• 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 ***

So it was almost certainly boosting to 4.5 the entire run. Where does that put it in terms of ipc?

Edit: assuming that screenshot is accurate and the quote is genuine ofc.
 
Actually, looking at people's scores for cb with the 2000 series at 4.2 and 4.3 1900 and 1950 respectively, it seems right for IPC remaining the same?
Assuming it scales linearly?
2000 for 4.4
2050 for 4.5

Edit - But does so with considerably lower power usage and as has been pointed out repeatedly, it is an engineering sample, not final binned silicon.

Assumptions here, so take this all as speculation.

Of course, I don't think cinebench scales that way. Looking at 9900k overclocking, the higher you go the smaller each 100mhz gets you, so ipc could be up.
 
Distracted said:
Actually, looking at people's scores for cb with the 2000 series at 4.2 and 4.3 1900 and 1950 respectively, it seems right for IPC remaining the same?
Assuming it scales linearly?
2000 for 4.4
2050 for 4.5

Edit - But does so with considerably lower power usage and as has been pointed out repeatedly, it is an engineering sample, not final binned silicon.

Assumptions here, so take this all as speculation.
Click to expand...

For the first time, I might begin to think AMD are in a trouble with these separate core / uncore chiplets :confused:
 
4K8KW10 said:
For the first time, I might begin to think AMD are in a trouble with these separate core / uncore chiplets :confused:
Click to expand...
Its hard to say. Everything we haven't been spoon fed is speculation and rumour until the official details in 6months or whenever.

I don't think they have anything to worry about tbh. They seem to be working hard to push the envelope with the tools at their disposal.

9900k owner btw. But this is great for everyone. Lets hope the best predictions and speculation pan out.
 
Distracted said:
Like i said, it is all speculation, but i don't think that's an unreasonable assumption from the scraps of info we have. Keep in mind the early nature of the demo and this is anything but bad news imo.
Click to expand...

Be nice if it isnt boosting at all and is at base clocks.. bloody wishful thinking!
 
Dont forget, this isn't the halo product or even top tier from what we can tell. It is a mid range offering giving us an indication if where the silicon is sampling at this point in time.
 
MyBrains said:
Thing is, how do we know the 'Demo' was boosting to 4.5Ghz? :)
Click to expand...
If it was the ES chip leaked previously, then it'll have a base clock of 3.7 GHz. The fact that "it boosts to 4.5 GHz" doesn't mean it does that on all cores. In fact, it implies 4.5 GHz is the single core boost, so it might only be boosting to 4.2 GHz ish. Basically we don't know yet.
 
Boost clocks will be the last thing to be added. With ES chips they want stable chips, only later when they get to know the binning ratios will they then work out proper base and boost clocks. Last thing they want would be a crash in the demo aka MicroSoft.

Even for Ryzen+ the boost clocks PBO, iirc, was only added at the end so it could be the same this time.
 
DragonQ said:
If it was the ES chip leaked previously, then it'll have a base clock of 3.7 GHz. The fact that "it boosts to 4.5 GHz" doesn't mean it does that on all cores. In fact, it implies 4.5 GHz is the single core boost, so it might only be boosting to 4.2 GHz ish. Basically we don't know yet.
Click to expand...
Exactly. This is also a possibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom