• 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 ***

HeX said:
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 :D
Click to expand...
That line up will mean no upgrade from me. Will just wait for AM5 platform then.

3700X - 12C/24T - 5GHz (boost) - £329 if they want to see me upgrade this year. Otherwise happy to wait :D
 
DragonQ said:
Because of market conditions. Why was Threadripper 1 limited to 16 cores when the package had space for 4 dies?
Click to expand...

No one knows, but the obvious answer is it was still 6 more cores than the highest end Intel part offered at the time on HEDT. 16 cores vs. 10 cores, with many ore CPI-E lanes, and it was a new product. Personally I thought that going 32-cores in the way the have done last year was almost pointless, but since they don't want to step on the toes of the EPYC platfrom they didn't really have a choice.
 
Journey said:
No one knows, but the obvious answer is it was still 6 more cores than the highest end Intel part offered at the time on HEDT. 16 cores vs. 10 cores, with many ore CPI-E lanes, and it was a new product. Personally I thought that going 32-cores in the way the have done last year was almost pointless, but since they don't want to step on the toes of the EPYC platfrom they didn't really have a choice.
Click to expand...
Exactly. There's no actual need for AMD to release a 16 core AM4 part, at least not yet. They may well do so to try to assert their dominance but they might not.
 
KentMan said:
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.
Click to expand...

2nd chiplet adds cooling area, so more heat but similar thermal density. The smaller chips also make binning easier.
 
DragonQ said:
Exactly. There's no actual need for AMD to release a 16 core AM4 part, at least not yet. They may well do so to try to assert their dominance but they might not.
Click to expand...

But if we return to the binning discussion for a moment, what would AMD do with that golden silicon that is 8 fully 8 cores in a chiplet that can clock to 4.8GHz and above? That's far too fast for an EPYC, wasting all that clock potential. Put them into a single chiplet 3600X? Of course, but if yields are high could AMD run the risk of producing too many 3600Xs? But if you can take some of that allocation and build 16 core 3800Xs too then you have flexibility to ramp up and down production between different SKUs as necessary.
 
DragonQ said:
Exactly. There's no actual need for AMD to release a 16 core AM4 part, at least not yet. They may well do so to try to assert their dominance but they might not.
Click to expand...
AMD have a very rare chance to not just beat the competition but to actually trounce them with a 16c mainstream part. The closest Intel has is the rumoured 10c Cometlake until at least 2020. That's a 6c advantage for over a year, certainly long enough to get Intel's knickers in a twist and also affect the mindshare dramatically. If AMD hold back to 12c for the top end, they'll lose that chance and I think it'll be a massive blunder.
 
TrixX said:
AMD have a very rare chance to not just beat the competition but to actually trounce them with a 16c mainstream part. The closest Intel has is the rumoured 10c Cometlake until at least 2020. That's a 6c advantage for over a year, certainly long enough to get Intel's knickers in a twist and also affect the mindshare dramatically. If AMD hold back to 12c for the top end, they'll lose that chance and I think it'll be a massive blunder.
Click to expand...
Not if the IPC and clockspeed are noticeably past Intel, but if they can release the 16 core then they should anyway.
 
TrixX said:
AMD have a very rare chance to not just beat the competition but to actually trounce them with a 16c mainstream part. The closest Intel has is the rumoured 10c Cometlake until at least 2020. That's a 6c advantage for over a year, certainly long enough to get Intel's knickers in a twist and also affect the mindshare dramatically. If AMD hold back to 12c for the top end, they'll lose that chance and I think it'll be a massive blunder.
Click to expand...
Not really since they can hoard chips and release 16 core parts later.
 
KentMan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Heat energy is produced in such small area, that conducting that heat away is notable challenge for cooling.
Hence per core it would be actually easier to cool two chiplets with 6 cores active in each, than one chiplet with all 8 cores active.
Six core chiplet has basically one third extra area per core to conduct heat away.

Higher temperature even increases power consumption/heat output of CPUs.
Meaning cores would have to be clearly more energy efficient to keep chiplet's temperature same.
While getting all 8 cores just to same quality level (as in chiplet with two worst cores disabled) would need higher quality chiplet.
 
I almost feel sorry for Intel as they don't have much planned to take the fight back to AMD right now. If AMD take the IPC lead, I still believe Intel will be behind on their first 10nm products, they will probably need a refinement to close the gap. By this time AMD will probably be on a refinement of their own potentially pushing the bar higher.

Intel will 100% need to fight AMD at their own game, more core's, better IPC, lower prices.

If AMD released a mythical unicorn chip that was 5ghz+ on 16 core's and had a healthy IPC lead, Intel better come back swinging.

Almost makes me laugh when I remember people saying Intel had a super chip in the wings ready to release if AMD released anything that beat them.... Still waiting on this chip, the 9900k ain't it BTW :)
 
SiDeards73 said:
I almost feel sorry for Intel as they don't have much planned to take the fight back to AMD right now. If AMD take the IPC lead, I still believe Intel will be behind on their first 10nm products, they will probably need a refinement to close the gap. By this time AMD will probably be on a refinement of their own potentially pushing the bar higher.

Intel will 100% need to fight AMD at their own game, more core's, better IPC, lower prices.

If AMD released a mythical unicorn chip that was 5ghz+ on 16 core's and had a healthy IPC lead, Intel better come back swinging.

Almost makes me laugh when I remember people saying Intel had a super chip in the wings ready to release if AMD released anything that beat them.... Still waiting on this chip, the 9900k ain't it BTW :)
Click to expand...

The 9900k was released to beat 2700x

It did that job.

They didn’t need to release anything else...

Now it’s AMDs turn to beat the 9900k

Rinse and repeat.
 
easyrider said:
The 9900k was released to beat 2700x
Click to expand...

Strange logic. These parts have quite different pricing, so an i9 9900 is not targetted against Ryzen 7, but against Threadripper which show a clear winner in AMD's hands :D

My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £568.69 (includes shipping: £8.70)​
​

My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £358.69 (includes shipping: £8.70)​
​

.....................


My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £478.69 (includes shipping: £8.70)​
​
 
4K8KW10 said:
Strange logic. These parts have quite different pricing, so an i9 9900 is not targetted against Ryzen 7, but against Threadripper which show a clear winner in AMD's hands :D

My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £568.69 (includes shipping: £8.70)
​

My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £358.69 (includes shipping: £8.70)
​

.....................


My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £478.69 (includes shipping: £8.70)
​
Click to expand...

The 9900k was released to target gamers...

Gaming all over the 9900k page

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/processors/core/i9-processors/i9-9900k.html
 
If it is possible to hit the ball out of the park whilst the bases are loaded, you should go for it.
Yields will probably dictate whether there is a 16c part in the middle of this year.
As for pricing, I suspect a 16c would go for £500, with the 12c being much more reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom