• 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 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joxeon said:
I'm not so sure it will win in gaming since the higher clocked 5900X was only around 5% ahead in most titles and that was vs the stock Intel CPU.
Click to expand...

5 to 20% game depending. However you're probably right, i think for 1080P gaming there will be nothing between the 10700K and 5600X with the 5600X taking it in a few.

ST the 5600X will blow the 10700K out of the water, MT the 10700K will take it by about 10%.
 
Joxeon said:
I'm not so sure it will win in gaming since the higher clocked 5900X was only around 5% ahead in most titles and that was vs the stock Intel CPU.
Click to expand...
The 10900k is more expensive then the 5900x though isn't it? So let's get this right. Your argument is that the 10900k might somehow overclock to edge out a few games by a few fps and likely not in every game either considering the huge advantage the 5900x had in some. And even though its 10 vs 12 cores and probably still get trashed in any multi threaded app, we're recommended the 10900k?
 
Lokken86 said:
The 10900k is more expensive then the 5900x though isn't it? So let's get this right. Your argument is that the 10900k might somehow overclock to edge out a few games by a few fps and likely not in every game either considering the huge advantage the 5900x had in some. And even though its 10 vs 12 cores and probably still get trashed in any multi threaded app, we're recommended the 10900k?
Click to expand...

$20 less actually... intel is now the value choice lol!

Bit of a strange argument anyway given we have absolutely no idea how the 5900X compares with the limits off either. It’s a comparison of stock to stock, given we haven’t had hands on with the Zen 3 parts we don’t know how much or how little they have left in the tank if you don’t care about power use.

I suggest revisiting the idea once we have independent benchmarks comparing like for like.
 
humbug said:
5 to 20% game depending. However you're probably right, i think for 1080P gaming there will be nothing between the 10700K and 5600X with the 5600X taking it in a few.

ST the 5600X will blow the 10700K out of the water, MT the 10700K will take it by about 10%.
Click to expand...

We have to see how the 5600X performs in range of tasks. But yeah, it looks the 5600X will leave the 10700K in the dust.
 
Zeeflyboy said:
$20 less actually... intel is now the value choice lol!

Bit of a strange argument anyway given we have absolutely no idea how the 5900X compares with the limits off either.

I suggest revisiting the idea once we have independent benchmarks comparing like for like.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Only once the reviews are out will be know for sure.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
5600X at 4.6ghz beats out a 9900k at 5.7GHz.:eek:
Click to expand...

That's how far Intel are behind in IPC, 5.7Ghz is 24% higher than 4.6Ghz.

I don't know where you got that from or what it was referring to but...

Zen 2 vs Coffeelake

Score 4125: AMD Ryzen R5 3600 at 4.5Ghz, RavenXXX2
Score 4124: Intel Core i7 8700K at 5.2Ghz, Chaos666

+15.5% IPC to Zen 2 in MT

Score 548: Intel Core i7 8700K at 5.2Ghz, Polo6RGTI
Score 544: AMD Ryzen R5 3600 at 4.675Ghz, TNA

+11% IPC to Zen 2 in ST

AMD quoted a +19% IPC gain, that was ST Cinebench R20, the 5900X score 631 the 5950X 640, clock speed unknown.

If we take ST that's +30% ST to Zen 3 vs Icelake, which is the same as Coffeelake.
+35% in MT.

The 24% difference rather than 35% is probably down to the core difference of the 9900K, about 10%, like i said.

jigger said:
We have to see how the 5600X performs in range of tasks. But yeah, it looks the 5600X will leave the 10700K in the dust.
Click to expand...

The 10700K is never scoring 631 in R20.
 
Last edited:
FoxEye said:
Compared to what? Because the 5600X is not better value compared to the 3000 series.

At the absolute best it's +19% perf for +25% money. At the absolute best.

And if the 5600 SKU never materializes then it's a fair to say it's a crapload *worse* value than the 3600.
Click to expand...

5000 series looks like a continuation of the 3000 and 3000 XT series. More performance but also more money, and less features - no stock cooler included, no new motherboards...
5000 doesn't look like a new generation.
 
4K8KW10 said:
5000 series looks like a continuation of the 3000 and 3000 XT series. More performance but also more money, and less features - no stock cooler included, no new motherboards...
5000 doesn't look like a new generation.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The change in CCX structure near enough makes it a brand new architecture, although we need reviews to see what impact it makes. Stock coolers are included with the chips they'd likely be used with, they're naff with higher end chips. As for the motherboards, until DDR5, a new chipset would just be a money grab as there aren't any new features currently that require new motherboards.
 
benjii said:
I disagree. The change in CCX structure near enough makes it a brand new architecture, although we need reviews to see what impact it makes. Stock coolers are included with the chips they'd likely be used with, they're naff with higher end chips. As for the motherboards, until DDR5, a new chipset would just be a money grab as there aren't any new features currently that require new motherboards.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There is a need to remove the active cooling off X570 which is hot and loud under given conditions.

Merging two 4-core core complexes into a single 8-core one is not a brand new architecture.
 
4K8KW10 said:
I disagree. There is a need to remove the active cooling off X570 which is hot and loud under given conditions.

Merging two 4-core core complexes into a single 8-core one is not a brand new architecture.
Click to expand...

The Asus X570 refresh board has removed the fan, I assume other manufacturers will follow suit. As for the CCX, I didn't say it a was a new architecture, I was implying it's a big enough change that it may feel like one. The 3300X gave us a sneak peak of what lower latency does for performance.
 
4K8KW10 said:
I disagree. There is a need to remove the active cooling off X570 which is hot and loud under given conditions.

Merging two 4-core core complexes into a single 8-core one is not a brand new architecture.
Click to expand...
What ? I have a x570 board it's not loud at all don't even hear the fan on mine nor any of the other pc I've built with x570 motherboards
 
benjii said:
I disagree. The change in CCX structure near enough makes it a brand new architecture, although we need reviews to see what impact it makes. Stock coolers are included with the chips they'd likely be used with, they're naff with higher end chips. As for the motherboards, until DDR5, a new chipset would just be a money grab as there aren't any new features currently that require new motherboards.
Click to expand...

Right....

The 3300X was AMD's Unified L3 teaser.

The 3100 and 3300X are in every way identical, other than the L3 which is 16MB unified on the 3300X and 16MB split on the 3100.

That alone and this is the result.

3100 @ 4.4Ghz = 162
3300X @4.4Ghz = 186 (+14.8)

7700K @5.1Ghz 193 (+3%)

5.2Ghz vs 4.4Ghz = +18% - the 3% higher performance = Zen 2 with unified L3 = 15% higher IPC in games than Kabylake / Icelake (same CPU architecture)

Zen 2 with a split L3 Cache has the same gaming IPC as Intel, Intel are higher clocked, with a unified L3 cache Zen 2 has 15% higher gaming IPC.

Zen 3 has unified 32MB L3 8 core CCD's.

ViJVP77.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom