Steam installieren
Anmelden
|
Sprache
简体中文 (Vereinfachtes Chinesisch)
繁體中文 (Traditionelles Chinesisch)
日本語 (Japanisch)
한국어 (Koreanisch)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarisch)
Čeština (Tschechisch)
Dansk (Dänisch)
English (Englisch)
Español – España (Spanisch – Spanien)
Español – Latinoamérica (Lateinamerikanisches Spanisch)
Ελληνικά (Griechisch)
Français (Französisch)
Italiano (Italienisch)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesisch)
Magyar (Ungarisch)
Nederlands (Niederländisch)
Norsk (Norwegisch)
Polski (Polnisch)
Português – Portugal (Portugiesisch – Portugal)
Português – Brasil (Portugiesisch – Brasilien)
Română (Rumänisch)
Русский (Russisch)
Suomi (Finnisch)
Svenska (Schwedisch)
Türkçe (Türkisch)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamesisch)
Українська (Ukrainisch)
Ein Übersetzungsproblem melden
Diskussionsregeln
Diesen Beitrag melden
Specific to R20 and the exact scores provided with the exact low thread speeds shown.
Intel holds a ~3% lead in single core Real World performance, but they have to have a 600Mhz core speed boost to make 3%... Thats comparing the 4.5Ghz listed speed on vs 5.1Ghz listed speeds with lsited scores.
So if @ 4.5 Ryzen 3000 loses by 3%, if we proporionally scale that using points:Mhz we can see that a 4.642Ghz ryzen *should* by the numbers produce one point higher score, aka, match or beat. At this point its simple math. Intel cant do much more to push higher on power/temps at this point. AMD has them.
Its no different than Pentium 4 era, when AMD Athlons could do the same ammount of work in fewer cycles.
Right now, in R20, Intel take one cycle longer per point earned. That adds up to a deficit so bad that to keep the lead Intel has to push +600Mhz but AMD will take it all back with less than 200Mhz boost. The XT parts will be the parity parts to Intel from the 3000 line *right* before they drop 4k down intels throat.
Intel cant get to a new node fast enough, and its killing them. Their CPU sales have tanked :/
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/73040/mindfactory-data-amd-is-outselling-and-smashing-intel-87-to-just-13/index.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR3PLEZU6p2j9zo_PgSv23bO4--ebXiuoskXwYFiVyikOFsECC4cLTxqufg
^^In the first week of June alone^^
And despite what NV fans want you to belive they are outselling NV cards on the GPU side too.
Yes, Intel and NV parts still outnumber them in the wild, but on both sides AMD is outselling their competitors. And against Intel, they are smashing them.
"Real world performance" OMG
The New Ryzen 3000 XT series boost clock will be 4.4 Ghz to 4.5 Ghz.
Not more than that.
Read comment No. #53.
This is not true. AMD Athlons have pretty much limited than Intel P4 for almost everything what my family and I can do with this CPU. If program required SSE2, then it won't work on AMD Athlons except Intel P4.
Sorry, but sounds like you tow are talking some revisionist history.
Early P4's were toasted by the Athlon thunderbirds, MP, and early XP's...
https://www.realworldtech.com/p4-vs-k7/#:~:text=The%20recently%20introduced%20Intel%20Pentium,has%20the%20new%20Palomino%20core.
Yes, mid life AMD lost footing to Intel for a short while, when Intel refreshed the P4 and got a solid but short lived lead over the Athlon XP lineup...
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/pentium-4,407-4.html
...but before the Prescott cores were released AMD had already struck back with s754/939 Athlon 64 and 64x2 chips, with a 939 x2 easily toasting anything Intel had in the day.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/1164
Intel was on the back seat performance wise from that point until they got to S775 and put out the Core 2 lineup which finally put them back in the lead. The whole time that they were lagging they were having to push higher power draws, higher heat, and higher core speeds to keep the P4 lineup relevant vs the competition...
Sound familiar?...
None of that has anything to do with the statment that the P4 failed vs the Athlons, which it did, both at the start and the end, and most of its life.
And for posting that you had this to say:
You like to insult others, you dont bother to back yourself up, and then you go off about somehting that has no impact on the discussion. lolz
I love AMD. Same reason Everybody loves AMD.
Because AMD offers more value. That is the BASE of the AMD's success.
Ryzen 3000 series was great.
8 cores with Hyper Threading. Ryzen 3700x is only $270 now. With free cooler. And cheap B450 motherboard. I will choose this deal any day over intel. That's why everybody loves AMD.
The deal.
But SAME 8 core CPU for $400 and without cooler, And expensive Motherboard?? Not a deal anymore. No one even touch the Ryzen 3800XT with a 10 feet pole when they can get an i7 10700K full setup (with motherboard and cooler) for SAME price. Which offers better Single core, better Multi core, Better gaming, and far better resale value.
Now that AMD is on a level with Intel again, they're trying to get the most $ out of it - it's part of their (and Intel) business concept
1. 3800XT has the same MSRP as the 3800X, 3800X MSRP is lowering, so at least there's that as well. Nothing to ♥♥♥♥♥ about there.
2. As I stated before, and as AMD confirmed like a month ago, B450 will support Zen3 and the refresh CPUs, so no, you don't need to buy a freaking B550 or X570 to use it, and a decent B450 shouldn't have a problem with it.
3. Nobody uses the cooler, as tons of people here have stated. The only people who don't use the stock cooler are people who A) can't afford it for some reason or B) don't care.
4. It isn't the same price for the 10700K rig, because:
a) 10700K uses considerably more power and needs a better PSU as a direct result.
b) Needs a considerably better cooler to actually reach and maintain Intel's ♥♥♥♥♥♥ new TVB boost clock, otherwise you'll never get the full advertised speed.
c) Higher power draw = higher power bill; amounts to very little bit that still adds to overall cost
d) Intel is really only better in gaming, and anything less than a 2080 Ti on a 10700K is pretty much a waste considering every GPU currently out is a bottleneck on the 10700K and 10900K.
In the majority of multi-threaded workloads, the 3800X wins against the 10700K. 3800XT having a higher average core frequency will be more than enough to continue bashing the 10700K in those workloads, and that can be more important to a particular user than Intel's raw gaming performance. (Which really only makes a difference in games like CS:GO anyway, under normal circumstances in the latest titles you're not going to see the difference between AMD and Intel unless you're staring at an FPS counter.)
Intel P4 is older than AMD Athlons.
Yes, absolutely. This is why I remember Socket 775 as Intel's glory years. What a time to be alive.
True facts. Jim Keller designed a hell of a CPU with Ryzen. Saved the company arguably. However, I would say ditching the mistakes of Bulldozer required "copying" Intel in some ways. Not really their fault though, they tried to do their own thing with Bulldozer and software devs didn't want to optimise for their shared-resources core design. They had to do what they had to do.
It's fun to reminisce though.
I was young back then, but I remember lots of people falling for the "gigahertz myth" tactics of Intel. I wouldn't say it 'failed' them entirely. The sneaky bastards pulled it off in a lot of ways.
Pentium 4 failed and was dead end, Core i is most successful microarchitecture in the world. Feel the difference?
(Cinebench).
https://www.cpu-monkey.com/en/compare_cpu-amd_ryzen_7_3800x-930-vs-intel_core_i7_10700k-1140
And,
Here is the gaming benchmarks between those 2 CPUs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vxx--rcElOM&t=3s