• 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 ***

Minstadave said:
Shame no 16 core on release. I may wait a while and see how it pans out.

Is there no info on Threadripper 2?
Click to expand...
Looks like they are sitting on the 16C part for now, which is a bit of a shame, but they must feel confident that they have, for now, got Intel covered. It's nice to see that AMD are confident enough to play it this way and not show their hand all at once, I don't think they will have a 5GZ part, extrapolating from their known CPU's I guess it'll be something like 16Core/32T @ 4-4.2Base/4.7-4.8Boost @125-140W($600-$650) - it'll still be a beast.

They did say they haven't abandoned TR4, but no concrete details as of yet.
 
Minstadave said:
Shame no 16 core on release. I may wait a while and see how it pans out.

Is there no info on Threadripper 2?
Click to expand...

The guy from Techyescity (YouTube) is at Computex and he posted pics of the motherboard guys benchmarking ES of the 16c running @ 4.1ghz. So I'm guessing AMD haven't got them quite where they want them yet, or are holding them back to pre-empt an Intel 12-core release.
 
twistedheat said:
The guy from Techyescity (YouTube) is at Computex and he posted pics of the motherboard guys benchmarking ES of the 16c running @ 4.1ghz. So I'm guessing AMD haven't got them quite where they want them yet, or are holding them back to pre-empt an Intel 12-core release.
Click to expand...
Tech yes lovin
 
i bet we see 16 core ryzen come june the 10th at amd's E3 event where more info was promised.

does make me chuckle at a few on here moaning about the prices and how amd are making a mess when the chips havent even launched yet or been benched in the real world. amd have what looks like a genuinely faster chip than intel for the first time in ages yet its not enough?! fanboys really need to take their heads out of their backsides over this and calm down before they give themselves a stroke.
 
pmc25 said:
Who on earth thought that? Ryzen 3 is low budget. Ryzen 5 is low cost, high value. 7 is premium. 9 is now high end. How could that work with Ryzen 5 being 8 core? Also, why would they do it? They'd hit their margins, and it's completely unnecessary as Intel have nothing to respond with until H2 2020, by which time Zen 3 will be out.

IMO, AMD would be best off not launching the 16 core at all, and saving all the better dies for EPYC and TR4. Intel don't have a reply to the 12 core, let alone the 16 core. Move AM4 to 16 core top end on Zen 3, when hopefully power reductions on EUV will make it a more friendly product for the enthusiast socket (as opposed to HEDT TR4).
Click to expand...

Because of the missing Ryzen 3 3000, we need to have the Ryzen 5 2600 as the new low budget.
intel has an i9-9920X that is in performance virtually equal to the 3900X. They can remove the price tag and will have the competition right there.

Also, AMD position the 3800X against the 8C/8T 9700K :eek: :confused:
 
hominid said:
Looks like they are sitting on the 16C part for now, which is a bit of a shame, but they must feel confident that they have, for now, got Intel covered. It's nice to see that AMD are confident enough to play it this way and not show their hand all at once, I don't think they will have a 5GZ part, extrapolating from their known CPU's I guess it'll be something like 16Core/32T @ 4-4.2Base/4.7-4.8Boost @125-140W($600-$650) - it'll still be a beast.

They did say they haven't abandoned TR4, but no concrete details as of yet.
Click to expand...

14nmFF++++++++ is already a volcano at 8 cores, on such a small package, and they need to hit massive clocks to be competitive with Zen 2.

10nm by Intel's own admission has now had EUV canned completely, clocks are much lower than the bigger node, and yields are a disaster (rumoured to be no better than 30%). Hence why we've only seen a trickle of mobile products on it so far. They claim they're going to do their first GPU, and low power sever / workstation chips on it next year, but we'll see about that ...

So basically, any major improvement has to be in 2021, Intel hopes, on their 7nm EUV .. and that's still scheduled to be Core architecture.

Why launch the 16 core part at all on AM4? Do it with Zen 3 and 7nm EUV or 6nm EUV. It's total overkill for gaming, and general productivity, and for other purposes, that many fast cores are likely going to be a bit starved on dual channel. Keep it for TR4.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Because of the missing Ryzen 3 3000, we need to have the Ryzen 5 2600 as the new low budget.
intel has an i9-9920X that is in performance virtually equal to the 3900X. They can remove the price tag and will have the competition right there.

Also, AMD position the 3800X against the 8C/8T 9700K :eek: :confused:
Click to expand...

Ryzen 3 3xxx isn't missing. It just wasn't launched today. They said it was coming. This isn't the full stack.

You actually believe Intel can compete with AMD on price at anything above 4 cores? No way. The 9920X can't be priced anywhere near the 3900X, because yields are absolutely miserable. If you're expecting major price reductions on Intel's products above 4 cores, you'll be disappointed.

There'll be enough fanbois and brand loyalists to keep their business ticking over. Shattering their margins to try to compete would be worse for the business, and shares would sink without trace. They've got to rely on brand recognition and loyalty for 2-3 years now.
 
Ross Thomson said:
price of the 3900x doesn't look bad compared to what the threadripper 12 core parts where at launch.

3900x $499 3.8-4.6
2920x $649 3.5-4.3
1920x $799 3.5-4.0


I paid £265 for my 1700 7 months after launch (£329)
Click to expand...

Yeah, i paid £160 for my 1600, it had already been out for a little while and was discounted from £180.

I'm running it at 3.85Ghz 24/7, 3600 @ 4.1Ghz = +7%, +15% IPC = +22% + Shiny = Happy humbug = Good = £200 is worth it, + get £70 back on the 1600? £40 on the board?
 
~>Dg<~ said:
your on a old i5 anything is going to be a upgrade over what you have. £100 on ram £100 mobo 2700 at £160. big upgrade for not much.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The uplift at 1440p from a 4690K to 8700K was huge, even with a 980 Ti (YMMV depending on the games you play). Any Ryzen+ 6 core or Intel equivalent will show a good increase in many games.
 
Troezar said:
Some serious cash going to be spent if people go for a decent motherboard and CPU. I was thinking £250 for a motherboard and £350 for a CPU would get me a couple of rungs down from the high end. Looks like I need to rethink, the £700 budget could easily climb to £900. Threadripper doesn't look so expensive any more :p
Click to expand...

It does get you a couple rungs down with the 3700x at £330 and leaving £370 for mobo. That CPU is around the i9 9900k by a few%
 
absolutely stoked at how good this is shaping up,

although sitting on a 2600k and dual 280xs this is going to have to be a full on rebuild this is going to be a painful year :(
 
All core boosts are all below 4Ghz, hmmm.. Like someone else said i wonder why they compared the 3800x to the 9700k?

Too bad they couldn't get clocks up a bit more, but we'll see how good the chips perform overall in tests.
 
It's not as simple as ryzen 9 being "high end" now.
If the 3800x turns out to be the fastest gaming CPU in the world. Then obviously it is the high end for gamers.
 
humbug said:
Yeah, i paid £160 for my 1600, it had already been out for a little while and was discounted from £180.

I'm running it at 3.85Ghz 24/7, 3600 @ 4.1Ghz = +7%, +15% IPC = +22% + Shiny = Happy humbug = Good = £200 is worth it, + get £70 back on the 1600? £40 on the board?
Click to expand...

+ 100% more cache + 100% faster floating point + higher multi-threaded performance + lower latency.

I'm really looking forward to gaming benchmarks 3600 vs 2700.
 
233 said:
absolutely stoked at how good this is shaping up,

although sitting on a 2600k and dual 280xs this is going to have to be a full on rebuild this is going to be a painful year :(
Click to expand...

I agree. Although I am glad I upgraded my pair of 280x's to a 1080 a couple of years ago, takes the sting out of it a little.
 
humbug said:
Are people seriously upset that the 8 core 16 thread CPU starts at $329?

I just don't understand that :( what more do you want them to do?
Click to expand...

I think most people in this forum would be upset even if it came out at £99. im baffled by some of these comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom