ZEN3 - Latest and Freshest Information - Page 5 - Processors, Motherboards & Memory - HWzone Forums
Skip to content
  • Create an account
  • About Us

    Hello Guest!

    Please note - in order to participate in our community, comment and open new discussions, you must join as a registered member.

    Our members enjoy many advantages, including the ability to participate in discussions, enjoy raffles and promotions for members of the site, and receive our weekly content directly by email.

    Do not like being harassed by email? You can register for the site but do not submit your registration to the weekly email updates.

ZEN3 - The latest and freshest information available


Recommended Posts

Quote of nec_000

I would love for you to bring us the data, or better yet, lick it.

10600k @ 5ghz

3800 cinebench multi core

10400 - 3200

18 percent improvement

5ghz / 4ghz = 1.25

There is a loss of about 7 percent


10600K in stock reaches a 10 percent improvement

Like all cores on the 4.4GHz frequency

Edited By aviv00
Link to content
Share on other sites

Regarding the first issue you presented, assuming that these are the data, it increases from frequency 4.0 to frequency 5.0, which is an improvement of 25%,

Which results in an improvement of only 18% in the cinebench test, indicates to us, that the test does not sterilize only the cores,

But there are a few more processes that each in turn shave off some of the efficiency.


Probably in traffic coming out of the CPU and meeting the motherboard, the so-called IO front , IO internal CPU work,

Or the demon knows what. Then the efficiency translates to only 18%. That is the correlation between the improvement and the frequency is 18 parts 25 comes out something

Like 72%. That is, for an X improved at the processor frequency, only 72% of the output is received at the output.


In any case it's a lot more efficient than you'll get in gaming, if that's your intention in the two things you wrote down.


At the level of principle, for gaming, efficiency decreases significantly, because there is already a whole factor of IO versus , Front disk, front

Video card in front of input and more. Therefore a 25% improvement in frequency is translated (as I understand it) to only a 10% improvement in FPS sounds very

Makes sense and even higher than practical practice.


Because in practical practice, no one plays with intentionally intentional graphical settings like 1080P low. This is a method

Dumb test. In practice the player puts such settings, which suffocate the card from the screen first thing. I do not know a gamer

Not to mention such settings that maximize the capabilities of his video card. For what he paid thousands of shekels for a video card

Strong to work with in Partial Load. The GPU should always be at 100% load.


Then when you define it correctly, "Din Fiat 500 as Din Ferrari", because in a traffic jam everyone travels 5 km / h to meet.

That is, when the bottleneck is set correctly and the performance block above is limited by the video card, all processors anyway.

Do the same. That it's traveling at the slow pace dictated to them by the traffic jam (sorry for the video card).



If you are looking for a gaming processor, you certainly do not need more than 10400f. In most cases, probably also no more than 10100.

It is rare to find a practical situation, that the video card still has juice to give under appropriate graphic settings. Even the strongest cards

In which. Not familiar with modern gaming, which does not bring to 100% load all video cards in normative graphics settings.


The ability of Modern and also inexpensive where, nowadays, is to saturate the video card and stay with great redundancy ...

Long after he had finished breathing a long time ago. The only place to consider upgrading the CPU, for gaming, is a situation where there is a game

(Or games) that you personally play, and the processor is in them at 100% load and the GPU is not. That is, the load is imposed on

The processor before it finishes the graphics accelerator. Familiar with such? ☕

I do not.






Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites


The CPU does reach 100 percent you just do not see it because not all cores are utilized. And not how you explain that people 2080 ti see differences between processors on 1080p?

Of course no sane person buys an rtx 2080 ti with a 10400 so you are right that in most cases the video card is the problem in the highest settings and not the CPU.


Link to content
Share on other sites

Because his name graphic settings are too lenient. that's why.


Please kindly configure such settings - which take full advantage of the video card.

As you can see, 1080P is not enough for a 2080ti card. Certainly not at low load.


The movie they sent us earlier in the thread shows exactly the common stupidity in making the lies of trying to push sales of

Game processors, the kind that no one really needs. 


Here is the real difference in gaming between different processors when there is a full load on the video card, observed and learned:



As you can see, the rise from the 10400f processor to the top expensive 10900k processor in gaming,

Brings us only 0.5% performance increase in games. Which is within the bounds of measurement error. Amazing and impressive together.


This is what the manufacturers of processors and motherboards really do not want gamers to see, because it falls under their feet

The option to "push" consumers a new and expensive processor for gaming. It's a disaster for them.

But we are a serious business forum, I would say a professional Sammy, and above all devoid of conflict of interest. So we will share

And we will pass on knowledge to regular and casual friends, with love, and out of a mission. And we will see the truth:






Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites

And if we move on to the 10100 processor, which by the way I highly recommend, as well, as an even cheaper alternative to the 10400F, For gaming,

We can get the impression that the compromise (in gaming) between it and the 10400f, is only 1% compared to 10900K.

That is, 4 cores with HT instead of 6 cores with HT.

This is a small saving of about $ 50, and the thawing once again, negligible to the point of stupidity:





Link to content
Share on other sites

You bring up performance differences in 4K, though they are minimal at 1080P but slightly less.

I do not think that someone who buys hardware for 4K will combine a 10100 processor with it, even if in reality this is true, it does not turn out that a person will buy a video card for 3000+, a screen for who knows how much, and a processor for 550 shekels.

Link to content
Share on other sites

^ That consumers buy instead with reason, with emotion, or with "distorted logic," which are certainly unrelated to what is right to do, 

This is another issue in itself. And we can not beat wisdom in everyone. That's for sure, so I do not despair or regret this reality.


But at least we will try to convey something, for those who do want to learn. For those who come to visit us in our little forum and come out with some wisdom

In the field in question.


** I have 1080ti and a 2600K processor on a 1080P screen. The graphic accelerator always runs out of air first. 

I did not expect or think for another moment. And so it will be with more powerful accelerators, like the 2080ti or 3080 in heavy graphics settings

as necessary. Those that bring them to saturation, way way before the CPU sees its limit.


*** This is a 2011 processor, if anyone forgot for a moment.





Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites

^ This is a title that in multiplayer mode asks for more than 4 hearts that's all.

You can clearly see this in the graph (I cut and put a picture below that we will understand - surrounded by black everything above 4 hearts).

And once there are more than 4 the performance is excellent. regardless of CPU model.


This is also one of the very rare cases / titles that need more than 4. The vast majority of the gaming market, definitely satisfied

At 4. As much as probably over 99% of the market. Even today in 2020.


Which means, for games only, to purchase a 6-core processor (no matter which one), or 4-core but with HT,

There should be a specific use case that the user needs - as for example in the example you gave before us.


Anyway, still today 2020 there is still no title in the market, that 4 cores עם HT is not enough for him. Including BF in Multi.

The example you gave is one such case that illustrates well for us. That as long as there is HT even with 4 cores, it works well.

That's why i7 processors for generations (since Sandy Bridge) and to you, still deliver the goods - thanks to the HT.


** I did not check in depth but, it is possible that in those i7 cases, the first generation will also be provided (i7 920) and provided it is properly rushed,

Typical to 4ghz. In case I have one like this, well worth a try. The computer with it flies impressively.

If I have the time to deal with it I will bring it before us, or search the net (as soon as possible).




Edited By nec_000
Link to content
Share on other sites

I'm with a Raisen 2600X and not always my RX 5700 XT shows 100% utilization in BF V multi on 1080P.

The overall utilization of the CPU in the task manager stands at 85%. But do not take evidence from it.

There is a racing process that happens in game engines. And the intensity An individual can limit the division of tasks in the engine.

Now it's clear it's just one game but good to learn from. there is 12 and VULCAN which improve the division of tasks.

There is a very nice trend of games coming out with DX 12 support only. With very nice optimization for multi-core processors but with power Weak individual. Like CoF Warzone. Excluding games originally created for DX 11.

Link to content
Share on other sites

Quote of st379

Announced that there will be no new chipset.

In connection with the minimization they must by contract continue with GlobalFoundries Then there will be no minimization.



What context do you mean?


Production at 7nm of Zen2 cores ie Risen 3000 series, and RDNA graphics cards are not performed at all in GF but in . The GF has no 7nm at all. 


The thing they still produce at GF are:

IO chips in Risen 3000/4000 generation processors. Because it still produces at 12nm. And the chipsets on motherboards. 

As far as I can remember the contract binds them to continue using this outdated creature until 2021 and that's it. Kerry Otto and the shackles end.


So will the Risen 5000 still use the IO chip in the processor, in the 12nm lithography produced in the GF?

There is a rumor that this too has been moved to 7nm starting from the new generation.


But tonight we will know, after we get a glimpse of the new processors - the size of the IO core within which will reveal whether it is still as large as in a generation

The former means 12nm, or significantly reduced to 7nm. Here will be the answer to the subject.



Link to content
Share on other sites

Join the discussion

You can then join the discussion and then join our community. If you already have an account with us, please Log in now To comment under your username.
Note that: The comment will appear to the surfers after approval by the board management team.

Add a comment

×   The content pasted is with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically assimilated.   Show as regular link

×   Your previous content has been automatically restored.   Clear all

×   You can not paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Latest news

  • Buzz-Zone: Everything hot on the net

  • Create new ...

At the top of the news:

new on the site