• 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 ***

Minstadave said:
Ouch, TR2 is going to destroy Intels HEDT line.
Click to expand...

The 3647 socket you mean? Considering the performance we see already from benchmarks using 7402P as an example is implied when the 24 core is faster than the 28core Intel and by a huge margin over the 2990WX.
Let alone the 32 & 48 core chips.

If you mean the 2066 socket, the AM4 platform has done that with 3900X & 3950X when comes to CPUs and X570 when comes to things like M.2 raids etc.
 
Slide was surface with the upcoming Zen 3 design. The over 32mb L2 cache is unified now not per CCX like in Zen 2.
That would even greatly improve IPC and gaming performance as this means 8 core CCX. (and 1 CCX per CCD).

RBtF2t3.png
Thats from a presentation 2 days ago
 
Last edited:
Panos said:
Slide was surface with the upcoming Zen 3 design. The over 32mb L2 cache is unified now not per CCX like in Zen 2.
That would even greatly improve IPC and gaming performance as this means 8 core CCX. (and 1 CCX per CCD).
Click to expand...

IPC improvement would be 2-3%.....
Bad news is no support for SMT4.
 
4K8KW10 said:
IPC improvement would be 2-3%.....
Bad news is no support for SMT4.
Click to expand...
I am expecting around 10% overall performance increase for next chips but we don't know yet.

Some games AMD still need to catch up, Digital Foundry shows some games still have better minimum fps on Intel at 1080p and even 1440p. I think Hardware Unboxed said they thought it was mostly due to AMD still having higher latency at the moment.
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
I am expecting around 10% overall performance increase for next chips but we don't know yet.

Some games AMD still need to catch up, Digital Foundry shows some games still have better minimum fps on Intel at 1080p and even 1440p. I think Hardware Unboxed said they thought it was mostly due to AMD still having higher latency at the moment.
Click to expand...

I thought due to AMD's infinity fabric arch their latency was lower, hence why an AMD chip at lower clockspeed can keep up with higher clockspeed intel?
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
I am expecting around 10% overall performance increase for next chips but we don't know yet.

Some games AMD still need to catch up, Digital Foundry shows some games still have better minimum fps on Intel at 1080p and even 1440p. I think Hardware Unboxed said they thought it was mostly due to AMD still having higher latency at the moment.
Click to expand...

Woodsta888 said:
I thought due to AMD's infinity fabric arch their latency was lower, hence why an AMD chip at lower clockspeed can keep up with higher clockspeed intel?
Click to expand...

Depends if the RAM is configured or not. Some DX11 games see 30% performance increase when 3800C16 IF 1900 ram is used over 3200C16. Which is uncharacteristically high considering the average is around 10% perf increase.
 
Woodsta888 said:
As clockspeed on RAM goes up so does latency? This not the same on CPU's, or did Intel nail their latency in their arch?
Click to expand...

AMD has a penalty hit once you break the FLCK/Mem clock 1:1 ratio and you can never get that latency recovered regardless of the memory speed. Even at a 1:1 ratio, AMD's architecture has a high latency penalty on memory thus they increased L3 cache greatly to compensate. That's why their gaming performance improved so much.

On Intel, you continue to gain bandwidth and drop latency as long as you keep your timings checked.

As always there are diminishing returns so if you can get 4000 stable on intel, you're best to lower/tighten timings manually.

The performance gain is most seen in workloads that are memory limited. If you want to test memory impact, Geekbench 3/4 are really good as they scale in a linear fashion.
 
Robert896r1 said:
AMD has a penalty hit once you break the FLCK/Mem clock 1:1 ratio and you can never get that latency recovered regardless of the memory speed. Even at a 1:1 ratio, AMD's architecture has a high latency penalty on memory thus they increased L3 cache greatly to compensate. That's why their gaming performance improved so much.

On Intel, you continue to gain bandwidth and drop latency as long as you keep your timings checked.

As always there are diminishing returns so if you can get 4000 stable on intel, you're best to lower/tighten timings manually.

The performance gain is most seen in workload that are memory limited. If you want to test memory impact, Geekbench 3/4 are really good as they scale in a linear fashion.
Click to expand...


Cheers for the explanation Rob;)
 
HEADRAT said:
So you don't think this is true?

https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-threadripper-3rd-gen-zen-2-cpu-new-socket-chipset-rumor/

HEADRAT
Click to expand...

New TR 3000 are SP3 compatible and so are the TR 4000 series (and AM4 4000 series) Zen 3 based processors.
AMD said that on Zen 4 we need new sockets for everything, including RAM (2021)

Is true X399 won't fully utilize TR 3000 so new chipset is needed (PCIe 4.0), but there is nothing to stop it been backwards compatible and plug a 32-48 core TR3000 on existing X399 board.
The server chips are backwards compatible and they have the same differences between TR2000 and TR3000 the AM4 chips have between 2000 and 3000.

I bet WCCFTECH article is the simple scaremongering one. Similar to the scare mongering when one "leak" from MSI employee said that the Zen 2 CPUs won't be compatible with anything but X570.
Which raised a lot of crying from the blue fans "boo hoo your AMD lied to you and won't support you to 2020". Similar case we see now.

Any new user wanting to buy into TR platform should wait. Anyone having already X399 shouldn't worry.
 
Can anyone tell me what the crack is this now.

I not been paying attention since launch as waiting for bios to get better, I remember early on there was difference between x570 and b450 boosts, has this gap been closed now with the recent updates. Just debating whether or not to wait for b550. Cheers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom