Intel haven't really released any 'new' processors for the last 4-5 years, all Coffee Lake did was increase the amount of cores and cache while supporting slightly (+266Mhz) faster RAM, before that Kaby Lake did basically nothing other than improve perf/watt while supporting slightly (another +266Mhz) faster RAM...The last change other than increasing clock speeds a bit that Intel made was with Skylake and even that's based on the same Core architecture that's been around for over a decade.
-
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 ***
- Thread starter Jamin280672
- Start date
Intel haven't really released any 'new' processors for the last 4-5 years, all Coffee Lake did was increase the amount of cores and cache while supporting slightly (+266Mhz) faster RAM, before that Kaby Lake did basically nothing other than improve perf/watt while supporting slightly (another +266Mhz) faster RAM...The last change other than increasing clock speeds a bit that Intel made was with Skylake and even that's based on the same Core architecture that's been around for over a decade.
"but Intel pull a CPU out of their behinds that's muuuuhaarrr faster than the previous generation"
Its all we ever hear whenever AMD are about to release a new Ryzen CPU and all Intel have ever done is refresh the same old stuff with higher clocks calling it 14nm+++++
This up coming 10 core is no different, Its Coffeelake 14nm++++++
Its all we ever hear whenever AMD are about to release a new Ryzen CPU and all Intel have ever done is refresh the same old stuff with higher clocks calling it 14nm+++++
This up coming 10 core is no different, Its Coffeelake 14nm++++++
Intel have been rehashing the same old thing for years and relying on their marketing dollars to see them through. I think they've genuinely been caught out by a resurgent AMD.
Intel's market value currently stands at $228bn and falling, AMD are worth $30bn and rising.
Creating high core count CPU's is a problem on current technology, IE Ring Bus, you can only run 10 cores on that.
Both Intel and AMD have known this for a long time, AMD have been working on it for about 5 years before Ryzen 1000, which was the result, the solution is Infinity Fabric, with it AMD can divide up the CPU into multiple segments with a theoretically infinite amount of cores, even mixing different types of processing architectures.
By its self it a genius solution, and just whats needed, add to that by the second tweaked generation (Zen+) AMD managed to match Intel's Ring Bus IPC.
Intel also found a solution, this Mesh technology, its basically routing the Inter core connects differently to Coffeelake, with Intel can produce high core count CPU's, upto 28 cores so far, 48 in a dual package, AMD are knocking out 64 cores and what's more Intel's mesh is still monolithic and the Gaming IPC is lower than the Ring Bus, much lower, also lower than AMD's Infinity Fabric.
True Multi core as we know them today, AMD
64Bit X86 computing, AMD
GDDR, AMD
HBM, AMD
Low level game API's better than DX, including 12, AMD
And theres more....
Honestly sometimes i wonder who is the true technology leader in all this.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2007
- Posts
- 968
They were relying on having no competition for about a decade and got very complacent. During that period I think their marketing seemed less as it wasn't needed so much.
Then on top of that they had the disaster that is 10nm.
Then out of the blue came a massively resurgent AMD and this has led to almost a perfect storm which leaves them significantly behind.
They really need 7nm to go well otherwise who knows how behind they might be in 2 or 3 years.
Imagine Intel still on a weak 2nd gen 10nm whilst AMD are on a strong TSMC 5nm!
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2015
- Posts
- 843
Can't see how anyone can disagree with this unless they are a completely deluded intel fanboy, if that is the case they really need to have a look at themselves defending that rabble.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Feb 2007
- Posts
- 14,935
- Location
- Area 18, ArcCorp
I really hope Zen 2 brings with it better single core performance, I mainly play on my 1080P 240Hz 24" monitor and with the 2700X paired with the Radeon 7 I see an average of 50% GPU utilisation yet with an 8700K at its all core boost of 4.70GHz I see near 100% GPU usage and MUCH higher frames.
I think there's a lot of people, me included, that want this.
I'm happy enough with my current rig to wait until the Ryzen 3 (4?) refresh next year, but will watch with interest to see what IPC improvement there is with 3.
Shush! You are not allowed to say those things around here without being called a shill or accused of lying.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Sep 2018
- Posts
- 895
Haha. Don't you start. lol. Specifying what game(s) would help. True, though, all should know by now that intel does better, thus a choice for 1080 High Hz.
Well, to be honest, I am looking for the twelve-core new Ryzen because the 16-core is just excessive. Even for me, it would be too much.
If the IPC uplift is 15% on average (with peak +29% https://www.techpowerup.com/249450/amd-zen-2-ipc-29-percent-higher-than-zen), and the frequency uplift is modest 5% (from 4.35 GHz up to 4.6 GHz), the twelve-core processor with its 50% more core than the ordinary Ryzen 7 2700X, would give us the "modest" 70% performance improvement in well organised multy-thread workloads.
From the same article
Update Nov 14: AMD has issued the following statement regarding these claims.As we demonstrated at our Next Horizon event last week, our next-generation AMD EPYC server processor based on the new 'Zen 2' core delivers significant performance improvements as a result of both architectural advances and 7nm process technology. Some news media interpreted a 'Zen 2' comment in the press release footnotes to be a specific IPC uplift claim. The data in the footnote represented the performance improvement in a microbenchmark for a specific financial services workload which benefits from both integer and floating point performance improvements and is not intended to quantify the IPC increase a user should expect to see across a wide range of applications. We will provide additional details on 'Zen 2' IPC improvements, and more importantly how the combination of our next-generation architecture and advanced 7nm process technology deliver more performance per socket, when the products launch.
I think even with modest estimates Ryzen 3000 (8 core up) is going to be right up there as one of the most powerful desktop CPUs available. Whether it is good or really good it won't be bad
I have the same monitor and am hoping this becomes reality. I am in the minority segment who wants high fps on lower resolutions. Time will tell, but my fingers surely are crossed, for AMDs sake. I don't regret buying Ryzen one bit, regardless of the lower gaming performance, as I prefer them over the company Intel has become.
Possibly stupid question, but am I right in thinking that Ryzen 2xxx processors will be forward compatible in the new (x570?) motherboards? Planning a new build, but with the price of the older processors dropping and the likelihood that the 3000 series will be at their most expensive on launch, I might get a new mobo and an old 8 core CPU, and just bubble along a generation behind..
It isn't a stupid question - especially given the intel treats imposed upon us all, people can expect anything.
But... yes, the X570 should support Ryzen 1000, Ryzen 2000, Ryzen 3000 and the coming next year Ryzen 4000.
IF AMD release a 3800/3850x with 16 cores I think they may well do it at $499 it will match the 1800x release price, if it does 4.7ghz boost on a couple of cores there won't be any competition for it immediately and they will cash in on early adopters and prosumers that are not already on TR.
Once they release 24 core TR they will then be able to cut the price of the top tier x570 chip.
I think that the single chiplet 8 core will be very competitive on price though, closer to $299 and if it gives the 9900k a really close run it will make it an awesome gaming CPU.
Looks like an exciting 4 months for AMD if Navi delivers it should put the 1660ti and 2060 firmly in the shade at a decent price and hopefully match the 2070 for a sensible mid range price.
The Ryzen 3000 dropping into older boards will have a massive impact on the enthusiast market. And with it being a low power part hopefully finally start winning proper market share in the desktop and laptop space. The only issue is the need to still pair it to a dGPU in the value sector... But if Navi 7nm is low power and has a decent cheap option then it could be an weapon.
Once they release 24 core TR they will then be able to cut the price of the top tier x570 chip.
I think that the single chiplet 8 core will be very competitive on price though, closer to $299 and if it gives the 9900k a really close run it will make it an awesome gaming CPU.
Looks like an exciting 4 months for AMD if Navi delivers it should put the 1660ti and 2060 firmly in the shade at a decent price and hopefully match the 2070 for a sensible mid range price.
The Ryzen 3000 dropping into older boards will have a massive impact on the enthusiast market. And with it being a low power part hopefully finally start winning proper market share in the desktop and laptop space. The only issue is the need to still pair it to a dGPU in the value sector... But if Navi 7nm is low power and has a decent cheap option then it could be an weapon.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 2,602
- Location
- East Sussex
I would expect it to work, but not all features - e.g all PCIE 4