|
EdEddnEddy posted:Do you think it could be possible they are seeing it OC to 5Ghz on Air/Water? Doubtful, but 4.something lowish is very probable.
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 08:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
According to a reddit user the guy on the left says this was the used heatsink   lol if Zen does cinebench at 5 Ghz with all cores cooled by hunk of scrap aluminium.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
it might just be stopping at 4.0ghz with a cooler like that and they didn't expect that much cinebench out of an AMD 8-core that sure as hell ain't a 95w cooler tho
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
probably. Those tweets and the facebook picture of the cooler kind of make it seem like it ran Cinebench at 5Ghz on air but really that'd be absurd. (dumb link to random speculative thread was here) eames fucked around with this message at 12:40 on Feb 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 12:32
|
|
|
I don't think that guy in particular was actually there, though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 12:33
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:I don't think that guy in particular was actually there, though? yeah, you're probably right and the 5 Ghz is just random speculation by a random twitter user. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 12:39
|
|
|
As far as I'm concerned it runs at 0Ghz until I see benchmarks from people I trust. I still remember how Fury would be an "Overclockers Dream", trust nothing I say. 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
EdEddnEddy posted:Also that first gen i5 beating "modern" AMD's lol. Bulldozer IPC literally dropped from the Phenom II level, so it's not super surprising Bulldozer is supremely poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
I really wonder if there was anything left to wring out of the Phenom core, I've heard people say that moving to 32 and 28nm wouldn't have really helped Phenom at all, that it was an utterly dead design.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 13:43
|
|
|
The problem wasn't replacing it, the problem was that they replaced it with something that was more or less poo poo in every way.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
WhyteRyce posted:I thought Intel's deal let them charge the same price throughout the life of the console. So instead of the cost going down over the life of the console, Intel kept getting to charge the same price for a laughably out-dated CPU I think that was the nvidia chipset & GPU they got hosed by. Intel was willing to undercut to freeze out AMD, but nvidia didn't need to do the same to compete -- this being before the ATI-AMD merger and at a time when nvidia was massively dominant over ATI & PowerVR. Also microsoft didn't really know what they were doing at the time of the first Xbox. There was a neat storytime on the giantbombcast where Gerstman was talking about how MS was pretty crazy and acting like their hardware was gonna set the world on fire, despite having no games at first.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
more "leaks" appearing on reddit.  this is supposedly a R5 1600X (6C12T/ 3.3Ghz base/3.7 Ghz boost) but the TDP model code doesn't match. A R5 1600X should be 95W but the code in the screenshot says 65W. (decoder pic here) for reference:  (img source) edit: changed comparison picture although it's probably inaccurate and should show 65W TDP eames fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Feb 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 21:41
|
|
|
What's the estimated price on that? Like $400? For half the power envelope (give or take, IIRC Intel and AMD calculate differently) of the 6800K, my hype juices are flowing. AMD CPU and Platfrom Discussion Threadripper: Turgid with Hype Juices If it all falls apart: AMD CPU and Platfrom Discussion Threadripper: Say It Ain't Suuuuuuuuuu
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:What's the estimated price on that? Like $400? For half the power envelope (give or take, IIRC Intel and AMD calculate differently) of the 6800K, my hype juices are flowing. The six core is below the 1700x and 1700. The 1700 is an octocore rumored to be priced at 320, iirc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:What's the estimated price on that? Like $400? For half the power envelope (give or take, IIRC Intel and AMD calculate differently) of the 6800K, my hype juices are flowing. leaked pricing is ~$260 for the R5 1600X and ~$230 for the R5 1500. This one seems to be an unknown model between the two because it has the TDP of the R1500 and frequency of the R5 1600X — could be the R5 PRO 1600. edit: fixed model numbers! eames fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Feb 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 21:53
|
|
NewFatMike posted:What's the estimated price on that? Like $400? For half the power envelope (give or take, IIRC Intel and AMD calculate differently) of the 6800K, my hype juices are flowing. The 1600X is supposed to be the $260 chip. Fake edit: EFB 
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
Oshit
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
NewFatMike posted:What's the estimated price on that? Like $400? For half the power envelope (give or take, IIRC Intel and AMD calculate differently) of the 6800K, my hype juices are flowing. Reminder: the RX 480 was poo poo because GloFo hosed up, Fiji was a disappointment advertised as an "overclocker's dream", Bulldozer was hyped like crazy even though it under-performed Phenom II's IPC, etc. Wait for loving benchmarks, I can't express this enough times. When Anandtech, TechReport, and TechPowerUp get their hands on retail samples and do a broad suite of benchmarks - then I'll get hyped. Not an instant before. And I'm saying this as someone who is pretty seriously considering building a mITX rig in a Mini-Box M-350 case that is super tight on ventilation/etc for programming and video encoding. I am the ideal user and mITX X99 hardly exists as a product (except for like, that one motherboard that's packed to capacity and costs $300). I would love 6 cores at $150 or whatever, and I really don't care about IPC on this build. But just wait a few weeks for the loving benchmarks people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
Weren't benchmarks for Man with Shovel showing quite poor single core performance before official release?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
apparently these are pics that the same guy posted but deleted shortly after — some guy on reddit mirrored them http://imgur.com/a/Us02h if the first cinebench score is singlethreaded (146 cb in case it gets deleted) with turbo then their neural network SMT implementation accounts for >30% of the total multithreaded score? bad news for gamers but I wouldn't be surprised. edit: i3-4360 (3.7 Ghz Haswell w/o turbo) scores 149 cb, i7-7700k scores 193 cb stock and 214 @ 5Ghz eames fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Feb 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Cinebench is designed to be highly parallel so running it single-threaded gets you a really lovely result. Wouldn't be surprised if a 7700K in single threaded Cinebench spat out something really sad looking
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Kazinsal posted:Cinebench is designed to be highly parallel so running it single-threaded gets you a really lovely result. Wouldn't be surprised if a 7700K in single threaded Cinebench spat out something really sad looking I mean, a lovely result unless you compare it to other single-threaded benchmarks. That's kind of the point of doing a single-threaded benchmark in the first place. Everybody knows that's a maximum - with N threads you will get absolutely no more than N times speedup/performance increase - unless there is some systergenic effect from running a gang of processors. That's Amdahl's law. The 7700K is pretty secure in terms of single-thread performance AFAIK. Not even AMD is claiming it'll beat Haswell let alone Skylake let alone Kaby - they just imply it and do some leaks and the hype train does the rest. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 23:10 on Feb 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Apparently a 4970K at 4.7 GHz gets cb 193. gently caress I don't even know how to interpret benchmarks these days, I'm just gonna wait for actual verifiable game benchmarks and poo poo
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
isolated benchmarks are pretty useless on their own, a composite test suite with a single setup needs to be made, really that said, everything is pointing towards margin-of-error within Haswell and I'm not expecting any more than that
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 23:14
|
|
|
I don't think Amdahl's law applies for loads that run 100% parallel (which seems to be the case in cinebench)
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
Comparing it with the 7700K for ST performance is pretty dumb. If it happens to be a miracle or an actual overclocker's dream then that's lovely, but what matters really is that it's ahead of the 6900K, which it seems to be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 23:16
|
|
|
the only reason why I added the 7700k is because it's the best ST CPU and benchmarks are readily available. it looks like the 7700k gains an additional ~25% from ST -> MT cinebench with hyperthreading so the 30% indicated by those leaks seem about right. as anime schoolgirl said it looks like IPC will be exactly on par with Haswell and there's a good chance that Zen will scale better with more threads thanks to a solid SMT implementation. now excuse me while I contemplate buying some $AMD 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
eames posted:now excuse me while I contemplate buying some $AMD Yeah gently caress I wish I had done that a year ago. Coulda dumped my savings into AMD instead of buying an Accord and instead bought a mid-late 90s NSX now, goddammit
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
eames posted:I don't think Amdahl's law applies for loads that run 100% parallel (which seems to be the case in cinebench) The raytracing itself will be 100% parallel, but the initial step of generating the BVH is much trickier to parallelize. There's numerous ways to do it but you never get perfectly linear speedup with cores. e: OTOH Cinebench uses very simple geometry so BVH construction takes a negligible amount of time v v
repiv fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Feb 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Reminder: the RX 480 was poo poo because GloFo hosed up, Fiji was a disappointment advertised as an "overclocker's dream", Bulldozer was hyped like crazy even though it under-performed Phenom II's IPC, etc. Wait for loving benchmarks, I can't express this enough times. When Anandtech, TechReport, and TechPowerUp get their hands on retail samples and do a broad suite of benchmarks - then I'll get hyped. Not an instant before. It's a good thing then that they probably aren't coming out with any mITX boards that support Ryzen for awhile, so sounds like it'll be the same situation or worse for you as it with X99 right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Jesus, it's like every day I wake up, there's a new goddamn leak. Is this just AMD's new marketing strategy now or something?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
This is pretty impressive since it's 6900k with turbo vs 1800X with turbo disabled and Ryzen is still doing quite well, it's still just passmark though. http://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-1800x-8-core-benchmarks/
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 01:32
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Jesus, it's like every day I wake up, there's a new goddamn leak. Is this just AMD's new marketing strategy now or something? THREADRIPPER is still nowhere to be seen officially  SourKraut posted:It's a good thing then that they probably aren't coming out with any mITX boards that support Ryzen for awhile, so sounds like it'll be the same situation or worse for you as it with X99 right now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
Well, it's certainly effective, it's got this thread going with more action than I've seen in a year, but I think they started the burn way too early.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 01:34
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:that's what the X300 "null" chipset is for, btw Yeah, but I thought there aren't any X300-based mITX boards coming out until later in the spring supposedly?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 01:42
|
|
|
eames posted:According to a reddit user the guy on the left says this was the used heatsink Yea, I totally don't believe that for a second. Being wrong would be fantastic but I'm going to say - no way, not unless they're disabling a bunch of cores and probably not even then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 01:55
|
|
|
Do any of the people with early preview hardware have benchmarks with browser-based benchmarks (like sunspider, jetstream, etc)? Been trying to search for it and not coming up with anything, and frankly being able to handle various in-browser tasks is pretty important.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
SwissArmyDruid posted:Well, it's certainly effective, it's got this thread going with more action than I've seen in a year, but I think they started the burn way too early. compared to what happened with Bulldozer and JFAMD running his mouth everywhere implying things that he knew nothing about before launch, this has been very well done
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
Does AMD do aggressive binning for their processors? I was wondering if it would be worth getting the 1800x over the 1700x
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 09:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 11:45 |
|
|
One thing I still don't understand is why AMD litetally copied Intel's mistakes with Bulldozer? Longer pipeline so you could achieve more megahurtz... Couldn't they see how well it worked with Netburst?
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2017 09:56
|
|
