AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

[hominid]

We going to have a faster 7nm I/O with Zen 3.

If that's the case, and I don't doubt it, then there should be enough space on the package for up to 3 compute chiplets - if we end up getting that I'm not sure(depends more on the competition at this point). The IO die should be 1/4-1/3 the size it is now, so a massive space saving, but with the cost of 7nm probably will cost AMD more to produce than the 14nm version.

8 core may look like sufficient and gonna last "for years" right now, but with the current pace, in 2 -3 years it may look like entry level stuff.

Agreed, AMD are both iterating and executing very well for the last 3 years with almost new chips every 14-17 months. So, Like Intel at the moment, if AMD feel that is the case then I'm sure they can add 2/4 cores if and when the time comes. By that time AMD should be on Zen5/6 and 5nm so will have the extra space to add more transistors(cores) with little penalty.

 

[LePhuronn]

but with the cost of 7nm probably will cost AMD more to produce than the 14nm version.

Seriously doubt it. With TSMC's 7nm yields as high as they are, the cost per unit of these IO dies is likely to be a good chunk lower than old 14nm ones, despite a 7nm wafer costing more.

 

[Deleted member 209350]

8 core may look like sufficient and gonna last "for years" right now, but with the current pace, in 2 -3 years it may look like entry level stuff.

Without a doubt. AMD have already more or less gotten rid of the Ryzen 3 series with zen2, with the 6c/12t Ryzen 5 becoming the new entry level. Its not a big leap from there to assume that 8c will become the new entry level within a couple of years
with 12c and 16c becoming the mainstream/enthusiast chips respectively.

Ryzen 5 - 8c
Ryzen 7 - 12c
Ryzen 9 - 16c

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Anyone able to guess how much latency will go down and if it will match Intel or not?

 

[humbug]

Inside each CCX the cores are linked in a similar way to Coffeelake Ring Bus, so one would think it has similar limitations, IE a maximum of 10 cores per CCX.

Edit: that's 20 cores per die, in a layout like the 3990X: 8X 20 = 160 cores 320 threads.

Anyone able to guess how much latency will go down and if it will match Intel or not?

Inside the CCX its at least as low as Coffeelake.

 

[humbug]

Ryzen 2 will keep the workload with in a single CCX if it can, if the game is only using 2 or 3 threads it will do that.

And this is what the gaming performance looks like on Zen 2 when it is confined to a single CCX.

Just as in productivity workloads Zen 2 IPC shines...

4.7Ghz i7 8700K beaten by a 4.2Ghz Ryzen 3600.

 

[~>Dg<~]

you and your cherry picked game benchmarks lol. 8700k wipes the floor with a 3600 overclocked in literally every game yet you show the one slide it doesnt. also most do close to 5ghz.

3600s are great for the money but you sure do spread it on quick. current amd cpus are great value and very close to intel in games not quite there yet but the 4000s should take care of that.

 

[humbug]

you and your cherry picked game benchmarks lol. 8700k wipes the floor with a 3600 overclocked in literally every game yet you show the one slide it doesnt. also most do close to 5ghz.

3600s are great for the money but you sure do spread it on quick. current amd cpus are great value and very close to intel in games not quite there yet but the 4000s should take care of that.

Read the post your ranting at what you're saying here has 0 bearing on anything i have said.

Having said that to address your point; yes, mostly, but not in this, 4.7Ghz vs 5Ghz is 6.5%, add 6.5% to 483, its not winning in this, not by miles. and yes it is pretty unique for that difference to exist Zen 2 vs Coffeelake, again tho if you actually read my post i'm not saying it isn't, i'm using it to make an entirely different point, the point being what it can do when the CPU can keep the game running in a single 3 or 4 core CCX, not having the added inter core latency of moving threads around outside of the CCX.

 

[pmc25]

Read the post your ranting at what you're saying here has 0 bearing on anything i have said.

Having said that to address your point; yes, mostly, but not in this, 4.7Ghz vs 5Ghz is 6.5%, add 6.5% to 483, its not winning in this, not by miles. and yes it is pretty unique for that difference to exist Zen 2 vs Coffeelake, again tho if you actually read my post i'm not saying it isn't, i'm using it to make an entirely different point, the point being what it can do when the CPU can keep the game running in a single 3 or 4 core CCX, not having the added inter core latency of moving threads around outside of the CCX.

Expecting him to read further than the graph and understand the context is a bit much.

However I suspect you've correctly identified where a good chunk of the expected IPC increase will come from in many contexts.

It'll be interesting to see where clocks end up, since top clocks on ARM chips on TSMC's 7nm EUV seem to show significant headroom over 7nm DUV. I suspect we may see all core overclocks hit ~4.7-4.8, and 1-4core boost go 2-300Mhz higher. This would have course be in addition to any IPC gain.

 

[Journey]

Expecting him to read further than

I actually lol'd.

Not sure how you could ever defend a CPU that currently costs £350 Vs one that is £145 either. Same league in performance just not cost.

Looking at the IPC on the table with regards to the CCX layout, a single CCX 8-core chip would end up with a potentially huge lead in latency Vs Zen2. I'm guessing the space saving is also reasonable on the wafer too.

 

[humbug]

Expecting him to read further than the graph and understand the context is a bit much.

However I suspect you've correctly identified where a good chunk of the expected IPC increase will come from in many contexts.

It'll be interesting to see where clocks end up, since top clocks on ARM chips on TSMC's 7nm EUV seem to show significant headroom over 7nm DUV. I suspect we may see all core overclocks hit ~4.7-4.8, and 1-4core boost go 2-300Mhz higher. This would have course be in addition to any IPC gain.

Right exactly, 'if' Zen 3 gets an 8 core CCX gaming is going to look very different.

 

[FoxEye]

you and your cherry picked game benchmarks lol. 8700k wipes the floor with a 3600 overclocked in literally every game yet you show the one slide it doesnt. also most do close to 5ghz.

3600s are great for the money but you sure do spread it on quick. current amd cpus are great value and very close to intel in games not quite there yet but the 4000s should take care of that.

Completely agree with you. It's irritating is it not that we have a few (5/6) people on here that will constantly try to paint AMD as winning in every metric, when most people are smart enough and have read enough to know this is just fanboy-ism.

Nobody is saying (including myself) that Zen 2 CPUs aren't good CPUs, but they sure aren't beating Intel in gaming just yet.

Hence a bunch of us waiting for Zen 3, all the while being told we're fools and should jump on the Ryzen train right now, this second, because Ryzen are the best gaming CPUs and Intel loses every time!!!111!!1! It gets tedious.

And then they all pile on to agree with each other and make it seem like this is accepted truth and wisdom.

 

[humbug]

Completely agree with you. It's irritating is it not that we have a few (5/6) people on here that will constantly try to paint AMD as winning in every metric, when most people are smart enough and have read enough to know this is just fanboy-ism.

Nobody is saying (including myself) that Zen 2 CPUs aren't good CPUs, but they sure aren't beating Intel in gaming just yet.

Hence a bunch of us waiting for Zen 3, all the while being told we're fools and should jump on the Ryzen train right now, this second, because Ryzen are the best gaming CPUs and Intel loses every time!!!111!!1! It gets tedious.

And then they all pile on to agree with each other and make it seem like this is accepted truth and wisdom.

No. its just 2 or 3 people who don't read anything or deliberately quote completely out of context to complain.

No one has said "AMD are winning in every metric"

No one has said "AMD are beating Intel in gaming"

No one has said "Ryzen are the best gaming CPUs and Intel loses every time!"

 

[FoxEye]

No. its just 2 or 3 people who don't read anything or deliberately quote completely out of context to complain.

No one has said "AMD are winning in every metric"

No one has said "AMD are beating Intel in gaming"

No one has said "Ryzen are the best gaming CPUs and Intel loses every time!"

It's the distinct impression that some here like to give, by down-playing Intel's gaming performance (and their lead in gaming) and always cherry-picking results where AMD wins.

Let's put it this way - amongst the posters here are some who will *always* recommend AMD Ryzen CPUs, and never Intel, even to those who make it clear that they're only interested in gaming.

They justify it with talk of better IPC and showing graphs where AMD will win in some game or other.

These people will literally never recommend Intel to anyone under any circumstance, and we both know there are a few here who post like this. And yes, some like @jigger will flat out say that AMD is better for gaming (and everything else you care to talk about).

No point in continuing this because I suspect we see things rather differently. I don't see the AMD fans as helpful or useful; I just see their bias.

Will I pick up a Ryzen 4000 CPU? Most likely. Will I consider a Ryzen 3000? Nah, I doubt it. They just aren't quite good enough - yet. For gaming. The only and only metric I'm judging by.

Right now I'd rather have an Intel 8700k than a Ryzen 3600/3700/3800. It's just the better gaming chip.

 

[humbug]

It's the distinct impression that some here like to give, by down-playing Intel's gaming performance (and their lead in gaming) and always cherry-picking results where AMD wins.

Let's put it this way - amongst the posters here are some who will *always* recommend AMD Ryzen CPUs, and never Intel, even to those who make it clear that they're only interested in gaming.

They justify it with talk of better IPC and showing graphs where AMD will win in some game or other.

These people will literally never recommend Intel to anyone under any circumstance, and we both know there are a few here who post like this. And yes, some like @jigger will flat out say that AMD is better for gaming (and everything else you care to talk about).

No point in continuing this because I suspect we see things rather differently. I don't see the AMD fans as helpful or useful; I just see their bias.

Will I pick up a Ryzen 4000 CPU? Most likely. Will I consider a Ryzen 3000? Nah, I doubt it. They just aren't quite good enough - yet. For gaming. The only and only metric I'm judging by.

Right now I'd rather have an Intel 8700k than a Ryzen 3600/3700/3800. It's just the better gaming chip.

Well don't tar me with that brush, i have recommended plenty 9900K's in this room for people looking for "the best gaming performance" but i'm not going to recommend a £200 9600K over a £155 Ryzen 3600.

 

[Orange Nexus]

Right now I'd rather have an Intel 8700k than a Ryzen 3600/3700/3800. It's just the better gaming chip.

This 8700K?

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/inte...ocket-lga1151-processor-retail-cp-63r-in.html

You can almost get R5 3600, ram and motherboard all new for that price, then might get a better gpu in the process. Hardly any difference between these cpus.

That is prolly the reason why most here are recommending an AMD system now. And it also indicated to the sales figures here in Europe.

https://i.imgur.com/ZblOCJF.jpg

 

[TNA]

There are fanboys of each side, same with GPU’s. I am no fan boy (don’t see the point), but I would struggle to recommend Intel with all their security issues and how they stagnated things for so long and ripped us off. That’s not to say I would never buy Intel again. If Jim Keller does his thing again we see huge gains and their price for performance improves, my next system might be Intel again. Though I doubt they would price it right.

 

[willhub]

you and your cherry picked game benchmarks lol. 8700k wipes the floor with a 3600 overclocked in literally every game yet you show the one slide it doesnt. also most do close to 5ghz.

3600s are great for the money but you sure do spread it on quick. current amd cpus are great value and very close to intel in games not quite there yet but the 4000s should take care of that.

Look, AMD better than Intel, even my mum is better than Intel.

 

[Trig]

I find it humorous how easily people get wound up these days..

I'm going from an i7-3770S to a Ryzen 5 1600AF, all of your graphs, benchmarks and quotes mean nothing to me lol...

 

[G J]

Please stop dragging threads off topic or take it to PM.