AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

[KentMan]

^^ Gamers also make up a small minority of CPU purchases

Honestly, forms exist in their own little bubble, insulated from reality. Company revenue and gross margin are all that matter to Intel and AMD

I can tell you that i have personally purchased well in excess of 200 laptops this past 2 years, and all have been Intel, our sister site has purchased similar, our parent company has another 30 sites in the UK on a different side of the business, one of the IT guys there told me last year he had over a thousand Intel laptops he had to migrate, these were new laptops purchased over a year.

Now our company is a global business and we only buy our hardware from Dell, i estimate we probably buy 30K Intel powered products per year as the cycle life on the machines is 3 years. Yeah it doesnt sound like much, but were one of thousands of businesses like this... many people simply do not understand quite how much money Intel makes from PC sales.

Infact a fair few of our users dont even use or own a PC at home. The majority of CPU sales go to OEM, and thats a simple fact.

 

[MyBrainz]

My own calculations suggest 4.1-4.3GHz max for the Ryzen ES, based upon known 2700X scores and the fairly widely predicted 9-13% IPC increase for Zen 2.
1900 for 2700X at 4.3GHz. <
2057 for ES at unknown GHz.
1900*1.09= 2061 which implies clock parity.
1900*1.13= 2147 which implies ES was running lower than 4.3GHz. <5% difference in score, implying maximum clock difference of 0.2GHz.

Crude calculations of course, and CB runs do have varying results.

If we look at it from a 9900K perspective, with 2700X supposedly having a 5% MT IPC lead:

2700X at 4.3GHz = 1900
2700X at 4.7GHz = 2077
2700X at 4.3GHz with 9900K IPC = 1806
2700X at 4.7GHz with 9900K IPC = 1973
9900K at 5.0GHz = 2138 as per easyrider's image, and at 2700X IPC it'd be 2245.
In order for the ES to score 2057 at 4.7GHz there would need to be IPC regression from the last gen. That is simply not plausible given the core changes that have been made.
Given that the ES did only equal the 9900K, it could not have been clocked higher than 4.5GHz.

So we have an absolute upper limit for how that ES was clocked, and I very much doubt that it was even near to it.

1900 for 2700X at 4.2GHz. Number 3 score is from last week, 1 and 2 are old scores on older BIOS.

 

[Potatowithearsontheside]

OK, so 4.0-4.2GHz is feasible for the ES.
Thanks for the updated CB scores.

 

[MyBrainz]

Welcome

 

[Journey]

OK, so 4.0-4.2GHz is feasible for the ES.
Thanks for the updated CB scores.

If it was like for like then a 7.5% IPC increase would give you the outcome from yesterday at 4.2GHz, which seems pretty possible.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Hmm,I thought this was a 65W TDP part and I might have been correct:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/aeeme0/rumor_łukasz_liss_said_the_demo_zen_2_cpu_is_a/

 

[~>Dg<~]

^^ Gamers also make up a small minority of CPU purchases

Honestly, forms exist in their own little bubble, insulated from reality. Company revenue and gross margin are all that matter to Intel and AMD

yes mostly people on here buy their cpus for big cinebench scores ...lol

we seen the exact same thing that happened with ryzen launch. higher cinebench scores slower than most intel at everything else the masses do. espeically gaming.

 

[DragonQ]

If it was like for like then a 7.5% IPC increase would give you the outcome from yesterday at 4.2GHz, which seems pretty possible.

How did you calculate that? An R7 2700X boosts to around 4.0 GHz on all cores and has similar IPC to Coffee Lake, whereas yesterday they matched a 4.7 GHz all-core-boosting i9-9900K. That's an 18% IPC jump if it was running at 2700X speeds.

yes mostly people on here buy their cpus for big cinebench scores ...lol

we seen the exact same thing that happened with ryzen launch. higher cinebench scores slower than most intel at everything else the masses do. espeically gaming.

I know you're being purposefully dense but for the benefit of other readers of your posts, this is not the same because the Ryzen 3 chip has the same number of cores and threads as the i9-9900K it was being compared to. At the Ryzen 1 launch, they were obviously comparing against the i7-7700K (with half the number of cores and threads) because that was what Intel offered on their mainstream platform at the time. This is clearly not the same situation, at all.

 

[Scramz]

Hmm,I thought this was a 65W TDP part and I might have been correct:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AMD_Stock/comments/aeeme0/rumor_łukasz_liss_said_the_demo_zen_2_cpu_is_a/

If true, this is the mid range R5 chip matching the i9 9900k performance at a much lower power consumption. That is impressive if it comes in at the current R5 price point.

*Rumor* Łukasz Lis's Said The Demo Zen 2 CPU Is A Stepping B (later revision, Quality Sample) Ryzen 5, 8core/16 threads, 65W TDP, at 3.7base clock , AM4 socket, hitting 4.5ghz

Lukasz Lis is the admin for AMD Ryzen Enthusiasts on Facebook with internal contacts. I have been following him and his sources are as credible as Adoredtv's.

 

[d_brennen]

yes mostly people on here buy their cpus for big cinebench scores ...lol

we seen the exact same thing that happened with ryzen launch. higher cinebench scores slower than most intel at everything else the masses do. espeically gaming.

Epyc and Ryzen are absolutely not slower at "most things" than Intel when it comes to SMT performance/power. In this context, gaming is an edge case

 

[Journey]

How did you calculate that? An R7 2700X boosts to around 4.0 GHz on all cores and has similar IPC to Coffee Lake, whereas yesterday they matched a 4.7 GHz all-core-boosting i9-9900K. That's an 18% IPC jump if it was running at 2700X speeds.

Check above, MyBrains posted a screenshot of 2700X at 4.2GHz all core with 1900 CB score.

 

[Scramz]

Second chiplet baby....

 

[~>Dg<~]

how many on here are going to be buying the lower end amd chips in the sector we mainly talking about for games on here ? most. so what we should really be talking about is what they mainly going to be used for. no one cares what they score in cinebench if they slower than a basic intel chip in games.

talk about majority uses of reality not stuff most of the people buying them arent going to be using them for. that is the amd trick they use to sell. oh we top in this. no good for most users of our products but we are superior.

 

[KungFuSpaghetti]

If true, this is the mid range R5 chip matching the i9 9900k performance at a much lower power consumption. That is impressive if it comes in at the current R5 price point.

So if it's 3.7ghz base and 4.5ghz boost, with 65-75w TDP then this would in theory be the Ryzen 5 3600 NON 'X'... If this ends up being true then that's pretty spectacular from AMD.

 

[dragonslayer]

I hope the 8core CPU is actually AMDs low end it would make perfect sense as well especially if it matches Intel's high end because it would make intel look even worse than they are I'm hoping we will see

3400=8 cores @£150-200
3600=10@£200-250
3700=12 cores £300-350
Intel wouldn't even be able to compete with AMD if their cheapest and worst CPU was an 8 core performing the same as their top end £500 CPU

 

[~>Dg<~]

generally this gen ryzens are between 15-20 percent behind ingames. so work it out pubg upto 30 percent behind. add in higher oc on the intel side = still behind in most games.

 

[KungFuSpaghetti]

how many on here are going to be buying the lower end amd chips in the sector we mainly talking about for games on here ? most. so what we should really be talking about is what they mainly going to be used for. no one cares what they score in cinebench if they slower than a basic intel chip in games.

talk about majority uses of reality not stuff most of the people buying them arent going to be using them for. that is the amd trick they use to sell. oh we top in this. no good for most users of our products but we are superior.

Exactly, these are gaming CPU's as girl Jenson said herself. My 2700x will score higher in CB than an 8700k, but compare FPS direct (on PUBG, OW etc) using same RAM, GPU etc, then the CB scores mean fudge all as the Intel is a good chunk faster. I was a bit disappointed in the CB bench, as it's fairly meaningless IMO, as my old x5650 clocked to 4.2ghz scored just over 1k, making it just over half the speed of my 2700x, except playing pubg my average FPS is barely any higher, but my 1% lows are much improved. Basically I'd rather see some games FPS averages and 1% lows to get a good idea of how capable these are for gamers, stick a graph up of the results and I'd have been more excited.

 

[beany_bot]

generally this gen ryzens are between 15-20 percent behind ingames.

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE!

 

[chroniclard]

I think what people should consider is that regardless of whether you can overclock a 9900k to beat this chip, and even if the finished article is no better than the engineering sample, you can drop a new cpu in later without having to upgrade your whole system as AM4 will have support for another gen. With a 9900k your chances of that are very slim given intels history. So in 2 or 3 years time when I get the itch, I can sell on my 2700x and drop in the latest AM4 chip. I might lose some platform features, but I save the cost of a new mobo, which is at least £100. That's not something to be ignored.

This is a main concern for me. Considering we are now almost entirely an AMD household CPU wise (not really by design or being a fanboy just at the time they offered the best performance for our pound). Me 2700X, son 2600, daughter 1600. I will be able to drop in a 3700X(or whatever) and put the 2700X straight in daughters PC.

 

[DragonQ]

If true, this is the mid range R5 chip matching the i9 9900k performance at a much lower power consumption. That is impressive if it comes in at the current R5 price point.

*Rumor* Łukasz Lis's Said The Demo Zen 2 CPU Is A Stepping B (later revision, Quality Sample) Ryzen 5, 8core/16 threads, 65W TDP, at 3.7base clock , AM4 socket, hitting 4.5ghz

Lukasz Lis is the admin for AMD Ryzen Enthusiasts on Facebook with internal contacts. I have been following him and his sources are as credible as Adoredtv's.

If it's 3.7 GHz base and 4.5 GHz boost, it was probably running at 4.2 GHz or something on all cores.