Read more.Quote:
The best single thread AMD performance ever is evidenced in the GeekBench run.
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
The best single thread AMD performance ever is evidenced in the GeekBench run.
This seems a little worrying, that's still quite far behind the results of the 9th gen Intel. I hope these are just bad engineering samples else it's making Zen 2 out to be still quite inferior :/
It's geekbench, I'd probably wait for some other benchmarks before making any solid conclusion... geekbench just doesn't seem that 'reliable' when it comes to comparing between brands imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
A TDP of under 50W for a desktop CPU would always be welcome !
Although I'm not sure how AMD's configurable TDP works.
The article say that is on par with the i7 8700k a $364 on amazon right now while the Ryzen 5 will sell for $199.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Not sure what have you smoked. :)
From the looks of things, the Ryzen 6 is still 10% slower than the 8700k
8700k Geekbench of 5885 vs Ryzen 6 5390
Maybe the Zen2 isn't going to take the single threaded IPC performance crown after all?
Isn't the 3600 7% slower than the 3800x.Quote:
Originally Posted by 00oceanic
Will wait for the final real reviews, but overall seems close enough either slightly up or down for what is less money and more cores.
the 8700K is clocked 20% higher which makes the Ryzen the IPC winner, its just that the 7nm process wont clock as high as Intels 14nm++++++ but i doubt we'll see a process clock that high again which is why Intel cant release a new desktop chip on 10nm as they dont seem to be able to clock it high enough to beat its older 14nm chips.Quote:
Originally Posted by 00oceanic
You do realise it's a non x chip running at max 4.2Ghz right? Of course it's not gna beat an 8700k at that clock speed.Quote:
Originally Posted by 00oceanic
It's a non x chip and we don't know what speed ram he was using or anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
So zen2 at 4.2 GHz beats skylake at 4.3-4.4 GHz? Back of the envelope math based on that suggests that zen2 at 4.8 GHz would beat a 5 GHz skylake, so the overclocking performance will be interesting.Quote:
Meanwhile this same 3rd gen Ryzen processor's single-core score matches the likes of the 8-core i7-7820X and the 18-core Intel Core i9-9980XE in GeekBench tests.
Athlons offer that (35W), and it must be possible to slightly downclock&undervolt one of the 65 W chips to hit 50 W if you fancy tinkeringQuote:
Originally Posted by albert89
Can't you read? --> "this same 3rd gen Ryzen processor's single-core score matches the likes of the ... ... 18-core Intel Core i9-9980XE in GeekBench tests"!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Not forgetting that this AMD is running only at 65W - which is only roughly about 50% the power consumption of the comparable Intel CPUs that it matches!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Quote:
Originally Posted by preter_s
https://media.giphy.com/media/qmfpjpAT2fJRK/giphy.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by preter_s
I keep seeing this, and it's a bullrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish figure to quote tbh. The i9-9980XE, whilst being a very expensive and powerful high core count CPU, does not score that amazingly in single threaded benchmarks. It's just a sensational sounding quote. It would make much more sense to compare single threaded scores against a 9700k or 9900k.Quote:
Originally Posted by preter_sCan't you read? --> "this same 3rd gen Ryzen processor's single-core score matches the likes of the ... ... 18-core Intel Core i9-9980XE in GeekBench tests"!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
Why you so upset, its just a few numbers on what may not be a retail sample on an unknown system/ram setup.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noxious89123I keep seeing this, and it's a bullrubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish figure to quote tbh. The i9-9980XE, whilst being a very expensive and powerful high core count CPU, does not score that amazingly in single threaded benchmarks. It's just a sensational sounding quote. It would make much more sense to compare single threaded scores against a 9700k or 9900k.Quote:
Originally Posted by preter_sCan't you read? --> "this same 3rd gen Ryzen processor's single-core score matches the likes of the ... ... 18-core Intel Core i9-9980XE in GeekBench tests"!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tabbykatze
The short of it here is the Zen 2 IPC has seen a very healthy boost, exactly where it is going to land compared to your precious 9700k. The point is its going to be close enough if not better while offering more cores at less money, what's not to like?
Likewise if you don't like it, pay for intel, then AMD IPC figures won't make your chosen intel cpu any faster or slower.
Really tempted to upgrade my 1700X, but probably not worth it right?
It's noteworthy given the clocks on the 3600 - as it's the lowest clocked of the bunch, high end ryzens will be 10% higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by Noxious89123
Other way of looking at it is that the 3600 is about half the price of either of those CPUs, so the real comparison will be with low-end intel (with the 3600 higher clocked than the 9400, and only slightly slower in boost speed than the 9500). The 9980XE is faster than the 9400, but only a few percent short of where it should be in hexus pifast tests going by the clockspeed difference (9.8% higher speed, 6% higher score, so 97% of the IPC) - assuming pifast is accurate for modern CPUs, of course
Vs my 1700 most everything has a 10-20 percent increase. While other things the 1700 still has a lead in. Good enough till the 3700 benchmarks can be tested against.
Hmm so it might be worth an upgrade after all! But might also rather put the money into getting a new case. Ill wait to see how 3700 is for gaming I guess
How it compares against Ryzen 5 1600? Ideally one that is OC to the same freq as 3600. There we could see any improvements.
I think a clock per clock performance test is easier, Stick em both at 4Ghz and there you can see IPC gains (if that particular 1600 is nicely binned anyway)Quote:
Originally Posted by darcotech
Can you clarify your logic and your goals, and how it's really different than what PC-LAD said? (Neither comment was particularly clear, TBH.)Quote:
Originally Posted by PC-LADI think a clock per clock performance test is easier, Stick em both at 4Ghz and there you can see IPC gains (if that particular 1600 is nicely binned anyway)Quote:
Originally Posted by darcotech
It seems like there's two or three things to look at: IPCs differences between gens (ie, single core at the same frequency, and the actual frequency wouldn't matter), potential single thread performance (ie, single core tests but either both at the native or both at OCed clocks), overall performance differences (ie, all cores, either both at stock or both at OCed, again, to be fair). One would also need to be fair about RAM speeds across the board, noting that RAM OC stability on first gen Ryzen mobos was pretty bad in many cases, and a huge pain, but RAM speed boosts provide substantive performance gains.
Anything more ambiguous in testing setups isn't particularly useful.