• 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.

Status
Not open for further replies.
RavenXXX2 said:
Bottleneck is the latency, amd sort that then they will easily be gaming King.
Click to expand...

hopefully! they need to raise the game benchmarks
otherwise this 10700/10900k will be topping the charts again like the 9900k over Amd's 3900X ect

and its more then just maxing out the fabric speed to say 2000mhz
 
AMD are close enough in gaming to the point it does not matter. And looking at sales figures they are out selling Intel 9th gen massively. But would be nice to see them top the charts with Zen 3.
 
RavenXXX2 said:
AMD are close enough in gaming to the point it does not matter. And looking at sales figures they are out selling Intel 9th gen massively. But would be nice to see them top the charts with Zen 3.
Click to expand...

see I think my 3800x is quite a bit down vs say a 9700/9900k, maybe the 3900x with better memory write speeds (due chiplets) and bigger cache would help?
 
FireTwo said:
see I think my 3800x is quite a bit down vs say a 9700/9900k, maybe the 3900x with better memory write speeds (due chiplets) and bigger cache would help?
Click to expand...

Everything from the 3700x up is much of muchness. Even though total cache is up, cache per core is about unchanged. It's only when you get to Threadripper you start to see more cache and it only helps in some games
 
What would really be interesting is if someone takes the 9900K and reduces the uncore speed to see how it affects performance. Intel are already at the point where increases give practically no benefit in performance.

The question that can then be tested is how much AMD need to get the infinity fabric speed up. If Zen 3 is gonna dethrone chips like the 9900K/10700K/10900K in latency sensitive games then they need to get that higher.

A 1:1 FCLK:UCLK would do it I think. Zen 2 already matches KabyLake IPC otherwise.

edit:

That should actually read 2:1. It is already 1:1.
 
Last edited:
RavenXXX2 said:
3800X is about on par with the 3900X. Tuned ram is the way to go for more Zen FPS. See below for what I mean when I say the FPS difference is not worth being concerned about. And that is with a 2080ti at 1080p.

https://www.techspot.com/review/1955-ryzen-3950x-vs-core-i9-9900ks-gaming/
Click to expand...

A few issues here. There’s no reason to limit to the 9900ks mem frequency to 3600mhz. That’s an AMD problem that it’s limited to the IF ratio.

9900ks has oc headroom on the core and cache which should be used. Again, not an Intel problem that AMD platform has limited to no head room for a high all core clock without risking degradation.

Most of us who actually know to tune mem are generally in the 63,000+ read, write range and 36ns or below. That matters. A lot. Latency and bandwidth on Intel also scale with core and cache speed. Uncore reduces bandwidth and core impacts both.

It’s actually pretty easy to limit an Intel system if you don’t know what you’re doing. They require more effort to oc and there are more variables to consider and take more time to dial in. Thankfully they’re virtually impossible to degrade on ambient so you can play with them without too much risk.
 
Robert896r1 said:
A few issues here. There’s no reason to limit to the 9900ks mem frequency to 3600mhz. That’s an AMD problem that it’s limited to the IF ratio.

9900ks has oc headroom on the core and cache which should be used. Again, not an Intel problem that AMD platform has limited to no head room for a high all core clock without risking degradation.

Most of us who actually know to tune mem are generally in the 63,000+ read, write range and 36ns or below. That matters. A lot. Latency and bandwidth on Intel also scale with core and cache speed. Uncore reduces bandwidth and core impacts both.

It’s actually pretty easy to limit an Intel system if you don’t know what you’re doing. They require more effort to oc and there are more variables to consider and take more time to dial in. Thankfully they’re virtually impossible to degrade on ambient so you can play with them without too much risk.
Click to expand...


Stock settings are really what matters though as Stock speeds is all you can guarantee from AMD or INMTEl and also most users dont OC or know how to. For me personally 10 FPS difference is not norticeable and to close to call.
 
Grim5 said:
I just watched a very disturbing video shared by BuildZoid.

it features benchmarks of a 9900k at 5ghz on water cooling vs a 3800x at 5ghz on LN2. Both system using 3733mhz cl14 memory with tuned timings.

Cinebench looked promising it the 3800x demolishing the 9900k by scoring 575 single core points to the 9900k's 520.

But that's where the wins stopped, despite the big advantage the 3800x has it still lost to the 9900k in games... this should not have happened

This tells me that if all zen 3 has is higher clocks and higher ipc it won't do anything for gaming, we have a bottleneck somewhere else. What that bottleneck is I don't know but Im willing to beat it's the high memory latency on zen 2.

Hopefully AMD has found a way to fix this bottleneck so that the extra clocks and ipc actually improve gaming performance cause on zen 2 it does very little - the 3800x gaming performance from stock to all core 5ghz only improved by 5%
Click to expand...

This has been known, from the latency of the CCX design. It has always been the case. Hopefully as the design matures we keep seeing the improvements that we have so far.

That certainly is the assumption from going 8 core CCX and 32mb L3 cache.
 
Curlyriff said:
Not exactly that simple though hey. That's like saying shame we didn't start out with 32 cores, 5Ghz, 64mb L3 cache.

Compromises needed along the road of design hey :)
Click to expand...
Understandable but maybe they didn't put much thought into targeting gamers at first, that being the reason the first chips had even higher latencies? I don't know really, could be cost even
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
Understandable but maybe they didn't put much thought into targeting gamers at first, that being the reason the first chips had even higher latencies? I don't know really, could be cost even
Click to expand...

Honestly I think they knew and they had a target point which they could still hit with time to market and cost. They have already shown they are a version or two ahead in R&D each time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom