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

[easyrider]

So you are going to posit that the cooling capabilities of the 9900K are perfectly fine? I mean they are awesome for LN2 but for normal cooling they aren't that great. The power draw means a ton of load on that VRM. Then there's the cost, for most that's a huge turn off considering there's good competition in the 1440p range of gaming and the 9900K is less important at that resolution than 1080p. Even less important at 4K. So yeah it's got the performance but it's also got some serious drawbacks.

My AIO manages fine. My VRM is fine...

I haven't run into any issues with the 9900k

No cpu is perfect but to suggest the 9900k is junk is just plain wrong.

At 4.7ghz all cores a mid range air cooler would be fine for the 9900k just like any decent z390 motherboard. This comes from personal testing and actual experience testing one.

But lets keep on topic of the new Zen 2 thats what this thread is about...

 

[easyrider]

Its junk, yes its the current fastest CPU on the market, that does not however detract from it being overpriced junk, they had to use Solder to get that chip to market and even then many people are still having all sorts of issues with it overheating, so yes its junk. Its also overpriced, but not as bad as it would have been had AMD not been around to keep Intel in check.

I am AMD biased im not ashamed to admit that either, AMD products have arguably done more for pushing tech forward in the past couple of years than Intel has, all intel seem to be able to do right now is take their existing rubbish, and refine it, no matter how much you polish a turd its still a turd.

I am glad that AMD have pushed the boundaries of a stagnant CPU market, and you should thank them for doing so or your 9900k would have been twice the price perhaps 3 times the price it currently is.

Fact is, your salty that AMD are about to make the 9900k look exactly what it is, an overpriced product from a company that has basically sat on its hands for the past few years sticking 2 fingers up at the consumers while counting their coins. If anything your the deluded brainwashed one that belongs to an Intel cult, as you seem incapable of looking past them to see better performance coming elsewhere.

Oh wait hang on, your about to launch your tired defence of "AMD have nothing to compete" backed up with "AMD has no proof what they showed at CES even exists" yada yada... to be quite honest your boring, you have bored pretty much everyone in this thread with your constant dribble, why dont you do everyone a favour and just ignore this thread and forget it exists.

im actually worried for your sanity once Zen2 lands and AMD beat that 9900k you cherish so dearly with a low to midrange offering lol, its definitely going to be popcorn worthy.

You haven't actually read any of my posts then?

Basically contradicting all that you have said.

Go back and read a few of them...

Here is one you might have missed....

Desperate for replies as they have run out of topics talking amongst themselves

I've already got a buyer for my 9900k

IF this so called 3700x 16\32 5ghz chip for £329 actually materialises , is faster in games, sorts out the latency issues and not just gets a decent score in Cinebench.

Having said that though..if the 3700x is poor in Audio Production compared to 9900k then I'll just buy an AMD gaming Rig aswell , it would be silly not to.

I do like this game though...

Let's create our dream AMD chip and price out of thin air to upgrade to in April, cough, I mean May, cough, I mean June...

I don't know though , the £149 8\16 3600, 9900k beater , might be the choice for gamers

See, I'm well stoked to ditch my 9900k for Zen 2 so you are basically arguing with yourself


HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE SAY IT FOR IT TO SINK IN.

I WILL BE GETTING ZEN 2 IF THE PERFORMANCE IS THERE

I HAVE 3 AMD SERVERS

I HAVE JUST BUILT A 2700X SYSTEM

I mean guys come on....Its clear as day my perspective on this.

 

[KentMan]

I've joked in the past about how the 3850X will drive Intel fanbois into a coma if the leaks are accurate, looks like we have a real-life test case come May 1st

I clearly have no idea why certain people constantly haunt this thread just whining basically about AMD's product stack that they have zero interest in actually owning, yeah a lot of them give the old "if it smashes the xxxx i have i will switch" when we all know full well they just bought that rig recently and are not about to flog it to move across, its actually embarrassing to see, i genuinely feel sorry for people like this.

Anyow lets not derail the topic, I understand as i said why AMD demod like for like, but i would personally like to see more info on 2 chiplet cpu's and latency, as we all now it was a bit of an issue with Zen1 and Zen+, anything AMD can do to bring this down is going to be good, but looking at the design of IO + Chiplets it does make me wonder if its going to regress infact?

 

[LePhuronn]

I understand as i said why AMD demod like for like, but i would personally like to see more info on 2 chiplet cpu's and latency, as we all now it was a bit of an issue with Zen1 and Zen+, anything AMD can do to bring this down is going to be good, but looking at the design of IO + Chiplets it does make me wonder if its going to regress infact?

They weren't going to show their full hand at a CES keynote. We have plenty of time for more information to come out - officially and unofficially - and paint a clearer picture. To be honest though, I don't see AMD releasing a new architecture that increases latency issues. They're not infallible of course (cough Bulldozer cough) but to have Zen 1 and go "hmm, latency" then Zen+ and go "hmm, latency, but improved" only to have Zen 2 and go "yay chiplets, who cares about latency!" doesn't sit right in my head. Latency will be address, latency will be decreased.

 

[easyrider]

I clearly have no idea why certain people constantly haunt this thread just whining basically about AMD's product stack that they have zero interest in actually owning, yeah a lot of them give the old "if it smashes the xxxx i have i will switch" when we all know full well they just bought that rig recently and are not about to flog it to move across, its actually embarrassing to see, i genuinely feel sorry for people like this.

You've not hear of the easyrider shuffle then?

See thats the thing...I have always done this regardless of who makes what....I ditch and switch all the time...I want the fastest for my money...Thats it....Regardless of who makes what. Having a 500 GFX card for 3 months and selling it is no big thing...Done it....Bought countless machines , and sold them on....So just because my way doesn't suit your argument don't suggest for one minute I feel any kind of attachment to a CPU or price of hardware...I'll ditch it...Just like all the other systems I have owned over the years....

 

[KentMan]

They weren't going to show their full hand at a CES keynote. We have plenty of time for more information to come out - officially and unofficially - and paint a clearer picture. To be honest though, I don't see AMD releasing a new architecture that increases latency issues. They're not infallible of course (cough Bulldozer cough) but to have Zen 1 and go "hmm, latency" then Zen+ and go "hmm, latency, but improved" only to have Zen 2 and go "yay chiplets, who cares about latency!" doesn't sit right in my head. Latency will be address, latency will be decreased.

Thing is though, if you look, i reckon the 1600/2600 was the most successful chips they have in regards to volume of sales, this is the mid range, if they can bang out an 8c version that hits 5ghz, its a single chiplet, this is going to be insanely popular, then going up the stack we may see a small latency increase but this will be fine for most gamers who stream off the same rig, as you will have all the cores you need to do so.

The serious gamer is going to just look at the single Chiplet stuff and go there, thats my take on it.

I understand what your saying though, they didnt need to show anything else, its just a worry i have personally, from owning Zen1, and seeing this issue with other Zen products, its natural to think the redesign may actually add more here. But yeah im pretty sure AMD will keep this as low as possible.

 

[LePhuronn]

Thing is though, if you look, i reckon the 1600/2600 was the most successful chips they have in regards to volume of sales, this is the mid range, if they can bang out an 8c version that hits 5ghz, its a single chiplet, this is going to be insanely popular, then going up the stack we may see a small latency increase but this will be fine for most gamers who stream off the same rig, as you will have all the cores you need to do so.

Let's assume for argument's sake that the AdoredTV leaks are real. In the 3 Ryzen tiers that anybody really cares about, there is a 5GHz SKU, or close as dammit.

3600X 8 core boost to 4.8GHz
3700X 12 core boost to 5GHz
3850X 16 core boost to 5.1GHz

So what you're saying is already covered. The only reason that 3600X won't boost to 5GHz is because a full 8 core chiplet that can hit 5GHz would be needed for the 3850X. It's not outside the realms of possibility though that the 3850X would be a limited run for the anniversary; let's say AMD do 50,000 units. Well once those 100,000 godlike chiplets have been allocated, if TSMC's yields continue to produce chiplets at that level, then why not do a 3600X revision 2 and make it a 5GHz part?

 

[easyrider]

3850X 16 core boost to 5.1GHz

What price were you thinking?

 

[KentMan]

Let's assume for argument's sake that the AdoredTV leaks are real. In the 3 Ryzen tiers that anybody really cares about, there is a 5GHz SKU, or close as dammit.

3600X 8 core boost to 4.8GHz
3700X 12 core boost to 5GHz
3850X 16 core boost to 5.1GHz

So what you're saying is already covered. The only reason that 3600X won't boost to 5GHz is because a full 8 core chiplet that can hit 5GHz would be needed for the 3850X. It's not outside the realms of possibility though that the 3850X would be a limited run for the anniversary; let's say AMD do 50,000 units. Well once those 100,000 godlike chiplets have been allocated, if TSMC's yields continue to produce chiplets at that level, then why not do a 3600X revision 2 and make it a 5GHz part?

Its kinda odd, cos normally as you go up in chip count, heat becomes an issue, as you go up in core count, heat becomes an issue, as you go up in frequency, heat becomes an issue... if anything logic says that the highest clocked chips sold should be the single chiplet cpu's, as these will deal with the heat better than the rest. But there is no ignoring the fact its an anniversary year and AMD could put out a limited run of extremely cherry picked 2 chiplet CPU's.

We just dont know anything really lol.

I would like to see a 5ghz 3600x though, single chiplet, highly clocked, would be easier to tame the heat and would offer potentially the best performance imho.

 

[Scougar]

What price were you thinking?

Susan, order the special lubricant.

 

[LePhuronn]

What price were you thinking?

Would be nice to be at £500 or £550 for the synchronicity of the 50th anniversary (the leak suggests $499), but I can see it reaching £600. Which would be OK for a limited edition, highly binned anniversary CPU, but as a standard SKU is probably too much and would invoke as much ire as the 9900K's pricing did.

And then there will be all the gouging from retailers because "managing sales expectations"

 

[DragonQ]

Assuming the leaks are true, I have a feeling the price of each grade will remain roughly the same, i.e. the top Ryzen 7 SKU will remain around $329 (maybe up to $349), but of course that'd now be a 12c/24t. The top Ryzen 5 SKU would remain around $229 but now at 8c/16t (again, could go to $249). The 16c/32t Ryzen 9 variants will probably be around $399-499. I find it extremely difficult to believe that 16 core parts will go from costing $899 to under $399 in a single generation, especially given what Intel currently has to offer.

All of this is rather optimistic though, stemming from the point of view that AMD wants to crush Intel for market share. They could easily just keep current prices as they are and whack the 12 core and 16 core parts on top (starting at $379 for example) and still claim huge per-generation improvements due to IPC & clock speed bumps.

 

[TNA]

You haven't actually read any of my posts then?

Basically contradicting all that you have said.

Go back and read a few of them...

Here is one you might have missed....




See, I'm well stoked to ditch my 9900k for Zen 2 so you are basically arguing with yourself


HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE SAY IT FOR IT TO SINK IN.

I WILL BE GETTING ZEN 2 IF THE PERFORMANCE IS THERE

I HAVE 3 AMD SERVERS

I HAVE JUST BUILT A 2700X SYSTEM

I mean guys come on....Its clear as day my perspective on this.

Junk

 

[humbug]

I think they will cost a little more than Ryzen 2000.

AMD it seems to me are being very deliberately disruptive, they are making a point for mind share, they are shouting off the rooftops "Look at us,we can do it better than Intel, if what you want is high performance that doesn't cost the earth we are your go to chip maker"

At the same time they are in it to make money, they need to make money to remain healthy, with that i think they will capitalise on the huge performance of the rumoured Ryzen 3000, Intel smashing performance at the top end they will feel they can charge a bit more and still be very disruptive.

Hardcore Enthusiasts will be delighted to pay £500 for the highest binned 3850X, people not so interested in the E-Peen but want the performance 16 Zen 2 cores offer will settle for the 3800X at £400 or £320 for the 12 core as a compromise, mere mortals who just want great all round performance, 9900K matching performance will pay £270 for the 3600X and £230 for the 3600, those on a budget will be over the moon to get 8700K performance for £170 and £130 for the 3300X and 3300.

 

[HeX]

I'm still not entirely convinced there will be a 16C/32T Ryzen. I'm thinking it's more likely they'll stick with 12C/24T as their top end part so as to not encroach on Threadripper.

I can see it being £499 at launch like 1800X was, 2700X was only cheaper because it was a die shrink with a small performance bump and Intel had since reacted to AMD pricing.

A lineup along the lines of:

3800X - 12C/24T - 5GHz (boost) - £499
3700X - 8C/16T - 5GHz (boost) - £399
3700 - 8C/16T - 4.7GHz (boost) - £329
3600X - 6C/12T - 4.9GHz (boost) - £249
3600 - 6C/12T - 4.6GHz (boost) - £199

Though I do look forward to being wrong and AMD drop a bomb with a 16C/32T monster

 

[LePhuronn]

Assuming the leaks are true, I have a feeling the price of each grade will remain roughly the same, i.e. the top Ryzen 7 SKU will remain around $329 (maybe up to $349), but of course that'd now be a 12c/24t. The top Ryzen 5 SKU would remain around $229 but now at 8c/16t (again, could go to $249). The 16c/32t Ryzen 9 variants will probably be around $399-499.

It's exactly what happened with the 9000 series, a new SKU was created for the i9 with an increased cost. There's no reason to think AMD won't, can't and shouldn't do the same. As you say, you keep the tier pricing roughly equivalent to what we had before - i.e. Ryzen 3, 5 and 7, and then introduce a higher Ryzen 9 tier that, of course, is more expensive because it's a more powerful product.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that 16 core parts will go from costing $899 to under $399 in a single generation, especially given what Intel currently has to offer.

I don't get you - typo perhaps? You can't compare Threadripper and Ryzen 9 really. There is a lot more that comes with Threadripper which commands a higher price, it's not just paying more for more cores. Quad channel memory and more PCIe lanes for 2 quick examples. So even if a Ryzen 9 3800X has 16 cores at $449, the bottom SKU Threadripper 3920X with 16 cores will be a couple hundred bucks more expensive because of its extras.

All of this is rather optimistic though, stemming from the point of view that AMD wants to crush Intel for market share. They could easily just keep current prices as they are and whack the 12 core and 16 core parts on top (starting at $379 for example) and still claim huge per-generation improvements due to IPC & clock speed bumps.

Which is I think exactly what they're going to do. AMD could charge through the nose on a core-per-core basis, so a Ryzen 3 3000 costs the same as a Ryzen 5 2000 because of the 6 cores, but I think that would be counter-productive. Keep the tiers the same prices, introduce a higher priced Ryzen 9 tier on top and just increase the cores within the tiers; 7nm may be more expensive to produce per wafer, but the massive utilisation of that wafer into products greatly offsets that cost. Right now AMD aren't in the business to take the pee with pricing, so get market and mindshare back, batter Intel around the chops for a few years with Zen 3 to 5 and THEN become a price gouging, stagnating, arrogant market leader

 

[LePhuronn]

I'm thinking it's more likely they'll stick with 12C/24T as their top end part so as to not encroach on Threadripper.

Don't forget Threadripper will be getting an update too, more than likely with 16 cores as its entry-level model. But as I've said before, there's more to Threadripper than just a core count. a 16 core flagship Ryzen 9 will not encroach on a 16 core entry level Threadripper because Ryzen won't have quad-channel memory, 64 PCIe lanes, multiple NVMe RAID, 10Gb networking, etc. y'know, workstation stuff.

 

[humbug]

I'm still not entirely convinced there will be a 16C/32T Ryzen. I'm thinking it's more likely they'll stick with 12C/24T as their top end part so as to not encroach on Threadripper.

I can see it being £499 at launch like 1800X was, 2700X was only cheaper because it was a die shrink with a small performance bump and Intel had since reacted to AMD pricing.

A lineup along the lines of:

3800X - 12C/24T - 5GHz (boost) - £499
3700X - 8C/16T - 5GHz (boost) - £399
3700 - 8C/16T - 4.7GHz (boost) - £329
3600X - 6C/12T - 4.9GHz (boost) - £249
3600 - 6C/12T - 4.6GHz (boost) - £199

Though I do look forward to being wrong and AMD drop a bomb with a 16C/32T monster

The 1900X was a Threadripper part, 8 cores, the same as the 1800X, the difference is much higher Cache, bootable NVMe Raid, Quad Channel, much higher memory capacity and 64 vs 32 PCIe lanes.

The chiplets are 8 core, two of those = 16, no one will gimp to 12 when the package contains 16, why restrict yourself like that?

 

[HeX]

The chiplets are 8 core, two of those = 16, no one will gimp to 12 when the package contains 16, why restrict yourself like that?

Yes it does, but it doesn't mean they can't use harvested 6C chiplets for a 12C/24T and is plenty to mightily poo on Intel's parade when you're selling a 5GHz CPU with 8 extra threads compared to the competition, and a 9900K equivalent processor for £150 less...

But hey, it's entirely guesswork on my part, and they could very well go with the full payload and just blitzkrieg the Intel lineup.

 

[DragonQ]

The chiplets are 8 core, two of those = 16, no one will gimp to 12 when the package contains 16, why restrict yourself like that?

Because of market conditions. Why was Threadripper 1 limited to 16 cores when the package had space for 4 dies?