• 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 ***

Stephanie Peterson said:
Well the 3900 is reported to have a low core boost (prob single or dual) or what?? 4.6 so its going to do that at least.
Well cooled and more aggressive settings on PB might see, will prob see, another 100-200 ??

These new boosting technologies can push the chip 95% of the way there (i hope) on there own.
Click to expand...
I just go with what 8pack said... That they are not Overclockers dream. Deffo Zen+was not....
 
mcast said:
Let's play an educated guess game....

3900X @ 4.8Ghz (prob highest for average person) will be 5% under the performance of a 9900K single core performance in most games and much better multicore. I will also guess the 3900X is the best ryzen2 in games.

;)
Click to expand...
3900X is going to struggle to do 4.5/6 on one core. No-one is getting 4.8Ghz all core without LN2 or Phase change water. Normal boost 4.3ghz some or most cores occasional spikes 1 core to 4.5/4.6.
 
Illuminist said:
So there is no data that supports that claim that it can perform like a 9900k in games...yet.. Just underclocked scores on geekbench that dont make it "unless" its clocked higher and then it "should" be "close".

Got it
Click to expand...

Well its not released yet so ;)
From what we have seen Zen2 will be close to the 9900k in SC, very close, what comes out the ultimate quickest in single benches will be what clock speeds come out and Intel looks like it needs high clocks now to compete with zen2.
But a difference of say 5% in SC loads for intel isn't going to be anywhere near enough as there multi core side is much weaker. Then there is the power draw they have, security ect... none of which helps them.

I think the 3700 will be a bit slower than the 9900k, the 3800 will be almost identical (unless multi threaded tests) and the 3900 will eat the 9900 alive and be in the same ballpark as the 9900 emergency edition ST wise (and decimate it Multi thread wise)
 
I swear the last 100 pages have been constant moaning about the price of a motherboard people don't need. Just wait for a B550 or buy an x470.

Who honestly gives a crap about PCIE4? It's probably not even needed to run the new navi cards, which lets be honest, are overpriced inadequately cooled crap.
 
Jacky60 said:
3900X is going to struggle to do 4.5/6 on one core. No-one is getting 4.8Ghz all core without LN2 or Phase change water. Normal boost 4.3ghz some or most cores occasional spikes 1 core to 4.5/4.6.
Click to expand...
So, call me cynical... but it could still be that the 9900k overclocked, is still the fastest gaming CPU. And, what with B-die and mobo prices could be CHEAPER too (as a whole system). As I created the thread earlier... is Intel the price/perf king now.
 
Zoroaster said:
98% of customers will be buying a board to pair with a 3600 or 3700 series.

How to make a convincing argument to them that they should pay £100 more for server quality PCB and enough power management to run a small school, along with PCI lanes they will never use, and a cooling system that allows the board to double as a drone.

Refusing to properly upgrade the bios of boards that are only a year old is not a convincing argument.
Click to expand...
Zeed said:
Yup thats the thing... Someone wants 3600 or 3700 cpu does not need 570x BUT x470 board's bioses are not in best state. So one needs to buy lets say 240 quid motherboard to run 189 quid cpu correctly it SUCKS. 8PAck says they WORK some better some worse.... Emmm hmmm
Click to expand...

Exactly and AMD will get the blame,as people will feel AMD lied to them about socket compatibility. Oh yes,it fits in the socket but won't work very well. Also a £240 motherboard to run a £189 CPU is like trying to sell a car cheaper than the competition, and making the tires cost £2000 each! :rolleyes:
 
KungFuSpaghetti said:
I swear the last 100 pages have been constant moaning about the price of a motherboard people don't need. Just wait for a B550 or buy an x470.

Who honestly gives a crap about PCIE4? It's probably not even needed to run the new navi cards, which lets be honest, are overpriced inadequately cooled crap.
Click to expand...
Agreed , like popping a poop in the freezer to keep it fresh, navi has a new blower cooler design :)
 
Mainstream customers cannot afford that price hike, for any reason. I wait with interest to see how it pans out, but if that price is real for the ASUS board, then they are not going to sell anywhere near as many boards as previously.

I'm sticking with my CH7 for now.
 
I don;t have a problem with motherboards being higher in price due to being better quality, but what I do find hard to believe is they are THAT much more expensive to make. There is no way the prices we have seen reflect the actual cost of manufacturing, and if it somehow does, well then what a mess.

Last gen motherboards might perform slightly less, but i'm not convinced it'll be 150-200 quid less. It's the same as paying a premium for b-die ram when you can get 90% of the performance for half the price.
 
beany_bot said:
So, call me cynical... but it could still be that the 9900k overclocked, is still the fastest gaming CPU. And, what with B-die and mobo prices could be CHEAPER too (as a whole system). As I created the thread earlier... is Intel the price/perf king now.
Click to expand...
I don't think you're being cynical, this is what i am trying to establish... Are the new cpu's actually good or have people just been swept away on a wave of "almost as good" but better multicore perfomance.. I mean he Fx 8350 had better multicore performance that the intel but that was when it didnt mean poo.
The more i read of this thread the more Im thinking these 3xxx chips are not actually that impressive. But its fun watching everyone acting like they will be saviour of the world
 
I agree that the manufacturers need to get there finger out and make the older boards work properly, this after all is one of the basic fundamentals of the first generation of Zen..that it would work with all AM4 boards and the MB sold boards partly based on this.
But of course, they dont get a sale for the effort so they will drag there heals.

To be honest this aint the first time this has happened, board manufacturers being slack with updating or making new boards work right - i had a 'mare of a time for the first few months of x99 ownership because of crap bios's and such.
 
ben90 said:
I don;t have a problem with motherboards being higher in price due to being better quality, but what I do find hard to believe is they are THAT much more expensive to make. There is no way the prices we have seen reflect the actual cost of manufacturing, and if it somehow does, well then what a mess.

Last gen motherboards might perform slightly less, but i'm not convinced it'll be 150-200 quid less. It's the same as paying a premium for b-die ram when you can get 90% of the performance for half the price.
Click to expand...

And they're telling us with so called 'premium' boards like the CH7 that they're not really top quality after all. I also don't doubt they are better boards, but the jump in 'quality' and price are massive. I think I'm just going to stop thinking about it and see what comes... New CPU will live in my CH7.
 
CrakeJ said:
Mainstream customers cannot afford that price hike, for any reason. I wait with interest to see how it pans out, but if that price is real for the ASUS board, then they are not going to sell anywhere near as many boards as previously.

I'm sticking with my CH7 for now.
Click to expand...

They aren't boards aimed at mainstream, not even the b50 and b450 boards are. These are all enthusiast level hardware and to me the x570 represents the upper level of that enthusiasm. It seems clear AMD are targeting Intel buyers with these boards AMD the higher SKU chips.

Again, none of it's required when you can get even an x370 which will take a 16 core and likely be no different to any other board in actual real world use.

I really can't see what the issue is, AMD have given the consumer hundreds of viable choices for motherboards.
 
Illuminist said:
The more i read of this thread the more Im thinking these 3xxx chips are not actually that impressive. But its fun watching everyone acting like they will be saviour of the world
Click to expand...

No matter what the reviews will say on Monday some (on the competitors payroll no doubt) will complain and say its not enough.
But lets look at what we have so far.
Core counts going from 6 to 16 cores on cheep (supposedly) consumer boards.
A big jump in IPC, some benches showing more than 15%
Increased clocks, the 12 core part can boost to 4.7Ghz which is quite a jump over the previous gen (stock at least)
A brand new innovative construction (chiplets)
PCIe4 and other new tech supported.
Decent power and heat and no major security problems we know about.

All this is quite a major jump over last years chips, we have not seen this kind of action for a very long time so its understandable that folk are excited.
If all you do is play games then well you aint going to care, but that doesnt mean this is a crap launch.
 
They've clearly gone mental with overdesigning it, but then that's to be expected as the AM4 compatibility has to keep older boards available for use. The price is overdesign + full feature sets + lost margin from more sensible boards.

Now stop moaning about it, just keep or buy a 400 series board if it's an issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom