• 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 4" thread (inc AM5/APU discussion) ***

Does anyone have suggestions for RAM to go with my 7700x and MSI Tomahawk mobo? I'm building my PC to primarily play MW2 but may use it for work - 3D structural engineering analysis.

Edit: I've found the memory section of the forum. I'll go take a look there.
 
Last edited:
Toasty said:
They are aimed at gaming not productivity so makes sense.
Click to expand...

Disagree - plenty of gamers want >8 cores, so they can have background tasks use the other cores while gaming. Lots of games *need* 6-8 cores just to run well these days, leaving nothing for background tasks.

Also why compromise? If you need > 8 cores for productivity, it's nice to also game on the same system with no penalty. A 12 or 16 core 3D cache Zen4 CPU would be perfect for this.

AMD could command premium price for what would be insane performance and Intel would have absolutely nothing to compete.
 
Very intregued to see what clocks these end up at, I wonder if they may even keep them artifically lower than they are capable of as otherwise they will totally gimp the rest of the 6 and 8 cores in their line up.
 
Dave2150 said:
Disagree - plenty of gamers want >8 cores, so they can have background tasks use the other cores while gaming. Lots of games *need* 6-8 cores just to run well these days, leaving nothing for background tasks.

Also why compromise? If you need > 8 cores for productivity, it's nice to also game on the same system with no penalty. A 12 or 16 core 3D cache Zen4 CPU would be perfect for this.

AMD could command premium price for what would be insane performance and Intel would have absolutely nothing to compete.
Click to expand...
By plenty you mean the very few top end gamers in the grand scheme of things - the ones to drop £1k that a 7950X3D would probably cost.

Hardly any (if at all) consumer applications benefit from the vcache outside of gaming so makes it pointless for boosting productivity over the 7900X/7950X, and the dual CCD layout on 12/16 would mean its just like now where they are worse a single CCD in gaming. So very niche use case.

Given they will be waste Genoa X dies again, they will be no doubt trying to make best use and including a 6 core is a good move at least.
 
SilverCider said:
Background tasks do not park on 'free' cores nor do they require a core specifically to run.
Click to expand...

Not correct - background tasks (programs) will use CPU cores when active. They're not always active - but when they are, they'll need CPU cycles from a CPU core.

Think of things that normal people typically have active in the "background" when gaming. Discord, youtube, twitch, AV, fan control/RBG control, Spotify etc.
 
Toasty said:
By plenty you mean the very few top end gamers in the grand scheme of things - the ones to drop £1k that a 7950X3D would probably cost.

Hardly any (if at all) consumer applications benefit from the vcache outside of gaming so makes it pointless for boosting productivity over the 7900X/7950X, and the dual CCD layout on 12/16 would mean its just like now where they are worse a single CCD in gaming. So very niche use case.

Given they will be waste Genoa X dies again, they will be no doubt trying to make best use and including a 6 core is a good move at least.
Click to expand...

There are "plenty" of gamers out there with 7950x, 13900k, 4090 GPU's. I agree these are the target audience for a potential 7950X with 3D cache. These would be very high margin parts for AMD, so it's very much in their interest to make them.
 
Dave2150 said:
Not correct - background tasks (programs) will use CPU cores when active. They're not always active - but when they are, they'll need CPU cycles from a CPU core.

Think of things that normal people typically have active in the "background" when gaming. Discord, youtube, twitch, AV, fan control/RBG control, Spotify etc.
Click to expand...

But they do not necessarily consume or control cores directly, the scheduler will balance alongside any demand from other heavy tasks from gaming. You don't need 8+ cores simply because a game has been developed for a console that has 8 cores for example.
 
Dave2150 said:
These would be very high margin parts for AMD
Click to expand...
Peanuts compared with server parts. Server market will eat all 3D chips they can get.

It is enough to have a 8-core top gaming CPU for prestige. Intel won't have anything come close until (delayed) Meteor Lake.
Seems they also do 6-core part in response to super aggressive pricing of 13600K.
 
Dave2150 said:
Disagree - plenty of gamers want >8 cores, so they can have background tasks use the other cores while gaming. Lots of games *need* 6-8 cores just to run well these days, leaving nothing for background tasks.
Click to expand...

Make up you mind, once again you contradict yourself.

Dave2150 said:
These CPU's are mostly aimed at gamers, where the gaming performance doesn't benefit (in 99.9% of situations) from more than 8 cores.
Click to expand...

How do you even take yourself seriously when you just make stuff up to suit your brand bias?
 
Last edited:
The X3D needing more than 8 cores is a strange hill to die on. Depending on price, the 6 core having a X3D variant is a better play than 12/16 core. If you look at the sales of the X3D, it's when the price cuts happened that put it in the mainstream bracket. 6 core X3D should do the same out of the gate.
 
Last edited:
The reason why there isn't a 12 or 16 core X3D CPU,is probably because of cost and maybe cooling requirements(because of the extra layer on top of the core chiplet) - this is probably why the Ryzen 7 5800X3D was so locked down,and had lower clockspeeds. AMD first demoed a Ryzen 9 5900X3D but never released it.

I also don't see the point of a six core X3D part - six core parts should be entry level now. It seems we are going back to the Intel meme of faster and faster quad core CPUs for more money. People didn't learn that lesson then,and they are not learning it now. That stagnation,really pushed back game development because trying to load everything onto a few cores ultimately limits what you can do in a game.Again,its consoles which seem to be pushing forward core utilisation in games.

How much is the Ryzen 7 7600X3D going to cost? The Ryzen 7 5800X3D was about a $100 more than the Ryzen 7 5800X,so about £80 at the time IIRC.

The Ryzen 5 7600X is £320~£330 now. So £400? How much is a Ryzen 7 7700X3D going to cost? The Ryzen 7 7700X is £420 now. So £500? So might as well get the Ryzen 7 7700X3D.

Considering that more and more gamers,stream and people want to do other stuff with their PCs,not sure I would think a £400 six core CPU would be worth it,however fast it is. Many here who change their CPUs faster than their underwear won't care because they will dump it quickly when Zen5 comes out.

Honestly I think AMD should just release the Ryzen 7 7700X3D. If anyone is spending £400 on a CPU,that means they probably have a decent dGPU too which costs more,so another £100 is really not much in comparison. If OTH,it replaced the Ryzen 5 7600X at a closer price point and the Ryzen 5 7600X dropped well under £300,it might have a place.
 
Last edited:
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The reason why there isn't a 12 or 16 core X3D CPU,is probably because of cost and maybe cooling requirements. I also don't see the point of a six core X3D part - six core parts should be entry level now. It seems we are going back to the Intel meme of faster and faster quad core CPUs for more money. People didn't learn that lesson then,and they are not learning it now. That stagnation,really pushed back game development because trying to load everything onto a few cores ultimately limits what you can do in a game.Again,its consoles which seem to be pushing forward core utilisation in games.

Considering that more and more gamers,stream and people want to do other stuff with their PCs,not sure I would think a £400 six core CPU would be worth it,however fast it is.

This is the same stuff Nvidia is doing as pricing its AD104 as a premium priced RTX4070TI/RTX4080. Yes its fast,but all you doing is stagnating mainstream performance gains. If OTH,it replaced the Ryzen 5 7600X at a similar price point and the Ryzen 5 7600X dropped well under £300,it might have a place.

Honestly I think AMD should just release the Ryzen 7 7700X3D.
Click to expand...

Ryzen 5500, 6 Zen 3 cores and 12 threads, £100. https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-...hz-socket-am4-processor-retail-cp-3d3-am.html

MSI RX 6650XT Gaming X, £300. https://www.overclockers.co.uk/msi-...ddr6-pci-express-graphics-card-gx-38s-ms.html

Asus TUF Gaming AM4 Motherboard, £80 https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...cket-am4-ddr4-matx-motherboard-mb-6fe-as.html

Corsair LPX 3600Mhz Ryzen tuned DDR4 2X 8GB (16GB) £60 https://www.overclockers.co.uk/cors...ry-dual-kit-cmk16gx4m2z3600c18-my-4bw-cs.html

Total £540 for a 1440P 60+ or high refresh-rate 1080P gaming rig.

An Intel "save the day" GPU is £450 and slower, things aren't so bad if you look.
 
Last edited:
SilverCider said:
But they do not necessarily consume or control cores directly, the scheduler will balance alongside any demand from other heavy tasks from gaming. You don't need 8+ cores simply because a game has been developed for a console that has 8 cores for example.
Click to expand...

I'll keep it simple. For the games I play, with the applications I need to also keep running in the background, an 8 core CPU is not sufficient. I think there's a large market for >8 core 3D cache CPU's, these would be very profitable for AMD due to increased margin on high end/flagship CPU's.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
The reason why there isn't a 12 or 16 core X3D CPU,is probably because of cost and maybe cooling requirements(because of the extra layer on top of the core chiplet) - this is probably why the Ryzen 7 5800X3D was so locked down,and had lower clockspeeds. AMD first demoed a Ryzen 9 5900X3D but never released it.

I also don't see the point of a six core X3D part - six core parts should be entry level now. It seems we are going back to the Intel meme of faster and faster quad core CPUs for more money. People didn't learn that lesson then,and they are not learning it now. That stagnation,really pushed back game development because trying to load everything onto a few cores ultimately limits what you can do in a game.Again,its consoles which seem to be pushing forward core utilisation in games.

How much is the Ryzen 7 7600X3D going to cost? The Ryzen 7 5800X3D was about a $100 more than the Ryzen 7 5800X,so about £80 at the time IIRC.

The Ryzen 5 7600X is £320~£330 now. So £400? How much is a Ryzen 7 7700X3D going to cost? The Ryzen 7 7700X is £420 now. So £500? So might as well get the Ryzen 7 7700X3D.

Considering that more and more gamers,stream and people want to do other stuff with their PCs,not sure I would think a £400 six core CPU would be worth it,however fast it is. Many here who change their CPUs faster than their underwear won't care because they will dump it quickly when Zen5 comes out.

Honestly I think AMD should just release the Ryzen 7 7700X3D. If anyone is spending £400 on a CPU,that means they probably have a decent dGPU too which costs more,so another £100 is really not much in comparison. If OTH,it replaced the Ryzen 5 7600X at a closer price point and the Ryzen 5 7600X dropped well under £300,it might have a place.
Click to expand...

Could be heat related, though I think AMD could get away with a very high TDP 12/16 core Zen4 3D Cache model, considering the popularity of the very power hungry 13900k.

Maybe there's a mechanical/engineering related reason they can't do it currently, either way I'm disappointed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom