• 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 ***

With the Ryzen chiplet design, there is zero chance that Intel will beating AMD on this series. AMD entirely have the upper hand this time. Intel's 10nm is barely capable of producing low power mobile chips, and even those will take until much later in the year to release, at the moment Intel are not even specifying whether their desktop sunny cove/Icelake/lakefield/sunnylake/whatever CPUs will be 10nm or 14nm++++.

Even if Intel had a fully working 10nm process, they can't match the yield of 7nm chiplets. AMD has shown an early sample 8C/16T beating Intel's 9900k in cinebench multicore benchmark, which is hugely impressive. Firstly because there is room on that substrate and traces present there to fit another 8C chiplet, making for a 16C/32T monster, which will most likely be the top of the range Ryzen 7/Ryzen 9 CPU, meaning that also there should be 12C/24T CPUs. 8C/16T is almost certainly going to be midrange, aka Ryzen 5 territory. Secondly AMD stated the clocks are not finalised, which means that most likely it is underclocked and some features like turbo boost could be disabled, resulting in the CPU only running at base clock. Thirdly, the 9900K runs at 4.7GHz all core turbo, for a Ryzen chip to beat it on multicore whilst being underclocked must mean that IPC has improved significantly over Intel because I doubt that sample was running anywhere near the 9900k's all core boost of 4.7GHz, or even close to 4.4/4.5GHz. There are a few engineering samples floating around, and they're only running at up to 4 GHz.

So TLDR, AMD just beat Intel's top tier £500 CPU with a mid range most likely under £200 CPU which is not even showing it's full performance. Intel will be unable to compete with AMD churning out 9900K equivalents for that price, and bringing 6 cores to under £100.
 
Spike Milligan had "I told you i was Ill" written on his gravestone......................in his case he was obviously correct. Easy will have "You just made that up" written on his.......................................he won't of course know if he was correct or not.
 
Killer7xx said:
With the Ryzen chiplet design, there is zero chance that Intel will beating AMD on this series. AMD entirely have the upper hand this time. Intel's 10nm is barely capable of producing low power mobile chips, and even those will take until much later in the year to release, at the moment Intel are not even specifying whether their desktop sunny cove/Icelake/lakefield/sunnylake/whatever CPUs will be 10nm or 14nm++++.

Even if Intel had a fully working 10nm process, they can't match the yield of 7nm chiplets. AMD has shown an early sample 8C/16T beating Intel's 9900k in cinebench multicore benchmark, which is hugely impressive. Firstly because there is room on that substrate and traces present there to fit another 8C chiplet, making for a 16C/32T monster, which will most likely be the top of the range Ryzen 7/Ryzen 9 CPU, meaning that also there should be 12C/24T CPUs. 8C/16T is almost certainly going to be midrange, aka Ryzen 5 territory. Secondly AMD stated the clocks are not finalised, which means that most likely it is underclocked and some features like turbo boost could be disabled, resulting in the CPU only running at base clock. Thirdly, the 9900K runs at 4.7GHz all core turbo, for a Ryzen chip to beat it on multicore whilst being underclocked must mean that IPC has improved significantly over Intel because I doubt that sample was running anywhere near the 9900k's all core boost of 4.7GHz, or even close to 4.4/4.5GHz. There are a few engineering samples floating around, and they're only running at up to 4 GHz.

So TLDR, AMD just beat Intel's top tier £500 CPU with a mid range most likely under £200 CPU which is not even showing it's full performance. Intel will be unable to compete with AMD churning out 9900K equivalents for that price, and bringing 6 cores to under £100.
Click to expand...

Ryzen 3 33xx 6c/12t (single chiplet)
Ryzen 5 36xx 8c/16t (single chiplet)
Ryzen 7 37xx 12c/24t (dual 6c chiplet)
Ryzen 9 38xx 16c/32t (dual 8c chiplet)
 
kitfit1 said:
Spike Milligan had "I told you i was Ill" written on his gravestone......................in his case he was obviously correct. Easy will have "You just made that up" written on his.......................................he won't of course know if he was correct or not.
Click to expand...
You just made that up

I'm getting cremated.
 
easyrider said:
When The benchmark in the CES stream included a 9900k
Click to expand...
Yes a 9900K getting equalled by a mid range engineering sample. Problem is you haven't shut up about the 9900K for the last 2 weeks. Really does sound a lot like buyers remorse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom