3900X 4.5GHz OC 31.5K physics score

using horrible meme math, an extrapolated 9900K score would be 24.59K points at 4.5GHz, similar to the 3900X.

>3900x 16/32
uhhhhhhh

the 3900x is 29-31k and 9900k is 24.5k

so we agree on the latter

So zen2 might actually be better than expected even though it was already expected to be good.

I honestly wasn't expecting Zen 2's single core performance to be this atrocious. I guess the design is fundamentally shitty because they're trying to make it cheap and no amount of nanometerz can fix it.

wanna try again, rajesh?

no idea what you're trying to say bruh

same breh

Look at , with meme math 20K/12 = 1667, 29.9K/16 = 1869, that's 12% and it's the best result. Honestly, I hoped it'd be better, rest assured I'd like to be proved wrong.

underwhelming. a 2700x at 4.2ghz gets around 23k.

they have the same price ?

oh no

imagine ryzen at 5ghz ... intel would need 8 ghz to beat them

>9900K 7.1GHz
lol
>9900K 5.86GHz
>3900X 4.5
>needs 1.3 extra niggerhurtz to beat amd
yikes

>stock 3600X with 4 less threads
>vs a 9900K at 5.47GHz
Yeah nothing to mislead here.

What cooler is needed to reach that OC?

The Intel approved cooler is actually something unexpected. You place another 9900K on top of the OC'd one, forming a mirror image. This acts as the ultimate heatsink.

So a 12 core AMD is about equal to an 8 core Intel?

So a $500 12 core AMD is about equal to a $500 8 core Intel, you are correct.

*Intel OC'd a gigahert higher, sorry. 553 wasn't a new poster either, feels bad.

I'm sorry, I'm not knoweledgeable in quantum physics, what happens when you turn it on?

ist 12/24 ya dingus

nah dude, 10ghz Pentium 4

It just works. You can never turn off the system again though, as they cool too fast and break apart.

With this logic, we should go back to 1C/1T because the less cores and threads, the better.

Bro I was just asking a question. Why you so upset? Is it really that bad that a 24 core AMD gets the same score as a 16 core Intel? I didn't ask this to make you upset, I'm sorry, I'm sure it's a good CPU for the price.

I'm the second guy you quoted, I just just clarifying the statement since everyone else is getting confused.
AMD's offering is super competitive at the same price.

Why not having high single and multi thread score?
I want both.

All right bro I'm sorry I made you upset, I'm sure the AMD is a good CPU if you don't have a lot of money and are trying to get something cheaper and don't care too much about having the best CPU or anything.

9900K AT 7GHZ AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Imo it'd be super competitive if that 12 cores would perform 50% better than 8 cores.
The picture shows it's just the same, not super competitive.

Bro why you talking shit about AMD? There are a lot of people who don't have that much money and can't afford an Intel. You don't think those people should be allowed to have computers? AMD is giving those people a cheaper option and you're talking shit about them bro that shit's not cool.

The amount of passive aggressive cope on Intel shills is fantastic.
Can't wait for the mass suicides in the favelas this sunday.

The AMD chip is doing it at a lower and more attainable frequency, which while marked as OC is basically stock.
The 9900K is considerably OCd, meaning overall AMD is out ahead here.

The meme math in the thread puts the 9900K at 24.5K points at a similar frequency.

Bro chill sometimes you can't afford the best CPU so you buy something cheaper that has more cores to try and compensate here and there in some applications that make use of more cores, I mean it's not ideal but it gets the job done you know? I think it's cool that AMD is trying to give people in poorer countries more options, I really appreciate what you guys are doing.

Can't wait to drink their tears

Attached: 0019125e-01a7-4b61-a938-157e95a7bdfd.png (1200x625, 846K)

Efficiency doesn't matter

>new tech is faster than old tech
wow! when intel releases their next gen it'll, as usual, beat amd by 30% while being cheap enough for you wagecucks to buy(and you will) :)

Then the 3900X would be super competitive if it was to reach ~36K with stock boost.

wrong

And then everybody just keeps buying Zen 2 and
Intel dissolves.

Why? The 8 threads more (50%) get a score 18% higher.

Sorry, 23%.

3900x isnt a 16 core and multithreading doesnt scale perfectly in all tests

I've considered 16 threads and 24 threads.

3900X is 12 cores 24 threads, 3950X is 16 cores.

Glad to know. But my comparison was between Intel's 16 threads and AMD's 24.
As what says, the 3800X could be competitive if actually sold at 410$. Imo the 3900X is not as much competitive.

competitive specifically for gaming? you're probably right. AMD seems happy just meeting intel on gaming performance rather than beating them despite their chip being a year newer, but thats ignoring the huge gains in other multi-thread related workloads, we'll have to see when actual benchmarks come out how it fairs for games though

I've only considered the data in and the announced price. I don't know other tests, nevermind, in 3 days we'll be sure.

Ryzen 7 3800X 8C/16T 3.9GHz 4.5GHz 105W $399
Ryzen 7 3700X 8C/16T 3.6GHz 4.4GHz 65W $329

who would give 70$ more for 0.1Ghz (boost is all that matters senpai)

surely that increase in TDP correlates to more performance than the numbers are showing otherwise why would the 3700x be using so much less power?

How?

>competitive with intel on gaming
>already shits on intel in most productivity work
>same price
wowee

> the same score
haha

Imagine buying weaker cpu because you don't want to appear poor. Intel is new apple status symbol

It all comes tumbling down...tumbling down...tumbling down.

Attached: 1562275603310.png (975x1846, 193K)

intel shills will simultaneously shit on amd for being for muh poor people, and then remind everyone that amd mobos and ram are super expensive and a bad buy

SOPA

The 2700 was 65W, the 2700X was 105W

The 2700 all core turbo was 3.4GHz
The 2700x all core turbo was 4.0Ghz

tumbling down how? matches up with

3700X is around the same performance for 2/3 the price.

oh ok, neat

That doesn't make sense.

Bro chill if you can't afford the Intel that's cool. I've been there too, I know what it's like.

it's just a higher rated TDP for ease in picking out coolers (other than stock)

please put on a trip, it's required for retards to do so

and no, I'm not without one

>implying 9900K at 5.47GHz is even remotely plausible for any real-world scenario
That CPU boosts to 4.7GHz all-core if it is allowed to break TDP and significantly lower if not. Let's just go with 4.7GHz and do some meme math, which will be incorrect but still closer than what you managed to scrounge up. If 5.47GHz is 29.9k, 4.7 should be around 25.7k. Now this thing has 16 threads and you're comparing it to a CPU with only 12. So if 16 threads result in 25.7k, 12 threads would be about 19.3K.

That would mean that single-core performance is in fact inferior to the 3600X according to the meme math. This is not going to be exactly correct, but an 8700K which is the same shit but with 6C instead of 8 does indeed score around 20K in the physics test, so the meme math is pretty close. This means 3600X has basically equivalent single-threaded performance despite the lower clock and as such has superior IPC in this test.

Lmfao a 4.4ghz 8 core AMD with 65W TDP and a cooler for $330 is almost as fast as a $500 coolerless 100W+ 4.7 to 5Ghz 8 core intel CPU in a GRAPHICS benchmark

I'm so excited about this. I'll never be able to afford an Intel but at least now I can get a taste of the kind of performance Intel owners are used to, at least in certain situations.

ive never owned intel before (too expensive for me) but im going to love it too being able to get a slight taste of the kind of performance intelchads have experienced for all these years, thank you AMD!

Attached: 1560881230031.png (568x612, 187K)

Kekd and rekd

You just compared to way different scenarios. Either you are trolling or joking.

INTEL 5.47GHZ LOL

Do you guys not understand that the Intel is running at 5.47ghz? It LC or chilled water. At 5ghz it would give a score of about 25k.

Meaning the amd cpu is close to 50% faster. For the same price.

None of us will live to see that in the year 2150 lol

Ryzen has a soft hard limit, the TDP. I say hard because it's a strict limit, but soft because it's +/- 25%. 105 can go up to 130W and 65W can go up to like 80W or something. But my point is unless you overclock using ryzen master or manually set a 24/7 OC you won't get past it.

wait, I thought TDP was just an approximation of how much power it will consume and not a limit imposed the the makers of the chip.
So you're saying because of the TDP the 3700x has a bigger limit in OC?

no I'm saying that it's a hard limit for stock operation and you can only get past it with a manual OC or their OCing tool in windows.

If you want to buy a 3700x and OC it then it will probably only be a little worse bin than the 3800x

3700x: check if it can boost to 4.4
3800x: ceck if it can boost to 4.5

>probably/chance/statistics
You do realize the difference is so small that binning/lottery is meaningness.

> 7.1ghz

Imagine the smell

Haha, it's amazing right? We're actually BEATING Intel in a benchmark, AMDbros :D

It will almost feel like we're using an Intel even though we can't afford one.

You can go back to installing security patches now.

3950x is 16/32, 3900x is 12/24

So it takes LN2 to beat AMD

at 15GHZ the i9900k absolutely BTFO the r3800x its fucking over dude