re: PC Discussion - Gaming, Performance and Enthusiasts

1080p isnt bad, all depends at what size.

27" is terrible but if you are still at 23-24" then that might be fine for some ppl.

quote:

---

You had dual 980 Tis in sli right?

Shouldn't that give pretty good 1440p performance?

---

I have dual 980s, not Tis. And yeah, as Coyote said, 4K = high-res gaming nowadays.

Not going to get GPUs too immediately, certainly not going to scramble to get the first stock. I'll compare AMD and NVidia offerings/prices over the next 3-6 months.

I would love HBM2 but it really isn't a big deal at the moment. Reason I just pulled the trigger on TITAN XPs.

Just want cost to come down.

quote:

---

Intel pushes out the rest of it's Kaby Lake failure, featuring identical performance to Skylake. Real window for AMD here.

---

We knew this already.

It will clock well though. My damn 6800K clocks like shtt but this wasnt a real upgrade. My X79 MOBO was giving me trouble so wanted the cheapest upgrade with at less 40 PCI-E lanes.

quote:

---

Intel brings desktop performance to a standstill.

---

AMD delivering with Zen really pushing Intel... that and ARM.

PCPer - Intel Allegedly Working to Replace Sandy Bridge

quote:

---

OC3D is claiming that Intel is working on a significantly new architecture, targeting somewhere around the 2019 or 2020 time frame. Like AMD’s Bulldozer, while there were several architectures after the initial release, they were all based around a set of the same basic assumptions with tweaks for better IPC, reducing bottlenecks, and so forth. Intel has also been using the same fundamentals since Sandy Bridge, albeit theirs aligned much better with how x86 applications were being developed.

---

Ryzen 8 core will ship with higher core clocks than the 6900K apparently now as well, so they beat their 3.4GHz guarantee decently.

Will put it within 10% IPC of the 6900K and at same clocks within 5% IPC.

And get this, rumored price for it? $499.

I don't need 8 cores, but at that price+performance, and selling my 6600K for $200...I can justify it to myself.

quote:

---

I thought the 6800K has 28 lanes

---

Sorry yes 28. Didnt need 2x16 but 2x8 with my M.2 PCIe with x4.

Ryzen 8 core has a TDP of 95w.

The 6900K is 140w.

They got crushed there too.

Not really sure, all I have seen is 93w but not specifics.

quote:

---

Finally, power consumption tests reveal the chip pulls 93 Watts, just under the promised 95 Watt TDP AMD announced at the launch event. That’s much more in line with the Core i7-6600K, and should allow a little extra overhead for overclocking the chip. LINK

---

quote:

---

In a pair of dramatic head-to-head benchmarks, the Ryzen matched the i7-6900K’s performance in a Blender benchmark, and edged out the Intel CPU in the Handbrake benchmark, by five seconds. The most impressive part? Ryzen is said to accomplish this at a lower wattage than the Intel chip. Ryzen has a thermal design power of 95 watts, while the Core i7-6900K it was compared to has a TDP of 140 watts.

---

I don't really specifics in relation to boost, probably because engineering samples which were 3.3 and boost of 3.6.

But the full reveal and hopefully pricing+release date will be revealed at CES, Ryzen is supposedly launching this month and worldwide in Feb so I would assume we get both of those details.

I think that likely includes it, engineering samples for those benchmarks are 3.3GHz base and 3.6GHz boost and a test TDP of 93w.

But yeah, guess they could get up to 98w or so with the expected 3.6GHz base clock on the consumer chips.

Hopefully they offer a 6 core version, much prefer that. I don't need or want 8 cores unless I have to and the price is insanely worth it.

quote:

---

Maybe because Intel is reading for 4GHz Turbo and its within their 140W TDP limit which they always stay below for the extreme line.

---

I thought it was always stock TDP? The 6900K has a base clock of 3.2GHz and a boost clock of 3.7GHz, maybe I am just confused, you are saying that they rate it at 140w TDP for an OC of 4GHz?