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
Funny thing... That stress test didnt run for hrs, it ran about 48 minutes...
Also funny thing...
The 3900x will beat that 10900K in any load worth using such a CPU on... And will do it with ~200w at the wall under full load where the intel one will want ~230+ at the socket...
Are you actually trying to tell me what my own thread is about? The thread is about the hardware that I have and trying to run it to its best, and my current trashy Gigabyte Auros motherboard being incapable of doing that so yes I will trash Gigabyte motherboards.
https://www.trustedreviews.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-9-3900x
Cons
Intel still has the edge for gaming
https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/amd-ryzen-9-3900x-review/
AGAINST
Most apps don't need 12 cores
Technically a bit slower in games
Weak overclocking potential
So more lies coming from you.
Intel is only better in gaming, AVX-512 (AMD has no support for it), and a select few programs like Adobe (in the case of multi-threaded CPUs, the 9700K has no HT so it's an even worse value than a 3700X to people who care about HT/SMT)
However, the 3900X has the same gaming performance as a 9700K, but for around 100$ more (in Canada) you're getting 4 more threads, multi-threading (SMT), similar gaming performance, but considerably better multi-core performance on a socket that when paired with a 500 series motherboard allows for an upgrade path to Ryzen 4000, while 9th gen is a dead end for Intel because Intel has abandoned the LGA1151 socket after all these years.
1. Some people are running heavily multi-threaded workloads very frequently, and that's what higher-core and multi-threaded CPUs like Ryzen 9 and Intel Core i9 CPUs are designed for, literally. Intel only called their 9900K and 10900K the "ultimate gaming CPU" so that gamers would shell out more money to them, even though when in reality it's only better than the 9700K in gaming because of the higher clock speed; when both the 9700K and 9900K are at 5GHz all-core OC, they have nearly identical gaming performance within a margin of error.
2. GPUs should be always running at 99~100% usage, if it isn't then it's possibly being bottlenecked by the CPU if you're not limiting the framerate...
And there's nothing damaging about a CPU running at 100% either, it's just that if the CPU lacks the number of cores necessary to run the program, it'll run poorly.
3. The problem isn't false advertising, the problem is your lack of understanding. The BIOS of those boards do actually support that speed, the problem is that if the RAM hasn't actually been validated for the motherboard that there's no guarantee that BIOS will actually properly apply the XMP profile, and Micron RAM is usually ♥♥♥♥ and has the worst compatibility and overclockability. I have Hynix C-die but have no problems overclocking my RAM from 3200 CL16 to 3600 CL16 (with slightly looser timings).
Wrong. The whole point of additional cores is to increase performance for applications that are capable of utilising more cores, not to "reduce strain" on the CPU.
The only reason Intel has been raising core count is because AMD did it first. Intel only raised the cores on their i5s and i7s because AMD released 8 core Ryzen 7 and 6 core Ryzen 5 in 2017, while Intel was saying that it wasn't really possible or that there was no point before that period.
Why are you all so full of this defensive ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥?
I GOT A BRAND NEW GIGABYTE AURUS Z390 ITX THAT SAYS IT SUPPORTS 4400 MHZ RAM BUT IT WONT RUN ANY HIGHER THAN 3200. THIS IS A BRAND NEW CURRENT BOARD NOT AN OLD ONE. AND IT IS ONLY BECAUSE OF THIS I NOW HAVE TO UPGRADE BECAUSE I CANT GET AN ASUS Z390 ITX ANYMORE!
Thank you for proving you know absolutely nothing whatsoever.
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=micron+e+die+overclocking&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Crucial-Ballistix-BLM2K8G44C19U4B-Desktop-Gaming/dp/B083TSCQSX
Micron E Die right there, 4400 Mhz out of the box if you want to pay however much it costs. Its the second best ram for overclocking on the market.
Even with brand new motherboard chipsets, there isn't a guarantee for 4400 MHz support with every single 4400 MHz kit, that isn't how it works. RAM is more difficult to work with than you seem to realise, and it takes many hours of testing and tweaking to get RAM working properly when you OC RAM yourself.
You also danced around the fact that I mentioned that BIOS is responsible for correctly applying XMP profiles, and if it's not on the QVL, it may not actually work correctly with that motherboard, so when looking for RAM, use the damn QVL.
AGAIN I ALREADY HAVE THE RAM I DIDNT BUY NEW RAM I NEED A NEW MOTHERBOARD THAT WILL SUPPORT IT AND GIGABYTE DOES NOT. EVERYONE ALL OVER THE INTERNET ALREADY SAYS GIGABYTE ARE ♥♥♥♥ FOR RAM OVERCLOCKING, I BET YOU CANT EVEN SHOW ME ONE CASE OF ANY RAM RUNNING OVER 4000 MHZ ON ANY GIGABYTE AUROS BOARD.
That's a bit funny coming from someone who can't get their RAM working properly, while I had zero issues overclocking mine, and I could go even higher if I wanted to.
Such rage.
I'm literally using Gigabyte, no problems with RAM OC. It's heavily based on opinion more than anything.
It works fine on Asus boards idiot, it doesnt work on ♥♥♥♥ tier Gigabyte.
3200-3600 mhz isnt a ram oc. ♥♥♥♥ tier.
Literally using Gigabyte on par with Gigabyte's current X570 mid range (Top tier Gigabyte) from 400 series) and it does work.
Brand has nothing to do with it. RAM can work if you make it work when it doesn't, most people just want to throw a crap XMP profile on and leave it alone.
I also suggest not talking the way you're talking, because you won't last long on Steam forums acting like this.
You're technically OCing, considering that you're asking the ram to run faster than Intel's officially supported ram speed of 2666Mhz for 9th Gen and 2933Mhz for 10th gen.
Since when? Intel has hardly any gain above 3000 MHz outside of heavily RAM dependent programs, while 3200 MHz is most viable for AMD Ryzen with 3600 MHz the sweet spot in terms of performance and stability.
Going above that is literally only important for systems that need it (HEDT), caring above RAM speed that fast is just stupid regardless and something that the power-obsessed would care about, when in reality the difference between 3600 MHz and 4400 MHz in performance metrics is absolutely tiny in 99.9% of programs.