January 9, 20197 yr Fingers crossed! https://www.youtube.com/c/AMD/live AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, RTX 4080S, Ram - 32GB, 32" 4K Monitor, WIN 11. Eric Escobar
January 9, 20197 yr Author Bummer, no specs on the new ryzen... The GPU is too expensive to compete with Nvidia! AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, RTX 4080S, Ram - 32GB, 32" 4K Monitor, WIN 11. Eric Escobar
January 9, 20197 yr i7 6700K @ 4.6GHz, ASUS Z170-PRO GAMING, 32GB DDR4 2666MHz, 750W EVGA SuperNOVA, 512GB Samsung 960 PRO, 1TB Western Digital - Black Edition RTX 2080Ti (MSI trio), Corsair H115i - 280mm Liquid CPU Cooler
January 11, 20197 yr Author In the cinebench demo, the 9900k was running at stock frequencies, correct me if I am wrong but isnt that 5GHZ? AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, RTX 4080S, Ram - 32GB, 32" 4K Monitor, WIN 11. Eric Escobar
January 11, 20197 yr 7 hours ago, strider1 said: In the cinebench demo, the 9900k was running at stock frequencies, correct me if I am wrong but isnt that 5GHZ? Nope... or more accurately no and yes. 🙂 Turbo for 9900K is 5 GHz, but that's only on two cores. And only if it's just those two cores active. As soon as other crores fire up the frequency of all cores drops. That's how Intel Turbo works. So in the Cinebench run with all cores active, the 9900K will have dropped to it's minimum Turbo frequency on all cores of 3.6 GHz. Worth mentioning that the AMD CPU was an engineering sample not running at it's final frequency. So given that it was slightly ahead of the Intel 9900K in Cinebench, we can expect it to be further still ahead when it's up to the frequency it will ship at. How far ahead is impossible to know because AMD didn't tell us what frequency the engineering sample was running at. Same for the power consumption. 30% better than the Intel part, but when the AMD CPU it up at it's final frequency and voltage, we can expect power consumption to drop down from that 30% advantage. Should still be significantly better than the 9900K though.
January 11, 20197 yr On 1/9/2019 at 6:58 PM, IAhawkeyeDDS said: LOL!!!!!! My computer: ABS Gladiator Gaming PC featuring an Intel 10700F CPU, EVGA CLC-240 AIO cooler (dead fans replaced with Noctua fans), Asus Tuf Gaming B460M Plus motherboard, 16GB DDR4-3000 RAM, 1 TB NVMe SSD, EVGA RTX3070 FTW3 video card, dead EVGA 750 watt power supply replaced with Antec 900 watt PSU.
January 11, 20197 yr Author 5 hours ago, martin-w said: Nope... or more accurately no and yes. 🙂 Turbo for 9900K is 5 GHz, but that's only on two cores. And only if it's just those two cores active. As soon as other crores fire up the frequency of all cores drops. That's how Intel Turbo works. So in the Cinebench run with all cores active, the 9900K will have dropped to it's minimum Turbo frequency on all cores of 3.6 GHz. Worth mentioning that the AMD CPU was an engineering sample not running at it's final frequency. So given that it was slightly ahead of the Intel 9900K in Cinebench, we can expect it to be further still ahead when it's up to the frequency it will ship at. How far ahead is impossible to know because AMD didn't tell us what frequency the engineering sample was running at. Same for the power consumption. 30% better than the Intel part, but when the AMD CPU it up at it's final frequency and voltage, we can expect power consumption to drop down from that 30% advantage. Should still be significantly better than the 9900K though. Ok thanks! I was just trying to interpolate! AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D, RTX 4080S, Ram - 32GB, 32" 4K Monitor, WIN 11. Eric Escobar
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.