• 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 ***

chroniclard said:
Not sure its really worth arguing over 1 cinebench score, why not wait and see a full run down of what it can do before we all turn on raging fanboy mode. :p
Click to expand...

its sad people cant debate without just assuming fanboy because opinions differ. i own and buy both amd intel. makes no difference to me. yet all people can say if they cant debate with a decent logic is fanboy. its a weak mentality used to get out of just debating.

we already know the performance advance is upto 15 percent on the old chips. so its actually easy to work out in many gaming scenarios what the new chips are already behind in.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
its sad people cant debate without just assuming fanboy because opinions differ. i own and buy both amd intel. makes no difference to me. yet all people can say if they cant debate with a decent logic is fanboy. its a weak mentality used to get out of just debating.

we already know the performance advance is upto 15 percent on the old chips. so its actually easy to work out in many gaming scenarios what the new chips are already behind in.
Click to expand...

We dont know that at all, its still all speculation. Plus there are people fanboying on both sides.:p
 
13 percent avg 10-15 max. is the data often most flaunted so going on even the highest it puts most chips close to stock out now intel chips. then you factor in intel ocing though and you get intel quicker ingames. thats using the top percentage of 15 percent.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
they are faster at cinebench !

why didnt they show games comparision. where most here will be buying them for ? stop with nonsense. use logic.

i chose the most upto date game that uses cpu power. bf5. the chips are in the budget value range for most buyers. they arent going to be mainly playing with 100-200 pound cpus at 1440. they will be at 1080 res with a mid to low range card.

dont change the goal post look at where the product sits what its actually going to be used for. its not cinebench scores is it ? budget chips for gaming rigs. with budget cards at 1080 res is realistically what many on here will be using them for. yes others will do higher im talking about the main percentage of gamers. not nonsical cinebench scores. which like the last ryzens were higher than intel but upto 30 percent behind in big games people actually play daily at 1080 res. cinebench means nothing to mass users.
Click to expand...
You realise that the R7 2700X is ~20% behind the i9-9900K in single threaded Cinebench, right? Even under the very worst circumstances, i.e. 1080p + RTX 2080 Ti (something you pretend is all that matters), the Ryzen chip is nowhere near 20% behind on average in modern titles. So, if anything, single threaded Cinebench flatters Intel here (not surprising, since games are not single threaded).

On the other hand, the R7 2700X is ~15% behind the i9-9900K in multithreaded Cinebench and the Ryzen 3 demo chip is on par. So, unless AMD has gained a large chunk of their IPC bump in multithreaded applications only, based on those numbers the single threaded performance would only be ~5% behind the i9-9900K (which would be running at 5 GHz stock let's not forget). I think that
would translate to much improved gaming performance in those CPU bottlenecked scenarios.

P.S. No, you're not talking about "the main percentage of gamers" because that group of people are running 60 Hz and wouldn't notice extra frames from their GTX 1060s by switching from a Ryzen chip to a Coffee Lake one.

~>Dg<~ said:
13 percent avg 10-15 max. is the data often most flaunted so going on even the highest it puts most chips close to stock out now intel chips. then you factor in intel ocing though and you get intel quicker ingames. thats using the top percentage of 15 percent.
Click to expand...

Overclocking right now is essentially dead, you can keep the 6% OC you can get with an i9-9900K. You'll lose it when the next Spectre patch comes out anyway. :p
 
Diverting from all the nonsense, using actual information on hand we can say for certain that even if it was a top tier part and they don't increase the clock speeds or core count, and it is a direct replacement for the Ryzen 7 2700 (non-X), it would cost £250 +/- £20 for currency fluctuation, but uses 50w less power than the competing product to achieve the same level of performance in the application shown.

If we then look at the possibility of that being all they have to offer, then the takeaway is that AM4 platform would only offer the benefit of being about 50% cheaper (since you could run it from the VRM of a calculator), and that it has PCI-E 4.0 something that no one else offers at all, which is up to 32 lanes of PCI-E 3.0 on the CPU if broken out, again not possible unless you move to the competing HEDT platform. To me even though that result would be disappointing, it makes great sense and great value to pretty much anyone other than diehards who can't read or see past the end of their own noses.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
they are faster at cinebench !

why didnt they show games comparision. where most here will be buying them for ? stop with nonsense. use logic.

i chose the most upto date game that uses cpu power. bf5. the chips are in the budget value range for most buyers. they arent going to be mainly playing with 100-200 pound cpus at 1440. they will be at 1080 res with a mid to low range card.

dont change the goal post look at where the product sits what its actually going to be used for. its not cinebench scores is it ? budget chips for gaming rigs. with budget cards at 1080 res is realistically what many on here will be using them for. yes others will do higher im talking about the main percentage of gamers. not nonsical cinebench scores. which like the last ryzens were higher than intel but upto 30 percent behind in big games people actually play daily at 1080 res. cinebench means nothing to mass users.
Click to expand...
So why are we comparing a budget 8c CPU with Intel's top tier flagship CPU? You linked a bench showing the 9900K at 16% ahead of a 2700X at 1080p in a chosen game. The comparable 3000 series CPU will have that 16% extra clockspeed, and then it will raise you some IPC. Why can't you see this? Whether that IPC increase is 1% or 15% it will put it ahead of the 9900K in your own bench. It'll do it in an existing motherboard, and at less than half the price. How is that a bad thing?

You know, the only real question that remains to be answered for me is memory latency. If memory latency is improved I am expecting to see beyond linear improvement in gaming.

The Ryzen 3000s will win on every metric except...audio latency.
 
DragonQ said:
P.S. No, you're not talking about "the main percentage of gamers" because that group of people are running 60 Hz and wouldn't notice extra frames from their GTX 1060s by switching from a Ryzen chip to a Coffee Lake one.
Click to expand...
I was just looking at the steam hardware survey results and yep the majority of people are gaming at 1080p on GTX 1060s with CPUs running between 3.0-3.7ghz - CPUs running 3.7ghz or higher is 5%

Funny how a forum like this gets that 5% together in one place and many argue that the %ages are much higher
 
Potatowithearsontheside said:
So why are we comparing a budget 8c CPU with Intel's top tier flagship CPU? You linked a bench showing the 9900K at 16% ahead of a 2700X at 1080p in a chosen game. The comparable 3000 series CPU will have that 16% extra clockspeed, and then it will raise you some IPC. Why can't you see this? Whether that IPC increase is 1% or 15% it will put it ahead of the 9900K in your own bench. It'll do it in an existing motherboard, and at less than half the price. How is that a bad thing?

You know, the only real question that remains to be answered for me is memory latency. If memory latency is improved I am expecting to see beyond linear improvement in gaming.

The Ryzen 3000s will win on every metric except...audio latency.
Click to expand...
True, memory latency is a big deal in gaming and we have no idea how this new chiplet setup affects that. It could actually make it worse overall, we'll have to see. I'm hoping they've improved infinity fabric to run faster so it doesn't hold back the IMC like with Zen(+), which would also help latency.
 
Journey said:
Diverting from all the nonsense, using actual information on hand we can say for certain that even if it was a top tier part and they don't increase the clock speeds or core count, and it is a direct replacement for the Ryzen 7 2700 (non-X), it would cost £250 +/- £20 for currency fluctuation, but uses 50w less power than the competing product to achieve the same level of performance in the application shown.

If we then look at the possibility of that being all they have to offer, then the takeaway is that AM4 platform would only offer the benefit of being about 50% cheaper (since you could run it from the VRM of a calculator), and that it has PCI-E 4.0 something that no one else offers at all, which is up to 32 lanes of PCI-E 3.0 on the CPU if broken out, again not possible unless you move to the competing HEDT platform. To me even though that result would be disappointing, it makes great sense and great value to pretty much anyone other than diehards who can't read or see past the end of their own noses.
Click to expand...
Dont be silly, all that real tech nonsense doesnt matter. Gaming at 480p on a RTX Titan is where its at!
 
dragonslayer said:
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
Click to expand...

You'll not get a 10 core.

6 core, 8 core, 12 core an 16 core

6 and 12 cores are 1 or 2 chiplets with part fused off
8 and 12 cores are full 1 or 2 chiplets
 
I've just been offered a job working at Intel.
I'm going to be in charge of naming each generation of processor.
I've decided that the next generation will be known as Salt Lake, and next year we will change the theme; 2020 will see our Lakes replaced with Seas.
2020 we have Red Sea - we're expecting to be hemorrhaging blood.
2021 we have Dead Sea - yup, we're a sunken ship by now, clinging on to liferafts.
2022 we have Black Sea - yes, firesale of all existing Sea processors - 14nm++++++++++++++++ plus baby!
 
So confused... one minute DG says 'mid range' are gamers chips for AMD, but 'high-end' are gamers chips for Intel... hmmm...
 
Scramz said:
Second chiplet baby....

waa8tXAVldESzNxRU552AhHIDsRE9dDLp92EOCkRlOA.png
Click to expand...

Oh defiantly, the infinity fabric substrate has the circuits for the second chiplet.....

Lisa Su tells us don't count on 3rd Gen Ryzen to be limited to 8 cores. That extra room will be used!
Click to expand...

The 3800X 16 core version of this is real... you can clearly see the traces.

https://twitter.com/markhachman/status/1083097464624693248


TYT6VEY.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom