Who is looking to upgrade to Zen2

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
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.

...and yet SATA SSDs are as fast as NVMe to the consumer. Point being, the software won't make use of PCIe 4.0 vs. PCIe 3.0, in large part because NVMe is already absurdly fast. It's a bullet point, not an advantage.
 

Tazman2

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Messages
4,946
I'm on the buy 2700x/high end X470 now and be ready for a quick CPU upgrade or wait...
 

Gideon

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 13, 2006
Messages
2,760
...and yet SATA SSDs are as fast as NVMe to the consumer. Point being, the software won't make use of PCIe 4.0 vs. PCIe 3.0, in large part because NVMe is already absurdly fast. It's a bullet point, not an advantage.

I think you will find the benchmark obsessed community will very much disagree with you. Also it's quite easy to see the difference with loading large files, SATA SSD is quite a bit slower then a NVME drive but you likely wont notice your favorite game loaded a touch faster.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
I think you will find the benchmark obsessed community will very much disagree with you. Also it's quite easy to see the difference with loading large files, SATA SSD is quite a bit slower then a NVME drive but you likely wont notice your favorite game loaded a touch faster.

We can agree on that :)
 

TheFlayedMan

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
411
I'm looking to maybe upgrade. Looking at the specs for the 3600 vs 3600x they are the same apart from a 5% clock speed bump? I'm thinking 5% doesn't seem it would be enough to notice during use.
 

mvmiller12

Gawd
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
1,003
I'm looking to maybe upgrade. Looking at the specs for the 3600 vs 3600x they are the same apart from a 5% clock speed bump? I'm thinking 5% doesn't seem it would be enough to notice during use.

Not exactly. The X variants of Ryzen chips traditionally auto-overclock themselves wheres the non-X variants don't (boost is boost and that is all you get). The algorithm on the X CPUs take into account demanded workload, temperature and power headroom to clock themselves accordingly, and with PBO activated, possibly well past the boost clock of the CPU. Second gen Ryzen has improved on this auto-overclocking so that with Zen+ (2000 series chips using PBO), manual overclocking is almost completely unnecessary. Unless you are usually running workloads that require all cores to be running balls-out all the time, you are almost certainly better off just letting PBO do its thing.

tldr; there's more to those X chips than the provided numbers imply, and it tends to be a lot more than 5%.
 

crazycuz20

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2017
Messages
168
Not exactly. The X variants of Ryzen chips traditionally auto-overclock themselves wheres the non-X variants don't (boost is boost and that is all you get). The algorithm on the X CPUs take into account demanded workload, temperature and power headroom to clock themselves accordingly, and with PBO activated, possibly well past the boost clock of the CPU. Second gen Ryzen has improved on this auto-overclocking so that with Zen+ (2000 series chips using PBO), manual overclocking is almost completely unnecessary. Unless you are usually running workloads that require all cores to be running balls-out all the time, you are almost certainly better off just letting PBO do its thing.

tldr; there's more to those X chips than the provided numbers imply, and it tends to be a lot more than 5%.

Good article on Tom's Hardware comparing the 2700 and 2700X and how they both OC to 4.2. They recommend getting the 2700X because the price difference was only $30 and you need the Wraith Prism to OC. If the 2700/2700X trend holds, given that all new Ryzen 2 CPU's come with the Wraith Prism, if you like to manually OC, save the $50 get the 3600. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ryzen-7-2700-2700x-review,5606-9.html
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
So I thought I was set on the 12C/24T R9 3900X part, but I'm thinking I'll go with 8C/16T R7 3800X instead. My concern is gaming and the potential of added latency with the 6+6 chiplet design on the 3900X and disabling Infinity Fabric would lead me with a 6T/12T part
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
So I thought I was set on the 12C/24T R9 3900X part, but I'm thinking I'll go with 8C/16T R7 3800X instead. My concern is gaming and the potential of added latency with the 6+6 chiplet design on the 3900X and disabling Infinity Fabric would lead me with a 6T/12T part

I think you'll want to wait for reviews. I certainly do, and this is one of my personal concerns, and one I've brought up before.

Where we'll see this be an issue is in frametime consistency in games that use more cores, well, more cores than are present on one die. Crossing CCX boundaries on one die has been mostly addressed in Zen+ and looks to be addressed in Zen 2, so generally speaking the twelve core part might be fine relative to the eight core part, as having six cores enabled on one die is overkill for most games now (and more than adequate for the rest).
 

TheFlayedMan

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
411
Not exactly. The X variants of Ryzen chips traditionally auto-overclock themselves wheres the non-X variants don't (boost is boost and that is all you get). The algorithm on the X CPUs take into account demanded workload, temperature and power headroom to clock themselves accordingly, and with PBO activated, possibly well past the boost clock of the CPU. Second gen Ryzen has improved on this auto-overclocking so that with Zen+ (2000 series chips using PBO), manual overclocking is almost completely unnecessary. Unless you are usually running workloads that require all cores to be running balls-out all the time, you are almost certainly better off just letting PBO do its thing.

tldr; there's more to those X chips than the provided numbers imply, and it tends to be a lot more than 5%.

Seems like diminishing returns for the extra $50 as you go up the product stack. From the $100 part you get SMT and a clock boost, from the $150 part IPC gains and 2 more cores, from the $200 part auto overclocking and a clock boost. It does sound like a nice feature to have though.
 

RamonGTP

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
8,150
I think you'll want to wait for reviews. I certainly do, and this is one of my personal concerns, and one I've brought up before.

Where we'll see this be an issue is in frametime consistency in games that use more cores, well, more cores than are present on one die. Crossing CCX boundaries on one die has been mostly addressed in Zen+ and looks to be addressed in Zen 2, so generally speaking the twelve core part might be fine relative to the eight core part, as having six cores enabled on one die is overkill for most games now (and more than adequate for the rest).

I definitely intend to watch/read reviews before placing an order. Just forecasting right now. The other concern is memory speeds. I'm thinking for anything memory bandwidth intensive, even the 8C/16T CPUs will saturate what DDR4 can do.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
I'm thinking for anything memory bandwidth intensive, even the 8C/16T CPUs will saturate what DDR4 can do.

There really isn't that much out there that's memory bandwidth intensive outside of memory bandwidth benchmarks. Overall latency at different transfer sizes- that is, not just CAS latency- has some effect at the high end and can largely be addressed with faster DDR4. Look to Intel's parts for more concrete numbers; assuming that AMD has worked out the issues in Zen and Zen+, Zen 2 should behave similarly and be less dependent on memory performance.
 

Calavaro

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 11, 2001
Messages
8,385
I think you will find the benchmark obsessed community will very much disagree with you. Also it's quite easy to see the difference with loading large files, SATA SSD is quite a bit slower then a NVME drive but you likely wont notice your favorite game loaded a touch faster.
Most will most likely not realize the speed increase when going to a faster drive. But I can guarantee you that you will feel a difference dropping back to a slower drive after using the fast one for a while.
 

OrangeKhrush

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,622
Don't really game anymore so I'm kind of considering the investment. I may buy another Rifle rather
 

Stryke1983

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2011
Messages
271
So many decisions. Still deciding between the 6 and 8 core models for gaming. Still deciding between x570 or x470. Also debating RAM, 3200 cl14, 3600 cl16, etc. I am so ready to be done with my 2500k. New case, PSU and GPU sat here waiting for a full rebuild.
 

notarat

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
2,181
Don't really game anymore so I'm kind of considering the investment. I may buy another Rifle rather

The rifle isn't going to render/compile faster than your current setup. However, if you know someone with a processor which can render/compile faster you can point the rifle at them and force them to do your rendering/compiling.
 

Burticus

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
4,379
I have a 2700x / x470. I'm staying put for now.

That being said, upgrade time is a great time to pick up last gen stuff on the cheap. I got a great deal on a 1700 cpu from a Hardforum user that was upgrading. That is now in my file/plex/VM server on a cheapo B350 $40 mobo and works great for that purpose.
 

IdiotInCharge

NVIDIA SHILL
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,712
Most will most likely not realize the speed increase when going to a faster drive. But I can guarantee you that you will feel a difference dropping back to a slower drive after using the fast one for a while.

Dropped from NVMe to SATA M.2 on desktop and laptop- day to day usage is still limited by other subsystems / code.

I wouldn't turn down NVMe, it just wasn't what was available at the time.
 

TheFlayedMan

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2015
Messages
411
Really tempted by an auction for a 4790k bundle that's ending tomorrow. Would probably be 1/3 of the price of a 3600 upgrade, although hard to say how much it will go for at the end. Does anyone have an idea of the performance difference between a 4790k @ 4.4Ghz and a 3600?
 

ReFracture

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 9, 2012
Messages
99
Exciting times..

I have a brand new Corsair C70 that's been sitting in a box for over 3 years waiting for the next build.. I loved the one I bought to get away from that bulky HAF X that I wanted another one for the next build.. glad I bought ahead of time because now it's discontinued. It's going to house either the 3900x or 3950x, MSI x570 chipset board of sorts, 32gb ram minimum. In a way it will be nostalgic.. my 2005 build had an AMD CPU, Nvidia GPU, MSI Motherboard.. haven't been on team red for a long time.

The 3770k has been serving me well for the majority of this decade.. but it's time to move on, security concerns and asus being uninterested in updating the bios for my board to implement intel's mitigations has forced the matter for me.

Can't complain though, I bought good hardware and used it every day for over 7 years now with the GPU being the only real upgrade in the interim.
 

dgz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2010
Messages
5,838
So many decisions. Still deciding between the 6 and 8 core models for gaming. Still deciding between x570 or x470. Also debating RAM, 3200 cl14, 3600 cl16, etc. I am so ready to be done with my 2500k. New case, PSU and GPU sat here waiting for a full rebuild.

I also still running a 2500k. To me, it doesn't make a lot sense upgrading to 6 core. It's too late for that. The plan is give my current to a kid I know, and get a 3950x. While we have plenty of really good CPUs to choose from, the situation with GPUs is pretty dire. Maybe I should just buy a cheap RX580 for the kid and keep my 1070.
 

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
6,223
I'll just throw my hat in the ring here. I'm still rocking an i5 3570. I'm most definitely looking forward to Zen 2. It's been far too long since I've upgraded my computer (seriously, I've been married for 7 years now and this computer has been with us since we were married). The biggest thing I'm looking forward to is finally being able to have a machine that I can actually spin up a full development environment on. In the past I've never really tried since 4 cores / 4 threads isn't really enough. I plan on building a new Zen 2 rig and then retiring my i5 3570 to an itx box for games with the kids.
 

compgeek89

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
150
I'll just throw my hat in the ring here. I'm still rocking an i5 3570. I'm most definitely looking forward to Zen 2. It's been far too long since I've upgraded my computer (seriously, I've been married for 7 years now and this computer has been with us since we were married). The biggest thing I'm looking forward to is finally being able to have a machine that I can actually spin up a full development environment on. In the past I've never really tried since 4 cores / 4 threads isn't really enough. I plan on building a new Zen 2 rig and then retiring my i5 3570 to an itx box for games with the kids.
Seems like you waited for the right time. Many people coming from early i5/7 builds to AMD now. I jumped from an i7 930 to my TR 1950X
 

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
6,223
Seems like you waited for the right time. Many people coming from early i5/7 builds to AMD now. I jumped from an i7 930 to my TR 1950X

For the most part, these last few years just haven't given me a reason to really upgrade unless I wanted more cores. But the pricing of the Intel octo-cores kept it way out of feasible reach for me. But now? $500 for a 12c/24t? Sign me up.
 

compgeek89

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
150
For the most part, these last few years just haven't given me a reason to really upgrade unless I wanted more cores. But the pricing of the Intel octo-cores kept it way out of feasible reach for me. But now? $500 for a 12c/24t? Sign me up.
Shoot, I paid $450 for 16/32!
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,790
For the most part, these last few years just haven't given me a reason to really upgrade unless I wanted more cores. But the pricing of the Intel octo-cores kept it way out of feasible reach for me. But now? $500 for a 12c/24t? Sign me up.

You can get one for $299 right now...
 

bobzdar

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 6, 2003
Messages
1,790
1920x (12c/24t) is $352 on Amazon - but it frequently drops to $299. I picked one up a month ago with the asrock x399m for under $600. Or you could wait and pay $500 for the 3900x by itself.

I figured grab the 1920x now and get whatever the bottom zen2 threadripper is in nov when they launch. They've traditionally had 100-200mhz higher boost than their am4 counterparts along with quad channel ram and way more power to push through it, so why wait for a 12c? Get it now for fairly cheap.
 

compgeek89

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
150
1920x (12c/24t) is $352 on Amazon - but it frequently drops to $299. I picked one up a month ago with the asrock x399m for under $600. Or you could wait and pay $500 for the 3900x by itself.

I figured grab the 1920x now and get whatever the bottom zen2 threadripper is in nov when they launch. They've traditionally had 100-200mhz higher boost than their am4 counterparts along with quad channel ram and way more power to push through it, so why wait for a 12c? Get it now for fairly cheap.

Issue is that, even though they promise backward compatibility, existing TR mobos don't support PCIe 4, whereas TR3 should support PCIe 4 with the new boards that come out. So you're potentially looking at basically a full platform update.

Also, as for TR1 deals... https://hardforum.com/threads/amd-tr4-1920x-249-and-1950x.1982139/
 
Top