AMD Zen 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.

[humbug]

Is there a reason there's no 10 core from AMD?

10 core CCX? there will be....

Choo Choo..........

https://www.hardwaretimes.com/amds-...up-to-128-cores-5th-gen-ryzen-up-to-32-cores/

AMD’s Zen 4 Based Epyc Genoa CPUs May Feature up to 128 Cores; 5th Gen Ryzen up to 32 Cores

That's probably 16 cores per CCD, Rome = 8X 8 core CCD = 64 cores.

So unless Genoa has 16 CCD's that is 16 cores per CCD backed up by Ryzen 5000 having up to 32 cores, 2X 16 core CCD's (32 Cores 5950X) given Zen 3 is going single CCX CCD we can assume this is 16 core CCX's.

AMD are going nuts with core counts, they are turning into GPU's.....

 

[LePhuronn]

Is there a reason there's no 10 core from AMD?

Because they already have 12 and 16 cores.

 

[McGraw]

Is there a reason there's no 10 core from AMD?

They decimated Intel

 

[BluesFanUK]

Because they already have 12 and 16 cores.

Yeh, but i'm just surprised the 3800x wasn't 10 core. No one is surely buying that over a 3700x are they? At least not unless they're priced so close to each other.

 

[LePhuronn]

Yeh, but i'm just surprised the 3800x wasn't 10 core. No one is surely buying that over a 3700x are they? At least not unless they're priced so close to each other.

3700X and 3800X are really weird. The latter looked like it was better silicon given a higher TDP so it could clock much higher; go 3700X if you want an 8 core, but go 3800X if you want the top banana and clock it highly. But that just didn't happen meaning there's just no point to the 3800X.

 

[Jokester]

Aye, maybe 100MHz on average, 200 if you were really lucky.

 

[BS Dave]

Aye, maybe 100MHz on average, 200 if you were really lucky.

I remember a time there was only £20 in it. I’d buy the 3800x if that was the case and I was keeping my cpu for 4-5 years

 

[alec]

https://www.techpowerup.com/270700/amd-ryzen-9-4950x-vermeer-tested-the-sample-boosts-to-4-8-ghz
At last engineering samples start to leak
And with a very healthy boost to 4.8

 

[elroberto]

Is there a reason there's no 10 core from AMD?

Because 12 sounds so much nicer?

 

[five8five]

Possible name change, 4000 to 5000. Sounds like a good idea if true

https://videocardz.com/newz/report-amd-ryzen-9-4950x-5950x-engineering-sample-boosts-up-to-4-8-ghz

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Possible name change, 4000 to 5000. Sounds like a good idea if true

https://videocardz.com/newz/report-amd-ryzen-9-4950x-5950x-engineering-sample-boosts-up-to-4-8-ghz

Hope that goes for the 8 core chips as well if they turn out to be better for gaming..

 

[Deleted member 209350]

Hope that goes for the 8 core chips as well if they turn out to be better for gaming..

Good idea to get the naming on board, but doesn't it make more sense to do that next year with the release of AM5?

 

[clv101]

So the best current thinking is that there'll be a zen 3 Ryzen 5 4600 with 6 core, 12 threads and 65W and also a Ryzen 7 4700X with 8 cores, also 65W. These should be clock for clock some 10-15% faster, and also have a 100-200MHz clock boost talking them to more like 15-20% faster compared to the the 3000 series. Does that sound reasonable?

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

Good idea to get the naming on board, but doesn't it make more sense to do that next year with the release of AM5?

Not sure what you mean? I mean i hope the 8 core chips have high clock speeds as well, unless you mean they should hold them back for AM5

 

[LePhuronn]

Changing the naming scheme and jumping to 5000 is just unnecessary. I've said this before, the Ryzen naming scheme is not confusing to the marketplace. It is only enthusiasts and techies who even know what "Zen" is and means, and even then it's really not hard to keep track of which Zen is in which Ryzen.

Why does it matter which Zen is in the APUs and which Zen is in the desktop CPUs? It doesn't. The 4000 APUs may well be Zen 2, but they are still the first products of a new Ryzen series, and therefore get the 4000 moniker. The same with 2000 and 3000 APUs. The fact that there's G, H, and U in the names clearly differentiates them from the no-letter and X models which are desktop CPUs. Even the numbers make sense for progressively higher performance tiers. Yes, it might be take a moment to realise why a 4600X would outperform a 4700H when the number is lower, but the H shows it's an APU and inherently you'd expect a bit lower performance. Plus, the APUs aren't desktop chips, so the consumer is not going to get confused by the comparative performance because you can't get H and U for desktop.

If there's going to be any name change then the x900 parts should be exclusive to Threadripper, just like they always were. Hell, it would be an interesting exercise in mindshare and public perception. Make the 4800X 16 cores, 4700X 12 cores, 4600X 8 cores and introduce a new 4500X at 6 cores. Suddenly it looks like AMD have increased core counts across their entire range from the previous generation. "Wow, AMD have doubled the number of cores from the 3800X! Good guy, AMD!"

 

[Boot_Loop]

4.8Ghz boost with 7-15% increase in IPC is very, very nice. Frightening for Intel but good for us. Hopefully they can eek out another 100mhz to get 4.9Ghz on the 4950X SKU, so that the 12-core gets 4.8Ghz boost (12-cores is the next logical upgrade for me coming from 2700X). EDIT: Frankly I dont care too much about frequency numbers as long as real performance is where we expect. But for marketing purposes and the dumb Intel shills that like to play the frequency numbers game, getting near 5Ghz is worth it.

They're adding per core overclocking, so that magic 5ghz boost will likely be possible on overclocked singke cores!

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

4.8Ghz boost with 7-15% increase in IPC is very, very nice. Frightening for Intel but good for us. Hopefully they can eek out another 100mhz to get 4.9Ghz on the 4950X SKU, so that the 12-core gets 4.8Ghz boost (12-cores is the next logical upgrade for me coming from 2700X). EDIT: Frankly I dont care too much about frequency numbers as long as real performance is where we expect. But for marketing purposes and the dumb Intel shills that like to play the frequency numbers game, getting near 5Ghz is worth it.

They're adding per core overclocking, so that magic 5ghz boost will likely be possible on overclocked singke cores!

Also moving to an 8 core CCX/CCD hopefully!

 

[five8five]

Changing the naming scheme and jumping to 5000 is just unnecessary.....

They've had quite a bit of stick for the naming (from stupid right through to shady) and maybe they've taken it onboard. Of course it could just be another false rumour. I bet someone is knocking up some 5000 " marketing slides" at this very moment.

 

[timorous]

Changing the naming scheme and jumping to 5000 is just unnecessary. I've said this before, the Ryzen naming scheme is not confusing to the marketplace. It is only enthusiasts and techies who even know what "Zen" is and means, and even then it's really not hard to keep track of which Zen is in which Ryzen.

I think the problem is AM5.

With the current naming scheme you will end up with a Ryzen 5000 series zen 4 CPU on AM5 and you will have a Ryzen 5000 series zen3 APU on AM4 and that is not tenable.

They cannot just make the Zen 3 APU 4000 series because that is what Renoir is named already so the only solution is to have the Zen 3 CPU be Ryzen 5000(X/XT) and the Zen 3 APU be Ryzen 5000G/H/U leaving all AM5 based parts as Ryzen 6000 and onwards.

 

[LePhuronn]

I think the problem is AM5.

With the current naming scheme you will end up with a Ryzen 5000 series zen 4 CPU on AM5 and you will have a Ryzen 5000 series zen3 APU on AM4 and that is not tenable.

That's a very good point.