1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000) - *** NO COMPETITOR HINTING ***

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by Jamin280672, Jul 20, 2018.

  1. KentMan

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 14, 2016

    Posts: 387

    Mainly because Intel boosts higher, Ryzen boost is capped extremely low, if Ryzen boosted as well as Coffeelake, then i think you'd see a totally different picture.
     
  2. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,015

    Of course it does, its clocked much higher, the IPC is pretty much identical tho...

    @4Ghz

    8700K:
    ST 174
    MT 1325

    2600:
    ST 168
    MT 1384

    so at the same clocks the 8700K is 3% fast ST while the 2600 is 5% faster in MT.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. d_brennen

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jan 30, 2009

    Posts: 15,670

    Location: Aquilonem Londinensi

    If we get 5GHz boost with 7nm It'll be EPYC :p
     
  4. Praz94

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 28, 2018

    Posts: 1,289

    Location: London

    Yep, but I would have assumed that the X chips would have been boosted better. But for now at least, Intel is doing something better

    Yeah they are very similar, but the fact this is only a Ryzen 5 up against an i7 speaks volumes. Zen2 will take this to another level, I have a gut feeling
     
  5. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,015

    Apparently another 10 to 15% or so IPC...that would put AMD's IPC ahead of Intel for the first time in about 15 years?
     
  6. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,015

    Oh dear, pls stop with these puns :o
     
  7. LePhuronn

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 26, 2010

    Posts: 4,992

    Location: Stoke-on-Trent

    Oh I get it, I just wasn't thinking broadly enough. One track mind today was just going "golden chips = EPYC pool" without factoring in a high clocker isn't needed for a server part.
     
  8. spoffle

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jul 4, 2012

    Posts: 16,509

    You're digging yourself deeper again. You don't take criticism well at all, do you?
     
  9. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,015

    Pretty much, the best chips are not about clock speed, they have a power budget and the best will simply fall into that power budget most efficiently, all the other chips it doesn't matter so much, they can be clocked high on a much higher power budget, tho the best of the mainstream will still be taken from higher quality stock, maybe not the top 20% but the top 20 to 30%.
     
  10. LePhuronn

    Mobster

    Joined: Sep 26, 2010

    Posts: 4,992

    Location: Stoke-on-Trent

    Stating previously I'd totally brain-farted and then making self-deprecating jokes about the egg on my face totally shows I can't take criticism :rolleyes:

    I have a few minutes free at work, I can Photoshop you up a "LePhuronn gone fkd up" badge if it'll make you feel a bit more superior? Because I'm nice like that.
     
  11. DragonQ

    Soldato

    Joined: Jun 13, 2009

    Posts: 6,787

    It should be noted that this shows Cinebench IPC, not IPC in a general sense (which is almost impossible to calculate these days).

    I'm still not sure about the whole binning situatio. I mean sure, server chips don't need to clock super high, they just need to remain energy efficient. However, we already know the top 5% bins become Threadripper chips so I am not convinced the cheaper desktop chips will boost to 5.1 GHz.
     
  12. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,015

    You're right, tho i do think its a pretty accurate overall representation, there is a video about somewhere, in it someone did a very detailed IPC comparison on all aspects of Ryzen + vs Skylake (Same as Coffeelake) and found they are pretty much identical across the board, but he also concluded Ryzen's IPC is heavily bottlenecked by a weak front end, i think we knew that, its why it responds so well to fast memory.

    I would say Gaming is where its really all over the place, sometimes lower than Coffeelake IPC sometimes higher, depending on the game, for example Arma III in a single patch went from being typically AMD slow to getting a huge boost in performance equalling that of Coffeelake.
    The thing is Arma III had never seen Ryzen, which is why it was patched.

    I'll try and find the video, no promises its been a few months since i last knew where it was.

    8400 boosts to 4Ghz.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,015

    Found it, its worth watching...

     
  14. iakhtar

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 29, 2009

    Posts: 145

    Alot of people are doubting high clockspeeds from the next chip, if it were still fabbed at GF then I'd agree, they have always been a let down. You could argue that their 14/12nm process had more in common with Intels 22nm than the current one. TSMC however, is a full node ahead of Intel, for the first time ever allowing AMD to leapfrog Intel hopefully.
     
  15. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,015

    GF's 14/12nm (Same thing) was designed for low power mobile chip's Tablets / Phones, 65 Watts for an 8 core 16 thread X86 CPU with the same IPC as Coffeelake, actually much more internal, just bottlenecked, that's impressive, unfortunately because the process was tuned for mobile getting them near 4Ghz required a lot of volts on the first 14nm iteration and not much past 4Ghz on the refined 12nm iteration.

    TSMC's 7nm is more a proper high speed proccess, i still think only about 4.7Ghz on all cores but IMO with a small bump in IPC that's enough.
     
  16. Minstadave

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 8, 2004

    Posts: 26,396

    Location: Rutland

    Hype train!
     
  17. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 34,015

    By what measure? i know Intel have given us almost nothing from generation to generation in the past few years but it must be clear by now AMD are not Intel.
    10% higher Mhz is hardly "Hype train" nor is a small bump in IPC, Zen to Zen+ was just a small tweak and it achieved both those things, i'm simply saying Zen 2 will achieve from Zen+ what it did from Zen, perhaps slightly more than that.
     
  18. HeX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 20, 2004

    Posts: 11,887

    Location: Huddersfield, UK

    Should be more. Zen to Zen+ the entire improvement was down to the move from 14nm to 12nm process.

    Zen2 is the 'tick' in old Intel terms, it's the proper architecture update, while at the same time having the 'tock' move to 7nm... it should give some real gains compared to current Zen+.
     
  19. Journey

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,806

    Location: West Midlands

    A lot of people also don't realise that AMD's current CPU's boost up to 4.4GHz out of the box, namely the Threadripper 2950X, which is the highest speed of any of the desktop or HEDT parts in the current generation using Zen+. Going to 7nm an adding 15% extra (660MHz) can't be that hard for a node shrink done correctly, taking it to 5GHz+ at least on a few cores. :)
     
  20. EsaT

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Jun 6, 2008

    Posts: 8,181

    Location: Finland

    Ryzen's current clocks aren't about AMD limiting them.
    It's about AMD having been stuck with second rate GlobalFoundries' manufacturing node.
    Which GloFo, after failing in their own R&D, actually had to buy/license from Samsung, who originally developed it for low clocks/power mobile SOCs.
    Hence original expectations for first Ryzen iteration were pretty much for 3,5GHz clock speed.
    Compared to that achieved clocks were actually good.

    So Zen1 was basically betrayed by behind lagging manufacturing node.
    Made on node clocking as high as Intel's tech, Intel would have been hard pressed to have lead in any benchmark.