• 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
24 Nov 2010
Posts
2,314

LOL. Aside from the 'source':

Sense dictates that this is total nonsense. Why would they even tease people with 16 cores if this were the case. And why the hell would they launch Navi so soon if there were supply issues? However good Navi is, they'll never sell as many or make as much profit as with the Zen 2 chips. If they were that severely supply constrained, there's no possible way they'd have simultaneously launched Ryzen 3 and Navi, with availability pencilled in until July the 7th. Nor is it likely they'd have announced the 12 core for that date either (it would have been TBC). Navi could have waited until autumn.

Makes zero sense. The much, much bigger Vega 20 chip is apparently hitting good yields now, and there have been no reports of unexpected hold ups with TSMC 7nm.

Also, what low clocks is he speaking of?
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
19 Nov 2015
Posts
4,867
Location
Glasgow Area
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.
Oh it's fast enough. I'm just dissapointed because AMD seem to be following intel and Nvidia into pricing lala land.
I earn a very decent wage. But the way things are going this crap is going to price me out of pc gaming pretty soon.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
9,638
Location
Ireland
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.

They compared 3700X vs the 9700K in Cinebench, and 3800X vs 9900K in PUBG.

There's also no word or report on the all-core boost yet. Just Boost, they don't even mention the XFR boost.

MPPL0B1.jpg
 
Joined
2 Jan 2019
Posts
617
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.
Where did you get this "all core boosts are all below 4GHz" from? One of the SKUs has a base of 3.9GHz. You really think it has a base that is also its all core boost?
Wake up.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
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).
If you were following the thread before release, a lot of AMD superfans thought the R3 would be 6 core; the R5 all 8 core and the R7 would be 12 core @ 5GHz. It was a pleasant fiction, wasn't it.
 
Joined
2 Jan 2019
Posts
617
It is funny though. If the all core boost is below 4.0GHz then that 8c from CES was on some serious steroids in matching the 9900K.
IMO, it is very likely that the all core boost is only 0.2GHz below the listed spec at worst. When we get more XFR details at E3 then we'll get a much better picture of what is going on under the hood.
 
Associate
Joined
29 Jun 2016
Posts
2,149
Location
Up Norf
Who is looking at just the 3600 and 3600x?

I doubt most of us can afford the price premium of the more expensive chips. £400 for a 3800x and intel equivalent sounds a bit rich.

When did processors start costing this much ? I’m sure once we spent £150 for core i5’s and £250 for core i7 flagships. What happened ?

To be fair, £400 isnt a bad price.
 
Caporegime
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
33,939
Location
Warwickshire
If you were following the thread before release, a lot of AMD superfans thought the R3 would be 6 core; the R5 all 8 core and the R7 would be 12 core @ 5GHz. It was a pleasant fiction, wasn't it.
That's a bit nasty considering most people only thought that because of other people's leaks.

Bit of unnecessary schadenfreude going on here. Unnecessary 1. because the new chips even with their new segmentation are going to render Intel obsolete for new PC / old upgrade customers and 2. because it's just a bit weird to gloat so much about other people being wrong and shows a certain amount of insecurity.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
4,333
the whole desktop lineup looks awesome but the 4core and 6core parts on laptop are where this 7nm refresh really needs to shine on their spec sheet.

it does not look to me like they are quite hitting the TDP/Mhz/Core targets to attack intel hard enough at 45w.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
That's a bit nasty considering most people only thought that because of other people's leaks.

Bit of unnecessary schadenfreude going on here. Unnecessary 1. because the new chips are going to render Intel obsolete for new PC customers and 2. because it's just a bit weird to gloat so much about other people being wrong and shows a certain amount of insecurity.
They argued vehemently that it was "common sense" and AMD would "have to do that" to increase market share.

Adamant they were even before "leaks" such as AdoredTwit.

And anyone who said, "Hold on, they aren't going to bring the same perf as Intel at 50% of the cost" was shot down by multiple posters. Because that's just what AMD was going to do, lol.

So I make no apologies!
 
Associate
Joined
9 Jan 2019
Posts
885
With regards to the boost.. now i might be wrong here as i currently dont have a zen processor but doesnt XFR come on top of the stated boost?
Ie if the cpu boosts to 4.5 and you plonk on a massive watercooler xfr will stuff on more mhz? even if its only 50-100 like the 2700?

There may be more stock-ish headroom on these than first thought.
 
Associate
Joined
9 Jan 2019
Posts
885
There has to be more between the 3700 and 3800 than a hundred mhz to justify one or the others existence, could be all core boosts or xfr ect..

Dont think we have heard the whole story yet with these cpu's, there is likely still more to come.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
9,638
Location
Ireland
Ah got mixed up, ok. But Tech yes city are showing the all core boost speeds on their YT channel btw.

Yeah I wouldn't go with that info, AMD haven't officially listed an all core boost yet, and usually the all core was still above the base clock with the past Ryzen X CPUs.

Otherwise Ryzen really has massive IPC gains, as the All core 9900K is 4.7Ghz, and the 3800X beat it in multi-core Cinebench, and single core.
 
Caporegime
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
33,939
Location
Warwickshire
There has to be more between the 3700 and 3800 than a hundred mhz to justify one or the others existence, could be all core boosts or xfr ect..

Dont think we have heard the whole story yet with these cpu's, there is likely still more to come.
I asked this and it was pointed out that you get 300MHz more base clock with the 3800X. Still not sure that justifies / explains it.
 
Back
Top Bottom