• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

nashathedog said:
What difference is moving from pci-e 3.0 to pci-e 4.0 going to offer? Realistically?
Click to expand...

It's intended more for multi-processor (sockets) system as the IF communication between sockets goes over PCIe, it won't make difference (afaik) to consumers as there's not much that can saturate whatever combination of 980 MB/s per lane with 3.0.

That is unless you plan on using SLI/Crossfire or RAID'ing some M2 drives.
 
easyrider said:
Whats new? I have built many , many computers over the years and you buy a new mobo when the new Intel cpu comes out....Unless its z370 as 9900k works with that....But dead end socket is not really an argument....take the B450 2700x owners...They will want to plonk in 3700x chips in their current B450 mobos...but more refined, overclocking mobos will be released making the whole "keep your old mobo" argument moot
Click to expand...
Cool, you take previous generation motherboard for each, and then compare a top tier Intel board with a mid tier AMD board.
Fact is, you'll be able drop in a 3xxx CPU in a 1st gen AM4 board. That 9900K won't work with anything that a) ain't top tier, and b) ain't more than 12-18 months old. You even state that it doesn't work properly with most Z370 boards lol.
Anyway, let's say these Ryzen CPUs are PCIe4. Those extra PCIe lanes from splitting can come in handy. Intel were already behind on PCIe anyway.
So what are your options if you need quad channel memory? Intel lose again, since whatever option you choose AMD has better and cheaper. This gap is only going to get greater in the short to medium term.
Dead end socket.
 
easyrider said:
Its readily available on the internet mate...I WANT RYZEN 3700X IN THE NEXT 3 MONTHS TO COME AND DESTROY MY 9900K...

But its not going to happen so soon.
Click to expand...


Both Ryzen 1000 and 2000 were announced in Feb and released in March. why would Ryzen 3000 be different?
 
Potatowithearsontheside said:
Well, if your argument is as simple as "it's got a go faster stripe, duh" then what do you expect?
Click to expand...

Where did I ever say that?

Link?

Why dont you have a read of this

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/easyriders-journey-into-phase.17683932/

Educate yourself...

I've walked the walk and can easily talk the talk...

What I'm not is blinkered...I've overclocked hundreds of AMD and Intel chips over the years...thus gaining experience in hardware release trends etc...
 
CuriousTomCat said:
How does overclocking an Opteron make you an expert at the Zen 2 release date? I've been overclocking since 1999 but that hasn't given me secret access to the diary of Lisa Su.
Click to expand...

AMD are not releasing anything about Zen 2 at CES....Then all of a sudden they release it 3 months later?

Come on!
 
If AMD don't mentioned Zen2 and show off some cpu's at CES, it will literally be one of the biggest disappointments this site has ever faced
 
Honestly I think the CES Keynote will have information on Zen 2 for mainstream Ryzen 3xxx as Zen2 is already in the wild with EPYC. There's no reason not to hammer home the advantage and announce info slightly early and still have the usual March release of the mainstream CPU product line. Hopefully they'll have the X570's ready for release too and looking forward to Navi info as well. I don't expect it to be a physical launch, really have no idea where that line of thought came from, it's likely wrong but hey BS gets clicks these days.

easyrider you may have walked the walk but I don't agree with your perspective on this. Yes the 9900K does win out for sheer performance with 8c. Though one could argue that 8/16 for gaming doesn't really beat 6/12 currently. Therefore an older 8700K or 8086K would be better bargains, easier to delid and use LM on and then slap a water block on and get some mad 5.3GHz performance out of them instead of dealing with the rather pathetic soldering attempt on the 9900K and then it's VRM munching power draws. Hell a 9900K draws similar power to my 1950X FFS. Fast it is, that's undeniable, efficient, well no it's not efficient. Also to say TR4 is poo at gaming, that's a bit of nonsense too. In some scenario's it's sub-optimal just like in some scenario's the 9900K is sub-optimal. Anything running at 1440p or higher is mostly GPU limited anyway, there are a small minority of games that require high single core IPC/Frequency and they are best on an Intel currently. If the 3xxx releases with specs close to those leaked, Intel's IPC/Frequency lead disappears and suddenly there's no reason to get them over the AMD's at all. Features are worse, speed worse, multi-core perf worse etc. The final part of the puzzle will be to get dev's to optimise for AMD too and remove the final Intel optimisation hurdle from the list.
 
Nice Post

TrixX said:
easyrider you may have walked the walk but I don't agree with your perspective on this. Yes the 9900K does win out for sheer performance with 8c. Though one could argue that 8/16 for gaming doesn't really beat 6/12 currently. Therefore an older 8700K or 8086K would be better bargains,
Click to expand...

8700k £428

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-63r-in.html

9900k £509

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-65j-in.html

I bought from OCUK @ £499 retail

499-
428

= 71

easier to delid and use LM on and then slap a water block on and get some mad 5.3GHz performance out of them instead of dealing with the rather pathetic soldering attempt on the 9900K and then it's VRM munching power draws. Hell a 9900K draws similar power to my 1950X FFS. Fast it is, that's undeniable, efficient, well no it's not efficient. Also to say TR4 is poo at gaming, that's a bit of nonsense too. In some scenario's it's sub-optimal just like in some scenario's the 9900K is sub-optimal. Anything running at 1440p or higher is mostly GPU limited anyway, there are a small minority of games that require high single core IPC/Frequency and they are best on an Intel currently. If the 3xxx releases with specs close to those leaked, Intel's IPC/Frequency lead disappears and suddenly there's no reason to get them over the AMD's at all. Features are worse, speed worse, multi-core perf worse etc. The final part of the puzzle will be to get dev's to optimise for AMD too and remove the final Intel optimisation hurdle from the list.
Click to expand...

And?

Pretty much what I said. (but you ignored the DAW part)

I've not even gone beyond 5ghz yet...1.29v seems low buts its passed prime for 8hrs...

I feel I can get 5ghz @ 1.275 with my chip.
 
https://twitter.com/HardwareUnboxed/status/1081348092748681217?s=19

Tweet from HU with a link to a YouTube post clarifying, at length, the meaning of their 'no announcement or even mention of Ryzen 3000' video.

As predicted, they're doing a combination of:

- Questioning the definition of 'announcement'
- Blaming their sources
- Blaming their own staff
- Epic backtracking in general

8DFuYGi.jpg


So having explicitly stated no mention of Ryzen 3000, they're now trying to make out that HU and AT were saying the same thing all along, just in different ways.

So back aboard the hype train.
 
Last edited:
It's hard to give release dates without something being labelled as an announcement. They clearly states that they expect the same as last year, so release dates.
What they seem to be expecting is something like (insert your own dates) : Ryzen 9 SKUS April-May, Ryzen 7 SKUs xxx, Ryzen 5 SKUs xxx/yyy, Ryzen 3 SKUs xxx/yyy/zzz...with no specifics other than maybe core counts; R9 8+, R7 8, R5 6, R3 APUs on 12nm+.
So incredibly limited information at all.
If that turns out to be true, it's a potential open goal that has been missed. That being said, it is only an open goal of the specs are at the levels that the leaks suggest. I just don't see why you wouldn't reveal the specs if they were a) that good, and b) going to be launched by April.
 
davidmt83 said:
The rumours aren't getting much love here either:

Click to expand...

It's always the same, people over expect, I doubt Zen 2 will match the 8 core Intel in gaming, I'd be willing to place a bet on it if I was a gambling man, a big bet. If we do see 12 & 16 core mainstream Zen models the reason will be because that's the only way AMD can keep applying pressure on Intel, I can't see the clocks being as high either, The 2000 series only added 0.35 ghz, None of them manually overclock well, they're all practically the same in that respect & I'm expecting more of the same from the 3000 series. a flagship 3000 series will likely have a single core clock boost of up to 4.7 & a realistic manual all core overclock of around 4.5 ghz. If the flagship has 12 or 16 cores I expect a small drop in all clocks, Obviously I hope I'm wrong but I'm going to temper my expectations as history tells us we should.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom