Recent content by eddman

How come TPU gets so many news information wrong. The support will be dropped AFTER R390. EDIT: Now fixed.

You do know that performance reviewers close every background task that they can, right? I think they even test on clean installs if they can (which is the proper way anyway). Just because they say 8 GB for minimum, doesn't mean it would run fine. There are games like deus ex: MD where RAM...

Would you kindly publish system RAM usage numbers in your game reviews? It's a very useful information, specially for those who do not have 16 GB or 12 GB of RAM.

Let me word it better. What was the sustained boost under cinebench MT? The reason that I'm asking is that some reviewers ran their benches with multi core enhancment enabled, which meant all 6 cores were locked to 4.7 GHz, all the time, even under cinebench MT.

@W1zzard What was the sustained turbo frequency in benchmarks? 4.3 GHz?

It doesn't matter if they are all x86. Intel and AMD CPUs have different architectures, and optimizing for one does not mean it'd run just as well on the other. Same applies to GPUs. Consoles use AMD GPUs, so when porting to PC, developers have to optimize for nvidia too, specially with DX12...

These just seem off. 1080 Ti is usually about 20-25% faster than GTX 1080 at 1440, yet here it's just ~9%?! IMO pascal is under performing here. It could be a driver issue, or game's optimization, or both. It might also be possible that the FPS meter software they're using is causing a drop...

@W1zzard Could you post the total system RAM usage while gaming (not the game process memory usage), please?

There is a certain clock threshold where beyond that point the processor's power consumption will jump considerably; that's why something like 7700K consumes so much power compared to 7700 or 7600K or even 1800X sometimes. There are cases where 4 high clocked cores can consume more power than 8...

I don't know where this notion that core i9s always consume more power comes from. In the majority of reviews 7900X consumes less than a 1920X. Yes, it has 2 less cores but has higher clocks, so it's sort of comparable. I, personally, have seen only two reviews that show 7900X consuming more...

That's not exactly true. Just compare 1500X and 1300X to 7600K (which is quite fare; same number of cores, and the i5 even has higher TDP and clocks). The i5 consume less. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1300X/18.html

It's basic math. I wrote "more", meaning an increase from the base value. 6 + 33.3% = 7.998 ~ 8 9 + 33.3% = 11.997 ~ 12 The reason that i3 is now closer to i5 is because of the doubled cores, which means the cache was also doubled, but the per core ratio is still the same: Dual i3: 4 MB -> 2...

Actually the L3 gap ratio is still the same as it was before: 4 cores: 8 MB, 6 MB; 33.3% more 6 cores: 12 MB, 9 MB; 33.3% more

Who's "buddy"? Could you post the power consumption numbers of that OC? Comparing a VERY high clocked 4 core to a moderately clocked 8 core in order to compare their architectural efficiencies is useless. Processors have an efficiency sweet spot and they'll start to consume FAR more power...

Compare 1300x to i5 7500, which are quite comparable from a configuration standpoint, and you'd see that it's quite slower and yet consumes quite more. https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_3_1300X/18.html Comparing intel's HEDT platform to AMD's non-HEDT for power consumption is a...