Rocket Lake would have been a nice product if it had come out 6 months ago. Now that Ryzen 5xxx is out, it just seems kind of meh.
Rocket Lake would have been a nice product if it had come out 6 months ago. Now that Ryzen 5xxx is out, it just seems kind of meh.I'm sure there are plenty of AMD threads to post in. This is supposed to be about Intel products.
I tried finding a specific result Geekbench 5 result of AMD Ryzen 7 5800X that closely matches the aggregate: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/5121238
Going to the sub-scores: Integer score is the same
Score Intel Rocket Lake, 8 cores, 5.0 GHz AMD Ryzen 7 5800X Single-core 1645 1666 Crypto 4323 3967 Integer 1416 1420 Floating Point 1696 1814
Add .gb5 to the URL for each run and you'll get more information. That 5800X was running at or a bit below than 4.2GHz throughout that whole run.Yeah I tried doing some of the same, the thing is the scores are all over the place and there isn't enough information to see why. Obviously, a lot of it is OC \ power limit settings, some is RAM speeds, and some may be thermals / environment.
For example, here's a 10700K beating a 5800X on both single and multi-core.
Without system details It is almost impossible to tell what is going on.
Add .gb5 to the URL for each run and you'll get more information. That 5800X was running at or a bit below than 4.2GHz throughout that whole run.
Overall, it seems like Zen 3 has slightly higher int score/clock and significantly higher float score/clock. Rocket has the edge in the crypto score, as expected.
Thanks that helps. The previous post I was responding to had an overclocked 5800X with 3.9Ghz base and 4.9 Ghz boost in the comparison (3.8 / 4.7 is default). This would skew the results by about 4%.
Most people can make whatever point they want with the general geekbench results without any context.
So the gb5 output doesn't help on what the setup is for the RKL bench.
For example, it says that it is command rate zero (should be 1 or 2) CL 0 RAM with zero channels (should be 1 or 2). It is also unable to identify the memory type and correct bus speed and says the bus frequency is 24Mhz (should be 100 normally).
So, not sure any of it is very reliable.
With Zen3 the listed max boost clock isn't really the max, Zen 3 CPUs will consistently boost above the listed max with variation depending on sample quality.
That didn't take long.
He clearly has something overclocked. His 5800X multi-core has the same issue, that isn't stock.
This is stock, from guru3d, note the max frequency hit was 4641 avg 3.972 :
View attachment 35030
If you’ve read through this far in the review, you have already seen that we’re here quoting going above 5.0 GHz for the Ryzen 9 5950X. Despite having an official single core turbo of 4.9 GHz, the processor has an internal metric of ‘peak’ frequency assuming there is sufficient thermal and power headroom of 5025 MHz. This in effect should be its official turbo value. In combination with the default precision boost behavior, we saw a very regular and sustained 5050 MHz.
Looks to me like your screenshot shows it reaching 4850 MHz on each core. You're looking at the effective clock frequency which is more like a rolling average which will never show the actual max frequency of the core because the threads bounce around from core to core. This behavior was documented by Anandtech as well in their review of the 5950x which also boosts above stated max clocks:
AMD Zen 3 Ryzen Deep Dive Review: 5950X, 5900X, 5800X and 5600X Tested
www.anandtech.com
Again, this is at stock, no overclock. Multiple review sites all show the same thing including your guru3d screenshot.
Again, that is PBO. Most of these sites keep turning on PBO. That allows the AMD chip to increase clocks beyond its default if it is within power limits, if you have a good motherboard, and you won the chip lottery. It is not the default.
From AT: "In combination with the default precision boost behavior, we saw a very regular and sustained 5050 MHz. "
And :
"We were told that the 4.9 GHz value for single core turbo should cover all situations, based on BIOS version, motherboard used, and the quality of the silicon inside. The company is happy to let the base precision boost algorithms (or what eXtreme Frequency Range/XFR was rolled into) enable something higher than 4.9 GHz if it can, and they confirmed that with a standard high-end AM4 built and this processor, 5025/5050 MHz should be easily achievable with a large proportion of 5950X retail hardware. "
From AMD's site :
View attachment 35032
Precision boost is not PBO, precision boost is just what AMD calls its boost algorithm and default precision boost behavior = stock. PBO stands for precision boost overdrive and is an overclocked version of precision boost. Zen 3 boosts beyond stated max turbo without turning on PBO. Anandtech, Guru3d, Gamers Nexus, HUB, plus many others all show this. Why do you continue to argue when clearly you are unfamiliar with the platform and architecture?
Because the articles don't state that. It is not default unless your motherboard came with it on by default. This is no different than using Intel's XTU to tune an Intel rig power limits and Tau. None, at all.
Note bolded sections :
"AMD's Precision Boost Overdrive (PBO) introduced one-click hassle-free overclocking to the masses for the Ryzen lineup of processors. Still, while the tech boosts performance in multi-threaded workloads, it has long failed to benefit single-threaded workloads. That changes in December when AMD's new Precision Boost Overdrive 2 (PBO2) lands in BIOS patches. The new PBO2 boosts single-threaded performance while retaining the benefits of the existing multi-core boosts, and even adds a little extra oomph there, too. "
"As with all overclocking, and AMD's policy with the first-gen PBO, the new PBO2 invalidates your warranty. "
AMD Introduces Precision Boost Overdrive 2, Boosts Single Thread Performance
Pump up the voltagewww.tomshardware.com
I really don't want to post this in this thread but do people actually really believe this thing will be a competitor to Zen3 parts?
Well putting words in my mouth is nice , but should be avoided , I havent been spoon fed for just shy of 4 decades !So you are saying that after the consoles die down, AMD would have the capacity from TSMC to supply 70% or more, of the PC market, as intel has now? OK then.
I am not disagreeing that Intel has more serious problems right now than AMD, but I think you are seriously over estimating how many chips AMD could produce.
And yet the 5800X is priced against the i9. There's an obvious gap between $300 and $450 in AMD pricing, so arguing RKL-S i7 will be better priced against the competition works only if you ignore what the competition is poised to do in early 2021.If the i7 is priced below $400, preferably around $350, then it will be a much better choice than the 5800X.
Comparison against the top SKU is not very relevant IMO. Just like the 10850K is available now for $390 on BHPhotovideo, and for roughly $60(equivalent) cheaper than the 5800X in my country, the i7 part if it is identical in core-count compared to the i9 will be a very compelling buy at sub-400 dollar pricing since I do not expect the situation with Zen 3 to improve much by the (rumored) January launch-date of Rocket Lake.And yet the 5800X is priced against the i9. There's an obvious gap between $300 and $450 in AMD pricing, so arguing RKL-S i7 will be better priced against the competition works only if you ignore what the competition is poised to do in early 2021.
I sure hope we get to see RKL-S with good availability and pricing, but given the current market conditions I won't be holding my breath.
And you expect RKL-S to have good availability to keep prices under control in January? I'd love to have some of your (positively charged) coffee.I do not expect the situation with Zen 3 to improve much by the (rumored) January launch-date of Rocket Lake.
This.And you expect RKL-S to have good availability to keep prices under control in January? I'd love to have some of your (positively charged) coffee.
Intel doesn't have the same supply constraints as AMD, and AMD's constraints won't ease off in Q121. They have their highest margin products launching in that time.And you expect RKL-S to have good availability to keep prices under control in January? I'd love to have some of your (positively charged) coffee.
The i9 isn't as important as the i7 if both are going to be 8C/16T parts. What happened to the i9 10900K was a binning issue. That's why the 10850K was launched shortly after. I expect the same with Rocket Lake.Honestly after what happened with the 10900K I'm expecting the Rocket Lake i9 to also be practically unobtainable for a while.
Intel doesn't have the same supply constraints as AMD, and AMD's constraints won't ease off in Q121. They have their highest margin products launching in that time.
The i9 isn't as important as the i7 if both are going to be 8C/16T parts. What happened to the i9 10900K was a binning issue. That's why the 10850K was launched shortly after. I expect the same with Rocket Lake.