GP discusses the latest CPUs & GPUs

Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
(5 votes)
Results 15,601 to 15,625 of 15710

  1. Post
    5820K vs R5 1600 for Adobe Premiere?

  2. Post
    1600 looks to have more horse power in general. Uses less power and you can upgrade the CPU pretty easily on AM4.

  3. Post
    Large driver update released today for Nvidia cards https://www.nvidia.com/Download/driv...x/152968/en-us

    * New image sharpening and Resolution scaler added to Nvidia Control Panel - the settings can be set gloablly or on a per game basis. Tests shows the new sharpener lower performance by around 1% only.

    * Gsync NULL support - you can now enable Gsync and Ultra Low Latency together.

    * You can now use ReShade game filters through Geforce Experience.

    * HDMI 2.1 VRR enabled - 7 new screens added for Gsync support.

    edit: Did some test - HDMI VRR is working perfectly.




    Last edited by SirGrim; 30th October 2019 at 12:49 pm.

  4. Post
    Reviews are out - as long as you have decent cooling (360mm AIO or better), looks like they can all do 5.2ghz and some as high as 5.4ghz













    edit: The 9900KS includes hardware mitigations without the performance loss like the 9900K with it's software mitigations. https://twitter.com/phoronix/status/1189529910307627010

    Last edited by SirGrim; 31st October 2019 at 12:53 pm.

  5. Post
    Intel clutching at straws pretty hard eh.

  6. Post
    I find it amusing that even AMDs bad silicone is as fast as Intel's highly binned silicone.

    Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
    Last edited by dr.m0x; 1st November 2019 at 10:37 am.

  7. Post
    Threadripper and 3950X won't be getting close to the good silicon, EPYC is taking all of that. Instead of increased frequencies AMD is offering up twice, yes TWICE the number of cores as the 9900K(S) competition on the consumer socket. Frequency doesn't matter so much when you do that. I do feel that they could actually release AM4 chips at those higher frequencies. But when you can make truckloads more putting them into server chips, you'd be mad not to. AMD only needs to give consumers the rubbish silicon to compete with Intel.

    They can make 5ghz 16 core chips, just doesn't make financial sense to do so. Boo for us, yay for them.


  8. Post
    10 cores @ 3ghz @ 65W? Believe it when I see it on 14++. 9900KS is 127W for 8 cores @ 4ghz. What magic are they using to using half the power, voodoo or hopes and dreams i'm guessing.

    Either way, the sooner they get 10 cores out the better, imagine the pricing though, it's still not going to stack up unless it's cheaper than 3900X. Interesting that it "needs" a new socket too, consider it's using less power and doesn't seem to be adding much feature / IO wise.

    I imagine it will also be competing with Zen 3 in 2020.

  9. Post
    irrc that power draw is a guideline for the motherboard manufacturers to maintain the non boost clock for the Intel chips ? the listed one for AMD is another different spec for draw when all cores are running ? i saw a video on GN about it.

    if the pricing is competitive to AMD i would be keen for that 10/20 5.1 ghz chip. I know i always wanted to support AMD over Intel but AMD is doing the same as Intel is and once i saw the AdoreTV video on how AMD is is not even giving us the best of the infinity fabric, it is like meh they are both the same, just get whatever suits best for your budget and use.

  10. Post
    Yeah i'm comparing Intels 14+(?) 8 core to the 14++ 10 core, just not sure how they will half the base clock TDP, while increase core count.

    While AMD aren't providing the best silicon to the desktop chips, the desktop chips are still great for what they are. 12 core chips using give or take the same power as the competitions 8 core chips? Can't be too unhappy at that surely. Well you can, but you can't please some people I guess. Calling AMD's actions the same as Intel's is a loooooooong stretch. I wouldn't expect Intel to provide their best silicon to desktop platforms either. They operate in very different ways though. AMD can pick and choose what silicon goes to what platform. Intel makes different chips for each platform so don't have that luxury. They would no doubt do the exact same thing though, that makes business sense.

    As you say, pick a processor based on what you need and your budget. For now 95% of cases will incorporate an AMD processor. It just makes sense to go that way. I can't see it changing anytime soon unless Intel starts selling chips below cost just to get some sales.

    3900X at the top end sits price wise between the 9900K and the 9900KS. Each level below that gets better and better value if going the AMD path.

  11. Post
    Agreed. Even this is "bad" silicone they're selling is very good. It's just bad ss far as this particular process and architecture go. Over time the process will mature and we'll get better stuff on the desktop, for now AMD have every right to make money off a perfectly good product after a number of difficult years financially.

    Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

  12. Post
    dr.m0x wrote:
    Agreed. Even this is "bad" silicone they're selling is very good. It's just bad ss far as this particular process and architecture go. Over time the process will mature and we'll get better stuff on the desktop, for now AMD have every right to make money off a perfectly good product after a number of difficult years financially.

    Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk
    Exciting times ahead if the 7nm process matures in time and TSMC picks up extra supply volume. The one thing the 9900ks has shown is how useful binned silicon is - you get nice clock speed boosts while lowering voltages and therefore power draw and temperatures. So if next year's ryzen 4000 can be produced on higher quality binned 7nm then that alone would be enough for a nice boost over current ryzen 3000 parts. And on top of that, the rumors suggest ryzen 4000 is also due for a 8% IPC boost as well.

    On a side note: look at this bad boy! https://www.gigabyte.com/Solid-State...n4-AIC-SSD-8TB

    8TB SSD, eats up 16 lanes of PCI-E 4 lol. Looks as big as a graphics card and claims read/write speed of 15,000 MB/s

  13. Post
    SirGrim wrote:
    The one thing the 9900ks has shown is how useful binned silicon is - you get nice clock speed boosts while lowering voltages and therefore power draw and temperatures.
    Got a link? I've seen very mixed results, including 9900K performing better than 9900KS. 9900KS is purely a marketing ploy, stock levels will be minimal.

  14. Post
    Fragluton wrote:
    Got a link? I've seen very mixed results, including 9900K performing better than 9900KS. 9900KS is purely a marketing ploy, stock levels will be minimal.
    Silicon lottery recently put up some binning data.

    For a quick comparison: 30% of 9900k can do 5ghz using 1.3v. 100% of 9900ks can do 5ghz using 1.25v.

    To get a like for like comparison - 100% of 9900k can do 4.8ghz while 100% of 9900ks can do 5ghz. So on average, the KS has a reduction in voltages and a couple hundred extra mhz.

    https://siliconlottery.com/collectio...ntel-i9-9900ks

    And yes you are most likely correct, from what I've heard stock is tight and Intel will only sell the 9900ks till the end of this year. Q1 next year is most likely the 10 core comet lake launch.
    Last edited by SirGrim; 5th November 2019 at 10:11 am.

  15. Post
    The 9900ks is somewhat tempting, as I can slot it right in. Normally I wait until I need a faster CPU and currently I don't do anything that would be faster on the 9900ks than it is on my i5 9600k. I can hear YOLO calling out to me though.

  16. Post
    Why not YOLO something more useful? Unless everything else is already capped out. That said, 6 core/thread is probably capping out, so i'll see myself out.

  17. Post
    Over in plebtown I'm pretty happy with my ryzen 3600, gpu is another matter but we'll see.

  18. Post
    Monolith wrote:
    Over in plebtown I'm pretty happy with my ryzen 3600, gpu is another matter but we'll see.
    Nothing wrong with the 3600, I'd probably rather one of those than my 6700k for what I do but I can't justify the cost at the moment.

  19. Post
    Yeah my comment was in regards to the previously mentioned i5 9600k which doesn't have hyperthreading / SMT so is 6 cores 6 threads total. 3600 is much better with its 6 cores 12 threads.

  20. Post
    AMD details 3950x and Threadripper 3000

    https://videocardz.com/82654/amd-ann...-ryzen-9-3950x

    Launch is 25 November

    3960x is 24 cores at $1399 usd
    3970x is 32 cores at $1999 usd

    Both of these have a turbo of 4.5ghz with 280w TDP


    And then we have the 16 core ryzen 3950x $749 usd
    Doesn't look like the 3950x ships with an AMD cooler - AMD recommends water cooling for this CPu.

  21. Post
    So around 1500nzd for 3950x? Not unhappy with my 3900x purchase in that case.

    Sent from my VOG-L09 using Tapatalk

  22. Post
    Pricing will come down to stock levels I imagine. The more stock the closer we get to RRP. CPU's aren't usually too bad, except when companies do paper launches and don't have the chips to actually sell.

    3950X looks tasty, for those that do more than gaming at least. Not surprised it doesn't ship with a cooler, who would buy the YOLO chip and run a stock cooler, no one. Will be interesting to see how games go with TR, that cache is huuuuuuuge.

  23. Post
    Fragluton wrote:
    Not surprised it doesn't ship with a cooler, who would buy the YOLO chip and run a stock cooler, no one.
    Tell that to the people who stuck the stock cooler on their 3900x and then complained it was reaching 90c
    I'm not surprised anymore at how much $$$ people will spend only to stick a subpar cooler on it - same goes for graphics cards.

    Thought I'd have a little gander and AMD's own slides confirm the 3950x is slightly worse for gaming than the 3900x, so the 3950x is really a work first card, some gaming on the side if you feel that way inclined. Trying to think why the 3950x would be slower, the most logical conclusion and easiest explanation is that the average gaming clock speeds are lower than the 3900x which is totally expected with a meager 105W TDP.

    Comparing those:

    GTA V: 3900x 176fps, 3950x 166fps
    CS:GO 3900x 429fps, 3950x 375fps
    Last edited by SirGrim; 8th November 2019 at 8:49 am.

  24. Post
    I'm not likely to talk to anyone that buys a ~$1000 chip and uses a stock cooler thankfully. Most people I know tend to go AIO these days, because bling.

    Temps are one thing, but if you're not worried about them, you can be happy that the stock cooler allows the 3900X to perform so close to a 360 AIO cooled 3900X that you'd never notice any performance difference. Seems like it is doing it's job.

    Hardware Unboxed wrote:
    For running stock the Ryzen 9 3900X doesn’t need a big cooler strapped on for maximum performance and it certainly doesn’t require liquid cooling. Even when enabling PBO you won’t gain much more performance by upgrading the cooler. We're not saying you shouldn’t upgrade the cooler for lower temperatures and quieter operation, simply that by doing so you won’t squeeze much extra performance.

    For gamers, the bundled Wraith Prism will be even less of an issue as it’s very unlikely you’ll see all 12-cores loaded up. We observed that when gaming the fan speed was generally around 2000 RPM and much quieter than what we saw when stress testing with Blender.