-
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
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 1,212
I don't think they ever promised compatibility from every mobo to every chip, they just said they're supporting the AM4 socket 'til 2020. Highlighted more with the rumoured Zen2 16 core Ryzen 9 chips (3800X and 3850X?) and comments on here that they might require the new 500 series chipset, due to power demands (but some higher tier x470 mobos might be ok). Guess it's all conjecture at the moment and we will all have to wait a few months...
No, 7nm is a shrink. You have 12/14nm 8-core chips at 95W/105W and you will have 7nm 12/16-core chips at 95W/105W. Everything else is false.
While this is likely it's far from nailed on
If AMD wants to raise the frequencies with the better binned chips and more cores, better move a potential Ryzen 9 (what a unpleasant name) to the TR4 socket.
I am still a bit wierded out by the idea that there are going to be Ryzen Chiplet's for Epyc and TR with a 14nm IO chip but they are going with a regular setup for the desktop, that seems illogical to me. I wonder if they are going with a much smaller 7nm IO on Desktop but doing it at TSMC, that could be why Jim's source hasn't seen them.
Seems weird to me to break from the convention of one design from top to bottom but chiplets don't seem to make sense on desktop either
at least until active interposers are a common thing, which afaik Epyc 2 doesn't even have.At least everything AMD do is interesting
They said AM4 til 2020 IIRC, not that it'd be the only socket. AM4+ anyone?
It wouldn't surprise me. I've had a feeling they would pull a similar stunt ever since Zen launched last year, just call it a gut feeling.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the higher core count chips (maybe even the lower core count CPUs if we are unlucky) will be on AM4+ with the justification that well technically it is still AM4 as it support AM4 CPUs.
Binned chiplets would enable offering higher core counts with good clocks with higher yields than monolithic chip.Seems weird to me to break from the convention of one design from top to bottom but chiplets don't seem to make sense on desktop either
For desktop challenge of chiplets with separate I/O die is in keeping good memory latency.
Something which isn't that important in datacenters/servers, so even different "packaging" tech from Epyc wouldn't be that illogical.
Maybe we'll know more after CES.
Yes yes we've been over this dozens of times and we've all seen the videos. What's interesting is how AMD plan to deal with chiplet to chiplet to IO latency, that's a killer for lightly threaded workloads. I.E. what 99% of us are interested in.
Time will tell
They've made great leaps, undoubtedly. From where AMD were a few years ago, before Ryzen, their transformation is mighty impressive, and the impact it's had on the industry beyond significant. But if Gibbo is to be believed with his talk of the thousands (yes thousands) of 9900k CPUs OCUK sold, AMD still have a way to go against the brand power of Intel which is very much in the stratosphere. The mind truly boggles as to what value someone sees in a 9900k (when there is none), but I don't believe for one second all those purchasers have money to burn or are remotely aware they are being fleeced. Some do of course, and don't care, they just want the fastest CPU on the planet and aren't bothered how much it costs, but the majority have no idea and simply fall for the marketing hype. These are people who don't read forums or reviews, and that is who AMD need to ultimately reach. It's happening, but it's a slow process. They just need to keep doing what they're doing, and the tides will eventually change.
I certainly agree 2019/2020 will be great years for AMD though, and I don't think Intel will have an answer. Well, they will, but it will be an exorbitantly priced alternative that offers near the same performance.
They are all selling "thousands" at Mindfactory last month AMD sold 17 "thousand" to Intel's 7 "thousand" that is part of the marketing hype..... it is just hyperbole to make Intel look unstoppable.. if you look on 'Rain Forest' quite often the top 5 best sellers are all Ryzen CPU's, right now on the US site the Ryzen 2600 is #1 with the 8700K #2, the 2200G #3, The 9700K #4 and the 2700X #5.
It's actually the first time in a while since the whole top 5 was not drowned out by Ryzen CPU's.
It usually looks more like this...
None of this on its own is proof of anything but what evidence we do have shows AMD are outselling Intel in retail, and by quite some margin.
It's a shame CPU sales like that represent a drop in the ocean next to OEM sales. It's going to take continued performance pressure on Intel and charming OEMs with stability and scalability of supply to start really making some coin
Yes, the thing is tho to stop AMD gaining ground in the OEM space they have to keep giving OEM's incentives to stop them from using AMD's products.
That's exactly what they did, in some cases illegally 15 years ago but these days the climate Intel operate in is very very different, for a start its about 10? .... 20? times the size, giving away your products very cheaply or even free through the "Intel Inside" program is infinatly more expensive and difficult with a market as diverse and large as it is now.
Intel are very much still in that "Stop AMD from gaining any ground at all at any cost" and are still at it, but Intel WILL lose that war of attrition this time round, they simply cannot afford to keep it up forever, which they will have to as even without, or virtually 0 OEM support right now AMD are making healthy profits, Intel cannot stop that, they will simply wreck themselves in the process while AMD still enjoy literally Five Hundred Million to One Thousand Million $ a year profits.
Not this time Intel, not this time.
Who are these OEMs and why don't they buy computers in the same way like the customers of such retailers do?!
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
Only issue i see for oem market is AMD systems you need to **** around with to get the best from them, slop Intel still have the more plug and play Apple like system.
Rubbish......................and you know it. The likes a Dell, HP, Sony ect, never supply a system overclocked it's always at stock. That includes ram and all makes of ram work fine at the rated spd's on any AMD system.
Running any ram at XMP is an overclock on that ram and as i've already said, the likes of Dell don't sell it like that in the first place. They always use the cheapest basic spec compatible ram they grab hold of.
No, as others have said loads of times in the past...........................Intel are still paying OEM's not to sell AMD CPU's in there hardware.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2017
- Posts
- 1,762
Never said anything about overclocking, but after recently just building myself an AMD system, they are sensitive to RAM speeds, type, timings. If I'd have just built this and powered it on and done nothing, my RAM would be running at 2133mhz where it's significantly handicapped. As for Intel paying OEM's to not sell AMD, that was in the past? If that was happening now someone would know and it would be leaked. AMD's issue is that the general public have no idea who or what they are, but they know intel from those blokes in funny coloured space suits. Geeks on an enthusiast forum don't represent anything close to reality or the general public buying a PC.
Yeah your ram would be running at 2133mhz on intel as well if you don't turn xpm on, you do the same with AMD, there is no difference. As for ram issues on ryzen that is more to do with 1st gen ryzen, x470/B450 and the 2000 Zens run way better out the box.