• 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 ***

tamzzy said:
Already thought of that when I did the example specs ;)
But the issue remains the same though: not all ryzen IMC can run 3400mhz (or to a lesser extent 3200 c14). Most are capable, but most doesn't mean all.
Click to expand...

Like i said, run it at 3200Mhz and tighten the timings slightly, its not going to make much difference :)
 
beany_bot said:
Well exactly. That's my only concern too. That Ryzen can't hit the clocks so they start throwing 16 core, essentially useless (for gamers) parts at us to try and stay relevant.

Also game Devs are really going to have to knuckle down and start building games that use as many cores as are available. I don't see why they can't do this. Because cores are the future not clocks
Click to expand...
With eight core matching 9900K in Cinebench at ~50W lower system power consumption (= no power consumption limited clocks) that single core/thread performance is there.
But getting clear selling argument advantage in single core/thread performance is hard.
So besides matching Intel/small advantage in single core/thread AMD has to have something else to compete and get ahead of Intel.
Good amount more cores and total processing power per price does that.
That's something Intel can't counter just by releasing another (overpriced) CPU with two extra cores.


Game developers have had to do multithreading for years with pocket calculator cores of current consoles.
Those were basically tablet level performance cores already when new.
So multithreading has been must for getting anything more complex to run on them.
But with greedy Intel slowing advance in PCs there hasn't been sense to push for utilizing high core counts in PC games.
Next-gen consoles using high end desktop CPU architecture should make it easy to "port" multithreading from consoles to PC games.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The 8C chiplets will be in demand for Epyc and Threadripper which are higher profit margin products. AMD is using TSMC 7NM which is relatively less mature than GF 14NM was at the time Ryzen was launched,so yield is lower.
Consumer products sell for less money than the server and HEDT products,so will get the runts.

So if Intel makes a 10C 14NM CPU,you need to consider it will be over 200MM2 in size,and if AMD gets close in single threaded performance and latency,they will be matching or beating the top yields of the 10C die,with a pair of salvaged chiplets.

Now,if Intel launches on 10NM with say 12 cores,its going to be a relatively large monolithic chip for early on an unproven process,against salvaged chiplets. Also by the time Intel moves to 10NM,yields should be up on 7NM so AMD can find it easier to supply consumer parts with fully enabled 8C chips.
Click to expand...

Speaking of yields it seems Ryzen 2 is managing to hit around 70%, apparently that's only 10% less than the old 14nm.
 
AMD Ryzen magazine with Cosplay:

http://ryzen.co.kr/bbs/board.php?bo_table=download&wr_id=37

I linked to the original articles earlier IIRC,but TPU has picked up on the 12NM desktop APU refresh:

https://www.techpowerup.com/254804/amd-ryzen-3-3200g-pictured-and-de-lidded

Murphy said:
Speaking of yields it seems Ryzen 2 is managing to hit around 70%, apparently that's only 10% less than the old 14nm.
Click to expand...

7NM costs much more per wafer and then there is the IO die which is a larger chip on 12NM/14NM. Also 200MM2 die on 14MM2 vs 70~80MM2 die on 7NM and the latter is still yielding less. Also I will be interested to see the binning. People are expecting clockspeeds near to 5GHZ with this,whereas server products are typically less than 4GHZ. So its not only getting sufficient 8C chiplets for launch but also those which clock close to 5GHZ as some want here. We will see how it pans out. For most gamers on here its more important that the cheaper 6C and 8C products have good performance boosts over the previous gens. If AMD can release two chiplet 16C consumer products on X570 at good clockspeed it would be nice,but I don't see 12C at launch as being a problem either or the end of the world.

Edit!!

Although AMD could launch a limited run 16C FX though at a higher than normal price and they did this with the Athlon 64.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
7NM costs much more per wafer and then there is the IO die which is a larger chip on 12NM/14NM. Also 200MM2 die on 14MM2 vs 70~80MM2 die on 7NM and the latter is still yielding less. Also I will be interested to see the binning. People are expecting clockspeeds near to 5GHZ with this,whereas server products are typically less than 4GHZ. So its not only getting sufficient 8C chiplets for launch but also those which clock close to 5GHZ as some want here. We will see how it pans out. For most gamers on here its more important that the cheaper 6C and 8C products have good performance boosts over the previous gens. If AMD can release two chiplet 16C consumer products on X570 at good clockspeed it would be nice,but I don't see 12C at launch as being a problem either or the end of the world.
Click to expand...

Sure 7nm is going to cost more per wafer than 14nm but where are you getting the much more from?

Also the 200mm2 die includes a load of extras that aren't part of Zen 2, at least not part of the compute die that's being fabricated on 7nm, either way i don't get the negativity, 70% yields are quiet good on a new node, i would have thought that would have been greeted with a little more positivity. :(

Personally I'm not expecting 5Ghz, IMO it will be more like 4.5-6Ghz.
 
Murphy said:
Sure 7nm is going to cost more per wafer than 14nm but where are you getting the much more from?

Also the 200mm2 die includes a load of extras that aren't part of Zen 2, at least not part of the compute die that's being fabricated on 7nm, either way i don't get the negativity, 70% yields are quiet good on a new node, i would have thought that would have been greeted with a little more positivity. :(

Personally I'm not expecting 5Ghz, IMO it will be more like 4.5-6Ghz.
Click to expand...

Look at estimates from generation to generation. GF 14NM was also a licensed version of the Samsung 14NM node,so in reality it wasn't that new. If you look at the Zen 2 picture,the IO is definitely bigger than the CPU die. Also,the substrate has room for another chiplet.So that is 2X70~80MM2 7NM chiplets,and another larger IO die. The total silicon area will be larger than 14NM Ryzen.

The rumour says 12C at launch not 16C,with consumer 16C being launched later and people are treating it like its the end of the world. People are just overhyping this all too much. Ryzen 2 not only "needs" to be 16C,but also clock close to 5GHZ,run fast RAM,probably have reasonable power consumption,not be hard to cool and also be not more expensive than 12NM Ryzen 2000. I would love it to be all that. It would be an Athlon 64 all over again.

But,I really don't understand why Ryzen launching with 12C or even 16C being initially gated to a limited edition and expensive FX CPU,being a problem.

What is more important for many of us,is single threaded performance going up,and memory-CCX latency being improved.

If anyone of these metrics don't quite get there,you know will happen. I would rather go in with slightly muted expectations and be pleasantly surprised. Even with Zen,look what happened when it didn't clock as high as people wanted,or run RAM as fast as people wanted,they got dissapointed even though it was a good product.
 
Last edited:
Whats the obsession with 5ghz?

Surely it's performance is more important than what clock speed it reaches?!? We've had 5ghz AMD CPU's before, GHZ != Performance
 
sajtion said:
it has to be 5gh or no buy
Click to expand...
You should have a look around for an old FX9590, came out around 2013 and was the first retail 5Ghz chip. Pretty sure thopugh my 1700x at sto9ck would destroy it though.

I just dont undertsand the clock speed thing, do people not realise that higher **** speeds does not equal faster chips, single or multithreaded. I some research on IPC should be done!
 
I was thinking 4.7GHz or so, not that it matters given the expected improvements in other areas. They could be running at 2GHz for all I care so long as they deliver on performance, which the demo at the very least implies they should.
 
humbug said:
Monster Hunter World, don't be fooled by Intel's advertised 2.9Ghz base clock, it actually runs at 4.1Ghz, especially on that top end Asus Z390.

3333Mhz ram costs £10 more than 3000Mhz, i don't see what the problem is and you cannot run above 2666Mhz on the 9400F unless you are using a £250 Z390 board.

Click to expand...

If you know how stock turbo works you know it isnt running at 4.1ghz

MCE doesnt work on those chips either.

4.1ghz will only kick in when all but 1 core are in C6 state, and that wont be the case when playing games.

Intel turbo sucks vs XFR.

There is a reason Intel stopped publishing the turbo clock scaling info as it wasnt putting them in a favourable light with all core turbo speeds been not great. Also £10 to some people is a make or break.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom