Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'AMD Processors' started by Kato1144, May 27, 2019.
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..
That is a lot of assumptions with no evidence what so ever. Wait until the reviews are done first IMO.
I will be upgrading. 3770k is showing it’s age and I’m sure the security patches didn’t help matters.
I found his article to be interesting.
Can't wait or the 3900x benches.
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
Will be going 3900X and giving my friend my 6700K. Also going to try hard tubing so that should be fun.
I wonder if they will announce the new threadripper before the September release of the 3950x 16 core.
Added the missing line
3900X 12C/24T for me then, since I cannot wait until September...
But the 16 core is not available July 7th launch, so it was not a missing line...
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.
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.
Most of them.
Power will be in the same envelopes.
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.
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?
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.
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.
It is easy.
Unless something goes horribly wrong with launch, will most likely finally be upgrading my 6 core i7 4930k to the Ryzen 9 3900x.
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.
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.
Yea, I'll have to see what the prices are like after the release. If its going to cost me like $200 more for a 3000 series (cpu and mobo) then, meh, I'll get it. If its a bit more than that, I'll just get a 2700x. I've bled my 3470 dry. That poor thing has lasted me, what, seven years now?
And no Microcenters closeby. Hell, I can't even think of any electronics store within 100 miles of me.
I am on a 1800x air cooled and pc 2100 no over clock for rendering. It sucks. I am going for water cooling 16 core and the fastest 64 memory kit and mother board i can buy.
For rendering, put the screws to it!
And also look at GPU acceleration...
Or, take advantage of the options the AMD AM4 platform gives you: get a nice x570 mainboard and a 2700x processor. Enjoy great performance/$. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The slow memory, especially on first-gen Ryzen, is not helping...
But when Intel rolls out PCIe 5.0, that's going to be alright & benefit consumers, because Intel, yeah...?
Aside from the stock argument, which does need to be made, overclocking will be the differentiator.
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.
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.
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.
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.