Zen 2 7 nm, does it do enough ?

[humbug]

single core still struggles a bit against Intel so it’s all down to the future and software that utilises all those cores, lots of software does but games don’t appear to do much as yet. If you game, ghz and IPC on a single core look more important than multi core.

I would have expected more from 7nm or is it all about multi core now?

6 core 6 thread or 4 core 8 thread are now causing stuttering in some games.

For games minimum 6 core 12 thread if you want smooth games now, 8 Cores 16 thread's IMO is advisable for games if you want some future proofing on high end GPU's.

So, your choices are 3600 at £200 or 8700K at £400 for 10% more FPS if you're running a 2080TI

Or, for future proofing 3700X for £320 or 9900K for £480 again if you have a 2080TI you'll get 10% higher FPS with the 9900K.

You know what, there is something for everyone, Intel have the highest gaming performance, on the highest end GPU's because anything less, like an RTX 2080 you're not going to realize that 10% over the 3700X, but that performance comes at a huge cost.

for those with anything less than a 2080TI they are going to get the same performance as the 9900K at significantly less, but if it's a 2080TI you can pay a lot less for a bit less performance.

For the first time in near 10 years you have something to mull over when choosing your next CPU, you have real choices.

I think that's ####ing GREAT!

 

[smilingcrow]

The Zen architect is probably slightly compromised as a desktop chip but it flourishes from 12 core upwards.
A monolithic chip for desktop usage might be more suited but AMD chose well with limited resources as it gives them the advantage in more profitable areas.

 

[nomadd]

single core still struggles a bit against Intel so it’s all down to the future and software that utilises all those cores, lots of software does but games don’t appear to do much as yet. If you game, ghz and IPC on a single core look more important than multi core.

I would have expected more from 7nm or is it all about multi core now?

Overall, I expected a bit more performance - at least in gaming. And I expected prices some 10% lower. So, at least for now, my wallet stays closed. I'm also not impressed by the X570 pricing, or more specifically the lack of 550 chipsets.

Fortunately, I'm also not interested in gaming benchmarks for games I've long since played to death and will never touch again - that is, all the games currently being benchmarked by the press (not like they had any other choice.)

I'll reassess next Spring once CP2077 comes along. I think the AMD BIOS/mobo/chipset and pricing situation should have improved by then, hence may tip me over the edge. I'm also interested in any surprises Intel might pull out of the hat by then - even if it's only cheaper pricing.

Still, kudos for you asking such a question on a forum that has a 99.99999999999% AMD fanboy base these days (especially those attempting to justify their day1 spend when most of them already had an Intel or AMD system that were more than good enough already..)

 

[humbug]

The Zen architect is probably slightly compromised as a desktop chip but it flourishes from 12 core upwards.
A monolithic chip for desktop usage might be more suited but AMD chose well with limited resources as it gives them the advantage in more profitable areas.

It's brand new again and early, IMO with some more BIOS and OS tweaking the gaming performance will creep up.

Different reviews vary but i tend to think when PcPer put out graphs like this i tend to believe them, their founder works for Intel.

And the CS:GO slide is replicated right across the review sites.

There just isn't that much in it, the few that do show drastically less comparative performance, they do exists i think are suffering from Zen 2 teething issues, just like Zen had teething issues.

Game all under 10% to Intel, some have nothing in it.

Single core IPC.



Games

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think people are getting caught up in single core performance - AMD also suffered with memory-CCX latency in older titles which really held back Ryzen. It is why application performance was generally clock for clock better than gaming performance.

Some of the IPC increase is not "IPC increase" but also down to the huge increase in L3 cache and how the L1 cache operates IMHO. The official IPC improvement is between 13% to 15% apparently:
https://twitter.com/Thracks/status/1134098430614093827

Look at the CS:GO results,that isn't just single core improvements,as Intel clockspeeds are much better and AMD IPC isn't hugely improved over Intel. Its most likely the effect of the L3 cache,and needing to access memory less often and other design improvements.

 

[TNA]

Overall, I expected a bit more performance - at least in gaming. And I expected prices some 10% lower. So, at least for now, my wallet stays closed. I'm also not impressed by the X570 pricing, or more specifically the lack of 550 chipsets.

Fortunately, I'm also not interested in gaming benchmarks for games I've long since played to death and will never touch again - that is, all the games currently being benchmarked by the press (not like they had any other choice.)

I'll reassess next Spring once CP2077 comes along. I think the AMD BIOS/mobo/chipset and pricing situation should have improved by then, hence may tip me over the edge. I'm also interested in any surprises Intel might pull out of the hat by then - even if it's only cheaper pricing.

Still, kudos for you asking such a question on a forum that has a 99.99999999999% AMD fanboy base these days (especially those attempting to justify their day1 spend when most of them all ready had Intel or AMD systems that were more than good enough already..)

Good shout, I won’t be needing it until at least then anyway. By then zen 3 might be around the corner, so might end up waiting for that. Lol. Will depend on price though. If by then if prices drop sufficiently, might not wait and grab it for Cyberpunk 2077.

Saying all that I may just buy it before that to have something new to play with. Let’s wait a few months until everyone does the beta testing and we have mature BIOS’s. Probably a cheaper price too for around Black Friday

 

[smilingcrow]

It's brand new again and early, IMO with some more BIOS and OS tweaking the gaming performance will creep up.
Different reviews vary but i tend to think when PcPer put out graphs like this i tend to believe them, their founder works for Intel.
And the CS:GO slide is replicated right across the review sites.
There just isn't that much in it, the few that do show drastically less comparative performance, they do exists i think are suffering from Zen 2 teething issues, just like Zen had teething issues.
Game all under 10% to Intel, some have nothing in it.

I wasn't even thinking of Intel!
I was speculating really that a monolithic 8 core desktop design aimed at desktop usage could have some advantages:
No need to consider server workloads in the design choices.
The monolithic design reduces data paths in some areas and allows other optimisations.

I'll happily admit that I'm guessing as I'm not a chip designer.
Even if it would be faster, I don't think that takes anything away from the simplicity, elegance and flexibility of Zen 2 with the chiplet + I/O design.
It's the single most impressive thing I ever recall in a CPU/platform design.
I say this as a DAW user who chose an i5-8400 early 2018 for a number of reasons:
Some DAW software that is critical for me performs poorly on the AM4 platform.
Ideally I wanted an iGPU and 6 cores so AMD had no option. I would have been flexible if there were mitigating circumstances but there weren't.
DAW hardware can be a bit fussy with compatibility and Intel is the platform they focus on.
£145 was good value versus AMD at the time and the power efficiency was very good.

So I feel a bit left out of the Zen 2 party.
I haven't read a review of Zen 2 with DAW software so hopefully that gap has closed a lot.

 

[KompuKare]

I was really looking forward the zen 2 launch, looking at 3700x and 3800x but for me, as of now, it looks like the 9700k has a better value in terms of gaming performances. I get that it doesn’t have HT but is it that’s big a deal ?

For now, maybe although even with badly threaded games I would prefer to have some cores free for other tasks.
In the next few years? It's pretty certain that the next consoles are at least 8 core Zen 2(+). Even if that's 8c/8t (that is without SMT), from that stage onwards 6c/6t won't be enough even for gaming.

 

[Caracus2k]

Not enough for me to ditch the 5960x in my main computer oc'd to 4.6Ghz all core.

A 3900x might be quicker (a lot in some scenarios) but not enough in the areas relevant to me at the moment. Think I will be waiting for the `4000` series or maybe a platform after that (using ddr5?)

Also have a 1800x / CH VI Hero (x370) setup. Amd certainly get a thumbs up for having a platform where I can drop a 3700x straight in after a Bios update.

Certainly one of Intel's more dubious business practices where you have pretty much needed a new motherboard every time you changed one of their higher stack CPU's for a newer one recently.

 

[TrM]

I think amd have done more then enough to take the fight to intel. Ipc improvment more cores better all round cpu and more importantly price.

I see all these reviews from people like gamer nexus Linus tech tips jay2cent and many more I sould name but haven’t plus all the websites that do the reviews but let’s be honest they don’t really matter in the real world and here is why.

All major places have done it on a 2080ti a 1k graphic card that not many have only a very low % of gamers on pc have one Myself I have a 2080 my kids have a lot lower then that. Who gonna pair a 2080ti with a 3600 or 3700x More luckily gonna be a 2060 or 2070 which most people buy these days not a 1k gpu. Now I know a lot of people will say they use this to show cpu performance but the thing is it not showing the performance for the major player base and people think because of the clock speed or intel having a better score that’s the only chips they sould get.

Second major point is software let’s be honest here how much extra software and stuff do we have on pc from virus checker to office to even damn memory hog chrome running in the background at all times? Do you have protection running at all times like I do as I have kids. So many programs will effect the performance on a pc now some people will keep there pc as minimal as possible. And only have steam open to play a game etc and use programs to optimise pc for gaming but a pc is a pc and not just a Xbox .

Now my second point is why I think amd has kicked Intel’s backside with ryZen in general with games wanting more cores and with Xbox/ps5 both coming with zen cpu’s More cores will become baseline and having a ryZen 7 and 9900k is going to be better then 6 core and 4 core in the future but if your like me and my pc is used for work kids and what not have everything from cad to office virus checker and net nanny etc having more cores makes my pc platform much better and amd have decently made great strides forward and moved infront of intel first time in a very long time

 

[Deleted member 209350]

Most phones and tablets these days come out with a bare minimum of 4 or 6 cores. Tablets like the iPad pro have 8 cores.. Its almost laughable that you are getting desktops with 4 cores in todays age.

In fact its probably because of i3's and i5's and there low core counts that more and more people seem to be switching to notebooks and tablets over traditional desktops. If frickin tablets and phones have gone upto 8 cores, then desktops will need to be way higher. And I believe that is what AMD are essentially doing at the moment.

 

[TrM]

Most phones and tablets these days come out with a bare minimum of 4 or 6 cores. Tablets like the iPad pro have 8 cores.. Its almost laughable that you are getting desktops with 4 cores in todays age.

In fact its probably because of i3's and i5's and there low core counts that more and more people seem to be switching to notebooks and tablets over traditional desktops. If frickin tablets and phones have gone upto 8 cores, then desktops will need to be way higher. And I believe that is what AMD are essentially doing at the moment.

Arm vs x86 2 totally different markets the cores on a low powered arm cpu is a lot less then a desktop cpu or even a lower power x86 laptop chip

Mans olease rembwr that most arm cpu are 4+4 4 lower power more efficacy focused cpu and 4 higher power cpu not true 6 and 8 core your trying to make out

 

[Deleted member 209350]

Arm vs x86 2 totally different markets the cores on a low powered arm cpu is a lot less then a desktop cpu or even a lower power x86 laptop chip

Mans olease rembwr that most arm cpu are 4+4 4 lower power more efficacy focused cpu and 4 higher power cpu not true 6 and 8 core your trying to make out

I know that, but for the average consumer its all about numbers and that marketing jargon. The average consumer doesnt even know that the chips used in mobiles/laptops are considerably less powered than the usual desktop ones.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

Wow Intel has a MASSIVE 5fps advantage in Metro and Civilization. Those games are totally unplayable with a Ryzen

I always laugh at these AMD bashing threads.

 

[linktoinsanity]

Wow Intel has a MASSIVE 5fps advantage in Metro and Civilization. Those games are totally unplayable with a Ryzen

I always laugh at these AMD bashing threads.

I am not really sure where you are getting the idea that this thread is bashing AMD?

 

[Kirby Wurm]

Certainly one of Intel's more dubious business practices where you have pretty much needed a new motherboard every time you changed one of their higher stack CPU's for a newer one recently.

I'd almost forgotten that. The last time I was able to stick to the same Intel motherboard was moving from a Core 2 Duo E6400 to a Q9450 on LGA775 back in 2009 or thereabouts.

 

[Minstadave]

AMD got my money. The winner for me was I can slap an 8 core in now that only costs me £300. In September I'll be able to slap a 16 core 3950X then next year I'll have another Zen refresh that should work fine with my board (X570).

Intel wouldn't allow that without another board along the way, and I doubt we'll see 16C32T Intel on mainstream for some time.

 

[4K8KW10]

Arm vs x86 2 totally different markets the cores on a low powered arm cpu is a lot less then a desktop cpu or even a lower power x86 laptop chip

Mans olease rembwr that most arm cpu are 4+4 4 lower power more efficacy focused cpu and 4 higher power cpu not true 6 and 8 core your trying to make out

He made a very good point. Smartphones get 8 cores - 4 cores for background processes and 4 cores for more demanding applications. These processors are wide enough (for excellent multi-tasking) to make any smartphone much more responsive than the poor, crappy, mediocre i-something dual-core that 90% of the notebooks get these days.

 

[esoteric]

Ryzen 3000 in games is nipping at the heels of Intel, 5fps average in a few games, Ryzen beats Intel in some other games. Ryzen 3000 is doing that with 800MHz less. Outside of games Ryzen is dominating Intel.

Seems clear cut to me Ryzen 3000 is the better, more impressive CPU.

 

[cosmogenesis]

Yes, I agree with most of the replies posted here. Cheers people, I’m going for it myself