• 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 ***

Soldato
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Posts
2,658
I am genuinely dissapointed that while yes, single core performance has improved with Zen2. We have not seen movement in each product tier. We've now gone from a 14nm low power node to a 7nm performance node and the 3600 will still have the same core count as the 3600. We've only seen an increase in maximum cores at the highest end with the introduction of new SKU's.

I was at first but after the announcement I thought about it, Why should they shift the stack ?
Intels i9 chip is an 8 core, why would AMD need to drop a 12 core product into the R7 tier, they are releasing an 8 core chip with a significant improvement over the last gen.


I am also bewildered that both the 37** and 38** are 8 core chips (and they have very far apart TDP's). This means at the 8 core tier, they'll be 4 skus (likely) with the 3700,3700x,3800 and 3800x

To me that does not seem to have been a likely plan, as what will the difference between for instance the 3700x and the 3800 be. In my opinion there must be late stage issues in the manufacturing process for that to have happened because I fail to see why AMD's plan all along would have been to have 4 skus at the 8 core tier.

What do you all think? (again sorry if this has already been talked about its hard to keep up!)

I can't see them having 4 SKUs, most likely 3, what would a 3800 offer over a 3700x which is already really close in clock speed to the 3800x.


I think the reason the 3800x is high tdp and price is that they have left overclocking headroom on this chip, otherwise it makes no sense to me to release 2 chips with only a 100mhz clock speed difference.
It means that AMD will start to overclock again, whereas had they released it 2-400mhz higher with no overclocking headroom its just another thing people can use to throw at AMD as to why Intel are better, I think they have basicly "attacked" Intel from every angle here in order to truly beat them.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Apr 2012
Posts
4,927
Location
Bristol
AdoredTv are leaks - they are just assumed info - leeks. I watched Adored Tv and yeah we all knew clocks were too high, prices too low so a bowl of salt to be taken. Sorry you are So dissapointed about the leeks. As for the product stack their are reasons for the clock speed / TDP and I am sure that when the real info is revealed that you will understand.
'late stage issues in the manufacturing process' I don't think so. Early days on a new node of course but not the reasons for segmantation in product stack.
IMHO this leaves plenty of room to improve the chip. That is something that am sure that you will enjoy.

It's huge disparity between 2 8 core chips with very similar speeds. And assuming we get an x and non x chip of both classes then what's the reason for having 4 skus with equal core counts and only slightly diverting clock speeds. Do you think that was the original plan or a late stage change made by amd.

Why would he explain anything? Leak is a leak, not confirmation what is gonna happen, just unconfirmed information that might happen or not. Makes me laugh when people watch leaks about iphones and stuff, while they know it can be nonsense, they are fine with this when watching those videos or reading it. PC community though, think leak is passing facts and truths lol.

How do you know it wasn't true when he actually made the video? Some reports say Jensen from nvidia decided on prices RTX cards hours before press conference. Things change for various reasons, it doesn't mean his source wasn't right back then, maaaany months ago.

Sure prices can change but you can't change the physical chips that late because they'll already be in production. And regarding the leaks after one of his videos (I don't rememberv which) even Lisa Su tweeted about his video, if he was so wildly off course why would they even comment.

well the thing with leaks and any info before the things are released and tested by 3rd parties is they are all to be taken with a truck load of salt.

as for the difference between the 6 cvore and 8 cores for the money id assume its better binned and POTENTIAL better overclocking depending how the silicon lottery pays out.

even with gamers nexus claiming overclockers are nearly hitting 6ghz which maybe slightly more accurate than previous leaks, the problem is its close to 6ghz but not how close, 10, 100 200 300 who knows.

just have to see where we are come release, personally im expecting that magical 5ghz to happen for the majority BUT i dont think it will be as easy as some think, many hours tinkering with bios settings as well as having to have a 500 series motherboard to really stretch the legs of the 3000 series cpu's.

I'm not so much talking about the difference between the 6 and 8 core parts. I'm talking about why will there be so many skus for the 8 core part and why haven't we seen a change in tier for tier products (ie 1600 vs 3600) after 3 manufacturing nodes
 

GAC

GAC

Soldato
Joined
11 Dec 2004
Posts
4,688
It's huge disparity between 2 8 core chips with very similar speeds. And assuming we get an x and non x chip of both classes then what's the reason for having 4 skus with equal core counts and only slightly diverting clock speeds. Do you think that was the original plan or a late stage change made by amd.

Sure prices can change but you can't change the physical chips that late because they'll already be in production. And regarding the leaks after one of his videos (I don't rememberv which) even Lisa Su tweeted about his video, if he was so wildly off course why would they even comment.

I'm not so much talking about the difference between the 6 and 8 core parts. I'm talking about why will there be so many skus for the 8 core part and why haven't we seen a change in tier for tier products (ie 1600 vs 3600) after 3 manufacturing nodes

maybe i should have been a bit more clear i didnt mean the difference between 6 and 8 but more the two sku's at each level. the more expensive one will be better binned and aimed at overclocking, also everyone points out the boost but the base clock on the 8 cores is 300mhz higher off the bat.

will it be worth $70 difference at the end of the day, we shall have to wait for the 3rd party reviews and a couple of weeks of people owning them to see what sort of difference there really is.
 
Associate
Joined
10 Jan 2014
Posts
1,360
Phisical chips haven't changed, they are still 8 core chiplets, still 16, 12, 8, 6 core cpus. speeds were adjusted for some time probably and not finalised in January. And many times people, companies mentioned in the leaks do something just to troll. She might' ve done it for fun or to be more human to community :p
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Apr 2012
Posts
4,927
Location
Bristol
I was at first but after the announcement I thought about it, Why should they shift the stack ?
Intels i9 chip is an 8 core, why would AMD need to drop a 12 core product into the R7 tier, they are releasing an 8 core chip with a significant improvement over the last gen.




I can't see them having 4 SKUs, most likely 3, what would a 3800 offer over a 3700x which is already really close in clock speed to the 3800x.


I think the reason the 3800x is high tdp and price is that they have left overclocking headroom on this chip, otherwise it makes no sense to me to release 2 chips with only a 100mhz clock speed difference.
It means that AMD will start to overclock again, whereas had they released it 2-400mhz higher with no overclocking headroom its just another thing people can use to throw at AMD as to why Intel are better, I think they have basicly "attacked" Intel from every angle here in order to truly beat them.

I've been thinking the same regarding the 8 core skus, we may end up with a 3700, 3700x and 3800x, but it just seems odd compared to previous products. At least when they did that in 1st gen ryzen the 1800 was released a fair bit before the 1700 and was the top end sku of the entire line. Why would they not have the 3800x be the 3700x unless the 7nm node has clock speed or yield problems and its difficult to reliably achieve that speed.

They could then drop in the 12 core part as the 3800x with the 16 reserved for the 39**.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Posts
2,658
I've been thinking the same regarding the 8 core skus, we may end up with a 3700, 3700x and 3800x, but it just seems odd compared to previous products. At least when they did that in 1st gen ryzen the 1800 was released a fair bit before the 1700 and was the top end sku of the entire line. Why would they not have the 3800x be the 3700x unless the 7nm node has clock speed or yield problems and its difficult to reliably achieve that speed.

They could then drop in the 12 core part as the 3800x with the 16 reserved for the 39**.

They could have and we all had our fingers crossed, but for Intell 9900k (or ks) money you can have a 12 core part.
for 9700k money you can have a 9900k beater, and I imagine AMD prices will drop as they usually do, look at the price of a 2700x currently as an example.

I think Q4 this year will be a good time to upgrade.

Also thinking about storage, with PCIE 4 drives announced I imagine the Samsung 970s, WD Blacks etc aren't goig to hold their price, unless this new storage tech also commands an insane price because "new tech"
 
Permabanned
Joined
28 Nov 2009
Posts
2,582
Location
İzmir
^ Yeah, Q4 is when I'll be upgrading my 3570K, GTX 1070, 8GB of DDR3, and 1200p 60Hz.

If either of the 3700X or 3800X didn't exist, I'd likely pre-order the other one. But as it stands, I'll have to hold off and see reviews for how much/little they differ. That might result in me not being able to get one at a decent price till Xmas, but I've been with most of this setup for ages so I can wait longer...

Edit: The 1070 was second-hand from a friend, otherwise I would've stuck with my R9 290 / went with a 1060 or something :p
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
21 Apr 2012
Posts
4,927
Location
Bristol
I already think current Intel prices are stupid so im not fond of amd getting close to them, even with improved performance :p But that could just be because I spent £160 on my last cpu
 

ljt

ljt

Soldato
Joined
28 Dec 2002
Posts
4,540
Location
West Midlands, UK
I already think current Intel prices are stupid so im not fond of amd getting close to them, even with improved performance :p But that could just be because I spent £160 on my last cpu

You could spend about the same again with a Ryzen 3600 for $199, and it will be a significant upgrade (2 extra cores and 8 extra threads) it's only our crappy £/$ that will make it more expensive, as normally $199 would equate to about £150 before the brexit referendum.
 
Associate
Joined
30 Jan 2012
Posts
2,483
Location
Stoke On Trent
Expensive B die ram is a marketing con. Gains are so marginal. And we don't even know if it will be best with zen2.

Ram is cheap as chips now. Don't be suckered into buying ram you don't need.

Have to disagree with you here..

I had a perfectly good Corsair Dominator Platinum 3200Mhz DDR4 (16-18-18-36) kit that just wouldnt do over 2933Mhz on my 2700X.

Bought the 3200Mhz Team Group 8 Pack kit.. slapped it in and it runs sweet asf at stock, no issues.
With the Memory Try It option on my MSI Carbon X470 i can select 3600Mhz CL18 profile, boot into Windows and pass Cinebench and other benchmarks. Only reason i keep it at stock is that i get better results with the lower CL14 timings.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,380
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
So I've mentioned this before, and while I am trying to keep up with the thread, geese the number of pages :p

I was following the Adored leaks quite a lot, so I am very dissapointed with his leaks and info vs what we go. So I'll be waiting to see his answer before I trust him too much anymore. When his leaks came out I believed the SKU's in terms of core count and power but I was very hesitant over the prices and clock speeds.

I am genuinely dissapointed that while yes, single core performance has improved with Zen2. We have not seen movement in each product tier. We've now gone from a 14nm low power node to a 7nm performance node and the 3600 will still have the same core count as the 3600. We've only seen an increase in maximum cores at the highest end with the introduction of new SKU's.

I am also bewildered that both the 37** and 38** are 8 core chips (and they have very far apart TDP's). This means at the 8 core tier, they'll be 4 skus (likely) with the 3700,3700x,3800 and 3800x

To me that does not seem to have been a likely plan, as what will the difference between for instance the 3700x and the 3800 be. In my opinion there must be late stage issues in the manufacturing process for that to have happened because I fail to see why AMD's plan all along would have been to have 4 skus at the 8 core tier.

What do you all think? (again sorry if this has already been talked about its hard to keep up!)

He actually got it pretty much bang on, AMD moved the naming and pricing around a bit, other than that everything is the same.

6nwRGBU.jpg.png
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2009
Posts
13,252
Location
Under the hot sun.
Wondering, if next year we won't have major upgrade on motherboard chipsets. Otherwise the Aqua is too good to miss for the long term.
I believe this Ryzen 3000 series going to be the new Intel 2000. It would take half a decade to beat them by a good margin
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Posts
2,658
He actually got it pretty much bang on, AMD moved the naming and pricing around a bit, other than that everything is the same.
Thats funny.All he really got right was the clocks and core counts,
he didn't get any pricing right, nor where any of the SKUs were going to sit in the line-up.

Can't really say he got them almost right at all.
 
Soldato
Joined
16 Sep 2018
Posts
12,637
maybe i should have been a bit more clear i didnt mean the difference between 6 and 8 but more the two sku's at each level. the more expensive one will be better binned and aimed at overclocking, also everyone points out the boost but the base clock on the 8 cores is 300mhz higher off the bat.

At a guess the two different SKU's at each core count could be down to the SKU's using either one or two chiplets, 8 cores across two chiplets (à la 3700X) would likely have higher latency between cores, 8 cores all within the same chiplet would result in lower latency (à la 3800X), i think it may also align with the differences in TDP as a concentration of cores in one area would be more demanding on any thermal solution.

Didn't Lisa Su say something about the 3800x being the processor people would want for gaming? If so maybe she was hinting that it's the fastest single chiplet designed CPU so performs better in gaming that's typical rather latency sensitive.
 

GAC

GAC

Soldato
Joined
11 Dec 2004
Posts
4,688
At a guess the two different SKU's at each core count could be down to the SKU's using either one or two chiplets, 8 cores across two chiplets (à la 3700X) would likely have higher latency between cores, 8 cores all within the same chiplet would result in lower latency (à la 3800X), i think it may also align with the differences in TDP as a concentration of cores in one area would be more demanding on any thermal solution.

Didn't Lisa Su say something about the 3800x being the processor people would want for gaming? If so maybe she was hinting that it's the fastest single chiplet designed CPU so performs better in gaming that's typical rather latency sensitive.

could be a way for them to use up failed chiplets that cant run above 4 cores. who knows, for now just gotta sit and wait 6 weeks or so :p
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,380
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
Thats funny.All he really got right was the clocks and core counts,
he didn't get any pricing right, nor where any of the SKUs were going to sit in the line-up.

Can't really say he got them almost right at all.

Only?

So he gets clock speeds, core counts and TDP's right, but because the naming schemes have moved around he's demonstrably wrong?

You're strawmaning it.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Posts
2,658
Only?

So he gets clock speeds, core counts and TDP's right, but because the naming schemes have moved around he's demonstrably wrong?

You're strawmaning it.
How the hell is it strawmanning ? do you even know what that means ?

I didnt say he didn't get anything right, I was just refuting the fact you said he was pretty much spot on, he wasn't at all he was half right, its clutching at straws to say he was " pretty much bang on"

Wether he knew the real pricing or ot, or AMD changed it after his leak I don't know, but it all felt a bit too good to be true and I can't help but think thsi was purposely done to hype things up for views/clicks whatever
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,041
Location
West Midlands
Regardless if the leaks were right, nearly right, or completely wrong. The 3xxx CPU line-up looks good, and AMD have left plenty of room to move up or down depending on how the competition reacts. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom