AMD’s fastest AM4 processor takes on Intel’s consumer king in the latest DF Direct, with Alex and Rich sharing notes on the excellent Ryzen 3000 launch and …
stop to talk about ipc where on amd is faster then intel about 9% according to single thread applications on zen 2 what give intel advantage in games is lower latency and thats why you ll see a huge boost by improving timing on ryzen
2020 and i still don't know if i should get the i9 or the 3900x. Dont care about gaming above 60fps. I just want a cpu that will last for a few years
I would love to see low settings in games.
Does Raytracing impact the CPU or GPU more then? I would’ve expected GPU but Alex seems to be saying it tanks CPU perf as well?
Advantage intel still has is because memory latency i think. That also explains why in other kinds of programs it does better, those aren't as sensitive to latency as games.
is that an m400 ltd? it's nice.
9900k beats the 3900 for rendering video when it's igpu is used but a lot of fanboy channels do not use the option to favor AMD
So Ryzen only just now catching to Intel's 2014-2015 Haswell/Skylake on gaming?
Total War Warhammer 2 video please.
Hahaha, you got the msi motherboard, good luck with the vrm throttling
It would be realy great to have time stamps for topic
Ryzen is a great window into Amdahl's Law. Just throwing more and more cores at gaming is never going to be a solution.
Great analysis of the CPU industry and their latest offerings. The increased competition, and closing parity between price and performance can only mean good things for consumers. Hopefully the trend will be mirrored similarly in the GPU market sometime soon.
I thought I was the only one who had a Crysis shrine.
games still use intel compiler…. intel compiler says "if intel use optimized code, if other (amd) use legacy code" and its legal…. but also horseshit. almost every game is using the intel compiler on the back end. even the game engines were made with intel compiler so when the game is compiled, it uses intels compiler. thats why intel says "still the best for gaming" yeah because of said compiler. other compilers are based on intel and still favor intel chips….
windows still doesn't untilize ryzen correctly. the moment Microsoft stops being intel fans, current ryzen processors will jump in performance…. ive seen my 1800x use 2 cores from one ccx and 2 cores from another ccx…. why? i then lock the game to use specific cores/threads and my performance jumps or becomes more stable…. windows is BROKEN. and microsoft doesnt care to fix it.
20-30% more FPS in the same game at Ultra when comparing 1700X and 3900X is huge. I ran a 1700X @ 3.8ghz for 2 years trying to play PUBG with horrendous performance *even on the lowest settings possible*. My 3200mhz memory never ran stable at more than 3066mhz and along with the lower clocks of Ryzen 1 1700X I was dipping into the 30s and 40s when parachuting into large cities. Now with Ryzen 3600 and memory finally at 3200mhz rated speed I rarely see FPS go below 100fps for more than a second. My FPS has improved dramatically by 30-40fps across the board. I am so thankful finally I have a competitive FPS that is suitable for my 144hz monitor.
Psshh… child's play. I'm running two motherboards in SLI. Even my case watercooled. Getting power straight from the transformer outside. Peasants
Turn smt of for the 3900x and manual the memory timing to c14 and overclock the 3900x to 4400 mhz and it will be like the 9900k
you gonna replace your 3900x to 3950x ? and is the 3950x way better ? is it 200+ euro more worth it?
Help me out here guys… How do you change the refresh rate for Crysis 1 on PC. I can't get the refresh rate any higher than 50 hz, how does DF do it?
Not sure how to ask this question, I'm not tech savy but will the design of next gen consoles have an affect on if future games perform better on 3900x or 9900k for example?
is that Elon Musk son
Isn't it all in the marketing that amd did for ryzen? I'm sure they probably have a cpu locked up somewhere which can perform at 9900k levels, but since they represent cheap and affordable, I'm assuming its gonna be a few years before that cpu can be made public or amd otherwise thinks it is now profitable for them to sell it at a lower price. I still would love if amd could show what it has to offer at its best.
Could you please put some timestamp in the description, so we can get the highlights only, kindof TLDW 🙂
How can AMD'S processors be faster in everything except for gaming?? Even when you reduce Intels clockspeed to match Ryzen, Intel still wins in gaming. What gives?
I don't know if you guys get into the nitty gritty but maybe you should look into over clocking your infinity fabric and high output Mega Hertz ram such as 3700 and even 3900 MHz. I mean there are other YouTube reviewers out there that have tested high frequency ram and high frequency infinity fabric and have gotten better results then the 9900 K just a suggestion not that you read this comment you're so busy
Intel comes out with their Comet lake for Desktop. Of course still the 14nm ++++++. But this time their top mainstream will have 10 cores. Obviously not 12-16 cores AMD have..But Intel do have then 2 extra cores and still the 5Ghz and whatever 3% IPC they have between generations.. They will still be gaming king.Considering they adding a 10/20 core CPU then the 8/16 core will come down in price, but still beat the 9900K. So it would become a more viable option and even faster..ZEN 3 would have to bring some magic to catch up to that. It would mean AMD would have to spend most of the IPC for gaming improvements (not going to happen) and then increase clock speeds by a LOT..
This ZEN 2 is actually pathetic when it comes to clock speeds. A 3700X and 2700X have the same clock speeds give or take 100Mhz.. That is just BAD. Considering one is 14nm and the other 7nm..Where is the 25% higher clock speeds? Looks to me either the CPU arch is incapable of doing that or they put it all into keeping power consumption low as they maxed out the Chiplets to 8 cores.So hence here's hoping in ZEN 3 they can keep the same core counts as ZEN 2 but instead focus on clock performance and IPC.. Then we might have a Ryzen that will finally equal 9900K.
But as aforementioned. Comet lake 10 core will be out. Just those 2 extra cores would likely keep the lead.
Weird German and his weirder wannabe accent … terrible
Playing at 4K a 2600X is fine, at least according to average 4K benchmarks at techpowerup for CPU reviews. A 2600X is on par with a 9900K… Because the GPU becomes the bottleneck..Only thing that could take place is some odd drop I guess on Ryzen.. But at 4K and Triple A gaming, you can barely hit 60 Fps even with a 2080Ti.
Please do that feature on next gen specs determining the floor for expected PC hardware needed for next gen games. I'm building a new PC soon and I'm on the fence on whether to go 9700k or 9900k based solely on future proofing for next gen. All this talk about ps5 going 8 core 16 threads has me tilted toward i9
The advantage Intel has is lower memory latency (which games need to perform better) and being able to boost clocks on all cores which again Intel has an advantage in. Zen 2 only boosts to it's rated clocks on a single core (with very good cooling) while all the other cores down clock heavily. I've settled on an all core clock of 4.3Ghz on my 3700X for a more equal performance bump in all scenarios. 4.4Ghz is just not possible unless you win the silicon lottery and using water cooling.
Everyones missing the fact 60fps should be the minimum. PER EYE. stereoscopic 3D in games is actually far more impressive than high framerate, resolution or Ray tracing and is a technology that actually utilizes all this horsepower to a very dramatic in game benefit. Yet the industry and consumer base still don't get it leading to Nvidia recently dropping the tech in their drivers… Such a sad state affairs right now.
Stop misleading with only 1080p benchmarks. I bought the 3900x thinking it would be close to 9900k. But its nowhere near that at 1440p. I only got 5-10% improvement from my 4790k. Would def been lot higher with 9900k. Now i can't go back.
you talking about intel ipc advantage, that is not correct. Intel dont have much ipc advantage anymore, just frequency, but that is not comparable either because its totally different architecture. Its the ring bus design that makes intel faster in games. not ipc.
nVidia 3D vision glasses? This is why I love these guys. I'd like to see more VR content. Keep up the good work!
This is the content I love to see! Digging deep into the way CPUs, single threaded and multi threaded workloads throwing FPS out and showing is frametimes, graphs and analytics do now it all works. I am sick of the fanboys trying to claim new amd is faster than 9900k. It isn’t, that doesn’t mean ryzen 3000 series is bad…
Intel throws more FPS out due to two things. Processor speed and cache for fastest single threaded performance, and memory controller latency as well as cache latency between cores, cpu as whole and how fast that data goes to operating system.
Intel knows how to bridge cores together and have them run at high uncore frequency that almost matches cpu speed, pair that with low latency high speed ram, higher the better which equals even more FPS in games and you got a winner.
Amd went different route with cache, latency and put up a bridge between ccxs and cores that double latency which means slower single threaded performance and less FPS in games…
Just think of the 3900x was made by intel, no ccxs, no bridge, just 12 cores 24 threads all connected together with low latency and lots of cache using uncore instead of ring mesh. It would fly and smoke a 9900k.
Anyhow keep up the videos they are great factual evidence and proof….
AMD crushing it!
Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *
Enregistrer mon nom, mon e-mail et mon site web dans le navigateur pour mon prochain commentaire.