• 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.
Panos said:
Seems AMD uses now proven Nvidia tactics....... :D



I wonder, would we see Grim5 doing such posts in the Graphic card section if AMD beats Nvidia to pulp? :rolleyes::D
He already run scared, when pointed at him that his boasting of Ampere means 400W GPU, and tops 27 chips per $10,000 silicon wafer. (probably less given the density).
Click to expand...

Lets not get ahead of ourselves, i think AMD now, finally with some Money to spend on R&D will do great things with RDNA2 and come out fighting, but Nvidia are not Intel. :)
 
humbug said:
#### ME..... the needle just snapped on my cringeometer.

What's with that almost tearful face of grief?

We already have Steve from GN behaving like he feels personally slighted by AMD's resurgence and now this idiot has an emotional breakdown on Youtube because Intel are falling behind AMD in their products...
Click to expand...

Mentions everybody makes mistakes...illegally bribing major PC companies with millions and millions of dollars to not sell AMD product, sure was some years long continuous mistake.

Funny no mention of that by this guy.
 
I will add, separately... i think a lot of todays reviewers are pretty clueless about AMD's success in the 1990's and early 2000's, to them Intel have always been the one with the untouchable aurora about them with AMD basically the pound land alternative.

They have no clue about just how good AMD actually are when they are not on the brink of bankruptcy and so a lot of them just cannot believe that AMD are actually capable of making better CPU's than Intel.

I'm in my mid 40's, i do know... i've seen this before and Intel didn't win by being better, in a fair fight they aint and they know it.
 
humbug said:
I will add, separately... i think a lot of todays reviewers are pretty clueless about AMD's success in the 1990's and early 2000's, to them Intel have always been the one with the untouchable aurora about them with AMD basically the pound land alternative.

They have no clue about just how good AMD actually are when they are not on the brink of bankruptcy and so a lot of them just cannot believe that AMD are actually capable of making better CPU's than Intel.

I'm in my mid 40's, i do know... i've seen this before and Intel didn't win by being better, in a fair fight they aint and they know it.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear!
 
I remember my first PC was a 386 and back then you didn’t have all these motherboard compatibility issues. Yes the chipsets got a little hot when you plugged in newer CPUs but there were little fans and heat sinks you can buy and literally glue to chips. Pretty much every piece of substantial silicon needed a heat sink otherwise they got real toasty

I think I upgraded my pc so much it was a new system at the end. Until the whole pentium CPU came out that changed the socket, memory etc etc. Then AMD’s Athlon and FX lines. Water cooling was a real big thing as well back then. No AIO. Lots of jubilee clips and praying that there is no leaks. Haha.

AMD and intel historically seem to take the crown off each other every 10yrs also.
 
humbug said:
I will add, separately... i think a lot of todays reviewers are pretty clueless about AMD's success in the 1990's and early 2000's, to them Intel have always been the one with the untouchable aurora about them with AMD basically the pound land alternative.

They have no clue about just how good AMD actually are when they are not on the brink of bankruptcy and so a lot of them just cannot believe that AMD are actually capable of making better CPU's than Intel.

I'm in my mid 40's, i do know... i've seen this before and Intel didn't win by being better, in a fair fight they aint and they know it.
Click to expand...

We are same age more or less. AMD 386, 486 and K5 were pretty amazing CPUs. They were faster than the Intel equivelents by 20%+ and far cheaper. (486 120mhz monstrocity was twice as fast than the best Intel could offer)
And by 20% true 20%. Intel best 386 was 33Mhz, AMD was making 40mhz.
With K6/K6-2 lost bit the performance and then T-bird came out dominating the market well into 2006 when C2D came out.
That is a straight 14 years AMD lead, followed by 10 years Intel lead and now AMD getting back again.
 
I think for the next lot of chips from either Intel or AMD, it's going to depend how much of a jump we get from Zen 3 if i decide to upgrade. Then with AMD if it's the same as this generation then i would want to skip Zen 4 because: DDR5 prices will probably be high and the speeds etc won't be best to start with, first AM5 boards won't work with the last release of processors.

If Intel come back with a huge jump that AMD won't even be able to match in single core performance or something, i will probably go with them then.
 
If the new 16 core Zen 3's boost clock frequency is 100Mhz lower (4.6ghz) and base clock is 200Mhz higher (3.9ghz) that does suggest AMD have decided to more accurately reflect the real world performance of their CPUs which is a good thing. Hopefully they can sustain higher frequencies for longer than previously too and it's good that they've chosen to be more realistic about the actual frequencies users are likely to achieve.
 
Jacky60 said:
If the new 16 core Zen 3's boost clock frequency is 100Mhz lower (4.6ghz) and base clock is 200Mhz higher (3.9ghz) that does suggest AMD have decided to more accurately reflect the real world performance of their CPUs which is a good thing. Hopefully they can sustain higher frequencies for longer than previously too and it's good that they've chosen to be more realistic about the actual frequencies users are likely to achieve.
Click to expand...

We do not know about the new clocks. Leaks are based on ES chips. If the ES chips already boost to 4.6Ghz then it could be more.
Also we know both N7P and N7+ allow for higher clock speeds. (N7P 7-10%, N7+ ~10-12%)

However AMD might opt for the 10% less power consumption over Zen 2. We shall see.
 
Base clock increase definitely confirms power consumption improvement from N7P.
Could 4.6GHz be all core boost, compared to current 4.1-4.2? Not very likely, but if it is, that explains "alarming performance gains" leaked earlier.
 
lnoton said:
So not realising my x570 aorus master only has a 16mb rom, I'm on the assumption that a new bios will come along with Zen 3 support and it is likely going to stop my board working with older chips. No problem for me.

Is that right? Or am I not getting zen3? As b450 ain't getting it because they have only 16mb too?
Click to expand...

Chuk_Chuk said:
From the AMD slide i believe your board only officially supports Zen 3 and Zen 4
Click to expand...

This can't be right, surely? Zen 4 support?
 
Troezar said:
Do we all think a 4950X is going to be the most powerful CPU released for AM4?
Click to expand...

Yes, unless AMD decide to do a Zen 3+ refresh which depending on how long it takes to get AM5 ready with DDR5 is quite possible and would be a stop gap available exclusively to 500 series boards. This could also be why they implicitly stated that Zen 3 would be last CPUs available for the 400 series chipsets to avoid any future confusion.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom