- Joined
- May 8, 2016
- Messages
- 1,889 (0.61/day)
System Name | BOX |
---|---|
Processor | Core i7 6950X @ 4,26GHz (1,28V) |
Motherboard | X99 SOC Champion (BIOS F23c + bifurcation mod) |
Cooling | Thermalright Venomous-X + 2x Delta 38mm PWM (Push-Pull) |
Memory | Patriot Viper Steel 4000MHz CL16 4x8GB (@3240MHz CL12.12.12.24 CR2T @ 1,48V) |
Video Card(s) | Titan V (~1650MHz @ 0.77V, HBM2 1GHz, Forced P2 state [OFF]) |
Storage | WD SN850X 2TB + Samsung EVO 2TB (SATA) + Seagate Exos X20 20TB (4Kn mode) |
Display(s) | LG 27GP950-B |
Case | Fractal Design Meshify 2 XL |
Audio Device(s) | Motu M4 (audio interface) + ATH-A900Z + Behringer C-1 |
Power Supply | Seasonic X-760 (760W) |
Mouse | Logitech RX-250 |
Keyboard | HP KB-9970 |
Software | Windows 10 Pro x64 |
I kind of frustrated with this.
I get that for example 9700X is on par with performance of 7700X, however is it REALLY enough to claim Zen 5 is "DOA" or "Bad" ?
My point is, it's doing that with lower clock, since all core 9700X = 4480MHz vs. 7700X = 5190MHz, AND a lot lower power usage (9700X = 88W vs. 7700X = 148W).
Relevant tables from GN video :
What is wrong with everyone dumping on CPU that is clearly better than previous one ?
This is similar situation to Core 2 Duo E6300 vs. Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (just not as extreme, since we have very different pricing, but that's just future for you).
Everyone clearly knows which one is better of the two, even if both have similar performance :
So, WTF reviewers ?
From what I see, the only bad part about those new AMD CPUs is price, but that will be adjusted later (as always).
Also, I would love to see overclocking performance and power increase associated with it, however (I guess ?) early BIOSes/AGESA aren't stable enough for it ?
Lastly, I'm really afraid of everyone always expecting performance jumps of 20-25% between generation, when frequency scaling is TOUGH on higher end of the scale. Intel clearly shown where limits of that scale lay (both now, and in Pentium 4 days), and what are consequences of pushing blindly for frequency increases. Seeing frequency regression is really good, when paired with similar performance vs. other stuff.
We really don't need more frequency wars (neither on CPUs, nor on GPUs), and there is more to good CPU than just performance vs. previous gen.
I get that for example 9700X is on par with performance of 7700X, however is it REALLY enough to claim Zen 5 is "DOA" or "Bad" ?
My point is, it's doing that with lower clock, since all core 9700X = 4480MHz vs. 7700X = 5190MHz, AND a lot lower power usage (9700X = 88W vs. 7700X = 148W).
Relevant tables from GN video :
What is wrong with everyone dumping on CPU that is clearly better than previous one ?
This is similar situation to Core 2 Duo E6300 vs. Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (just not as extreme, since we have very different pricing, but that's just future for you).
Everyone clearly knows which one is better of the two, even if both have similar performance :
So, WTF reviewers ?
From what I see, the only bad part about those new AMD CPUs is price, but that will be adjusted later (as always).
Also, I would love to see overclocking performance and power increase associated with it, however (I guess ?) early BIOSes/AGESA aren't stable enough for it ?
Lastly, I'm really afraid of everyone always expecting performance jumps of 20-25% between generation, when frequency scaling is TOUGH on higher end of the scale. Intel clearly shown where limits of that scale lay (both now, and in Pentium 4 days), and what are consequences of pushing blindly for frequency increases. Seeing frequency regression is really good, when paired with similar performance vs. other stuff.
We really don't need more frequency wars (neither on CPUs, nor on GPUs), and there is more to good CPU than just performance vs. previous gen.
Last edited: