You are overthinking it, present estimate from AMD is 55% and that is basically Broadwell-E in single thread... per clock.New Let us take a look at single thread.
Only Vega scores i remember popping are these, though http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/device-id-687fc1-surfaces-in-aots-vega-10-aka-rx-490-spotted.htmlBecause the AMD_Fanboy or whatever its called removed previous scores, for Vega GPU, that appeared on his profile and were faked.
So, how did you find 1.50.24210.0 benches?New Better hope its fake because the 7700k from ver 1.50.24210.0 absolutely destroys it. Zen may as well be bulldozer.
I guess one can hope .Zen may as well be bulldozer.
Hardops forum is having a meltdown over the benchmark. Amd is finished etc etc
That's next level right there haha. I like itWould be funny if these fake benchmarks are actually from AMD trolling the fanboys, ramming a wrench into the spokes of the hype train just to make the reveal all that more epic.
C-F "finished" "0 results". Yeah, a total meltdown.Hardops forum is having a meltdown over the benchmark. Amd is finished etc etc
You mean such an obvious trolling that even myself, a guy who literally spent 2 evening making sure that initial Naples leak (the one with really really really bad performance) *could be legitimate*, thinks it's an obvious fake?Would be funny if these fake benchmarks are actually from AMD trolling the fanboys, ramming a wrench into the spokes of the hype train just to make the reveal all that more epic.
Hardops forum is having a meltdown over the benchmark. Amd is finished etc etc
You are overthinking it, present estimate from AMD is 55% and that is basically Broadwell-E in single thread... per clock.
Only Vega scores i remember popping are these, though http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/device-id-687fc1-surfaces-in-aots-vega-10-aka-rx-490-spotted.html
But hey, if he has a history of faking stuff, so be it, i ain't heard of it tho.
If we go back to multithreding. Any comments on this:
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...d5e3d5e3d1e2d0f684b989afcaaf92a284f7cafa&l=en
If we go back to multithreding. Any comments on this:
http://ranker.sisoftware.net/show_r...d5e3d5e3d1e2d0f684b989afcaaf92a284f7cafa&l=en
Go back about hundred pages, you may find a comparison between early Naples sample and Excavator in single thread.Any benchmark with 55% increase?
Some benchmarks where you need both fast L2 and fast L3 OK I believe 55% is not unrealistic but all are not like that. Most in SPEC2006fp works well with a slow big L3.
What relevance does it have?If we go back to multithreding. Any comments on this:
If you look at Vishera results, with 8 threads, you will find similar scores when overclocked. As this is a test that seems to scale quite well with the number of threads/physical cores, it seems quite unlikely that a CPU with double the count of FPU units & threads (not to mention a lot more schedule/execution/retire resources per core) will score the same as an overclocked old generation part. So something is quite off in that test, I don't know if it's fake or simply we are looking to a issue with the test itself.The result is 318.
If you look at Intel 16 T for newer systems you are in range 700-800.
Some of the older 2 socket systems are worse and some 6C/12T are also worse.
So for me it looks like Westmere and not Sandy Bridge.
Nahhhh.
It will be 4.5GHz 95W, consuming 70W actually, with 5GHz OC and BDe level IPC at 60-70% it's price.
Intel is doomed.
Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)
I think AMD has commented on video card benchmarks before?
Ryzen 8C/16T 3.6-4.0 GHz
https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/PC_Shopping/M.1485365573.A.E03.html
http://www.ashesofthesingularity.co...-details/409f0980-b72c-4d49-b6b8-2c4847c6bb5d
Real or Fake?