Hot Chips conference announced - AMD holds keynote on Zen 2 and Navi in August

#5670650

FrostNixon

2019-05-18 14:58

Ah they are delaying my htpc even further...

#5670693

Fox2232

2019-05-18 19:15

MonstroMart:

More than likely none. The 2700x will perform worse or equal than a 6700k in most of the non multi-thread friendly and non cpu intensive games (mostly all games). The main reason for him to upgrade to a 2700x would be if he's doing something else with his PC (if it's a workstation used primarily for work and also for gaming). If he streams he'll get on average better performance with the 2700x too. He could get better performance on some newer games that are either multi-thread friendly or cpu intensive. Not worth it imo better wait for the new Ryzen cpus or buy something from Intel if he's just gaming they are still king.

4C/8T is already in Gaming console category. You either run Game, or do something else. Forget about multitasking. Plain and simple. And it does not matter who made that Quad Core with SMT.

#5670714

Fox2232

2019-05-18 20:57

BlackZero:

More cores introduce latency due to complexity, and result in no benefit due to the largely asymmetrical nature of games. However, there are a few exceptions that are mentioned quite often, but these must follow a non standard design, and as a result come across as looking not very optimised. In fact, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I may even be thinking back to the stories about invisible rivers running under cities. 😀 A very high per thread performance processor like the 9900K would indeed be a true upgrade, but its time hasn't yet come as far as gaming is concerned.

Issue is not in performance each core delivers but core count. Check your task manager. Add column for process priority. And look for all i/o related threads which have high priority and therefore can't be choked by game threads. Well, I guess nobody will be surprised by all that having "Normal" priority and that it has to fight with games and other applications. Important part is not in how high fps CPU can produce with top GPU. Important part is how smooth gameplay is. (Many people are lucky or damned by their insensitivity to stutter. Or their inability to distinct difference between 60/90/120/240fps. But even then it has impact.)

#5670726

airbud7

2019-05-18 22:01

I think they know zen 2 is still slower than a 9900k from 2018.... I would say they're avoiding embarrassment.

#5670847

TheDeeGee

2019-05-19 16:56

airbud7:

I think they know zen 2 is still slower than a 9900k from 2018.... I would say they're avoiding embarrassment.

But 5 years from now a 9900K will be as fast due to new security holes found in that CPU.

#5670850

airbud7

2019-05-19 17:06

TheDeeGee:

But 5 years from now a 9900K will be as fast due to new security holes found in that CPU.

that is not a legitimate excuse to purchase a slower product.

#5670905

Aura89

2019-05-19 22:17

airbud7:

I think they know zen 2 is still slower than a 9900k from 2018.... I would say they're avoiding embarrassment.

PSA in regards to this quoted post above: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/619526493/troll-web_400x400.jpg

#5670923

nevcairiel

2019-05-20 01:04

DW75:

About 6 months ago, an 8 core Zen 2 engineering sample was already matching an i9 9900K, so stop posting bullshit. With the IPC gains AMD have achieved, they will only need to hit 4.5 Ghz or better to beat Intel this round.

"Supposedly matching". Rumors and leaks are not always fact, and even first party claims (ie. from AMD) are often rose-tinted. Lets stay real on both sides of the argument here. 🙂 Its only a few more weeks until we'll know. We'll all be happy if it matches or beats a 9900K both in MT and ST. AMD will have new fast CPUs, and Intel will lower their prices. Buyers of both sides win!

#5670925

airbud7

2019-05-20 01:09

Aura89:

PSA in regards to this quoted post above: https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/619526493/troll-web_400x400.jpg

so I'm a troll for stating the obvious?...or are you just one of them fanboys?

#5670937

user1

2019-05-20 03:00

airbud7:

I think they know zen 2 is still slower than a 9900k from 2018.... I would say they're avoiding embarrassment.

what makes you say that? the only demo of zen 2 desktop amd showed was vs a 9900k with multi-core enhancement on,(basically tdp unrestricted) and it was on-par at the very least. and even if it was still slower, what does it say about intel, to be losing market share in a dominant position, after having a 12 year lead, thats far more embarrassing than catching up

#5670939

airbud7

2019-05-20 03:12

user1:

what makes you say that? the only demo of zen 2 desktop amd showed was vs a 9900k with multi-core enhancement on,(basically tdp unrestricted) and it was on-par at the very least. and even if it was still slower, what does it say about intel, to be losing market share in a dominant position, after having a 12 year lead, thats far more embarrassing than catching up

I guess we'll find out the truth on release date...when ever that is? PS: intel is not going anywhere anytime soon...they are just fine an amd is looking really good too! good times. an for the record I would love a new ryzen 2700x or 8700k/9900k setup...there all fast!

#5670969

Astyanax

2019-05-20 07:47

zen 2 is on par with 9900k clock for clock. its the clock for clock part that's the problem.

#5670991

fantaskarsef

2019-05-20 08:53

Well... certainly I too think they're maybe directing their immediate attention towards the server market. Good so, since Intel clearly shows that exactly in the professional market, security is a thing. I am not happy about the prospect of Ryzen3K desktop CPUs being delayed. I can only groan imagining the usual AMD launch: later than people expected, low availability...