-
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
Very green, but I ran R20 last night, cpu sat 63-65 on an evga clc 280.
Dekstop is about 35-40. Gaming is 55.
Thats on a stock 5900X. Was about 620 / 8040 off the top of my head.
Trying to just enjoy it for now, before I try tweaking things. I don't really understand it all, so need to do a lot of research (read time)
Dekstop is about 35-40. Gaming is 55.
Thats on a stock 5900X. Was about 620 / 8040 off the top of my head.
Trying to just enjoy it for now, before I try tweaking things. I don't really understand it all, so need to do a lot of research (read time)
Ryzen 5000U will be rebrandeon: 
"However, the CPU component of the Ryzen 7 5700U is the same as the Ryzen 7 4800U, which also operates with 8 cores and 16 threads, despite the naming difference. The base and boost clocks are similar (1.8 GHz vs. 1.8 GHz and 4.3 GHz vs. 4.2 GHz), with the Lucienne part having a very slight advantage in boost. This time, the multi-core median results offer a -1.19% performance difference"
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-R...ch-multi-core-score-improvement.503942.0.html
"However, the CPU component of the Ryzen 7 5700U is the same as the Ryzen 7 4800U, which also operates with 8 cores and 16 threads, despite the naming difference. The base and boost clocks are similar (1.8 GHz vs. 1.8 GHz and 4.3 GHz vs. 4.2 GHz), with the Lucienne part having a very slight advantage in boost. This time, the multi-core median results offer a -1.19% performance difference"
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-R...ch-multi-core-score-improvement.503942.0.html
WTF? the most popular CPU, by far is the 5900X, the least popular the 5600X.
Also depends on how much in hand stock they had. If they had loads of 5600X then you'd have fewer pre-orders.
Alternatively it may also depend on how long they kept the pre-order open for each SKU. In the GPU releases they kept the pre-order open until they sold 1 month's allocation.
I wouldn't read too much into those numbers.
Omg why? They have just fixed the numbering scheme to make sense! And now adding Zen 2 based things into Zen 3 5000 series... Whoever thought of this should be firedRyzen 5000U will be rebrandeon:
"However, the CPU component of the Ryzen 7 5700U is the same as the Ryzen 7 4800U, which also operates with 8 cores and 16 threads, despite the naming difference. The base and boost clocks are similar (1.8 GHz vs. 1.8 GHz and 4.3 GHz vs. 4.2 GHz), with the Lucienne part having a very slight advantage in boost. This time, the multi-core median results offer a -1.19% performance difference"
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 9,542
- Location
- Milton Keynes
Yeah, seems the uneven numbered ones will be Zen 2, even numbered will be Zen 3.
I assume it means they can deliver similar cores at a more cost effective rate so the performance on those parts can still be good, but lower cost than the premium even part which will likely cost a fair bit more.
Unlike the last gen they will all have SMT also I believe, so I can see a logical sense here.
You get a 'more budget' 8 core option, and then a premium performance option for example, and probably allows them to make better use of pre-existing design components and silicon given the levels of delays there have been this year; Zen 2 based Renoir was out no where near as quick as they and anyone else expected; they will also still boost a bit higher and have slightly faster integrated graphics, so they will still be an improvement albeit small, BUT they are direct replacement for the prior 8 core uneven parts which were also weaker; so they are a good upgrade in that sense. (5700 will beat 4700, 5800 will be 4800, 5700 will slightly beat 4800)
Costing will determine whether this is a good move or not; if they price these well and sensibly, and they are all available in designs they could co-exist well. Alternatively we might see a situation where the OEMs don't adopt some of the CPUs so we actually in real world may not even see them available in machines for purchase.
I'd prefer Zen 3 across the board; but I can see some sense to the approach here; they're still way better than anything Intel had in the ultrabook area; and I'm not aware of whether we know the situation with the H 35/45W parts yet.
I assume it means they can deliver similar cores at a more cost effective rate so the performance on those parts can still be good, but lower cost than the premium even part which will likely cost a fair bit more.
Unlike the last gen they will all have SMT also I believe, so I can see a logical sense here.
You get a 'more budget' 8 core option, and then a premium performance option for example, and probably allows them to make better use of pre-existing design components and silicon given the levels of delays there have been this year; Zen 2 based Renoir was out no where near as quick as they and anyone else expected; they will also still boost a bit higher and have slightly faster integrated graphics, so they will still be an improvement albeit small, BUT they are direct replacement for the prior 8 core uneven parts which were also weaker; so they are a good upgrade in that sense. (5700 will beat 4700, 5800 will be 4800, 5700 will slightly beat 4800)
Costing will determine whether this is a good move or not; if they price these well and sensibly, and they are all available in designs they could co-exist well. Alternatively we might see a situation where the OEMs don't adopt some of the CPUs so we actually in real world may not even see them available in machines for purchase.
I'd prefer Zen 3 across the board; but I can see some sense to the approach here; they're still way better than anything Intel had in the ultrabook area; and I'm not aware of whether we know the situation with the H 35/45W parts yet.
Last edited:
Nice, should get my 5900x in a couple of weeks. Although I will have a play with with OC'ing to see how good the CPU is, in the end I will likely just leave it at stock as overclocking seems to do very little in practical terms due to how good the Precision Boost settings already are.
I don't know why. It doesn't make any sense. Because this means the different SKUs will feature different level of supported functions - if, for example, Smart Access Memory is enabled with potential mobile Radeon RX 6000M series graphics cards:
AMD's Ryzen 5000 APU lineup is a confusing mix of Zen 2 Lucienne and Zen 3 Cezanne parts
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-s...ucienne-and-Zen-3-Cezanne-parts.498427.0.html
This Cryocooler from Intel smacks of desperation, they sponsored Linus Tech Tips with one and a "golden sample" 10900K which he got it to 5.4Ghz needing 1.5v to get it stable enough to do any benchmarks, you wouldn't run a Ryzen CPU for anything more than 10 minutes at those volts let alone a 10900K, and of course he didn't compare any result to Ryzen 5000.
All that to get what, 200 / 300Mhz (5%) more out of it and its not even 24/7 usable? Intel have far too much money to waste.
There isn’t anything special there it’s just a well manufactured TEC cooler at the end of the day and there is a reason why people don’t run them anymore. Not as good as LN2 for extreme overclocking/benchmarking and no better than good water cooling for sensible 24/7 use and all the downsides of being sub-ambient.
Good luck getting a golden 10900k on the open market for now, looks like intel has them all. Supposedly they are giving 200 away in an upcoming LTT stream.
Good luck getting a golden 10900k on the open market for now, looks like intel has them all. Supposedly they are giving 200 away in an upcoming LTT stream.
Yep, the Cryocooler and Intel golden samples are desperation, but I thought it was funny that someone thought to put one on a 5950, just because Intel didn't want them to. Der8auer did get pretty good numbers, but not worth it for the hassle, considering you can get almost to those numbers on air, let alone an AIO. He's planning on trying it with the 5600x and other Ryzens to see if he can get higher clocks with lesser cores.
After admitting Zen 3 is 20% faster in games than Intel using a 3080 and the reason their results don't show that is because they are using a slower 2080TI they go and use a 2080TI again.
What are TPU playing at?
The review shows some 3090 tests too in the graphs. But hes doing a 5950x you would think he would have the 3950x which is the one they updated from so to make a fair comparison, his reviews are getting worse and worse and why the use of a 2080ti when he has a 3090.
The review shows some 3090 tests too in the graphs. But hes doing a 5950x you would think he would have the 3950x which is the one they updated from so to make a fair comparison, his reviews are getting worse and worse and why the use of a 2080ti when he has a 3090.
Ah yes, i see that at the bottom, after showing charts with Zen 3 chips beating Intel by 20% using a 3090 he's managed to get them at exactly the same level as Intel again in the review, its like he responded to the criticism of his reviews being so different to everyone else he's found a way to justify his original 2080TI results with the 3090.
Look at the overall review results. 3300X, a 4 core 4Ghz CPU vs a 5950X at 4.9Ghz scoring 100% with at least 20% higher gaming IPC over 20% higher clocks, 12 more cores, 7% faster.
Something seriously wrong with TPU.
- Status