Does anyone find it odd how there are continuously shifting goalposts in this anti-Ryzen narrative?
Does anyone find it odd how there are continuously consistent goalposts in this anti-"anti-Ryzen narrative" narrative?
1. It won't clock past 3.0GHz, good luck getting 3.5GHz --> It won't clock past 4.0GHz, good luck getting 4.5GHz
Cite same person saying that. You can start with me.
2. It will have Sandy Bridge IPC levels or worse --> Oh it has BDW-E IPC? It's still worse than Kaby Lake
See above.
3. It won't work with DDR4 >2667MHz, good luck getting 3000MHz --> AMD posts 3GHz confirmed. Oh, it works with 3000MHz, but lol latency!
Well, "lol latency" came way earlier before "good luck getting 3000Mhz", so you are straight wrong here.
4. Perf/W is everything that matters! --> Oh it's competitive in Perf/W? We'll stop mentioning that...
Shhh, we have not seen power consumption yet.
5. Gaming performance/ST performance will suck! --> Oh, it's within 10% of Intel quads? But Intel quads 5GHz! You don't need more than 4 cores!
Yes, Intel quads 5Ghz, that's why comparing 1700 to it is straight marketing blunder.
Frankly I'll be satisfied with 4.0GHz all-core overclock. Any more is icing on the cake (that happened to cost 1/2 of the BDW-E equivalent). I'm sure I'll be very sad that I got 85%-95% of the performance at 50% of the price.
I'll be satisfied even with 3.7Ghz overclock, as long as it consumes less than 100 watts and memory latency is comparable to Intel's, bandwidth be damned.
For that intel will sell you a "intel inside" T shirt and a 4k screen saver.
For that i could buy 5820k+that x99 itx board like... today . Granted, cooling that would require a separate purchase and modding of the case, but whatever.
he said the exact same thing
Yes, but i meant that 2133C15 has LITERALLY lower latency than 2400C17. He meant that Ryzen posts a notably better latency result here. On which i can only note that it is done with that MSI X370 XPOWER or something board. Can't get much better than that.