marquimvfs
Member
They're paying him with shares, that's why he's upset lately.Man, I really hope Intel is paying you, because otherwise “just why.gif”…
They're paying him with shares, that's why he's upset lately.Man, I really hope Intel is paying you, because otherwise “just why.gif”…
Nah, just OP is upset that these aren't the best in idle power consumption. Because that is what matters in productivity focused CPUs on a gaming forum.The way how everyone is reacting, one would think Zen5 is 5× worst than Zen4.
The issue that it’s not really any better and it’s more expensive. We shall see what happens when 9800x3D and 9950x3D hit.The way how everyone is reacting, one would think Zen5 is 5× worst than Zen4.
The way how everyone is reacting, one would think Zen5 is 5× worst than Zen4.
The 9700X is going to 105W though.Cause it is. A barely above average 7700X sample will outperform a 9700X in a lot of workloads due to the higher TDP and clocks. Meanwhile a cheaper 7800X3D (currently $340) will curb stomp it in gaming.
Barely above is not 5× worst though.Cause it is. A barely above average 7700X sample will outperform a 9700X in a lot of workloads due to the higher TDP and clocks. Meanwhile a cheaper 7800X3D (currently $340) will curb stomp it in gaming.
When its coming 2 years later and offering no real upgrade for Zen4 for most users, its abysmal.The way how everyone is reacting, one would think Zen5 is 5× worst than Zen4.
I don't think its any thing special for Raptor Lake... I tested more than one Raptor Lake CPU on my rig and they produced simlilar (within error margins) low idle power numbers.I did see what Leonidas posted earlier and those are great results for that chip. Must be a hell of a bin.
AMD promises Windows 11 patch boosting Zen5, Zen 4, and Zen 3 gaming performance - VideoCardz.com
AMD clarifies discrepancies in gaming performance between official data and reviews The company says that Windows patch will improve gaming performance, explains why ‘admin’ account was used for internal testing. AMD published a blog post discussing the disparity between the official gaming...videocardz.com
AMD said that it's working with Microsoft to bring the "correct" branch prediction behavior seen in admin mode to regular Windows 11 user accounts. These updates will be incorporated in the retail release of Windows 24H2, although you won't have to wait until then. Microsoft will release this as an "optional update" sooner than that, so it could be implemented on Windows 11 23H2. Here's the best part—it turns out that the admin mode discrepancy even affects "Zen 4" and "Zen 3" processors, which means even Ryzen 5000 thru Ryzen 7000 series processors should get a performance uplift in regular Windows 11 user accounts.
AMD released a blog post to address discrepancies in Zen 5's gaming performance benchmarks following the launch of its Ryzen 9000 series. Various reviewers reported differing results, leading to confusion among users. AMD attributes these inconsistencies to different test methodologies, hardware configurations, and software settings. The company has updated its internal benchmark suite, including a revised list of game titles, and shared adjusted performance projections.
AMD has updated its performance expectations for the Ryzen 9000 series. Initially, AMD claimed these processors were 6% faster than Intel's similar offerings. However, after applying optimized settings for Intel chips, AMD now reports that both brands deliver comparable gaming performance. AMD still expects the Ryzen 9000 series to outperform the earlier Ryzen 7000 series. AMD also discussed a Windows feature called the "Admin" profile, which enhances performance through branch prediction optimizations. This benefit will soon extend to all Windows 11 users via an update.
Issues with AMD’s chipset drivers were acknowledged, with a fix currently in development. The chipset driver’s core parking feature, which boosts performance in specific Ryzen models, poses challenges if processors are changed, potentially requiring a complete system reinstall to resolve. AMD clarified that their performance benchmarks vary significantly based on the game mix and settings chosen. The company has updated its benchmarks to include more recent games, offering a clearer view of current performance levels.Intel's stability problems also affected initial comparisons. After Intel corrected these issues, AMD reassessed its Ryzen 9000 series performance with more robust settings, finding them equivalent to Intel’s chips under optimal conditions. AMD adjusted its previous claims regarding the Ryzen 9000’s performance over the Ryzen 7000 series, now estimating a 5-8% improvement in 1080p gaming. The company also noted the performance boost of using an Admin account for benchmarking due to specific optimizations that will soon be standard with a Windows update. Additionally, the impact of Virtualization-Based Security (VBS) on gaming was discussed; it can decrease performance, and variations may occur based on its use in testing.
Overall, AMD’s blog post clarified that while the Ryzen 9000 competes closely with Intel in gaming, it excels in productivity and AI tasks. The full impact of the forthcoming Windows update on performance will be assessed through further testing.
That's precisely what they are claiming. Extracted from their blog post:At the end of the day, even if the update reaches AMDs best case, it will still only match Raptor Lake in gaming.
Emphasis in "parity in gaming".When comparing to the competition using optimal settings, higher memory speed and extreme power delivery profile for the competition and Windows 11, version 24H2 for both (see details below), we see a double-digit lead for Ryzen 9000 Series in productivity and creator applications, ~30% lead in AI workloads, and parity in gaming using the most popular games included in the reviews.
My prediction of Arrow Lake taking the 2024 gaming crown increases even furtherAMD Ryzen 9000X3D with 3D V-Cache now expected to launch in January - VideoCardz.com
AMD Ryzen 9000X3D reportedly launching at CES 2025, not next month as claimed earlier Not as soon as expected. New details have emerged about the upcoming Ryzen 9000X3D series, based on the Zen5 architecture and featuring additional 3D V-Cache. Contrary to earlier reports suggesting an earlier...videocardz.com
X3D coming in January
Guess I’m waiting until January to see if anything is worth upgrading from my 13900k. I’m thinking probably not for gaming at 4k.AMD Ryzen 9000X3D with 3D V-Cache now expected to launch in January - VideoCardz.com
AMD Ryzen 9000X3D reportedly launching at CES 2025, not next month as claimed earlier Not as soon as expected. New details have emerged about the upcoming Ryzen 9000X3D series, based on the Zen5 architecture and featuring additional 3D V-Cache. Contrary to earlier reports suggesting an earlier...videocardz.com
X3D coming in January
I know, and that's not good for a 2024 CPU, to only reach parity with a 2022 architecture in gaming. I thought new things were supposed to be faster, not reach the same performance as old CPUs in gaming.That's precisely what they are claiming. Extracted from their blog post:
Emphasis in "parity in gaming".
The criticism comes from the BS marketing, which even baffled most reviewers. I've never seen a CPU that falls so short of their claims.I, personally, see no reason to call AMD on anything besides not being a soo good upgrade in gaming, and that alone doesn't justify the level of criticism I've seeing.
If your criticism had roots in bullshit marketing, you weren't an Intel fanboy. GN wasn't going to loose their time because there's nothing to investigate. AMD benchmarks were released, and they did their own, results compared, reviewed launched, what else did you want? An wasted series of bashing AMD just for the clicks? An coverage similar to Intel failure just because you're not happy with the results? Grow the fuck up.I know, and that's not good for a 2024 CPU, to only reach parity with a 2022 architecture in gaming. I thought new things were supposed to be faster, not reach the same performance as old CPUs in gaming.
All it does is make me think, damn, my ~2 year old 2022 CPU is still doing well, trading blows with a 2024 CPU.
The criticism comes from the BS marketing, which even baffled most reviewers. I've never seen a CPU that falls so short of their claims.
The criticism is justified. I'm surprised Gamers Nexus hasn't went after AMD for their marketing claims, if it were Intel who fell way short and misrepresented AMD, you can bet your ass GN would have had a multi-series investigation out by now.
Yikes! HUB calling BS on AMD. I'll wait to see the testing but HUB doesn't seem to think it the end of the day, even if the update reaches AMDs best case, it will still only match Raptor Lake in gaming. When Arrow Lake's launch is right around the corner.
I know, and that's not good for a 2024 CPU, to only reach parity with a 2022 architecture in gaming. I thought new things were supposed to be faster, not reach the same performance as old CPUs in gaming.
All it does is make me think, damn, my ~2 year old 2022 CPU is still doing well, trading blows with a 2024 CPU.
The criticism comes from the BS marketing, which even baffled most reviewers. I've never seen a CPU that falls so short of their claims.
The criticism is justified. I'm surprised Gamers Nexus hasn't went after AMD for their marketing claims, if it were Intel who fell way short and misrepresented AMD, you can bet your ass GN would have had a multi-series investigation out by now.
Why can't people accept the reality?
Which straw will be grabbed at next. Wonder if Intel will see gaming improvement in the new version of Windows as Intel also sees improvements using Admin Mode on Windows.
Why can't people accept the reality?
Which straw will be grabbed at next. Wonder if Intel will see gaming improvement in the new version of Windows as Intel also sees improvements using Admin Mode on Windows.
And those don't match up with the 1st party numbers. Why can't AMD just admit that they were wrong, and that their numbers were misleading, and update the numbers to something more realistic...I'm going to say to you, something I have told you many times already, what matters are the independent benchmarks.
And those don't match up with the 1st party numbers. Why can't AMD just admit that they were wrong, and that their numbers were misleading, and update the numbers to something more realistic...
Scott "we're going to kick Nvidia's fucking ass" Herkleman at least came out and said that they missed the mark when AMDs internal numbers were off.Because they are always wrong.
At least Scott "we're going to kick Nvidia's fucking ass" Herkleman came out and said that they missed the mark when AMDs internal numbers were off.
Why can't they just come out and do the same here,
The marketing numbers do matter to a degree as they set expectations, and reviewers always test against them to see if they misrepresent the product, which AMD has done here...Because it doesn't matter. What matters are the independent benchmarks. Always, the f****** independent benchmarks.
The marketing numbers do matter to a degree as they set expectations, and reviewers always test against them to see if they misrepresent the product, which AMD has done here...
A lot of AMD fans fall in that camp. I see a lot of AMD fans disappointed that AMD basically lied to them about the performance of these products.Only for people that are too naïve to understand that these powerpoint slides are always padded.
A lot of AMD fans fall in that camp. I see a lot of AMD fans disappointed that AMD basically lied to them about the performance of these products.
This could have been avoided if AMD had been a bit more honest with their numbers.
A lot of AMD fans fall in that camp. I see a lot of AMD fans disappointed that AMD basically lied to them about the performance of these products.
This could have been avoided if AMD had been a bit more honest with their numbers.
Even if one person falls for the numbers, it does matter. And lots of AMD fans fell for it.It doesn't matter. Neither Intel, nor AMD fanboys.
Intel never published gaming results for Arrow Lake. I'll compare the reviews to Intel's 1st party when they publish them, as reviewers will do.And you didn't say how you deal with Intel's claim that Lion Core will improve by 14%, while you say it's going to improve by 5%.
Who is wrong, you or Intel? And do you put any stock into results from only synthetic benchmarks?
It would be nice if AMD stopped grasping at straws and face the reality that the CPUs did not perform as they said, and for AMD to come out and say that they will do better next time (like Scott Herkleman did with the 7900XTX). And for them to actually, do better next time. That is what I would like to see.AMD benchmarks were released, and they did their own, results compared, reviewed launched, what else did you want?
Even if one person falls for the numbers, it does matter. And lots of AMD fans fell for it.
Intel never published gaming results for Arrow Lake. I'll compare the reviews to Intel's 1st party when they publish them, as reviewers will do.
I don't recall saying its going to improve by 5%. If I did, that was a prediction. Just like my prediction that Arrow Lake will (probably) beat Zen5 in gaming.
An IPC number from many non-gaming scenarios does not translate to gaming performance, that type of thinking is why your CPU gaming predictions are always so far off, with you predicting Zen5 as being 20-30% faster than Zen4, before we knew the final IPC.You voted on the 5% performance improvement, on the thread that you created. Unless you have gone there and change it.
But you still haven't answered my question. Do you think Intel is lying with their IPC claim?
An IPC number from many non-gaming scenarios does not translate to gaming performance, that type of thinking is why your CPU gaming predictions are always so far off, with you predicting Zen5 as being 20-30% faster than Zen4, before we knew the final IPC.
I just never thought AMD would release a CPU in 2024 that performed worse in gaming than Intel did in 2022. I did not think about IPC.We were all wrong. Remember you voted 10-15%. Which is basically what AMD had in their PowerPoint slides.
Does that make you now an AMD fanboy?
I just never thought AMD would release a CPU in 2024 that performed worse in gaming than Intel did in 2022. I did not think about IPC.
I was the first on this forum to call BS on AMDs slides, so I'm not sure how you can say that.Well that's because you trust too much in powerpoint slides.
I was the first on this forum to call BS on AMDs slides, so I'm not sure how you can say that.
And I got tons of shit for it, despite being right...
I knew AMDs slides were wrong because they blatantly skewed the results with their testing method.You got tons of shit because you claimed that only AMD slides were wrong.