Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Amd x399 19xx

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    347 Post(s)

    Re: Amd x399 19xx


    I had no chance, not even close.
    Everyday I know less and less about more and more.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    East Rand
    Posts
    4,974
    Mentioned
    214 Post(s)

    Re: Amd x399 19xx

    Unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    347 Post(s)

    Re: Amd x399 19xx

    For $1,000 you can't really recommend anything else for mega tasking than 1950X.
    Good power consumption, great performance in multi threaded apps and at a good price. I would not recommend this for gaming at all, but for its intended purpose, AMD hit a home run.

    Aside from the annoying platform issues that still persist (of which there are many, but reviews... well...) they managed to do something great. Core architecture is on its last legs I think, while Zen is starting. It'll only get better going forward and as soon as 2018 perhaps. With an improved process those clocks will climb and then the gloves come off and we have a real race.

    anyway, for interest's sake these were my 1950X scores




    Last edited by Gouhan; 10-08-2017 at 04:02 PM.
    Everyday I know less and less about more and more.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    East Rand
    Posts
    4,974
    Mentioned
    214 Post(s)

    Re: Amd x399 19xx

    @Gouhan

    Still really impressive bud, gratz.
    Sad that Intel had to resort to this kind of bullshit.
    Unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Cape Town
    Age
    24
    Posts
    699
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)

    Re: Amd x399 19xx

    Quote Originally Posted by Gouhan View Post
    I had no chance, not even close.
    So TR is 4.75% slower clock for clock if your result is compared to Sofos'. Well in Cinebench at least

    Considering the price of the 1950X price vs that of the 7960X I would say this is a big win for AMD

    Edit:

    I checked the results for CB11.5 and Geekbench also:

    CB11.5 the 1950X and 7960X have basically the same clock for clock performance
    Geekbench Multi-Core the 1950X has 1.8% better performance clock for clock

    I took the best result for each processor and benchmark and divided it by the frequency to give the score/MHz and work out the % difference on that. Because there are only very few results this comparison might not be the very accurate but it gives a good idea.

    @Gouhan you did use the latest version of CB15? I know there is a 3 - 5% increase in score from the old version to the new one

    So it looks like they are pretty much equally matched but the AMD chip as a big advantage price wise
    Last edited by QuantumX; 10-08-2017 at 04:26 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    347 Post(s)

    Re: Amd x399 19xx

    Seems like in some benchmarks AMD has really good efficiency.
    What hurt performance a lot is the low fabric/mem clock. If you go up on the DRAM you will lose clocks, a lot actually under LN2. Think IMC can't handle it. (2,550MHz max perhaps)
    If it could, I think the CB11.5 would have certainly beat the 7960X.

    Either way, was good fun, just timing didn't work out.
    Everyday I know less and less about more and more.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    East Rand
    Posts
    4,974
    Mentioned
    214 Post(s)

    Re: Amd x399 19xx

    Unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    347 Post(s)

    Re: Amd x399 19xx

    Yeah NVIDIA has no horse in this race and just from a pragmatic POV they don't always have to be dealing with INTEL, which ironically can be hard to deal with just like NVIDIA themselves.
    What the PC DIY world would have looked like had they allowed Jen Hsung Huang to be the CEO of the proposed AMD-NVIDIA venture.
    Everyday I know less and less about more and more.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    East Rand
    Posts
    4,974
    Mentioned
    214 Post(s)

    Re: Amd x399 19xx

    Quote Originally Posted by Gouhan View Post
    Yeah NVIDIA has no horse in this race and just from a pragmatic POV they don't always have to be dealing with INTEL, which ironically can be hard to deal with just like NVIDIA themselves.
    What the PC DIY world would have looked like had they allowed Jen Hsung Huang to be the CEO of the proposed AMD-NVIDIA venture.
    Made me all kinds of happy reading that tweet last night...lol
    Unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,318
    Mentioned
    347 Post(s)

    Re: Amd x399 19xx

    Quote Originally Posted by PancakesZA View Post
    Made me all kinds of happy reading that tweet last night...lol
    At some point it'll have to dawn on us all who buy or have high end gear.
    We are being abused with the promise that will never come. Say what we may, but people who bought X58 for example, still have a more than capable gaming machine, especially WQHD+.
    We have all these cores and what not, but our games, are still 4 to 6 threads at best. There's only so much 3DMark we can run. We really need games that scale with core counts etc. Having a fast CPU for gaming (which is what is growing) is ultimately meaningless, as we all know it is the GPU and has been for a while.

    I don't mega task, never have and never will. AMD, INTEL and NVIDIA really need to get involved with developers and encourage them to use all the advanced capabilities of today's CPUs for a host of things that can improve game immersion. That people can still play games at WQHD on a 2015 GPU like the GTX 980 says a lot. We all like seeing 150fps, but it makes no difference ultimately as 60fps delivers an identical experience. And not all of us are competitive gamers, in fact the people who buy high end SKUs like the 1080 Ti and such are by and large not competitive gamers at all. You don't need even a 980 for Overwatch or LOL, DOTA 2 etc.

    I have a bit of high end gear and nothing to do with it after I overclock for benchmarks etc.
    All 3 vendors should put money into helping devs extract as much parallelism as possible, while at the same time use the dormant power of CPUs via OpenCL and other compute APIs to deliver better visuals, AI etc. Right now we are getting console games with a higher resolution that's all. XB1X and PS4 Pro offer identical visuals at $499 max as compared to a $10,000 machine, with however many cores.

    I will always love LN2 overclocking and do it for as long as humanly possible, but having been working with PC hardware as a profession for over 13 years, I have to say a lot of the hardware is absolutely pointless that includes both 16 core CPUs, in fact anything over 8 Threads.
    Everyday I know less and less about more and more.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •