AMD Zen 3 Launch Event Discussion

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,593
My 5820k has served me well, I've gotten almost 6yrs out of it. I'm wondering if I should even bother upgrading at this point and wait for the next round? Most of my gaming is 4k/60Hz- I imagine upgrading won't help me push any more FPS but will help me maintain more consistant framerates?
that is pretty old but still not a bad CPU. I think those are on par with ryzen 2600s or so?If all you do is game and you are happy with the experience, I'd wait. You can monitor CPU usage during gaming and see if you are CPU bound.
 

Wag

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
1,070
that is pretty old but still not a bad CPU. I think those are on par with ryzen 2600s or so?If all you do is game and you are happy with the experience, I'd wait. You can monitor CPU usage during gaming and see if you are CPU bound.
At 4k/60 I'm not likely to be CPU bound in any game, even with a 3080 or better, but I suspect my average low framerates will be pretty inconsistent compared to a newer CPU. Still not sure. Definitely will be upgrading either this round or the next.
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,593
At 4k/60 I'm not likely to be CPU bound in any game, even with a 3080 or better, but I suspect my average low framerates will be pretty inconsistent compared to a newer CPU. Still not sure. Definitely will be upgrading either this round or the next.
I'd wait. Chances are next gen will feature DDR5 and have somewhat of an upgrade path, so when you are in the same situation you are in a few years down the line, you have the option of dropping in a newer CPU the setup you built. AM4 is dead after this generation, so next time around you'd be doing a full build all over again.
 

Wag

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
1,070
I'd wait. Chances are next gen will feature DDR5 and have somewhat of an upgrade path, so when you are in the same situation you are in a few years down the line, you have the option of dropping in a newer CPU the setup you built. AM4 is dead after this generation, so next time around you'd be doing a full build all over again.
I was thinking of that, but there are no guarantees that AM5 (or whatever AMD calls it) will offer similar upgrade options as AM4 has. I will probably wait- I thought the new chips this time around would require a new chipset but I guess I was wrong. I want my next setup to last me at least 5yrs. I have to say my 5820k@4.3GHz has been one of my favorite setups so far- it’s longevity has been amazing.
 

aldamon

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 24, 2000
Messages
6,565
My 5820k has served me well, I've gotten almost 6yrs out of it. I'm wondering if I should even bother upgrading at this point and wait for the next round? Most of my gaming is 4k/60Hz- I imagine upgrading won't help me push any more FPS but will help me maintain more consistant framerates?
5820K at 4.5GHz trades blows with an R5 2600 in games. I'm moving on from mine to new Zen 3 (or maybe Zen 2 depending on these prices), but it's still quite capable. I have a 1440p/144 monitor so need a little more horsepower to match my 3080.

Good video for you:
LIke you said, if you game at 4K, none of this matters. I just don't want a spaceheater anymore.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
5,053
Just sold my 3950x for $550. Going to replace it with a 5900x and be done with it for the next few years. I can use the ipc improvement more the the cores.
 

thesmokingman

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
6,393
It's all the way down to 58%... why people think AMD should offer lower prices is beyond me, they are already running on slimmer margins than their competitors. I do agree that there are some fixed costs and more products = less per product, but you're still asking them to lower their profit margins even further than they already are, which is already 33% less than their competition (or viewed from their perspective, their competition has a 50% higher margin). If they are trying to take market share and have unlimited supply, it would make sense. If they can sell everything they make already, it doesn't make any sense to lower their prices further. It's still a better value than their competition and they have to be because they are viewed as 2nd best in their market. They have gained back a good amount of market share, now they need to start turning that into profits to further their R&D (and allow expansion into other areas). They have limited capacity at TSMC, so they have to match the price to the market and to their supply.

Poor Intel... not really. Their margin is down this year cuz they spent what 10 billion on buy backs to shore up their crushed stock price.
 

amd7674

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
1,722
so for gaming the single CCX design is more important then the higher cache on the 5900X (64 MB)?
Very good question. I was set to buy 5800x, but with unexpected higher prices then we all expected; now I'm leaning toward getting 5900x. I wonder how much better in gaming 5900x will be over 5800x at 1440p@165hz.... I think the extra 4 cores are totally worth 100USD.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
19,023
Very good question. I was set to buy 5800x, but with unexpected higher prices then we all expected; now I'm leaning toward getting 5900x. I wonder how much better in gaming 5900x will be over 5800x at 1440p@165hz.... I think the extra 4 cores are totally worth 100USD.

hopefully reviews/benchmarks will be released prior to November 5th...I'm guessing gaming performance will be pretty much the same across both but it'll be interesting to see the numbers...$100 more for double the cores and double the cache might be worth it
 
Last edited:

amd7674

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
1,722
hopefully reviews/benchmarks will be released prior to November 5th...I'm guessing gaming performance will be pretty much the same across both but it'll be interesting to see the numbers...$100 more for double the cores and double the cache might be worth it
I got tweet confirmation from Andreas Schilling Editor at http://hardwareluxx.de launch day reviews will be on November 5th. If the price difference is indeed ~100USD I will go for 5900x even if there are no noticeable improvements in gaming. Since this is last AM4 CPU and I'm not planning on upgrading this build for next 4-5yrs. I just want to get the best I can afford. :)
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,593
I got tweet confirmation from Andreas Schilling Editor at http://hardwareluxx.de launch day reviews will be on November 5th. If the price difference is indeed ~100USD I will go for 5900x even if there are no noticeable improvements in gaming. Since this is last AM4 CPU and I'm not planning on upgrading this build for next 4-5yrs. I just want to get the best I can afford. :)
I'm with you. Hoping to not touch this computer for at least 4 years, unless I need to add another SSD or jump to 64GB.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,227
hopefully reviews/benchmarks will be released prior to November 5th...I'm guessing gaming performance will be pretty much the same across both but it'll be interesting to see the numbers...$100 more for double the cores and double the cache might be worth it

Well it's 50% more cores, not double. But yeah, I am not sure which to get, either. I guess whatever I can on launch day, but I am also wondering if the 5800x will end up better for gaming with one CCX. I guess it should theoretically be similar to the 3800x vs 3900x, no?
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,593
Well it's 50% more cores, not double. But yeah, I am not sure which to get, either. I guess whatever I can on launch day, but I am also wondering if the 5800x will end up better for gaming with one CCX. I guess it should theoretically be similar to the 3800x vs 3900x, no?
no, it is more comparable to the 3100 vs 3300x. Only the 3300x used a single CCX and therefore lower latency to L3 cache.
 

amd7674

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 1, 2007
Messages
1,722
no, it is more comparable to the 3100 vs 3300x. Only the 3300x used a single CCX and therefore lower latency to L3 cache.
do you think 5800x will have single 8/16 ccx (aka 3300x) and 5900x will have two ccx; one with 8/16 and one with 4/8 (aka 3100). So 5950x will be two ccx with 8/16 + 8/16. I'm sorry I'm noob with ryzen CPUs, just trying to understand.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/K88YQ4LC6sBhTLwH7Ha6eV.jpg
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,593
do you think 5800x will have single 8/16 ccx (aka 3300x) and 5900x will have two ccx; one with 8/16 and one with 4/8 (aka 3100). So 5950x will be two ccx with 8/16 + 8/16. I'm sorry I'm noob with ryzen CPUs, just trying to understand.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/K88YQ4LC6sBhTLwH7Ha6eV.jpg
The way I interpret it, each CCX has one cache pool of 16MB. In the case of Ryzen 3000, each CCX has four cores with access to 16MB of cache, with up to two CCXs per CCD, and up to two CCDs per CPU. With Ryzen 5000, each CCX has one cache pool of 32MB, shared among 8 cores. I believe then there is a max of one CCX per CCD on the new CPUs, with up to two CCDs per CPU for up to 16 cores.

Point being, with the 8 core CCX, all cores have equal access to the cache and to each other, while previous 8 core Ryzen CPUs had two different pools and more separation between cores (since they are on different CCXs) and therefore higher latency.

As for the 5900x, I would assume it uses two 8 core CCXs, each with 2 cores disabled, so 6 on each. That is speculation but would result in 'balanced' CPUs. With the previous gen, it didn't matter that they used 8+4 config, since 8+4 really meant 4+4+4, and all CCXs were equal. If they did 8+4 with the new layout, it would be 1 full CCX and 1 half CCX. I'm going to guess there are benefits to doing two 3/4 CCXs and that that is how AMD will configure them. That is a guess though.


Edit: I haven't read any info outside of the launch event itself. Looking back at that, it may be that the CCDs still have two 4 core CCXs, but share a common cache. I guess we will need to wait for some engineers to explain the architecture.
 
Last edited:

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
30,227
1602382150830.png


The question is what topology the 3900x will be. Presumably the 3800x is one CCX and the 3950x is two.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
19,584
Zen3 layout is more efficient no? all cores pull from the same cache vs crossing over into the other 16MB if something was there a non associated core might call for? (not even sure if that is how it all works, i am brain dead when it comes to all this)
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,593
Zen3 layout is more efficient no? all cores pull from the same cache vs crossing over into the other 16MB if something was there a non associated core might call for? (not even sure if that is how it all works, i am brain dead when it comes to all this)
8 cores share 32MB of cache, not 'all cores'. This is better than the old layout and reduces latency, but we don't know how the 12 and 16 core variants will be affected by running 2 CCDs yet.

edit: the fact that the keynote focused on the 5900x to show off gaming and single thread cinebench, I'd guess the added latency of two CCDs isn't much of an issue.
 

Engr62

Gawd
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
670
Just sold my 3950x for $550. Going to replace it with a 5900x and be done with it for the next few years. I can use the ipc improvement more the the cores.
I've been wondering what to do myself. I've got a 3950x, but I don't really game much at all. I paid $700 for my 3950x back in January and can't really afford to rent it for $200 for 10 months by selling it for $500. I'll have to say, whoever picks up a 3950x for $500 to $550 is getting a heck of a deal.

This is just the nature of the beast... you're always wishing you had held out a little longer before making the big purchase.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
19,584
8 cores share 32MB of cache, not 'all cores'. This is better than the old layout and reduces latency, but we don't know how the 12 and 16 core variants will be affected by running 2 CCDs yet.

edit: the fact that the keynote focused on the 5900x to show off gaming and single thread cinebench, I'd guess the added latency of two CCDs isn't much of an issue.
My bad, i missed looking at the back ground of the image showing the 8 cores on the die!
 

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,579
I'd wait. Chances are next gen will feature DDR5 and have somewhat of an upgrade path, so when you are in the same situation you are in a few years down the line, you have the option of dropping in a newer CPU the setup you built. AM4 is dead after this generation, so next time around you'd be doing a full build all over again.
Next gen will. But we have Zen3+ in the mean time. So that time frame may be a bit of a wait. It kinda now all depends on Intel now AMD is in the drivers seat.
 

LukeTbk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
375
so when you are in the same situation you are in a few years down the line, you have the option of dropping in a newer CPU the setup you built. AM4 is dead after this generation, so next time around you'd be doing a full build all over again.

Or putting an used 5950xt single core boost 5.1 ghz, could take a while before a 16 cores Zen3+ cpu made that fit in a AM4 is not enough of a cpu for either gaming or productivity, specially if game continue to get GPU bound so much and/or achieve to use more core in the future.
 

somebrains

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 10, 2013
Messages
1,402
I’m hoping 1600af prices take a dump after 5xxx gets into people’s builds so some of my buddies kids can upgrade on the cheap.
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,660
So when do we expect to see entry level and APU's? More interested in the APU's because I need to replace my old aging HTPC and would prefer to have an APU, I do not need a dedicated video card.
 

sirmonkey1985

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - July 2010
Joined
Sep 13, 2008
Messages
22,231
Very good question. I was set to buy 5800x, but with unexpected higher prices then we all expected; now I'm leaning toward getting 5900x. I wonder how much better in gaming 5900x will be over 5800x at 1440p@165hz.... I think the extra 4 cores are totally worth 100USD.

50 dollar price increase was unexpected? pretty sure everyone expected the price increase to be much higher given they'll beat intel in every metric.
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,593
Not sure what the problem is with the price, sure we would all like to pay less for more, but if you compare it to their competition, They're selling a better processor, for less.
To the people who have an issue with price, just buy Intel. It's better performance per dollar over there.


Wait, it isn't? Amd has better performance AND price? Then everyone stfu about price. I've said it before but I seriously think some people would have been happier with 3 percent performance increase instead of 19 if it meant them staying the same price. It's crazy.
 

vegeta535

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
5,053
To the people who have an issue with price, just buy Intel. It's better performance per dollar over there.


Wait, it isn't? Amd has better performance AND price? Then everyone stfu about price. I've said it before but I seriously think some people would have been happier with 3 percent performance increase instead of 19 if it meant them staying the same price. It's crazy.
Everyone believe AMD is in the business of charity. If you want AMD to keep growing and make better cpu a boost in profits will also help fund their R&D for future CPUs and even GPUs. People keep shitting on Intel but we need them. If they don't right the ship their is a good chance AMD will go down the same road as Intel did. Then we will be crying to Intel to save us from AMD.
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,715
Well and now you get Far Cry 6 when you buy a 5000 series CPU (5600x not included in the deal). Which makes buying one just a little bit better.

The crazy thing is usually Far Cry runs better on Intel based platforms....Makes you wonder?
 

mnewxcv

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 4, 2007
Messages
7,593
Everyone believe AMD is in the business of charity. If you want AMD to keep growing and make better cpu a boost in profits will also help fund their R&D for future CPUs and even GPUs. People keep shitting on Intel but we need them. If they don't right the ship their is a good chance AMD will go down the same road as Intel did. Then we will be crying to Intel to save us from AMD.
if innovation slows and prices rise, I will just be happy with my current computer for longer. It's why some people are still running 4th 5th 6th gen intel CPUs.
 

Ready4Dis

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2015
Messages
2,426
Well and now you get Far Cry 6 when you buy a 5000 series CPU (5600x not included in the deal). Which makes buying one just a little bit better.

The crazy thing is usually Far Cry runs better on Intel based platforms....Makes you wonder?
Yeah, does.. or did? :) I'm excited to see some real benchmarks and see where the dust settles.
 
Top