• 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 ***

humbug said:
Star Citizen... still in pre-Alpha.


Squadron 42, the Single player campaign mode due for release mid 2020. Must be watched in 4K, the graphics are in game graphics...


https://robertsspaceindustries.com/
Click to expand...

It makes sense to not be released. intel had been charging so much money for so long for their ridiculous quad cores, that the user base in 90% perhaps has quads or duals. How is it going to run?
Wait until more users have decent CPUs.

Otherwise, yes, I remember now. The game looks interesting and promising.
 
Star citizen is only at the beginning of big games using more cores I would wager... with the latest rumours about 8 core/16 thread next gen xbox there will be a real drive towards good utilisation of 16 threads if developers want to make the most of the new consoles.

That will surely benefit more cores on PC too, at least up to the 8/16 level.
 
Last edited:
Even though under NDA for Dual Universe, I can confirm it uses at least 32 threads. Mostly on load but being a voxel universe it's got a lot of procedural generation baked in. Load times on a quad core are in 10's of minutes for the first load and even subsequent loads of new areas. With the ThreadRipper, less than a minute.
 
FWIW when i play BFV on my old i7 2600K, its using in excess of 50% on all 8 threads so i would assume it would be gimped with the i5. What program are you using in SC then, looks a bit like fraps?
 
Now that more cores are basically coming all round, game developers would definitely use it to their advantage. All this time they more or less has to make do with 4 core cpu's, but now there's more readily available, so they will utilise it
 
Potatowithearsontheside said:
Well, you tell me...do you prefer to believe that is a 1.21GHz base indication, or whether 08 and 12 might just be an indication if Core count on what have been described as 8+12c ESs...?
As I pointed out, the crap about 1.21x42 is just that; the code didn't even reference a base clock in the way that the 2nd gen ones did, let alone a boost clock, and that's before we consider the dubious math of it anyway.

It's just about applying reason when coming up with an analysis. Sure, my own interpretation of that part of the code may be wrong, but it at least has more merit than dubious math based on inconsistent and flawed assumptions.
Click to expand...
OK, just watched the latest Adoredtv video and it makes reference to the latest version of the ES decoder, which, shock horror, confirms my interpretation of those four numbers, and elaborates further on the 01/12 part referencing the number of chiplets used.
 
Praz94 said:
Now that more cores are basically coming all round, game developers would definitely use it to their advantage. All this time they more or less has to make do with 4 core cpu's, but now there's more readily available, so they will utilise it
Click to expand...

Well, I think the majority even factored in 2 as basic, whereas now 4 will be standard entry level, with more available. Even getting everything supporting 4 properly will be a victory.
 
Alexrose1uk said:
Well, I think the majority even factored in 2 as basic, whereas now 4 will be standard entry level, with more available. Even getting everything supporting 4 properly will be a victory.
Click to expand...

For sure! Games are only going to progress even faster now and get bigger and bigger. I feel like there's nothing really holding back developers anymore.. Except maybe now GPU's may become the bottleneck, and definitely not the cpu
 
Alexrose1uk said:
Well, I think the majority even factored in 2 as basic, whereas now 4 will be standard entry level, with more available. Even getting everything supporting 4 properly will be a victory.
Click to expand...
Because of Intel 2 cores was standard for cheap market PCs two years.


Matkinson said:
Really wish they would hurry up and launch it already. my i7 2600 and slow ddr3 ram is bottlenecking quite a few games I play now...not even getting a solid 60fps :(
Click to expand...
Without hyperthreading you would likely have lot more/more serious hiccups.
 
EsaT said:
Because of Intel 2 cores was standard for cheap market PCs .
Click to expand...

Oh I am well aware, it's been a long decade or so! Just glad we have more competition now. Ironically as things move forward AMDs older Bulldozer generation CPUs may actually become more usable/gain an extra lease of life due to the additional cores, albeit abysmal single core performance.
 
Alexrose1uk said:
Oh I am well aware, it's been a long decade or so! Just glad we have more competition now. Ironically as things move forward AMDs older Bulldozer generation CPUs may actually become more usable/gain an extra lease of life due to the additional cores, albeit abysmal single core performance.
Click to expand...

The additional cores have always been designed for great multi-tasking or for applications that can deal with them. Unfortunately, lazy developers only now begin to write code for multi-core processors. Something that should have happened a decade ago and something that was out of AMD's control but in Microsoft's good will and intel's anti-competitive practices.
An 8-core FX is effectively at least two but more likely four dual-core i3s.
 
Alexrose1uk said:
AMDs older Bulldozer generation CPUs may actually become more usable/gain an extra lease of life due to the additional cores
Click to expand...

4K8KW10 said:
An 8-core FX is effectively at least two but more likely four dual-core i3s.
Click to expand...

The AMD 8 Core FX chips (Bulldozer & Piledriver) don't actually have 8 physical cores, despite their marketing. All 8 cores have to share certain resourses such as L2 cache and the floating point unit so are incapable of working independantly like modern 8 core CPUs. This means that the FX chip performs 20% slower in multithreaded applications than it would had it been a true 8 core CPU, unlike the AMD Phenom II X6 which did have 6 true 'independant' cores. AMD subsequently had a class action lawsuit filed against them for false advertiement and the long 4 year case is due to come to a verdict on 5th February, just two days before the launch of Radeon VII.

Anyone who purchased an 8 core FX chip could potentilly claim back the difference in cost between the 4 core and 8 core FX chips.
 
Last edited:
CuriousTomCat said:
The AMD 8 Core FX chips (Bulldozer & Piledriver) don't actually have 8 physical cores, despite their marketing. All 8 cores have to share certain resourses such as L2 cache and the floating point unit so are incapable of working independantly like modern 8 core CPUs. This means that the FX chip performs 20% slower in multithreaded applications than it would had it been a true 8 core CPU, unlike the AMD Phenom II X6 which did have 6 true 'independant' cores. AMD subsequently had a class action lawsuit filed against them for false advertiement and the long 4 year case is due to come to a verdict on 5th February, just two days before the launch of Radeon VII.
Click to expand...

It is 8-cores, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H => 8-cores

 
Alexrose1uk said:
Oh I am well aware, it's been a long decade or so! Just glad we have more competition now. Ironically as things move forward AMDs older Bulldozer generation CPUs may actually become more usable/gain an extra lease of life due to the additional cores, albeit abysmal single core performance.
Click to expand...

They're not good enough. It was always the argument. Their core for core performance was just too lacklustre.

Even today, they're still weak.

Which is why I gladly hated on them, but I was more than happy to go Ryzen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom