Well technically Skylake only supports 2100 and Kaby Lake 2400, so it's down to the motherboard manufacturers really, isn't it?
Trust me, you could be: if a badly taken photo of an AM4 BIOS were to show a 6c/12t overclocked to 4.7Ghz you would enter a completely different state of hype.
In fact, the mere mention of the words above will prompt some people to ask if it's true.
Meh, before the FX range released there were Intel shills making up false hype by claiming things to be better than they actually were so people would be disappointed.
http://hexus.net/tv/show/2017/01/AMD_s_chief_technical_officer_interviewed?sf52081299=1It worries me that AMD hasnt talked about single threaded (ie gaming) performance yet. Still too far behind intel?
Who needs their data after launch, though?1:50 in, they wont give data until launch.
Do you remember Conroe reviews? That's what i want.so what you people are saying is you want a soft launch...... jesus damned if you do damned if you dont......
that's the thing. If it was really impressive, they would had told us. That's why I am worried.http://hexus.net/tv/show/2017/01/AMD_s_chief_technical_officer_interviewed?sf52081299=1
1:50 in, they wont give data until launch.
that's the thing. If it was really impressive, they would had told us. That's why I am worried.
Sure, ends up slightly short of stock 6900k.Now just imagine that the retail SKUs will have 20% better ST perf than the early sample used in this review..
Sure, ends up slightly short of stock 6900k.
Looked at scaling between 6400 and 6600k, then slightly adjusted it for hypothetical sample with 20% higher clocks and tested Ryzen one.By what measurement?
Look at chart above, man. And that's AAA titles, don't get me started on lower end titles that are single thread bottlenecked even with midrange GPUs.The amount of folks thinking that more cores slightly lower clocks hurts gaming is astonishing.
If you do not know what you are looking at, it is easy to be incompetent, i agree .The cause is the incompetence of some reviewers that create artificial bottlenecks by testing high end GPUs at low resolution.They get a data point of no value and ,apparently, many people draw false conclusions.
Look at chart above, man. And that's AAA titles, don't get me started on lower end titles that are single thread bottlenecked even with midrange GPUs.
If you do not know what you are looking at, it is easy to be incompetent, i agree .
Concerned about gaming perf..?.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/fr...ng-sample-amd-ryzen-processor-benchmarks.html
Now just imagine that the retail SKUs will have 20% better ST perf than the early sample used in this review..
1080 is used by some who want to be able to get a high enough FPS to take advantage of high refresh rates. There is also the issue of not masking the performance of CPUs by having the GPU be the main bottleneck.The cause is the incompetence of some reviewers that create artificial bottlenecks by testing high end GPUs at low resolution.They get a data point of no value and ,apparently, many people draw false conclusions.
No people like you end up believing the very opposite of where the truth is because they confuse the games with the gpu benches the games come with.Would be useful if you would make an attempt to get informed before talking.
My entire point was that people like you end up believing the very opposite of where the truth is.
You are better off with more cores , at realistic resolutions.
If you test a GTX 1080 at 1080p to induce a bottleneck that shows higher clocks getting 165FPS instead of 150FPS for many cores, it doesn't help anyone, except Intel's marketing
Do the same tests at 1440p and 4k and the reality changes quite a bit. There are some games that like many cores, some that like larger caches and very few are clocks bound at realistic resolutions for the GPU utilized. You are better off with many cores.