New Zen 2 Leak

Status
Not open for further replies.
I suspect the bandwidth and memory controller issues won't be as bad as they are with the 2990X, which produces very schizoid performance depending on workload due to its strange configuration. At least all dies will have direct memory access through the I/O die, and won't have to make the extra hop.

However, we are seeing, in effect, a doubling of cores without a corresponding doubling of bandwidth. No doubt AMD has better, faster memory support, and has addressed some latency issues with their memory controller too (though moving to the I/O die might cancel out some of those improvements). However, they will not have anywhere near double the bandwidth. So I don't doubt that there will be certain instances where core scaling will run into a bandwidth wall.

Still, that doesn't matter overmuch. So you won't see 100% core scaling. So what? It won't be schizoid like the 2990X, at least. And you're still getting more cores for the money. It's a good move by AMD.
 
Yeah, I agree with you that Ryzen & X570 with DDR4 could be memory starved with dual channel DDR4.


noko said:
In a nutshell, AMD or someone released a smoke bomb. Why not put doubt in those getting ready to purchase parts for Intel or Nvidia?

The problem I have with a 16 core Ryzen, X570 based at 5ghz is that it would be memory starved with dual channel DDR4. Great at some things and very restricted in others. Really makes no sense and the power requirements, especially pushing clock speeds would be much higher then indicated on the Adored TV charts. Still talking about a design where a lot of it is 14nm. Now AMD can be kinda unclear when they deal with power ratings, as in Vega the power rating is based off of the GPU and not the whole board (HBM, VRM losses etc.). So 105w of power per chiplet???? Who knows.

Now I would be more than happy if AMD found and made work some evolutionary advancements - more fun times indeed! A low power 5ghz 8 core Ryzen would be awesome in itself, 12 cores??? 16 cores??? I just don't see TSMC capacity at 7nm being able to support all of this.
Click to expand...

I'm not confused at all. Here's another video that backs me up saying early in the video at around 2 minutes that the chances of any releases at CES 2019 are zero - he says Computex in June at the earliest with a Q3 fall release possible. There's just no reason to believe otherwise from anything AMD themselves have said.





and here's an article that backs me up too:

https://www.techspot.com/news/77769-our-take-amd-zen-2-cpu-navi-gpu.html
 
Last edited:
JoseJones said:
Yeah, I agree with you that Ryzen & X570 with DDR4 could be memory starved with dual channel DDR4.




I'm not confused at all. Here's another video that backs me up saying early in the video at around 2 minutes that the chances of any releases at CES 2019 are zero - he says Computex in June at the earliest with a Q3 fall release possible. There's just no reason to believe otherwise from anything AMD themselves have said.





and here's an article that bask me up too:

https://www.techspot.com/news/77769-our-take-amd-zen-2-cpu-navi-gpu.html
Click to expand...


For Navi yea sure. I think that will be mid year unless they are well ahead and are ready to mass produce as of now and have enough capacity. But as far as zen 2, I would not be surprised at all if they announce some zen 2 chips with March-April availability along with motherboards.
 
JoseJones said:
Yeah, I agree with you that Ryzen & X570 with DDR4 could be memory starved with dual channel DDR4.




I'm not confused at all. Here's another video that backs me up saying early in the video at around 2 minutes that the chances of any releases at CES 2019 are zero - he says Computex in June at the earliest with a Q3 fall release possible. There's just no reason to believe otherwise from anything AMD themselves have said.





and here's an article that bask me up too:

https://www.techspot.com/news/77769-our-take-amd-zen-2-cpu-navi-gpu.html
Click to expand...


Techspot = hardware unboxed weird that they have the same opinion in the matter ;)

I wish I was as talented as the folks from Techspot I would make 12 different websites with the same opinion :)

Since there no specs available for X570 and people presume it is just the same thing with a different number is weird if that one is specifically for the 16 core AM4 and not deal with obvious issues stemming from having a 16 core product on another platform for the same reason I guess ?
 
juanrga said:
Real-life memory-bound workloads (e.g. many HPC workloads) will behave as in the STREAM benchmark.
Click to expand...

Isn't this a totality?

Any system operating on a memory bound workload, will be bound by memory.

STREAM is designed to test the memory subsystem.

No magic sauce will circumvent a memory bottleneck. This goes for Intel, Arm, nVidia, AMD, IBM, etc.
 
schmide said:
Isn't this a totality?

Any system operating on a memory bound workload, will be bound by memory.

STREAM is designed to test the memory subsystem.

No magic sauce will circumvent a memory bottleneck. This goes for Intel, Arm, nVidia, AMD, IBM, etc.
Click to expand...

His response get a 30% grade, very few real world workloads look like stream, pure sequential memory copy's with zero computational load are rare. Databases, jump around at utter random, but will generally hit certain parts of the dataset more often then others, the top branches of btree's will tend to get into the cache, and get used over and over again, where as the lower leafs of btree's will tend to always be in memory, meaning memory access are generally packed together and bursty, things like coherency, processor CAS(conditional assignment) latency, speculative read ahead, pre-fetching are bigger effects on performance then memory channels per core, after the baseline minimum has been reached(and 8 channels, hell 4 channels hits this on current platforms).

Similar memory access patterns for virtual machines, or machine learning, or hell your office suite can be observed.

The biggest performance difference with epyc and threadripper 1000/2000(excluding wx series) chips is having memory in every NUMA domain and a processor scheduler that isn't windows. Threadripper 3000 WX will be a very interesting beast with the NUMA domain memory access issue being made moot.
 
A lot of these pre-launch leaks are pure fabrication. Just practice... well... zen, and wait for the official information. We'll get it sooner or later.

5.1Ghz, 16 core, even if just a single core max turbo, does seem a little optimistic to me, but I've been surprised before. I'll reserve judgment until we have real silicon through.

That said, I'd be happy with "only" 8 cores if I can get above 5ghz clocks.

I just wish there were more PCIe lanes...
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
A lot of these pre-launch leaks are pure fabrication. Just practice... well... zen, and wait for the official information. We'll get it sooner or later.

5.1Ghz, 16 core, even if just a single core max turbo, does seem a little optimistic to me, but I've been surprised before. I'll reserve judgment until we have real silicon through.

That said, I'd be happy with "only" 8 cores if I can get above 5ghz clocks.

I just wish there were more PCIe lanes...
Click to expand...

The current amount isn't "horrible"...
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
A lot of these pre-launch leaks are pure fabrication. Just practice... well... zen, and wait for the official information. We'll get it sooner or later.

5.1Ghz, 16 core, even if just a single core max turbo, does seem a little optimistic to me, but I've been surprised before. I'll reserve judgment until we have real silicon through.

That said, I'd be happy with "only" 8 cores if I can get above 5ghz clocks.

I just wish there were more PCIe lanes...
Click to expand...

Some of them probably are. AMD and TSMC claim a 1.25x performance uplift/watt from 7nm vs 14LP. 14LP brought Zen to 4GHz max boost (4.1 XFR). So 5GHz max boost, 5.1GHz XFR at AMD's 95 watt TDP (which isn't really 95, but whatever) would be in line with that. 1.25x 3.6 base clock would be 4.5, but the leak says 4.3 base. This makes some sense, too, because the leaked 16 core 3850x part is rated at 135 watts. 2x 95 watt would be 190 and would blow that out. They'd need to sacrifice some base clock speed to stay within even AMD's nominal 135 watt spec.

If it was top quality silicon - cherry picked shit - it would plausible.

I'd think a 4GHz base, 5GHz max single core turbo is more likely, though. Easier to stay within the power envelope that way. Similarly, a 4GHz base, 5GHz max boost for a 12 core 3700x would make more sense too, for a 105 watt TDP.

One thing I think the leaks are probably right on - even if they are outright fucking fabrications (entirely possible) is that AMD will be carrying over the chiplet concept, and have a smaller 2 channel I/O die for AM4. This means I think 12 and 16 core products are very likely now.
 
notarat said:
The current amount isn't "horrible"...
Click to expand...

Yes it is. 16 lanes only. Plus a small amount to the chipset. That's enough for a GPU and nothing else. I have at least 4 more expansion cards I'd want to use in any desktop build I go after.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
I suspect the bandwidth and memory controller issues won't be as bad as they are with the 2990X, which produces very schizoid performance depending on workload due...
Click to expand...

They fixed it mostly. It's not the chip so much as windows scheduler. Nvidia drivers played a huge role. Also the latest iteration of ryzen master solved a huge issue with the memory pooling via changes to how it dedicates threads to particular numa nodes etc...

Linux has ZERO of the memory pool issues that windows has. So your assessment sounds mostly like hear say at this point. These problems should hopefully be resolved in threadripper 3000 of which I will be getting as well.[/QUOTE]
 
tangoseal said:
They fixed it mostly. It's not the chip so much as windows scheduler. Nvidia drivers played a huge role. Also the latest iteration of ryzen master solved a huge issue with the memory pooling.

Linux has ZERO of the memory poll issues that windows has. So your assessment sounds mostly like hear say at this point. These problems should hopefully be resolved in threadripper 3000 of which I will be getting as well.
Click to expand...

It still has issues. Yes, yes, the issues are mitigated by better scheduling (or, made worse by shitty scheduling on Windows - take your pick). I never really bothered reading up on the Nvidia driver issue - but it wouldn't surprise me if you were right about that. Fact remains, half the cores have much greater latency than the other half, and this still produces issues, because it's a fundamental hardware/design issue. I'm sure it's worth the tradeoffs for certain workloads - else AMD wouldn't have made them.

When we have 4 (or more? Rome has up to 8) chiplets connected to a single I/O die as we have with Zen 2, this problem goes away entirely. You won't have that latency penalty on half the cores. That part is not hearsay or rumor, that is fact - working chiplet silicon was already demonstrated by AMD. The scheduler can be retarded and you'll still see the benefits.
 
One way to simulate memory bandwidth restrictions for dual channel 16 core is to go single channel 8 core and see how the current Ryzen perform. Cannot really use games as a benchmark since 6 core to 16 core the game would use the same bandwidth for the most part and dual channel would be fine unless one loads and use the other cores for something else while gaming.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yes it is. 16 lanes only. Plus a small amount to the chipset. That's enough for a GPU and nothing else. I have at least 4 more expansion cards I'd want to use in any desktop build I go after.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's why they make threadripper, for edge cases, of which adding 4 expansion cards certainly is one in 2018/2019. Side bonus is you'll get 64 cores if you want/need them end of 2019. I'm seriously considering moving to TR4 just for that capability, but reality is I'm only using all 8 cores on certain workloads now, so the am4 path to 12-16 cores should be fine. I would like to build a 3df zephyr benchmark to see how much can be gained by going from 8 cores up to 16-32 and how that compares to CUDA scaling, but only so much time in a day.
 
bobzdar said:
Yeah, that's why they make threadripper, for edge cases, of which adding 4 expansion cards certainly is one in 2018/2019. Side bonus is you'll get 64 cores if you want/need them end of 2019. I'm seriously considering moving to TR4 just for that capability, but reality is I'm only using all 8 cores on certain workloads now, so the am4 path to 12-16 cores should be fine. I would like to build a 3df zephyr benchmark to see how much can be gained by going from 8 cores up to 16-32 and how that compares to CUDA scaling, but only so much time in a day.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I just wish there were something between Ryzen and Threadripper.

I don't need a gazillion cores. As long as a chip has at least 6C/12T, I think I'd take clock speed over core count. I also do the want to deal with infinity fabric/Numa considerations with ram being on different dies with latency etc.

So, currently in my system in addition to the GPU I have a sound card, a 10G Ethernet adapter and two PCIe SSD's.

I could easily get rid of the sound card. I keep it for old times sake, because I don't like the on board sound, but honestly, I have an external DAC anyway, so I don't really need it.

The 10G Ethernet may be a little unusual in the client world, but I use it for a fast direct link to my NAS.

The two PCIe SSD's don't feel that extreme to me either. I ran out of space on my 400GB Intel 750, so I added a 1TB Samsung 970 Evo.

None of this feels like it is all that crazy and corner case.

I'm actually astonished that so many people have just the GPU in an expansion slot, and that's it. So much of making our systems custom and unique to us has to do with hardware expansion to meet our needs. Take that away and the PC is a shell of it's former self.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yeah, I just wish there were something between Ryzen and Threadripper.

I don't need a gazillion cores. As long as a chip has at least 6C/12T, I think I'd take clock speed over core count. I also do the want to deal with infinity fabric/Numa considerations with ram being on different dies with latency etc.

So, currently in my system in addition to the GPU I have a sound card, a 10G Ethernet adapter and two PCIe SSD's.

I could easily get rid of the sound card. I keep it for old times sake, because I don't like the on board sound, but honestly, I have an external DAC anyway, so I don't really need it.

The 10G Ethernet may be a little unusual in the client world, but I use it for a fast direct link to my NAS.

The two PCIe SSD's don't feel that extreme to me either. I ran out of space on my 400GB Intel 750, so I added a 1TB Samsung 970 Evo.

None of this feels like it is all that crazy and corner case.

I'm actually astonished that so many people have just the GPU in an expansion slot, and that's it. So much of making our systems custom and unique to us has to do with hardware expansion to meet our needs. Take that away and the PC is a shell of it's former self.
Click to expand...

I mean, 1900x would probably fit you perfectly and doesn't have numa issues like the high core count processors. That's what I had considered to jump to the platform and then go more cores later.
 
I'll most certainly be looking at the 3000 series equivalent to the 1950x (3950X?). I'm skipping right over the whole 2000 series - improvements for me were too incremental.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yeah, I just wish there were something between Ryzen and Threadripper.

I don't need a gazillion cores. As long as a chip has at least 6C/12T, I think I'd take clock speed over core count. I also do the want to deal with infinity fabric/Numa considerations with ram being on different dies with latency etc.

So, currently in my system in addition to the GPU I have a sound card, a 10G Ethernet adapter and two PCIe SSD's.

I could easily get rid of the sound card. I keep it for old times sake, because I don't like the on board sound, but honestly, I have an external DAC anyway, so I don't really need it.

The 10G Ethernet may be a little unusual in the client world, but I use it for a fast direct link to my NAS.

The two PCIe SSD's don't feel that extreme to me either. I ran out of space on my 400GB Intel 750, so I added a 1TB Samsung 970 Evo.

None of this feels like it is all that crazy and corner case.

I'm actually astonished that so many people have just the GPU in an expansion slot, and that's it. So much of making our systems custom and unique to us has to do with hardware expansion to meet our needs. Take that away and the PC is a shell of it's former self.
Click to expand...

I get nostalgia sometimes about the way I used to build PCs with disparate cards for disparate purposes. Course I kinda miss having separate 2d and 3d graphics cards as well, but that's really going too far. I remember going to LAN parties and looking for those external VGA pass-though's to see who was "really serious."

Looking at a lot of ATX motherboards and wonder why they exist. All these slots hanging off of the PCH so severely handicapped as to not have much of a reason to exist.

Seems like the vast MAJORITY of people only NEED ITX boards but would be served well enough by mATX.

The problem seems to lie in the manufacturers not making premium examples of mATX, neither in motherboards nor in cases. Everything in this form factor is budget oriented, DESPITE the fact that very few people will ever use more than that.

There's either some kinda fetish about full-ATX or a stigma about mATX that has so many people extremely proud about the amount of empty space in their cases.
 
bobzdar said:
I mean, 1900x would probably fit you perfectly and doesn't have numa issues like the high core count processors. That's what I had considered to jump to the platform and then go more cores later.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but they skipped the 8 core part without Numa issues in the 2xxx series, so now the choice is older lower performing 1900x or newer faster chips but with Numa issues

I'd LOVE a balls to the wall binned 8 core Threadripper with very high clocks. I'd pay more for that than a 16 core part with lower clocks.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Yeah, but they skipped the 8 core part without Numa issues in the 2xxx series, so now the choice is older lower performing 1900x or newer faster chips but with Numa issues

I'd LOVE a balls to the wall binned 8 core Threadripper with very high clocks. I'd pay more for that than a 16 core part with lower clocks.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I think the 1900x is fine, it has roughly the same performance as a 2700X but with the extra pci-e. A potential 2900X wouldn't give too much of a bump, only ~5% if it kept similar clock scaling (estimated 4.0 base 4.4 xfr vs 3.8 base 4.2 xfr). Probably why they didn't bother. I think we'll see a high clocked 16c tr4 end of 2019, but a 1900X would be good to get on the platform if you don't need the cores. It'll do 3.9 all core and 4.2 single/dual at stock (with xfr). It doesn't have the nice clock scaling of the zen+ chips, though it does allow boost on 2 cores instead of single like the non tr4's, so it basically gives 2700X cpu performance on tr4, which isn't too shabby. It's also around the same price as a 2700X, so really the cost is in the motherboard and extra 2 ram sticks. I'm wishing I had gone that route (hindsight is 20/20 afterall), but I may still sell my 2700x and c6h and go 1900x/tr4.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Leaks explained in more detail.
Click to expand...


Now this is interesting... now he's saying no I/O die?

That doesn't track - not really. If there's going to be a separate GPU die or a second CPU die... there must be a controller to connect them. Unless they are making a second chiplet design - one with specially-worked out I/O in it - this doesn't work. And even if they did that, it would have some of the same drawbacks as the 2990X.

IMHO, if there is no I/O die for AM4, it wouldn't make sense to increase core count. Just leave TR as the higher core count product, in that case.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
Now this is interesting... now he's saying no I/O die?

That doesn't track - not really. If there's going to be a separate GPU die or a second CPU die... there must be a controller to connect them. Unless they are making a second chiplet design - one with specially-worked out I/O in it - this doesn't work. And even if they did that, it would have some of the same drawbacks as the 2990X.

IMHO, if there is no I/O die for AM4, it wouldn't make sense to increase core count. Just leave TR as the higher core count product, in that case.
Click to expand...

Something to look forward to at CES I guess at least that part is news if we hear it ;)
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I'm actually astonished that so many people have just the GPU in an expansion slot, and that's it.
Click to expand...

Here's one: you need a GPU; maybe you have two SSDs in M.2 slots, maybe one is NVMe/3DXpoint, other is cheaper/larger SATA, use built-in *1Gbps/5Gbps/10Gbps LAN, and sound can be off the board either in analog form or out through optical.

Assuming you only need two RAM slots, you could get away with ITX here, though you'll want to be picky about enclosure, fan setup, and CPU and GPU cooling.

[*haven't seen any sub-ATX boards that do this yet, though there's certainly nothing stopping them]
 
Mega6 said:
Will Zen2 have 3D chip stacking? Similar to Intel's announced stacking?
Click to expand...

From what I read not and the way it is described here : https://www.cnet.com/news/intel-3d-chip-stacking-could-get-you-to-buy-a-new-pc/

Intel's 2019 chip using the Foveros stacking technology will come in a package smaller than a dime that will consume only 2 milliwatts of power when idle -- a low-power design that should help Intel compete better against the Arm chip family.
Click to expand...
Sounds like a test bed for what they intent to produce. There is a good change that this won't scale to larger dies.
If you watched AdoredTV youtube about chiplets you might have seen some form of it using the interposer for certain parts.

And it is pretty limited to what is stacked:
The technology provides tremendous flexibility as designers seek to "mix and match" technology IP blocks with various memory and I/O elements in new device form factors. It will allow products to be broken up into smaller "chiplets," where I/O, SRAM and power delivery circuits can be fabricated in a base die and high-performance logic chiplets are stacked on top.
Click to expand...

The one thing we have not heard about how the Ryzen 3000 series is using the chiplets without the IO block that is there on the server counterpart (Rome).
 
I would have to bet they will have a smaller IO die for Ryzen, and maybe for Threadripper. I would imagine that their is enough value proposition in a couple extra IO die variants, more so considering they will be using 14nm for them.

Zarathustra[H] said:
Yeah, but they skipped the 8 core part without Numa issues in the 2xxx series, so now the choice is older lower performing 1900x or newer faster chips but with Numa issues

I'd LOVE a balls to the wall binned 8 core Threadripper with very high clocks. I'd pay more for that than a 16 core part with lower clocks.
Click to expand...

2000 series 12 and 16 core parts do not have the NUMA issue, both enabled dies on these parts have attached memory channels. Further the TSV is not the same as the 24 and 32 core parts, as 2 infinity fabric links are used between the enabled dies, This will actually perform better then even the 1900x, including in single thread use.
 
DuronBurgerMan said:
now he's saying no I/O die? That doesn't track - not really. If there's going to be a separate GPU die or a second CPU die... there must be a controller to connect them.
Click to expand...
Or they're using the IF bus which we already know can work without a connector die through the package. No additional controller needed in that case.

DuronBurgerMan said:
And even if they did that, it would have some of the same drawbacks as the 2990X.
Click to expand...
GPU's are highly latency tolerant as are their work loads (games). It'd be no more of an issue than it is now for a dual die CPU/GPU APU.

For CPU's yeah there could be NUMA issues...but it depends on how bad the latency would be. If the latency is low enough (needs to be around typical main memory access latency) it won't matter much and there'll be minimal NUMA issues. If latency is around where its currently then yeah it'll have the same NUMA issues as current TR/Epyc's which requires good OS/software support to hide the latency and work well.

AMD is supposed to have greatly improved the IF bus though with Zen2.
 
Mega6 said:
Will Zen2 have 3D chip stacking?
Click to expand...
No.

Mega6 said:
Similar to Intel's announced stacking?
Click to expand...
And Intel's die stacking tech, while damn nifty, isn't something that will be practical or affordable for use in a desktop performance part for a long time yet. If ever. Its massively power/heat limited which is why they're focusing on tiny low power integrated devices for it first.

Expect Intel to do make use of their EIMB to do Zen/IF bus-esque MCM's at some point in late 2019 or early 2020 but probably server focused and probably real expensive.
 
luminousone said:
I would have to bet they will have a smaller IO die for Ryzen, and maybe for Threadripper. I would imagine that their is enough value proposition in a couple extra IO die variants, more so considering they will be using 14nm for them.

2000 series 12 and 16 core parts do not have the NUMA issue, both enabled dies on these parts have attached memory channels. Further the TSV is not the same as the 24 and 32 core parts, as 2 infinity fabric links are used between the enabled dies, This will actually perform better then even the 1900x, including in single thread use.
Click to expand...

The problem is the video released after(to good to be true) it clearly says that for consumer Ryzen there is no such solution as an IO block(Rome). I think he even suggested that the Ryzen 3000 are monolithic.

That there is a solution is clear because there are no 12 core zen 2 dies ;)
 
mesyn191 said:
Or they're using the IF bus which we already know can work without a connector die through the package. No additional controller needed in that case.
Click to expand...

They could. They'd need a different CPU die for that, though, which strikes me as somewhat inefficient. Cheaper, probably, to do a second I/O die that is, in essence, 1/4 of the Rome I/O die. Then use defective Rome I/O dies for TR.


GPU's are highly latency tolerant as are their work loads (games). It'd be no more of an issue than it is now for a dual die CPU/GPU APU.
Click to expand...

I don't see a major issue with doing the 'integrated' GPU this way, per se, except that again, this necessitates more redesign of the CPU die.

For CPU's yeah there could be NUMA issues...but it depends on how bad the latency would be. If the latency is low enough (needs to be around typical main memory access latency) it won't matter much and there'll be minimal NUMA issues. If latency is around where its currently then yeah it'll have the same NUMA issues as current TR/Epyc's which requires good OS/software support to hide the latency and work well.

AMD is supposed to have greatly improved the IF bus though with Zen2.
Click to expand...

The improvements to the IF were almost certainly needed to negate latency issues created from moving to the chiplet format. If AM4 is going to be dual CPU die, the NUMA issues will hurt AMD going forward.

Nonetheless, AMD almost has to increase core count on AM4, given rumors of Intel's 10 core mainstream chip.

IMHO, the smaller I/O die for AM4 makes much more sense. Then you fab one chiplet at TSMC and use binning/salvaging to get your various permutations across Epyc, TR, and AM4. And with APU implementations, you merely swap in crappy salvaged Navi GPUs for the second CPU die. AND you use GlobalFoundries for I/O dies across the range, eating at the wafer supply agreement. One I/O die for Rome, which could also be used for TR in the case of some defects (only half the I/O die would be needed for TR) and a second die for AM4 that is much less complex.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Well this is the first time in a long time that there is something to talk about on the AMD front ;)
Click to expand...

What? No.

AMD threads are always happening because people wanna root for the underdog....

The Fury and Vega threads in particular have been a huge deal in the past etc.

(Not to mention the many, many Ryzen threads over the past 3 years)

Until CES though, we're just blowing hot air and throwing darts at an IPC board....
 
horrorshow said:
What? No.

AMD threads are always happening because people wanna root for the underdog....

The Fury and Vega threads in particular have been a huge deal in the past etc.

(Not to mention the many, many Ryzen threads over the past 3 years)

Until CES though, we're just blowing hot air and throwing darts at an IPC board....
Click to expand...

Speculation is fun, provided people understand that it is just speculation.
 
horrorshow said:
What? No.

AMD threads are always happening because people wanna root for the underdog....

The Fury and Vega threads in particular have been a huge deal in the past etc.

(Not to mention the many, many Ryzen threads over the past 3 years)

Until CES though, we're just blowing hot air and throwing darts at an IPC board....
Click to expand...

Well the promise of parts we all know already been presented when they announced Rome and showed it had some pretty good improvements were all just hoping that the desktop Ryzen 3000 series is something that delivers on expectations.
This is by far the biggest "jump" for AMD, Ryzen 1000 was still good but it is exciting that what has not happened since a long time there are improvements in the 3rd release of the "same" architecture.
We have not seen this before or it was so long ago we all forgot about it ;)
 
Pieter3dnow said:
Well the promise of parts we all know already been presented when they announced Rome and showed it had some pretty good improvements were all just hoping that the desktop Ryzen 3000 series is something that delivers on expectations.
This is by far the biggest "jump" for AMD, Ryzen 1000 was still good but it is exciting that what has not happened since a long time there are improvements in the 3rd release of the "same" architecture.
We have not seen this before or it was so long ago we all forgot about it ;)
Click to expand...

Look at my sig.

No one wants a killer 8c/16t 4.6+ Zen2 more than me lol

But why gossip for another month, when we know all will be revealed in January?
 
horrorshow said:
Look at my sig.

No one wants a killer 8c/16t 4.6+ Zen2 more than me lol

But why gossip for another month, when we know all will be revealed in January?
Click to expand...
I think you would want to have the 16C32T version that does over 5 ghz on boost ;)
We were not gossiping just wondering on how they solved the amount of cores on Ryzen 3xxx without the IO block used on Rome..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top