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

[humbug]

My first AMD CPU, Athlon 3200+ http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 3200+ - ADA3200DAA4BW (ADA3200BWBOX).html

It replaced a Socket 478 Pentium 4 3.2Ghz HT, i only had it for about 3 months before deciding to try AMD with the Athlon hype at the time, i didn't regret it, like night and day.

I can't remember the motherboard, it was an ASRock not too dissimilar to this. https://www.asrock.com/mb/ULi/939Dual-SATA2/

Tho i think it may have had more dayglow plastics on it.

 

[SupraWez]

I've still got a couple modded Athlon XP mounted in a Tyan MP board.

 

[Phate]

My first AMD CPU, Athlon 3200+ http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K8/AMD-Athlon 64 3200+ - ADA3200DAA4BW (ADA3200BWBOX).html

It replaced a Socket 478 Pentium 4 3.2Ghz HT, i only had it for about 3 months before deciding to try AMD with the Athlon hype at the time, i didn't regret it, like night and day.

I can't remember the motherboard, it was an ASRock not too dissimilar to this. https://www.asrock.com/mb/ULi/939Dual-SATA2/

Tho i think it may have had more dayglow plastics on it.

Oh how times have changed - that was back when I as PC building. I have never built an AMD Based machine and frankly I cannot wait to do so either - Back in those days I wanted to go for an Athlon 3200+ but my colleagues talked me out of it and talked me into a P4 3.0ghz HT cpu similar to what you had. I always seemingly stuck with Intel after that.

Although granted I haven't built that many machines for myself.

Roll on the next few months

 

[HeX]

Had loads of both sides. Though I think my first AMD CPU was a K5 PR166, followed by a bunch of K6/2's as I built loads for familiy members and friends. Everytime I made one I'd buy the next CPU up and swap it out for mine so went from a 380 to a 550 by the end Then when I went to Uni I blew a chunk of my first loan on a Duron 650 setup (@866MHz), before going the whole hog later on and buying a T-Bird 1.4Ghz. Had a bunch of A64's and Opterons after that, before going back to Intel when the Core series hit. Tried a few Phenom II's in between. Never bothered with the FX series.

 

[Pleiades]

Pretty sure I had a K6-III+ that OC'd from 300 to 450MHz... or 450 to 600... dangnabbit, can't remember! Was an awesome OC tho

 

[DragonQ]

Hasn't CPU overclocking basically become a thing of the past since the arrival of decent boost performance?

That may be total rubbish. I still have a 4690K.

Overclocking is basically dead because of:

- Intel locking down all but one part per series;
- Clock speed inflation (mostly due to heavily delayed 10nm and lack of IPC gains over last 6 years);
- More intelligent boost algorithms.

You might be able to eek 6% extra performance on an i9-9900K without exotic cooling, or 10% with, that's a far cry from the 50+% overclocks of the first generation Core i7s. The same is true for Ryzen chips but they tend to be voltage limited rather than temperature limited.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

Ive still got my first PC build up in storage, Barton 2500+ and a radeon 9700 pro, Might go and dig it out and see if it still boots up ok

I had the Radeon 9500 which was basically a 9700 with half the piplines disabled. I installed the modded BIOS which fully unlocks all pipelines and then I overclocked it to match the 9700 Pro clockspeeds. So I had the highest end GPU for only £100. Also had the Athlon XP 2400+ which I overclocked to a 3200+.

Later they released the Radeon 9600 which could be unlocked to a 9800. Those were great days.

 

[4K8KW10]

My Athlon 64 3700+ also overclocks very well. From 2.2 GHz up to 2.75ish GHz with ease with adding +0.025 V or something. On the cheapest motherboard out there.

 

[Alexrose1uk]

Yeah same, fantastic CPU's with a strange ceramic PCB, it had a texture like plant pots.

Same, I was tinkering with PCs before (such as a very weird AMD-based overdrive chip for an old Pentium 90 build which took it to equivalent of 300-400MHZ P2 IIRC). Played very badly with Windows 95, but worked perfectly with Windows 98! My 2 first complete custom builds were a P4 2.4GHz and an Athlon 2800+. I don't remember the 2800+ actually overclocking all that well, my 3800+ and Q6600 I had after that both overclocked substantially better.

 

[i_am_jon]

Same, I was tinkering with PCs before (such as a very weird AMD-based overdrive chip for an old Pentium 90 build which took it to equivalent of 300-400MHZ P2 IIRC). Played very badly with Windows 95, but worked perfectly with Windows 98! My 2 first complete custom builds were a P4 2.4GHz and an Athlon 2800+. I don't remember the 2800+ actually overclocking all that well, my 3800+ and Q6600 I had after that both overclocked substantially better.

I remember having one of those Intel Pentium -> AMD overdrive upgrade chips. What were they? Tried searching for it but couldn't find any results must have been around 1998-2000? It had the AMD chip piggy backed onto to another board that sat in the Intel socket.

Edit: Come to think of it I may still have it somewhere, have a habit of salvaging the CPU from old PC's before scrapping.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

Well Overdrive was an Intel brandname. The Pentium Overdrive originally gained popularity for fitting into a 486 socket. There were other versions which could upgrade early pentiums like the Pentium 90.

I was't aware that AMD done an equivelant product but it must have been called something else.

 

[Mercutio]

I'd think a few will remember the abomination that was a daughter board to fit a socket chip into a slot? Had a mate with one of those.

I was similarly "late" to the party as CuriousTomCat, my first was a P133. Also came from an Amiga 1200

Anyway... any more info/rumours about? I guess it's more on the vega 2 atm...

 

[ED209]

I had one of them, it was a cpu already in cases which just slotted in to the motherboard just like a graphics card used too.

 

[Squink]

Apologies for asking a question which has no doubt been answered elsewhere, it's just that there's a lot to read through. I checked out the link in the OP and it says the new chips will have higher clocks and higher IPC. Since everyone is very excited about these new processors, I was beginning to expect the coming of the new messiah and a doubling of chip speed. Instead it looks like it's predicted to be 20-30%, which strikes me as okay but still fairly iterative.

I'd be looking at getting a mid-range chip (2600X, maybe a 2700X or new-gen equivalent). What exactly am I going to miss out on if I bought now instead of waiting until June?

 

[Distracted]

Apologies for asking a question which has no doubt been answered elsewhere, it's just that there's a lot to read through. I checked out the link in the OP and it says the new chips will have higher clocks and higher IPC. Since everyone is very excited about these new processors, I was beginning to expect the coming of the new messiah and a doubling of chip speed. Instead it looks like it's predicted to be 20-30%, which strikes me as okay but still fairly iterative.

I'd be looking at getting a mid-range chip (2600X, maybe a 2700X or new-gen equivalent). What exactly am I going to miss out on if I bought now instead of waiting until June?

Imagine a 9900k at mid tier ryzen prices. That is what people are expecting in terms of performance as a mid range offering from the 3000 series, with even higher end CPUs being offered at higher speeds and with more cores.

It is all speculation of course, but it is based on what has been shown so far and various leaks and rumours. No-one knows for sure, but the general consensus is that it is worth waiting for unless you need to upgrade this instant.

 

[Participant]

Apologies for asking a question which has no doubt been answered elsewhere, it's just that there's a lot to read through. I checked out the link in the OP and it says the new chips will have higher clocks and higher IPC. Since everyone is very excited about these new processors, I was beginning to expect the coming of the new messiah and a doubling of chip speed. Instead it looks like it's predicted to be 20-30%, which strikes me as okay but still fairly iterative.

I'd be looking at getting a mid-range chip (2600X, maybe a 2700X or new-gen equivalent). What exactly am I going to miss out on if I bought now instead of waiting until June?

20-30% vs. an i9-9900k at 60% of the price, is not iterative.

 

[Squink]

No-one knows for sure, but the general consensus is that it is worth waiting for unless you need to upgrade this instant.

I'm not rushed as such, I was just hoping to do an overall system upgraded in April. The trouble is, there's no acceptable IPS 144hz monitor on the market (coming soon, they say!) and now everyone says wait until June for the new processors. By the time June arrives, no doubt a new GPU will be around the corner. I know it's the way with computers, but usually it's only worth waiting for a new GPU.

 

[Squink]

20-30% vs. an i9-9900k at 60% of the price, is not iterative.

The OP link just shows the usual vague graph where the Y-axis is unlabelled and the size of the bars is exaggerated to make the increases look huge. Hence it was difficult to draw meaningful conclusion. If these new things smash everything currently on the market, I'll wait it out.

 

[Participant]

The OP link just shows the usual vague graph where the Y-axis is unlabelled and the size of the bars is exaggerated to make the increases look huge. Hence it was difficult to draw meaningful conclusion. If these new things smash everything currently on the market, I'll wait it out.

Well we don't know for sure yet, but common consensus is that it's definitely worth waiting if you can.

 

[Doogles]

I'm not rushed as such, I was just hoping to do an overall system upgraded in April. The trouble is, there's no acceptable IPS 144hz monitor on the market (coming soon, they say!) and now everyone says wait until June for the new processors. By the time June arrives, no doubt a new GPU will be around the corner. I know it's the way with computers, but usually it's only worth waiting for a new GPU.

Had my XF270HU for about 3 years and it's been great.