• 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 ***

GAC

GAC

Soldato
Joined
11 Dec 2004
Posts
4,688
This is conjecture, but I'm assuming some £100 boards will clock better than some £500 boards but also that the differences will be marginal either way. Even the cheap X570 boards will have plenty of headroom on power and voltage regulation.

yeah id imagine all x570's should clock within a couple of mhz of each other and some of the 550's as well. the expensive ones will be more for the flashy light bs and the xtra features and better cooling if you're going to load up loads of nvme storage.

il keep saying it though until them reviews come who knows :p

on the price side though id imagine a big cost will be the pcie 4 stuff being new and all is the main extra cost of it as well as the extra pcb layers not sure on what costs could be but as we all know very well the early adopter tax includes r and d of the boards wouldnt surprise me when we get a 6 series of boards in a year or so if they come in slightly cheaper as they would just be a slight tweak of the 5 series.

and no im not saying its fair/nice but such is tech and has been since the 1980's :p
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Dec 2015
Posts
18,512
B550 will eat up sales nicely !

non ITX had 4-5 VRM count, non integrated hi and low side. Have a feeling this will still stay the same ! but would expect 6/8+2 phase set up - better VRM cooling as you've got to plan for someone slapping in a 12 core or attempting 16 cores ...
would be nice though if they did use some Integrated units though :D

Guessing they would strip back M.2 support , least not dual Raid or eats into the purpose of x570

Yeah the higher end X570s are using 6 layer PCB to cope with signal degradation on PCIE4.0.

The lower end ones are using 4 layer PCB.

6 on x570 boards and 8 on ITX and flagship boards . havent seen any running 4 layer for x570?
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Posts
2,702
Do the B series boards support SLI normally ?

my requirements are SLI support, overclocking ability, and 2 x M.2 slots (but not running RAID)

SLI isn't a deal breaker either tbh as I currently have a single card, but may upgrade to SLI further down the line.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
I can almost garuntee you wont. selling your GPU and getting a newer single card is always the best option. You wont go SLI these days.

The only people who should go SLI are those who have infinite money and are already rocking the highest GPU possible.

lol CrossFire is millions times more interesting to play with than a single videocard.
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
fixed that for you :p

"CONCLUSIONS:

I've frequently been a defender of crossfire, as my previous experiences with it have been overwhelmingly good. This time ... they weren't as good. In the past I've needed to expend almost no effort to get them working, and a substantial majority of the games I tried worked effortlessly, with a small group I'd need to tweak. Now that all updates and revisits are done, I reached success with no or minimal configuration effort on 68% of games (73% if you include benches) with an average of just over 50% increase in frame rate. That's a smidge less than I expect from xf, and I had to do a little more profile configuration to get there than I had expected as well - but still a good result, IMO.

Anyway, so I guess the big conclusion here is that there's still quite a bit to gain from crossfire, but if this is consistent with the average, it looks like today you can expect about 68% of games to work easy and immediate, nearing 75% with minimal effort.

IMO it's still better than most people on this sub will claim, but siglhtly less so than before. And seems to be trending downward, though some of the newer titles like GOW4 and BF1 - and FC5 if the small increase in worst frametimes is OK - show there's still quite a bit of support among new titles."
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/8ylz2i/vega_64_crossfire_scaling_testing_in_24_games_5/
 
Associate
Joined
16 Jan 2010
Posts
1,423
Location
Earth
I was all set to upgrade but I can't see any compelling reason to ditch my 5960X at 4.5ghz core 4.25Ghz cache for anything on offer now or in the foreseeable future. I use my PC pretty much only for gaming and entertainment
at 4K 60Hz. Even at 1080 the performance improvement going to a 9900K or 8700K at 5Ghz looks pretty meh.. Up to 20% in some games which usually equates to about 20fps when the average fps is over 100fps so no difference
to my experience.

From game benchmarks I've seen my 5960X still seems 5-15% ahead of the 2700x which says a lot about how little AMD still offer in games. At 4K I suspect I'd notice very little difference for the £1000 platform upgrade
which isn't something I expected when I bought my system in 2015. The incremental gains over the past five years mean the old workhorse is still going much stronger than I anticipated and I'm a bit miffed as I wanted something new
and shiny to tinker with. Hopefully now competition is back we'll see faster progress but we're nearing the limits of silicon.
Maybe there is a 5Ghz AMD monster hiding somewhere waiting to reveal itself and maybe that could swing things especially if there are 12 cores boosting to that speed but on current evidence I'd probably be looking at 5-20% gains from an upgrade five years after my last build which is hardly going to blow the doors off my gaming experience.

I also need SLI support as I've 2 x 1080 TI and I can't replicate or improve on their performance without spending well over £1000. I know some games don't support it but for the most part SLI has worked very well for me. Seems between them Nvidia, Intel and AMD have managed to make none of their product lineup have any appeal to me due to excessive pricing or pitiful performance improvements.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Posts
2,702
I can almost garuntee you wont. selling your GPU and getting a newer single card is always the best option. You wont go SLI these days.

The only people who should go SLI are those who have infinite money and are already rocking the highest GPU possible.
well you say that but there is currently an EVGA 1080 for sale in MM for £260 (I already have one of these by the way)

its a very easy drop in upgrade down the line.

I do have a second PC running SLI GTX 680 that is currently parked up whilst I decide what to do with it, my experience with that one albeit limited was not a negative one.
Although I guess newer games aren't supporting SLI as well ?
 
Permabanned
Joined
2 Sep 2017
Posts
10,490
well you say that but there is currently an EVGA 1080 for sale in MM for £260 (I already have one of these by the way)

its a very easy drop in upgrade down the line.

I do have a second PC running SLI GTX 680 that is currently parked up whilst I decide what to do with it, my experience with that one albeit limited was not a negative one.
Although I guess newer games aren't supporting SLI as well ?

nvidia no longer supports SLI properly, as evident from the poor scaling or negative scaling results here https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_RTX_2080_Ti_SLI_RTX_2080_SLI_NVLink/4.html

AMD, on the other hand, still supports better.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Feb 2015
Posts
12,630
If you want to use Cinebench to gauge gaming performance you don't use the MT. You use Single core. Then some common sense applied to the CPU you're testing.

Cinebench is an FP heavy benchmark, which is what gaming is.

No coincidence that AMD Bulldozer had a crap Single Core cinebench result and then its gaming performance was crap too.

That is kind of ok for old DX9 games.

But its still the same flaw that it fully loads the cpu. As its an encoding benchmark.

On the subject of the new generation tho I see the new chipset now has a bigger premium meaning higher priced boards, I guess AMD want a bit of that profit intel has had in recent years.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Sep 2009
Posts
30,142
Location
Dormanstown.
That is kind of ok for old DX9 games.

But its still the same flaw that it fully loads the cpu. As its an encoding benchmark.

On the subject of the new generation tho I see the new chipset now has a bigger premium meaning higher priced boards, I guess AMD want a bit of that profit intel has had in recent years.

It doesn't matter that it fully loads a core.
You're getting the maximum Fpu performance per core measured that way.

Doing single core doesn't max the Cpu, only a core. Which you can then extrapolate to.

2500K will have better ST than an fx8350 and lower MT.
Games at the time would have seen the 2500K come out on top, which could have been extrapolated by using Cinebench.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom