• 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 ***

I'm not questioning that it couldn't. The power figures are the easiest thing to model going from 12nm+ to 7nm.
I'm more interested in what the numbers might say about the maximum ACT on them.
Whatever happens, the 9900K is definitely yesterday's news. I don't doubt that for one second.
 
LePhuronn said:
Um, OK...which is it then?



So what's the problem with 16c/32t at 135W then? Why does it matter then that 12 to 16 cores is a 30W increase, when 8 to 12 is 10W? You've already said you're not a troll, which I believe, but there is a big difference between taking rumours at face value and going out of your way to utterly dismiss them. Focussing on a totally arbitrary number that means little really comes across as the latter...
Click to expand...
We're looking at separate things here.
I definitely believe that they can do 16c within 135w; that isn't in doubt. I simply want to work out what it means for their realistic ACT potential. AMD tends to use TDP figures that bettwe reflect ACT than Intel does. Trying to work anything out from Intel numbers is truly pointless, as exemplified by the 9900K comments that I made.
All I'm trying to do is set realistic expectations for myself so that I don't end up at delusional performance figures. Even my tempered expectations are for 20-25% improvements over Zen+ when taking clocks and IPC into account. That's before additional cores too.
I'm saying that I believe the upper ceiling on ACT will be 4.6GHz by my reckoning. Given that AMD's ACT is usually sustainable within TDP limits, and that the 9900K can only sustain 4.2GHz within its TDP limit, that's already a huge positive for AMD.
I'm saying that if those leaks are true, it is one hell of a leap forward. I hope they are true just as much as the next person, but it's healthy to have some doubt.
 
Potatowithearsontheside said:
I'm not questioning that it couldn't. The power figures are the easiest thing to model going from 12nm+ to 7nm.
I'm more interested in what the numbers might say about the maximum ACT on them.
Whatever happens, the 9900K is definitely yesterday's news. I don't doubt that for one second.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean with "ACT"

The 9900K is a great chip, today, and it only happened because we have real competition, AMD putting even more pressure on Intel is good for everyone. :)
 
What is all core turbo and under what conditions do you reach it? We have base clock over all cores and one core turbo max clock.
No information about all core turbo?
 
One thing i learned over the years with Windows being tied to hardware, don't reinstall windows when changing hardware, at least not for the first 24 hours, even when changing from Intel to AMD, just change out the hardware, windows will still run as normal, just let it do whatever it does to recognise the new hardware and then you can reinstall.
That way it will have, or what appears to happen is it ties that account to the new hardware.
 
4K8KW10 said:
What is all core turbo and under what conditions do you reach it? We have base clock over all cores and one core turbo max clock.
No information about all core turbo?
Click to expand...

That's what he's trying to work out, apparently.

@Potatowithearsontheside do you mean "All Core Turbo"? Because if you do that's going to be entirely reliant on the quality of your silicon and your cooling system. If you can get the heat out quickly enough then Precision Boost will ramp up your cores as far as they can go. And all that goes out the window if you're manually clocking.

As a result I think you're trying to determine something without having any data. How about this then: The 2700X is 8c/16t of high-binned 12nm silicon. Take the clock differential of that and apply it to the 3800X, and there's your answer. You're not going to get anything more accurate than that without having a real chip in your hands.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, said this a page or so back 2950X all core boost, ~220w at 4.4GHz, so 110w at 4.4GHz for 7nm if you take it literally from the Rome release. That's 25w left for the 3850X which means that it would be around 4.6-4.9GHz all cores.
 
I thought he was referring to TDP vs ACP

What is AMD’s ACP? According to AMD documentation, ACP (Average CPU Power) is the average (Geometric Mean) power a processor was measured to dissipate while running a collection of 5 different benchmarks (Transaction Processing Performance Council (TPC Benchmark*-C), SPECcpu*2006, SPECjbb*2005, and STREAM.) It is also noted in the AMD documentation these measurements to determine the ACP value are not done on every processor, but only on a particular processor that was selected from the “hotter side” of their manufacturing distribution.

LePhuronn said:
That's what he's trying to work out, apparently.

@Potatowithearsontheside do you mean "All Core Turbo"? Because if you do that's going to be entirely reliant on the quality of your silicon and your cooling system. If you can get the heat out quickly enough then Precision Boost will ramp up your cores as far as they can go. And all that goes out the window if you're manually clocking.
Click to expand...

If I get one of these new 95W or 105W chips, it is more likely I will throttle them even on their base clocks, so no all core turbo whatsoever.
 
4K8KW10 said:
What is all core turbo and under what conditions do you reach it? We have base clock over all cores and one core turbo max clock.
No information about all core turbo?
Click to expand...

All core turbo will and does vary from one mobo to another and is also dependent on how good your cooling is. For instance, my CH6 and 2700X all core turbo's to 4.25Ghz and single core boosts to 4.35Ghz using a 360 AIO.
If the figures for the 3700X are to be believed, i would expect it to all core turbo to between 4.7Ghz and 4.8Gz maybe even a bit higher using the same 360 AIO
 
Some reviewers when testing Intel have been performance testing them on very high end motherboards and then, for power consumption testing moving then over to lower end end motherboards where the 'All Core Turbo' throttles to a preset TDP.

When caught doing it, it was Hardware Unboxed and AdoredTV who spotted it, predictably they pleaded ignorance....

Power consumption and TDP can be used to mean whatever you like, one thing TDP isn't is a measure of actually working power consumption, Intel for example quote their 95 Watt TDP based on the 3.7Ghz base clock, some motherboards boost them as high as 4.7 on all cores and they use a lot more than 95 Watts when doing that.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Why like a hawk? AMD themselves invited everyone there, so everyone just be their guests.
Click to expand...
Well mostly because of Intel's deceptive marketing tricks I think the tech press might be more alert than usual.
I do think most of them wants AMD to do well though since it helps drive prices down and pushes innovation up a gear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom