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

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It looks like Asus isn't supporting Zen3 or Renoir on any of its 400 series motherboards:
https://videocardz.com/newz/asus-confirms-a520-motherboards-to-support-cezanne-ryzen-5000g-apus

If that is the case this is the last time I will ever buy or recommend an Asus motherboard. They charge a premium and then don't support their motherboards.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

Asus has had bad after sales support for years. I hear so many bad things about them. Cheaper brands have a much better service.

 

[NinjaCool]

Asus isn't even the worst regarding the bios size issue so this just seems like a bad move on their part.

 

[Nutella33]

If that is the case

I wouldn't take it as gospel. You can use Matisse on some of their X370 motherboards contrary to the diagram. I think they just won't provide official/total support.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Well my B450I Strix has a 32MB BIOS and a 6+1 phase VRM,so there is not really any reason it shouldn't support at least a Ryzen 5 4600 or Ryzen 7 4700X. It was £150 FFS!

 

[Jacky60]

For gaming I would buy whichever has the fastest single core performance.

I have no doubt that games will use more cores but they are often held back by peak single core performance. They be hitting all 8 cores but it’s highly likely only one to two of them will have significantly more load than the rest.

It’s ultimately the reason why Intel is still better at gaming because they have faster single core performance through their raw clock speed despite being behind in IPC and overall multi core performance.

TLDR: if you are interested in game performance, buy the processor with the best single core performance for the highest FPS in games. It doesn’t really matter if that is 6, 8 or 12 core.

Despite what people say, raw single core performance still matters.

Good advice!

 

[jigger]

For gaming I would buy whichever has the fastest single core performance.

I have no doubt that games will use more cores but they are often held back by peak single core performance. They be hitting all 8 cores but it’s highly likely only one to two of them will have significantly more load than the rest.

It’s ultimately the reason why Intel is still better at gaming because they have faster single core performance through their raw clock speed despite being behind in IPC and overall multi core performance.

TLDR: if you are interested in game performance, buy the processor with the best single core performance for the highest FPS in games. It doesn’t really matter if that is 6, 8 or 12 core.

Despite what people say, raw single core performance still matters.

That argument really hasn’t held water for some time. Mantle put an end to the DX10 line of serial processing for games.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

I didn’t say games were single threaded, I said they are normally held back by the processors single threaded performance rather than its overall performance.

When you actually play games, they perform better on processors with the fastest core performance and not the processors with the best overall performance (using more cores). As long as you have ‘enough’ cores to handle the less intensive threads, the games performance is ultimately limited by its individual core performance running the most intensive thread.

Why else do you think that Intel is still better for gaming despite having less overall processing power available and gets utterly destroyed in tasks like video editing?

Their individual cores are still faster dispute having less of them available, adding more cores only goes so far. It’s even more obvious when you compare processors using the same architecture (e.g. fast quad core on the Z platform vs slower six core on the X platform).

 

[Grim5]

It looks like Asus isn't supporting Zen3 or Renoir on any of its 400 series motherboards:
https://videocardz.com/newz/asus-confirms-a520-motherboards-to-support-cezanne-ryzen-5000g-apus

If that is the case this is the last time I will ever buy or recommend an Asus motherboard. They charge a premium and then don't support their motherboards.

This is ASus saying "haha, forced upgrade time! Suckers" and AMD standing on the side saying "not our problem LOL, more $$$ for me too!"

 

[Grim5]

I didn’t say games were single threaded, I said they are normally held back by the processors single threaded performance rather than its overall performance.

When you actually play games, they perform better on processors with the fastest core performance and not the processors with the best overall performance (using more cores). As long as you have ‘enough’ cores to handle the less intensive threads, the games performance is ultimately limited by its individual core performance running the most intensive thread.

Why else do you think that Intel is still better for gaming despite having less overall processing power available and gets utterly destroyed in tasks like video editing?

Their individual cores are still faster dispute having less of them available, adding more cores only goes so far. It’s even more obvious when you compare processors using the same architecture (e.g. fast quad core on the Z platform vs slower six core on the X platform).

Cause you play old games

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

This is ASus saying "haha, forced upgrade time! Suckers" and AMD standing on the side saying "not our problem LOL, more $$$ for me too!"

Well if Asus try that stunt and others don't,I won't be buying their motherboards for a few years,and probably quite a few people I know!

 

[jigger]

I didn’t say games were single threaded, I said they are normally held back by the processors single threaded performance rather than its overall performance.

When you actually play games, they perform better on processors with the fastest core performance and not the processors with the best overall performance (using more cores). As long as you have ‘enough’ cores to handle the less intensive threads, the games performance is ultimately limited by its individual core performance running the most intensive thread.

Why else do you think that Intel is still better for gaming despite having less overall processing power available and gets utterly destroyed in tasks like video editing?

Their individual cores are still faster dispute having less of them available, adding more cores only goes so far. It’s even more obvious when you compare processors using the same architecture (e.g. fast quad core on the Z platform vs slower six core on the X platform).

Years ago you could have made this argument.

Z and X platforms haven’t used the same architecture. One is derived from laptop parts the other from the enterprise.

 

[jigger]

Well if Asus try that stunt and others don't,I won't be buying their motherboards for a few years,and probably quite a few people I know!

Asus have effectively just nuked sales of 300 and 400 series boards and probably most of the next round of Nvidia and AMD cards.

 

[b0rn2sk8]

Cause you play old games

An intel 10900k is better for games dispute being slower than a 3900/3950 in overall performance. It’s better because it’s individual cores are faster. This has been the case since Ryzen launched. People buy Ryzen because its good enough and offers better value with its cheaper overall platform costs.

Years ago you could have made this argument.

Z and X platforms haven’t used the same architecture. One is derived from laptop parts the other from the enterprise.

Yes they do, despite their differences to things like IO and memory, the cores from the same family (e.g. Skylake) have the same underlying architecture and are directly comparable.

Which ever way you look at it, a processor with less cores but clocks higher is faster in games and always has been (bar the odd exception).

The best Zen 4000 processor for gaming will be which ever one clocks the fastest, that will likely be the 8 or 12 core version when it launches. The 16 core will be slower at games because of its slower clock speed.

 

[LePhuronn]

It looks like Asus isn't supporting Zen3 or Renoir on any of its 400 series motherboards:

And they're the only manufacturer AFAIK to not put "PCIe 4 ready" on their Z490 boards, so the chances are they're not supporting Rocket Lake either.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

And they're the only manufacturer AFAIK to not put "PCIe 4 ready" on their Z490 boards, so the chances are they're not supporting Rocket Lake either.

Well,as I said,they are the ones who will lose more money if they try that stunt. They won't be getting anymore motherboard(or even GPU) money from me for years,and I will certainly tell my mates to avoid them. So its their loss,not mine.

The B450I/X470I Strix were the second best mini-ITX motherboards for AM4 until B550/X570 launched,and its VRMs are a halfway house between B450 and B550.

 

[LePhuronn]

The best Zen 4000 processor for gaming will be which ever one clocks the fastest, that will likely be the 8 or 12 core version when it launches. The 16 core will be slower at games because of its slower clock speed.

Well that's not quite true for Ryzen 3000 so will be interesting to see if it's true for 4000.

 

[Joxeon]

An intel 10900k is better for games dispute being slower than a 3900/3950 in overall performance. It’s better because it’s individual cores are faster. This has been the case since Ryzen launched. People buy Ryzen because its good enough and offers better value with its cheaper overall platform costs.



Yes they do, despite their differences to things like IO and memory, the cores from the same family (e.g. Skylake) have the same underlying architecture and are directly comparable.

Which ever way you look at it, a processor with less cores but clocks higher is faster in games and always has been (bar the odd exception).

The best Zen 4000 processor for gaming will be which ever one clocks the fastest, that will likely be the 8 or 12 core version when it launches. The 16 core will be slower at games because of its slower clock speed.

It's mostly down to the ryzen infinity fabric latency rather than Intel single core speed since if you clock both CPUs to 4ghz Intel will still win despite AMD having an IPC advantage.

 

[HACO]

It's mostly down to the ryzen infinity fabric latency rather than Intel single core speed since if you clock both CPUs to 4ghz Intel will still win despite AMD having an IPC advantage.

Yeah, Zen 2 has about a 10% IPC advantage. Intel ones clock higher though.

 

[humbug]

It's mostly down to the ryzen infinity fabric latency rather than Intel single core speed since if you clock both CPUs to 4ghz Intel will still win despite AMD having an IPC advantage.

As evidenced by the 3300X

The 3300X only has 1 CCX, there is 0 Intercore latency, the result of that is this 4 core 8 thread Zen 2 CPU at 4.4Ghz is with in 3% as fast as a 4 core 8 thread 7700K at 5.1Ghz, the clock speed difference between 4.4Ghz and 5.1Ghz is 16%, so the IPC difference is +13% to the 3300X. (186 vs 193 FPS)

The 3100 is exactly the same as the 3300X, the ONLY difference is the 3100 takes its 4 cores from 2 CCX's, like all other Zen 2 CPU's, at the same clock speed it gets 162 FPS, the 3300X at the same clock speed is 14% faster.

In multi CCX versions Zen 2 has about 97% the IPC of Skylake in games, with a single CCX Zen 2 is about 113% of Skylake in games, in productivity workload Zen 2 in any form is... no surprise about 113% of Skylake. Skylake BTW is the same IPC as all its successors.