1080 should have been certainly doesn't help). After all, AMD regained 7%points of marketshare with 470 and 480 (460 too I guess).
-
Indeed. Personally, I would prefer a 100hz monitor. Not necessarily for gaming, as I prefer high quality graphics over high fps, but rather the more fluid movement in windows desktop and browsing. Especially when scrolling, you'll notice the difference. Why I thought the CF791 would be amazing. But then it was 8 bit, which I can live with. And a wonky VESA mount, which I can live with too. But flicker on the freesync. ARG! The new Asus suffers from the same as well, although not quite as bad it seems.
