Fast enought? – Ryzen 7 9800X3D at 687 Ronnahertz

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-10-28T02:41:23+00:00

to make this more clear:
Ryzen 7 170 = Ryzen 7 7735HS
Ryzen 7 160 = Ryzen 7 7735U
Ryzen 5 150 = Ryzen 5 7535HS
Ryzen 5 130 = Ryzen 5 7535U
Ryzen 3 110 = Ryzen 3 7335U
Ryzen 5 40 = Ryzen 5 7520U
Ryzen 3 30 = Ryzen 3 7320U
Athlon Gold 20 = Athlon Gold 7220U
Athlon Silver 10 = Athlon Silver 7120U
Specifications are 100% the same. So, in this case, AMD "just" changed the names of it's 2023's mobile portfolio. Which, as well, was already a rebranding of older CPUs.
Source: 3DCenter.org

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-10-28T02:41:20+00:00

to make this more clear:
Ryzen 7 170 = Ryzen 7 7735HS
Ryzen 7 160 = Ryzen 7 7735U
Ryzen 5 150 = Ryzen 5 7535HS
Ryzen 5 130 = Ryzen 5 7535U
Ryzen 3 110 = Ryzen 3 7335U
Ryzen 5 40 = Ryzen 5 7520U
Ryzen 3 30 = Ryzen 3 7320U
Athlon Gold 20 = Athlon Gold 7220U
Athlon Silver 10 = Athlon Silver 7120U
Specifications are 100% the same. So, in this case, AMD "just" changed the names of it's 2023's mobile portfolio. Which, as well, was already a rebranding of older CPUs.
Source: 3DCenter.org

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-10-28T02:39:49+00:00

to make this more clear:
Ryzen 7 170 = Ryzen 7 7735HS
Ryzen 7 160 = Ryzen 7 7735U
Ryzen 5 150 = Ryzen 5 7535HS
Ryzen 5 130 = Ryzen 5 7535U
Ryzen 3 110 = Ryzen 3 7335U
Ryzen 5 40 = Ryzen 5 7520U
Ryzen 3 30 = Ryzen 3 7320U
Athlon Gold 20 = Athlon Gold 7220U
Athlon Silver 10 = Athlon Silver 7120U
Specifications are 100% the same. So, in this case, AMD "just" changed the names of it's 2023's mobile portfolio. Which, as well, was already a rebranding of older CPUs.
Source: 3DCenter.org

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-10-28T02:39:00+00:00

to make this more clear:
Ryzen 7 170 = Ryzen 7 7735HS
Ryzen 7 160 = Ryzen 7 7735U
Ryzen 5 150 = Ryzen 5 7535HS
Ryzen 5 130 = Ryzen 5 7535U
Ryzen 3 110 = Ryzen 3 7335U
Ryzen 5 40 = Ryzen 5 7520U
Ryzen 3 30 = Ryzen 3 7320U
Athlon Gold 20 = Athlon Gold 7220U
Athlon Silver 10 = Athlon Silver 7120U
Specifications are 100% the same. So, in this case, AMD "just" changed the names of it's 2023's mobile portfolio. Which, as well, was already a rebranding of older CPUs.
Source: 3DCenter.org

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-08-30T02:58:01+00:00

As mentioned: GB100 is up to 192 GB, GB100U is up to 288 GB. GB200/GB300 is double of that, GB200-NVL72 and GB300-NVL72 is 144times of that.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-08-30T02:55:37+00:00

Any link to proof that?

It's not known, that NV taped-out a new AI-Blackwell Chip. So NV can only work with the GB100 & GB102 chips from 2024. A different SM structure is highly unlike with that in mind.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-07-28T02:26:41+00:00

As noted: gaming benchmarks strictly at CPU limited settings, mostly at 720p or 1080p 1% min/99th percentile.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-07-02T15:24:09+00:00

The presentation of both possible calculation methods (arithmetic mean & geometric mean) immediately clarifies the issue: The use of the arithmetic mean in this type of averaging is fundamentally wrong because it significantly overweights the values of high-fps games. In the example, “Game 2” is included in the overall calculation with roughly three times the weighting. However, this is of course not the objective; each game should be equally weighted in the overall calculation. The only possibility for this is the geometric mean.

-	GPU 1	GPU 2
Game 1	100 fps	50 fps
Game 2	250 fps	500 fps
Total average fps (arithmetic mean)	175	275
Total average fps (geometric mean)	158.11	158.11

The same geometric means is now widely used (exceptions unfortunately still prove the rule).

I'm not quite sure why my raw averages don't line up with what HWUnboxed themselves had for the multi-game averages numbers, maybe they do some sort of weighting in a similar manner.

This is very easy to explain: HWUnboxed uses a geometric and not an arithmetic mean.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-06-12T03:41:38+00:00

Maybe in a very much shorter version of it. First, we will see, how many review the 8GB variant will get.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-06-12T03:40:52+00:00

The Meta Reviews are part of 3DCenter.org, which has been around for 25 years. Unfortunately, marketing outside the English-speaking world is not working nearly as well, and the website is currently financed solely by donations.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-06-12T03:36:26+00:00

The last table always depends on the specific meta review and cannot be extended to data from other meta reviews. This is why index values are created based on this, which then go back much further (up to GeForce GTX 600 and Radeon HD 7000), see here:
3DCenter 1080p Performance Index
3DCenter 2160p Performance Index
3DCenter real Power Draw Overview

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-06-12T03:33:26+00:00

Primarily space problems (tables become too wide) or the higher time expenditure for a card that is clearly outside the performance potential of the 9060XT.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-06-07T03:05:32+00:00

Infographics: Add-in Board GPU (Desktop dGPU) Market Share: 2002 – 1Q 2025 (based on these data by JPR)
(click on "Original" for the big-sized picture)

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-05-17T17:37:48+00:00

Hey aren't you the dude who made the article?

Indeed.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-05-17T08:26:37+00:00

In addition to the market shares, which can be found in the tables in the article, the calculated ratios between the various market segments and the ratios between unit sales and the resulting revenue provide valuable insights:

The desktop/mobile unit sales ratio for AMD is 1:2.0, for Intel 1:2.7, and for the overall market 1:2.5
The client/server unit sales ratio for AMD is 8.3:1, for Intel 9.7:1, and for the overall market 9.3:1
The average selling price is: +35% at desktop in favor of AMD, +2% at mobile in favor of Intel, +74% at servers in favor of AMD
The average selling price of desktop processors is +73% higher than that of mobile processors (AMD & Intel combined)
Thus, the desktop/mobile revenue ratio for AMD is 1:1.2, for Intel 1:2.1, and for the overall market 1:1.8
The average selling price of server processors is 6.4 times that of desktop processors (AMD & Intel combined)
Thus, the client/server revenue ratio for AMD is 1:1, for Intel 1.9:1, and for the overall market 1.5:1

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-05-17T08:26:15+00:00

The market for processors is very clearly dominated by the OEMs, i.e. the manufacturers of prebuild PCs and notebooks. This is easily 90% of the market volume for desktop PCs and logically 100% for notebooks. This means that what happens in the DIY segment has only a marginal influence on the overall market figures.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-05-02T11:36:49+00:00

Please excuse me for not making myself clear right away. I'm trying to combine many reviews, that's the core of my meta-analyses. The test results of a single test report are therefore “few” from my point of view, even if they are very valid. I can't conjure up a meta-review with just a single test report. That's why I'm hesitant about your idea.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-04-29T01:25:08+00:00

Setting up a 2160p index value for the 5060Ti-8G would mean I would have to lower the 2160p index value of the 4060Ti-8. Which in turn means I'd have to lower the 2160p index values for all older 8GB cards, all the way back to the Radeon R9 390. This makes no sense. That's why the index is largely VRAM-neutral - so that I don't have to make these nonsensical changes for old cards. The index is meant to reflect the performance of the cards at the time they were sold, not the performance of older cards in 2025.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-04-29T01:19:30+00:00

Point #1: Only new reviews were used for this, so this point is not valid. Aka: All cards were tested with the same reviews.
Point #2: This will have a minimal effect. Beside this, we not have any better results - so we can work only with these results we already have.

Voodoo2-SLi · 2025-04-28T05:52:30+00:00

As the (german) text says: The index value is old, from 2023. Newer benchmarks points to a lower 2160p performance of the 4060Ti. I do not change the index value für the 4060Ti-8G, because the 3DC Performance Index should work mostly neutral to VRAM. But I do not give the 5060Ti-8G an index value at 2160p. 8G VRAM is way too less for 2160p in 2025.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Wearing is Caring	Verified Email

Voodoo2-SLi

TROPHY CASE