Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2014
- Posts
- 5,109
Maybe. I'll wait for benchmarks and if there's a decent boost, yeah, probably. If not, I'll wait for AM5 and do a new system.
-
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 3 (5000 Series), rumored 17% IPC gain.
- Thread starter AStaley
- Start date
- Status
Maybe. I'll wait for benchmarks and if there's a decent boost, yeah, probably. If not, I'll wait for AM5 and do a new system.
So you've basically just said you're not buying Zen 3. You know full well 8c/16t Zen 3 won't be £200.
Who knows. Perhaps AMD will increase the core count in the mid-range segment?
How much will a 8c/16t Zen 3 start at then?
e: Look at it this way. I bought my 4c/4t 2500k for ~£120 back in 2012.
8 years later, is 8c/16t for ~£200 (give or take) totally unreasonable?
I guess we've given up expecting a little progress without massive price inflation to go with it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,835
Coming from a 2500k my plan is to go 8c/16t Zen3 ... but if they want a lot more than £200 for it will just find something else to do with my time.
(In before @jigger says they should be £400+ and worth every penny)
You do realise it's £200 for six cores and £320 for 8 cores right?
Hopefully the existence of next gen consoles with 8c/16t CPUs will push that price down.
As with GPUs, when you can get a whole system for £400-£500 (console), and a CPU + mobo of equivalent spec is £450+ for just two components...
Well it's hard to justify the latter unless you own your own bank.
Would be nice to see a bit of progress. Ie 8c replacing 6c in the mid-range.
Or before 4k8k says 16 core should be £200.(In before @jigger says they should be £400+ and worth every penny
I'm not being totally unreasonable I don't think, asking for 8c/16t to be the new mid-range.Or before 4k8k says 16 core should be £200.
I sometimes get the impression people who post here are sleeping on mattresses stuffed with £50s
e: What makes it weird for me is that the same people praise AMD for making 6-core the new mid-range, and lambast Intel for only ever offering 4core.
Then they react angrily to the idea that 8c could be the new mid-range, because that would be "too good" for us or something.
Maybe 6 core needs to be mid-range for the next 10 years then we can move on?
I do see AMD shifting the core counts for Zen 4, actually. They said from the start of Ryzen they want to push the core counts up, but I think there were more important things to address with Zen 3 and the chiplet concept than crank the cores up.
8c/16t x600 CPUs with Zen 4-based Ryzen, I'll put a fiver on it
8c/16t x600 CPUs with Zen 4-based Ryzen, I'll put a fiver on it
Well in that case I'll ride out 2021 with a 2500k and a PS5I do see AMD shifting the core counts for Zen 4, actually. They said from the start of Ryzen they want to push the core counts up, but I think there were more important things to address with Zen 3 and the chiplet concept than crank the cores up.
8c/16t x600 CPUs with Zen 4-based Ryzen, I'll put a fiver on it
Coming from a 2500k my plan is to go 8c/16t Zen3 ... but if they want a lot more than £200 for it will just find something else to do with my time.
(In before @jigger says they should be £400+ and worth every penny
You should have bought that 3600 for £140. Shame it was only available in your head
Last edited:
No it’s not unreasonable at all although I think it’ll depend on what Intel bring to the table.I'm not being totally unreasonable I don't think, asking for 8c/16t to be the new mid-range.
I sometimes get the impression people who post here are sleeping on mattresses stuffed with £50s
e: What makes it weird for me is that the same people praise AMD for making 6-core the new mid-range, and lambast Intel for only ever offering 4core.
Then they react angrily to the idea that 8c could be the new mid-range, because that would be "too good" for us or something.
Maybe 6 core needs to be mid-range for the next 10 years then we can move on?
As it stands Intel have the 10700k which ocuk sells for £380. So unless they massively drop the price or beat the performance it’s not likely to happen.
Or before 4k8k says 16 core should be £200.
Given that Intel released the quad-core Core i7-2600K in 2010 with 100% performance, and 6 years later you got Core i7-7700K with 179% of the original performance, 23.5% of which is due the clock speed increase only, I would say that the generational leaps had been too slow, and under normal circumstances with normal competition, the said 16-core would have been cheaper.
Or at least the 12-core.
I never said that the 16-core should be 200. Don't put dishonest quotations onto my fingers and keyboard.
By the way - if someone gives you the Ryzen 9 3950X for 200, will you return it?
I have been repeating for years now that AMD must be even more aggressive with the OEMs, particularly, because the likes of many of them keep pushing for the poor users Core i5 which is just meaningless and slow proposition.
Which proves one thing - there is still unfair relationship between Intel and the OEMs which results that the users get suboptimal solutions.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,196
I think you'll find each ryzen core is significantly more capable than the ones in your 2500k too.
Given inflation, that £120 is about £150 quid today, which is almost ryzen 3600 money. The single-core performance is about 30% higher AFAICT, plus you get two more cores and 8 more threads. Seems like pretty good amount of progress to me...
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,196
Are you a semiconductor expert and chip designer? Raw speed gains of the sorts we saw in the 90s and 00s are a thing of the past. Physics gets in the way.
Your expectations are unrealistic. There is no 'normal' generational progression.
That's 9 years of elapsed time btw. 9 years.
I bought my 2500k in 2012 but they released in 2011.
2 extra cores and +30% per core in 9 years? If this was the GPU forum you'd be laughed out of the building
I don't expect anything - but there is a very big difference between Core i7-2600K and Core i7-3770K on one side, and Ryzen 7 3700U and Ryzen 7 4700U, or last-gen Bulldozer and first-gen Zen on the other..
And this is exactly the reason why AMD's stock jumped from $2 to $90 in just 4 years.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 1,196
2 extra cores and +30% per core in 9 years? If this was the GPU forum you'd be laughed out of the building
GPU design is fundamentally different, based much more around parallelism. As a result there's a lot more room for scaling horizontally.
There's just not as much room to improve in the CPU space, particularly as people are still fixated on single core performance.
I find the attitude that "I should be getting more by now" weirdly entitled. Yeah, it's been 9 years, you can get over twice the performance for the money. Do you think you could do better?
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Nov 2018
- Posts
- 2,835
The "low clocked" 3700 in the consoles will probably perform similar to a regular 2700 which has been sold used for under £100.
Everyone has such high expectations for these consoles.
2017 only saw the transition of 6 cores move from ultra high to mid range. I doubt we're due a core increase already.
You should have bought that 3600 for £140. Shame it was only available in your head
I sold a 3600 last week for £138 so not just in his head.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 2,602
- Location
- East Sussex
You can already get a Ryzen 8 core new for under £200 easily if 1700/1800/2700 fit the bill - so at some point in a few years I can see a Ryzen 4000 series 8 core selling for that. Maybe 3000 series 8 core (new retail) will be under £200 in the next 12 months?
- Status