So 4.7 ghz is not doing any "useful work" but 5 ghz is ? That is a rediculous statement, 6% less speed is not doing any "useful work". Talk about bias.That's a single core that may not be doing any useful work at that speed, given what we have seen with AMD's remedy to the boosting saga in earlier releases. I'm sure @DigDog was talking about all core overclock, which the 9900KS will do.
A lot of people on Reddit (even some members here) have reported their chips only boosting to the advertised single core boost clock while idle, or momentarily, never sustained in any significant workload; and this was after AMD released the ABBA bios.So 4.7 ghz is not doing any "useful work" but 5 ghz is ? That is a rediculous statement, 6% less speed is not doing any "useful work". Talk about bias.
Any sustained workload has nothing to do with single core boost. 12 cores@4.1 for a multi-threaded workload will easily beat 8 cores@5 ghz.A lot of people on Reddit (even some members here) have reported their chips only boosting to the advertised single core boost clock while idle, or momentarily, never sustained in any significant workload; and this was after AMD released the ABBA bios.
The 9900k may not have been running at 4.7GHz because they apparently turned off MCE:Whatever the settings for a same load the 9900K use 130W@4.7 and the 9900KS 142W@5.0, i see no miracle here, just that a particularly bad 9900K sample that overclock badly is used as a mean to make a well binned sample look like a big step ahead..
From 4.7 to 5.0, wich is 6%, their 9900K require almost 50% more power, i mean, for a proper comparison of process progress lower frequency should be used, and in this respect the available numbers point to only the extremity of the frequency ceiling as being improved, at 4.0-4.7 FI difference is negligible.
So that'll mean that the 9900K was running at 95 watts stock, and turbo boosting to 130 watts, briefly. A sustained load would've pushed consumption higher, and that's what the 192 watts shows when the chip is pushed to a fixed 5GHz. These figures are all ballpark for the 9900k.MSI turns this (Enhanced Turbo) on by default in its BIOS, similar to most of its competition. Performance, power consumption, and heat are all affected, naturally. We manually disable this feature for our stock CPU testing to best reflect Intel's specifications.
What happens when you run CB15 or CB20 single core? Is that a sustained load or not? That's AMD's problem right there. Again, you go in circles only to come back to my point. Idle is idle. It doesn't count.Any sustained workload has nothing to do with single core boost.
I know some people are more obsessed with what their CPU boosts to, but most people only care about how it actually performs when performing tasks. Does the performance and power usage match what reviewers reported? Then honestly who cares about 25 - 50 Mhz?A lot of people on Reddit (even some members here) have reported their chips only boosting to the advertised single core boost clock while idle, or momentarily, never sustained in any significant workload; and this was after AMD released the ABBA bios.
You really felt the need to continue with that?What happens when you run CB15 or CB20 single core? Is that a sustained load or not? That's AMD's problem right there. Again, you go in circles only to come back to my point. Idle is idle. It doesn't count.
Cinebench in single core more is only a number. Multithreaded number is more meaningful. And single core is an indicator of IPC, and Ryzen 3000 series seems to do well. We don't even have a number for 9900ks, so why are you even bringing this up ?What happens when you run CB15 or CB20 single core? Is that a sustained load or not? That's AMD's problem right there. Again, you go in circles only to come back to my point. Idle is idle. It doesn't count.
I doubt they can do 5GHz on one core, much less 8.
So you're now arguing against the relevance of single core boost? There are many apps that use single core, sustained, games notably, Adobe software, etc. Why did AMD even bother boosting single core clocks that high in the first place? For show?Cinebench in single core more is only a number. Multithreaded number is more meaningful. And single core is an indicator of IPC, and Ryzen 3000 series seems to do well. We don't even have a number for 9900ks, so why are you even bringing this up ?
Well, chip "performance" was what was always touted when the clocks fanatics ran amok in threads on this forum not too long ago but now that AMD has seemingly solved that issue, it seems we're back to debating the importance of clocks. My skepticism is not even directed at AMD, but TSMC's 7nm process.I know some people are more obsessed with what their CPU boosts to, but most people only care about how it actually performs when performing tasks. Does the performance and power usage match what reviewers reported? Then honestly who cares about 25 - 50 Mhz?
YOU brought up single core boost. Anything you can try to use to show this CPU in a good light, you do. I am really sick of thisSo you're now arguing against the relevance of single core boost? There are many apps that use single core, sustained, games notably, Adobe software, etc. Why did AMD even bother boosting single core clocks that high in the first place? For show?
And Rome, which uses this 7nm process has broken like every world record and you say you are skeptical of the process ?Well, chip "performance" was what was always touted when the clocks fanatics ran amok in threads on this forum not too long ago but now that AMD has seemingly solved that issue, it seems we're back to debating the importance of clocks. My skepticism is not even directed at AMD, but TSMC's 7nm process.
The 9900KS doesn't even have single core boost, from what I understand. It'll run all cores at 5GHz all the time so how did I use single core boost to show this chip in a good light? My reply to @DigDog was that I doubt AMD could hit 5GHz on a single core (AMD does implement single core boosting in zen 2, right?) let alone 8 cores. And my answer is based on the reality of zen 2 chips struggling to run sustained loads on a single core at advertised speeds.YOU brought up single core boost. Anything you can try to use to show this CPU in a good light, you do. I am really sick of this
My skepticism is not directed at density or power consumption but rather max frequency.And Rome, which uses this 7nm process has broken like every world record and you say you are skeptical of the process ?
You really need to get back to reality.
I salute you, the heroic defenders of the last hill still to fall. Your struggles will be revered in the Hall of Heroes eternally.My skepticism is not directed at density or power consumption but rather max frequency.
I am not one of those people.Well, chip "performance" was what was always touted when the clocks fanatics ran amok in threads on this forum not too long ago but now that AMD has seemingly solved that issue, it seems we're back to debating the importance of clocks. My skepticism is not even directed at AMD, but TSMC's 7nm process.
Absolute clock speed alone is irrelevant, as is IPC, taken on its own. Performance is all that matters. And even with performance, it’s only a matter of what that means to a given application, like game frame rates or compile times or how quickly Excel computes a graph based on a huge spreadsheet. That’s the bottom line. That's all that matters. That is why we use computers.And my answer is based on the reality of zen 2 chips struggling to run sustained loads on a single core at advertised speeds.
Obviously they are not using AVX2 at all since the 9900K use 130W, exactly what it drain in Cinebench R15, with AVX2 and Prime 95 it goes up to 185W despite a frequency offset.
why can't AMD make a 9900KS?
Again, all this stupid testing is using a synthetic AVX work load that no one will ever experience because there are almost no consumer apps that use AVX. TH's (and other sites) use of these benchmarks is absurd. Let the silliness proceed...
ok, this is a bit puzzling to me because i associate die shrink with increased clockspeed. But i am convinced that if AMD wanted, purely for marketing reasons, they could make a CPU that can clock 5Ghz, regardless of what die size they need to make it at; do you need 14nm, 10nm, 7nm, whatever, as long as you put it out, and it doesn't really matter if it's IRL less useful than a higher core count CPU with a better IPC because it's a marketing war, not a performance war. You could literally target a specific application, i.e make a CPU designed to run GTAV, and sell it, then make another targeted at Photoshop, and so forth.TSMC 7HP won't clock that high. They don't really need to anyway. Zen2 is already hella fast, and Zen3 shows up soon with IPC improvements and possible clockspeed improvements.
ok, this is a bit puzzling to me because i associate die shrink with increased clockspeed.
I don't get this bucket of hate..
If that what toms measured is true
...so how did Intel achieve it?
The 9900k may not have been running at 4.7GHz because they apparently turned off MCE:
So that'll mean that the 9900K was running at 95 watts stock, and turbo boosting to 130 watts, briefly. A sustained load would've pushed consumption higher, and that's what the 192 watts shows when the chip is pushed to a fixed 5GHz. These figures are all ballpark for the 9900k.