What’s the extra CPU?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Den-Fi said:

YOU HAVE MORE CORES?! WHERE?! GIBBBBBBBBBBB!!!!!!!

Let me check lol.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

The Ryzen 3 2300X(likely similar to a OC'd 1200AF) is about the same as the i5 7600, so while it got less threads than the 4790K it isn't as slow as you would think. The lowest end 7nm Ryzen 3 3100 beats the 4790K pretty easily and also matches the 6700K/7700K.

It took a low end 3rd gen ryzen to accomplish what a 4790K can do...... finally. AMD did it!! XD

[KaitouX]

11 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

It took a low end 3rd gen ryzen to accomplish what a 4790K can do...... finally. AMD did it!! XD

The Ryzen 1600 already had matched the 6700K(which is obviously faster than the 4790K) in most non gaming applications that could use the higher core count due to the higher thread count even though the cores were individually slower. The 3100 is just faster in every way(compared to Intel 4c/8t CPUs), while before it had somethings where Intel was still faster.

[Haro]

Just now, KaitouX said:

The Ryzen 1600 already had matched the 6700K

No it didn't ?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

The Ryzen 1600 already had matched the 6700K(which is obviously faster than the 4790K) in most non gaming applications due to the higher thread count even though the cores were individually slower.

The only thing a 1600 has on a 6700K is additional cores. Other than that, the IPC is much lower.

 

That was AMD's big sale. Core count and efficiency. They used Cinebench on pre-release to exemplify that. For gaming a 6700K is spanking the 1600X. 

[Haro]

Just now, ShrimpBrime said:

Other than that, the IPC is much lower.

And that imc was shit 

Utilizing the extra cores on the multiple ccxs to it's full was practically impossible 

[Guest]

Just now, TofuHaroto said:

And that imc was shit 

Utilizing the extra cores on the multiple ccxs to it's full was practically impossible 

The memory support did get better with bios revisions. That I am sure of first hand. 

Wasn't something spectacular, but better than at release time. 

I couldn't clock my 3000mhz sticks on my 1400 for a few months until a bios was released for better memory and system performance.

At least that was my experience on the A320 chipset. My B450M-A was and still is garbage for memory overclocking even with a Zen+ or Zen2 which both have better IMC than first gen. The board is just a POS for memory overlcocking. 

 

Naturally we all will have much better experience with higher end hardware, be it the board, cpu and memory especially. 

[KaitouX]

5 minutes ago, ShrimpBrime said:

The only thing a 1600 has on a 6700K is additional cores. Other than that, the IPC is much lower.

 

That was AMD's big sale. Core count and efficiency. They used Cinebench on pre-release to exemplify that. For gaming a 6700K is spanking the 1600X. 

That's why i said in most non-gaming applications(and added that can use the core count later). And with Zen 2 AMD got ahead IPC wise making the 3100/3300X possible.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, KaitouX said:

That's why i said in most non-gaming applications(and added that can use the core count later). And with Zen 2 AMD got ahead IPC wise making the 3100/3300X possible.

It's like trying to decide between a 2700X and a 3600X.

 

Sure the 3600X has better IPC, but the 2700X beats it with multi-threading.

 

which one would you buy then?

 

[kewtz]

You guys are a lot smarter than me when it comes to CPU stuff. 
 

What’s a good site to get some education about what to look for in the modern day and what the acronyms mean? 
 

Also I’m definitely hearing that a 3950x is perfect for me. 

[Haro]

Just now, kewtz said:

Also I’m definitely hearing that a 3950x is perfect for me. 

For browsing ?! 

HAHAHAH no.

Get an athlon if you just want to use the web and discord 

If you want somt a little better get a 3200g

[kewtz]

7 minutes ago, TofuHaroto said:

For browsing ?! 

HAHAHAH no.

Get an athlon if you just want to use the web and discord 

If you want somt a little better get a 3200g

That’s the point though, and my original question. 
For most people there is a such thing as an overkill CPU, right? 
 

It seems that a 10900k or 3950x would be in that definition. 
 

If a user wanted to buy once and cry once, and not have to upgrade for 8-10 years, wouldn’t those CPUs be a good choice?

[Haro]

Just now, kewtz said:

That’s the point though, and my original question. 
For most people there is a such thing as an overkill CPU, right? 
 

It seems that a 10900k or 3950x would be in that definition. 
 

If a user wanted to buy once and cry once, and not have to upgrade for 8-10 years, wouldn’t those CPUs be a good choice?

If your work load stays the same no it won't

If your planning on changing the work load getting a ryzen 7 3700x or a 10700k would make sense

They have really good ipc and they have 8 hyper threaded cores 

But if your planning on *just*browsing the web or using discord for the next decade then no 

The answer would still be the same 

Anything above a 3300x I would consider unreasonable

[KaitouX]

As example to help a bit more, here how it looks to watch Youtube at 4k(Linus video so not 60 fps), watch a 1080p video on MPV and video chat on discord and some other things in the background at the same time on a 4790K stock which is slower than the Ryzen 3 3100:

 

As you can see it basically any modern 4c/8t should do it pretty easily, even more if you aren't playing videos at 4k as dropping the resolution drops the usage too(around 10% from 4k to 1080p, and 1440p60 videos uses around the same amount as 4k30). If you really want to go overkill something like the Ryzen 5 3600 or Intel i5 10400(if you need iGPU) would be more than enough.