5 Ghz, huh?

Its simple Newtonian dynamics.
Intel pushed out its i9-9900KS bonfire so the AMDfags had to have something.

Don't need 5 GHz with +15% IPC

Yes, the Torah demands it.

>It was all a false flag to diminish AMD greatness!
Persecution complex, mixed with paranoia. We've moved into anger, but this reaction is extreme. I don't think we're going to make much progress in this session.

Attached: new-understanding-the-stages-of-grief-1.png (1200x901, 60K)

Does it really matter when 4.6GHz perform just as good?

do you not hype post whenever there's new rumors? this place is meant to be retarded

Attached: chrome_NY7JkwU16r.png (650x139, 16K)

Athlon 3950X 16C 5.1GHz just to piss all over intel's grave

15% single core IPC beating Intel.

>do you not hype post
I don't, but I understand some people view retardation as a lifestyle choice.

That would be ruthless.
How do we start a petition?

again, nothing went wrong.

Looks good to me, people are still saying it can reach 5ghz on overclock which is what I expected. I would expect they'll be able to get a 5.0ghz boost clock in the future or on threadripper.

Only on the internet. I'm serious bidness IRL.

Hippie Steve got one of the old Ryzens over 5ghz.

LP node process.

yes with liquid nitrogen and only on 6.8 seconds before it got destroyed

The FX 8350 was easily overclockable to 5GHZ, look how that turned out. Or the Pentium D. Turns out clock speeds are not equal and instructions per cycle play a bigger part in overall performance.

I'm sending a mocked up powerpoint to jim now

nothing, performance is in line with what people expected, they just achieved it through IPC lift rather than just purely pumping up clock speed.

>This board was claiming it was a possibility though.
Oh wow that's like such a big deal.

believe it or not 4chink users don't design or market the products they shitpost about. why would you expect a hardware manufacturer to actually live up to unironic /gangweed/ /v/tard hype? stop falling for memes summerfag.

Did it get destroyed? I don't even remember.

>We were only pretending to be retarded
You just swallowed Jim's cum

Jow Forums is 80% shill posts now, and false flagging is the de facto way to manipulate. It's pretty clear the posting style in the sticky is noticeably different from the 100% genuine "AMD fan threads" we've had for months now.

Anyone who read even a little about TSMC's N7 knew huge clockspeed jumps were never going to happen.
The best-guess prediction 6 months ago based on TSMC's info was 4.6Ghz, and hey hey, look at that.
No one mentions it because there haven't been any actual AMD threads, just orchestrated shill showdowns that no one reads.

they are really equal parts user. twice the clocks half the IPC goves you the same thing. obviously the IPC improvement are huge. but 5ghz with this IPC would be insane. I am fairly certain at like 5ghz Intel can still squek a decent single threaded lead.

Yeah, it's not like Jow Forums has a reputation for being intellectuals or anything.

what is the IPC difference now if AMD's 15% is actually accurate?

>piss all over intel's grave
the 16c/48t 4950X will handle that anyway, no need for AMD to release a housefire chip

Attached: 61a3a699c7.png (631x371, 53K)

AMD is still 8-15% slower

no it's not. Unless Ryzen 3 is a masive downgrade you fucking retard. do not ever (you) me again.

Ashraf Eassa and David Schor claim its HPC process. There is no official confirmation though, maybe at hotchips they will detail

They're ahead on specint per mhz now but still behind in clock rate so it's about equal

...

t. AdoredTV's source

>What went wrong?
Absolutely nothing but by all means keep making anti AMD threads if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy, it still won't change the fact that shitel is circling the drain.

Attached: 1512302161200.jpg (888x499, 76K)

It didn't even need 5GHz to beat the 9900k at lower power usage.
Plus we haven't seen all of the upcoming series yet nor how well it would OC or PBO.

Attached: Laughing Whore.jpg (762x900, 161K)

>those weren’t Intel shills trying to set absurd expectations so that they could claim victory when Zen 2 came out under 5GHz

yes? now then, show me all of the benchmarks you derived those very specific figures from.
you knew it by heart so you must have the screenshots ready. Show exactly how you found out 8-15% than intel... intel's what btw and amd what? the 3900x vs 9900k should be a good start. Produce the benchmarks now, faggot.

/thread

15-16% above Intel
With Ryzen 2000, depending on who you ask and benchmark it was either equal or just edges out intel so that means with Ryzen 3000 it should be 15 or so percent, if AMD is to be believed

IPC has nothing to do with clock rate

>the 3900x vs 9900k should be a good start.
- Take the benchs for 2700 x and 9900k
- Add +15% to the Ryzen
- Cry because you fell for the red team's marketing

the product announcement was yesterday.
this user already knows exactly what's the entire performance score and range with the 3800x as a normalized baseline.

this is also false. even amd said on average Ryzen 2 was about 7% below. but it weirdly does better with more threads.
obviously he is taking Ryzen two and account inf for the massive slowdown. it has less nms after all and more nms is better!

I'm going to love the evidence you have to back your claim up.

i don't know who jim is. i don't follow your gay companies and ecelebs, zoomer.

Unlike me you have evidence for Zen 2 having 15% IPC increase, right?

autistic user did that yesterday actually. AMD only lost in CS:GO and he said it came out about 5% on top on all of the rest. except lol and dota which he couldn't find.

>take the bench for a 280$ processor vs a 360$ processor
Off to a good start.

True but we know damn well that the claimed 15% IPC increase is for perfect cherry-picked applications

no? I said if it was accurate. but if it was the exact same your number would be way off.

>prove it!
>no you!
this is pathetic and it doesn't belong here

I never claimed it did. That was my first post in this thread. You however claimed it was 8% to 15% slower, so prove it. Is it by comparing an Intel CPU that's 100$ more expensive?

3700x tdp feels crazy low, what's up with that?

>that is $100 slower.
all parts in the same architecture have the same IPC. I swear to christ I am in a thread with massive retards on both sides.
7nm.

AMD proved that unironically 5 ghz doesn't matter on two different occasions now. From both sides.

expect lower all core boost clocks

You're fucking retarded. If IPC were a reliable measure for CPU performance we wouldn't need benchmarks.

i didn't say it was. I was just curious if AMD was now winning clock for clock on equal threads and by how much. it could be very interesting.

pretty much /thread
you'll never convince these luddites with their busted toys,though.

shill OP lost already.

Attached: bateman.jpg (584x413, 33K)

>that is $100 slower.
Who are you quoting? What does "100$ slower" even mean?
>all parts in the same architecture have the same IPC. I swear to christ I am in a thread with massive retards on both sides.
You were talking about a Ryzen CPU vs an Intel CPU how is that "same architecture"? In case you literally meant architecture as in X86/AMD64, then no, they do not all have the same IPC.
>I swear to christ I am in a thread with massive retards on both sides.
You made the dumbest post so far, trust me.

There's no way to know that before independent benchmarks are made. That being said, it'll most certainly be lower than the 15% claimed by the marketing slide

>IPC increase is for perfect cherry-picked applications
ipc is for cherrypicks
>fucking ipc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

heh~

Attached: header_american_1461329777.jpg (1920x1008, 291K)

So, let's say it's 5% or equal, it's still a huge win in power efficiency and price. There's no way to spin this in a negative way.

>slower
Freudian slip meant cheaper. was quoting
you said he would have to use a chip that is $100 more to prive Intel had better IPC. he is retarded for thinking the gap would grow with Ryzen 3. but you are retarded for thinking price of the part matters. 9100 and 9900k despite massive price differences have the same IPC. Same as 2700x and 2200g.
ofc. I was saying IF IT WAS. i am sure it is validated by a single really contrived workload.

>Instructions per clock has nothing to do with clock rate
like I said their specint score is higher than Intel now.

OP rekt

...3 threads per core?

how is that even advantage
is 1 core 100 threads the future? kek

>you said he would have to use a chip that is $100 more to prive Intel had better IPC.
That's not even close to what I said. Let's recap:
>user claims that a CPU announced less 24 hours ago and that won't be for sale for another month has 8%-15% worse performance
>I ask for proof
>he asks for my proof that it will have 15% better IPC (I never claimed that)
>he replied to another user that the proof was taking a 2700X, adding 15% (of what, I have no clue) and pitting against 9900k, it would still lose
>I point out that the 9900K is 100$ more expensive (actually 80$, but who cares)
>you jump in and mention all parts of the same architecture have the same IPC
Let's be clear on some things: no one mentioned IPC except for you. IPC is not something you can measure the way you measure FPS (for starters, IPC is a measure for a program in a CPU, it's not a CPU measure). He said 8%-15% better performance, which isn't a metric at all, and not IPC.
If he had said "8%-15% better IPC" then sure, that's a statement that could be not totally retarded for a single benchmark. But there's absolutely no way someone has an IPC benchmark for a CPU that comes out in July.

it's also the past too, Power8 had SMT8/4/2 options.

not quite, but 4 way smt is

what? i post a hypothetical asking about IPC differences. some dumb user said the ipc would be 8-15% behind. then you said prove it and brought up price differences.

You poor bastard. All of this grief because one retard shill can't read with teary eyes. It's ok, they'll all be silent when the benchmarks come out.

meh I don't really believe the 15% number myself. I was just curious. It will probably be really close and AMD will likely win in some workloads, but not drastically. and obviously it is a dumb thing to benchmark since clock for clock core for core is incredibly arbitrary.

>This board was claiming it was a possibility though.
>So again, what went wrong?
>Implying you can't overclock it to 5ghz
That's what the claim was. The claim/leak was that it can reach 5ghz.
4.6ghz is damn close for just a boost.

I am an AMD fanboy but I really doubt it. with that insanely low TDP and how aggressively AMD likes to clock, I doubt they left anything of the table.

Why does it need to be 5ghz? If the IPC was improved, then who knows a 4.6ghz or 4.7ghz Zen 2 chip might be the same as a Coffee Lake 5ghz chip.

>NUH UH IT HAS TO BE 5GHZ BECAUSE SOME GUY SAID SO

oh my sweet summer child.

I always said 5ghz was a substancial psychological barrier. I'm bummed they didn't get there but because I was anticipating shitposting exactly on this level, not because of the overall "lack of" performance. Repeat, for marketing and public perception much more than for technical benefits.

>AMD is still 8-15% slower
This is bait, I hope? I fucking hope no one is actually retarded enough to claim this after being shown a 3800x matching the 9900k in single threaded performance in Cinebench R20 while the 3800x is at significantly lower clocks.

Attached: inteliskill.jpg (2053x1025, 220K)

Imagine the disaster if it cant even overclock to 5ghz on air.

>believing a mongolian basket weaving forum

Attached: 1545601857290.jpg (638x1000, 82K)

One note about Cinebench R20 is Intel came to Maxton to add support for some ray tracing bull which made Intel scores go up all across the board

"Ghz" doesn't matter, at all, it's completely irrelevant
Only when you use Ghz in a formula with IPC and other things, does it start to matter.
Notice bulldozer has the highest clocks.

Who said it s not possible? We don t even know how good they OC , they are using TSMC now , so it might be easily Overclockable to 5ghz

yeah this forum is full of mouthbreathers nobody with more than a third of a working brain ever thought 5 ghz was going to happen