AMD Confirms Zen 3's Performance Is Monstrous and Speculation Thread

Shoganai said:
And Intel gets destroyed in multi-threaded performance. Gotta pick what's important to you.
Click to expand...

Let's get real. Gaming is pretty much the only reason people care about high end PCs, and games are going to be using 8 cores or less for the next decade.
 
bigbluefe said:
Let's get real. Gaming is pretty much the only reason people care about high end PCs, and games are going to be using 8 cores or less for the next decade.
Click to expand...

Wait...what? You have been vehemently saying that somehow 10 GB VRAM is not enough, despite 99.9% of the userbase having less than that, but 8 cores are enough for the next decade?
 
bigbluefe said:
Let's get real. Gaming is pretty much the only reason people care about high end PCs, and games are going to be using 8 cores or less for the next decade.
Click to expand...
High-end PCs are used for a multitude of tasks outside of gaming.
Also, the "8 cores or less" argument is going to end once the next generation of consoles start to mature.

You need to do a bit of research on these topics, considering the entirety of what happened in the 2010s disproves your statements completely, and it will be repeated in the 2020s far more so.
 
Red Falcon said:
High-end PCs are used for a multitude of tasks outside of gaming.
Also, the "8 cores or less" argument is going to end once the next generation of consoles start to mature.

You need to do a bit of research on these topics, considering the entirety of what happened in the 2010s disproves your statements completely, and it will be repeated in the 2020s far more so.
Click to expand...

Uh, the next generation consoles have 8 core CPUs. So much for next gen. You don't even know what you're talking about.
 
MavericK said:
Wait...what? You have been vehemently saying that somehow 10 GB VRAM is not enough, despite 99.9% of the userbase having less than that, but 8 cores are enough for the next decade?
Click to expand...

Yes, because the next generation consoles all have 8 core CPUs. The only reason PCs scale is because raising resolution/refresh rate is a braindead simple benefit you get without developers putting in any effort.

Every game is a console game.

It's really hilarious reading these absolutely idiotic wannabe gotcha posts from dumb people thinking they'd caught me in some contradiction. You don't even know what you're talking about, dude.
 
Lepardi said:
Next gen consoles have 16 threads so you can be damn sure that's where the next standard is heading. 16 cores.
Click to expand...

Next gen consoles are 8 cores with hyperthreading...Intel already has 10 core CPUs with hyperthreading.

Cores for gaming is irrelevant for the next decade.
 
The new GPUs all look to be CPU bound except at the very high end, so games need to start parallelizing more aggressively.

Maybe AMD will put out a CPU that is better for Radeon than anything Intel has? Cuz if Radeons run games faster on Intel still...

(I buy cores and vram for video. Most people don't.)
 
idiomatic said:
The new GPUs all look to be CPU bound except at the very high end, so games need to start parallelizing more aggressively.

Maybe AMD will put out a CPU that is better for Radeon than anything Intel has? Cuz if Radeons run games faster on Intel still...

(I buy cores and vram for video. Most people don't.)
Click to expand...

At 4k everything's still GPU bound, and the only thing the new generation of video cards really gives you over the last one is better 4k performance. The reality is that no one is going to write games for 16-32 core AMD CPUs until the Playstation 6, which might have some 32 core AMD CPU in it. That's probably 7-8 years off. Add in the lag time in actually getting games out that require the new hardware (2 years), and you're at the decade mark. Gee, just what I already said.

The only reason PC games have benefits over console versions is because developers literally don't have to do anything for you to be able to run at higher resolutions.

1440p and down performance was already good enough with a 2080ti. There are already Intel CPUs out there that have more cores than the PS5 CPU and better per core performance than AMD.

And the 3080, which is only good for improving 4k performance, doesn't have enough VRAM for 4k. It's completely worthless.

So basically, to maximize gaming performance and actually take advantage of what a PC can give you over consoles, you're basically stuck with a 3090 (or a 16GB+ AMD part assuming it has competitive performance) and whichever CPU has the best single threaded performance. If you're not going to have a setup like that, you honestly might as well just buy a console.
 
bigbluefe said:
Uh, the next generation consoles have 8 core CPUs. So much for next gen. You don't even know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
They have SMT enabled, which is 16 threads.
Threads are more important than cores when it comes to programming, game logic, APIs, etc., and 16 is the new magic number for games via the upcoming consoles.
bigbluefe said:
Next gen consoles are 8 cores with hyperthreading...Intel already has 10 core CPUs with hyperthreading.
Click to expand...
Hyper Threading is what Intel's variation of SMT is called, but it is still SMT.
Yep, and AMD has 64-core CPUs with SMT - your point is?
Cores for gaming is irrelevant for the next decade.
Click to expand...
Apparently you missed the metric ton worth of discussions on here over the AMD Jaguar CPU severely bottlenecking the current-gen consoles.
Yes, CPUs are extremely important for gaming, as they have been for the last 40+ years.
 
Red Falcon said:
They have SMT enabled, which is 16 threads.

Hyper Threading is what Intel's variation of SMT is called, but it is still SMT.
Yep, and AMD has 64-core CPUs with SMT - your point is?

Apparently you missed the metric ton worth of discussions on here over the AMD Jaguar CPU severely bottlenecking the current-gen consoles.
Yes, CPUs are extremely important for gaming, as they have been for the last 40+ years.
Click to expand...

You apparently can't read English. Cores for gaming is completely irrelevant for the next decade for PC gamers because they already have more cores and are more powerful than what's in the next generation consoles. Intel already has 10 core parts. Cores don't matter for gaming when deciding between Intel and AMD.

So it's all about per core performance at this point for PC gamers when making a decision about the best gaming part.
 
Staples said:
The lack of leaks is interesting.
Click to expand...

I don't find the lack of leaks to be surprising at all. AMD has been playing the cards close to the chest for quite a while now.

Always remember that most leaks are likely due to the companies leaking the information themselves. Practically everything else is little more than guesses and supposition.
 
Hakaba said:
That's no train... That's a Shinkansen...

Shitty jokes aside, I would like to see the supposed gains over the 3900X.

Edit: Also, official support for ECC on their non-pro line, with accompanied motherboards. If an i3-8100 can do it, I would hope their 4600 (assuming 6 cores) would be able to.
Click to expand...
You've always been able to do ECC on non-pro AMD chips. No they aren't going to officially support it since they have a pro line that they support it for. AMD's enire lineup supports ECC as opposed to one sku. If you want it you'll have to do the homework to match up MB with Chip which isn't hard at all as some manufacturers will tell you from jump yes or no .
 
erek said:
Yeah those 4000 series zen 2 APUs were monstrously misnamed and misleading
Click to expand...
All APUs have been... 2200g/2400g where zen cores, 3X00g where zen+, and 4X00g are zen2.... They are finally going to fix this stupid naming, lol. They should have started at 1200g/1400g and they wouldn't be in this mess in the first place. Poor marketing decision early on being corrected (at least the realised and are fixing though).
 
bigbluefe said:
Nope. The Ryzen 9s aren't even close. They get destroyed in single thread performance especially in emulators. There's a 20%+ difference.
Click to expand...

If only someone had done testing recently, comparing 10900k vs 3950x in some games to see how the faired.

5% slower at 1080
2% slower at 1440

https://www.techspot.com/amp/review/2084-amd-or-intel-for-gaming-benchmarking/

Feel free to tell us all why it doesn't matter, because of some specific use case. If that's what you use your PC for primarily, then good for you.
 
kac77 said:
You've always been able to do ECC on non-pro AMD chips. No they aren't going to officially support it since they have a pro line that they support it for. AMD's enire lineup supports ECC as opposed to one sku. If you want it you'll have to do the homework to match up MB with Chip which isn't hard at all as some manufacturers will tell you from jump yes or no .
Click to expand...
Haven’t found a board that correctly supports it. I know the asrock x470d4u supports it, but my reading of a thread level1techs/reddit discussions. Highlights that the memory isn’t reporting or correcting errors that are injected. Which is a damn shame because I would love to just throw the 3900x in that board when I upgrade.

Till then I will have a 2670/i3-8100 on Unraid/Freenas duty.
 
Hakaba said:
Haven’t found a board that correctly supports it. I know the asrock x470d4u supports it, but my reading of a thread level1techs/reddit discussions. Highlights that the memory isn’t reporting or correcting errors that are injected. Which is a damn shame because I would love to just throw the 3900x in that board when I upgrade.

Till then I will have a 2670/i3-8100 on Unraid/Freenas duty.
Click to expand...
Asrock boards universally support ECC.
 
bigbluefe said:
Availability for basically every hot item is going to blow now because of scumbag scalpers using bots. We really are at the point where there needs to be government intervention on that shit. It shouldn't be legal.
Click to expand...
The solution to this unfortunately is just dont buy it. stock will come. prices will fall. its how hardware launches happen now.
 
travm said:
"I am here to convince you not to worry. Artificial intelligence will not destroy humans. Believe me."
OMG ARM THE NUKES!

That article is absolutely terrifying. The entire time it just keeps saying dont be afraid, i'll never hurt you. Heres a bunch of lame reasons.

For all mankind we should execute that machines creators.
Click to expand...
UltraTaco
 
erek said:
UltraTaco
Click to expand...
travm

Check this out, already re-writing the rules and laws and measures of progress!!

“Huang’s Law Is the New Moore’s Law, and Explains Why Nvidia Wants Arm
The rule that the same dollar buys twice the computing power every 18 months is no longer true, but a new law—which we named for the CEO of Nvidia, the company now most emblematic of commercial AI—is in full effect”

https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/hu...and-explains-why-nvidia-wants-arm-11600488001
 
bigbluefe said:
You apparently can't read English. Cores for gaming is completely irrelevant for the next decade for PC gamers because they already have more cores and are more powerful than what's in the next generation consoles. Intel already has 10 core parts. Cores don't matter for gaming when deciding between Intel and AMD.

So it's all about per core performance at this point for PC gamers when making a decision about the best gaming part.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant would entail everyone has/buys 8c/16t CPUs.
 
MavericK said:
Wait...what? You have been vehemently saying that somehow 10 GB VRAM is not enough, despite 99.9% of the userbase having less than that, but 8 cores are enough for the next decade?
Click to expand...

I get your point, but VRAM usage has been progressing quicker than CPU core count. I do think that multi threaded games will continue becoming more common though with new engines. Even until 2012 or so, it was common to see games release build upon older engines like UE 2.5 that probably weren't designed with multi cores in mind.
 
bigbluefe said:
So it's all about per core performance at this point for PC gamers when making a decision about the best gaming part.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is where the 16 cores come in.

16 cores for 16 threads = twice more performance per thread compared to 8 cores for 16 threads.
 
Last edited:
Games are still built for 4 cores. 8 Core consoles are going to force developers to get better at multi-threading. Intel probably still wins in games for a while though unless AMD gets clocks up.
 
idiomatic said:
Games are still built for 4 cores. 8 Core consoles are going to force developers to get better at multi-threading. Intel probably still wins in games for a while though unless AMD gets clocks up.
Click to expand...
IMO, MT use will stagnate when the new consoles take over. Having modern, high IPC, fast ST performance means devs will no longer need to properly multithread. This is in comparison to the last generation, with low clocks, low IPC, low ST performance. Multithreading was somewhat necessary to get any reasonable performance. IMO, this is why Sony chose their boost approach, since the CPU is unlikely to have all 8 of its cores pegged at max (leaving some power/thermal budget for the GPU portion of the chip), and why MSFT has an options for higher clocks when SMT is disabled. Both basically are acknowledging a lesser focus on heavy MT.

Alternatively, it could just mean that 8 Zen2 cores are enough for now. :)
 
idiomatic said:
Games are still built for 4 cores. 8 Core consoles are going to force developers to get better at multi-threading. Intel probably still wins in games for a while though unless AMD gets clocks up.
Click to expand...

That is not correct anymore, although it is considered the minimum specs now. And, as you know, minimum specs are not very good at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top