AMD 10-core Ryzen 2800X in response to Intel Core i9-9900K?
Click here to post a comment for AMD 10-core Ryzen 2800X in response to Intel Core i9-9900K? on our message forum
Pimpiklem
No phone photo is ever legit.
clearly hiding something from the start.
Valken
I agree with Hilbert and President Trump on that 10 core leak:
https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/75683788/its-all-fake-news.jpg
glutto
Maybe it's a 4x 10-core 20-thread processor?
So..... 40 cores and 80 threads?
...or something?
...or see above image?
cryohellinc
Consumer variant has more cores than Threadripper? No just no.
I'm with @Hilbert Hagedoorn on this one, doesn't seem legit.
Jagman
I've seen plenty of talk about 8 core CCXs on Zen 2 (7nm) but getting 10 cores on Zen+ with 4 core CCXs..... Nope.
Glottiz
Problem is 9900K will comfortably run 5Ghz (if not more) on all cores, which is excellent for gaming and productivity, while AMD is still stuck in 4Ghz range.
MrMean3r
I wonder if it would be possible to run the third CCX on only two cores in such a was as to gain more single thread performance? It would probably be a core affinity nightmare, but it would be nice to see a single core performance boost on and AMD processor.
Just a thought . . .
Jagman
Agreed, the 9900K could well be the best all round CPU that Intel have made to date.
Paulo Narciso
For games it will be slower than 8 cores, unless they pull a rabbit out the hat and gives us a smell of Zen 2 with 12nm.
rl66
About the multiple of 4 core only... AMD already do it's multiple of 2 core CPU with 3 cores in the past (ok it was 4 cores with one disabled... but it was 3 cores).
Anyway we will see when reviewed by serious people (Hilbert can be a good exemple 😉 )
BReal85
And what you get for an extra 1 GHz? Not too much.
For a price of? Oh yeah.
Fox2232
At morning, quick google found original source which is over 2 days old. not really interesting since all metadata have been removed.
Just ignore it.
Jagman
^^ That's the problem with Intel, the price. £450 ish is looking likely in the UK, that's why I'm waiting for Zen 2, more in my price range 🙂
wavetrex
Not gonna happen.
But, it is possible to make a real 4.5 Ghz turbo 2800K.
TR 2950X already boosts to 4.4 natively, so with a single die AMD might be able to tweak it further.
The real difference between 5 Ghz Intel and 4.5 Ghz AMD is just 12-15% (including IPC), when adding GPU limits and various other inefficiencies of the game engine... it translates to basically nothing. For example, 65 fps vs 62 fps, nothing to be concerned about.
RzrTrek
Makes all the difference if you're a high refresh rate gamer such as myself.
Abilio_KID
Xeon X5650 with 12C/24T? Mine doesn't do that o_O
mat9v9tam
I think AMD would not have much of a problem with creating 6 core CCX in 12nm as is expected to be present in 7nm. The chip in 7nm is done, it is being produced for EPYC.
Unless they are taking a small amount of 7nm chips for Epyc and planning to release them as 2800X. It is strange seeing it as 4Ghz since Cinebench 15 shows either base clock (and 4Ghz would be strangly high for base clock) or max OC speed if overclocking is done by multiplier.
airbud7
must have at least 11 cores before i get one
FeDaYin
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.
Fox2232
This is correct, Ryzen 2700X can do easily 4,45~4,5GHz with 102~103% BCLK.
Issue is that other devices can't handle it. Clock looked nicely in my testing, no need to bump voltage either.
But Main Issue there is Power consumption. It spikes up. And load on 2 cores is enough to heat CPU to 65C and more. This results in reduced multiplier set by PBO.
I did not try manually setting regular 43,5x multi and BCLK to 103MHz. But that would put static clock to all cores and require sh*tload of power at idle.
