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

[easyrider]

The 12 and 16 core parts will do that and then **** all over the grave, and do it cheaper. Your wish will come true in June. The fact AMD are beating the £500 i9 this early only goes to show things will only get better, and you can't really moan when it costs sub £200 and is mid range Zen.

Where was it mentioned it was 200 and mid range again ?

Oh and what about IPC

And games performance ?

 

[Aretak]

I am sure I read over at Hexus that these cpu's are coming with PCI-e 4.0, is this right? If so does that mean that these cpu's won't work with current boards or will it be like the Sandybridge/Ivybridge overlap? I thought they may have waited for DDR5 to come out (next year?) to launch PCI-e 4.0. Are there even any gpu's coming out this year that will make use of it?

PCIe 4.0 support would be a board-level thing. If these new chips support it, it'd simply be a case that they'd run at PCIe 4.0 speeds in the new (X570?) boards, and PCIe 3.0 speeds in existing boards. As you mentioned, it'll be just like Ivy Bridge in that respect, with those capable of running 2.0 or 3.0 speeds depending on the motherboard you put them in.

As for DDR5, I wouldn't expect that on the desktop for another couple of years. Possibly late next year, but if that happens I'd wager it'll be HEDT only due to the crossover with server hardware, which is where DDR5 will hit first (just like X99 ushered in DDR4, with mainstream platforms following the year after).

 

[Jokester]

In Cinebench...what about games ?

Threadripper destroys my 9900k

In games....oh wait...

You still gaming at 1080p?

 

[Scramz]

Where was it mentioned it was 200 and mid range again ?

Oh and what about IPC

And games performance ?

So you assume the ryzen part was clocked well over 4.7Ghz?

 

[TrixX]

On the contrary this is solely about ipc/single core speed.

What we do know is the part used was a 75W TDP CPU that outstripped the 95W TDP (LOL) 9900K. Going back to the leaks I do believe a certain 3600/3600X falls into that range and may have a 75W TDP and be 8c/16t. If so the mid-range CPU just equalled the 9900K (it lost the run pre-show and won the one on stage).

 

[Stephanie Peterson]

There was absolutely no evidence in that test that showed the 9900k having anything like the fastest ipc or clock speed for that matter.
In fact going by the power consumption of the two systems it could be deduced that the AMD system was running lower clocks and a much higher IPC to beat the 9900k in the first place.

 

[easyrider]

Look mate you've been salty the last 2 weeks. Now you are even saltier for some reason. Are you incapable of critical thinking or have you just got so cynical you can't see the wood for the Intel.

No it’s clear I’m one of the most lucid people in this thread...

The amount of guff being spouted in this thread is ludicrous...people making stuff up...

Cold hard facts about click speed and ipc...

 

[RavenXXX2]

On the contrary this is solely about ipc/single core speed.

Zen + is right up there with coffee lake clock for clock, you telling me 7nm Zen aint gonna bust Intel's balls in IPC....

 

[Doobedoo]

On the contrary this is solely about ipc/single core speed.

Do you think Zen2 will offer higher clockspeeds than Zen+? Do you also think that Zen2 will offer better IPC than Zen+?

 

[kitfit1]

Right...so I beat it running my 9900k at 5ghz...

So?

Thing is though Easy, as you have told us quite a few times, you can't get your 9900k 24/7 stable at 5Ghz anyway.

 

[lltfdaniel]

This thread is getting really salty.

Yes i already know with my consensus that a zen 2 will have better ipc.

As for zen 2 beating intel ipc or even matching it, i originally thought of it that way.

 

[Stephanie Peterson]

No it’s clear I’m one of the most lucid people in this thread...

The amount of guff being spouted in this thread is ludicrous...people making stuff up...

Cold hard facts about click speed and ipc...

Well give us the cold hard facts that make you come to your conclusion - i genuinely would like to know why you have come to the conclusion you have.

 

[Doobedoo]

Thing is though Easy, as you have told us quite a few times, you can't get your 9900k 24/7 stable at 5Ghz anyway.

Has he delidded his soldered chip? That may help.

 

[RavenXXX2]

Salt is what makes these discussions so fun, AMD v Intel wars just like the old days.

 

[easyrider]

There was absolutely no evidence in that test that showed the 9900k having anything like the fastest ipc or clock speed for that matter.
In fact going by the power consumption of the two systems it could be deduced that the AMD system was running lower clocks and a much higher IPC to beat the 9900k in the first place.

what vcore was being used in the test on the 9900k ?

Seems high for a stock 4.7 ghz 9900k

I’ll check that bit of the video again and compare power usage with my 5ghz 9900k

 

[easyrider]

Thing is though Easy, as you have told us quite a few times, you can't get your 9900k 24/7 stable at 5Ghz anyway.

Link?

 

[Doobedoo]

what vcore was being used in the test on the 9900k ?

Seems high for a stock 4.7 ghz 9900k

I’ll check that bit of the video again and compare power usage with my 5ghz 9900k

So are you saying that Amd knowingly altered bios settings to make it seem worse than what it is?

 

[Potatowithearsontheside]

Ok so If that zen chip is running 5ghz it’s a success is it even if the 9900k is running 4.7ghz?

Hmmmm

Explain...

Eem, it'd be evidence that they could hit those clocks.
I agree though that'd be a disappointment from an IPC point of view, since it's the IPC that we so desparately want to see AMD making gains on.
However, a Zen+ 8c CPU at 5.0GHz would have scored higher than 2057, so we know that it cannot have been clocked that high anyway unless there was IPC regression (read incredibly unlikely/impossibility). Someone said their 4.3GHz 2700X scored 1900 in CB. We have the 9900K having a 3% IPC advantage over Zen+, so that would put it at 1957 @ 4.3GHz, so 2040 looks about right for ~4.5-4.6GHz for the 9900K.
If Zen2 has the 9-13% rumoured IPC increase over Zen+, it'd be at ~2071-2147 at 4.3GHz.
To me, it looks like the demo was of an 8c Ryzen @4.2-4.3GHz.

 

[DragonQ]

I'd call that a denial of truth attack

I think Zen 2 will likely clock lower but have higher IPC. Which chip ends up on top is a toss-up. Doesn't mean I'm going to state a supposition as fact.

 

[Stephanie Peterson]

Well i presume it was stock vcore, AMD did say it was a stock setup did they not.