• 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 ***

Associate
Joined
7 Nov 2017
Posts
1,880
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)
 

Deleted member 209350

D

Deleted member 209350

ZbLFXhF.png

They have also announced the Ryzen 5 too. Prices look the same as the launch prices as the Ryzen 5 2600 and 2600X at launch.

Disappointing to see that the Ryzen 5 is still stuck at 6c when I think almost everyone thought it was going to be a 8c, with Ryzen 7 moving to 12c and Ryzen 9 moving to 16c
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Jan 2012
Posts
3,882
Location
Derbyshire
Fingers crossed for some Zen2 support on my Corsshair VI x370. That's the whole reason I bought one of the top boards back in the day, for future support like this.

Think 12c is out the window, that's fine, but hoping for 3700/3800x support

There is a bios already on the Asus website for "next gen processors", they recommend updating your chipset drivers first.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Apr 2017
Posts
1,762
A 12 core chip which increases performance by >50% over the previous highest end chip at a price that is $700 less than Intel's equivalent and is the same price as the top end Ryzen 1 series at launch is the kind of drip feeding that many can live with I think.
When was the last time Intel managed that? Hmm.

50% increase in what though? Benchmarking?
I want gaming performance from these gaming chips, there's no chance they are 50% stronger there.

Basically it seems that AMD have the performance there and can undercut Intel by a huge margin, but have **** the bed. The 12 core should be priced as the 2700x was on launch, because Intel can trade on name sake, AMD can't.
 
Permabanned
Joined
15 Oct 2011
Posts
6,311
Location
Nottingham Carlton
https://youtu.be/MkO4R10WNUM?t=252 16 core chip under custom loop = 4.25ghz all core. Maybe they're delaying the 16 core chip to see if they can get higher clocks.

Builzoid also mentioned that BCLK OC'ing is back on the menu so there will be more to these chips than bumping up the multiplier.
NEWSFLASH its been back from start of Zen..... I usually run 104bclk atm
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Disappointed AMD are holding back the 16cores, entirely possible that demand in servers is going to be so high they might not ever see the light of day on AM4 for consumers.

They are holding a second 12-core option back, as well, why not a 3900 at 65W with lower clocks?
 
Associate
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Posts
567
50% increase in what though? Benchmarking?
I want gaming performance from these gaming chips, there's no chance they are 50% stronger there.

Basically it seems that AMD have the performance there and can undercut Intel by a huge margin, but have **** the bed. The 12 core should be priced as the 2700x was on launch, because Intel can trade on name sake, AMD can't.


Nearly every person I've spoken to/seen in a similar boat to me (on Reddit, IRL, etc) see these Ryzens as the first real worthwhile cost effective upgrade.

I'm on a 4670k. Intel have been overpriced for years, and previous Ryzen's OC for OC were just on par with my Haswell in single core performance. No upgrade truly made "Durr it's so obvious" sense. Until now.

I can almost guarantee that anyone that was stuck on Haswell or below is chomping at the bits to pick up a Ryzen 3000 series chip.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
9,638
Location
Ireland
Disappointed AMD are holding back the 16cores, entirely possible that demand in servers is going to be so high they might not ever see the light of day on AM4 for consumers.

Likely keeping the best binned for Epyc, and Threadripper later. Then again the voltages for the 16 demo were silly at like 1.5V. So clearly some ES, just to demo.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
Nearly every person I've spoken to/seen in a similar boat to me (on Reddit, IRL, etc) see these Ryzens as the first real worthwhile cost effective upgrade.

I'm on a 4670k. Intel have been overpriced for years, and previous Ryzen's OC for OC were just on par with my Haswell in single core performance. No upgrade truly made "Durr it's so obvious" sense. Until now.

I can almost guarantee that anyone that was stuck on Haswell or below is chomping at the bits to pick up a Ryzen 3000 series chip.
Pricing is still anything but certain don't forget.

We know the RRP but we don't know what retailers will be selling them for... could be £50 on top of RRP, even after the straight $ to £ conversion that's likely almost certain.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Apr 2017
Posts
1,762
Nearly every person I've spoken to/seen in a similar boat to me (on Reddit, IRL, etc) see these Ryzens as the first real worthwhile cost effective upgrade.

I'm on a 4670k. Intel have been overpriced for years, and previous Ryzen's OC for OC were just on par with my Haswell in single core performance. No upgrade truly made "Durr it's so obvious" sense. Until now.

I can almost guarantee that anyone that was stuck on Haswell or below is chomping at the bits to pick up a Ryzen 3000 series chip.

Yeah for anyone on an aging platform it's great, but for me it's a minor let down.

Basically another 8 core with similar gaming performance to 9900k? Will it actually be as quickas a clocked Intel?
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
11 Jul 2007
Posts
567
Pricing is still anything but certain don't forget.

We know the RRP but we don't know what retailers will be selling them for... could be £50 on top of RRP, even after the straight $ to £ conversion that's likely almost certain.

That's a fair point, being £50 on top of a 1:1 $:£ conversion would certainly take the shine off of things, but if it stays at or close to 1:1 $:£ then I think they'll fly off the shelves.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
3,368
Disappointing to see that the Ryzen 5 is still stuck at 6c when I think almost everyone thought it was going to be a 8c, with Ryzen 7 moving to 12c and Ryzen 9 moving to 16c
Wow, 40 PCI-e gen 4 lanes across the range, Intel would have chopped lanes for the low end, Intel sucks ass! Looking forward to replacing my 5930K .
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Feb 2006
Posts
3,368
What are you going to use the lanes for? You need two graphics cards in Crossfire and 3 NVMe PCIe 3.0 x4 SSDs.
I need fast storage for my work, I need a minimum of two fast drives, more drives speed testing up lots. This is why I got X99. I was thinking I would need to go with Thread Ripper this time but it looks like a X570 will do.
 
Associate
Joined
24 Nov 2010
Posts
2,314
Disappointing to see that the Ryzen 5 is still stuck at 6c when I think almost everyone thought it was going to be a 8c, with Ryzen 7 moving to 12c and Ryzen 9 moving to 16c

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).
 
Back
Top Bottom