Personal computing discussed

Moderators: renee, Flying Fox, morphine

 
NTMBK
Gerbil XP
Posts: 371
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2013 11:21 am

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:54 am

CONFIIIIIIIIIRMED
 
derFunkenstein
Gerbil God
Posts: 25239
Joined: Fri Feb 21, 2003 9:13 pm
Location: Comin' to you directly from the Mothership

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:22 am

Usacomp2k3 wrote:
Any word on the APU variant? The 3600g was rumored. Maybe it's later in the year? My wife's, A10 is still holding pretty good for desktop use, but stupid javascript-laden websites are causing it to hitch more frequently than I like.

APUs are just Raven Ridge refreshes.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/14523/am ... -under-150
I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.
Twittering away the day at @TVsBen
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23043
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:13 am

300mhz isn't bad. I guess I need to start shopping for a simple ITX board. Why are those more expensive than some ATX boards. I saw a deal yesterday for an 512GB m.2 + 16GB RAM for $140 combined. Not a bad way to upgrade.
 
Goty
Gerbil
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:41 am

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:53 am

Usacomp2k3 wrote:
300mhz isn't bad. I guess I need to start shopping for a simple ITX board. Why are those more expensive than some ATX boards. I saw a deal yesterday for an 512GB m.2 + 16GB RAM for $140 combined. Not a bad way to upgrade.


More complex PCBs (more layers) and lower sales numbers probably account for a significant portion of the increased cost of SFF boards.
 
MileageMayVary
Gerbil XP
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 9:57 am

Updated.

Image

And for comparison

Image
Main rig: Ryzen 3600X, R9 290@1100MHz, 16GB@2933MHz, 1080-1440-1080 Ultrasharps.
 
Waco
Gold subscriber
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3223
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:01 am

Love it. No response from Intel to the 12 core and AMD decides to drop the 16 core anyway.

The jab makes me smile.
Desktop: X570 Gaming X | 3900X | 32 GB | Alphacool Eisblock Radeon VII | Heatkiller R3 | Samsung 4K 40" | 1 TB SX8200 Pro + 2 TB 660p + 2 TB SATA SSD
NAS: 1950X | Designare EX | 32 GB ECC | 7x8 TB RAIDZ2 | 8x2 TB RAID10 | FreeNAS | ZFS | LSI SAS
 
Aranarth
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:56 am
Location: Big Rapids, Mich. (Est Time Zone)
Contact:

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:26 am

Waco wrote:
I think the better analogy (if there is one) would be horsepower per pound of weight. Not that it's a great analogy, but it's similar.

500 HP with 4000 pounds is 8 pounds per HP. You can achieve similar performance with 250 HP if your car weighs 2000 pounds, 1000 HP and 8000 pounds, etc.


I thought of using that one as well and almost did...
Main machine: Core I7 -2600K @ 4.0Ghz / 16 gig ram / Radeon RX 580 8gb / 500gb toshiba ssd / 5tb hd
Old machine: Core 2 quad Q6600 @ 3ghz / 8 gig ram / Radeon 7870 / 240 gb PNY ssd / 1tb HD
 
Captain Ned
Gold subscriber
Global Moderator
Posts: 27977
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: Vermont, USA

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:39 am

Aranarth wrote:
Waco wrote:
I think the better analogy (if there is one) would be horsepower per pound of weight. Not that it's a great analogy, but it's similar.

500 HP with 4000 pounds is 8 pounds per HP. You can achieve similar performance with 250 HP if your car weighs 2000 pounds, 1000 HP and 8000 pounds, etc.
I thought of using that one as well and almost did...

It's a standard metric in Car and Driver's auto reviews.
What we have today is way too much pluribus and not enough unum.
 
Waco
Gold subscriber
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3223
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 10:49 am

Captain Ned wrote:
It's a standard metric in Car and Driver's auto reviews.

It's the easiest "at a glance" metric to determine how fast something likely is, so that's why I generally jump to it. People rave about Hellcats and 700 horsepower but never talk about the fact that those tanks weigh 4400+ pounds.

I hate using car analogies, but they're usually fitting for many instances and most people can grok them easily.
Desktop: X570 Gaming X | 3900X | 32 GB | Alphacool Eisblock Radeon VII | Heatkiller R3 | Samsung 4K 40" | 1 TB SX8200 Pro + 2 TB 660p + 2 TB SATA SSD
NAS: 1950X | Designare EX | 32 GB ECC | 7x8 TB RAIDZ2 | 8x2 TB RAID10 | FreeNAS | ZFS | LSI SAS
 
dragontamer5788
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:39 am

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:10 am

Captain Ned wrote:
Aranarth wrote:
Waco wrote:
I think the better analogy (if there is one) would be horsepower per pound of weight. Not that it's a great analogy, but it's similar.

500 HP with 4000 pounds is 8 pounds per HP. You can achieve similar performance with 250 HP if your car weighs 2000 pounds, 1000 HP and 8000 pounds, etc.
I thought of using that one as well and almost did...

It's a standard metric in Car and Driver's auto reviews.


Just be sure to add your weight to it.

500 HP with 4000 + 175 lbs (my weight) is 8.35 pounds per HP.

250 HP with 2000 + 175 lbs is 8.7 pounds per HP.

If you're driving 4 people around, the +500 lbs will make a bigger difference in the smaller vehicle than in the larger vehicle.
 
Aranarth
Graphmaster Gerbil
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 6:56 am
Location: Big Rapids, Mich. (Est Time Zone)
Contact:

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:44 am

Looks like the 16 core 32 thread version of the zen2 will be called the 3950x

Personally the 6 thread x or the 8 core x will probably be enough of an upgrade for me.

I don't see the need to go all out right now, and later when the 3950x shows up on ebay it will be a nice upgrade for everyone anyway...
Main machine: Core I7 -2600K @ 4.0Ghz / 16 gig ram / Radeon RX 580 8gb / 500gb toshiba ssd / 5tb hd
Old machine: Core 2 quad Q6600 @ 3ghz / 8 gig ram / Radeon 7870 / 240 gb PNY ssd / 1tb HD
 
just brew it!
Gold subscriber
Administrator
Posts: 53537
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2002 10:51 pm
Location: Somewhere, having a beer

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 12:32 pm

Aranarth wrote:
Looks like the 16 core 32 thread version of the zen2 will be called the 3950x

Personally the 6 thread x or the 8 core x will probably be enough of an upgrade for me.

I don't see the need to go all out right now, and later when the 3950x shows up on ebay it will be a nice upgrade for everyone anyway...

It makes me happy because it means AM4 will probably have an upgrade path for at least a couple of years yet. As we near the end of AM4's life, these 16-core beasts will probably be a lot more affordable.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
K-L-Waster
Gerbil XP
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:10 pm
Location: Hmmm, I was *here* a second ago...

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 1:29 pm

I'd actually be more interested in an 8 core that was tuned for higher clocks. 8 cores at 5GHz is more interesting for gaming than 12 at 4.6 (16 at 4.7 is better, but $750 is more than I want to spend).
Main System: i7-8700K, ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-E, 16 GB DDR4 3200 RAM, MSI GTX 1080 TI, 1 TB CRUCIAL MX500, Corsair 550D

HTPC: I5-4460, ASUS H97M-E, 8 GB RAM, GTX 970, CRUCIAL 256GB MX100, SILVERSTONE GD09B
 
dragontamer5788
Gerbil Elite
Posts: 521
Joined: Mon May 06, 2013 8:39 am

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:26 pm

K-L-Waster wrote:
I'd actually be more interested in an 8 core that was tuned for higher clocks. 8 cores at 5GHz is more interesting for gaming than 12 at 4.6 (16 at 4.7 is better, but $750 is more than I want to spend).


Overclocking will always be a thing for people who need to push the limits. Intel chips will likely continue to overclock higher and faster than AMD's.

Still, AMD's best was only 4GHz for the first version of Zen just a few years ago. They've increased their boost clocks to 4.6 GHz with dramatic improvements to the memory controller (3733 MHz support) and L3 cache ("Game Cache", lol). This is by far the best gaming cpu AMD has ever released, even if the i9-9900k remains the absolute king.

I think AMD is making a good argument with regards to the Twitch crowd: all of those cores can absolutely be used to transcode H264 streams for your viewers on CPU-girth alone. That's certainly a nifty trick (using an NVidia GPU for transcoding means less FPS... because the GPU will now have additional work to do. But games really aren't going to be using the 12+ cores of Ryzen. So transcoding with CPU cores is probably better for an overall balanced system).

Obviously, the i9-9900k is still there for those who need the absolute clock-rate. But the extra cores on the 12-core Ryzen are awfully tempting, especially if you do anything else with your computer (video editing, 3d modeling, chess analysis, LTSpice simulations, etc. etc.). There's a lot of programs out there which can use that 12-core system, and it only costs you ~400 MHz compared to the i9-9900k.

4-cores vs 400 MHz. Video gamers obviously care about MHz more, but I expect that most people do more than one thing with their computers.
 
Glorious
Gold subscriber
Gerbilus Supremus
Posts: 11913
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2002 6:35 pm

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:41 pm

dragontamer5788 wrote:
That's certainly a nifty trick (using an NVidia GPU for transcoding means less FPS... because the GPU will now have additional work to do. But games really aren't going to be using the 12+ cores of Ryzen. So transcoding with CPU cores is probably better for an overall balanced system).


The NVENC encoder is using SIP block on the chip, not the regular GPU resources. In other words, the "graphics engine" part of the GPU isn't doing any of that work, it's a totally separate block of logic that just happens to be sharing the same chunk of silicon for economic reasons, but could just as easily be an entirely separate packaged chip.

You don't directly lose FPS using NVENC. You might for related reasons, such as if your broadcasting software is doing hardware accelerated compositing or something.
 
Usacomp2k3
Gerbil God
Posts: 23043
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Orlando, FL
Contact:

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:57 pm

Glorious wrote:
dragontamer5788 wrote:
That's certainly a nifty trick (using an NVidia GPU for transcoding means less FPS... because the GPU will now have additional work to do. But games really aren't going to be using the 12+ cores of Ryzen. So transcoding with CPU cores is probably better for an overall balanced system).


The NVENC encoder is using SIP block on the chip, not the regular GPU resources. In other words, the "graphics engine" part of the GPU isn't doing any of that work, it's a totally separate block of logic that just happens to be sharing the same chunk of silicon for economic reasons, but could just as easily be an entirely separate packaged chip.

You don't directly lose FPS using NVENC. You might for related reasons, such as if your broadcasting software is doing hardware accelerated compositing or something.

Agreed. The issue was more that NVENC was visually inferior to the software h.264. From what I've heard, the more recent generations have closed that gap, so doing it for free on the GPU vs using general-use CPU cores isn't completely free.
 
MileageMayVary
Gerbil XP
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:52 pm

K-L-Waster wrote:
I'd actually be more interested in an 8 core that was tuned for higher clocks. 8 cores at 5GHz is more interesting for gaming than 12 at 4.6 (16 at 4.7 is better, but $750 is more than I want to spend).


Agreed. A 6 or 8 core with a boost of 4.7 to 5.0 would push me over the edge. (Lets say an R5 3650X, 3.8/4.8 for ~$300? Buy that in a heartbeat!)
Main rig: Ryzen 3600X, R9 290@1100MHz, 16GB@2933MHz, 1080-1440-1080 Ultrasharps.
 
Amiga500+
Gerbil
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:10 am

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:54 pm

General question...

For Zen1 and Zen1+, did the AMD listed frequencies consider XFR?

Reason I'm asking is; if the listed (say 4.7 GHz) is precision boost clock only, then with XFR the ceiling could be somewhere above that - and if the 7nm process has a more benign frequency/voltage curve than 12/14nm, then the absolute ceiling could be 200-300 MHz higher. Won't be across all cores you'd expect, but then, do you need it to be?

edit: Just checked, 1800X was listed as 3.6 GHz base, 4.0 GHz boost - but with XFR could go to ~4.1 GHz for most people. 2700X was 3.7 GHz base and 4.35 GHz boost, this seemed to include XFR...

confused.com
 
MileageMayVary
Gerbil XP
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Tue Jun 11, 2019 5:06 pm

Easy to find the XFR but I am having trouble finding all the all core boosts for the chips.
Main rig: Ryzen 3600X, R9 290@1100MHz, 16GB@2933MHz, 1080-1440-1080 Ultrasharps.
 
JustAnEngineer
Gold subscriber
Gerbil God
Posts: 19058
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:17 am

https://www.techpowerup.com/256478/amd- ... spectre-v4
AMD in its technical brief revealed that its Zen 2 microarchitecture has hardware mitigation against the Spectre V4 speculative store bypass vulnerability. The current generation "Zen" and "Zen+" microarchitectures have OS-level mitigation. A hardware mitigation typically has less of a performance overhead than a software mitigation deployed at the OS or firmware level. In addition, just like older generations of "Zen," the new "Zen 2" microarchitecture is inherently immune to Meltdown, Foreshadow, Spectre V3a, Lazy FPU, Spoiler, and the recently discovered MDS vulnerability. In comparison, the 9th generation Core "Coffee Lake Refresh" processors still rely on software or microcode-level mitigation for Spectre V4, Spectre V3a, MDS, and RIDL.
i7-9700K, NH-D15, Z390M Pro4, 32 GiB, RX Vega64, Define Mini-C, SSR-850PX, C32HG70+U2407, RK-9000BR, MX518
 
K-L-Waster
Gerbil XP
Posts: 491
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 8:10 pm
Location: Hmmm, I was *here* a second ago...

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:37 am

dragontamer5788 wrote:
Overclocking will always be a thing for people who need to push the limits....
...There's a lot of programs out there which can use that 12-core system, and it only costs you ~400 MHz compared to the i9-9900k.

4-cores vs 400 MHz. Video gamers obviously care about MHz more, but I expect that most people do more than one thing with their computers.


All fair points. One of the very nice things about RyZen though is that XFR can get you within spitting distance of max daily-driver overclocks without requiring manual tweaking on your part (leaving things like liquid nitrogen and whatnot out of the equation). A part that can XFR up to 5 GHz would have been nice.
Main System: i7-8700K, ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-E, 16 GB DDR4 3200 RAM, MSI GTX 1080 TI, 1 TB CRUCIAL MX500, Corsair 550D

HTPC: I5-4460, ASUS H97M-E, 8 GB RAM, GTX 970, CRUCIAL 256GB MX100, SILVERSTONE GD09B
 
MileageMayVary
Gerbil XP
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Baltimore

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Wed Jun 12, 2019 8:16 am

JustAnEngineer wrote:
https://www.techpowerup.com/256478/amd-zen-2-has-hardware-mitigation-for-spectre-v4
AMD in its technical brief revealed that its Zen 2 microarchitecture has hardware mitigation against the Spectre V4 speculative store bypass vulnerability. The current generation "Zen" and "Zen+" microarchitectures have OS-level mitigation. A hardware mitigation typically has less of a performance overhead than a software mitigation deployed at the OS or firmware level. In addition, just like older generations of "Zen," the new "Zen 2" microarchitecture is inherently immune to Meltdown, Foreshadow, Spectre V3a, Lazy FPU, Spoiler, and the recently discovered MDS vulnerability. In comparison, the 9th generation Core "Coffee Lake Refresh" processors still rely on software or microcode-level mitigation for Spectre V4, Spectre V3a, MDS, and RIDL.


Well that's good!
Main rig: Ryzen 3600X, R9 290@1100MHz, 16GB@2933MHz, 1080-1440-1080 Ultrasharps.
 
JustAnEngineer
Gold subscriber
Gerbil God
Posts: 19058
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:06 pm

Geekbench smackdown:
Ravenlord wrote:
AMD's upcoming $750 Ryzen 9 3950X (16C, 32T) shown beating Intel's $2,000 i9-9980XE (18C, 36T)...
i7-9700K, NH-D15, Z390M Pro4, 32 GiB, RX Vega64, Define Mini-C, SSR-850PX, C32HG70+U2407, RK-9000BR, MX518
 
JustAnEngineer
Gold subscriber
Gerbil God
Posts: 19058
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2002 7:00 pm
Location: The Heart of Dixie

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Thu Jun 13, 2019 9:13 pm

I love the Gerber image on the 3rd slide showing how dense the "glue" on that fiberglass substrate is.
https://www.techpowerup.com/256511/amd- ... m-not-14nm
i7-9700K, NH-D15, Z390M Pro4, 32 GiB, RX Vega64, Define Mini-C, SSR-850PX, C32HG70+U2407, RK-9000BR, MX518
 
Waco
Gold subscriber
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3223
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Fri Jun 14, 2019 8:28 pm

JustAnEngineer wrote:
Geekbench smackdown:
Ravenlord wrote:
AMD's upcoming $750 Ryzen 9 3950X (16C, 32T) shown beating Intel's $2,000 i9-9980XE (18C, 36T)...

:o There's a lot of salt to be taken with that...but daaaaaaamn.
Desktop: X570 Gaming X | 3900X | 32 GB | Alphacool Eisblock Radeon VII | Heatkiller R3 | Samsung 4K 40" | 1 TB SX8200 Pro + 2 TB 660p + 2 TB SATA SSD
NAS: 1950X | Designare EX | 32 GB ECC | 7x8 TB RAIDZ2 | 8x2 TB RAID10 | FreeNAS | ZFS | LSI SAS
 
Krogoth
Gerbil Elder
Posts: 5838
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:20 pm
Location: somewhere on Core Prime
Contact:

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Fri Jun 14, 2019 10:48 pm

Waco wrote:
JustAnEngineer wrote:
Geekbench smackdown:
Ravenlord wrote:
AMD's upcoming $750 Ryzen 9 3950X (16C, 32T) shown beating Intel's $2,000 i9-9980XE (18C, 36T)...

:o There's a lot of salt to be taken with that...but daaaaaaamn.



The test don't stress memory bandwidth and I suspect AVX performance isn't that big of a factor. 9980XE will come-on op when memory bandwidth is king and applications that do take full advantage of AVX512.
Gigabyte Z390 AORUS-PRO Coffee Lake R 9700K, 2x8GiB of G.Skill DDR4-3600, Sapphire RX Vega 64, Corsair CX-750M V2 and Fractal Define R4 (W)
Ivy Bridge 3570K, 2x4GiB of G.Skill RIPSAW DDR3-1600, Gigabyte Z77X-UD3H, Corsair CX-750M V2, and PC-7B
 
Redocbew
Gold subscriber
Minister of Gerbil Affairs
Posts: 2168
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2014 11:44 am

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:57 pm

Waco wrote:
JustAnEngineer wrote:
Geekbench smackdown:
Ravenlord wrote:
AMD's upcoming $750 Ryzen 9 3950X (16C, 32T) shown beating Intel's $2,000 i9-9980XE (18C, 36T)...

:o There's a lot of salt to be taken with that...but daaaaaaamn.


Indeed. Instead a grain of salt we're more likely to need a bucket.
Do not meddle in the affairs of archers, for they are subtle and you won't hear them coming.
 
Waco
Gold subscriber
Grand Gerbil Poohbah
Posts: 3223
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Sat Jun 15, 2019 12:31 am

Krogoth wrote:
Waco wrote:
JustAnEngineer wrote:
Geekbench smackdown:

:o There's a lot of salt to be taken with that...but daaaaaaamn.



The test don't stress memory bandwidth and I suspect AVX performance isn't that big of a factor. 9980XE will come-on op when memory bandwidth is king and applications that do take full advantage of AVX512.

And? When's the last time AMD beat Intel at anything, especially at 80W less power and with 2 fewer cores?
Desktop: X570 Gaming X | 3900X | 32 GB | Alphacool Eisblock Radeon VII | Heatkiller R3 | Samsung 4K 40" | 1 TB SX8200 Pro + 2 TB 660p + 2 TB SATA SSD
NAS: 1950X | Designare EX | 32 GB ECC | 7x8 TB RAIDZ2 | 8x2 TB RAID10 | FreeNAS | ZFS | LSI SAS
 
Amiga500+
Gerbil
Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 2:10 am

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Thu Jun 27, 2019 5:44 am

Krogoth wrote:
The test don't stress memory bandwidth and I suspect AVX performance isn't that big of a factor. 9980XE will come-on op when memory bandwidth is king and applications that do take full advantage of AVX512.


... and how often does a desktop user bottleneck on memory bandwidth or find themselves using AVX512?

If those are the only refuges for the 9980X to remain on top, I don't fancy Intel's chances of maintaining ASPs.
 
Goty
Gerbil
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:41 am

Re: 16 COARZ.... Not announced by AMD

Thu Jun 27, 2019 8:23 am

Amiga500+ wrote:
Krogoth wrote:
The test don't stress memory bandwidth and I suspect AVX performance isn't that big of a factor. 9980XE will come-on op when memory bandwidth is king and applications that do take full advantage of AVX512.


... and how often does a desktop user bottleneck on memory bandwidth or find themselves using AVX512?

If those are the only refuges for the 9980X to remain on top, I don't fancy Intel's chances of maintaining ASPs.


Typical desktop users (even enthusiasts) aren't the same as typical HEDT users. That situation is more likely for people who actually need HEDT parts and performance.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: just brew it!, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests
GZIP: On