Zen 2

Attached: 1472569081370.jpg (770x711, 102K)

Attached: ayy.png (1042x255, 133K)

>he has to lie on the internet to defend his favorite multi-billion dollar corporation that doesn't even pay him.

You can't prove OP is wrong.

>beats the 9900Kelvin in cinebench
>65W TDP, so still a lot of room for higher clocks
That says it all, it's either higher clocks or higher IPC. The other two points are blatant lies.

Attached: 1546561807840.jpg (1920x1080, 605K)

It takes an all core OC of 4.4ghz with some of the fasted DDR4 you can get to boot to barely flirt with 2000 points, different boards even play a factor here.
The Zen2 system was not running at a fixed all core clock of 4.5ghz, and it was using the same 2666mhz DDR4 kit that the intel system was using.

Concern trolling is super low IQ, nigger.

anyone expecting a bulldozer-ryzen tier performance jump is a retard. 5% at best, which is shown in the demo

My 2700X doesn't go above 4.2 on all cores on safe voltages. Although I could make the fastest cores be 4.25 and the rest 4.2.

But that would hit 80C in stress test under a Dark Rock 4 pro cooler.

Oh and that hits 1800 points in cinebench on a bloated Windows.

While stock hits 1700

>>Requires new motherboard
WHERE THE FUCK DID YOU READ THAT!?!?!??!?!?!

Attached: helpme.jpg (2745x2325, 434K)

>tfw OP is talking about Coffee Lake

Attached: 1497508172552.png (286x326, 171K)

>Why are peope hyped for this again?
Pretty sure nobody is hyped for it after the awful CES presentation. Even AMD's stocks went down that day.

>Still can't get close to 5GHz
doesnt have to, just 8 cores fucked 9900k
>Minimal IPC gain compared to Zen+
who gives a fuck
>More expensive than Zen+
usually newer model is, except intel where you pay more for older ones
>Requires new motherboard
stay mad, it doesnt

but nice bait

T-they a-are j-just sandbagging ... j-just wait and s-see ... J-jim was r-right ...

Attached: 1479574775361.png (653x726, 47K)

Bros ... what if the CES cpu was actually a 3700 ... it would make sense since it was 8 cores just like the current 2700 ... Also, I'm a bit worried they didn't say a word about single thread performance ... since we're still behind Intel by like 10% ... I don't know bros ... maybe it was too good to be true ...

Attached: 1528751324517.jpg (840x700, 368K)

Both chips have 8 core and they went toe to toe (people say the Ryzen chip was clocked lower). That can give you an estimate of the single core performance.

Remember when Ryzen came out and we saw the multithread benchs beating Intel at the time but in ST it was trashed? Feels the same now

>who gives a fuck
Used to Intel products I see

no shit idiot it was an 8C vs a 4C

Because Ryzen chips had an advantage on count core back then. It's obvious dude, what are you even doing on Jow Forums?

The CES CPU was a 65 watt R5 3600. There is clearly a space for another chiplet on the package and even the CEO has confirmed it will be used.

Wrong.

nigga are you blind?

Attached: 123631-amd-zen-2-ces19-5.jpg (648x436, 64K)

>beating 9900k
>low clock gain
>low ipc gain
absolute cope of intel shills

>Zen2's 3.7 base beats Intel's most expensive desktop CPU with 5.2 Ghz OC

How will Intel recover?

> 2 chips
They could've fit 3 if they tried.

stock gets over 18k, 4.2 over 19k

but that's Zen3, '5nm' +EUV, user.

Frequency is irrelevant if better IPC. The better question is, why can't Intel get as high IPC as AMD?

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.jpg (1920x1080, 245K)

>because it's faster than intel
>because it's cheaper than intel
>because it draws less power than intel
>because it lacks security holes implemented by intel

do you need more facts, you braindead dipshit faggot kike?

Attached: 1547054863118.jpg (1536x2048, 470K)

Yeah, I also don't know why anyone would buy the newest Intel lineup.

None of this has been proved. Quit spewing your fanfic.

Because I can't wait for some AMD miracle that's half a year away

First and third point were proven by the Cinebench demo, fourth point is already true in Zen and Zen+. Price is still unknown, but considering the prices of the older gens it's unlikely they will go full retard with the prices.

Because it exists.

ryzen 1000 and 2000 series already raped intel, why do you think this time will be any different? especially given the 7nm node intel wouldn't be able to achieve for another 4 years, you dumbass

Attached: 1544314957980.jpg (568x612, 66K)

>he doesn t know that was a r5 3600 that btfo the 999990k 14nm++++++++++

It was the R7 3700, actually.

don't bunch me with that dumb israelite.

Attached: poozen.png (854x640, 645K)

OY VEY GOY STOP TELLING DA TRUTH IT'S HOLLA COSTING ME

*destroys your fanfic with logic AND facts*

Attached: ourlad.png (181x212, 94K)

>spergs out autisticly about 7nm porducts not getting launched at CES
>AMD launches 7nm products
>damage controll
ftfy

R7 and R9 are 12, and 16 cores respectively, 8 cores are the new R5

Source?

there's already been 12c leaks for AM4, not to mention lisa su saying herself that theyre going to use the available space

Ok, but give me the source on this please.

There is no source because his claims are false, fake, non existant.

If there are 12 core and 16 core chips why would they leave the r7 as 8 cores and then also introduce 12 and 16 cores to that branding and crowd the name?
you should try using your brain some time user, logic isn't hard.

>AdoredTV posts supposed leak showing the 8-core/16-thread R5 3600 at 3.6ghz/4.4ghz with a 65w TDP
>Intel shills claim the specs are too good to be true

>R5 3600 QS beats a 9900k in multicore, must have tied a ln 8700k in single core to do so at CES
>Rumors that AMD's CES demo was the QS of a 65w TDP 8c/16t Ryzen 3xxx CPU at 3.7ghz/4.5gh, which is BETTER that the leaks that were too good to be true
>Intel shills claim AMD is BTFO as a result
(lol

traces support another full chiplet for 16 cores

Attached: 1547130287359.png (2960x1440, 1.9M)

What is this then

Attached: chrome_LhgYZHB7VC.png (252x171, 98K)

Guess who runs Intel?

fudzilla.com/news/processors/44939-raja-is-running-cpu-and-gpu-roadmap

Attached: images.jpg (266x190, 7K)

I just realized with this one can actually see the expected core/cache layout of the core chiplets.

exactly, CCXs look link they are the only thing on the core now, which also means that intercore latency are bound to be better this time around

Attached: 324.png (573x164, 18K)

Reddit

The rumored specs of the CES QS sample accord almost exactly with Adored's supposed leaked spec for the R5 3600, with the QS being 100mhz better in both base clock and boost.

Also, its been confirmed by AMD that there will be 2 chiplet variants, 12-core and 16-core variants are happening.

So basically, everything that has so far come out about the specs of Ryzen 3000 CPUs has been in line with Adored's supposed leaks excepting the announcement date.

BASED TIM

yeah and they launched 7nm epyc last year LMAO

It wasn't even a paper launch

>leave the scottish neet to me

Attached: based.jpg (400x400, 64K)

The "leak" lineup is just reasonable guesses for plausible parts, but it is clearly still a complete asspull given that the real launch will not be until Computex at best.
Since 7nm is still so new, yields have likely not stabilized yet, so clock and price assignments for parts are in a sane reality nowhere near settled yet.

If the 12c/16c parts were more than the faintest glimmer of a tease, I would cut the haggis-nigger a bit more slack.

>ITT 9900k faggots try to justify their purchases

We told you to wait to see what 7nm brought.

HOLY SHIT!!

Attached: YOU.png (868x330, 301K)

Just keep waiting ... while everyone else is enjoying their top notch Intel performance.

I'm sorry tim.... :(

Attached: SAYYOUARESORRY.png (551x688, 557K)

>Why are peope hyped for this again?

Because Intel's competition is a complete joke.

Enter, the i9-9990XE:
> anandtech.com/show/13804/intel-core-i9-9990xe-up-to-5-ghz-auction-only
> 14c @ 4.0 GHz base / 5.0 GHz boost
> 255 W TDP
> price: TBD by small, lot closed quarterly auctions to system vendors

AMD will be able to sell 100s of thousands of 16c Threadrippers that outperform these for a tiny fraction of the price and TDPs easily under 180 W. 12+c AM4 chips are similarly going to shit all over the 9900K.

Rumor is this is Tim's reddit account

Attached: btfo.png (431x68, 6K)

>tease
AMD did show one (1) CPU with 8 cores and 16 threads. Will they release CPU with lower core counts? Certainly. That's what Lisa said about the core count:

pcworld.com/article/3331944/components-processors/lisa-su-on-the-record-amds-ceo-talks-ryzen-vega-ray-tracing-and-lots-more-at-ces.html?page=2

>Reporter: So during the keynote, somebody messaged me about the core counts on Ryzen…

>Su: So it only took like 30 minutes for somebody [to ask the question]!
...
>Su: So there is some extra room on that package. And I think you might expect that we will have more than eight cores. I didn’t say how many more.
So a 9+ core part is coming, but only 12 and 16 cores seem faisible.

Performance literally doesn't matter right now, what does matter is spectre/meltdown vulnerability. Why is Intel still making new CPUs that are vulnerable off the shelf?

Attached: 1547201486652.jpg (1094x1208, 78K)

Someone gona steak into my pc and steal all of my futa porn? lol idk nerd lmao

Not use cinebench