Who is looking to upgrade to Zen2

Flexion

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,607
Intel has thrown down the gauntlet!...as it pertains to gaming performance, Intel issued an indirect challenge to AMD to "beat us in real-world gaming" if it wants to claim the performance crown..."So you’re going to hear a lot about gaming CPUs this week...They may or may not come from certain three letter acronyms...That said, here’s what I want to challenge you...I want to challenge you to challenge them...If they want this crown come beat us in real world gaming, real world gaming should be the defining criteria that we use to assess the world’s best gaming CPU," Jon Carvill, Intel's VP of marketing, told PCGamesN..."I challenge you to challenge anyone that wants to compete for this crown to come meet us in real world gaming. That’s the measure that we’re going to stand by."...

https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel/worlds-best-gaming-processor-challenge-amd-ryzen-3000
I want to see if their "gaming superiority" is still there post mitigation patches.
 

crazycuz20

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2017
Messages
158
I want to see if their "gaming superiority" is still there post mitigation patches.
I think the "new" vulnerabilities only affect hyperthreading, there has been a bunch of content showing that disabling hyperthreading has very little impact on gaming performance for current generation games. They're optimized for low core counts and high IPC/clocks vs productivity/rendering/computational applications that get hit hard by losing half the threads. Intel knows this and that's why they can issue the challenge. Based on current speculation, IPC is still similar between Zen2 and Coffee Lake but the 9900KS can clock to 5 ghz stock on all cores which Zen 2 can't yet at stock frequencies on the announced SKU's. It would be interesting to see how well Zen 2 OC's on their best silicon which is reserved for EPYC2..
 

Brackle

Old Timer
Joined
Jun 19, 2003
Messages
7,343
I think the "new" vulnerabilities only affect hyperthreading, there has been a bunch of content showing that disabling hyperthreading has very little impact on gaming performance for current generation games. They're optimized for low core counts and high IPC/clocks vs productivity/rendering/computational applications that get hit hard by losing half the threads. Intel knows this and that's why they can issue the challenge. Based on current speculation, IPC is still similar between Zen2 and Coffee Lake but the 9900KS can clock to 5 ghz stock on all cores which Zen 2 can't yet at stock frequencies on the announced SKU's. It would be interesting to see how well Zen 2 OC's on their best silicon which is reserved for EPYC2..
That is a lot of assumptions with no evidence what so ever. Wait until the reviews are done first IMO.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,895
I will be upgrading. 3770k is showing it’s age and I’m sure the security patches didn’t help matters.
 

Flexion

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,607
I think the "new" vulnerabilities only affect hyperthreading, there has been a bunch of content showing that disabling hyperthreading has very little impact on gaming performance for current generation games. They're optimized for low core counts and high IPC/clocks vs productivity/rendering/computational applications that get hit hard by losing half the threads. Intel knows this and that's why they can issue the challenge. Based on current speculation, IPC is still similar between Zen2 and Coffee Lake but the 9900KS can clock to 5 ghz stock on all cores which Zen 2 can't yet at stock frequencies on the announced SKU's. It would be interesting to see how well Zen 2 OC's on their best silicon which is reserved for EPYC2..
That is a lot of assumptions with no evidence what so ever. Wait until the reviews are done first IMO.
I found his article to be interesting.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1850-how-screwed-is-intel-no-hyper-threading/

Can't wait or the 3900x benches.
 

polonyc2

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
17,356
July 7th launch...
  • Ryzen 9 3900X—12C/24T, 3.8GHz to 4.6GHz, 70MB cache, 105W TDP, $499
  • Ryzen 7 3800X—8C/16T, 3.9GHz to 4.5GHz, 36MB cache, 105W TDP, $399
  • Ryzen 7 3700X—8C/16T, 3.6GHz to 4.4GHz, 36MB cache, 65W TDP, $329
  • Ryzen 5 3600X—6C/12T, 3.8GHz to 4.4GHz, 35MB cache, 95W TDP, $249
  • Ryzen 5 3600—6C/12T, 3.6GHz to 4.2GHz, 35MB cache, 65W TDP, $199
  • Ryzen 5 3400G—(Zen+) 4C/8T, 3.7GHz to 4.2GHz, 6MB cache, Vega 11 Graphics at 1400MHz, 65W TDP, $149
  • Ryzen 3 3200G—(Zen+) 4C/4T, 3.6GHz to 4.0GHz, 6MB cache, Vega 8 Graphics at 1250MHz, 65W TDP, $99
 

mikeo

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2006
Messages
622
I wonder if they will announce the new threadripper before the September release of the 3950x 16 core.
 

tom_ozahoski

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
265
July 7th launch...
  • Ryzen 9 3950X—16C/32T, 3.5GHz to 4.7GHz, 72MB cache, 105W TDP, $749
  • Ryzen 9 3900X—12C/24T, 3.8GHz to 4.6GHz, 72MB cache, 105W TDP, $499
  • Ryzen 7 3800X—8C/16T, 3.9GHz to 4.5GHz, 36MB cache, 105W TDP, $399
  • Ryzen 7 3700X—8C/16T, 3.6GHz to 4.4GHz, 36MB cache, 65W TDP, $329
  • Ryzen 5 3600X—6C/12T, 3.8GHz to 4.4GHz, 35MB cache, 95W TDP, $249
  • Ryzen 5 3600—6C/12T, 3.6GHz to 4.2GHz, 35MB cache, 65W TDP, $199
  • Ryzen 5 3400G—(Zen+) 4C/8T, 3.7GHz to 4.2GHz, 6MB cache, Vega 11 Graphics at 1400MHz, 65W TDP, $149
  • Ryzen 3 3200G—(Zen+) 4C/4T, 3.6GHz to 4.0GHz, 6MB cache, Vega 8 Graphics at 1250MHz, 65W TDP, $99
Added the missing line ;)
 

JRZoid

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 1, 2019
Messages
91
I pray they do, push the Backwards compatibility...that said the 2600x is a Blast at just the pretty mediocre 4.2ghz. The Sycthe Mugen 5 doing good Justice.

And Msi didn't jack around with the Mobo's dude...nice features/light show/some boot indicators...I don't know what the hell is wrong with Asus...and it might be dead anyways or corrupt ask you to flash the damn thing..sent one back Lol.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,526
I want to see if their "gaming superiority" is still there post mitigation patches.
They'll still likely be ahead in independent testing. In equivalent systems, Intel is going to give you more clockspeed and more IPC for the money, because they can, and that brings down the frametimes.

However, I'm not expecting the margin for their 'win' to be so great as to matter for most. I have no need for the extra cores, already have too many myself, but I wouldn't turn down these AMD parts if I did need an upgrade.
 

TurboGLH

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
571
They'll still likely be ahead in independent testing. In equivalent systems, Intel is going to give you more clockspeed and more IPC for the money, because they can, and that brings down the frametimes.

However, I'm not expecting the margin for their 'win' to be so great as to matter for most. I have no need for the extra cores, already have too many myself, but I wouldn't turn down these AMD parts if I did need an upgrade.
Just to clarify, your thought is that Intel will still be faster in gaming? Across the board, price point vs price point or core vs core? Does power consumption factor, and for which class CPUs, if not all of them.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,522
Just to clarify, your thought is that Intel will still be faster in gaming? Across the board, price point vs price point or core vs core? Does power consumption factor, and for which class CPUs, if not all of them.
Unlikely since you have the reactionary 9900KS, so Intel likely knows they need all the speed they can get to try to cling to best gaming cpu. But it's a unknown how well the AMD cpu overclocks and the Intel TDP will be grossly violated by Intel to achieve those speeds needed to try and win the benchmarks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

TurboGLH

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
571
Most of them.



Power will be in the same envelopes.
Most of what? Most of the entire lineup? Fine, but what's the comparison criteria? Price or cores.

Power will be the same across both, again what's the criteria? Cores or cost?

Also, that's still not an answer. Does power matter? If, for example, in 12vs12 core one is faster, but uses more power, does that matter, or is it just raw speed.

Does that count at the mid-range, 6 core, 8?
 

TurboGLH

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
571
Unlikely since you have the reactionary 9900KS, so Intel likely knows they need all the speed they can get to try to cling to best gaming cpu. But it's a unknown how well the AMD cpu overclocks and the Intel TDP will be grossly violated by Intel to achieve those speeds needed to try and win the benchmarks.
I'm not in the dark, I'm sure that Intel will make every best effort to keep the crown, even if it doesn't propagate down the line to every price point.

I'm trying to get clarification on a vague claim, so there's no ambiguity when benches are out.
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,522
I'm not in the dark, I'm sure that Intel will make every best effort to keep the crown, even if it doesn't propagate down the line to every price point.

I'm trying to get clarification on a vague claim, so there's no ambiguity when benches are out.
Well good luck with who you are asking for that clarification on.
 

TurboGLH

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
571
Come on, it's got to be easy.

Does power matter at all, does that answer apply to every sku, and if no where is the line.

Which skus will be faster, and are we comparing price vs price or cores vs cores.

I'll tell you what, I'll go first.

AMD will be faster in either, price or cores, and will use less power to do it, except at the very top 16 cores, Intel will be faster there, but use more power.
 

bigblueshock

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 27, 2017
Messages
78
Unless something goes horribly wrong with launch, will most likely finally be upgrading my 6 core i7 4930k to the Ryzen 9 3900x.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
2,267
So you guys are far more ahead than I am with this topic.

Currently rocking a 3470 and a 1060 6gb. My days of sixty hours a week of gaming are over. I have zero intention of swapping out my two 1080 monitors. Sure, I may snag a AAA title if it really interests me (2077). But honestly, I really just dub with Path of Exile and maybe an hour of Farcry 5.

I'm going to venture a guess a 2700x will be enough for my needs? I mean, if dropping an extra $100 on a 3700x is going to make a massive difference, ok I'll go with it. But yea, a 2700x is still a viable option correct?
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,740
So you guys are far more ahead than I am with this topic.

Currently rocking a 3470 and a 1060 6gb. My days of sixty hours a week of gaming are over. I have zero intention of swapping out my two 1080 monitors. Sure, I may snag a AAA title if it really interests me (2077). But honestly, I really just dub with Path of Exile and maybe an hour of Farcry 5.

I'm going to venture a guess a 2700x will be enough for my needs? I mean, if dropping an extra $100 on a 3700x is going to make a massive difference, ok I'll go with it. But yea, a 2700x is still a viable option correct?
Yes, you'd be fine with a 2700X.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
55,740
Pretty much what I figured. I'll wait until the new stuff comes out then go the 2700x route hopefully for short money.
Keep in mind, the real benefits of a Ryzen 3000 series processor for gaming will come down to increased clock speeds and an IPC improvement. AMD claims that its 15% faster at the same clocks. You may want to look at the Ryzen 5 (6c/12t) or 7 series (8c/16t) and go for a less expensive model. Additionally, if you have a Microcenter around where you are, you will be able to get the CPU for less than MSRP.
 
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
2,267
Keep in mind, the real benefits of a Ryzen 3000 series processor for gaming will come down to increased clock speeds and an IPC improvement. AMD claims that its 15% faster at the same clocks. You may want to look at the Ryzen 5 (6c/12t) or 7 series (8c/16t) and go for a less expensive model. Additionally, if you have a Microcenter around where you are, you will be able to get the CPU for less than MSRP.
Yea, I'll have to see what the prices are like after the release. If its going to cost me like $200 more for a 3000 series (cpu and mobo) then, meh, I'll get it. If its a bit more than that, I'll just get a 2700x. I've bled my 3470 dry. That poor thing has lasted me, what, seven years now?

And no Microcenters closeby. Hell, I can't even think of any electronics store within 100 miles of me.
 

Epyon

Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
854
I am on a 1800x air cooled and pc 2100 no over clock for rendering. It sucks. I am going for water cooling 16 core and the fastest 64 memory kit and mother board i can buy.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,526
I am on a 1800x air cooled and pc 2100 no over clock for rendering. It sucks. I am going for water cooling 16 core and the fastest 64 memory kit and mother board i can buy.
For rendering, put the screws to it!

And also look at GPU acceleration...
 

mvmiller12

Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
942
Yea, I'll have to see what the prices are like after the release. If its going to cost me like $200 more for a 3000 series (cpu and mobo) then, meh, I'll get it. If its a bit more than that, I'll just get a 2700x. I've bled my 3470 dry. That poor thing has lasted me, what, seven years now?

And no Microcenters closeby. Hell, I can't even think of any electronics store within 100 miles of me.
Or, take advantage of the options the AMD AM4 platform gives you: get a nice x570 mainboard and a 2700x processor. Enjoy great performance/$. Upgrade the chip later if any good deals come your way (Ryzen 3, or maybe even Ryzen 4) and unload the 2700x to recoup a fair-to-good chunk of the expenditure.
 

Algrim

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2016
Messages
1,683
And no Microcenters closeby. Hell, I can't even think of any electronics store within 100 miles of me.
I moved from Indianapolis to Yuma AZ. The plus side: best gun shop ever down the street. The minus side: only 'decent' (and I use that term very loosely) electronics store is in Phoenix ~150 miles away. :banghead:
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,526
get a nice x570 mainboard and a 2700x processor.
Given the purported X570 price premiums, might be better to look at X470 and a 3000-series CPU. We know AMD is likely changing sockets next year (per their notices), so if an X470 board can run the CPU properly, X570 doesn't seem to be that useful unless you want to overclock the highest-end parts. PCIe 4.0 is just about useless to consumers, especially on a budget.
 

DuronBurgerMan

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,354
They'll still likely be ahead in independent testing. In equivalent systems, Intel is going to give you more clockspeed and more IPC for the money, because they can, and that brings down the frametimes.
I don't think Intel has much - if any - IPC advantage over Zen 2 (there is a non-trivial possibility Zen 2 actually pulls a win - by a pubic hair - in IPC). I expect this to be a functional tie. But we will know for sure when the third party benchmarks come in. I think Intel will retain a very slight lead in gaming due to clockspeed alone, and only with the 4.9/5GHz boost products (at least if we're talking stock vs stock). And I think it will be a case where Zen 2 will actually win a few of the gaming benchmarks outright, even at low resolution, though the majority will still favor Intel. By a hair.

However, I'm not expecting the margin for their 'win' to be so great as to matter for most. I have no need for the extra cores, already have too many myself, but I wouldn't turn down these AMD parts if I did need an upgrade.
I think it will be a case of 95-97% of the gaming performance of Intel even at lower resolutions - so almost irrelevant, but boatloads more cores and/or threads at any given price point, meaning major productivity gains without many of the drawbacks of Zen/Zen+. Overclocking will be a factor, though, that could change the calculus a bit.
 

Boil

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2015
Messages
1,424
I am on a 1800x air cooled and pc 2100 no over clock for rendering. It sucks. I am going for water cooling 16 core and the fastest 64 memory kit and mother board i can buy.
The slow memory, especially on first-gen Ryzen, is not helping...

Given the purported X570 price premiums, might be better to look at X470 and a 3000-series CPU. We know AMD is likely changing sockets next year (per their notices), so if an X470 board can run the CPU properly, X570 doesn't seem to be that useful unless you want to overclock the highest-end parts. PCIe 4.0 is just about useless to consumers, especially on a budget.
But when Intel rolls out PCIe 5.0, that's going to be alright & benefit consumers, because Intel, yeah...?
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,526
But when Intel rolls out PCIe 5.0, that's going to be alright & benefit consumers, because Intel, yeah...?
Not if it increases board costs like X570 seems to be. We'll still be trying to fully utilize PCIe 3.0...
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,522
Not if it increases board costs like X570 seems to be. We'll still be trying to fully utilize PCIe 3.0...
NVME drives use up all the PCIe 3.0 has to offer at 4x. Couple companies have already started offering NVME drives with PCIe 4.0 support with even faster read and write speeds.
 

daphatgrant

Fi-yah!
Staff member
Joined
Jun 15, 2003
Messages
18,339
I'm seriously considering the 3950X. I was looking at the 9900K but I've been with Intel for a long, long time and would love to give AMD some love. Current rig is a 2600K I've had since '11 so a move to anything new is going to be insane.
 
Last edited:

Vader1975

Gawd
Joined
May 11, 2016
Messages
820
PCIe 5.0 is in beta spec mode atm. As is the norm when a spec finally goes to market. PCIe 4.0 is now set. The only thing missing for me on the X570 is DDR5 support which I figured would be done by now. But hey other than that it works. I am just going to buy a CPU though and drop it in my old Asus Crosshair Hero VI X370. What cpu to get? That is the question. I was originally going to go 16 core. Now I am not so sure. I'll wait for testing to commence. I might just skip this gen.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
7,895
Added the missing line ;)
I believe the 3950X is a September release

I'm personally going with the 3900x. Don't feel like waiting until September and I think 12/24 with higher clocks will benefit me a bit more than 16/32 with lower clocks. I don't think I'll be messing with any OC this time around except for maybe tweaking the all-core turbo settings. I may even downgrade to a R7 3800x depending on what the reviews show. Diminishing returns may happen on a pretty steep scale past 8 cores due to lack of memory bandwidth.
 
Last edited:
Top