• 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 ***

Soldato
Joined
26 Sep 2017
Posts
6,189
Location
In the Masonic Temple
Having a 2700x feels great as its the top cpu and a radeon 7 as well, being the top gpu they do... but £750 to be that again ...... theres no possible way to justify that.

Seperately, massive lol when they showing the streaming capability of the two cpus
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,114
Location
West Midlands
I'd say very likely. They follow the RPYC lineup and there will be a 64c/128t EPYC CPU. That said, I'm not sure who in would want 64 cores in a desktop?

X499, with Threadripper 3xxx will not go past 48 cores. Afaik, 16/24/32/40/48 are going to be the options, with the entry level 16-core and 24-core CPU being significant due to the frequency on offer in the power design of TR4, obviously if Intel chose to push the Xeon Scaleable over to HEDT like they did with the 28 core then AMD could do 56/64, but I don't think Intel can due to the BGA nature of the product, oh and the fact they already pull 400w+. :)
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
At these prices I'll likely still go for an 8 core and given PBO is probably a much better solution than manual overclocking, it'll likely be an R7 3800X. The extra news about gaming performance, the Windows 10 May 2019 update, and the RAM speed data is really interesting. AMD reckons DDR4-3600 CL16 is the one to go for, cue prices of those sticks going up!
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Feb 2006
Posts
29,263
Location
Cornwall
That 3800x has to have some decent OC potential in it, or it makes absolutely zero sense to buy, zero. And when you look at the above metric of price per core, it is extremely poor value unless its the one chip that overclocks like an absolute monster. I was set for the 3800x but now im tempted to just go to the 3900x instead.
Yeah I'm thinking the same thing. 3600X to save cash or 3900X to get better perf - both better value for money.

So what is the 3800X for then?
 
Soldato
Joined
2 May 2004
Posts
2,635
Location
Nottingham
I’m really looking at the 3600, 3600X and 3700X for gaming, which I mainly do on my 240Hz 1080p monitor.
The 3600X looked pretty impressive on those E3 comparisons, but if the 3600 can be overclocked to those speeds that should be great value for money. If the 3700X was a little cheaper at $300 I would be more tempted for 8 cores, I get the feeling it won’t clock as well as the 3800X. Time will tell. Looking forwarding to reviews!
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
A shame they weren't able to get clocks up really.
Well they have. Previously the maximum boost clock of a mainstream part for Ryzen 2 was 4.35 GHz, now it's 4.7 GHz. Not as high as some would've liked but it's definitely higher.

I honestly think prices would've been lower had Intel actually had a 10nm part ready, but because AMD aren't competing with Ice Lake (or whatever it's called now) they've chosen to bump up price points to make some cash.
 
Joined
2 Jan 2019
Posts
617
I watched the presentation until the dude showed the hexagon door pattern in Borderlands 3 with AMD whatever it’s called switched on. At that point I thought ‘what a pile of *****’ and went to my bed.
Same.

The streaming comparison was hysterical. Did the 9900K even stream a frame? Slide says 1.6% of frames successfully streamed. Looked like someone turned the light on and it short-circuited the entire grid lol.

Interesting how the doubled L3 had significantly more impact on improvements than all of the other changes combined (in most games). Makes you wonder how well a 2700X with doubled L3 would do.

I liked the reduced input lag feature of Navi, but the rest of it was a tad bland. Probably soured a bit by the pricing. I was expecting them to show comparisons against a 2080 not a 2070.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Mar 2008
Posts
9,638
Location
Ireland
Will get the 12 core in July and then the 16 core 7mn+ next year

Aye, the 12core is a great sweet spot. Still surprised how well it hit the 9900 in CSGO. Did not expect that.

GTA, and Overwatch still have big gaps between the two, but overall Ryzen 3000 looks great. If they managed to get the clocks up a little more. Seems the IPC really is in line with Intel, and just missing the MHz to put the final nail in.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
Can someone briefly summarise the big deal about memory? Old Zens "worked with" up to 3200MHz, I take it the 3xxx series will work with faster Ram?

Not actually. Many had even their 1800X working at 3600Mhz ram. But needed good ram at rated speeds (3600), not trying to overclock some piece of crap from 2666 range left over from their Intel system.

New 3000 series supports 4000+ it seems. (many motherboards advertising 4666+)
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Jun 2009
Posts
6,847
Anyone else seen this titbit from PC World?

All of the performance testing you’re seeing today, AMD officials tell us, are done without the updated Windows scheduler in place. AMD also tells us it didn’t install the latest security mitigation for Intel’s chips either.

Pretty big if true. I bet even with the update the scheduler is worse than the Linux one though. :p

Aye, the 12core is a great sweet spot. Still surprised how well it hit the 9900 in CSGO. Did not expect that.

GTA, and Overwatch still have big gaps between the two, but overall Ryzen 3000 looks great. If they managed to get the clocks up a little more. Seems the IPC really is in line with Intel, and just missing the MHz to put the final nail in.
Yeah, as someone who pours hours into Overwatch it's rather annoying but then again, even my X58 chip doesn't hold back my GPU in that game so I'm sure it'll be fine. :D
 
Back
Top Bottom