True. I suspect 9600X will be much better with PBO and Curve Shaper due to having lower temps than 7600X. Stock performance difference will not be enough to warrant an upgrade, unless the user is running something FP-intensive.geekbench. Need I say more.
4800MT/s for the 9600X vs 7600MT/s for the 7600X and GB6 is very membw sensitive.9600X vs. 7600X on the same mobo: https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/7182575?baseline=7181563
Looks like nothing to write home about
We are in the era of diminishing gains.How is it possible all internals got beefed up even doubled but its only 10%-20% at most
everyone's in disbelief!
Clearly not all of them were doubled. They forgot to double exactly the ones that would fetch 2x speed-up :-DHow is it possible all internals got beefed up even doubled but its only 10%-20% at most
everyone's in disbelief!
Makes absolutely no difference to the Single Core score:4800MT/s for the 9600X vs 7600MT/s for the 7600X and GB6 is very membw sensitive.
I expect a 13-14% score difference using the same memory.
That's better. About 1.15x my 7840U in Linux.Huang got his STX Zenbook to boost properly lmao.
Linux providing 2/3 worth of a gen-on-gen improvement will never be not funny.
Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 P-cores (28W, 4C8T) - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASUSTeK COMPUTER INC. ASUS Zenbook S 16 UM5606WA_UM5606WA with an AMD Ryzen AI 9 HX 370 w/ Radeon 890M processor.browser.geekbench.com
That is absolutely not true.Makes absolutely no difference to the Single Core score:
ASRock X670E Taichi Carrara - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASRock X670E Taichi Carrara with an AMD Ryzen 5 9600X processor.browser.geekbench.com
Literally proved in the link I posted, which is with 6400 MT/s memory.That is absolutely not true.
5.0 vs 5.5GHz for those SKUs, so clock normalised we also end at like 9%This shows the 9700X in a much better light over the 7800X3D:
Latency isnt shown and is as important as clock. How else can you explain the massive descrepancies in ST and MT scores reporting same CPU clocks for same SKUs?Literally proved in the link I posted, which is with 6400 MT/s memory.
MT score of GB6 is irrelevant.Latency isnt shown and is as important as clock. How else can you explain the massive descrepancies in ST and MT scores reporting same CPU clocks for same SKUs?
Maybe overall, especially when comparing two different products. But comparing the exact same product against itself can provide some value. The core configuration and uarch is unchanged so differences in score can be attributed to more specific differences like boost clocks and memory.MT score of GB6 is irrelevant.
The 'consensus' - if you will - in this forum is that GB6 multi-core score is useless as representative of your typical multi-core workload.Maybe overall, especially when comparing two different products. But comparing the exact same product against itself can provide some value. The core configuration and uarch is unchanged so differences in score can be attributed to more specific differences like boost clocks and memory.
I can see nuance is lost on you.The 'consensus' - if you will - in this forum is that GB6 multi-core score is useless as representative of your typical multi-core workload.
For some unknown reason, a quite good result for 9600X posted after the above run, different system. This one appears to be hitting and maintaining full ST boost at least, but dont know if this is PBO or what.4800MT/s for the 9600X vs 7600MT/s for the 7600X and GB6 is very membw sensitive.
I expect a 13-14% score difference using the same memory.
At 6400 MT/s you might be running FCLK:MCLK at a ratio of 1:2.Makes absolutely no difference to the Single Core score:
ASRock X670E Taichi Carrara - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an ASRock X670E Taichi Carrara with an AMD Ryzen 5 9600X processor.browser.geekbench.com
Nah, I find it funny that a forum whose members overwhelmingly decided that GB6 MT is useless suddenly splitting hairs about perceived differences between submissions because reality is turning out to be quite different from the hype they have been feeding on for months.I can see nuance is lost on you.
Again, nuance is lost on you.Nah, I find it funny that a forum whose members overwhelmingly decided that GB6 MT is useless suddenly splitting hairs about perceived differences between submissions because reality is turning out to be quite different from the hype they have been feeding on for months.
The reality is always more complex, no matter what the consensus is. This has been discussed ad nauseam. And this proves that no matter what technical arguments are given, someone will come and make the same approximative claim again and again.The 'consensus' - if you will - in this forum is that GB6 multi-core score is useless as representative of your typical multi-core workload.
And then people wonder why more and more knowledgeable people are leaving the forum.The reality is always more complex, no matter what the consensus is. This has been discussed ad nauseam. And this proves that no matter what technical arguments are given, someone will come and make the same approximative claim again and again.
If you want to see perfect scaling, pick GB6 ray tracer score, it scales about as well as Cinebench.