Nvidia Blackwell GPUs sold out for the next 12 months as AI market boom continues

[Hom3r]

Except that Intel's market cap is under 100 billion USD and AMD's is just over 250 billion USD...
Intel chooses to spend more on R & D... and while AMD has been the CPU to beat for the past several years, it wouldn't be very surprising to see Intel go ahead again... it's not like AMD's 9000 lineup has been so amazing...

Agree, however 9000X3D will be a vastly bigger upgrade than regular 7000 to 9000 was.

9800X3D will do much higher clockspeeds than 7800X3D and is even unlocked for further OC.

9800X3D will be the gaming chip to get, for the next 1-2 years no doubt. Intel won't beat 9800X3D overall in gaming, however outside of Gaming, Intel delivers a better all-round performance due to much higher MT performance.

9950X3D might be close to 285K overall in applications and gaming performance will be similar between them.

9800X3D will beat them all in gaming due to being single CCD. No latency between CCDs and games won't use the wrong cores. This is why 7800X3D is godly for gaming, while sipping 50-75 watts.

 

[HardReset]

Being fabless is living the easy life, had nothing to do with R&D funds, more Intel being stuck on a process node due to incompetent people which are fired long ago. Takes years to turn it around.

Intel still outsold AMD with ease while using a worse node tho. AMD relies on TSMC to deliver and TSMC was not able to deliver in many cases, during covid for example. Intel was spitting chips out left and right here. Pros and cons about being fabless.

Now Intel uses TSMC as well, for some chips, won't drop their own fabs tho, because only a fool would want another chip company to depend on TSMC like AMD does 100%

Ryzen 1000 and 2000 sucked. GloFo 12nm was worse than Intel 14nm ever was. Which is why AMD left them behind. Without TSMC, AMD would not be where they are today. Zen was mediocre before going TSMC. Low clockspeeds all over and then 3D cache, which is a TSMC technology. AMD could not do stacked 3D cache without TSMC.

TSMC owns the packaging technology that enabled AMD to create 3D cache chips.

Sadly dual CCD chips are still gimped compared to single CCD chips, so 7800X3D beats 7950X3D in gaming, just like 9800X3D will beat 9950X3D in gaming. Dual CCD latency issues.

So AMD can't deliver more than 8 cores for gaming before they can put 16 cores on a single CCD. They will never fix the dual CCD latency issues and single CCD chips will always win on gaming performance. Also, they use less power and are cheaper = No brainer for gamers.

7900X3D is downright garbage due to only having 6 cores with 3D cache, meaning many games will eat into 2nd CCD with no 3D cache. This is why gaming performance is closer to 7600X3D and not 7800X3D.

Intel stuck with same architecture for 5 years, not same node.

How sales and R&D funds relate? They don't. Intel has had opportunity to use TSMC before too. They just didn't want to.

AMD will leave GF end of this year because 15 year contract expires. Again, Intel could also have used TSMC 3D cache. Using it takes R&D resourcrs btw.

AMD could very easily put more than 8 cores on CCD. But it's very cost effective to use same chiplets on server and desktop CPUs. That cost saving is main reason why dekstop Ryzens suck at many aspects, but considering manufacturing and cost, those drawbacks are justified. From consumer POV perhaps not.

7900X3D exists because there are partially disefective chiplets. That's about only reason why AMD put it on sale. Of course price is also lower.

 

[HardReset]

9800X3D will be the gaming chip to get, for the next 1-2 years no doubt. Intel won't beat 9800X3D overall in gaming, however outside of Gaming, Intel delivers a better all-round performance due to much higher MT performance.

Intel's all-round performance on every hybrid CPU is total trash since Intel wants to save power and so "not so important" background tasks goes to Crap cores. About stupidest idea ever seen on desktop CPUs.

 

[Hom3r]

Intel's all-round performance on every hybrid CPU is total trash since Intel wants to save power and so "not so important" background tasks goes to Crap cores. About stupidest idea ever seen on desktop CPUs.

Intel Core i9-14900KS Review - The Last of its Kind

The Intel Core i9-14900KS reaches impressive clock frequencies up to 6.2 GHz, which yields remarkable performance in applications and gaming. However, this comes at the cost of serious power consumption, especially if you go beyond stock, where we saw over 500 W during testing.

www.techpowerup.com

"Faster in productivity than any other AMD Ryzen CPU"
Same conclusion for 14900K.

Ah, I see. Total crap, just beats AMD in most applications due to e-cores and better MT perf. Intel also has better ST perf vs Ryzen 7000.

You know, software that scales well with cores, will run better on Intel due to having alot more cores. 4 e-cores will beat 1 p-core in any application that is multithreaded.

You don't really need more than 8 p-cores for gaming either. Even 6 p-cores does well in most games. Which is why e-cores makes more sense if you want a chip that does it all; Both gaming and applications.

With AMD, you have to choose between chips. No chip does it all well. 7800X3D is top tier for gaming, yet slow in applications, loosing to even 7700X.

9950X is great for applications, yet gaming perf is lower than Intel 13th and 14th gen + dual CCD latency.

This is AMDs biggest problem right now. They don't have an overall good solution. You have to pick and choose CPU depending on what you need it for.

 

[Hom3r]

Intel stuck with same architecture for 5 years, not same node.

How sales and R&D funds relate? They don't. Intel has had opportunity to use TSMC before too. They just didn't want to.

AMD will leave GF end of this year because 15 year contract expires. Again, Intel could also have used TSMC 3D cache. Using it takes R&D resourcrs btw.

AMD could very easily put more than 8 cores on CCD. But it's very cost effective to use same chiplets on server and desktop CPUs. That cost saving is main reason why dekstop Ryzens suck at many aspects, but considering manufacturing and cost, those drawbacks are justified. From consumer POV perhaps not.

7900X3D exists because there are partially disefective chiplets. That's about only reason why AMD put it on sale. Of course price is also lower.

Intel had no problems beating AMD using same arch for years and same 14nm node. Ryzen 1000 and 2000 chips were destroyed by Intel overall with absolute ease. Intel did however increase core count and this was plenty to fend off AMD.

First with TSMC 7nm, Intel took Ryzen serious.

TSMC is what saved AMD. Without TSMC, AMD would still be using GloFo or Samsung at best.
There would be no 3D cache chips as well. No TSMC, No Ryzen 3D. AMD did not invent this tech. They pay to use it.

AMD can't put more than 8 cores on a single CCD before going 3nm or better.

7900X3D was a horrible chip and wrong to trick consumers into thinking they buy a 12C/24T CPU when gaming performance is like 7600X3D. Looks like they repeat this mistake with 9900X3D. Still hope to see 3D cache on both CCDs, yet it would probably make no sense because 9800X3D will still beat the dual CCD chips due to lower latency.

Dual CCD 3D chips are generally meh, because only a single CCD has 3D cache + latency issues on top.

If you want top tier gaming performance, buy a single CCD 3D chip.

If you want top tier application performance, buy a regular non-3D chip with 16C/32T.

Intel can bring both top gaming performance and top application performance in a single solution, you don't have to choose here and this is AMDs big problem, which might get solved by 9000X3D due to much higher clockspeeds, we will see.

However, 9800X3D will still beat 9950X3D with ease overall in gaming and its cheaper, uses less power and runs cooler = requiring just a cheap air cooler to peak.

No wonder 7800X3D was the golden seller of 7000X3D series. 3D series is meant for gamers and gamers have no reason for 12 or 16 cores, especially not when 90% of games performs better on the 8 core part.

 

[HardReset]

Intel had no problems beating AMD using same arch for years and same 14nm node. Ryzen 1000 and 2000 chips were destroyed by Intel overall with absolute ease. Intel did however increase core count and this was plenty to fend off AMD.

First with TSMC 7nm, Intel took Ryzen serious.

TSMC is what saved AMD. Without TSMC, AMD would still be using GloFo or Samsung at best.
There would be no 3D cache chips as well. No TSMC, No Ryzen 3D. AMD did not invent this tech. They pay to use it.

AMD can't put more than 8 cores on a single CCD before going 3nm or better.

7900X3D was a horrible chip and wrong to trick consumers into thinking they buy a 12C/24T CPU when gaming performance is like 7600X3D. Looks like they repeat this mistake with 9900X3D. Still hope to see 3D cache on both CCDs, yet it would probably make no sense because 9800X3D will still beat the dual CCD chips due to lower latency.

Dual CCD 3D chips are generally meh, because only a single CCD has 3D cache + latency issues on top.

If you want top tier gaming performance, buy a single CCD 3D chip.

If you want top tier application performance, buy a regular non-3D chip with 16C/32T.

Intel can bring both top gaming performance and top application performance in a single solution, you don't have to choose here and this is AMDs big problem, which might get solved by 9000X3D due to much higher clockspeeds, we will see.

However, 9800X3D will still beat 9950X3D with ease overall in gaming and its cheaper, uses less power and runs cooler = requiring just a cheap air cooler to peak.

No wonder 7800X3D was the golden seller of 7000X3D series. 3D series is meant for gamers and gamers have no reason for 12 or 16 cores, especially not when 90% of games performs better on the 8 core part.

Intel beat AMD overall but actually did not because Intel kept core count low? Eh?

Intel took AMD serious since first Ryzen. However Intel "thought" Ryzen is "only" 40% better IPC vs Piledriver and clocks are at most 3 GHz. 52% and almost 4 GHz caught Intel off guard.

There is no info what GlobalFoundries planned with 7nm and beyond.

Why AMD cannot put more than 8 cores on CCD? Heck, Zen5 chiplet with 24 cores would still be smaller than Strix Point APU!

AMD solution is best from both worlds. If you are really concerned about CDD-CDD latency, then use only 3D Cache cores when gaming. Simple. Or you just won't bother with few percentage performance penalty. Intel Crap core penalty is much bigger.

 

[Hom3r]

Intel beat AMD overall but actually did not because Intel kept core count low? Eh?

Intel took AMD serious since first Ryzen. However Intel "thought" Ryzen is "only" 40% better IPC vs Piledriver and clocks are at most 3 GHz. 52% and almost 4 GHz caught Intel off guard.

There is no info what GlobalFoundries planned with 7nm and beyond.

Why AMD cannot put more than 8 cores on CCD? Heck, Zen5 chiplet with 24 cores would still be smaller than Strix Point APU!

AMD solution is best from both worlds. If you are really concerned about CDD-CDD latency, then use only 3D Cache cores when gaming. Simple. Or you just won't bother with few percentage performance penalty. Intel Crap core penalty is much bigger.

It is not the best from both worlds. Even if you fiddle around with process lasso, which 99% of owners won't, you won't beat 7800X3D in gaming with a 7950X3D. 7900X3D is not mentioned, because its closer to a 7600X3D regardless of what you do.

Without TSMC, Intel would never have taken Ryzen seriously. AMD would have topped out at Ryzen 2000 performance and 3D chips would never have been a thing either, which is what I like most about Ryzen. 3D cache. TSMC technology is used to do it. AMD pays to use it. AMD did not invent stacked cache at all. TSMC again is the reason why AMD is doing well here.

Intel 14900K easily beats both 7950X3D and 9950X in overall gaming performance and Arrow Lake will deliver this + slightly more and will use 8000 to 10000+ DDR5 too. AMD still stuck at low 6000s.

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X Review - The New Flagship

With 16 cores and 32 threads, the Ryzen 9 9950X, powered by AMD’s Zen 5 architecture, is the fastest desktop processor we've ever tested. In our review, it breezed through application workloads and delivered high FPS rates in gaming. But at $650, it doesn’t come cheap.

www.techpowerup.com

Even i7-13700K beats 9950X in gaming.

9700X had a 65W TDP because they wanted 9950X to win in gaming. When you lift TDP to 105W, like 7700X had, it beats 9950X in gaming while using lower clockspeeds, less power while running much cooler. Typical sign of a dual CCD chip. Latency issues all over.

AMD did not want to repeat 7700X beating 7950X in gaming, hence gimped 9700X to 65W. However it was fixed with newer firmware, so it boost way higher now and beats 7700X by 5-10% and also beats 9950X

AMD very clearly fiddles around with stuff like this, because they are not happy with the cheaper chips beating the more expensive ones. Sadly, due to inter CCD latency, that is just how the architecture works and since AMD can't put more than 8 cores on a CCD before 3nm or better, the single CCD chips will keep winning in gaming. Regardless of what you do.

7900X3D was trash just like 9900X3D probably will be. AMD did not learn and looks to only put 3D cache on a single CCD again, even when clockspeeds will be much higher on 3D enabled CCDs with 9000X3D. Makes no sense to gimp it. They cheaped out. For 7000X3D only 3D cache on a single CCD made sense, due to clockspeed penalty. With 9000X3D clockspeed is much higher and they could have put 3D cache on both CCDs.

I would absolutely never buy a dual CCD chip for gaming if not both CCDs have 3D cache. Pointless really.

You buy 3D chips for peak gaming performance, yet dual CCD chips don't deliver this. Hence why 7800X3D sold in millions and 7900X3D + 7950X3D did not sell that well. However 7950X3D sold way better than 7900X3D, which was a mess and a 100% pointless chip.

 

[HardReset]

It is not the best from both worlds. Even if you fiddle around with process lasso, which 99% of owners won't, you won't beat 7800X3D in gaming with a 7950X3D. 7900X3D is not mentioned, because its closer to a 7600X3D regardless of what you do.

And that is why? If with 7950X3D only 3D cache cores are used for gaming AND clock speed is higher, it's very hard to see reason why 7950X3D would be slower than 7800X3D. Of course, if you can provide one, go ahead. And no benchmarks please unless they explain reason.

Without TSMC, Intel would never have taken Ryzen seriously. AMD would have topped out at Ryzen 2000 performance and 3D chips would never have been a thing either, which is what I like most about Ryzen. 3D cache. TSMC technology is used to do it. AMD pays to use it. AMD did not invent stacked cache at all. TSMC again is the reason why AMD is doing well here.

Intel 14900K easily beats both 7950X3D and 9950X in overall gaming performance and Arrow Lake will deliver this + slightly more and will use 8000 to 10000+ DDR5 too. AMD still stuck at low 6000s.

AMD Ryzen 9 9950X Review - The New Flagship

With 16 cores and 32 threads, the Ryzen 9 9950X, powered by AMD’s Zen 5 architecture, is the fastest desktop processor we've ever tested. In our review, it breezed through application workloads and delivered high FPS rates in gaming. But at $650, it doesn’t come cheap.

www.techpowerup.com

Even i7-13700K beats 9950X in gaming.

GlobalFoundries cancelled 7nm process was supposed to be better for Ryzens than TSMCs one. GlobalFoudnries aimed for high performance process because there were nothing similar on market, and there still isn't. TSMC process is "for everyone" and Samsung only cares about low power consumption.

In other words, with GF processes 7nm and beyond Ryzens would probably have been faster than today. While TSMC IS reason why AMD is doing fine, GF was supposed to be even better.

Those benchmarks are driven with firmware that breaks Intel CPUs. In other words, totally worthless ones. Not even talking about power consumption.

9700X had a 65W TDP because they wanted 9950X to win in gaming. When you lift TDP to 105W, like 7700X had, it beats 9950X in gaming while using lower clockspeeds, less power while running much cooler. Typical sign of a dual CCD chip. Latency issues all over.

AMD did not want to repeat 7700X beating 7950X in gaming, hence gimped 9700X to 65W. However it was fixed with newer firmware, so it boost way higher now and beats 7700X by 5-10% and also beats 9950X

AMD very clearly fiddles around with stuff like this, because they are not happy with the cheaper chips beating the more expensive ones. Sadly, due to inter CCD latency, that is just how the architecture works and since AMD can't put more than 8 cores on a CCD before 3nm or better, the single CCD chips will keep winning in gaming. Regardless of what you do.

Yeah? CPU manufacturer don't want cheaper chips to beat more expensive ones? That's surprising to say, never seen that before.

Again, there are no reasons why AMD cannot put more than 8 cores on CCD. They could easily put 32 or even 64, but they have decided to put 8. Nothing more complicated than that. There are side effects on that and one is CDD-CDD latency. But you have to do some decisions and go with them.

7900X3D was trash just like 9900X3D probably will be. AMD did not learn and looks to only put 3D cache on a single CCD again, even when clockspeeds will be much higher on 3D enabled CCDs with 9000X3D. Makes no sense to gimp it. They cheaped out. For 7000X3D only 3D cache on a single CCD made sense, due to clockspeed penalty. With 9000X3D clockspeed is much higher and they could have put 3D cache on both CCDs.

I would absolutely never buy a dual CCD chip for gaming if not both CCDs have 3D cache. Pointless really.

You buy 3D chips for peak gaming performance, yet dual CCD chips don't deliver this. Hence why 7800X3D sold in millions and 7900X3D + 7950X3D did not sell that well. However 7950X3D sold way better than 7900X3D, which was a mess and a 100% pointless chip.

Since 3D cache lowers clock speeds (unless AMD figured out how to avoid that), it makes sense to put 3D cache on one chiplet only. In fact it's only choice that actually makes sense outside benchmarks.

7800X3D sold better just because cheaper chips always sell better than expensive ones.

 

[Squid Surprise]

And that is why? If with 7950X3D only 3D cache cores are used for gaming AND clock speed is higher, it's very hard to see reason why 7950X3D would be slower than 7800X3D. Of course, if you can provide one, go ahead. And no benchmarks please unless they explain reason.

GlobalFoundries cancelled 7nm process was supposed to be better for Ryzens than TSMCs one. GlobalFoudnries aimed for high performance process because there were nothing similar on market, and there still isn't. TSMC process is "for everyone" and Samsung only cares about low power consumption.

In other words, with GF processes 7nm and beyond Ryzens would probably have been faster than today. While TSMC IS reason why AMD is doing fine, GF was supposed to be even better.

Those benchmarks are driven with firmware that breaks Intel CPUs. In other words, totally worthless ones. Not even talking about power consumption.

Yeah? CPU manufacturer don't want cheaper chips to beat more expensive ones? That's surprising to say, never seen that before.

Again, there are no reasons why AMD cannot put more than 8 cores on CCD. They could easily put 32 or even 64, but they have decided to put 8. Nothing more complicated than that. There are side effects on that and one is CDD-CDD latency. But you have to do some decisions and go with them.

Since 3D cache lowers clock speeds (unless AMD figured out how to avoid that), it makes sense to put 3D cache on one chiplet only. In fact it's only choice that actually makes sense outside benchmarks.

7800X3D sold better just because cheaper chips always sell better than expensive ones.

While we know you’re probably on AMD’s payroll, this is a bit over the top - even for you.

Clearly an architecture is flawed if a cheaper chip outperforms a more expensive one - or the company itself is flawed…

How can you justify the 7700x3d beating the 7950x3d in gaming without admitting something is wrong?

 

[HardReset]

Clearly an architecture is flawed if a cheaper chip outperforms a more expensive one - or the company itself is flawed…

How can you justify the 7700x3d beating the 7950x3d in gaming without admitting something is wrong?

Outperforms where? It's normal that $50 desktop chip outperforms $15000 server chip on some software. But on all software? I doubt.

Different software. Again, Threadrippers vs Ryzen. Surely Ryzen wins on Some software but not on All software.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Outperforms where? It's normal that $50 desktop chip outperforms $15000 server chip on some software. But on all software? I doubt.

Different software. Again, Threadrippers vs Ryzen. Surely Ryzen wins on Some software but not on All software.

lol, move the goalposts all you want… an expensive GAMING chip being outperformed IN GAMING by a cheaper chip made by the same company…

 

[HardReset]

lol, move the goalposts all you want… an expensive GAMING chip being outperformed IN GAMING by a cheaper chip made by the same company…

Ah gaming. I can run some benchmarks on 2007 published game. I guarantee that 7950X3D beats any 8-core CPU by wide margin. I could also do same on 2023 published game. Again, 7950X3D will beat any 8 core CPU, no problem.


To put it another way, you probably play bad games.

 

[Hom3r]

And that is why? If with 7950X3D only 3D cache cores are used for gaming AND clock speed is higher, it's very hard to see reason why 7950X3D would be slower than 7800X3D. Of course, if you can provide one, go ahead. And no benchmarks please unless they explain reason.

GlobalFoundries cancelled 7nm process was supposed to be better for Ryzens than TSMCs one. GlobalFoudnries aimed for high performance process because there were nothing similar on market, and there still isn't. TSMC process is "for everyone" and Samsung only cares about low power consumption.

In other words, with GF processes 7nm and beyond Ryzens would probably have been faster than today. While TSMC IS reason why AMD is doing fine, GF was supposed to be even better.

Those benchmarks are driven with firmware that breaks Intel CPUs. In other words, totally worthless ones. Not even talking about power consumption.

Yeah? CPU manufacturer don't want cheaper chips to beat more expensive ones? That's surprising to say, never seen that before.

Again, there are no reasons why AMD cannot put more than 8 cores on CCD. They could easily put 32 or even 64, but they have decided to put 8. Nothing more complicated than that. There are side effects on that and one is CDD-CDD latency. But you have to do some decisions and go with them.

Since 3D cache lowers clock speeds (unless AMD figured out how to avoid that), it makes sense to put 3D cache on one chiplet only. In fact it's only choice that actually makes sense outside benchmarks.

7800X3D sold better just because cheaper chips always sell better than expensive ones.

Clockspeed is not higher on 7950X3D vs 7800X3D. You have the same speed on the 3D cache enabled CCD across entire 7000X3D.

The higher clockspeed is only on the CCD with no 3D cache.

You will still have inter CCD latency even if you lock games to only use CCD with 3D.

AMD can't put more than 8 cores on a CCD before going 3nm, this is their design and won't change till 3nm or better.

Clockspeed will be vastly higher on 9000X3D vs 7000X3D.

7800X3D sold better because it was beating 7900X3D and 7950X3D with ease in gaming, while using half the power and costing less. It was a nobrainer. To a degree that you would see 4090 owners (me) buying 7800X3D (again me) over any dual CCD shite.

I will be upgrading to 9800X3D once it hits. 5.2 GHz all-core and 5.5 boost + unlocked for further OC, yes please. I am not waiting till 9950X3D hits next year, because I already know it will be worse for gaming.


So yeah, AMD has big issues with all-round performance. Luckily I just need the best gaming hardware on my home rig, meaning 7800X3D + 4090 for now.

Did I actually need application performance as well, 285K would probably be my pick.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Ah gaming. I can run some benchmarks on 2007 published game. I guarantee that 7950X3D beats any 8-core CPU by wide margin. I could also do same on 2023 published game. Again, 7950X3D will beat any 8 core CPU, no problem.


To put it another way, you probably play bad games.

Goalposts moved again… let me try again… why doesn’t the 7950x3d beat the 7700x3d?

 

[HardReset]

Goalposts moved again… let me try again… why doesn’t the 7950x3d beat the 7700x3d?

I just said it beats very easily on some games over 15 years old and on some modern games. If it does not, then you play wrong games. Simple as that.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I just said it beats very easily on some games over 15 years old and on some modern games. If it does not, then you play wrong games. Simple as that.

It beats it on average pretty much EVERY game… and when it loses, it’s by a minuscule percentage…. So explain how this makes AMD look good?

 

[HardReset]

It beats it on average pretty much EVERY game… and when it loses, it’s by a minuscule percentage…. So explain how this makes AMD look good?

Pretty much EVERY?

I'd really like to see those results. To remind, GOG has over 10K PC games available. Steam has over 100K.

Just taking 30 like games and saying they are Everything is pretty much nonsense. But since you asked, I try to benchmark one game myself and see if how much that "miniscule" difference is. 7800X3D results are "simulated" ones.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Pretty much EVERY?

I'd really like to see those results. To remind, GOG has over 10K PC games available. Steam has over 100K.

Just taking 30 like games and saying they are Everything is pretty much nonsense. But since you asked, I try to benchmark one game myself and see if how much that "miniscule" difference is. 7800X3D results are "simulated" ones.

Again, you’re the one defending this… feel free to provide us with your overwhelming evidence…. If you can show how it’s actually a better idea to purchase the 7950x3d vs the 7700 or 7800x3d for gaming - we’re all ears…

 

[HardReset]

Again, you’re the one defending this… feel free to provide us with your overwhelming evidence…. If you can show how it’s actually a better idea to purchase the 7950x3d vs the 7700 or 7800x3d for gaming - we’re all ears…

Like I already said: if 7950X3D is NOT faster than 7800X3D, then you are playing wrong games. Just like all of those who claim Zen5 is not huge upgrade over Zen4 are using wrong software.

Simple, really.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Like I already said: if 7950X3D is NOT faster than 7800X3D, then you are playing wrong games. Just like all of those who claim Zen5 is not huge upgrade over Zen4 are using wrong software.

Simple, really.

So what are the “correct” games…. And the fact that anyone would be accused of playing the “wrong games” already makes your argument laughable… I hear Apple’s “you’re holding it wrong” all over again

 

[HardReset]

So what are the “correct” games…. And the fact that anyone would be accused of playing the “wrong games” already makes your argument laughable… I hear Apple’s “you’re holding it wrong” all over again

Games that show difference between those CPUs?

If you want to get difference between 7950X3D and 7800X3D and are not getting it, then you are playing wrong games. That's how it is. It's a fact. Useless to argue about that fact.

Short benchmark runs completed. Results are very straightforward. 7950X3D with all cores enabled is over 2 times faster than "7800X3D" (7950X3D with only 3D cache cores enabled).

That makes over 100% improvement. Just like I expected. There you have it.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Games that show difference between those CPUs?

And those are?!?

If you want to get difference between 7950X3D and 7800X3D and are not getting it, then you are playing wrong games. That's how it is. It's a fact. Useless to argue about that fact.

I’d love to see some proof of this “fact”.

Short benchmark runs completed. Results are very straightforward. 7950X3D with all cores enabled is over 2 times faster than "7800X3D" (7950X3D with only 3D cache cores enabled).

That makes over 100% improvement. Just like I expected. There you have it.

Can we see these benchmarks?

Oh… I just ran some that make the Intel 5960x 500% faster than the AMD 9950x…. That’s a “fact”…

 

[HardReset]

And those are?!?

Very obviously games that utilize much more than 8 cores and/or 16 threads.

I’d love to see some proof of this “fact”.

Like said, play games that... (see above)

Can we see these benchmarks?

Oh… I just ran some that make the Intel 5960x 500% faster than the AMD 9950x…. That’s a “fact”…

For example game that has right now 55 629 players on Steam. It's rated 27.th most played game right now. Leaving out "free to play" games, it's ranked 16.th. Pretty popular yes.

I can tell you, it scales at least 16 cores and 32 threads. Probably even more. Tested.

Benchmarks? There: https://community.sports-interactive.com/forums/topic/579435-fm24-performance-benchmarking-thread/

Speed difference depends very much on scenario. I got over 2X improvement on my scenario. Multi core heavy longer scenario difference is around 50-70% on chart there.

Now we can conclude that you are indeed playing wrong games if not seeing difference between 7950X3D and 7800X3D.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Very obviously games that utilize much more than 8 cores and/or 16 threads.

Like said, play games that... (see above)

I think there’s a language barrier… and those games are?!?

For example game that has right now 55 629 players on Steam. It's rated 27.th most played game right now. Leaving out "free to play" games, it's ranked 16.th. Pretty popular yes.

I can tell you, it scales at least 16 cores and 32 threads. Probably even more. Tested.

Benchmarks? There: https://community.sports-interactive.com/forums/topic/579435-fm24-performance-benchmarking-thread/

Speed difference depends very much on scenario. I got over 2X improvement on my scenario. Multi core heavy longer scenario difference is around 50-70% on chart there.

Now we can conclude that you are indeed playing wrong games if not seeing difference between 7950X3D and 7800X3D.

So you cherry-picked one game…. Wahoo… how about the other million games available? What, I’m not allowed to use them because they’re the wrong games?

 

[HardReset]

I think there’s a language barrier… and those games are?!?

Games that utilize more than 8 cores/16 threads, what's so hard to understand there.

No, I cannot name many games but as proven, those kind of games do exist.

So you cherry-picked one game…. Wahoo… how about the other million games available? What, I’m not allowed to use them because they’re the wrong games?

What about them? You are allowed to play/use whatever games you want. But like already said that if you cannot see difference between 7950X3D and 7800X3D, then you are playing wrong games. Because games that show difference DO EXIST.