AMD Zen 3 (Ryzen 4000) already in the works

[Curlyriff]

In my opinion nothing will change. Each cpu will get a ipc and speed boost. 4600 will still be 6 core.

Agree, I think we'll see jumps in cores again when 5nm hits, it's two more years away whilst games and software continue to move to leveraging more cores which takes time.

It makes sense to pack more cores at 5nm anyways. Adding all that with DDR5 & PCIE 5.0 also then makes sense. Should help with IF too at that stage.

 

[Deleted member 209350]

In my opinion nothing will change. Each cpu will get a ipc and speed boost. 4600 will still be 6 core.

Kinda sucky if you ask me.

Preferably I would like to see the Ryzen 5's be at 8 cores, the Ryzen 7 at 12 cores and Ryzen 9 can be 16 cores.

From what I gather, does a Ryzen 3 even exist for Zen2? I haven't seen any mention of them for desktop CPU's

 

[TNA]

Kinda sucky if you ask me.

Preferably I would like to see the Ryzen 5's be at 8 cores, the Ryzen 7 at 12 cores and Ryzen 9 can be 16 cores.

From what I gather, does a Ryzen 3 even exist for Zen2? I haven't seen any mention of them for desktop CPU's

I agree. But I am just looking at it from a business stand point. AMD already improved price for performance by a lot and left Intel having to slash prices. Now that they are in the lead and Intel have nothing to offer, there really is little to no reason to do this. End of the say if a 4600 with 6 cores offers in the way of a 20% overall boost in performance for the same price, will people still be complaining about that price only buying 6 cores and not 8?

What you are suggesting (I would love it if it happened by the way) is not only do they give us that roughly 20% boost but on top add 2 more cores making it a huge boost in total performance and charge £200? Not seeing it. Maybe for 5000 series with AMD5 then yes.

 

[SiDeards73]

Dunno i can see AMD pushing further ahead of Intel by increasing core counts again.... really hammer the hurt into Intel, as it stands now Intel still has the kind of Mindshare AMD can only dream about, it'll take a few more years of leadership to even start to turn that ship.

 

[Perfect_Chaos]

In my opinion nothing will change. Each cpu will get a ipc and speed boost. 4600 will still be 6 core.

If they can get latency down and the rumoured IPC boost is accurate then i don't think it matters if a 4600 will still be 6 cores, that might be enough to surpass Intel in gaming where they can still be behind in certain titles.

The desktop chips being 1+Ghz faster and 15%+ more IPC than the next gen consoles probably means even a 4600 6 core would be as good or better than PS5's 8 core chip.

They should raise the clocks on the 6/8 core chips for the 4000 series as well, you'd think 4.7/4.8Ghz would be no problem for those.

 

[LePhuronn]

There's been suggestions that AMD might take the chiplets up to 10 cores for Zen 3 as well, but utilising the extra space made available by 7nm EUV/6nm (whatever TSMC are going to call it) will mean the clock speeds stay the same, possibly getting 100MHz bump on the base clock.

So from here on out it's going to be all about IPC increases rather than clock speeds.

 

[4K8KW10]

If they can get latency down and the rumoured IPC boost is accurate then i don't think it matters if a 4600 will still be 6 cores, that might be enough to surpass Intel in gaming where they can still be behind in certain titles.

The desktop chips being 1+Ghz faster and 15%+ more IPC than the next gen consoles probably means even a 4600 6 core would be as good or better than PS5's 8 core chip.

They should raise the clocks on the 6/8 core chips for the 4000 series as well, you'd think 4.7/4.8Ghz would be no problem for those.

I think the consoles will be something unseen. Probably a chiplet with Zen 2 cores, a chiplet with quite large Arcturus GPU (for the XBox), 1 GB HBM L4-type of cache, and 16GB GDDR6.
They promise non-existent loading times, which no PC can achieve no matter the configuration.

 

[Grim5]

They promise non-existent loading times, which no PC can achieve no matter the configuration.

The SSD is apparently a Samsung 6 series PCIE 4 Nvme Drive. That's plenty fast.
The reason the PC can't do better than it has now is the architecture for the flow of data.

The PS5 is aiming to do things differently to a PC. In addition to the PCIE 4 SSD, it's also uses Sony's 3D ReRAM memory.

Here is my rough understanding of the data flow

PC Load and Play Game: Call SSD -> Process and transfer data into RAM -> Boot game -> While in game, continue this process for loading new levels and assets.

PS5/Next Gen Console: Call SSD -> Process and transfer data into ReRAM -> Transfer data into RAM when called -> Boot game -> While in game, continue to process data into instant ReRAM -> When game asset is called, it's instantly transferred into RAM.

So when a PS5 boots a game, the only loading screen you see is while the game boots the first time, after that there is no loading because the data the game needs is sitting in super fast ReRAM and waiting to send it. This effectively makes the whole process several times faster than an SSD in your desktop PC.

As per the below image, you can see the ReRAM falls closer to your DRAM in terms of access time and is much faster than existing NAND SSD technology.

 

[Deleted member 209350]

I agree. But I am just looking at it from a business stand point. AMD already improved price for performance by a lot and left Intel having to slash prices. Now that they are in the lead and Intel have nothing to offer, there really is little to no reason to do this. End of the say if a 4600 with 6 cores offers in the way of a 20% overall boost in performance for the same price, will people still be complaining about that price only buying 6 cores and not 8?

What you are suggesting (I would love it if it happened by the way) is not only do they give us that roughly 20% boost but on top add 2 more cores making it a huge boost in total performance and charge £200? Not seeing it. Maybe for 5000 series with AMD5 then yes.

I agree in the sense that I can't see it happening tbh. But it seems as if AMD have essentially gotten rid of the 4 core Ryzen options this gen and the 6 core Ryzen 5's seem to be the low end.

I think there's a fairly good chance it'll happen within the next 3 years though, I don't see desktop core counts getting too much higher, 16c will probably be the limit for a while, but splitting their lineup onto 8,12 and 16c options seems the best bet

 

[4K8KW10]

I agree in the sense that I can't see it happening tbh. But it seems as if AMD have essentially gotten rid of the 4 core Ryzen options this gen and the 6 core Ryzen 5's seem to be the low end.

I think there's a fairly good chance it'll happen within the next 3 years though, I don't see desktop core counts getting too much higher, 16c will probably be the limit for a while, but splitting their lineup onto 8,12 and 16c options seems the best bet

If we think even more, I think there is no need to release any 6-core SKUs with Ryzen 4000.
Why, because you should be able to buy Ryzen 7 2700/2700X/3700X for the same money.

In this way, all people will be on 8-core options, the differentiation will be the generation.

 

[TrM]

If we think even more, I think there is no need to release any 6-core SKUs with Ryzen 4000.
Why, because you should be able to buy Ryzen 7 2700/2700X/3700X for the same money.

In this way, all people will be on 8-core options, the differentiation will be the generation.

there has to be a affordable option if the new cpus. We have discussed in other threads that a 3600 is faster in a lot of ways then the 1700x. And was cheaper to buy and you could have 2 upgrades instead of staying on a slower 8 core cpu. The older generation of amd CPU’s are not there main focus they stopped making them and once they sell out they sell out. Amd want the current generation sold that’s were the money is for them. And in most cases it’s were the performance is for us.

you like to take gaming as a good benchmark is there any reason to still get the 1700x or 2700 over a ryzen 3000 part?

 

[Deleted member 209350]

If we think even more, I think there is no need to release any 6-core SKUs with Ryzen 4000.
Why, because you should be able to buy Ryzen 7 2700/2700X/3700X for the same money.

In this way, all people will be on 8-core options, the differentiation will be the generation.

Yeah thats a fair point, but the sheer IPC increase from 2nd gen to 4th gen would be big enough so that the 6 core options would be outperforming older 8 core ones.
I think in a lot of cases the 3600/3600x were outperforming the 2700/2700x so the difference between 2700/2700x and 4600/4600x would only be even bigger.

4 core processors are already essentially phased out for desktop CPU's at this point, 6 core is on its way out as well so so 8 core is going to be the "lower end" processor which is great imo.

8, 12 and 16 core options is more than enough in terms of core counts to choose from for desktop CPU's and with the yearly IPC increases with increases in clock speeds should be overkill enough to last a long long time.

Now if only the performance of GPU's increased as rapidly as the CPU's...

 

[Deleted member 209350]

there has to be a affordable option if the new cpus. We have discussed in other threads that a 3600 is faster in a lot of ways then the 1700x. And was cheaper to buy and you could have 2 upgrades instead of staying on a slower 8 core cpu. The older generation of amd CPU’s are not there main focus they stopped making them and once they sell out they sell out. Amd want the current generation sold that’s were the money is for them. And in most cases it’s were the performance is for us.

you like to take gaming as a good benchmark is there any reason to still get the 1700x or 2700 over a ryzen 3000 part?

The 8 core would become the affordable option. As core counts have increased to 16 on mainstream, 4 and 6 core options have almost become obsolete. 8 core would become the affordable cheap option at ~£200 and it would still be a Ryzen 5.

Ryzen 5 - 8 cores
Ryzen 7 - 12 cores
Ryzen 9 - 16 cores

Not sure how the pricing will be for the 12 and 16 core options though - If the 16c options is going to still be around 750, thats too high imo.

 

[TrM]

The 8 core would become the affordable option. As core counts have increased to 16 on mainstream, 4 and 6 core options have almost become obsolete. 8 core would become the affordable cheap option at ~£200 and it would still be a Ryzen 5.

Ryzen 5 - 8 cores
Ryzen 7 - 12 cores
Ryzen 9 - 16 cores

Not sure how the pricing will be for the 12 and 16 core options though - If the 16c options is going to still be around 750, thats too high imo.

I agree that putting 8 cores on to a ryzen 5 will happen 1 day but why now? Amd have shown 12 cores for 500 pounds sells so why up the core count now.

Look I get that previous gen are better value . But look at 3600 vs 1700x and look at how good they are and how a 6 core can beat in in most ways.

you also said 4 cores is dead now but is still the most used cpu out there and more cores was needed and shows across the board. But how many cores do we need? 8 core and my 12 core currently add very little to most people in most areas.

we have seen with intel what being they market leader will do. I can see 6-8-12-16 core being the same for 4000 series and I can see a 4600 6 core beating a 2700x in nearly every way again same as I can see a 4600 being faster then a 3700x in games also

 

[Deleted member 209350]

I agree that putting 8 cores on to a ryzen will happen 1 day but why now? Amd have shown 12 cores for 500 pounds sells so why up the core count now

Yeah I don't mean now, I think the earliest chance for it to happen is 2021 on the new AM5 chipset - Hopefully by then GPU's would have caught up massively which then actually requires you to have as powerful CPU's as we do now.

Im just hoping for 8 cores to become the "base" level sooner rather than later. Don't want something like what intel did - in keeping 4 cores the norm for about 10 years - to happen again

 

[4K8KW10]

there has to be a affordable option if the new cpus. We have discussed in other threads that a 3600 is faster in a lot of ways then the 1700x. And was cheaper to buy and you could have 2 upgrades instead of staying on a slower 8 core cpu. The older generation of amd CPU’s are not there main focus they stopped making them and once they sell out they sell out. Amd want the current generation sold that’s were the money is for them. And in most cases it’s were the performance is for us.

you like to take gaming as a good benchmark is there any reason to still get the 1700x or 2700 over a ryzen 3000 part?

I will take the 8-core 1700 or 2700 any day instead of any 6-core with any IPC increase.

I agree that putting 8 cores on to a ryzen 5 will happen 1 day but why now?

Because AMD still has a lot to prove in front of the OEMs, OEMs sales are still very poor.

 

[Deleted member 209350]

I will take the 8-core 1700 or 2700 any day instead of any 6-core with any IPC increase.

Really? Maybe between Zen+ and Zen2 there's not much difference, but a 1700 vs a 3600 or 4600.. They are way ahead. Even the 2700 will be behind

 

[TrM]

I will take the 8-core 1700 or 2700 any day instead of any 6-core with any IPC

would you really? And please do tell the whole forum how many cores you have ? You would take a 8 core older IPC slower then a new 6 core in many ways cpu? Amd haven’t forced you to upgrade yet to a 8 core 2700 at 150 pounds so why say the advice You haven’t yourself taken yet?

Because AMD still has a lot to prove in front of the OEMs, OEMs sales are still very poor.

amd could be 2x quicker and intel will sell more to OEM’ s.as I said in another thread slap a intel sticker on a 3900x and it’s the second coming of a new era in CPU’s. Since it has amd on it it’s not. Until amd themself can combat intels tactics with oem’s they will never topple intel in that area. Buisness is dirty allways have been and in tech world it’s even worse.

 

[LePhuronn]

Because AMD still has a lot to prove in front of the OEMs, OEMs sales are still very poor.

Says a lot when Dell turn around and say they are "evaluating" using Ryzen in their systems.

OEM and laptop were always the 3rd target for AMD. Server is in the bag, desktop is on a roll, now time to take the proven technology and convince OEMs to come and play.

 

[Deleted member 209350]

Says a lot when Dell turn around and say they are "evaluating" using Ryzen in their systems.

OEM and laptop were always the 3rd target for AMD. Server is in the bag, desktop is on a roll, now time to take the proven technology and convince OEMs to come and play.

Don't forget HEDT parts too, threadripper is light years ahead in that department. Out of Server, HEDT and Desktop CPU's, the difference between Intel and AMD in HEDT is probably the biggest