GP discusses the latest CPUs & GPUs

Thread Rating: 5 votes, 5.00 average.
(5 votes)
Results 15,251 to 15,275 of 15494

  1. Post
    Fragluton wrote:
    No details at all yet. I imagine you get PCIE 4.0. Just speculating though. Performance wise you'll not get anything.
    Given the 3000 series requirements wouldn't you at least expect better VRMs?

  2. Post
    brand wrote:
    Given the 3000 series requirements wouldn't you at least expect better VRMs?
    VRMs will be more manufacturer/model/price dependent than chipset based

  3. Post
    brand wrote:
    Given the 3000 series requirements wouldn't you at least expect better VRMs?
    Overall yes, but there are already B450 boards with great VRMs (eg Tomahawk/Mortar)

  4. Post
    Everyone has fine wine now?

    Extreme tech retested the same games they used in June 2018 and compared against their 2019 numbers.
    What they found is no matter if you own amd or nvidia, your performance has increased in the last year even for old cards like the Vega 64 and 1080ti - yes your performance has increased

    https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/2...ance-over-time

  5. Post
    Not sure why the 3800x even exists. Weird CPU, literally offers nothing over the 3700x. AMD should probably have bundled the weaker cooler with the 3700x to at least give the 3800x some sort of value.

  6. Post
    Bobs wrote:
    Not sure why the 3800x even exists. Weird CPU, literally offers nothing over the 3700x. AMD should probably have bundled the weaker cooler with the 3700x to at least give the 3800x some sort of value.
    Maybe they use better binned chips? But 3950x uses the best binned 8 core chips so actually maybe not

  7. Post
    Bobs wrote:
    Not sure why the 3800x even exists. Weird CPU, literally offers nothing over the 3700x. AMD should probably have bundled the weaker cooler with the 3700x to at least give the 3800x some sort of value.
    AMD should just had :

    3600=> 3600X
    3600x--deleted
    3700x=>3700X
    3800X--deleted
    3900X=>3800X
    3950X=>3900X

    3600x and 3800x are both useless skus

  8. Post
    mac-one-oh wrote:
    Maybe they use better binned chips? But 3950x uses the best binned 8 core chips so actually maybe not
    "binning" doesn't seem to mean much, it doesn't stop the cheaper chip from boosting nearly as high.
    The 3600x and 3800x are pointless parts

    Last edited by SirGrim; 16th July 2019 at 6:17 pm.

  9. Post
    Fully expecting the B550 boards to allow access to full PCIe 4.0 speeds for those lanes directly off the CPU. There's enough info out there to suggest its doable with the B450 but AMD has vetoed it and nerfed the latest AGESA code.

    Personally expecting the B550 to be a respin or name change of the B450 and is unlikely to bring anything new to the table. Only hope is motherboard manufacturers up the ante a bit and improve on their current B450 designs.

  10. Post
    DW wrote:
    I asked CL if I bought a Ryzen CPU and motherboard, they directed me to their $49 BIOS update service

    Understandable as they'd have to unbox/set it up to do it, but to some degree I feel like the expectation of hardware being up-to-date when purchased isn't unreasonable from a consumer perspective.
    Ask Playtech - they were nice enough to do it for me free of charge

  11. Post
    huntakillaz wrote:
    AMD should just had :

    3600=> 3600X
    3600x--deleted
    3700x=>3700X
    3800X--deleted
    3900X=>3800X
    3950X=>3900X

    3600x and 3800x are both useless skus
    I wouldn't go as far as useless, if you are willing to overclock the non x part, then there isn't a lot of point for the x, but if you want to leave at standard and let the system self-overclock the x part still seems to have its place.

    I was working on 2 systems on the weekend, mine with 2600x and a friends with 2600. I prefer the 2600x for the ~ $50 difference (in my case it was $20)

  12. Post
    dickytim wrote:
    I wouldn't go as far as useless, if you are willing to overclock the non x part, then there isn't a lot of point for the x, but if you want to leave at standard and let the system self-overclock the x part still seems to have its place.

    I was working on 2 systems on the weekend, mine with 2600x and a friends with 2600. I prefer the 2600x for the ~ $50 difference (in my case it was $20)
    The 2000 series is different. The 3000 series doesn't have much difference in those models quoted.

    Check out this video for example.

  13. Post
    Paying for an X chip is for people that don't want to overclock. Even since gen 1 you could get the same performance. I remember people reviewing 1600's that were clocking higher than 1600x chips.

  14. Post
    Correcting their previous piece where they said everyone should undervolt their 3900x to get lower temps.
    Undervolting does not maintain the stock performance





  15. Post
    Optimum Tech.

  16. Post
    I like his builds, always super clean

  17. Post
    Lame. I still have to wait till Wednesday before my ram arrives, slowest amazon shipping ever. I just want to get this PC up and running

  18. Post
    Pxndx wrote:
    Lame. I still have to wait till Wednesday before my ram arrives, slowest amazon shipping ever. I just want to get this PC up and running
    Ordered my ram on the Sat 6th and arrived Mon 15th. Originally set for 23rd delivery, so may come this week still

  19. Post
    pyronical wrote:
    A lot of assumptions prior to launch that the 3600X and 3800X were rubbish... seems to be lining up with the truth.
    dickytim wrote:
    Not sure I have seen a review anywhere suggesting they are rubbish, every review has said they are excellent chips. Maybe they are not the value proposition compared with the other chips with the same cores.
    SirGrim wrote:
    3800x reviews popping up

    tl:dr - buy the 3700x instead
    huntakillaz wrote:
    3600x and 3800x are both useless skus
    dickytim wrote:
    I wouldn't go as far as useless, if you are willing to overclock the non x part, then there isn't a lot of point for the x, but if you want to leave at standard and let the system self-overclock the x part still seems to have its place.

    I was working on 2 systems on the weekend, mine with 2600x and a friends with 2600. I prefer the 2600x for the ~ $50 difference (in my case it was $20)
    Pxndx wrote:
    The 2000 series is different. The 3000 series doesn't have much difference in those models quoted.
    Yeah I stand by my original comment that the 3600x and 3800x are rubbish, not sure why you are trying to defend them dickytim. Buy the chip below them for cheaper, get the same performance with close to no effort... like 3 basic changes in the bios.

    The X means nothing but a name in the 3000 series. It used to designate XFR, but now all the chips get PBO.

  20. Post
    ajaxx wrote:
    Ordered my ram on the Sat 6th and arrived Mon 15th. Originally set for 23rd delivery, so may come this week still
    I hope, but I don't think it will. Amazon had said it shipped a week ago, but now only just updated as "Arriving Wednesday".

  21. Post
    Pxndx wrote:
    I hope, but I don't think it will. Amazon had said it shipped a week ago, but now only just updated as "Arriving Wednesday".
    My SSD was ordered June 26, delivered July 9. Almost exactly 2 weeks.
    In saying that, I can look through my Amazon history and more often than not it arrived with a week.

  22. Post
    Gotta love Digital Foundry's benchmarks, their content is second to none.
    They even manage to prove that both the 3700x and 9700k can bottleneck a 2080ti at 4k which I haven't found any other reviewer bring up - all they care about is average fps in a chart.

    And good on Richard for calling out other reviewers who just show you bar charts

    Last edited by SirGrim; 18th July 2019 at 2:02 pm.

  23. Post
    Which unoptimised game has a CPU bottleneck @ 4k? (assuming I am reading that right) 30 minutes is too long to watch to find out. I don't really see a problem with bar charts that include 0.1% / 1% lows and averages.

  24. Post
    The problem with averages and 1/0.1% lows is they are not able to actually tell you accurately how stable the performance is.
    As Richard pointed out, there are many factors that come together to cause that average fps, and that 0.1% low and what you can't see when you generalise the bar chart is how it tracks over time - that's the biggest issue, there is no axis for Time.

    To expand on this - there are periods in that video where the 3700x has a higher average fps than the 9700k - yet it has large frametime spikes and the exact opposite happens as well with the 9700k having spikes while looking like it's winning (particularly in Far Cry 5 the 9700k looks like it's way faster, yet it has many frametime spikes that take away from the smoothness in gameplay which the 3700x doesn't suffer from).

    Quick example from the video

    Take a look at the fps for the 9700k and 3700x in the later section of the Far Cry 5 benchmark.
    Then look at the bottom frametime graph - notice how the 3700x is far more stable , the 9700k produces higher fps and will look like it's better on a chart from hardware unboxed - yet it's actually the more unstable experience




    IIRC both Metro Exodus and Witcher 3 exhibited 4k CPU bottlenecks - mind you they don't last very long, so it's not that noticeable to person playing the game but they are there - in saying that DF only looked at small portions of the games for testing in this video
    Last edited by SirGrim; 18th July 2019 at 3:50 pm.

  25. Post
    Yeah it's an interesting topic. It does seem that overall, having the extra threads can smooth out gameplay. 9900K in that benchmark test would have been good to see. HUB did a benchmark recently which showed how the new Ryzen chips may not net the top average results, but their miniums are higher. Minimums are more important than average, when the average is already high enough on both chips to be acceptable. Even more so when most people are probably still gaming on 60hz screens. Not enthusiasts obviously.