- Joined
- Oct 28, 2012
- Messages
- 1,190 (0.27/day)
Processor | AMD Ryzen 3700x |
---|---|
Motherboard | asus ROG Strix B-350I Gaming |
Cooling | Deepcool LS520 SE |
Memory | crucial ballistix 32Gb DDR4 |
Video Card(s) | RTX 3070 FE |
Storage | WD sn550 1To/WD ssd sata 1To /WD black sn750 1To/Seagate 2To/WD book 4 To back-up |
Display(s) | LG GL850 |
Case | Dan A4 H2O |
Audio Device(s) | sennheiser HD58X |
Power Supply | Corsair SF600 |
Mouse | MX master 3 |
Keyboard | Master Key Mx |
Software | win 11 pro |
It's not like Intel got a 8 core 4ghz cpu either. Beside, and it's been said several time, Amd was only trying to show off the architecture improvement of zen clock-to-clock. 3Ghz is just a round number. I'm seriously doubting that reaching 3ghz on a x86 8 cores would be impossible. I mean excavator was a power hungry beast yet they managed to sell that thing at 5ghz on a 32nm made by global foundries. Unless zen is a super dense, ultra complicated, over engineered,optimised with the feet chip, they shouldn't have trouble at 14nm. Remember that GCN can't reach high clock because it's a very busy, dense chip, while Nvidia chip have a simplier design that's why they can reach 2Ghz, if tsmc was able to make amd gain 600mhz they would have gone with them.Wouldn't be the first time. Athlons (XP, 64, X2) ran a good GHz below the processors they competed with. It's likely that AMD is clock-for-clock better than Intel but it is also likely Global Foundries can't produce 4 GHz CPUs like Intel can. AMD has to ship what they have because they can't afford delays--just like Bulldozer. Zen will no doubt be the best architecture AMD has ever produced but if Global Foundries can't deliver it on a good process, AMD will not come out on top.
The fact of the matter is that AMD wouldn't have underclocked the Intel processor if it could straight up beat it.
Yes the athlon cpu didn't have huge Ghz like the pentium 4 , but they didn't need to. The pentium 4 were all about moar Ghz from the ground up, and that didn't work out so well, the pentium III were faster than the first pentium 4 at the same clock.
Until AMD officially communicate on core clock we shouldn't make any assumption.
Fooled over and over and over. Polaris is a good example. The fanboys pumping AMD stock claim that Polaris was and is a smashing success, but I see no improvement in the AMD vs Nvidia matchup compared to last generation. Pascal has ~70% higher FPS/W. AMD is absent a flagship. In the low-mid range, Polaris "competes" by having more expensive architecture. Polaris cards are OOS because of poor supply, not high demand. AMD got a small bump in GPU market share earlier this year because of the R9 380 and Fury sales. I don't see anything with Polaris that is pushing that higher, rather it could very well head the other direction.
To all the fanboys, do you understand why AMD lost so much market share to Intel and Nvidia in the last few years? Do their new GPU and CPU designs really put them in a better competitive position? Polaris is the only one we've seen, and the answer is no. It's hard to imagine Zen faring worse than Excavator vs Intel, but where it will actually land is pure speculation. I'm 99% sure that AMD is exaggerating Zen performance, and they are only fudging benchmarks comparing it to Broadwell! Granted Broadwell will still be quite decent a year from now. Probably. Intel might actually get off their asses and give us a significant bump. At any rate based on past hype vs reality, I don't expect any miracles from AMD.
Don't forget that Broadwell-E is the most recent X99 (therefore 6core+) architecture. X99 cpu are always one architecture behind compared to the mainstream chips.