Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 25,752
- 14,781
- 136
Yes the statement was that the Intel overclocking was better than AMD's (in other words) and I was disagreeing with that. Also, yes, AMD may still not go over 5 ghz, and who cares ? Performance <> GHZ, and most of us have figured that out. The earlier AMD's could hot 5 ghz, but they were crap. And yes, latency is AMDs weakness in gaming IMO.I'm well aware that Intel can reach higher clocks than AMD, I've never argued that. My point (and it seems that Mark's as well) was that unlike previous gens, 10XXX series doesn't really have any overclocking room left and is quite similar to Latest Ryzen in that regard (which is good, no perf left on the table).
I'm also quite certain AMD can't reach 5ghz all-core (though single core will be in the ballpark) but that stat alone is meaningless. Bulldozer did 5Ghz and was still crap.
Zen 2's gaming perfomance deficit is 90% memory interface related (latency) not clock speed. Its perfomance even in lightly threaded apps (other than games) is still often neck and neck with 5.2GHz Intel CPUs, Zen 3 should be all out faster.
The % Intel can overclock vs AMD both on current generations is very similar.
Last edited: