Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
MSI VIGOR GK71 SONIC Blue keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor review
FSP Hydro G Pro 1000W (ATX 3.0, 1000W PSU) review
AMD 10-core Ryzen 2800X in response to Intel Core i9-9900K?
Do you remember when Ryzen 2000 (Zen+) launched with the flagship processor being the Ryzen 7 2700X? We all felt that was a little weird, as the previous generation had a Ryzen 7 1800X. In my 2700X review, I already mentioned that AMD might be holding back processors, waiting on Intel to release the Core 9000 series processors.
Well, it's a bit confusing to see really, but a screenshot leaked showing a partially Cinebench score based on a processor called Ryzen R7 2800X. The shocking thing here is that it is listed as being a 10-core processor. The news of this 10-core part surfaced at elchapuzasinformatico and the picture shows clock speeds in Cinebench at 4.00 GHz with a reportedly multi-core score of roughly 2130 points.
To be brutally honest, the photo is a bit of a clusterfrack to see as 10-cores does not make any sense whatsoever. ZEN+ dies have 8 cores, only a multi-die proc would be able to achieve 10 cores. And even then the core complex is in multitudes of four cores, so 12 cores would be the next logical step. There's also no source mentioned of that photo and the 'R7' entry does not match up as well, as that should read Ryzen 7 2x00X.
So that's enough disclaimers I think, grains of salt included.
Warrax
Senior Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-01-08
Senior Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 2007-01-08
#5583282 Posted on: 09/11/2018 03:46 AM
And what you get for extra cores? NOTHING IN MOST CASES while IPC/IPS affects performance in absolutely everything even in multicores environment. People will never win the "more cores is better than ipc" argument unless everything scales like crazy which it doesn't.
And what you get for an extra 1 GHz? Not too much.
And what you get for extra cores? NOTHING IN MOST CASES while IPC/IPS affects performance in absolutely everything even in multicores environment. People will never win the "more cores is better than ipc" argument unless everything scales like crazy which it doesn't.
Jayp
Senior Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 2018-07-02
Senior Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 2018-07-02
#5583289 Posted on: 09/11/2018 04:34 AM
Couldn't agree more. I have both 2700x and 8700K systems and I much prefer to use my intel system for high refresh QHD with 1080 ti. Ryzen just isn't as well rounded yet for that purpose.
Makes all the difference if you're a high refresh rate gamer such as myself.
Couldn't agree more. I have both 2700x and 8700K systems and I much prefer to use my intel system for high refresh QHD with 1080 ti. Ryzen just isn't as well rounded yet for that purpose.
Jayp
Senior Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 2018-07-02
Senior Member
Posts: 151
Joined: 2018-07-02
#5583290 Posted on: 09/11/2018 04:39 AM
My opinion is that Ryzen FEELS snappier/smoother than Intel, but if you care only about bigger numbers, you should be a theoretical mathematician in the first place.
Intel is a stuttery and choppy and hiccups mess (did you notice your cursor stops moving for 1 second for absolutely no reason ? No such thing on AMD). No idea why all Intel SKUs since the beginning of time have this problem.
I transcode movies with 50% CPU utilization on AMD while playing games and nothing changes about the game, no more input lag like it does on Intel, no blocking like it does on Intel, no lockups like it does on Intel, no audio crackle like it does on Intel. You cannot fu****g listen to music on some Intel SKUs without audio crackle while playing certain games.
AMD feels like it doesn't max out when it reaches 100% per core.
As an owner of both 8700K and 2700x I don't see the snappiness you refer to in your post. The 8700K is much more snappier in the daily use and performs better for high refresh gaming. My Ryzen system is great when I need more CPU power for things like encoding for me personally. I DO NOT find Ryzen even overclocked with good memory to be snappier in most software. They have their uses but not as many people benefit from Ryzen 8 cores over a good Intel 6 core. Ryzen is definitely more powerful when all cores are utilized but you have to have a use case to reap the extra performance.
My opinion is that Ryzen FEELS snappier/smoother than Intel, but if you care only about bigger numbers, you should be a theoretical mathematician in the first place.
Intel is a stuttery and choppy and hiccups mess (did you notice your cursor stops moving for 1 second for absolutely no reason ? No such thing on AMD). No idea why all Intel SKUs since the beginning of time have this problem.
I transcode movies with 50% CPU utilization on AMD while playing games and nothing changes about the game, no more input lag like it does on Intel, no blocking like it does on Intel, no lockups like it does on Intel, no audio crackle like it does on Intel. You cannot fu****g listen to music on some Intel SKUs without audio crackle while playing certain games.
AMD feels like it doesn't max out when it reaches 100% per core.
As an owner of both 8700K and 2700x I don't see the snappiness you refer to in your post. The 8700K is much more snappier in the daily use and performs better for high refresh gaming. My Ryzen system is great when I need more CPU power for things like encoding for me personally. I DO NOT find Ryzen even overclocked with good memory to be snappier in most software. They have their uses but not as many people benefit from Ryzen 8 cores over a good Intel 6 core. Ryzen is definitely more powerful when all cores are utilized but you have to have a use case to reap the extra performance.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5583332 Posted on: 09/11/2018 08:13 AM
You are right. 6C/12T intel definitely does not suffer from 1s freezes. That must be something with OS.
But as you go into not as many people benefit... there you have to face facts. And it is cost vs. benefit. That's: what you save on CPU/MB is going towards GPU. And with today prices vs. needs...
Average gamer should not be getting 2700X, yet alone more expensive 8700K. They should aim at 2600X and invest saved money towards GPU.
You see it at all graphs everywhere. While 8700K can get you higher fps, it is with high end GPU. It does not matter at all when you can barely afford even GTX 1060 moment you go for 8700K. So, it is better to get GTX 1070(Ti) and Ryzen 2600(X).
As an owner of both 8700K and 2700x I don't see the snappiness you refer to in your post. The 8700K is much more snappier in the daily use and performs better for high refresh gaming. My Ryzen system is great when I need more CPU power for things like encoding for me personally. I DO NOT find Ryzen even overclocked with good memory to be snappier in most software. They have their uses but not as many people benefit from Ryzen 8 cores over a good Intel 6 core. Ryzen is definitely more powerful when all cores are utilized but you have to have a use case to reap the extra performance.
You are right. 6C/12T intel definitely does not suffer from 1s freezes. That must be something with OS.
But as you go into not as many people benefit... there you have to face facts. And it is cost vs. benefit. That's: what you save on CPU/MB is going towards GPU. And with today prices vs. needs...
Average gamer should not be getting 2700X, yet alone more expensive 8700K. They should aim at 2600X and invest saved money towards GPU.
You see it at all graphs everywhere. While 8700K can get you higher fps, it is with high end GPU. It does not matter at all when you can barely afford even GTX 1060 moment you go for 8700K. So, it is better to get GTX 1070(Ti) and Ryzen 2600(X).
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Posts: 22421
Joined: 2008-07-14
What?
I've never seen any of that on multiple intel systems.
That sounds like a lot of user error IMO.
I've experienced the audio crackling on several Intel systems. That's why I don't use onboard audio. It only really seems to be a problem when an older Realtek audio chipset is used. I never thought to test with the Realtek audio chipset on my Z170 board. I tried to test it with another (non-Realtek) integrated audio chip, but the crackling persisted regardless of the CPU load.
Aside from the audio crackling, I've never seen the other issues claimed, but I also don't try to do CPU intensive tasks in the background while gaming. I've had no problem listening to music while playing any game, regardless of CPU....unless you take into account the insane amount of crackling from Realtek audio chipsets. Stick with a dedicated sound card and no crackling seems to happen.