Hey, maybe AMD could give them pointers on how to do a 7nm correctly and not constantly delay 10nm over and over ![:grinning:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/grinning.png?v=6" ":grinning:")
The means donāt matter when the results speak for themselves.
Talk as much trash as you want about 14nm, but it has demolished AMDās 12nm core for core, clock for clock.
If AMD merely reaches parity with Zen 2, then all Intel has to do is maintain and/or increase core counts. It wonāt be a complete landslide like it would be in Zen 2 were available right now.
The whole naming convention of process nodes is kind of dumb anyway. Not really meaningful, because they arenāt directly comparable.
So likely they showed off a chip with a 4.8 GHz boost? Does that make sense with the performance we saw?
If the 15% IPC boost was there, then the frequency should be lower. Like 4.4ghz or something.
If the IPC boost is too task specific, then maybe the frequency makes sense.
this is the reason intel ppl like me are always happy when AMD does stuff like they are doing.
We already know what Intel does when they lack a competitor (we had years of it)
can build an entire AMD pc for cost of some intel cpuās alone ![:expressionless:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/expressionless.png?v=6" ":expressionless:")
8700k is one of the best price to performance cpu around. i mean even the 4th gen i7 4700k (i think?) acually runs pretty well and that thing is ANCIENT by tech standards.
unless gaming has a massive leap forward 8700k will last forever with great performance.
you can run 9th gen on 370 mb, just need bios update in msot cases.
they are. the only āchangeā is the solder and not thermal pasteā¦but then their solder isnt the best.
nope.
intel has already laid their roadmap out. and if the 8000 to 9000 is a hint they cant honestly do anythign for atleast half a year.
9900k is a bad chipā¦ you can buy 8th gen and OC it to beat it.
only good thign about the 8th and 9th gen chips are their i3 and i5. rest barely moved
this is a misunderstood thing.
according to tech specialists Intels 10nm is similar to AMDs 7nm.
there isnt really a uniform guideline of nm size.
Thatās my point. By the time Zen 2 launches (half a year) Intel will probably have something.
If Zen 2 released today, it would be devastating to Intel.
As it stands, theyāre giving Intel a chance to come up with an answer.
In the off chance though that this isnāt the top end chip for the line, they could just be holding onto their cards. Why show them all at this point?
My comments are assuming it isnāt, and higher core counts are on the way.
There not going to let it be just 8 cores, because the 9900k is 8 cores
They probably would release a 12 core 7nm ryzen
Now I can think the 12 core would be like 4.5-4.6 ghz
The 8 core could be 4.8-4.9 ghz
6 core ryzen 3, 8 core ryzen 5, 12 core ryzen 12 makes more sense. I honestly donāt think a 16 core would be on a x370/470/570 just yet
But if a x590 should existā¦ Then the odds would change
Dr. Su just said that there will be more than 8 Core Ryzen CPUs.
1 Like
Well, I mean, yeaā¦ the Ryzen 3 wasnāt going to be 8 core ![:stuck_out_tongue:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue.png?v=6" ":stuck_out_tongue:")
Right, Iām just referring to what was said earlier about thinking the sample 7nm ryzen was just that
Best I mean
Hey, maybe I was wrong, those leaks might be true then
Look at the chiplet at the top, the tiny black square, thereās room for another 4 cores, right under the bottom of it
Perhaps they are waiting till summer 2019 to not kill off any threadripper sales
If the 16 core ryzen is true, then this means the 9900k and any x299 would be obsolete
x299 has 16 core and 18 core parts. They would not be obsolete.
Not yet ![:rofl:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/rofl.png?v=6" ":rofl:")
Anandtech showed proof
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/13829/cpu44_575px.jpg
But thatās ok because the entry level threadripper 3000 would be starting 16 core and possibly 64 cores if they announce them at computex 2019 later this year
Last time I checked, 16/32 = 16/32.
Last time I checked, 18/36 > 16/32.
All that on a single die vs AMDās glued together solution. You should probably look up the definition of obsolete.
I mean, if weāre arguing workstation cpuās, intels best CPU (7980xe, we donāt mention the 9th series abomination) has already been mostly beaten for less.
And the most recommended workstation CPU in 2018 was also AMD Threadripper.
The 2 extra cores wouldnāt matter if a likely 16 core ryzen can push 5.0 GHz and out perform a 18 core intel if leaks are true
Though 16 core ryzen would be on air cooler I bet, meanwhile at best a 7980xe would be at 4.5 GHz without getting to liquid cooling
Not to mention it would be 1/4 cheaper as well vs the $2000 7980xe
At this point you guys are arguing beyond the point of the scope of most of our use cases.
That was already exhausted once you got to 8 cores