Overclock.net banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 898 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,389 Posts
Depends on how hard you throw it...
 

·
486DX2 66
Joined
·
3,604 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by umeng2002 View Post

Depends on how hard you throw it...
:::doo doo dat:::

wheee.gif
.. well, pretty tasty considering they are showing a 4 ghz 8 core for half the price of a 6900k. Finally the market will get shaken up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,049 Posts
Looks to be around 10% slower per clock.

This is about what I expected it to be.

I also expect Intel's chips to clock around 10% higher...

All in all 8 core Ryzen vs 6 Core i7 will be an interesting fight - 20% faster since threaded performance from Intel. 20% faster multi-threaded performance from AMD.

We'll see if that ends up being the reality. I place very little faith in the current speculation which is out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
626 Posts
Looks right in line with all the other leaked benchmarks we have seen so far, per-core strength nearly identical to Broadwell. Ryzen is really going to live or die on how well it can be overclocked. If the quad/hex-cores can reliably get into the 4.5ghz+ range, we have a winner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
811 Posts
As a 7700k owner who plays games and am in no rush to render or encode when I do, wew lad. I still wish AMD would have taken the gaming crown, but happy I made the best choice for my needs. History continues to repeat itself. I'll be purchasing Vega regardless of anything nVidia does.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,678 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by variant View Post

No increase going from 3.2 Ghz to 4 Ghz? There's a bottleneck.
Likely the low memory speed with high timings we have seen every Ryzen chip using :/
I really hope all those extra encryption parts in their memory controller dont limit the speed but I know that isnt likely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
830 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by budgetgamer120 View Post

I think that was artificially done to not reveal all information and keep it unknown.
That's weird since they didn't do the same for the lower sku CPU under it. Could you not extrapolate per core overclock improvements based on that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
811 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by budgetgamer120 View Post

I think that was artificially done to not reveal all information and keep it unknown.
Perhaps they are all turbo boosting to a similar max clock.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ducegt View Post

As a 7700k owner who plays games and am in no rush to render or encode when I do, wew lad. I still wish AMD would have taken the gaming crown, but happy I made the best choice for my needs. History continues to repeat itself. I'll be purchasing Vega regardless of anything nVidia does.
Yeah, right. Considering that for gaming needs it's enough of basically any CPU above average.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
811 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by variant View Post

The turbo boost is in the CPU ID. 3.4 for the 4 core and 3.7 for the 6 core.
I'll take your word for that. I'm not sure how that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Game256 View Post

Yeah, right. Considering that for gaming needs it's enough of basically any CPU above average.
No such thing as enough. A 20FPS difference between 90 and 110 is no big deal, but it makes a big difference down the road when comparing 30FPS with 50.
 

·
News Junkie
Joined
·
8,232 Posts
  • Rep+
Reactions: ForNever

·
Registered
Joined
·
790 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie2009 View Post

hmm, run a quick test there.
For comparison, my 3770k @ 4.8ghz scores 12,824
oh , AMD Quad core at 3.2 Ghz => 10177
 

·
News Junkie
Joined
·
8,232 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xuper View Post

oh , AMD Quad core at 3.2 Ghz => 10177
Yup
redface.gif
 
1 - 20 of 898 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top