AMD Confirms Zen 3 Brings Entirely Brand New CPU Architecture, Delivers Significant IPC Gains, Faste

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,897
Zen 3 should go head to head with Intel in games while being more efficient and having more cores. If you are going for 240hz Intel is the CPU to pick right now, but hopefully that changes with Zen 3.
 
GoodBoy said:
Believe it when I see it, but I hope it's true.

If it's "Entirely new" wouldn't it not be "Zen"? Sounds like (the news story) is bullshitting us...
Click to expand...

No, that would be AMD's Senior Vice President bullshitting you if that's what you believe. I believe the SVP over you.
 
kirbyrj said:
All we need now is an Adored TV video with a 5Ghz 16 Core $499 Zen3 CPU, and half of the forum would lose their shit...lol.
Click to expand...
That guy gained a pretty big following from those leaks/lies/whatever they were.... I need to stop being so honest in my life.

Zen2 is great but still isn't really delivering the best gaming cpu experience, though it's extremely close, most gamers don't care and just want the most fps possible. Hopefully zen3 can make that leap and give actual Intel besting gaming performance.
 
elite.mafia said:
That guy gained a pretty big following from those leaks/lies/whatever they were.... I need to stop being so honest in my life.

Zen2 is great but still isn't really delivering the best gaming cpu experience, though it's extremely close, most gamers don't care and just want the most fps possible. Hopefully zen3 can make that leap and give actual Intel besting gaming performance.
Click to expand...

I agree, but it's close enough for the moderate gamer and really shines in other tasks, so gaming performance isn't as much of a liability as it used to be, especially above 1080p.

The real advantage is the socket compatibility. If I were so inclined, I could have bought a nice X370 motherboard years ago and could drop in a 16C/32T processor and potentially even a Zen3 CPU. The resale value isn't anywhere near Intel, but you can essentially upgrade every year without a full platform upgrade for a reasonable cost. In my case, my family members get hand me downs every time I upgrade. It's harder and more costly to do that with Intel right now.
 
tangoseal said:
That's not true. Zen 2 has completely closed the gap in all but like.... tomb raider lmao.
Click to expand...
That is not true. At 240hz the 9900K/KF/KS outperforms zen2 and although not by a huge amount, but enough for me choosing Intel at 240hz. Obviously there is no need to play tomb raider at that 240 hz, but other competitive games at 240hz Intel is still "king", but hopefully not for too long.
 
I would imagine thy are going to use a different socket for these, AMD has done a great job of supporting the AM4 platform but I have to imagine that it is reaching its limits after all this time.
 
I figured the next series of chips would be Zen 2+, not Zen 3. So I guess it seems Zen 2 is the last of the current AM4 socket/platform?
 
Lakados said:
I would imagine thy are going to use a different socket for these, AMD has done a great job of supporting the AM4 platform but I have to imagine that it is reaching its limits after all this time.
Click to expand...

AMD said they would not be leaving AM4 until a major feature changed (think DDR5, PCI-E 5, etc) required it. Zen 3 should work just fine, assuming you get a working BIOS from your Mobo maker. I'd bet IdiotInCharge (Hey, been a while!!) $20 that AM4 will support Zen3 if he wants to take the bet.
 
ccityinstaller said:
AMD said they would not be leaving AM4 until a major feature changed (think DDR5, PCI-E 5, etc) required it. Zen 3 should work just fine, assuming you get a working BIOS from your Mobo maker. I'd bet IdiotInCharge (Hey, been a while!!) $20 that AM4 will support Zen3 if he wants to take the bet.
Click to expand...
It's just that AMD only confirmed AM4 to be recieving support until 2020, that is approaching pretty fast I mean there is nothing stating they won't choose to continue supporting it further down the road but they have reached a point where depending on when they intend on launching a product AM4 may not be their socket of choice.
 
Lakados said:
It's just that AMD only confirmed AM4 to be recieving support until 2020, that is approaching pretty fast I mean there is nothing stating they won't choose to continue supporting it further down the road but they have reached a point where depending on when they intend on launching a product AM4 may not be their socket of choice.
Click to expand...

Yes, BUT...if Zen3 is still DDR4 and AMD plans on a 2021 DDR5 time frame it seems more likely that we'd get another gen on AM4 vs a totally new socket for 1 year.
 
I hope they keep improving, the latest Zen chips are having a hard time hitting the advertised boost clocks but are close to to intel. The thing is if you only game at 1080p with a 2080Ti and want over 200FPS for your Pro FPS aspirations then you need the performance a 9900KS brings. If you are running at 1440p or higher like me or have a 75hz panel then it doesn't really matter.
 
kirbyrj said:
Yes, BUT...if Zen3 is still DDR4 and AMD plans on a 2021 DDR5 time frame it seems more likely that we'd get another gen on AM4 vs a totally new socket for 1 year.
Click to expand...
They could, but with all the changes they have been making I wouldn't be surprised if their need for a change isn't DDR5 or PCI-E 5, but power delivery and throughput, it would also give them more time to test their sockets and accompaning chipsets in the wild before putting out their Zen 3+ also on said new socket with the new DDR 5 or PCI-E standards.
 
They may not even need a new socket to support DDR5; the main reason to change a socket is to support CPU changes that might damage either the CPU or the motherboard, i.e., the platform has been upgraded. Intel has done this for chipset upgrades, for changes in power regulation (they moved it on die for a bit, then back off), and for large increases in TDP support.

The biggest reasons I could see for an upgrade might be the addition of PCIe lanes to the CPU for say more "USB4" ports and for increases in power transmission to support powering CPUs at higher sustained frequencies and/or sustained use of stuff like AVX.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
They may not even need a new socket to support DDR5; the main reason to change a socket is to support CPU changes that might damage either the CPU or the motherboard, i.e., the platform has been upgraded. Intel has done this for chipset upgrades, for changes in power regulation (they moved it on die for a bit, then back off), and for large increases in TDP support.

The biggest reasons I could see for an upgrade might be the addition of PCIe lanes to the CPU for say more "USB4" ports and for increases in power transmission to support powering CPUs at higher sustained frequencies and/or sustained use of stuff like AVX.
Click to expand...

No, they will need a new socket to support DDR5. Unlike every previous iteration, the data channels per-chip are doubled on DDR5 (2x32). That is why they can support double the speeds of DDR4, without a major voltage drop.

DDR5 6400 shoul have the same same latency as DDR4 3200 but double the bandwidth.
 
defaultluser said:
No, they will need a new socket to support DDR5. Unlike every previous iteration, the data channels per-chip are doubled on DDR5 (2x32). That is why they can support double the speeds of DDR4, without a major voltage drop.

It's the same latency, but double the bandwidth.
Click to expand...

So DDR5 will go to 128bit DIMMS, and the pin count per DIMM will increase accordingly?
 
No, sounds like still 64bit dimms but using differential signalling instead of single ended. = 2 pins per bit instead of 1

Edit, after looking at that wiki article it says nothing about going to 128-bit dimms -- it says 2 channels per module but they might just be 32 bit channels -- much like how gddr5x/6 divided each chip into 2x16bit instead of 1x32bit.

It also doesn't say anything about differential signalling so that might not be the case either.

Edit2: Infact Tom's confirms it https://www.tomshardware.com/news/what-we-know-ddr5-ram,39079.html 2x40bit channels (32 + 8 for ECC)
 
Last edited:
extide said:
No, sounds like still 64bit dimms but using differential signalling instead of single ended. = 2 pins per bit instead of 1

Edit, after looking at that wiki article it says nothing about going to 128-bit dimms -- it says 2 channels per module but they might just be 32 bit channels -- much like how gddr5x/6 divided each chip into 2x16bit instead of 1x32bit.

It also doesn't say anything about differential signalling so that might not be the case either.
Click to expand...
Two channels per dimm

3rd gen Threadripper, big fail and missed opportunity for AMD.
 
Yes, I said 2 channels per module -- a module is a dimm. Also the Tom's link confirmed what I said.
 
defaultluser said:
But they jump each channel up to 40-bit. That plus the longer burst rate is supposed to give us double the bandwidth. See here:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/what-we-know-ddr5-ram,39079.html
Click to expand...

Yeah ECC used to be 72 bit because you only need one chip for ecc per channel -- so if the channel is 64bit then channel + ecc is 72. Now a channel is 32 bit so channel + ecc is 40. Means ECC DIMMs will need 10 (or a multiple of 10) memory chips instead of 9 (or a multiple of 9).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top