• 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 ***

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Look at estimates from generation to generation. GF 14NM was also a licensed version of the Samsung 14NM node,so in reality it wasn't that new. If you look at the Zen 2 picture,the IO is definitely bigger than the CPU die. Also,the substrate has room for another chiplet.So that is 2X70~80MM2 7NM chiplets,and another larger IO die. The total silicon area will be larger than 14NM Ryzen.

The rumour says 12C at launch not 16C,with consumer 16C being launched later and people are treating it like its the end of the world. People are just overhyping this all too much. Ryzen 2 not only "needs" to be 16C,but also clock close to 5GHZ,run fast RAM,probably have reasonable power consumption,not be hard to cool and also be not more expensive than 12NM Ryzen 2000. I would love it to be all that. It would be an Athlon 64 all over again.

But,I really don't understand why Ryzen launching with 12C or even 16C being initially gated to a limited edition and expensive FX CPU,being a problem.

What is more important for many of us,is single threaded performance going up,and memory-CCX latency being improved.

If anyone of these metrics don't quite get there,you know will happen. I would rather go in with slightly muted expectations and be pleasantly surprised. Even with Zen,look what happened when it didn't clock as high as people wanted,or run RAM as fast as people wanted,they got dissapointed even though it was a good product.
Click to expand...

I'd like to start-out by saying i completely agree that people have over-hyped it and set unrealistic expectations, i know why everyone is saying 5Ghz but last time i mentioned it in this thread i got torn a new one. :)

Expecting the first silicon from a new fab process to have an increase of 600Mhz over an older more mature fab is wishful thinking IMO, however i think we maybe talking over each other or getting our wires crossed as the reason i posted about the 70% yields was to highlight how much more cost efficient it is for AMD than Intel, for Intel making a 32c chip is massively expensive as they may only be getting a 30% yield from one waffler due those 32 cores having to be contained within one monolithic die.

The 70% yield doesn't really tell us anything about what to expect from Zen 2 but it does show us how much more cost efficient it is for AMD, the rest of what you said i sort of agree and disagree with, 5Ghz is wishful thinking IMO but 16c consumer isn't, not that i understand why someone would want a 16c consumer version. The single thread performance will probably go up but that will mainly be down to architectural changes (things like improvements to the branch prediction, larger µOP cache, increasing the dispatcher and retire bandwidth, doubling of some data pathways to the FPU, and using IF2 that more than doubles the fabrics bandwidth). The CCX latency will still be there it will just be hidden better, not that it should matter much as we're talking about 30 odd nanoseconds.

I'm going to stop here as otherwise I'll go off on a ramble. :) However i do agree that people have set their expectations way to high.
 
chrcoluk said:
If you know how stock turbo works you know it isnt running at 4.1ghz

MCE doesnt work on those chips either.

4.1ghz will only kick in when all but 1 core are in C6 state, and that wont be the case when playing games.

Intel turbo sucks vs XFR.

There is a reason Intel stopped publishing the turbo clock scaling info as it wasnt putting them in a favourable light with all core turbo speeds been not great. Also £10 to some people is a make or break.
Click to expand...

Apparently its 3.9 All core, but isn't it single core performance that maters in games, isn't the whole point that the controller thread boosts to 4.1Ghz to give you that gaming performance?

Anyway, Intel don't list the all core Turbo because they base the TDP off the all core base clock, in this case 2.9Ghz, some reviewers have been caught testing performance with MCE and then switching to a low end B360 boards that throttles the CPU to its base frequency giving a power consumption reading within Intel's TDP rating, PCPer and Jayz2Cents to name two, HUB and AdoredTV pulled them up on it. PCPer ignored it while Jay pleaded ignorance claiming he didn't know this.
 
I feel what he should have done is a build of board+ram+cpu for a fixed price. Then that spec compared to each machine so if e.g. the cost saving of a 2600x allowed faster ram then that would be fine to do that.

the problem is he didnt really do that, and had the 2666 vs 3400 just for intel etc. Was just weird. Why was he using a top end gigabyte board with it as well?

If only principled tech did the test it probably would have been more sound.

Also did he use stock cooler with the AMD (and not on fixed 100% fan speed), as he should have done like 95% of users will. Also probably should have been tested inside a case as well not open bench.

gamersnexus, and hardwareunboxed still have a lot to learn on comparison benchmarking in my opinion.
 
chrcoluk said:
I feel what he should have done is a build of board+ram+cpu for a fixed price. Then that spec compared to each machine so if e.g. the cost saving of a 2600x allowed faster ram then that would be fine to do that.

the problem is he didnt really do that, and had the 2666 vs 3400 just for intel etc. Was just weird. Why was he using a top end gigabyte board with it as well?

If only principled tech did the test it probably would have been more sound.

Also did he use stock cooler with the AMD (and not on fixed 100% fan speed), as he should have done like 95% of users will. Also probably should have been tested inside a case as well not open bench.

gamersnexus, and hardwareunboxed still have a lot to learn on comparison benchmarking in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Yeah i agre, the thing is he is trying to maximize his views, i have seen a lot of people complain at him for his 8400 vs 2600 review because he didn't use a Z390 and overclock the ram, even some people in this forum pointed that out when i posted those screenshots.

I don't know why he didn't do a run with 2666Mhz on Ryzen, he did with the 8400 vs 2600 review.

And lets face it, doing those sort of reviews for fixed budgets doesn't show the 9400F or the Ryzen 2600 in the best light, an £80 Intel board would probably throttle the 9400F down to if not near its TDP which can reduce its performance by quite a chunk, the stuttering that he saw in a couple of games would have been worse and maybe spread to a couple more, the 2600 with cheaper more realistic RAM, say 3200 CL16 would also had lost a chunk of performance, then the argument becomes are they being shown in the best light? to which the answer is no.

So what do you do?

I think its fine but he should have tested the memory 'also' with CL16 3200Mhz on both given that's at least is more realistic to most users.

Edit: you can't do that ^^^^ with anything less that Z390 on Intel... so que the complaints.... ye' can't win.
 
Last edited:
Ok so £360

My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £370.47 (includes shipping: £10.50)
​

Now bad news for ocuk I had to use a competitor for part of the intel build, it seems ocuk has no intel mid range 9 series boards? B365 board from unnamed competitor.

£106 for board plus the following. Total £356 approx. Same ram very close in price, but the board is a variable, both are asrock boards, the board I used for the intel build was 'ASRock B365 Phantom Gaming 4'

Both are asrock, both have 6 sata ports, but as you pointed out the ram will be capped to 2666 on the intel board, thats a tough luck for the intel build, any testing would be 3000mhz amd side and 2666 intel side, intel board has intel lan, amd board has realtek lan, both 2x m.2. Seem fairly equal. But just that mid range AMD chipsets whip intel's mid range hands down with o/c been allowed on ram and cpu.

I would say amd wins here for sure even without a bench, as aside from the better chipset, it also has SMT vs no HTT on the 9400F. So my issue is really how the test was conducted but given that to get the fast ram on the intel isnt realistic I will accept those couple of games with the low min's. :) But the ram like you said probably should have not been as fast as 3400. So I think we both in agreement with each other here.

Hardware unboxed should have used the board to go with each cpu, not high end boards, closed case testing, variable fan speeds, stock cpu cooler for amd, and low end after market cooler for intel (as no stock provided?), in fact this pushes up the intel build cost so would probably have to downgrade the ram to some value 2400mhz ram or something to compensate, only slow ram speeds on the intel, exclude the faster ram test on intel, exclude the manual OC test for ryzen, and explained exactly the components build cost and reasoning for the test variables, then people like me would not have questioned his testing. Where we disagree (or maybe you agree with me now) is the reason for the min's on the 9400f.

Astoundingly bad that the b365 board is £26 more than the b450 board "and" doesnt allow O/C as a bonus.

My basket at Overclockers UK:
Total: £258.68 (includes shipping: £8.70)
​
 
Last edited:
What about budget motherboards?

Cheapest Z370:
MSI Z370-A Pro £110 when not on offer. https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-...cket-1151-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-32j-ms.html

I'm sorry this is a pile of junk, look at the VRMs on it, i see 3 chokes there, no way in a closed equally budget case will this board get the most out of a 9400F, 3 phase VRM its pathetic.

7Bwsqo4.png


Mid range B450:
ASRock B450 Pro4, i have the predecessor to this board, the BIOS is fully featured, almost, it has every conceivable memory tweaking, including SOC / IMC voltage... very extensive, about 40 difference aspects to tweak on the memory alone it bamboozles the hell outa' me the only thing its lacking is Load Line Calibration, which it doesn't need. twice the VRMs of that ^^^ Z370 and more than capable of holding a 2600 at its highest overclock easily. i've push mine to 1.475v and the VRMs just went "meh..."

£80 https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asrock-b450-pro4-socket-am4-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-16b-ak.html


KFsoDkC.png
 
Last edited:
b450 pro4 is nice, I have it for my 2600x rig :) So I chose well for the amd build :)

We could allow the intel build to keep its 3000mhz ram (even tho it cant be used to full potential) and for adding the intel cooler to cost, the amd build gets promoted to 3200CL16 ram you suggested, but either way I think AMD is clearly the winner on a value comparison.
 
One of the reasons I consider AMD to selling so well is I noticed when I was googling for ram timings earlier, 80-90% of hits are from AMD user discussions, the ryzen community is so much bigger than intel right now in my opinion and thats an indicator of sales.
 
humbug said:
What about budget motherboards?

Cheapest Z370:
MSI Z370-A Pro £110 when not on offer. https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-...cket-1151-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-32j-ms.html

I'm sorry this is a pile of junk, look at the VRMs on it, i see 3 chokes there, no way in a closed equally budget case will this board get the most out of a 9400F, 3 phase VRM its pathetic.



Mid range B450:
ASRock B450 Pro4, i have the predecessor to this board, the BIOS is fully featured, almost, it has every conceivable memory tweaking, including SOC / IMC voltage... very extensive, about 40 difference aspects to tweak on the memory alone it bamboozles the hell outa' me the only thing its lacking is Load Line Calibration, which it doesn't need. twice the VRMs of that ^^^ Z370 and more than capable of holding a 2600 at its highest overclock easily. i've push mine to 1.475v and the VRMs just went "meh..."

£80 https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asrock-b450-pro4-socket-am4-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-16b-ak.html
Click to expand...

Why are we cherry picking boards?

Also at a £110 non sale price, which I'm sure you saw, is the Z370 Asrock equivalent. https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asro...cket-1151-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-15p-ak.html

Then why, when specifically comparing RRP of boards, did you mention the sale price of the B450 pro?

Not to mention that counting chokes isn't representative of VRM quality. The B450 Pro 4 is a 3 phase VRM. At 1.475V your VRMs don't go meh.

We all know that AMD boards are typically better value but either make a comparison fair or don't bother to make one at all.
 
Last edited:
The z370 he picked would allow the faster ram, but at the same time other aspects of the board are lower spec'd than the b450 pro 4 e.g. only one m.2 slot.

I didnt really consider vrm spec on the board comparison, as vrm's tend to be overbuilt and overhyped aspect's of boards although I do know the b450 pro 4 has one of the best vrm's across the b450 board range if that bothers people, but admittedly no idea where the asrock board I chosen for the intel build stands in that respect.

Got an overall favourable review here, but with a note about 33% of VRM's not been cooled.

https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/8...aming-4-intel-motherboard-review/index10.html

However if I started looking for a board with the best vrm, and ignored things like sata port count, and price I feel that would put me in the same bad place as gamersnexus etc. My comparison was on value for money.

But yeah ASROCK Z370 PRO4 is probably a better board to use, just £4 more and supports ram overclocking. However something would have to give on the intel build I did because I didnt add a cooler.
 
Last edited:
Smoogels said:
Why are we cherry picking boards?

Also at a £110 non sale price, which I'm sure you saw, is the Z370 Asrock equivalent. https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asro...cket-1151-ddr4-atx-motherboard-mb-15p-ak.html

Then why, when specifically comparing RRP of boards, did you mention the sale price of the B450 pro?

Not to mention that counting chokes isn't representative of VRM quality. The B450 Pro 4 is a 3 phase VRM. At 1.475V your VRMs don't go meh, they roast.

Make a comparison fair or don't bother to make one at all.
Click to expand...

I should have thought about a Budget Intel ASRock, VRM heat sync still look's inferior, like they are trying to save money, the SOC doesn't have one at all.
They technically are 3 phase, yes, but current is still split across 6 Hi and Low Fet's and Chockes, because there are twice as many sets the Ampage is divided up between more components = less heat per component and that makes a huge difference.

74c is the higest i have ever seen them and that was overclocked during extensive stress testing, they are rated for 125 to 150c.
 
I like the layout of the Asrock boards. PCIE x1 and m.2 slot in the same space as one slot is nice, especially on smaller form factor boards.

On the downside, the second m.2 slot is sata only. And the UEFI GUI is a worse IMO than MSI and ASUS.
 
Come on guys. Not that hard lol... :P

tamzzy said:
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...
 
Save another £9 on the Ryzen system by getting the ASRock B450 ^^^^ and another £10 on the ram by getting 3200Mhz

pandem0nium said:
I like the layout of the Asrock boards. PCIE x1 and m.2 slot in the same space as one slot is nice, especially on smaller form factor boards.

On the downside, the second m.2 slot is sata only. And the UEFI GUI is a worse IMO than MSI and ASUS.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a good point for anyone reading this, the Second M.2 slot at the bottom of the board is for SATA (6GB/s) Drives, you can't put an NVMe drive in there, that's the slot just under the CPU, if you want to raid 2 NVMe drives you need an X470.
 
Murphy said:
I'd like to start-out by saying i completely agree that people have over-hyped it and set unrealistic expectations, i know why everyone is saying 5Ghz but last time i mentioned it in this thread i got torn a new one. :)

Expecting the first silicon from a new fab process to have an increase of 600Mhz over an older more mature fab is wishful thinking IMO, however i think we maybe talking over each other or getting our wires crossed as the reason i posted about the 70% yields was to highlight how much more cost efficient it is for AMD than Intel, for Intel making a 32c chip is massively expensive as they may only be getting a 30% yield from one waffler due those 32 cores having to be contained within one monolithic die.

The 70% yield doesn't really tell us anything about what to expect from Zen 2 but it does show us how much more cost efficient it is for AMD, the rest of what you said i sort of agree and disagree with, 5Ghz is wishful thinking IMO but 16c consumer isn't, not that i understand why someone would want a 16c consumer version. The single thread performance will probably go up but that will mainly be down to architectural changes (things like improvements to the branch prediction, larger µOP cache, increasing the dispatcher and retire bandwidth, doubling of some data pathways to the FPU, and using IF2 that more than doubles the fabrics bandwidth). The CCX latency will still be there it will just be hidden better, not that it should matter much as we're talking about 30 odd nanoseconds.

I'm going to stop here as otherwise I'll go off on a ramble. :) However i do agree that people have set their expectations way to high.
Click to expand...
For me if AMD launches at 12C for normal consumer SKUs,with good improvements in single threaded peformance,latency improvements(well more memory-CCX latency improvements TBH) and solid performance per watt I would be happy. If they launch with 16C and hit close to 5GHZ,then that would be the icing on the cake. Maybe I am easy to please!! :P
 
Journey said:
However, that means you can only run your GPU at 8x PCIE 3.0 as any boards that offer two M.2 NVMe slots has to take lanes from the 16x GPU, still not as bad as some Intel configs.
Click to expand...

Yup, again true, how saturated would PCIe 3.0 x8 be for a high end GPU? i don't actually know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom