Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Pieter3dnow, May 27, 2019.
So much for 5ghz on all cores.
Whe's DDR5 coming? Sounds like that's when I'll do a new complete system upgrade.
Looks like AMD feels that they plenty to compete with at 12 core. They are probably right. Would have liked to see the 16 core though. They will likely release it in response to anything new Intel comes up with.
depends on what reviewers find but I'm most likely sitting this one out.
So going by the cache its all single chiplet except 3900x . Im thinking 6+6 config.
Wonder how it scales single chiplet vs dual chiplet.
For sure.. specially when yeilds go up for all core functional chips.
Weak. Guess I'm sticking with my 1600
Actually no one ever said 5 ghz on all cores .
Yep it seems that the ones that are cheaper are not that cheap yet:
Seems that there $249 and $199 for 6C12T.
Go figure, the too good to be true, were not true.
Oh man, I haven't been this excited about a CPU launch in YEARS!
12 cores at 4.6 out of the box, bet it can do 5.0 pretty easy. For $500??? Crazy. The last AMD CPU I bought was an A64.
Can't wait for reviews and to sport AMD parts again!
same launch price as the 1600x and 20 dollars more then the 2600x.. 1600 launched for 219 and the 2600 launched for 199.. 3700x is the same launch price as the 2700x so all the prices fall within the same area as the previous two generations which is pretty nice.
Not going to upgrade from my 4790k until a equivalent 3700"G" is available. No need for an external video card for me anymore as my 4790k still does everything I need it to do.
Bet it can't. AMD usually runs it's top parts right at the limit with Precision Boost and XFR, so much so that overclocking is almost pointless.
Yea, looking at the first gen and then the second gen ... those lower parts can certainly overlock to match the top end but don't expect much beyond that.
i guess we can agree on 2-300 mhz on 3800x and maybe 5ghz for the golden chips. like some ppl pointed out with dual chiplets they could just more easily hit that mark. they got to keep some juice for what intel will do next, but overall hardcore desktop users are the minority across the bord. i can see that desktop users will get shafted more and more as time goes by. they already partially ruined gaming with these online "games for service/microtransactions crap" wich just imply half a game at launch with micros later on, maybe except for 2 developers, rockstar and cd project red, where the later is the best developer we got left right now, while rockstar produce game, i dont see past their single player anyway. we can already see how degraded gaming on pc have become in favour of predatory lootbox games that every no brain idiot jumps on. right now we just live in brainless idiot generation of gaming.
pffft no competition
I thought AMD was the competition and they were going to drop prices to take over the market, or at least that was what all the people arguing for the low prices kept claiming. IIRC you were one of them.
And that would have been a far better option totally obliterate Intel from the desktop market. Sell by volume not by higher margin , 2 birds one stone ....
I do not mind that they did the pricing for the cpu the way it is now I see AMD is moving forward and it is no where near Intel pricing win win in both scenarios ........
think their pricing is cause they confident right now. ontop of cost for new node ++ either way u see it i cant see a reason to go intel atm, that is ages since i could say. still disapointed in their GFX, they literally provide no gain in performance over nvidia despite the 7 nm node, it felt like they stayed in the same place for 5+++ years now. before ati/radeon was the premier choice, same goes for cpu's but they definately nailed the cpu! im just worried amd is burnt out now, going from 7 nm is a different task completely, the closer to 1 nm silicon is just way harder the physical limits are close. it's like physical excercise, right now amd is peaking on vo2 max but intel and nvidia have efficiency, like physical endurance. u could have high vo2 max and beat ppl with low vo2 max, but low vo2 max and effiency can beat vo2 max. but high vo2 max and high efficiency will beat everything. and intel and nvidia is far from topping their vo2 max wich is easier, and like in humans genetically predetermined.
Don't forget that Radeon VII is not a product that was made for 7nm it was made for the professional market and originated from 14nm Instinct 25. AMD will struggle with the GPU because that was not the first priority that was Zen .
I would say that yeah we are going to see some slow down on those manufacturing nodes from 7+nm to 5nm and below that no one really knows it might be to hard and not worth the money. If you compare it with Intel then there is still some gas left in the tank for AMD ......
The 3800x doesn't make any sense to me. A 100mhz boost bump for an extra 40w?
You know how binning works right ?
Not all of the silicon works the same way even if it works .
until we know how the updated boost works on zen 2 the 40w TDP increase could effect other things as well.
but yeah i agree the 3800x may just be another 1800x for those lazy buyers.
They get to use slightly marginal dies for the 3900X as they accumulate higher bined dies and use the best for high end server parts first where the real margins are. 5Ghz is just a number and at the end of the performance spectrum for silicon.
In what world is this "weak"
15% ipc improvement is massive. They are showing that they are equal to Intels single core and gaming performance finally, AND with huge multi core gains, AND cheaper, AND at less power, AND with a 12 core 24 thread part at $499, AND They all come with heatsinks that will handle these chips.
This is HUGE. AMD is now going to have the fastest mainstream desktop CPU's. This hasn't happened in a long time.
I'd suspect that those 3900x are the same chiplets as on the 6 core 3600x parts, except binned to be able to give that performance at the seemingly very low TDP of 105w. I'd imagine the EPYC chiplets are binned as well, but probably with different priorities. Generally the epyc chips have had much lower clocks
Looks good. Seems to be providing better performance per clock and core, giving true parity with Intel chips. Intel's response is one high-end highly binned unknown TDP and Price and availability processor. Exciting times to have good choice in building new computers!
Lower clocks are for reliability at the server level. They don't need the high clocks as they are for thread throughput generally. They aren't running minimal thread PC games.
I suspect they are able to control the clocks through that i/o chip? I wonder how that works, the rumor is they are going to use the same chiplets across the board to save on manufacturing costs. I just doubt the clocks on the server will be anywhere close to desktop to begin with, so I'm not sure how that reasoning makes sense. Time will tell.
Of course they are the same chiplets. They are the same chiplets everywhere, except for binning and core disabling.
Let’s wait for impartial benchmarks before we crown a winner. I’d love to replace my 1700X but I want to see some neutral benchmarks.
gotta think about it. I'll be putting a thread up in FS/FT when we get closer to shipping
PM me at that time.
Why is everyone so obsessed with 5ghz? Why is the frequency always a determining factor. It's like AMD should have suffered an IPC reduction to get the clocks up higher. Then people will say it's not fast enough. Let's see what the chip does before we come to any conclusions. Looks like the 12 core will need that chipset fan on the X570. Not so much the 8 core models and below. I'll likely go for a 3700x and call it a day.
I mean can you really be surprised when the marketing for a while now has been "Look at the Ghz!"?
Goes back to Pentium 4 as Intel speak was "Mhz matters", yeah, with a 10 stage pipeline and poor performance. Clock speed touting is ignorant. I thought computer nerds were smarter than that.
Because it's objectively measurable and easier to grasp than IPC.
What would you suggest? Pick a few benchmarks and display the results? And when those inevitably give inconsistent data...?