AMD ZEN 2 7nm CPUs on Track

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,533
AMD just confirmed to us that EPYC ZEN 2 CPUs are well on the way to being sampled into datacenters in the 2nd half of 2018. Forrest Norrod assured us that Zen 3, Zen 4, and Zen 5 were steadily being worked on and would bring performance and feature upgrades certainly. He explained that the 7nm ROME CPU silicon is "looking very good." The ZEN 2 ROME CPUs will be fully launched in 2019. It will be socket compatible with current EPYC CPUs. "We are on track with 7nm, and we are delivering."
 
Watch out for Zen 2 on track 3! This new ROME silicon might end up sweeter than Venice.
 
I'm super excited about Ryzen but I want to wait for Gen 3 in 2019. Hoping for the same clock for clock performance as intel at a much reduced price.

Saw the 2700x was almost as fast as the 8700K but at the same cost. For me, doesn't make sense to buy Ryzen just yet.

However, if they can get the Gen 3 Ryzen to say, 10 or 12 cores and 4.5+ Ghz on all cores at 20% to 25% cheaper than Intel @ the same exact performance or better, then I will make the move. And, it could happen.

I'm going to assume the 9700K is gonna stomp all over AMD.

I love competition!
 
My prediction is that AMD will expand a single CCX to include 6 cores instead of 4, allowing 12 cores on a single chip. This would make Epyc CPUs 48 core 96 thread parts, and allow Ryzen APUs to be 6/12 parts with integrated radeon GPU.

Imagine the new Ryzen 5 featuring 8 cores, and the new Ryzen 7 being 10 or even 12 cores...
 
AMD being on track with 7nm and Intel having problems with their 10nm could be just what AMD needs to bring about another golden Athlon vs P3 era of competition.

Lets hope they don't do a combined "get screwed by Intel's business practices and waste the opportunity" this time.
 
Yeah AMD is almost there clock for clock but not just yet. Going to assume Gen 3 and the new motherboards / microcode, general performance improvements in 2019 will be spot on.

But, Intel could still come in with a surprise to re-capture everyone's attention. Doubtful but we we will see. Intel how about a 10 Core i7-1077 @ 5ghz for $349 :)

If AMD and Intel are the same price I think most will just stick with Intel. AMD really needs that cheaper price to compete.
 
If AMD and Intel are the same price I think most will just stick with Intel. AMD really needs that cheaper price to compete.

If AMD is on par at the same price, or even slightly below the performance of Intel like they are now, my next CPU and motherboard will be AMD, for for no other reason than the joy of once again owning a non-Intel system, and for helping to keep AMD's comeback financially alive.
 
My prediction is that AMD will expand a single CCX to include 6 cores instead of 4, allowing 12 cores on a single chip. This would make Epyc CPUs 48 core 96 thread parts, and allow Ryzen APUs to be 6/12 parts with integrated radeon GPU.

Imagine the new Ryzen 5 featuring 8 cores, and the new Ryzen 7 being 10 or even 12 cores...
It depends a little on how well it will scale on frequency if they can't get above 4.5ghz easily on stock clock maybe then the extra cores would be a good trade off.
AMD being on track with 7nm and Intel having problems with their 10nm could be just what AMD needs to bring about another golden Athlon vs P3 era of competition.

Lets hope they don't do a combined "get screwed by Intel's business practices and waste the opportunity" this time.
But it has to last a good while longer this time :)
 
If they're on par, I don't see a reason to buy Intel.

My problem is volume. So... unless you're always "rolling your own" (which isn't that cheap), buying a cheap AMD system usually isn't possible, at least not with any CPU worthwhile. Just the way it is (today).
 
If Intel and AMD become TRULY equal in performance then I would look to cost as the deciding factor for me. If the performance, cores, price were the same between the two CPU's then I would use market maturity to be the deciding factor. Which would be Intel. It's just the safer bet in my eyes.

Now, if AMD gets within 1% or 2% of Intel but are still a tad bit slower I would then look at cost and cores. If AMD had 2 to 4 more cores over Intel I would go with AMD. Or if the price was 20% to 25% cheaper I would strongly consider AMD. Maybe I would need both a lower cost and and more cores to move over to AMD.

For me the bar is set pretty high. $100 is not going to make or break me so with that logic I just want to focus on the best performance unless I can save $50 - $100 dollars and gain cores.

My metrics for what I buy are different than most. I'm only a fan of performance. I could actually care less if AMD was on the inside or if it were Intel. I do not give a rats ass. I only care about performance, FPS, etc.

But a lot of guys are brand oriented guys. They are not going to lose any sleep if their CPU / GPU was slower.

But, not me.

I bet Gen 3 Ryzen might be the CPU I use in 2019. We will have to wait and see. 7nm Ryzen 12 core 24 thread @ 4.7Ghz Boosted? Hell yeah!
 
I’m a little choked, I can’t wait till 2019 to refresh my Hyper-V servers, they are already pushing 5 years and starting to show their age.
 
8700 (6/12) vs AMD 2700 (8/16) really depends on workload. Faster clocks or more cores / threads? The other factor in this equation for me is / are the Spectre / Meltdown patches and their impact on performance. At this point it looks like AMD is in a better position for my use case but that's different for everyone so YMMV.
 
If AMD is on par at the same price, or even slightly below the performance of Intel like they are now, my next CPU and motherboard will be AMD, for for no other reason than the joy of once again owning a non-Intel system, and for helping to keep AMD's comeback financially alive.
That gesture is effectively meaningless. In industry "no one gets fired for buying Intel" still holds true, and that's the stage things need to get beyond. One home user buying a system or two at a time isn't going to give AMD much of a boost. Companies ordering 200 systems at a time from Dell/HP/Lenovo/etc. are what accomplishes that. Even if we look at the individual user market, most of that market looks at brand recognition(which generally means Intel) and then cost(to an extent) so unless the equivalent AMD CPU is dramatically cheaper it's not going to matter to someone buying a computer for their kid to do homework on that is expected to last 5-7 years. While the enthusiast market is definitely large enough to matter, it's still small.
 
If AMD is on par at the same price, or even slightly below the performance of Intel like they are now, my next CPU and motherboard will be AMD, for for no other reason than the joy of once again owning a non-Intel system, and for helping to keep AMD's comeback financially alive.

Amen!
 
That gesture is effectively meaningless. In industry "no one gets fired for buying Intel" still holds true, and that's the stage things need to get beyond. One home user buying a system or two at a time isn't going to give AMD much of a boost. Companies ordering 200 systems at a time from Dell/HP/Lenovo/etc. are what accomplishes that. Even if we look at the individual user market, most of that market looks at brand recognition(which generally means Intel) and then cost(to an extent) so unless the equivalent AMD CPU is dramatically cheaper it's not going to matter to someone buying a computer for their kid to do homework on that is expected to last 5-7 years. While the enthusiast market is definitely large enough to matter, it's still small.


I think AMD recognises this, as they mentioned that they are building good products to help sell the next generation, not the current one. This was referring to server markets at least.
 
I would (and will) go AMD when Zen 3 comes out if for no other reason than the spectre issues that Intel is having. New vulnerabilities keep being disclosed, and Intel's response has been nothing short of a shit show.
 
That gesture is effectively meaningless. In industry "no one gets fired for buying Intel" still holds true, and that's the stage things need to get beyond. One home user buying a system or two at a time isn't going to give AMD much of a boost. Companies ordering 200 systems at a time from Dell/HP/Lenovo/etc. are what accomplishes that. Even if we look at the individual user market, most of that market looks at brand recognition(which generally means Intel) and then cost(to an extent) so unless the equivalent AMD CPU is dramatically cheaper it's not going to matter to someone buying a computer for their kid to do homework on that is expected to last 5-7 years. While the enthusiast market is definitely large enough to matter, it's still small.

I agree in part, but when it comes to consumers (who are a large part of the market) CPU brand recognition isn't a factor. Most people don't know the difference between Intel or AMD, or if their current computer has one or the other.
 
I agree in part, but when it comes to consumers (who are a large part of the market) CPU brand recognition isn't a factor. Most people don't know the difference between Intel or AMD, or if their current computer has one or the other.
You say that, yet AMD had to fight for years to get beyond the "mhz/ghz", and while Intel hasn't had the same marketing push they used to back in the late 90s, if you ask the average 30-50 year old who doesn't know much about computers if they want Intel or AMD, odds are they won't want the "off-brand" unless it comes at a significant discount(which AMD doesn't meet at this point). Most people are indeed aware of big companies... Apple is a duh, they know Microsoft and Windows, and they generally know Intel.

Even getting outside of the general consumer market(that some people on [H] make the mistake of thinking they're actually a part of that), if I went to my boss and told him we'd save $100 a laptop buying AMD, I'd get asked to bring that up in a meeting with the execs and there's not a chance in hell those guys would go for it. "What's AMD?" and no matter what answer I give, it'll get shot down. I'd stand a better shot at converting the company to Macs. Even the VPs and a few other people in management who basically get to request just about whatever hardware they want... have never considered anything other than Intel, and this is not a tech company I'm talking about.
 
If you gave them a really good reason to buy amd instead of intel (20% reduction in power costs, 50% increase in efficiency, better performance in relevant workloads resulting in deadlines being met earlier, etc), I'm sure they'd consider it at least. I'm not sure, however, whether AMDs numbers are that attractive right now. I imagine they're close.
 
Even getting outside of the general consumer market(that some people on [H] make the mistake of thinking they're actually a part of that), if I went to my boss and told him we'd save $100 a laptop buying AMD, I'd get asked to bring that up in a meeting with the execs and there's not a chance in hell those guys would go for it.
What's AMD?" and no matter what answer I give, it'll get shot down. I'd stand a better shot at converting the company to Macs. Even the VPs and a few other people in management who basically get to request just about whatever hardware they want... have never considered anything other than Intel, and this is not a tech company I'm talking about.

That seems.kind of ridiculous. Since when do execs care what CPU a computer has? These people never look at specs. The furthest they go is "Is that a Dell or a HP?"
 
That seems.kind of ridiculous. Since when do execs care what CPU a computer has? These people never look at specs. The furthest them go is "Is that a Dell or a HP?"
Considering this is about EPYC, it is probably two of the least informed statements I have seen from either of you and off topic.
 
Everyone here is talking performance this and per clock cycle, but it's like all of you have forgotten the hit that Intel CPUs are taking with all the patches and firmware updates to patch all the holes for every single exploit that has come out, which has basically taken Intel CPUs back to 2008. We know of the performance hit from Spectre and Meltdown (4 variants and counting), and now there is the lazy FP state restore (making this variant 5). As it is, AMD systems are now more secure, and probably faster, clock for clock, than a properly patched shitel patched box (IF your motherboard mfg will even update your bios LOOKING AT YOU ASUS you motherfucking assholes). So you want a system that will perform properly, won't be plagued by security holes, and wont' be abandoned or forced to socket upgrade, buy AMD.
 
Hahahahaha. Still laughing. We all know it's a money scheme.
Oh, for sure. If they could get away with getting you to bundle more Intel equipped parts, they would do it. I guess it's a good thing they aren't heavy into RAM, as we'd get a new interface every other year for that as well.

My current PC is an Intel, but that's one thing I always appreciated with AMD - you got some legs in your motherboards. You could refresh the system for cheap by swapping the processor in a few years without doing a complete rebuild.
 
I’m a little choked, I can’t wait till 2019 to refresh my Hyper-V servers, they are already pushing 5 years and starting to show their age.

Ditto, I'm still rocking my 4790 Haswell for my ESXi machine and really would like too invest in a good, (not that the current or last gen aren't) affordable SOHO solution from AMD.
 
Let’s hope AMD gets their chipset out to the MB manufacturers more than a month in advance so we don’t have another fiasco.
 
Let’s hope AMD gets their chipset out to the MB manufacturers more than a month in advance so we don’t have another fiasco.

I guess you havent read any reviews about the X470 chipset and Ryzen +? Those issues are long gone my friend.
 
Ditto, I'm still rocking my 4790 Haswell for my ESXi machine and really would like too invest in a good, (not that the current or last gen aren't) affordable SOHO solution from AMD.
Mine are each running a pair of E5-2430 v2. They just can't keep up.
 
I guess you havent read any reviews about the X470 chipset and Ryzen +? Those issues are long gone my friend.
I’m not paying for a new board to get rid of issues. The fact is if AMD does it again with their next major release we will see it again.
 
I’m not paying for a new board to get rid of issues. The fact is if AMD does it again with their next major release we will see it again.
So which issues have persisted after, i assume, bios etc updates?
Seems in every AMD / Intel thread there is something to the end of '' i have issues with AMD and no updates".
 
I’m not paying for a new board to get rid of issues. The fact is if AMD does it again with their next major release we will see it again.

I'm sure there will be growing pains for both sides when the switch to ddr5/pcie 4.0 happens. But since the cats out of the bag for ryzen amd doesnt have to really worry about being ultra secretive about it like they were for first gen ryzen.
 
I'm super excited about Ryzen but I want to wait for Gen 3 in 2019. Hoping for the same clock for clock performance as intel at a much reduced price.

Saw the 2700x was almost as fast as the 8700K but at the same cost. For me, doesn't make sense to buy Ryzen just yet.

However, if they can get the Gen 3 Ryzen to say, 10 or 12 cores and 4.5+ Ghz on all cores at 20% to 25% cheaper than Intel @ the same exact performance or better, then I will make the move. And, it could happen.

I'm going to assume the 9700K is gonna stomp all over AMD.

I love competition!

9700K is looking to be 14nm
gen 3 amd is 7nm.
AMD have about same IPC as intel thus same clock for clock performance but more in depth look at clock for clock performance:

X299 7820x is loosing against 2700x clock for clock and even with clock advantage.!
8700K vs 2600X is 2-5 % advantage to ringbus intel vs zen+ and Intel loses IPC for each core added on ringbus while mesh have an ipc disadvantage.

If 3700X or something does 4.5 ghz even as boost, 10-12 cores and have 2% ipc I think we have a winner!
 
I guess you havent read any reviews about the X470 chipset and Ryzen +? Those issues are long gone my friend.

Not to diverge too much from topic, but I assume you're partially referring to the mem compatibility issues that plagued Ryzen 1 and it's chipsets? If so, do you know if those issues lied in the chipset or the CPU? Reason I ask is two-fold: if the memory compatibility issues is with the chipset, this largely invalidates the advantage of AM4 handling multiple gens of CPUs if you need to upgrade chipset to avoid issues; 2) I am doing a Ryzen 2600 + x370 build this weekend (and JHC, I had a helluva time getting my 1st Ryzen platform working due to memory issues) :)
 
Back
Top