Will AMD win high end gaming now?; Ryzen 9 4950x specs leaked

[dizmo]

The real interesting Intel vs AMD CPU battle will come next year, not this year.

[hollyh88]

13 hours ago, Derangel said:

 

5Ghz doesn't matter and there really isn't need for core increases on mainstream processors right now.

yes there is a reason to increase core count. consoles will have 8 cores and 16 threads now. thus games will be optimised for that. and in my opinion that would make releasing another 6 core pretty pointless. i wish they would just up the core count. but maybe they will. specs arent out yet. i just hope it will. 

[hollyh88]

15 hours ago, RejZoR said:

People fell into the same Gigahertz craze as with Pentium 4's back in the day. Clock is NOT everything. And Athlon XP proved that well back in the day running dramatically lower clocks and still kicking Intel's butt. Hell, I remember my AMD Thunderbird 1GHz being as fast as 1.2GHz Pentium 3's. And later Intel's Core CPU's proved that too. They came with very tame clocks yet they beat everything in their path with ease. You just don't need to push 5GHz if your CPU logic is designed in such a way that it can reach needed performance at only 4.7GHz. And Ryzen 3000 series was already there except serious edge cases. New series hitting same or even higher clocks by a bit and extra IPC on top, they'll be great performers.

well yea i know they will perform great i just would have liked to see the 5ghz so they can stick it to intel  

but im more upset about the core count lol 

[RejZoR]

11 minutes ago, hollyh88 said:

well yea i know they will perform great i just would have liked to see the 5ghz so they can stick it to intel  

but im more upset about the core count lol 

I know what you mean. We all like nice round numbers Problem with core count though is that Ryzen CPU's have hard time hitting high clocks when a lot of cores are present, especially in games that are highly multicore aware. They'll put some light load on a lot of cores, core clocking logic will detect that and start dragging overall core clock down because of global load on the CPU. Meaning it'll hardly ever hit the full turbo clocks in games and that kinda blows because what that means, in a lot of cases CPU's like 3600X with 4.4GHz boost end up running in games at only something like 4.1GHz which despite IPC boosts means it's not really even threatening my ancient 5820K which runs at 4.5GHz on ALL cores no matter the conditions. Single thread or multi thread, it's always 4.5GHz on all 6 cores and 12 threads. And that's my biggest pet peeve. It looks nice on paper with high boost clocks, but realistically, it's rarely hitting those max turbo clocks. In general Ryzen CPU's with more cores fared worse when it comes to turbo clocks for this reason. It's been adjusted a bit over time, but still...

 

Which is why I think AMD is sticking with 16 cores and 32 threads. It's really plenty of cores and threads for any game, but they need to pump up the turbo to really go hard with clocks. Pairing those clocks with extra IPC and it'll go fast. And that's what you need for games over just raw core count which might not be as helpful.

[The Benjamins]

53 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

I know what you mean. We all like nice round numbers Problem with core count though is that Ryzen CPU's have hard time hitting high clocks when a lot of cores are present, especially in games that are highly multicore aware. They'll put some light load on a lot of cores, core clocking logic will detect that and start dragging overall core clock down because of global load on the CPU. Meaning it'll hardly ever hit the full turbo clocks in games and that kinda blows because what that means, in a lot of cases CPU's like 3600X with 4.4GHz boost end up running in games at only something like 4.1GHz which despite IPC boosts means it's not really even threatening my ancient 5820K which runs at 4.5GHz on ALL cores no matter the conditions. Single thread or multi thread, it's always 4.5GHz on all 6 cores and 12 threads. And that's my biggest pet peeve. It looks nice on paper with high boost clocks, but realistically, it's rarely hitting those max turbo clocks. In general Ryzen CPU's with more cores fared worse when it comes to turbo clocks for this reason. It's been adjusted a bit over time, but still...

 

Which is why I think AMD is sticking with 16 cores and 32 threads. It's really plenty of cores and threads for any game, but they need to pump up the turbo to really go hard with clocks. Pairing those clocks with extra IPC and it'll go fast. And that's what you need for games over just raw core count which might not be as helpful.

but a 3600x at 4.1 should be faster per core then a 5820k at 4.6 due to IPC advantage (except the cache latency bound areas)
EDIT, a stock 3600x scores 10% faster then the fastest 5820k on HWbot in R20

3700~ vs 3344

[pas008]

21 hours ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

True, but games evolving could make AMD better. Games now just use 4c usually, but in thw near future games may use 8c, maybe even could take advantage of a 64c

 

19 hours ago, The Benjamins said:

Games been using 6c for a little while now, and there are already games that use 8c fairly well.

 

1 hour ago, hollyh88 said:

yes there is a reason to increase core count. consoles will have 8 cores and 16 threads now. thus games will be optimised for that. and in my opinion that would make releasing another 6 core pretty pointless. i wish they would just up the core count. but maybe they will. specs arent out yet. i just hope it will. 

im not so sure in the near future cores frequency etc in gaming might not matter at all when we all start pushing 4k or higher resolutions but we need these 4k 144hz panels out first at reasonable price along with the gpus and thats where the milking comes out from other companies

[Derangel]

2 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

yes there is a reason to increase core count. consoles will have 8 cores and 16 threads now. thus games will be optimised for that. and in my opinion that would make releasing another 6 core pretty pointless. i wish they would just up the core count. but maybe they will. specs arent out yet. i just hope it will. 

Current consoles had 8 core APUs and yet it was only in the last few years that game engines started being heavily threaded on the PC.

 

Edit: The entire "consoles have this so that means PCs will be optimized for that" argument is entirely based on bad information and expectations. The sheer fact that consoles being all AMD based meaning jack all for PCs for the last 6 years should prove why it is a flawed argument.

[-rascal-]

7 hours ago, hollyh88 said:

yes there is a reason to increase core count. consoles will have 8 cores and 16 threads now. thus games will be optimised for that. and in my opinion that would make releasing another 6 core pretty pointless. i wish they would just up the core count. but maybe they will. specs arent out yet. i just hope it will. 

 

That is what everyone said when the AMD FX-series CPUs came out, and again with Ryzen 1000-series.

Yet, look at how the current and upcoming generation consoles are using high-core count APUs, but are slower compared to their Desktop PC counterparts.

Variable resolutions (changing on-the-fly) to get the target "60 FPS."

Hell, PCs can do constant 144+ FPS for a while now, at fixed 1080p or 1440p, even 4K with certain games.

Not varying in-game graphics, or Medium / Low settings, too.

 

Also see how a 4-core / 8-thread is still able to kill ass in gaming as of mid 2020.

3300X outperforming a 12-core / 24-thread 3950X.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3581-amd-ryzen-3-3300x-cpu-review-vs-3100-clock-for-clock

 

Sure increase core count, but the DEVELOPERS need to incorporate that into their game code.

Why is a 64-core ThreadRipper not face rolling everything in gaming?

Doesn't matter is the next Call of Duty #15 can only address 6-cores...

 

High core count = more heat generated = lower CPU frequency to stay within reasonable TDP ratings.

Look at how the i9-10900K 125W chip, but once you push all 10-cores to 5.2GHz+, that "125W" is now 315W+.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/3587-intel-core-i9-10900k-cpu-review-benchmarks

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

6 minutes ago, -rascal- said:

 

Also see how a 4-core / 8-thread is still able to kill ass in gaming as of mid 2020.

See, I would love a cpu like that. 4c4t, I'm getting fps problems, with GPU at 60/70 and 80c. I love my 7400.

[-rascal-]

15 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

See, I would love a cpu like that. 4c4t, I'm getting fps problems, with GPU at 60/70 and 80c. I love my 7400.

 

It is the 4 less threads that is holding you back. Not only that, but the base clock of 3.0 GHz and maximum boost of "up to" 3.5 GHz. Intel sat on their 4-core / 4-thread ass for too damn long.

 

My friend also has a i5-7400 in his system, and he has noticed performance limitations due to his CPU, paired with his RX-580.

 

If you can get a hold of a i7-7700 / 7700K, that would extend the life of your system for a bit longer.

 

That 3300X review that I linked *actually* has the i7-7700K in the comparison charts, so you can see how it stacks up against the AMD 3300X / 3600 / 3700X, Intel i5-9600K, etc, etc.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, -rascal- said:

 

It is the 4 less threads that is holding you back. Not only that, but the base clock of 3.0 GHz and maximum boost of "up to" 3.5 GHz. Intel sat on their 4-core / 4-thread ass for too damn long.

 

I know. I also only game at 720p, so that got could probably play ultra Doom eternal with better cooling.

[pas008]

10 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

I know. I also only game at 720p, so that got could probably play ultra Doom eternal with better cooling.

raising resolution relieves cpu

becomes less of a bottleneck

[Helpful Tech Witch]

4 minutes ago, pas008 said:

raising resolution relieves cpu

becomes less of a bottleneck

I have a 720monitor, So I can't do 1080p or up. Wouldn't raising the reasolution just press GPU harder, and not relieve the cpu?

17 minutes ago, -rascal- said:

f you can get a hold of a i7-7700 / 7700K, that would extend the life of your system for a bit longer.

There isn't a point, as a r5 3600 and a mini int board for my new build I'm saving for would cost about 300, which is the price of a 7700k used, and if I'm doing 450$ for a new cpu (like a new 7700k) there is a whole lot of ryzen that I can pick.

[pas008]

22 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

I have a 720monitor, So I can't do 1080p or up. Wouldn't raising the reasolution just press GPU harder, and not relieve the cpu?

 

yeah it takes the stress off the cpu

if you look at 4k benchmarks you will see all cpus almost within 10% of each other

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900xt/17.html

 

 

so once 4k becomes the norm cpu isnt really going to matter much from gaming stand point

[Letgomyleghoe]

On 8/18/2020 at 5:58 AM, Moonzy said:

zen 2 and intel scores about the same in cinebench single core scores, i think

but there's still clear difference in gaming somehow, i thought it was to do with latency? guess not?

They do, 3950x vs 10900k, the 10900k (this is at stock letting it boost) only beats the 3950x slightly in single core.

[AlwaysWong]

AMD  better get their asses together on the GPU department. My custom settings through AMD Radeon got reset out of nowhere. DDU did not fix at all.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

6 minutes ago, AlwaysWong said:

AMD  better get their asses together on the GPU department. My custom settings through AMD Radeon got reset out of nowhere. DDU did not fix at all.

Ok, chill. This is about cpu. 

 

You chilled?

 

This problem is probably caused by a problem the GPU ran into. These problems can be game crashes, overheats, or the PC not being shut off correctly.

I have a 480, and every time I run into a problem with a oc, I have my wattman settings reset to defaults.

[-rascal-]

53 minutes ago, AlwaysWong said:

AMD  better get their asses together on the GPU department. My custom settings through AMD Radeon got reset out of nowhere. DDU did not fix at all.

 

43 minutes ago, TheTechWizardThatNeedsHelp said:

Ok, chill. This is about cpu. 

 

You chilled?

 

This problem is probably caused by a problem the GPU ran into. These problems can be game crashes, overheats, or the PC not being shut off correctly.

I have a 480, and every time I run into a problem with a oc, I have my wattman settings reset to defaults.

 

Yes, can confirm with my 5700 XT as well.

If the drivers crash, or whatever, Wattman will reset your overclock / fan profile to default.

 

Make and save a Wattman profile file.

Reload the after a driver crash.

Done.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, -rascal- said:

Waterman

Ha! My phone corrected to the same thing!

[cj09beira]

1 hour ago, pas008 said:

yeah it takes the stress off the cpu

if you look at 4k benchmarks you will see all cpus almost within 10% of each other

 

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-ryzen-9-3900xt/17.html

 

 

so once 4k becomes the norm cpu isnt really going to matter much from gaming stand point

except then the fps will be higher and cpus will matter again, but at the end of the day as long as you have enough cores cpus dont matter much

[Helpful Tech Witch]

9 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

except then the fps will be higher and cpus will matter again, but at the end of the day as long as you have enough cores cpus dont matter much

For gaming.