Big fat if. Ryzen has failed to live up to the hype for previous generations. Iāll believe it when I see it. Just like a 10 core intel chip that hits 5+ GHz.
refering to the extreme OC of 5ghz on all cores where they used nitrogen or w/e?
if so that was OC speed. The marks in this are mere boost speedsā¦meaning OC is higher.
hence the if.
I know stuff can change and leaks arent always true.
but amd HAS progressed very far in a short period of time while intel has not done until pressured by amd.
Those numbers look like the āleakedā specs for the 2800X, only with a slightly more conservative boost (5.2GHz was āleakedā back then). They were also saying that 2800X would feature a pair of 6-core CCXs to make up the 12 cores, instead of a cut-back pair of 8-core CCXs.
Given the complete absence of a 2800X thus far, and the much lower clocks the 2700X wound up with, Iād recommend anyone apply liberal amounts of salt to these āleaksā. Great if true but wouldnāt be at all surprised if not (not to mention that many cores would over-saturate the dual-channel DDR4 on offer).
Also considering theyāve promised compatibility for AM4 - with the plethora of low quality motherboards out there I highly doubt the majority of them will be able to function properly with a high frequency 12 core chip.
So either AMD is unable to reach these specs, or people completely exaggerate the benefit of āAMD upgrade pathā being a real reason to buy Ryzen in 2017.
Personally, Iāve always felt the āCPU upgrade pathā is a ridiculous notion. Even if you could just drop in a cpu on an old motherboard, history shows:
Not getting enough benefit to actually warrant the upgrade, unless you got the absolute worst cpu you could have got originally. (e.g. Phenom -> FX, Sandy bridge -> Ivy bridge, and buying a 200GE or Pentium Gold)
you are missing out on several new features that a new motherboard would have access to standard. (e.g. native usb 3 support, optane choose your drive support, XFR2)
You may not get the maximum performance out of the new cpu so the benefit of the upgrade is diminished. (AMD 970 series motherboard, H310/B360 etc canāt support full powered i9-9900k)
Gamers Nexus just did a piece on the 10-year-old i7-2600k. Itās showing itās age, but it is still competitive with modern Ryzen CPUs at gaming.
It also shows thereās little reason to upgrade if you have a powerful 4th generation Haswell or newer i7, which makes the notion of āCPU upgrade pathā just a Fanboy argument.
The point is, buy once cry once.
If you canāt afford it, fine. Buy the entry level Ryzen and use it until it canāt function properly anymore, which absolutely isnāt when Ryzen 3000 releases. Thatās also a dumb use of money if you donāt have a lot to spend.
So it makes no sense to upgrade to Ryzen 3000 if you have a āgoodā present Ryzen. It also makes no sense to upgrade to Ryzen 3000 if you could barely afford a Ryzen 3 1200 to begin with, especially since you probably got a low end board.
The same applies to Intel users.
It would be beyond a waste of money to upgrade to the 9900k from an 8700k on a high end Z370, and it would be half wasted to upgrade to a 9900k from an i3-8100 on an H310 chipset. And if you had that i3-8100 on a high end Z370ā¦ You were dumb and should have just spent the money on an entry level z370 and got an i5-8600k instead and not upgrade to the 9900k.
I am in the same boast as most others here, my I7 8700K is not showing signs of slowing down and to add as a personal note, screw AMD. I donāt care if they come out with a 7nm, theyāve burned me more times than I can imagine and I refuse to give them wallet just because I feel they are are junk and will always be junk in my opinion.
I normally tout upgrade path but youāre right. Iāve upgraded my board through AM4 and while zen to zen+ probably doesnāt yield that but zen will probably. AMD has done pretty well close to launch to give realistic hype. Their IPC and performance numbers werenāt far off from realism.
Personally when I think āupgrade pathā Iām thinking ācan I get two or three GPU generations out of this system?ā
Judging by 1080p low/GPU limitation removed data, I figure I can get at least two more generations of GPU on my 8700k before it starts to noticably bottleneck at 1080p, which is where I feel is āend of lifeā.
Kind if like how nowadays, an FX-8350 often doesnāt benefit from heavier GPUs past 1060/1070 at 1080p, which I consider end of life.
Upgrading from a 8700K for games today would be a waste. 9900K gives 2 more cores. AMD solutions have worse latency. Zen2 might be better but is the extra few frames worth it? IMO the people who need to look at upgrading are the quad core dinosaurs.
Most āCPUā upgrades were minor for the last 10 or so years per generation. The big push in software and hardware now is moar cores.
Their review also had a 2600K with higher min frames than a 9600K and 8600K in some titles. They tested Civ6 as their main CPU bound game the 2600K got decimated. The point is it depends on your app.
Bold assumption without seeing the new Ryzen in action. For all we know the new Ryzen could be worse for games or much better. I donāt know of breakdown of the I/O module to make a statement either way.
![:rofl:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/rofl.png?v=6" ":rofl:")
![:laughing:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/laughing.png?v=6" ":laughing:")