Zen 2 7 nm, does it do enough ?

cosmogenesis · 8 Jul 2019 at 18:13

single core still struggles a bit against Intel so it’s all down to the future and software that utilises all those cores, lots of software does but games don’t appear to do much as yet. If you game, ghz and IPC on a single core look more important than multi core.

I would have expected more from 7nm or is it all about multi core now?

jigger · 8 Jul 2019 at 18:18

Intel have been munson’d. Single, dual, lightly threaded.

motiv · 8 Jul 2019 at 18:19

cosmogenesis said:
single core still struggles a bit against Intel so it’s all down to the future and software that utilises all those cores, lots of software does but games don’t appear to do much as yet. If you game, ghz and IPC on a single core look more important than multi core.

I would have expected more from 7nm or is it all about multi core now?

For the Price, does it do better or worse for the role you intend it for than an Intel chip?

That's basically all that anyone needs to ask before buying one.

For many, that used to be no. Now however it looks like the answer is yes.

cosmogenesis · 8 Jul 2019 at 18:21

So you don’t necessarily need 8 or 12 cores but as the prices are good relative to the competition you may as well have em ?

MG42Maniac · 8 Jul 2019 at 18:22

IPC is better on Zen 2 Vs 9th Gen Intel. It's not enough to close a massive clock speed advantage though. I've got a 9700K and 2 X 2700X and I'm impressed with the offerings but not enough to open my wallet just yet!

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Jul 2019 at 18:26

There are issues with immature bugs and other problems which are hindering the boost algorithms.

Anandtech is now redoing their review after seeing problems with the BIOS they used!

Anandtech said:
We notice a significant change in the CPU’s boosting behaviour, now boosting to higher frequencies, and particularly at a faster rate from idle, more correctly matching AMD’s described intended boost behaviour and latency.

We’re currently in the process of re-running all our suite numbers and updating the article where necessary to reflect the new frequency behaviour.

beany_bot · 8 Jul 2019 at 18:27

Give it a few months, these chips will be eye for eye with 9900k.

loonyk · 8 Jul 2019 at 18:46

beany_bot said:
Give it a few months, these chips will be eye for eye with 9900k.

After each release, there're tons of new bioses, OS patches and new drivers.
completely agree with you.

Deleted member 66701 · 8 Jul 2019 at 18:49

cosmogenesis said:
single core still struggles a bit against Intel

Erm, no it doesn't.............

RavenXXX2 · 8 Jul 2019 at 18:52

Watch and read the many reviews that all agree Intel are not worth buying now zen 2 rules the desktop landscape.

motiv · 8 Jul 2019 at 18:58

CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
There are issues with immature bugs and other problems which are hindering the boost algorithms.

Anandtech is now redoing their review after seeing problems with the BIOS they used!

The BIOS was not broken for Anand. They used the wrong one to everyone else.

Rroff · 8 Jul 2019 at 19:02

RavenXXX2 said:
Watch and read the many reviews that all agree Intel are not worth buying now zen 2 rules the desktop landscape.

Depends what you are looking for - for the general user Intel are in an odd spot as there really isn't any reason to buy anything other than the 2600 or 3600 - i3 and i5 are LOL worthy and I pity anyone buying them. For higher end desktop usage the story gets far more complicated.

hominid · 8 Jul 2019 at 19:38

Rroff said:
i3 and i5 are LOL worthy

Intels' problem is price! The i3's and i5's are still OK chips for some people, office and light home use/internet surfing etc, but at the moment they get absolutely whooped by AMD at every price point - to a laughably degree. The 15% price cut did something to alter that but Intel didn't do enough, they need another 10-15% drop to get them somewhere in the same ballpark as they are behind.

Intel sucked people dry for way too long and got fat/lazy.. Milking customers by giving them paltry performance increases of less than 5% per generation is laughable and it's finally bit them on the backside.. It's very hard to tun that around, it'll take years, yes they can release emergency stop-gaps but they are being hampered mainly by manufacturing at the moment.

Rroff · 8 Jul 2019 at 19:57

hominid said:
Intels' problem is price! The i3's and i5's are still OK chips for some people, office and light home use/internet surfing etc, but at the moment they get absolutely whooped by AMD at every price point - to a laughably degree. The 15% price cut did something to alter that but Intel didn't do enough, they need another 10-15% drop to get them somewhere in the same ballpark as they are behind.

Intel sucked people dry for way too long and got fat/lazy.. Milking customers by giving them paltry performance increases of less than 5% per generation is laughable and it's finally bit them on the backside.. It's very hard to tun that around, it'll take years, yes they can release emergency stop-gaps but they are being hampered mainly by manufacturing at the moment.

I have a hard time taking the i3 and i5 seriously in this day and age regardless of what AMD has on the table - 4 core / 4 thread should be the preserve of ultra portables, etc. not lower end desktop never mind at near £200.

killem · 8 Jul 2019 at 19:59

Due to the fact that at nearly every process shrink clock speed suffers then the future has to be either a lot better IPC to cope with the loss of MHZ or more cores. AMD have now roughly matched Intel for IPC but are giving us more cores for our money so this is enough for me. We now need the software devs to get with the future and utilize more cores.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 8 Jul 2019 at 20:03

The Core i3 8100 was OK for £100,but now it is the Core i3 9100F with no IGP. The Ryzen 3 3200G,has increased IPC and clockspeeds,and a better IGP over the Ryzen 3 2200G.

ben90 · 8 Jul 2019 at 20:25

I was Intel since the i5 750, then to the 2500k, then onto first gen Ryzen. I like to keep my hardware for as long as possible so for me it has to be Zen 2 for my next upgrade. Relying on clock speed won't last from the way things are shaping up and I am hoping to see Ryzen come into its own for future games.

Just as the first gen, Zen 2 will get better over time and considering it isn't far behind Intel it just seems like the logical purchase. I have always prefered AMD as a company overall so that helps (if only slightly) to my decision to support them when I deem the product is good enough for my needs

Mr.Q · 10 Jul 2019 at 02:05

Amd have come leaps and bounds in a short amount of time you might have been expecting too much op.

Grim5 · 10 Jul 2019 at 02:25

MG42Maniac said:
IPC is better on Zen 2 Vs 9th Gen Intel. It's not enough to close a massive clock speed advantage though. I've got a 9700K and 2 X 2700X and I'm impressed with the offerings but not enough to open my wallet just yet!

Isn't overall zen 2 IPC less than 5% better than CoffeeLake? But that's not enough for the 15 to 20% clock speed difference

Panos · 10 Jul 2019 at 04:17

cosmogenesis said:
single core still struggles a bit against Intel so it’s all down to the future and software that utilises all those cores, lots of software does but games don’t appear to do much as yet. If you game, ghz and IPC on a single core look more important than multi core.

I would have expected more from 7nm or is it all about multi core now?

Grim5 said:
Isn't overall zen 2 IPC less than 5% better than CoffeeLake? But that's not enough for the 15 to 20% clock speed difference

Zen 2 has +7% IPC over CoffeeLake 9900K.

https://youtu.be/tNH9FYgW8m4?t=454

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/amd_ryzen_7_3700x_ryzen_9_3900x_review,9.html

Which means to match the single thread perf needs to run over 7% higher clock speeds. So at 4600Mhz Ryzen 3000, Intel needs to run over 4922 to beat it.
And when the PBO is fixed, it would need over 5082Mhz for the 9900K to run on single core clock.

Competitor rules

Zen 2 7 nm, does it do enough ?

Deleted member 66701

Deleted member 66701