• 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 ***

tamzzy said:
depends on what clockspeed your 3770k is, your gpu and gaming res of course.
but ryzen 3000 will definitely see an upgrade in comparison to the 3770k :)
Click to expand...

480 Nitro 8gig GPU and stock for the GPU (not overclocked since the AMD X2 days). I mainly play CS:GO and battlefield 1944 at the moment. I think they're a little CPU heavy @ 1080p.
 
All motherboards being released for the new Ryzen are they all standard atx at this present time?
Dumb question I know but I’m not all clued up on pc components sorry
 
motiv said:
I just hope it will be better than my i7 3770K in games. Fingers Crossed so I can upgrade.
Click to expand...

My current R5 2600 is faster than my 3770 non-K @ 4.1GHz was in any task you'd care to throw at it. Mind, the 3770 was badly hurt by the Spectre/Meltdown 'fixes' in my experience. I ended up using InSpectre to kill the fixes for gaming. What have you got your 3770K clocked at?

I'm thinking the new chips are going to be in a different universe to IvyBridge, let alone being merely 'better'. Especially if you have the patches in place to mitigate against Spectre, Meltdown and whatever else Intel ****** up on this week...
 
killem said:
For those moaning about the price of these chips some history for you. Back in 1993 when Doom was released I had to upgrade from a intel DX 33 to a DX2 66 to run it and that cost me a shade over £300 for the cpu so really these prices are not that bad. The X570 costs I am finding a bit harder to swallow.
Click to expand...

The price isnt terrible, just disappointing vs the hype, and also not enough for me to upgrade from what I have, for someone on much older hardware e.g. say sandy bridge this would be a reasonable upgrade.
 
Journey said:
Yet now that we finally have progress in the form of more cores per CPU, people are whining and moaning about 12c/24t for $499, that will sit on a motherboard (with socket) that you could have owned for 2 years already, and may last another generation, and then how ever long after before it is retired.

2016 - Mainstream Desktop - 4c
2017 - Mainstream desktop - 8c
2019 - Mainstream desktop - 16c

Bigger gap in the last two, but it proves the point that people are complaining about progress, because they personally have no use for it. I remember when I got my 200MMX, cost a small fortune, but man it was a huge upgrade from my Pentium 120. :)
Click to expand...

16c is far from been mainstream ;) I dont know when £600+ cpu's were ever considered mainstream, so not mainstream either on price point or expected performance level.

I would say zen2 will probably finally push mainstream to 4c. 70% of hardware on steam is still 2c.

8c will be upper end, 16c enthusiast/professional.
 
StriderX said:
Well this is silly.

Hardware survey for steam puts Single core dominance ending in Winter 2008, Dual core took over until Winter 2016 when Quads finally took over and still are the majority share of the gaming market.

8 core cpus are sitting under 3% adoption... 16 is 0.05%. The whole point in AMD's tactic is to increase adoption of 8 core CPUs, 16 cores is a niche product and will be for at least 5-10 years for most people, mind you things can change.
Click to expand...

Yep some people get carried away and think big spenders on ocuk = mainstream :)
 
the problem is the installed user base, theres a lot of people who play games on some old kit around the world. just look at gpu;s not talking high end kit being the mainstream.

cpu cores are changing slowly but just imagine how vast that 4 core user base is from over a decade of 4 cores being the main stream and even high end in some case. will be a few years before that drops down to under 25%.
 
8 Pack said:
I am not allowed to discuss performance......... with different mem configurations....

The slide posted above tells you a lot.
Click to expand...

I see the slide as flawed.

It doesnt show different timings on the same memory clockspeed so e.g. 3200CL14 vs 3200CL12.

The industry is still very lacking in these tests. I posted some results some weeks ago and got slammed for it, but no one bothered to do their own tests to provide evidence against my own claims.

However the slide does suggest latency is king, and memory bandwidth is secondary (but also helps).
 
GAC said:
the problem is the installed user base, theres a lot of people who play games on some old kit around the world. just look at gpu;s not talking high end kit being the mainstream.

cpu cores are changing slowly but just imagine how vast that 4 core user base is from over a decade of 4 cores being the main stream and even high end in some case. will be a few years before that drops down to under 25%.
Click to expand...

Yes, its a combination of people using old hardware and also cheap hardware, the majority of hardware sold is lower end stuff.
 
chrcoluk said:
I see the slide as flawed.

It doesnt show different timings on the same memory clockspeed so e.g. 3200CL14 vs 3200CL12.

The industry is still very lacking in these tests. I posted some results some weeks ago and got slammed for it, but no one bothered to do their own tests to provide evidence against my own claims.

However the slide does suggest latency is king, and memory bandwidth is secondary (but also helps).
Click to expand...

It's important for games and more reviewers need to include it in their standard testing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom