• 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 ***

chroniclard said:
Unsure I actually need 12 cores.....8 seems fine to me. :p

Its all about the clock speed increases and any IPC improvements now.
Click to expand...
Well exactly. That's my only concern too. That Ryzen can't hit the clocks so they start throwing 16 core, essentially useless (for gamers) parts at us to try and stay relevant.

Also game Devs are really going to have to knuckle down and start building games that use as many cores as are available. I don't see why they can't do this. Because cores are the future not clocks
 
Have a read of this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_philosophers_problem

Coding for more cores is not as easy - devs can do it, the question is who wants to put the effort in.

Another good example: imagine you’re in a car with several people. One person controls the accelerator, one person controls the brakes. One controls the steering wheel. One controls the indicators. One controls the clutch and one controls the gear lever. Now try driving to work - that is multithreaded applications
 
v9ikh0e76ot21.png
 
Grim5 said:
Have a read of this

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_philosophers_problem

Coding for more cores is not as easy - devs can do it, the question is who wants to put the effort in.

Another good example: imagine you’re in a car with several people. One person controls the accelerator, one person controls the brakes. One controls the steering wheel. One controls the indicators. One controls the clutch and one controls the gear lever. Now try driving to work - that is multithreaded applications
Click to expand...

I remember talking to a guy that proclaimed he worked with this stuff.

He said that once you start coding for multiple cores, it doesn't really get that much harder for additional cores e.g. going from 4 to 12 etc. No idea if this is true though.
 
beany_bot said:
Well exactly. That's my only concern too. That Ryzen can't hit the clocks so they start throwing 16 core, essentially useless (for gamers) parts at us to try and stay relevant.

Also game Devs are really going to have to knuckle down and start building games that use as many cores as are available. I don't see why they can't do this. Because cores are the future not clocks
Click to expand...

They already are at this point, watch this i5 9400F vs 2600X review, two or three times he made it clear that while on the face of it the 9400F had similar performance to the 2600X the 9400F had stutter, it was not smooth, due to a lack of threads on the 9400F, its a 6 core CPU.

The core i5's are already obsolete.


 
As much as i like HWU's videos, that test is a bit misleading...ideally the 9400f should be paired with a b360/b365 board with max 2666 ram (which is what most budget builds will be)
And the 2600x should be paired with 3000/3200 ram +/- overclock, this will give the fairest comparison as to what a budget gamer will most likely use.

Given that the 2600x will perform better with expensive 3400mhz ram, in comparison to the 9400f, biases the benchmarks towards AMD...of course, value-wise, ryzen 5 wins hands down.
The only other factor I can think of is that the b360 board may require a bios update before being able to run the 9400f, and there isn't a lot of choice of b365 boards around.

My basket at overclockers uk:
Total: £395.46 (includes shipping: £10.50)

My basket at overclockers uk:
Total: £358.46 (includes shipping: £10.50)

My basket at overclockers uk:
Total: £359.47 (includes shipping: £10.50)
I've not added a separate heatsink (as always ocuk ryzen prices are higher than its competitors - so consider it as an aftermarket heatsink already added on)
 
tamzzy said:
As much as i like HWU's videos, that test is a bit misleading...ideally the 9400f should be paired with a b360/b365 board with max 2666 ram (which is what most budget builds will be)
And the 2600x should be paired with 3000/3200 ram +/- overclock, this will give the fairest comparison as to what a budget gamer will most likely use.

Given that the 2600x will perform better with expensive 3400mhz ram, in comparison to the 9400f, biases the benchmarks towards AMD...of course, value-wise, ryzen 5 wins hands down.
The only other factor I can think of is that the b360 board may require a bios update before being able to run the 9400f, and there isn't a lot of choice of b365 boards around.

My basket at overclockers uk:
Total: £395.46 (includes shipping: £10.50)

My basket at overclockers uk:
Total: £358.46 (includes shipping: £10.50)

My basket at overclockers uk:
Total: £359.47 (includes shipping: £10.50)
I've not added a separate heatsink (as always ocuk ryzen prices are higher than its competitors - so consider it as an aftermarket heatsink already added on)
Click to expand...

He put the 9400F on a Z390 and overclocked the ram to 3400Mhz, the same as the 2600X, as well as stock on both.

He tested for every contingency and made it clear you would need the expensive Z390 boards to overclock the memory on the 9400K, as for overclocking the cores on the 2600X, its not AMD's fault Intel loock thier CPU cores on cheaper SKU's, i don't think it would be fair to show only stock results because the Intel cores don't overclock.

He's reviewing these CPU's in every possible configuration, nothing wrong with that. :)
 
humbug said:
He put the 9400F on a Z390 and overclocked the ram to 3400Mhz, the same as the 2600X, as well as stock on both.
Click to expand...
humbug said:
He tested for every contingency
Click to expand...

not quite. have a look again.

9400f + 3400mhz ram
9400f + 2666mhz ram

2600x stock + 3400mhz ram
2600x @ 4.2 + 3400mhz ram

would've been nice to see a 2600x stock + 3000mhz ram though - which is what most non-enthusiasts will run these platforms at. i know this is an enthusiast forum and we like to overclock...but in the grand scheme of things, we are but a very tiny minority.
 
tamzzy said:
not quite. have a look again.

9400f + 3400mhz ram
9400f + 2666mhz ram

2600x stock + 3400mhz ram
2600x @ 4.2 + 3400mhz ram

would've been nice to see a 2600x stock + 3000mhz ram though - which is what most non-enthusiasts will run these platforms at. i know this is an enthusiast forum and we like to overclock...but in the grand scheme of things, we are but a very tiny minority.
Click to expand...

Yeah fair enough, his argument was 3400Mhz ram only cost $30 more, its about £90 for crappy 3000Mhz and £160 for the 8Pack Samsung B-Die, i'm sure if you shop around you can get other Samy's without his name on them for less.

Anyway, the end result for those who don't have time to watch it all, again tho the 9400F struggled to keep things smooth in a couple of games.

Dj1pEug.png
 
Thing is, not all ryzen chips will be able to run 3400mhz stable.
(£120 for 3600mhz ram cheapest and downclock, £80 for 3000mhz ram).
That's still £40 extra for a "budget" build is a large % of the whole budget
 
I skimmed through the results and its possible I have missed the one humbug reffered to, but the only game I noticed with noticeably lower min's on the 9400F was the new BF game.

However that was due to the lower ram speed it was on 2666mhz mode, at 3400 it was close to the ryzen.

Also he was using stock turbo which in multi core games on intel will run slower than the ryzen, definitely slower than the o/c 4.2 graph. So even when the 9400f was slower to just say "lack of threads" is not right in my view.

The 2600x is a nice chip, but I think humbug was been a bit misleading, it got my attention since I own a 6 core non HTT chip.

I agree with tamzy on the ram speed, this is the same problem that was raised when intel got that company to do 9900k reviews, all the youtube reviewers were claiming that fast ram should be used as else ryzen is crippled, but that should be a "tough luck" situation. I wouldnt necessarily say only use jedec ram in the thing, but I think 3400mhz ram is "too premium" for most people buying a 9400f or 2600x.

What was odd to me is why did he have a 2666 vs 3400 for the 9400f but just 2 3400 results for the 2600x?
 
I thought that every jump in memory speed with Ryzen yields half the returns of the proceding jump.

E.g, going from 2666 to 2800 will give you double the gains of 2800 to 2933 and so on.

Timings also have to be factored in E.G going from c14 to c15 is worth it only if making a jump of 266mhz(?) in memory speed or more.

It's been a long while since I looked at this so might be wrong, bit pretty sure this is true on the first gen Ryzens (TR 1950X and R1700)
 
The "just pump the speed" is outdated info yeah, On a very basic level the latest guidance appears to be go for speed until you reach 3000mhz, then after that pick timing over speed if its a choice between the two. This advice probably originates from the fact as speeds go up each step of timing is a bigger % vs each step of speed.
 
chrcoluk said:
I skimmed through the results and its possible I have missed the one humbug reffered to, but the only game I noticed with noticeably lower min's on the 9400F was the new BF game.

However that was due to the lower ram speed it was on 2666mhz mode, at 3400 it was close to the ryzen.

Also he was using stock turbo which in multi core games on intel will run slower than the ryzen, definitely slower than the o/c 4.2 graph. So even when the 9400f was slower to just say "lack of threads" is not right in my view.

The 2600x is a nice chip, but I think humbug was been a bit misleading, it got my attention since I own a 6 core non HTT chip.

I agree with tamzy on the ram speed, this is the same problem that was raised when intel got that company to do 9900k reviews, all the youtube reviewers were claiming that fast ram should be used as else ryzen is crippled, but that should be a "tough luck" situation. I wouldnt necessarily say only use jedec ram in the thing, but I think 3400mhz ram is "too premium" for most people buying a 9400f or 2600x.

What was odd to me is why did he have a 2666 vs 3400 for the 9400f but just 2 3400 results for the 2600x?
Click to expand...

Monster Hunter World, don't be fooled by Intel's advertised 2.9Ghz base clock, it actually runs at 4.1Ghz, especially on that top end Asus Z390.

3333Mhz ram costs £10 more than 3000Mhz, i don't see what the problem is and you cannot run above 2666Mhz on the 9400F unless you are using a £250 Z390 board.

https://youtu.be/hmhBgLSIneQ?t=608
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
If you're going to do that here's some 3333Mhz here for £90 https://www.overclockers.co.uk/king...l-channel-kit-hx433c16pb3k2-16-my-26n-ks.html

Run them at 3200Mhz, tighten up the timings a little, the 200Mhz isn't going to make much difference :)
Click to expand...
tamzzy said:
1 x Kingston HyperX Predator 16GB (2x8GB) DDR4 PC4-25600C16 3333MHz Dual Channel Kit (HX433C16PB3K2/16)= £89.99
Click to expand...
Already thought of that when I did the example specs ;)
But the issue remains the same though: not all ryzen IMC can run 3400mhz (or to a lesser extent 3200 c14). Most are capable, but most doesn't mean all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom