1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AMD Zen 2 (Ryzen 3000)

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by Jamin280672, Jul 20, 2018.

  1. TrixX

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 4, 2017

    Posts: 470

    Location: Australia - Sunshine Coast

    Take anything ~>Dg<~ says with a bucket load of salt as it's usually biased hot garbage. There's so many examples of Ryzen being good in games, it may not hit the highest averages but for the most part it does smash out those 1% and 0.1% lows far better than many of the Intel counterparts. As usual there's scenario's where single core performance is king like with X3 Albion Prelude, iRacing and CS:GO, but the usual suspects in this category are usually DX11 or older based games.
     
  2. ~>Dg<~

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 1, 2006

    Posts: 30,995

    Location: Notts

    its not worth debating about. if you cant see or work out intel are faster better for gaming and have been for about 15 years then just leave it there . you wont ever be convinced.
     
  3. beany_bot

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 19, 2015

    Posts: 3,411

    Location: Glasgow Area

    Better at gaming. in SOME games. at an archaic resolution, at silly refresh rates.
     
  4. Perfect_Chaos

    Mobster

    Joined: Aug 26, 2004

    Posts: 3,811

    Location: In dem hills

    There's still a gap where AMD might dip to (example) 80fps in a game where Intel would be around 95+ even at 1440p. I wouldn't really say 100hz or so was silly since there's a clear difference over 60 but to each his own.
     
  5. welshrat

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 31, 2011

    Posts: 158

    I guess its all down to what you want from a PC but I remember buying a phenom 6 core black edition and selling its swiftly due to games being pretty rough compared to the sandybridge 2500k I replaced it with. I then stuck with intel for 8 years but having recently replaced my i4790k with a Ryzen 2600 (soon to be whatever turns out to be best bang for buck) I would not go back to intel. Gaming is great as far as I am concerned + 75fps at 1440p with a vega 56 but also productivity is much improved, as a dev who uses multiple IDEs (Visual Studio, Android Studio, Visual studio Code, SQL server PGadmin etc etc) the ability to have them all run at the same time and all be extremely responsive I would not go back to a lower core count and intels pricing.
     
  6. 4K8KW10

    Soldato

    Joined: Sep 2, 2017

    Posts: 5,274

    :o
    Huh, if the CPU load stays as low as negligible 14% during gaming, it's definitely not AMD to turn to...

     
  7. TrixX

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 4, 2017

    Posts: 470

    Location: Australia - Sunshine Coast

    Having used both AMD and Intel CPU's during the past 15yrs and both flavours of GPU too, I can safely say with authority you are talking utter tripe. There's games that benefit Intel and there's games that don't. There's been the bulldozer and piledriver fiasco from AMD where they couldn't compete with a wet paper bag, but then there was the Pentium 4 that couldn't handle an Athlon64 so how far back do you want to go? Hell I'll go back to a Cyrix if you like which was killed off by Quake...

    You keep talking like you know ****. Unfortunately we agree, you know ****.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2019
  8. ben90

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Jan 3, 2009

    Posts: 1,171

    Location: Wiltshire

    Considering I have a Zotac GPU with the fan control problem, which makes one fan run at 100% when ever I load a game (and stay there until I restart), I think I can handle these actively cooled motherboards :D That's not to say I would not rather have a silent motherboard, but at least I know it won't be a deal breaker.
     
  9. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 29,581

    Intel have a clock speed advantage and where core count are not an issue that gives Intel a performance advantage.

    no arguing with that but yeah ~>Dg<~ often takes that fact and runs off the rails with it.
     
  10. Potatowithearsontheside

    Gangster

    Joined: Jan 2, 2019

    Posts: 196

    He can play Pacman at 325741 fps on his Intel CPU.
     
  11. TrixX

    Gangster

    Joined: Oct 4, 2017

    Posts: 470

    Location: Australia - Sunshine Coast

    Funny thing is no-one's denied that all thread. Just ~>Dg<~ and his Intel Superiority Complex. I had a 3930K for 6 years and it was a damn good CPU, but none of the newer Intel's offered a meaningful upgrade path that competed with Threadripper for the money. Not going back to mainstream for my main editing rig either.
     
  12. beany_bot

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 19, 2015

    Posts: 3,411

    Location: Glasgow Area

    The real question is. Why (other than trolling) is DG even in this thread? Just to constantly big up Intel? Makes no sense. This is a Ryzen 3000 discussion.
     
  13. Plec

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 19, 2003

    Posts: 10,889

    Hey, don't wreck what little entertainment us voyeurs have reading this thread - as it finely tunes itself, with leaks, until eventual release. :D
     
  14. Jono8

    Caporegime

    Joined: May 20, 2007

    Posts: 27,771

    Location: Surrey

    Man i remember those grass scenes in Crysis 3. It is what made me upgrade from an i5 (2500k to 3700k). Frame rate almost doubled in some scenes! That grass loves cores/threads.
     
  15. Fire_fly

    Mobster

    Joined: Jan 18, 2012

    Posts: 3,634

    Location: Derbyshire

    Exactly, they picked their best case scenario. That is why if they demo zen 2 with games their choice of game is going to be as important as the frame rate. If they demo it in game where AMD are strong already (forza) you should be asking question as to why the did this. If they are show zen 2 matching a 9900k in a game where a 2700x is already very close close to a 9900K the they are not really telling you very much about how much better the new architecture is are they.
    On the other hand if they go with a game that is a very strong performer on the 9900k ie Tomb Raider's inbuilt benchmark and show zen 2 matching the 9900k, like they did with Cinebench at CES, then we are in for good things. They did this at the original zen launch with the Blender render, they took an application were Intel was traditionally very strong in compared to AMDs older CPUs and showed themselves beating 6900k and demonstrating the much improved design of Zen over Piledriver and that it was now better the Intel compeating CPU.

    With these type of reveal events and the leaks leading up to the them it is often more important to pay attention to what you are not being shown rater than what you are. It's not what your sure of it's what you don't know.

    I know, check my sig, i made a similar jump from a 3570k to make BF1 playable.
     
  16. smilingcrow

    Gangster

    Joined: Apr 27, 2007

    Posts: 478

    With Intel's new security flaws recently revealed what great timing for AMD to be releasing a new platform. :D
    Karma! :cool:
     
  17. humbug

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 17, 2012

    Posts: 29,581

    No augment from me. :)
     
  18. Drollic

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 24, 2013

    Posts: 3,126

    Location: East Midlands

    I'm hoping a possible 16/32 runs a bit hot for most coolers so it's worse under xfr clocks compared to the possible 12/24. That way I can feel better about spending less money :D
     
  19. Grim5

    Gangster

    Joined: Feb 6, 2019

    Posts: 316

    Maybe we’ll see big monoblocks that cover the cpu, vrm and chipset like gigabyte has done on its Z390 WaterForce
     
  20. CuriousTomCat

    Gangster

    Joined: Nov 22, 2018

    Posts: 469

    I'm going to get the 8 core variant then in 4 years time parhaps, I could upgrade it to 16 cores when they're really cheap on ebay. That would be a 100% CPU performance increase without changing motherboard :D