• 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 - Threadripper 3rd gen thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 66701
  • Start date Start date
4K8KW10 said:
It's lose-lose ;)

Ryzen 3600 over Ryzen 1600 is 20-30%, for two generations. For two generations, this is nothing.
Slightly better than what Intel offered with 3770 over 2600, 4770 over 3770, 5775C over 4770, 6700 over 4770. And for what it was so hated.

And your performance is constrained by the number of threads, not by their individual speed.
Click to expand...

2600K vs 3770K was 10%
3770K vs 4770K was 5%
4770K vs 6700K was 20% (switch from DDR3 to DDR4)

The performance difference between my 1600 and 3600 is 30%.
 
humbug said:
2600K vs 3770K was 10%
3770K vs 4770K was 5%
4770K vs 6700K was 20% (switch from DDR3 to DDR4)

The performance difference between my 1600 and 3600 is 30%.
Click to expand...

i think the difernce between 1600 to 3600k has been a very good uplift its a shame they couldn't get more clock speed out of the 3600 though But i also think its not just 1600 vs 3600 is acctully the 1700 and 3600 thats more interesting since the 3600 is faster then its more epxensive and more core/thread cpu that is only 2 years old i find that really good value for the 3600 Going from memory i cant rember a time when intel did that with there lowest cpu vs a i7
 
TrM said:
i think the difernce between 1600 to 3600k has been a very good uplift its a shame they couldn't get more clock speed out of the 3600 though But i also think its not just 1600 vs 3600 is acctully the 1700 and 3600 thats more interesting since the 3600 is faster then its more epxensive and more core/thread cpu that is only 2 years old i find that really good value for the 3600 Going from memory i cant rember a time when intel did that with there lowest cpu vs a i7
Click to expand...

The 1700 can overclock. AFAIK, the 3600 cannot overclock in the same way.
If 3600 looks faster in lightly-threaded applications, in properly threaded applications, the 1700 is still ahead.
It just goes to show how screwed the software world is.

Ryzen-7-1700.png


https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-5-3600-review,19.html
 
4K8KW10 said:
The 1700 can overclock. AFAIK, the 3600 cannot overclock in the same way.
If 3600 looks faster in lightly-threaded applications, in properly threaded applications, the 1700 is still ahead.
It just goes to show how screwed the software world is.

Ryzen-7-1700.png


https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/amd-ryzen-5-3600-review,19.html
Click to expand...
rven In the artical u linked the 3600and 1700 are trading blows and the 1700 actually looses more then it wins.

But the point is a 200 pound cpu is equal to a first gem 300 pound cpu and lowest Ryzen cpu as of now if matching a Ryzen 7 from 2017 u take intel from 2017 the 7700k (I felt sorry for my friends who brought one lol ) and u can actually see how far the cpu’s Have come and threadripper and intel HEDT has also had massive gains also and it’s a very good time to buy and upgrade u get a lot more for your money in 2019 be it the 3600 perform sing really well for under 200 or a 12 core for 500+ pounds

But I do wonder were the core count will end and become the normal again from photos of thread ripper cpu that they can get 8 chiplets in it with a large io die don’t know if that’s feesable with interlinking etc but 64 cores seems like a lot for a single die on non server hardware and cooling

Also the main stream can they shrink the io for 4000 series and go to 24 cores or do you think the 4000 series and maybe thread ripper 4 will just refine the process and we stay on this amount of cores I know 3rd gen Ryzen has only just come out and threadripper 3 isn’t out yet it’s just a question I have at the back of my mind lol
 
TrM said:
i think the difernce between 1600 to 3600k has been a very good uplift its a shame they couldn't get more clock speed out of the 3600 though But i also think its not just 1600 vs 3600 is acctully the 1700 and 3600 thats more interesting since the 3600 is faster then its more epxensive and more core/thread cpu that is only 2 years old i find that really good value for the 3600 Going from memory i cant rember a time when intel did that with there lowest cpu vs a i7
Click to expand...

That a very good point, there has never been a 2 generations old i7 matching i3 from Intel. Its always incrementally faster while also the same.
 
humbug said:
That a very good point, there has never been a 2 generations old i7 matching i3 from Intel. Its always incrementally faster while also the same.
Click to expand...

Good luck with your crappy hexa-core, then. Next year, they will introduce a quad-core that is as fast as the old octo-core and you will happily jump on it. In 2021, they will introduce a dual-core and you will happily jump on it, too...
 
4K8KW10 said:
Good luck with your crappy hexa-core, then. Next year, they will introduce a quad-core that is as fast as the old octo-core and you will happily jump on it. In 2021, they will introduce a dual-core and you will happily jump on it, too...
Click to expand...
Next year I’ll jump on Ryzen 3 as it’ll be a drop in replacement, you can’t really do that with intel without having to a new motherboard can you? Although I’ll probably go 8 core next time.

The other way to look at it would be that without Amd Intel would probably still be pushing quad core for the mainstream hey you might even be able to have that 12 core for £300 that has gotten you so butt hurt.
 
4K8KW10 said:
Good luck with your crappy hexa-core, then. Next year, they will introduce a quad-core that is as fast as the old octo-core and you will happily jump on it. In 2021, they will introduce a dual-core and you will happily jump on it, too...
Click to expand...

You're a strange lady. I'd love a dual core CPU that's 30% faster than a 3600 over a range of applications for £100 (I can do silly reasoning too!)
 
TrixX said:
Not with quad-channel memory or any of the other aspects of Threadripper I'm after. I have a 1950X already, I don't want to switch off that platform so it makes sense to just go with the next TR.
Click to expand...

In same boat though with 1900x, went with TR for my multi GPU and NVMe setups, I could probably use 3950x as it is more CPU than I need core wise (as evidence by my happiness with 1900x) but more SC performance is always nice, can the x570 platform support 4x NVMe drives along with a couple of GPUs etc, I got fed up with the dark lane stuff on my old setup before TR, I have not been able to understand if the switch to PCIe 4 allows more lanes of PCIe 3 on x570, it doesn't appear to, I could jump platform if it has the lane support, though I am thinking of reducing my ~NVMe drives by switch 1Tb NVMe drives for 2Tb drives but should I need more space I don't want to be held back having maxxed out the system.
 
Not entirely sure if there will be a 64c variant, but I really hope there is. I can see there being 3 TR chips, or at max 4.

-24c/48t
-32c/64t
-48c/96t
-Possibly a 64c/128t if we're lucky.

What i dont see happening is the TR series starting with 16c again, which is massively pointless given the 3950x
 
AMD said the low core count Threadrippers didn't sell well, while the high core count ones sold very well

I think AMD now understand what people want from Threadripper, who buys them and what they are used for, with that they may not even be just high core count versions of Ryzen, that IO die may even contain some specific acceleration hardware.
 
humbug said:
AMD said the low core count Threadrippers didn't sell well, while the high core count ones sold very well

I think AMD now understand what people want from Threadripper, who buys them and what they are used for, with that they may not even be just high core count versions of Ryzen, that IO die may even contain some specific acceleration hardware.
Click to expand...

I allways thought myself though when amd come with first ryzen cpu’s With double the normal core and thread count that threadripper was a hard sell to start with.

I’m not compering the ryzen to threadeipper as threadripper brings a lot more to the table over mainstream cpu’s But at a cost.

a lot of people on the more budget spectrum on hedt/threadripper got a choice of a lesser ryzen 8 core on a cheaper platform that could perform the tasks they wanted and the extra spend might of been not worthwhile.

With ryzen 3 hitting 12 cores now and 16 cores soon would the extra features of a 12core or 16 core be worthwhile for the extra cost? 32 core threadripper + still cauter to the hedt crowd with the costa involve but a ryzen 9 would appeal to the lower end of the market of all threadripper features are not needed and cost less.

Not saying lower threadripper is not needed but ryzen 9 3900 and 3950 have compelling reasons not to buy a lower threadripper cpu which is a nice choice to have really
 
@TrM

Given the capability of the Zen 2 architecture, the question comes down to this: is it just cores you want? There are a lot of amateur, hobbyist and prosumer tasks that only need cores and wouldn't really benefit from lots of PCIe lanes or more than dual-channel memory. If that is the case then bag a 3900X or 3950X and you're golden. If though your work benefits from 64 PCIe lanes, quad-channel memory and more than 16 cores then go Threadripper, that's what it's there for.

You could argue the small crossover where you're strapping together 4 or even 7 compute cards so need the 64 PCIe lanes, but don't need many cores, so a low-core Threadripper would be perfect, but I don't see AMD releasing a sub 16 core Threadripper. Physically couldn't be done without seriously defective chiplets. Hell, a 16 core Threadripper would be made up of bargain bin chiplets (4x 4 core chiplets + 4 spacers) that would probably end up in Athlons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom