If it's just a bit above the 3070, they'll have to price it at like $400. Another 5700xt situation.Higher than a 2080ti but lower than an RTX 3080.
Basically 10fps in either direction...10fps faster or 10fps slower depending on which card.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
- Status
I do not agree with this sentiment. Gaining 26% in gaming performance and using less power at the same time all the while on the same manufacturing node? Pretty impressive.
Techtubers said it's to keep the naming of their mobile and desktop CPU lines in parity. Mobile was for some reason +1000 in naming scheme before.
Unless you're really well off financially then most people won't be just upgrading their PC components annually. Only a very small percentage of Zen 2 owners would actually upgrade directly to Zen 3 and that's been pretty much true for every release of every component. It's not worth it for the average joe, but doesn't make the new Ryzen line up any less impressive.
So assuming that the GPU shown was the top end Big Navi - it has around the same performance as a 3080? Good stuff.
I have the sam CPU, dont need to upgrade if you are targeting 1080p tbh. I play at 1440p and I dont think my CPU will be a bottleneck for the next couple of years. If anything you could OC your CPU.
If the 6000 card is like $600 and 16GB, I could see it being decently competitive. Be interesting to see how it performs compared to the 3080 at 1440p.
I do not like to upgrade motherboards, CPUs, SSD or RAM more often than every 5 years or so.
Only GPUs are allowed on the fast-upgrade cycle because they are still evolving fast.
This means that my CPU and mobo should last me until basically the end of the console gen.
Normally, I would go for the 8-core CPUs for next-gen parity and because it has an 8-core complex so it's the only size that 100% prevents any bad core usage (making 2 cores NOT on the same complex talk to each other at high latency) so it will definitely be a very, very solid choice. The minimum, really, if you want to beat consoles IPC by 50% or more for much smoother framerates.
If middle-ware developers truly write thread-loving code, then having 12 or 16 cores will be useful in games.
The 12-core design is the most imbalanced of all with an 8-core CCX ("mega-core") and a 4-core CCX. You will want to make sure Windows uses only cores from the 4-core CCX, and leaves the remaining 8 for the game. Hopefully this will be fool-proof...unlike with Zen1.
With a 16-core CPU I believe it doesn't matter as much which CCX Windows uses since they're both the same size. How is core affinity in Windows in game mode these days?
I also want to know what is the single-core performance difference between 5800, 5900 and 5950x. 8c, 12 and 16c. The clock boosts seem to be very, very close to each other, no?
Only GPUs are allowed on the fast-upgrade cycle because they are still evolving fast.
This means that my CPU and mobo should last me until basically the end of the console gen.
Normally, I would go for the 8-core CPUs for next-gen parity and because it has an 8-core complex so it's the only size that 100% prevents any bad core usage (making 2 cores NOT on the same complex talk to each other at high latency) so it will definitely be a very, very solid choice. The minimum, really, if you want to beat consoles IPC by 50% or more for much smoother framerates.
If middle-ware developers truly write thread-loving code, then having 12 or 16 cores will be useful in games.
The 12-core design is the most imbalanced of all with an 8-core CCX ("mega-core") and a 4-core CCX. You will want to make sure Windows uses only cores from the 4-core CCX, and leaves the remaining 8 for the game. Hopefully this will be fool-proof...unlike with Zen1.
With a 16-core CPU I believe it doesn't matter as much which CCX Windows uses since they're both the same size. How is core affinity in Windows in game mode these days?
I also want to know what is the single-core performance difference between 5800, 5900 and 5950x. 8c, 12 and 16c. The clock boosts seem to be very, very close to each other, no?
3600 should be fine for it for a while considering the big upgrade is $450 until a 5700X is out
Is there a reason they couldn't do 1x8 core CCX + 1x4 core CCX (4 cores disabled)? I haven't been paying much attention to the whole Ryzen architecture (not been in the market for a CPU for a long time) - so I'm not sure if there's a reason why that asymmetry is undesirable?
I love it when you guys give me good news <3
I'm already eyeing the still unknown RTX 3060 to replace my 1660 Super, wouldn't want to spend an additional 500€ on a new CPU lol
Thanks but not sure the variance in settings between the two.
Could be intentional misdirection as well. Let's see.
I saw this too... I wonder if this is not the highest end AMD card?
I honestly would not try to build a PC that could ward off consoles right now, unless absolutely necessary. We're still in the cross-generation phase and the true cost of next-generation games on older hardware has not yet been measured or quantified. I'd hate to drop money on a build today that I thought would keep me "safe" from consoles now to see possibly middling results in 2021+. That's just my take though.
I really wouldn't be so sure these are going to be super rare at launch. The Zen 2 release had decent supply and was not long ago. These chiplets are far easier to make than huge 3080 dies, and it seems TSMC 7nm are far more capable of large quantity than the new Samsung 8nm.
Well these things are like 2x better than the 6700K, give or take.
Yes. People seem to be confusing Ultra for BadAss, when they are different things entirely.
I'm not sure whether to go with the 5900x/5950x.
I'm currently waiting for my 3090 to show up, and since I plan on gaming at 4K for the most part, (Unless DLSS or higher fps appeals), CPU isn't really going to cause a bottleneck no? So was thinking 5900x would be enough.
I'm currently waiting for my 3090 to show up, and since I plan on gaming at 4K for the most part, (Unless DLSS or higher fps appeals), CPU isn't really going to cause a bottleneck no? So was thinking 5900x would be enough.
This is Ultra. They benchmarked at Badass preset.Higher than a 2080ti but lower than an RTX 3080.
Basically 10fps in either direction...10fps faster or 10fps slower depending on which card.
Borderlands 3 is a weird one.
Ultra preset doesnt set all the settings to Ultra. 2 settings are left on high.
But if you manually set every setting to Ultra it would be like the preset Badass.
Weird I know.....dont ask me why a dev would have an Ultra preset that doesnt set all the setting to ultra, then have a setting seemingly above Ultra that sets all the settings to Ultra.
Anyway, even in Gears 5 we have a similar perf slotting.
Its faster than a 2080ti but slower than a 3080.
Imm guess slightly faster than a RTX 3070....now they just need to tell us about the RT and Upscaling solutions they have.
CPUs are far less prone to launch stock woes due to the complexity in replacing them and the general trend of one CPU being viable for many, many years.
I personally expect the Big Navi highest end card to be between a 3070 and 3080 for normal compute and rasterisation games and somewhere scaling lower than that with RT. I cannot wait to get one though to test out and put in my midrange rig.
well at least i got some a month ago. and NVidia so either way i cant lose lol
Actually they may be doing that as well. I guess the point still stands though - either way, the 5900X is a two CCX chip while the 5800X has all cores on a single CCX. So, assuming the clock speeds are the same, wouldn't a 5800X outperform a 5900X due to the single CCX nature of the chip?
The pricing is just disappointing to me, so the 3700X still seems compelling and waiting for stuff next year might be worth it.
So if my main goal is 4k60, is there any real real to upgrade to these chips over my 2700X? (I know, benchmarks will tell the full story.)
With those values and without a DLSS alternative they better have much lower power draw, or they really need to be significantly cheaper to be attractive.
Yeah, it's looking pretty good. Perhaps if the drivers are tuned for launch the figures could look even better ?
It all comes to price and I hope they will reveal some more about their Ray tracing capabilities. Would be nice if they used Control as a benchmark.
As of now RTX 3080 vs. Big Navi is as following:
Game, NVIDIA: (5% low,mean,5%high), AMD: (mean?)
---------------NVIDIA------------------AMD ------- Setting
Gears 5 : (66.6, 81.4, 96.4) -- 73 -------- Ultra
Bord. 3 : (53.5, 60.9, 69.9) -- 61 -------- Badass
Taken from eurogamer review and I trust their figures (there was no cod).
How so? Has microcenter pledged to include coolers if you buy it in-store or something?
How is it "slightly" faster than 3070 when AMD's number for Gears 5 is 73?Anyway, even in Gears 5 we have a similar perf slotting.
Its faster than a 2080ti but slower than a 3080.
Imm guess slightly faster than a RTX 3070....now they just need to tell us about the RT and Upscaling solutions they have.
Shouldnt the 3070 be closer to 2080Ti and in the low 60s.
Both benches put "Big Navi" at ~3080 level. But again, these are numbers from AMD, take with caution.
AMD CPUs tend to drop in pricing, you probably can find a 5600X for less than 299 next year. And yes the 3000 series are still very competitive so nothing wrong with them.
- Status