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

[easyrider]

The slides indicate that AMD beats its plan. If they plan 10-15% IPC, it may turn in reality more. 10% IPC is not that much for such a full die shrink.
Also, it is never great to play the catch up game with Intel - Intel hasn't even moved yet to 10nm and when it happens, guess what - the performance crown will again be theirs and people like @easyrider will buy the i9-9900K replacement.
AMD needs the absolute performance crown.

I've been overclocking for years, I've had the 9900k installed for a day...My goal is to clock it...had I bought Ryzen 2700x...I would have already been bored as its basically a maxed out chip.

Even at 4.7ghz stock its trouncing 2700x

Regardless of what you think about INTEL the 9900k is a great chip

Looking forward to trouncing Ryzen 3000 with a 6 month old chip when its released

 

[AMDPower]

Looking forward to trouncing Ryzen 3000 with a 6 month old chip when its released

you will eat these words in 6 months time if AMD crushes Intel?

 

[humbug]

I've been overclocking for years, I've had the 9900k installed for a day...My goal is to clock it...had I bought Ryzen 2700x...I would have already been bored as its basically a maxed out chip.

Even at 4.7ghz stock its trouncing 2700x

Regardless of what you think about INTEL the 9900k is a great chip

Looking forward to trouncing Ryzen 3000 with a 6 month old chip when its released

I'm glad you're happy with your 9900K, it is a very good chip, better than the 2700X, no doubting that, its at a cost tho and lets be honest hyperbolic language and posturing is never helpful.

Looking forward to trouncing Ryzen 3000 with a 6 month old chip when its released

A few days ago you were a pretty grounded individual considering a 2700X, you've had the Intel chip for 5 minutes and already you're using the language of a raging fanboy, can we not just be happy with the choices we made instead feeling this insane need to defend the brand like a rabid lunatic?

 

[DragonQ]

The slides indicate that AMD beats its plan. If they plan 10-15% IPC, it may turn in reality more. 10% IPC is not that much for such a full die shrink.

What makes you say that? I can't remember the last time a die shrink netted anything more than 3-5% IPC at best.

 

[easyrider]

I'm glad you're happy with your 9900K, it is a very good chip, better than the 2700X, no doubting that, its at a cost tho and lets be honest hyperbolic language and posturing is never helpful.

A few days ago you were a pretty grounded individual considering a 2700X, you've had the Intel chip for 5 minutes and already you're using the language of a raging fanboy, can we not just be happy with the choices we made instead feeling this insane need to defend the brand like a rabid lunatic?

Not defending anything...I've ran some benchies and I can declare the 9900k is a stonker!

The 2700x is a great chip but I'm genuinely glad I spent £200 more on the 9900k, Why does my happiness need to be construe as being a fanboi?

Your post makes no sense....

 

[easyrider]

you will eat these words in 6 months time if AMD crushes Intel?

If that happens I'll buy AMD

 

[humbug]

What makes you say that? I can't remember the last time a die shrink netted anything more than 3-5% IPC at best.

Pretty much this. there are also some architectural improvements but again this is not a shift in architecture.....

 

[4K8KW10]

What makes you say that? I can't remember the last time a die shrink netted anything more than 3-5% IPC at best.

Because you take intel's lack of progresses to attach it on AMD.

 

[easyrider]

Because you take intel's lack of progresses to attach it on AMD.

Don't blame intel for its lack of ticks and tocks...Fact is AMD had nothing then Ryzen 2700X hits at a great price...Then intel respond with a faster chip and not just a bit faster chip a lot faster chip few months later...

Its good news for everyone. If only AMD would get their **** together in the GFX card space to take on Nvidia.

I spent £499 on a 9900k and Nvidia are charging £1200 for a 2080ti....35% faster than a 1080ti....Makes my 9900k seem like peanuts cost wise considering its the brain of my PC.

 

[humbug]

@easyrider don't underestimate Ryzen.

This was one of my reason for upgrading from a 4.6Ghz 4690K, see the load on the cores and the frame rates, i'll put up a screenshot later of the same area, the frame rates even at 1440P vs that 1080P are double, literally twice as high.

These things are not Bulldozer they are a million miles from that.

 

[4K8KW10]

Don't blame intel for its lack of ticks and tocks...

intel had tick-tocks 32nm to 22nm to 14nm to 10nm, when AMD moved from 32nm/28nm to 14/12nm.

 

[easyrider]

@easyrider don't underestimate Ryzen.

This was one of my reason for upgrading from a 4.6Ghz 4690K, see the load on the cores and the frame rates, i'll put up a screenshot later of the same area, the frame rates even at 1440P vs that 1080P are double, literally twice as high.

These things are not Bulldozer they are a million miles from that.

I know...I know how fast Ryzen is...I have ran some benchies on my 9900k and compared it to 2700x...

 

[easyrider]

intel had tick-tocks 32nm to 22nm to 14nm to 10nm, when AMD moved from 32nm/28nm to 14/12nm.

And?

I was Rocking a Opteron 170 as it was faster than intels offering at the time.Does that mean I need to stay with AMD if a faster Intel chip hits?

NOPE

Then AMD in the consumer sector went stagnant. They offered Value but not performance....I mean whats not to get here?

 

[4K8KW10]

And?

That you don't understand. The guy claimed 3-5% IPC is what historically see. I said with Intel because they sleep. You said they lacked new process nodes which is false. Period.

 

[humbug]

@easyrider don't underestimate Ryzen.

This was one of my reason for upgrading from a 4.6Ghz 4690K, see the load on the cores and the frame rates, i'll put up a screenshot later of the same area, the frame rates even at 1440P vs that 1080P are double, literally twice as high.

These things are not Bulldozer they are a million miles from that.

Even at 3.85Ghz vs 4.6Ghz this is how much faster Ryzen is, at least in games that will make full use of them. 34 FPS vs 85.

PS: if you want to know how future games will treat CPU's, you're looking at a future game.

 

[DragonQ]

Because you take intel's lack of progresses to attach it on AMD.

You're thinking backwards. There is evidence that die shrinks don't yield noticeable improvements in IPC, over the last 10-15 years anyway. Your answer is "but that evidence doesn't count because it's a different company", but you have no evidence showing the contrary. Evidence from Intel's tick-tock model is the best we have because AMD didn't do any straight die shrinks during that period, AFAIK.

There will be IPC improvements from architectural advances for sure, but the die shrink itself isn't going to produce a large chunk of that. It'll allow them to up the cache sizes though, which will certainly help.

 

[easyrider]

That you don't understand. The guy claimed 3-5% IPC is what historically see. I said with Intel because they sleep.

Intel only slept due to no competition....Its basic economics and how drip fed tech works.

You said they lacked new process nodes which is false. Period.

No I didn't.

 

[easyrider]

Even at 3.85Ghz vs 4.6Ghz this is how much faster Ryzen is, at least in games that will make full use of them. 34 FPS vs 85.

PS: if you want to know how future games will treat CPU's, you're looking at a future game.

And faster on 9900k? Your point?

 

[Pants]

@easyrider I imagine it's around games starting to demand more and more threads. We all know 9900 is faster, and you pay for the privilege.

 

[Scougar]

I only know that when these come out, it will be upgrade time. Will hopefully going for the highest clocked most core chip I can afford. Hopefully at least the 12core/4.5ghz if that pans out to be reality.

I may even hand off my current system to my daughter so she can play so decent games.