• 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 ***

DragonQ said:
But as Mr Potato said, that wasn't the case with Ryzen 1 or 2. The problem is Ryzen overclocking has so far been voltage limited rather than temperature limited. If it was temperature limited, one could argue that fewer cores = less heat = more headroom, but the voltage wall is the real problem. Zen 2 might change that but we don't know yet.
Click to expand...

Zen/+ had a single large die, are you getting CCX's and chiplets confused. 7nm is more dense so the more active cores in the same area = more heat in that smaller surface area.
 
Last edited:
Orange Nexus said:
Most probably your 1st gen holding back your ram. My Ripjaw V 3200 CL16 won't run DOCP on 1st gen but it can on my 2nd gen using same motherboard. It can even oc to 3466 CL16.
Click to expand...

My current cpu was just a placeholder with the intention of upgrading to either a 2600 or gen 3 and hopefully I should be able to get at least 3200 with a newer chip. I was just pointing out that recommending that ram kit as being 'probably' B die is overly optimistic.
 
robfosters said:
So which of these new chips will be the best value sweet spot for gaming iyo?
Click to expand...

I think that really depends on the rest of your setup and how long you expect to keep it.

If you have a middle range GPU and game at greater than 1080p it’s likely any of the processors from 3600 up would result in similar performance so the cheapest one would be best value.

Slightly longer term I think you want to have at least 8 cores to have parity with the new consoles as games will start to be coded to make the most of them and less than 8 might leave you short.

So I would personally say for the medium term, unless you have a higher end GPU or game at 1080p or less with high frame rate targets the 3800 is probably going to be the best value buy for gaming in my personal opinion.

We will have to wait and see how the benchmarks come out though before drawing any firm conclusions.
 
Just a thought. Can the CPUs decide which are the fastest cores and prioritise those cores when the CPU load uses less than the maximum cores available? i.e 12C part runs an 8C workload, the CPU pushes the work to the fastest 8 cores leaving the weakest 4 cores idle
 
humbug said:
3600/X 6 core 12 thread £200 / £250 = to 8700K
3700X/3800X 8 core 16 thread £330 / £400 = to 9900K (there abouts)
Click to expand...
A couple of queries, will all these CPU’s cope easily with multitrack recording and audio editing? You know like Ableton and stuff, including heavy soft synth use.

How much would you expect a 3600X/X570/16GB bundle to come to? About £500?
 
Zeeflyboy said:
I think that really depends on the rest of your setup and how long you expect to keep it.

If you have a middle range GPU and game at greater than 1080p it’s likely any of the processors from 3600 up would result in similar performance so the cheapest one would be best value.

Slightly longer term I think you want to have at least 8 cores to have parity with the new consoles as games will start to be coded to make the most of them and less than 8 might leave you short.

So I would personally say for the medium term, unless you have a higher end GPU or game at 1080p or less with high frame rate targets the 3800 is probably going to be the best value buy for gaming in my personal opinion.

We will have to wait and see how the benchmarks come out though before drawing any firm conclusions.
Click to expand...
I currently have a 970, but I want to game at 1440p (4K where possible) and am waiting for the new AMD cards.

I’m not a big overclocker at all, I don’t feel comfortable with it. I’d rather have a CPU thats fast enough at stock rather than risk messing about with an expensive component, just to get another 5fps or so, that I’d barely notice, if at all.
 
Potatowithearsontheside said:
I don't buy the logic of a 12c dual chiplet overclocking higher than an 8c single chiplet due to only 6cbeing active per chiplet. If that were the case then it should hold true for 6c Zen 2 and 4/6c Zen/Zen+.
Click to expand...
DragonQ said:
But as Mr Potato said, that wasn't the case with Ryzen 1 or 2.
Click to expand...
Ryzen1/2 are monolithic CPUs.
With six core SKUs being lower in model line up than eight cores, with those eight core models getting better silicon.
And quad cores having the worst silicon.
With problems in getting good clocks out from that originally mobile phone CPU node, AMD could never afford to waste better dies as cheaper SKUs.

Chiplet/MCM design is lot different.
They can literally test dies and measure which cores clock best (already done in current Ryzens) and simply disable worst cores.
High clocking chiplet with one core faulty/bad can be easily used in 12 core Ryzens for getting the best money from it.
3600-models are vulnerable to competition and price pressure from Intel, 3900X lot less.

In case of single chiplet 8 core CPU every core on that chiplet needs to be good.
And number of such dies per wafer is certainly lot smaller.
While those good fully functional chiplets are needed also for EPYCs, which is going to be that "golden eggs laying goose" product for AMD.
Plus possible later release 16 core Ryzen.

Besides silicon quality thermal density is another.
Higher temperature causes already itself higher power consumption, while also likely needing little more volts.

There are simply many variables in it.
But what is certain is AMD trying to get most income per produced silicon.
 
Troezar said:
Just a thought. Can the CPUs decide which are the fastest cores and prioritise those cores when the CPU load uses less than the maximum cores available? i.e 12C part runs an 8C workload, the CPU pushes the work to the fastest 8 cores leaving the weakest 4 cores idle
Click to expand...
Finding out quality of cores is already part of testing and binning for Ryzen 2xxx.
In fact Ryzen Master marks the best per CCX/CPU and the second best core per CCX.
https://download.amd.com/documents/ryzen-master-1.5-quick-reference-guide.pdf

I'm sure CPU uses same data also internally.
 
robfosters said:
A couple of queries, will all these CPU’s cope easily with multitrack recording and audio editing? You know like Ableton and stuff, including heavy soft synth use.

How much would you expect a 3600X/X570/16GB bundle to come to? About £500?
Click to expand...

I don't anything about any of that TBH, but the IPC is high so unless there is something about the software that oesn't like the CPU's it should perform the same as Intel equivalents.

3600X £250 + £150 X570 + £90 16GB DDR4 = around £500
 
There is some absolute drivel in this thread.. £700+ for a competitive AMD System lol....

Just priced up a 2600x, MSI Carbon Pro B450 and 16GB of G-SKill FlareX 3200mhz C14 Ram £433 for the lot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom