• 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 ***

chrcoluk said:
How many people do cpu based 2d/3d rendering at home on their personal PC?

cinebench is popular with youtubers as it showcases the tech they reviewing, in addition they over emphasise the importance of rendering given they all have to render their own videos for their jobs. Meanwhile things like office apps, browsers etc. haven't changed a whole lot over the years which is why passmark still has relevance. Also passmark is not a single core only test, it mixes it up, and it has had updates the latest update to it is not 10 years old.

If you sitting there thinking the likes of paint, word, notepad, explorer, and so on are multi threaded apps then you wrong sorry to say. Even media players like vlc are single threaded for the most part.

cinebench is far from a real world representation of performance, the impact of htt alone on it takes it away from the real world as on average in the real world htt is a 10% performance boost at best not the 40-50% or so you see in cinebench.
Click to expand...

Had a good chuckle at this,so thanks for that.

The fact is those apps listed don't need to be multithreaded, anything that realisticly needed more ooomph has been and will continue to be multithreaded. Anyone that touts single core performance to still be king needs to re evaluate the climate now and going forward. It is still good to have that but as said above sub system performance is now at a point where it matters more, I/O access times for example.

On nvme I can't tell the difference between my partners 8700K and my 2700 be that watching 4K content in VLC / MPC, or using windows derived applications.
 
Well yeah I was just trying to point out whats realistic, although cpu performance does still matter to a degree especially if you running security software, and especially if you have applocker/SRP enabled, which has to check the hash of the files prior to execution to see if they authorised to run.

Ryzen chips are now much closer to intel on per core performance and on some ryzen 3000 chips the gap may be gone or even surpassed, but to claim single core performance is some kind of ancient obsolete metric I felt I had to correct.

My 8600k compared to my ryzen 2600x in windows bare metal, when configured equally is faster, I can feel it, but its not a huge difference. Although I do play some games still that peg a single core and on those games it would be more pronounced. However those games not many people play, they not mainstream. In yasnaan on my gtx 1080ti on the 8600k I get on average about 44fps cpu bottlenecked, 1080ti with 2600x same game same area its about 35fps, however if I enable meltdown protection which I kept off, the intel chip drops down to 37fps with much worse stutters than the ryzen even tho it still maintains a slightly higher average figure. I expect on some zen 2 chips ryzen will be able to exceed 40 average in this game, and without skipping meltdown mitigation (as they immune).

If ryzen 3000 turns out to be as good as the leaks suggest, the 2600x system will stay where it is, and I wont swap the rigs round, instead I think i would possibly sell my 8600k for an inflated price due to the messed up intel market and build an entirely new ryzen 3000 rig for my main system. Probably with the top r5 sku.
 
The 8600K is clocked higher than the 2600X so yes the per core performance is higher but in a lot of highly threaded workloads it slower because it lacks SMT. and its more expensive. Even my older 1600 is faster at full load.
 
Last edited:
@chrcoluk don't misunderstand, i think given you have a 1080TI an 8600K was the right choice, i would even had said an 8700K would have been the right choice.

The 1600 at the time was the best choice for me, it still is given i have yet to change the GPU and not unless nVidia / AMD give me reason to do so, which they haven't yet. A £270 Vega 56, good as that is is not it, its really not much different to my 1070.
 
a 2600X is a good pairing with a 1080ti as well, its just unfortunate some games I play are coded not in modern standards so dependent on single core and on top of that not optimised so a mess even on powerful hardware.

But e.g. when I played division 2, that game would be absolutely fine on a 2600X.

However when I got my 8600k intel was still sane now they have turned insane, and I dont recommend a intel chip to anyone now.
 
chrcoluk said:
a 2600X is a good pairing with a 1080ti as well, its just unfortunate some games I play are coded not in modern standards so dependent on single core and on top of that not optimised so a mess even on powerful hardware.

But e.g. when I played division 2, that game would be absolutely fine on a 2600X.

However when I got my 8600k intel was still sane now they have turned insane, and I dont recommend a intel chip to anyone now.
Click to expand...

Yup, i agree that per core performance is still important for a lot of games, I think for the very high end nVidia GPU's a very high end Intel is currently the only way to go, a 9700/9900K is faster than a 2700X in any game where the GPU is the bottlneck.
 
intel chips are mainly faster in games. this is why we waiting on the new amd chips. if they have almost or match the ipc of current intel chips and have more cores for a decent price its a special time. on avg at momemt though a intel i5 can mainly outpace anything for amd in games. regardless of what any amd people say. its in benchmarks proven. doesnt make current amd cpus bad its just in games they just arent as fast as intel. they do well though for the money.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
intel chips are mainly faster in games. this is why we waiting on the new amd chips. if they have almost or match the ipc of current intel chips and have more cores for a decent price its a special time. on avg at momemt though a intel i5 can mainly outpace anything for amd in games. regardless of what any amd people say. its in benchmarks proven. doesnt make current amd cpus bad its just in games they just arent as fast as intel. they do well though for the money.
Click to expand...

This may be true but its not quite this black and white, not everyone gets the fastest GPU's, in fact for most people a 2600 is more than enough, you don't have any performance difference 2600 vs 9900K when used with the GPU's the vast majority actually have.

I think most people understand that which is why the 2600 is consistently the best selling CPU on Rainforest.
 
Indeed, we often see on here 2700x vs 9900k, but in reality they both poor choices of a gaming cpu as they not cost effective.

Instead I would be more akin to 2600 or 2600x vs something like the 8600k or 9600k.

For gaming the 2700x offers 2 more cores than the 2600x, 6 is more than enough. It has a 100mhz higher stock clock which may help in single core focused games but it will be a slim advantage. You paying over a 30% price premium for that 100mhz boost.
 
~>Dg<~ said:
intel chips are mainly faster in games. this is why we waiting on the new amd chips. if they have almost or match the ipc of current intel chips and have more cores for a decent price its a special time. on avg at momemt though a intel i5 can mainly outpace anything for amd in games. regardless of what any amd people say. its in benchmarks proven. doesnt make current amd cpus bad its just in games they just arent as fast as intel. they do well though for the money.
Click to expand...
Also depends on the games. Many are very single core limited but they tend to be the pre-DX11 games. DX11 era titles are less limited and then DX12 era games are starting to use the performance of multi-core that's becoming mainstream fast.

For iRacing currently an i5 9600K or 8600K is currently the best CPU when OC'd to ~5.2-5.4GHz. Pair that with a 1080Ti (or 2080Ti for VR) and you'll have the best experience. Last patch though there was a massive issue with Nvidia GPU users leaving them with large stuttering issues. Didn't matter if it was a 1050Ti or 1080Ti all had the same issues.

For other more mainstream games there's a large push to use the multi-core availability so quads are quickly falling out of use. Even in iRacing which to just run the game a quad is fine, but to run the supporting programs a quad is just choking and choking hard enough to require Process Lasso to get by and even then it's not always enough.

Now iRacing is probably one of the most Single Threaded sims/games going. I think X3 is one of the others. Outside of them which are both niche, in the mainstream games are getting more multi-threaded with each release. Essentially giving AMD the win in the mindshare because they can deal with more threads better than Intel currently, without the exorbitant prices of the Intel HEDT platform.

I wouldn't say an i5 can outpace anything, it's got it's market for sure, but the longevity of an i5 is not looking good, especially from a new purchase perspective.
 
basically right now at this moment for games you want a 4.5ghz 6 core chip. thats the perfect sort of where you should be at.
 
humbug said:
@chrcoluk don't misunderstand, i think given you have a 1080TI an 8600K was the right choice, i would even had said an 8700K would have been the right choice.

The 1600 at the time was the best choice for me, it still is given i have yet to change the GPU and not unless nVidia / AMD give me reason to do so, which they haven't yet. A £270 Vega 56, good as that is is not it, its really not much different to my 1070.
Click to expand...

humbug I made a post here giving an example of why cinebench isnt the holy grail :)

https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/posts/32539531

Let me know what you think of my post, thanks. :)
 
Assuming the rumours are correct, will you be going with the 8c, 12c, or 16c?

Looking at the 8c or 12c myself. Unsure which to go for as I imagine the 12c will be overkill but...i've already budgeted for it and it should last longer for the sake of £100 or so.
 
Matkinson said:
Assuming the rumours are correct, will you be going with the 8c, 12c, or 16c?

Looking at the 8c or 12c myself. Unsure which to go for as I imagine the 12c will be overkill but...i've already budgeted for it and it should last longer for the sake of £100 or so.
Click to expand...

Whichever clocks highest.
 
If the IPC rumours are to be believed then anything clocking to around 4.6, 4.6ghz at 12 cores will do me nicely. Anything else is a bonus. I fancy a bit of high refresh rate gaming, see what all the fuss is about.
 
leave this here and have mentioned a few times. X570 will be slightly better in VRM design then Z390 ...

one vendor has pretty much copied to others and pretty much mimics one , how the mighty have fallen with z390 ...

i wouldn't be surprised at those not rocking an Aorus 7, Taichi or Hero swapping their x470/x370 boards over
 
Nutella33 said:
Have a Hero x370 but if they start treating AMD boards properly, I'd be tempted even with the Hero, to upgrade.
Click to expand...

if a basic Gigabyte z390 is something like 10+1 with 60amps (2 hi 2 low) and Aorus rocking 12, along with MSI using 10/12 4c029/024n units, Taichi rocking 10 40amp units safe to say it'll be a big upgrade for x570 :)

not long now. still get the feeling 12+ cores will hit how TDP when overclocked - regardless of die shrink, pushing speed and cores will shoot it up . ryzen 4000 IMO will be a well optimised chip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom