ASROCK will have 10 X570 mobos https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/asrock-x570-motherboard-launch,news-61082.html
-
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
Oh really? Well I'll keep my fingers crossed then and hopefully we'll see some reviews with some good comparisons between old and new chipsets on Sunday..
In honesty if its a case of them not quite boosting to their full potential and we are talking very minor differences then I wont mind at all. The fact they work at all in 3 year old boards is still a refreshing change isnt it!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,582
- Location
- Rutland
That's really useful, thanks.
Kind of irrelevant to a post about the costs of X570 and not how useful it is. I say I agree that tbh PCIE 4.0 could have waited for the socket refresh in 2020/21. And tbh even then I would have thought it would have been better to have pushed directly to 5.0 in 2022 and not even touching 4.0 in mainstream.
Add it to Threadripper by all means and make use of that market segment where it is likely needed.
In a silly sort of way, I don't see it being any worse. I have a feeling that the engineering has already been done in X570 to get a PCIe 5 compliant PCB design and retimers. I don't see PCIe 5 requiring 16-layer 10oz copper PCBs or such ludicrousness, so what's been done now is prep designs and manufacturing for AM5, DDR5 and PCIe 5 in 2021.Wait to see boards with PCIe 5.0, then it will be true hell
It's been said a few times on many places that X570 is over-engineered. I don't think that's just to support 5GHz 16 core Ryzen 4000s next year, I think that's also to get PCIe 5 compliant designs on the books and recoup the R&D for it now whilst vendors can wrap it up with the PCIe 4 work.
I have explained why I think older stuff is slower. Agesa updates. PWM tuning for new cpus which takes time and some missing features of the designs. M ost of this can be fixed in time with bios revisions.
Again I will reiterate the priority for vendors is the new boards first. The cpus are working on launch with currently available updates.
Again I will reiterate the priority for vendors is the new boards first. The cpus are working on launch with currently available updates.
"As far as you know"? Well, what do you know? Or what do you think you know?
These boards will last until AMD adopt DDR5 on the mainstream desktop, so that's 2021 at the earliest. That's 2 generations of CPU before it would need to be replaced. But then look at the specs of these boards, look at the specs of the Ryzen 3000 series (and what that means for Ryzen 4000 next year), there's nothing more you could add to make it any more "future proof" than it already is, and X570 systems will last for donkey's years.
It used to be that every intel processor would be better at gaming than AMD, down to 2 core gimps. So pretty much all price levels
Now at best you can say 9900K is king at gaming. And this now happens only at the top price point. In all lower tiers AMD has the crown
Every core has access to 512KB L2 cache that is not shared with anything. Every core alsoe has access to 16MB L3 cache that is shared with other cores in CCX. For 3600(X) and 3900X every CCX is 3 cores, for other models it is 4 cores per CCX.
So 0.5MB L2 + 16MB L3 is max cache any core can use.
I tried looking for effect of more effective cache per core, comparing benchmarks of Ryzen 1300X vs 1500X. They have same number of cores, same clocks but 1500X has twice L3 cache. 2 CCX vs 1 with 2 cores per CCX vs 4 on 1300X. The advantage was there, but tiny.
If 3 core per CCX has less contention for cache over 4 core per CCX, this effect will be ven smaller and show up in only some workloads. Games could benefit, they always like cache
You are right that they have same boost, plus at stock 3600X all-core might boost higher. So 3600X looks to be a good choise for games.
I have explained why I think older stuff is slower. Agesa updates. PWM tuning for new cpus which takes time and some missing features of the designs. M ost of this can be fixed in time with bios revisions.
Again I will reiterate the priority for vendors is the new boards first. The cpus are working on launch with currently available updates.
Again I will reiterate the priority for vendors is the new boards first. The cpus are working on launch with currently available updates.
Not picking a side, but that 9900k is stock 4.7ghz boost, when the majority of 9900k can do 4.9-5.0ghz all core.
It would be nice to see oc ryzen 3900x vs oc 9900k.
Let the games begin!
As you go up in resolution, you go down in FPS, so fewer events happen every second, events that may need to go to main memory via PCE link.
All I said is that Intel has definitely lost the crown in all other segments below 9900K. And 9900K is barely hanging on.
We will see Sunday
Will be busy on review sites, covering whole lineup of Ryzen 3k, whole army of X570 motherboards and new Navi lineup on the same day.
AMD should have staggered release of at least the videocards on some other day.
Cheers and yes to be fair that makes perfect sense to me. As long as its working well like you confirmed then I'll be happy. If performance increases a little bit with future BIOS updates then happy days!
Thats because intel was seen as the premium brand, and AMD the brand for the price sensitive.
Personally I dont care about pcie gen 4, dont care about 4000+mhz ram, and I have no interest in a 16 core chip so b450/x470 VRM's are absolutely fine.
So if I go zen 2, I wont be using a x570 board.
Plus I dont want active cooling on my chipset, I see that as a future noise problem.
Yeah we've known what they all are for a while.
On this subject, I really don't understand why all they have so many SKUs without even having many mATX variants available. Surely you just need basic, mid-range, high-end, and omfgbbqwtf tiers, and then at least 2 of those in mITX and mATX? Right now they've got 8x ATX (including Aqua) and 1x mITX and 1x mATX. Surely 95% of buyers are not going to be able to work out the (sometimes subtle) difference between the SKUs anyway? Asus are even worse, with 9 ATX SKUs this time.
I don't share your feelings. I suspect PCIe 5.0 compliant boards will require more retimers and even higher quality PCBs.
it wont be needed for a gpu any time soon, currently no GPU's can exceed 8 lanes of pcie3. Most dont even consume 4 lanes.
Yep, I fully expect AGESA updates to take a few months to filter down to X470/B450 boards. For now they just get the basics to get them up and running.
And... you're not allowed to OC AMD? Something in the law?
Of course the 9900K is stock. it's stock vs stock.