![]() ![]() | Page #: 5/8 |
![]() |
@alvar89 | 7 March 17 |
It is obvious the ipc is very competitive against broadwell-E so it is fairly possible it can be optimized into games soon. Its a completely new chip and need time to be worked on. Even intel took its time with x99 and still is buggy.
|
||
![]() |
@alvar89 | 7 March 17 |
@ spartan2 - 7.03.17 - 04:13pm Well your second problem is they are also probably 6 months away. Ryzen just doesn't look like a competitive gaming architecture. It looks like best case scenario the low end quads could be decent against the low end i5s if they are priced accordingly. But chances Kaby Lake will overclock better going from what we know of how poorly the 8 core Ryzens do relative to 6900k. Even the weak fx 8320 was a competitor if you remember with its embarassing ipc. This time they have it very close to intel so things will be different when its sorted out. Especially the price will compete well. Its not good yes that they did not leave much headroom for overclocking on the 8 cores but that does not mean the 6 and 4 cores will lack it also. |
||
![]() |
@spartan2 | 7 March 17 |
Broadwell E is replaced in the summer as well though ![]() It's all well and good against years old Broadwell and an old X99 platform but actually it has to face down Skylake and Kaby lake in just a few months Why can't Ryzen do more than 4ghz without bonkers voltage and extreme cooling? 6900k can. It doesn't bode well for the cheaper parts. Intel can dump 10 percent on their clocks for Skylake X and with the IPC advantage position a 6 core against Ryzen 8 cores and win. |
||
![]() |
@alvar89 | 7 March 17 |
@ spartan2 - 7.03.17 - 04:19pm Broadwell E is replaced in the summer as well though ![]() It's all well and good against years old Broadwell and an old X99 platform but actually it has to face down Skylake and Kaby lake in just a few months Why can't Ryzen do more than 4ghz without bonkers voltage and extreme cooling? 6900k can. It doesn't bode well for the cheaper parts. Intel has had the edge in refining there chips opposed to amd with its completely new chip. Im sure they will try to make it run alot better also and will win some ground. |
||
![]() |
@spartan2 | 7 March 17 |
AMD have got just a few months to try and put their 4 and 6 cores through hardware revisions to ramp the clocks. On the evidence shown here they are gonna need at least 15 percent more clock speed to compete against Kaby Lake i5 parts. It's just not happening, I'm telling you now ![]() |
||
![]() |
@alvar89 | 7 March 17 |
The 6900k might clock higher but is definetly a bad buy compared to the 1700x.
|
||
![]() |
@spartan2 | 7 March 17 |
Yes it is, but my point was it'll easily run 4.5ghz in the same conditions an 1800X can only do 4ghz. Just that alone should make you realise Ryzen obviously isn't remotely as refined and puts question marks over the eventual speeds they can reach on 4 and 6 core parts. This really matters, if they are launching a 4 core without an iGPU it has to be a success as gaming part, you are adding a discrete card. But on this evidence it'll be weak. You are gonna end up needing like a 4.2ghz Ryzen to match a 3.8ghz 7600k, let alone the 7700k. Which leaves AMD at the lower end again. |
||
![]() |
@alvar89 | 7 March 17 |
Past has shown amd take there time in optimizing tho. Even there gpu-s mature way better than the competition.
|
||
![]() |
@alvar89 | 7 March 17 |
@ spartan2 - 7.03.17 - 04:28pm Yes it is, but my point was it'll easily run 4.5ghz in the same conditions an 1800X can only do 4ghz. Just that alone should make you realise Ryzen obviously isn't remotely as refined and puts question marks over the eventual speeds they can reach on 4 and 6 core parts. This really matters, if they are launching a 4 core without an iGPU it has to be a success as gaming part, you are adding a discrete card. But on this evidence it'll be weak. The ryzen does peak out out of the box at 4.1ghz with its xfr boost. On the 6900k you need a great cooler to hit 4.5ghz tho. I imagine ppl buying the 6900k wont go for the clockspeed rather go for its cores. |
||
![]() |
@spartan2 | 7 March 17 |
@ alvar89 - 7.03.17 - 04:31pm The ryzen does peak out out of the box at 4.1ghz with its xfr boost. On the 6900k you need a great cooler to hit 4.5ghz tho. I imagine ppl buying the 6900k wont go for the clockspeed rather go for its cores. It can do 4.1ghz on one core on like one model of board with great cooling. Boost clocks are rubbish on it, which explains why it struggles so much. 1800X has been reported to be unable to boost to it's frickin rated 4ghz in multiple circumstances. 4ghz on all cores is the limit and you really need water. You can get 4.4-4.5ghz on air on a 6900K. This is just typical AMD again telling little porkies. Like the TDP, these are without doubt 140w parts from every test seen. Hardly anyone will buy a 6900K like they won't an 1800X, it's a niche market. The argument put forward from the start was whether AMD can deliver fast 4 and 6 cores. The benchmarks shown so far say they won't. The mainstream is what really matters and if you are delivering a quad core for the gaming segment and your architecture is crap at gaming ![]() |
||
![]() ![]() |