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

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,200
Honestly I think the $50 price increase is fine, and AMD is in a position to charge what the product is worth.
as soon as AMD can allocate more wafers to Zen3 chiplets, We will see the lower-priced non-X parts release. At the moment they are using 7NM for Zen2, Zen3, Renoir, Navi 10, Navi11, Navi20, XBSX, XBSS, and PS4.

Right now they'll be allocating a TON of wafer-space for console APUs and the new Navi silicon, in order to beef up launch availability and fill customer orders.

Once the new console rush dies down, AMD will have quite a few more wafers to throw around.
 

exlink

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
5,156
Honestly I think the $50 price increase is fine, and AMD is in a position to charge what the product is worth.
I’ll happily pay an extra $50 for top tier performance. Hopefully AMD re-invests it into R&D to keep the pressure on Intel and Nvidia in the spirit of competition.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
16,687
Honestly I think the $50 price increase is fine, and AMD is in a position to charge what the product is worth.
I'm not against a price increase and the increase is not problem at the top SKUs. My issue is that the change on the low end is the same as the high end. A $50 increase on what is effectively a low end part is a huge increase whereas a $50 increase on the high end parts is small change in comparison. Had the increase on the lower end parts been around $25 I think it would have been more appropriate.

Don't misunderstand me. I'd love it if the parts hadn't gone up in price as I love to spend less but the increase in and of itself isn't a problem.
 

Ricky T

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
404
I'm not against a price increase and the increase is not problem at the top SKUs. My issue is that the change on the low end is the same as the high end. A $50 increase on what is effectively a low end part is a huge increase whereas a $50 increase on the high end parts is small change in comparison. Had the increase on the lower end parts been around $25 I think it would have been more appropriate.

Don't misunderstand me. I'd love it if the parts hadn't gone up in price as I love to spend less but the increase in and of itself isn't a problem.
Yeah I dont like it either on the 8 and 6 core parts. FFS you can buy an entire Xbox Series S console that incudes a Zen 2 8 core cpu for same price as just a Zen 3 6 core cpu alone. It is funny that most people have no problem if AMD charges more if they are leading but call Intel greedy when they do the same. And really the performance gap AMD has over Intel in gaming overall with Zen 3 is less than Intel had over Zen 2. Anybody that argues that needs to go back and look at their slides a little closer. And the 5800x price makes ZERO sense now since you can get a 5900x with 50% more cores for only 100 bucks more.
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
10,683
Yeah I dont like it either on the 8 and 6 core parts. FFS you can buy an entire Xbox Series S console that incudes a Zen 2 8 core cpu for same price as just a Zen 3 6 core cpu alone. It is funny that most people have no problem if AMD charges more if they are leading but call Intel greedy when they do the same. And really the performance gap AMD has over Intel in gaming overall with Zen 3 is less than Intel had over Zen 2. Anybody that argues that needs to go back and look at their slides a little closer. And the 5800x price makes ZERO sense now since you can get a 5900x with 50% more cores for only 100 bucks more.
I think it is less "Intel being greedy" as much as it is more "Intel stagnating the CPU market for a decade, having 60+ hardware exploits, severely decreased performance/value per hardware exploit, and continuing to use Skylake and 14nm++++".
Intel has stumbled big time, and they don't have the market sway or influence to pull the illegal anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices on OEMs against AMD like they did through the 2000s.

Every company/corporation/megacorp is in it to make money, and anyone who believes otherwise with AMD or Intel is fooling themselves - I do agree with you on that.
As for the CPU in the new consoles, it is missing the L3 cache, as well as potential other features that the consumer CPUs do include.
 
Last edited:

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,369
Yeah I dont like it either on the 8 and 6 core parts. FFS you can buy an entire Xbox Series S console that incudes a Zen 2 8 core cpu for same price as just a Zen 3 6 core cpu alone. It is funny that most people have no problem if AMD charges more if they are leading but call Intel greedy when they do the same. And really the performance gap AMD has over Intel in gaming overall with Zen 3 is less than Intel had over Zen 2. Anybody that argues that needs to go back and look at their slides a little closer. And the 5800x price makes ZERO sense now since you can get a 5900x with 50% more cores for only 100 bucks more.
I think it was more Intel charging a premium for minimal changes with 4 cores being their top end for consumers for what, 10 years? Also, I never cared that Intel charged what they did, as long as people where buying at that price, it was the right price. That's how markets work. That doesnt mean I'm going to support them @ that price of course. Most of the people complaining where the ones buying it, which does not lead to prices coming down ;). Competition or people refusing to buy products is what drops prices. We had neither, so the prices where high. I don't get caught up in people complaining about things, especially when it s"oh this is overpriced but I'm going to buy it because it's the best"... If you're willing to buy at that price, then it's priced right.

I am a bit disappointed not seeing a 5700x, hopefully it comes out eventually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrDoU
like this

Lepardi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Messages
256
this is why I feel that zen3 is so damn good but so damn old in features.

Next step will be DDR5, USB4 and PCIe5.
I would like to have DDR5 and USB4 at least to make my PC live longer with longer upgrade path
It's no different than any release at any time. There will always be "next thing" around the corner.

I'm still rocking DDR3 I bought in 2014, I just bought faster 2GHz ram with tight timings. It's no bottleneck, the bottleneck is the 4 CPU cores with meltdown fixes hitting hard on the Haswell.
 

Verado

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
282
Supposedly CB20 scores. Thoughts?

kek.JPG


https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/zen-3-lineup-cinebench-r20-scores-pop-up-in-database.html
 

RPGWiZaRD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,127
Between 5800X and 5900X it seems like it could become a difficult pick, it's priced accordingly so many might wanna go 5900X after all even if the 5800X was the plan as they aren't so far apart price-wise but the 5900X's additional cache pool seems to play a slight role if clock is down 100MHz it still performs (if this benchmark is accurate) above 5800X in a convincing way. I was hoping the CCX layout would favor more the 5800X setup but seems like the cache difference is far more important.

I was set on 5800X but yea I can only decide after seeing gaming benchmarks probably. :)
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,003
Between 5800X and 5900X it seems like it could become a difficult pick, it's priced accordingly so many might wanna go 5900X after all even if the 5800X was the plan as they aren't so far apart price-wise but the 5900X's additional cache pool seems to play a slight role if clock is down 100MHz it still performs (if this benchmark is accurate) above 5800X in a convincing way. I was hoping the CCX layout would favor more the 5800X setup but seems like the cache difference is far more important.

I was set on 5800X but yea I can only decide after seeing gaming benchmarks probably. :)
I think a lot of people who want 8 core CPU's will probably continue to buy 3700X's. 19% IPC increase is not enough to pay another $150 for 8 cores. 3700X's can be had for $300 or less, compared to the $450 5800X. The 5900X is only $100 more for 2 extra cores while the 5600X is $150 less for 2 less cores. That doesn't make sense other than AMD is trying to push 8 core buyers to pay $150 more. Intel needs to get their shit together and offer better products for better prices.
 

Ricky T

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2019
Messages
404
I think a lot of people who want 8 core CPU's will probably continue to buy 3700X's. 19% IPC increase is not enough to pay another $150 for 8 cores. 3700X's can be had for $300 or less, compared to the $450 5800X. The 5900X is only $100 more for 2 extra cores while the 5600X is $150 less for 2 less cores. That doesn't make sense other than AMD is trying to push 8 core buyers to pay $150 more. Intel needs to get their shit together and offer better products for better prices.
The 5900x has 4 more cores. The 5800x is stupidly priced. I can't believe people would be dumb enough to buy that when you can get 50% more cores for just $100 more. And that's not money you're even going to lose because when you go to resell your CPU it will hold more of its value.
 

RPGWiZaRD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,127
I think a lot of people who want 8 core CPU's will probably continue to buy 3700X's. 19% IPC increase is not enough to pay another $150 for 8 cores. 3700X's can be had for $300 or less, compared to the $450 5800X. The 5900X is only $100 more for 2 extra cores while the 5600X is $150 less for 2 less cores. That doesn't make sense other than AMD is trying to push 8 core buyers to pay $150 more. Intel needs to get their shit together and offer better products for better prices.

Well for me it's either a 9700K/9900K drop-in upgrade from a 8600K for a much smaller cost or Zen 3 5000 series upgrade, 3xxx series is not an option (not interested), the increase in single threaded/gaming performance in the new series is what makes it interesting to me. The up to 10% performance difference in gaming between Zen 2 vs Intel has been too much of a bother psychologically (epeen? and all that) but with the new series I get the best in every scenario so to me that's worth the extra cost. (I'm a 240Hz 1080p user). As it seems Zen 3 will take AMD roughly from being 10% behind to 5~10% or something in average ahead in gaming performance as well. Maybe small gain some would say vs a GPU upgrade but psychologically, much satisfying gain.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
725
The 5900x has 4 more cores. The 5800x is stupidly priced. I can't believe people would be dumb enough to buy that when you can get 50% more cores for just $100 more. And that's not money you're even going to lose because when you go to resell your CPU it will hold more of its value.
Lol I was about to say...
5900x 12 cores
5800x 8 cores

Seems they want people to go for the 12 core
 

RPGWiZaRD

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
1,127
Lol I was about to say...
5900x 12 cores
5800x 8 cores

Seems they want people to go for the 12 core

Definitely seems so with only a $100 price difference, say the 5800X had been priced $399 instead things had been more interesting pick between the two, with only $100 difference where you get a lot more cores and slightly added performance boost single thread-wise as well likely mostly from the cache differences then it does seem like you get more bang for the money in the 5900X.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,324
Planning on going with the 5900X though maybe I could swing for the 5950X for more future proofing.

My current rig is okay, but the front USB ports no longer work (I've had the case for about 6 years) so if I have to switch the case out anyhow, might as well do a new build.

Very excited to see AMD finally get full gaming performance, and also compile times and rendering should be much faster. AMD is back, baby!
 

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,551
I am curious about the cache amounts and how they will or won't influence performance. 5900X and above have twice the cache, while 5600X only a meg less then the 5800X. This seems really weird to me.
 

1_rick

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 7, 2017
Messages
1,379
I am curious about the cache amounts and how they will or won't influence performance. 5900X and above have twice the cache, while 5600X only a meg less then the 5800X. This seems really weird to me.

The 5950 has 2MB more than the 5900. That's one MB for the L2 on the two disabled cores in each core die.
 

aldamon

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 24, 2000
Messages
6,549
I've been vacillating as all the debates have played out, but if this is accurate, it probably solidifies my 5600X purchase. I am shamelessly gaming only so you all can have the extra cores. Hopefully we can overclock it well or even better than the others to overcome that little bit of single-core advantage.

If in a year or two, if the boogie men consoles force an 8-core revolution, I'll upgrade but I won't be holding my breath.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
13,729
I've been vacillating as all the debates have played out, but if this is accurate, it probably solidifies my 5600X purchase. I am shamelessly gaming only so you all can have the extra cores. Hopefully we can overclock it well or even better than the others to overcome that little bit of single-core advantage.

If in a year or two, if the boogie men consoles force an 8-core revolution, I'll upgrade but I won't be holding my breath.

Yeah, that was my thought a well - much like the 3600x made the 1700x obsolete overnight, my original plans to pick up a 5800x are now too overpriced to justify.

We will be lucky if we ever see more than 7 cores/14 threads used by Zen 2 console games this generation, and if we do, I will have 30-40% higher performance-per-core (more than enough to handle that slight increase in thread utilization.) You're getting the exact same anemic 8MB L3 cache as Matisse has (cutting performance by 10% over the 3700x.) it's also clocked 10% lower than that processor


That 5600xt will be almost 3x faster than my 4790k in multithread loads, and 50% faster in single-thread. What's not to like?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
725
Yeah, that was my thought a well - much like the 3600x made the 1700x obsolete overnight, my original plans to pick up a 5800x are now too overpriced to justify.

We will be lucky if we ever see more than 7 cores/14 threads used by Zen 2 console games this generation, and if we do, I will have 30-40% higher performance-per-core (more than enough to handle that slight increase in thread utilization.) You're getting the exact same anemic 8MB L3 cache as Matisse has (cutting performance by 10% over the 3700x.) it's also clocked 10% lower than that processor


That 5600xt will be almost 3x faster than my 4790k in multithread loads, and 50% faster in single-thread. What's not to like?
As far as software is concerned threads = cores. If it scales to 14 threads, it will scale to 14 cores. 2 Real cores are faster than 2 threads on 1 core.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
13,729
As far as software is concerned threads = cores. If it scales to 14 threads, it will scale to 14 cores. 2 Real cores are faster than 2 threads on 1 core.



if I already have 6 corers/12 threads, then if the other processor adds a single core/2 more threads, the total performance increase is

14 threads/12 threads = 16%

That's a lot less than the estimated 40% higher total performance over the 6-core Matisse 3.6 ghz APU.

Learn to math.

And if for some crazy-ass reason, they decide to utilize way more than the 16 threads available on Matisse , they're going to feel the pain well before mine does, with that tiny 8MB l3 cache (plus the dual-CCX-design).

Real easy to castrate demanding interdependent game engine performance on that APU, compared to the 4MB L3 -per-core plus single CCX of Zen 3.
 
Last edited:

Teenyman45

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 29, 2010
Messages
2,539
Lol I was about to say...
5900x 12 cores
5800x 8 cores

Seems they want people to go for the 12 core
It makes a bit more sense when you think about the 8 core is one fully actively chiplet while the 12 core is two chiplets each with 6 active cores. Must be easier to bin the dual 6 cores than a single 8 core which would otherwise likely be half of a 5950x.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,328
The more I think about it, the more I feel like the 5800x was not a good name for that cpu. Unless their process was so refined that they didn't have many defective parts, they could have had a smoother transition such as:

5950x : 16/32 72MB cache
5900x : 12/24 70MB cache
5800x : 10/20 x?MB cache
5700x : 8/16 36MB cache
5600x : 6/12 35MB cache

right now there does not seem "room" to slot in a 10/20 cpu, unless maybe they call it 5850. Also, I have no clue what a 5700x would be spec-wise because 5800x is already 8/16, so there would not be much differentiate between a 5700 vs 5800 cpu
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,444
The more I think about it, the more I feel like the 5800x was not a good name for that cpu. Unless their process was so refined that they didn't have many defective parts, they could have had a smoother transition such as:

5950x : 16/32 72MB cache
5900x : 12/24 70MB cache
5800x : 10/20 x?MB cache
5700x : 8/16 36MB cache
5600x : 6/12 35MB cache

right now there does not seem "room" to slot in a 10/20 cpu, unless maybe they call it 5850. Also, I have no clue what a 5700x would be spec-wise because 5800x is already 8/16, so there would not be much differentiate between a 5700 vs 5800 cpu
10 core CPUs were only a rumor. And with the pricing of the 5900x-----It seems like 10 core isn't in the cards right now. I suspect it is the way it is, to continue to offer a clear value advantage over Intel. By offering a 12 core for the same or less money, than Intel's 10 core. And to emphasize that AMD can do things which Intel cannot (offer 12 and 16 cores).
 

jfreund

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
1,060
I will be very interested to see if the 5900X is 6x2 or 8+4. For binning purposes, 6x2 makes a lot of sense. In that case, I would prefer a full CCX 3800X to the 2X 6 core solution, since I don't do a lot of encoding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,609
I will be very interested to see if the 5900X is 6x2 or 8+4. For binning purposes, 6x2 makes a lot of sense. In that case, I would prefer a full CCX 3800X to the 2X 6 core solution, since I don't do a lot of encoding.
How about a 5950x with one shitlet (we don't know yet) and one chiplet? The 5800x may have an advantage of being one good 8 core chiplet, maybe decent OCing etc. If PBO can actually boost 200mhz single core, 5ghz for the 5800x single core, that would be great. We just need to see these chips out and tested. PBO seemed to only boost all core boost vice single as a note.
 

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,317
I will be very interested to see if the 5900X is 6x2 or 8+4. For binning purposes, 6x2 makes a lot of sense. In that case, I would prefer a full CCX 3800X to the 2X 6 core solution, since I don't do a lot of encoding.
Anandtech has an article that claims it's 6+6 but I'm not sure where they got that info because it's all I could find on it when I looked the other day.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
13,729
Anandtech has an article that claims it's 6+6 but I'm not sure where they got that info because it's all I could find on it when I looked the other day.

, it's going to go that way, because the CCX AND chiplets are all designed that way

AMD simplifies their core interconnect by using matched pairs across each chiplet. , and ALSO within each CCX. See the layout for the 39900X here:

5-Ryzen-9-3900x.png

You can get away with the single -CCX plying games because thre are now two BALANCED ways to mak e a single chiplet into a 3100 (2 cores enable d in eah CCX), or the 3300x (4 cores enabled in a single CCX)



They just have the interconnect designed for multiples s of 4 so if you are going OUTSIDE a single CCX, you're going to need to match all the core interconnects together (8+8, 6+6, 4+4, 3+3, 2+2)

10 cores are not happening. Moving the CCX design from multiples of 4 to multiple of 10 would take a lot more work than just combining them into multiples of 8.

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...00-is-unlikely-despite-rumors-to-the-contrary
 
Last edited:

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,317
No, it's not going to go that way.

AMD simplifies their core interconnect by using matched pairs across each chiplet. , and ALSO within each CCX. See the layout for the 39900X here:

View attachment 289037

You can get away with the single -CCX plying games because thre are now two BALANCED ways to mak e a single chiplet into a 3100 (2 cores enable d in eah CCX)


or the 3300x (4 cores enabled in a single CCX)



They just have the interconnect designed for multiples s of 4 so if you are going OUTSIDE a single CCX, you're going to need to match all the core interconnects together (8+8, 6+6, 4+4, 3+3, 2+2)

10 cores are not happening. Moving the CCX design from multiples of 4 to multipeles of 5 would take a lot more work than just combining them into multiples of 8.

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...00-is-unlikely-despite-rumors-to-the-contrary
I think you're quoting the wrong post. I never mentioned anything about 10 core CPUs and that would seem to confirm what Anandtech is saying though there's not enough info in that extremetech article for me take it at face value.
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
13,729
I think you're quoting the wrong post. I never mentioned anything about 10 core CPUs and that would seem to confirm what Anandtech is saying though there's not enough info in that extremetech article for me take it at face value.


We know it's going to be matched cuts on each chiplet, what else could it be be but 6+ 6?

Technically, with the move to 8-core CCXes, they could make a 5+ 5,or 7+7 but I just don't see enough market to justify that many different large core configurations.
 
Last edited:

Ebernanut

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2010
Messages
1,317
We know it's going to be matched cuts on each chiplet, what else could it be be but 6+ 6?

Technically, with the move to 8-core CCXes, they could make a 5+ 5, but I just don't see enough market to justify that many different large core configurations. And that's also assuming they don't have a multiple m-of-2 core slicing limitation?
It seems likely I just haven't seen anything that can be attributed to AMD saying that's the case. We'll know before too long though.
 
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
725
if I already have 6 corers/12 threads, then if the other processor adds a single core/2 more threads, the total performance increase is

14 threads/12 threads = 16%

That's a lot less than the estimated 40% higher total performance over the 6-core Matisse 3.6 ghz APU.

Learn to math.

And if for some crazy-ass reason, they decide to utilize way more than the 16 threads available on Matisse , they're going to feel the pain well before mine does, with that tiny 8MB l3 cache (plus the dual-CCX-design).

Real easy to castrate demanding interdependent game engine performance on that APU, compared to the 4MB L3 -per-core plus single CCX of Zen 3.
I guess you didn't get the point I was trying to make.
Basically a 12/12 CPU (3900x with SMT disabled) will always be faster than say a 6/12 3600x (same clocks) with software that scales to 12 threads. It'll be more than 16%
 

illli

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
1,328
10 core CPUs were only a rumor. And with the pricing of the 5900x-----It seems like 10 core isn't in the cards right now. I suspect it is the way it is, to continue to offer a clear value advantage over Intel. By offering a 12 core for the same or less money, than Intel's 10 core. And to emphasize that AMD can do things which Intel cannot (offer 12 and 16 cores).

Its not about a rumor, just my thinking about the oddity. For example there is a more smooth transition between 6/12 -> 8/16 vs 8/16 -> 12/24. (Unless) the process is so refined that they won't have defective chiplets to make sufficient 10/20 parts, not sure why they wouldn't want to go from 8/16 -> 10/20 -> 12/24. As it is, there is no place to slot a 10/20 in the future.. unless they name it like 5850x or something (since 5800 and 5900 are already taken)
 

os2wiz

Gawd
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
599
I would be genuinely surprised if AMD releases Zen 4 in 2021. I think a Zen 3 refresh with higher clocks and DDR5 support with a Zen 4-compatible socket is more likely, if they do a DDR5 release in 2021.
It will ne 4 th quarter 2021 or 1st quarter 2022 for Zen 4. Unless the roadmap is changed.
 
Top