Who is looking to upgrade to Zen2

I'm looking at the 3700X. Currently have a 6600k system and was waiting for Icelake. I think I may switch to AMD.

But looking at the 3800X as well, what are you going to get for that extra TDP other than a slightly higher base/boost clock. Is there going to be more OC potential?
 
Probably jumping over to a Ryzen 3000 series near launch. I've had enough of the Intel shitshow with these performance crushing patches due to shoddy chip design.
 
I'll be upgrading from a 2500k to a 3600x, 3700x or 3800x. Still not decided on that yet. Only for gaming, but considering how long I kept my current build, I'm thinking the extra cores on the 3700/3800 might be useful in the long run.
 
Stryke1983 said:
I'll be upgrading from a 2500k to a 3600x, 3700x or 3800x. Still not decided on that yet. Only for gaming, but considering how long I kept my current build, I'm thinking the extra cores on the 3700/3800 might be useful in the long run.
Click to expand...

Fore gaming get the 3600x. Its apparently shown via leaks that it is faster than 9700k. 8 cores plus gaming is not a big deal and more likely a waste of extra money if you are not going to use the extra 2 cores.
 
Has anyone got experience or a good understanding of the Bio Star X470 GTN boards and quality.

ITX boards for AMD where I live got cut and it looks like Bio Star will be the only likely ITX board on the 500 chipset brought in. Distributors cut back as ITX didn't do well, even Intel boards are being cut back
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Has anyone got experience or a good understanding of the Bio Star X470 GTN boards and quality.

ITX boards for AMD where I live got cut and it looks like Bio Star will be the only likely ITX board on the 500 chipset brought in. Distributors cut back as ITX didn't do well, even Intel boards are being cut back
Click to expand...

The Biostar AM4 ITX offerings were not the best, and there was no sign of a Biostar ITX X570 board at Computex...

Right now the ITX X570 choices are ASRock, ASUS, & Gigabyte...

There is also a Mini-DTX X570 board from ASUS...
 
3770k here (that I upgraded to from a 2500k about a year and a half ago to give it some extra life while I waited...) ready to upgrade.

Looking forward to reviews, and I'll basically buy whichever has the best single threaded performance paired with the most cores. Hopefully reviews drop before we can order.

Before this, I was rocking an Opteron 165 @ 2.8GHz, and countless socket939/754 products before that. I'll be happy to go back to AMD after all these years, though props to Intel for the Sandy Bridge platform that lasted me so damn long.
 
Last edited:
Boil said:
The Biostar AM4 ITX offerings were not the best, and there was no sign of a Biostar ITX X570 board at Computex...

Right now the ITX X570 choices are ASRock, ASUS, & Gigabyte...

There is also a Mini-DTX X570 board from ASUS...
Click to expand...

Asus did announce they had 30 mobos planned so I think we should have a decent selection come July.
 
Seems like most of the X570 motherboards shown are not price friendly lol. I wonder when they're going to release the prices of other models.
 
I am feeling more and more like I want to upgrade. But honestly I know its totally pointless coming form a 2600x. Well for my usage (mostly office/browsing, light gaming), and I would only be able to afford the 8 core. But what the heck I think I will probably.

My big question right now is what will be the major difference between the 3700x and 3800x. They seem to be so close together. Would have made more sense if they were the 3700x and 3700. But with the clock speeds so similar, I still assume that there will be some sort of differentiation. Maybe the 3800 will OC way better?

I am hoping that they have the same boost options, because the X vs non X with 2nd gen ryzen would quite different in that manner. But I may instead just keep the cpu and grab one of AMD's new GPU if they come with something in the $250-300 range.
 
I was hoping for a 5GHz boost model. Do you think there is a possibility they will release one later this year?
 
TheFlayedMan said:
I was hoping for a 5GHz boost model. Do you think there is a possibility they will release one later this year?
Click to expand...
I would forget about it for the simple reason that a single core boost is nothing major.
You basically can wait and see what overclocking will bring.
 
ccityinstaller said:
Intel has slipped numerous times, and while none of us should have a "favorite" (since without a serious rwce we ALL lose) I would like to see AMD sell every single Zen3 unit they can make it to fill those R&D coffers (and mine via stock boosts!)...

I can say the same for Intel since I own their stock as well, but AMD should have Zen2+ ready for release on 7nm+, which TSMC offers a ~20% uplift in frequency.


I think AMD will b doing a ton of benchmarks on Wiskey Lake to extrapolate as much data as they can for a "best/worst/most likely” scenario for Sunny Cove. I would also hazard a guess that AMD has a backup plan for 6nm to squeeze even more out of Zen 2+ or Zen2++ (see what I did there? ) It SC is another Sandy Bridge leap! (Which we should ALLL WANT!)
Click to expand...

Industry insiders are showing even after a year Intel not catching up for up to 5 years. If that turns out to actually be true. This could be like the Core era was for Intel but instead for AMD. Centrino, Core , Core 2 Duo, Core 2 Quad, I7 was where Intel dug out from AMD and destroyed them for the price to performance crown. AMD was winning for quite sometime before that. All the way back to the K6 the price to performance crown was AMD's. (note overall performance isn't the same as price to performance) So we could use a 5yr AMD on top block. Maybe Intel will release a true redesign monster again at the end of this period.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
I would forget about it for the simple reason that a single core boost is nothing major.
You basically can wait and see what overclocking will bring.
Click to expand...

The game I'm playing caps one core at 100% and the other 3 at less than 25% most of the time so I'm thinking the single core boost would be useful.
 
I made a list of (B350, B450, X370, and X470) motherboards with USB BIOS Flashback

This feature allows your to update the BIOS ***without*** a processor, memory, or video card.

USB BIOS Flashback comes in handy if you are, for example, going to use 3rd gen Ryzen and the motherboard doesn't have the updated BIOS to support the processor.

https://hardforum.com/threads/list-...motherboards-with-usb-bios-flashback.1982371/
 
Depending on the bench mark/reviews (from trusted sites) on the motherboards and CPUs I'll likely be upgrading from a 4690k to a 3700x.
 
TheRookie said:
I made a list of (B350, B450, X370, and X470) motherboards with USB BIOS Flashback

This feature allows your to update the BIOS ***without*** a processor, memory, or video card.

USB BIOS Flashback comes in handy if you are, for example, going to use 3rd gen Ryzen and the motherboard doesn't have the updated BIOS to support the processor.

https://hardforum.com/threads/list-...motherboards-with-usb-bios-flashback.1982371/
Click to expand...
Thanks man, that is a great feature and should become industry standard.
 
Vader1975 said:
Industry insiders are showing even after a year Intel not catching up for up to 5 years.
Click to expand...

Nothing's impossible, but that's pretty close. Intel would have to repeat their 10nm missteps, something they don't have a habit of doing, and AMD will have to continue to produce architectural updates, something they don't have a habit of doing either.
 
I'll wait for 16+ cores. The idea of quadrupling my core count and all those PCIe 4 lanes (and the SSDs that will follow) is just so appealing. I talked myself out of a X99 and I think that was a mistake. I'd like to hear about the Zen2 Threadripper details before pulling the trigger.
 
ochadd said:
I'll wait for 16+ cores. The idea of quadrupling my core count and all those PCIe 4 lanes (and the SSDs that will follow) is just so appealing. I talked myself out of a X99 and I think that was a mistake. I'd like to hear about the Zen2 Threadripper details before pulling the trigger.
Click to expand...

All releasing Ryzen 3000 series have 40 lanes and no more.

You will get the same 40 lanes on the 6 or 16 core. You might be waiting quite a while on the 16 core. I think AMD is not wanting to hammer and destroy their HEDT stack until they are releasing Threadripper 3nd Gen.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Nothing's impossible, but that's pretty close. Intel would have to repeat their 10nm missteps, something they don't have a habit of doing, and AMD will have to continue to produce architectural updates, something they don't have a habit of doing either.
Click to expand...


Both Intel and AMD have leap frogging design teams...the Team that designed Zen did not do Zen 2 etc. Intel pulled a rabbit out of it's hat with the Core uarch ...Their TINY(AT THE TIME) R&D lab in Israel was playing with the old Pentium pro idea that was shelved for the I'll fated Itanium....

When A64 landed and then X2s Intel was scrambling and grabbed that little project..We have that small team to thank for the "Core" uarch. It's crazy how things work out. If I tell had dug their heels in with Netburst well....
 
My post was not a jab at Intel btw. Just that the tiniest decisions can cause crazy results.

Lisa Su is a proven engineer with a proven track record. She got AMD profitable, has gained a nice foothold in the data center and this new Samsung deal should be interesting.
 
ccityinstaller said:
Intel pulled a rabbit out of it's hat with the Core uarch
Click to expand...

It was always there- we had the Pentium M, quite rare at the time, that kept the P6 going. Centrino / Core was an efficiency rework of the M, and Core 2 bolted on beefy SSE2 hardware.

Netburst and IA64 were both interesting explorations; lessons learned from Netburst have made their way into the P6 lineage that current *Lake products trace back to, and the VLIW concept that relies heavily on compiler optimizations may make a comeback when compiled code may be optimized using insights gained from machine learning. But that's another topic.

The fun part is that Intel took something as wild as Netburst, which delivered on its short-term goals, and made it competitive with the K7 and their own previous P6 parts at the time. I ran quite a bit of both, though with the Athlon 64 and the Athlon64 X2, I was strictly using AMD CPUs until the Core 2 was released.
 
I might be in for a 3600x/3700x. I'm currently on a 7700k @ 4.8 and don't really need an upgrade but the hardware in my son's old hand-me-down i7-870 system is starting to get pretty flaky and I like new hardware.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
we had the Pentium M, quite rare at the time, that kept the P6 going. Centrino / Core was an efficiency rework of the M, and Core 2 bolted on beefy SSE2 hardware.
Click to expand...
I think you might misremember some parts here.
Centrino was actually just a branding introduced with Pentium M laptops that had Intel Wifi. The Pentium M already supported SSE2. The major feature Core 2 (Conroe) introduced over Core (Yonah) was IA32e EM64T Intel 64 (that was already present in the Pentium 4 since Nocona) and SSSE3.
 
chithanh said:
Centrino was actually just a branding introduced with Pentium M laptops that had Intel Wifi.
Click to expand...

Centrino was the platform, yes. Pentium M was the CPU core. Intel still does this today; Ice Lake cores in the Sunny Cove SoCs.

chithanh said:
The Pentium M already supported SSE2.
Click to expand...

They boosted it, a lot. SSE2 uptake came about due to the weaker FPU that Intel put into Netburst. Essentially, when SSE2 was released (like every other extension) uptake was slow; same for SSE3 with the Core 2. But having a supercharged SSE2 unit with a broad install base upon the release of Core 2 helped significantly.
 
OrangeKhrush said:
Has anyone got experience or a good understanding of the Bio Star X470 GTN boards and quality.

ITX boards for AMD where I live got cut and it looks like Bio Star will be the only likely ITX board on the 500 chipset brought in. Distributors cut back as ITX didn't do well, even Intel boards are being cut back
Click to expand...
Check the motherboard section Buildzoid has a breakdown of the Gigabyte board that one is ITX.
 
I have Ryzen 2600, MSI X470, Ram 3600@3533 16 18 18 36, GTX 1050ti, I won't upgrade for new CPU or mobo.

I might need new better GPU card in the future, I am happy with my current build that suit me well.

I will enjoy read reviews all over place about Zen2/X570 what they offers, I am eyes on for Zen3 and X670 should be interesting.
 
phatbx133 said:
I have Ryzen 2600, MSI X470, Ram 3600@3533 16 18 18 36, GTX 1050ti, I won't upgrade for new CPU or mobo.

I might need new better GPU card in the future, I am happy with my current build that suit me well.

I will enjoy read reviews all over place about Zen2/X570 what they offers, I am eyes on for Zen3 and X670 should be interesting.
Click to expand...

Depends Zen 3 is two gens away, next is likely Zen 2+, maybe if zen 2+ supports DDR 5, I think we're two gens from that though. This is the big iteration for them, 2+ will likely be IPC improvement like the 1600 to 2600 was.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Centrino was the platform, yes. Pentium M was the CPU core. Intel still does this today; Ice Lake cores in the Sunny Cove SoCs.



They boosted it, a lot. SSE2 uptake came about due to the weaker FPU that Intel put into Netburst. Essentially, when SSE2 was released (like every other extension) uptake was slow; same for SSE3 with the Core 2. But having a supercharged SSE2 unit with a broad install base upon the release of Core 2 helped significantly.
Click to expand...


My point was that research is what yielded the Core uarch (and the "Pentium M" branding)....

Without it, Intel would have had to had a cleensheet design since they lost the x64 race (very clever on AMD's part with MS doing a little get back at Intel).

Without it, Intelwould have had to suffer trying to get a 5Ghz+ dual core P4 that didn't have 10% yields and need a custom chiller (sounds familiar but somehow the 28 thoughts in my head can't place where I remember it from ) to cool it.

Competition is a great thing, and I hope that Intel gets it's security issues fully sorted so that when Zen 3/3+ drops I will have two viable options to choose from.

As a large format FreeSync via HDMI USER, ZEN filling AMD'S coffers is a wish come true. I am not upgrading my display until we can have 4k @ 120hz with below 9ms input lag on 65"+ screens for under 1K. So I am in Team Red's GPU camp for the next few years. . This is the wrong subforum for that though.
 
Decko87 said:
Depends Zen 3 is two gens away, next is likely Zen 2+, maybe if zen 2+ supports DDR 5, I think we're two gens from that though. This is the big iteration for them, 2+ will likely be IPC improvement like the 1600 to 2600 was.
Click to expand...


We aren't likely to see DDR5 before 2021-2022 in our segment IMO. So x570 will live through Zeb2 and Zen2+. Zen3 should have a dual IMC if AMD chooses dependo on the number of pins left in AM4....

If we are at 16 cores for Zen2/Zen2+, then the market will expect Zen3 to bump that yet again. I do not think there are enough pins on AM4 to support it, not to mention memory bottlenecks once we get 18/20/24+ cores on the mainstream.
 
ccityinstaller said:
Without it, Intel would have had to had a cleensheet design since they lost the x64 race (very clever on AMD's part with MS doing a little get back at Intel).
Click to expand...

They chose quite specifically to not do x86-64. They could have done it at any time; AMD got extremely lucky here. AMD also picked the right time to introduce their IMC, which provided a one-time boost, and really pushed the popularity of the Athlon64. Intel being unable to shoehorn IA64 into something usable for consumers really killed the prospects of that architecture.

Further, it would take years for a consumer 64bit version of Windows to become available and for memory prices to become accessible.

ccityinstaller said:
My point was that research is what yielded the Core uarch (and the "Pentium M" branding)....
Click to expand...

They needed something for mobile. This wasn't some miracle- the Pentium M on Centrino was just a reworked Pentium III. I didn't even have an IMC, but updating the PIII for modern fabrication and memory and massaging it for mobile use was pretty straightforward. Note that Intel had this CPU on the desktop and it performed extremely well, but like x86-64, they refused to sell it.

They were definitely pig-headed and many of us owned multiple AMD Athlons (among others) during that time, but Intel certainly wasn't incapable. Retrospectively it's even more amazing that they took the risks that they did. Had they introduced an x86-64 P6 with an IMC, they would have been competitive or superior to AMD's parts.

ccityinstaller said:
Competition is a great thing, and I hope that Intel gets it's security issues fully sorted so that when Zen 3/3+ drops I will have two viable options to choose from.
Click to expand...

AMD is doing something that Intel refuses to do- they're using third-party fabs. Part of this is due to them being unable to afford to keep their own fabs going, and their former fabs will probably die out at some point.

While it's quite annoying for customers and presents a window of opportunity for AMD, Intel still remains significantly more profitable, largely due to their vertical integration. I personally don't appreciate the results of their 10nm setbacks but I do recognize why they have taken this path and what the implications are. Namely, complaints about security and lack of cores would be moot had Intel transitioned to 10nm and Ice Lake cores as originally planned years ago. Like the hypothetical skip of Netburst above, they'd already be shipping eight-core CPUs with most if not all vulnerabilities patched in hardware.

ccityinstaller said:
As a large format FreeSync via HDMI USER, ZEN filling AMD'S coffers is a wish come true. I am not upgrading my display until we can have 4k @ 120hz with below 9ms input lag on 65"+ screens for under 1K. So I am in Team Red's GPU camp for the next few years. . This is the wrong subforum for that though.
Click to expand...

You're right that it's the wrong forum, and I'll expound on that- we shouldn't conflate AMD's GPUs with their CPUs, except to say that both have lead pretty rough existences over the last decade.

Particularly, I wouldn't rely on AMD to deliver continuous CPU improvement. They have a history filled with stagnation where they've fought to survive against their own poor decisions, and I can count on one hand the number of times they've seized opportunities presented by their competitors' missteps.

Their GPU business has perhaps been more steady in terms of outright performance versus the competition, where they've occasionally almost caught up, but no less rocky in implementation. We can expect their competition to not give way here; Nvidia is as tenacious as Intel, yet also more willing to work around industry changes even if they aren't driving them. We'll see HDMI VRR from them as well as Intel, and with AMD's record of new hardware feature implementations and drivers for new architectures, we can expect their next releases to be pretty bumpy indeed.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
They chose quite specifically to not do x86-64. They could have done it at any time; AMD got extremely lucky here. AMD also picked the right time to introduce their IMC, which provided a one-time boost, and really pushed the popularity of the Athlon64. Intel being unable to shoehorn IA64 into something usable for consumers really killed the prospects of that architecture.

Further, it would take years for a consumer 64bit version of Windows to become available and for memory prices to become accessible.



They needed something for mobile. This wasn't some miracle- the Pentium M on Centrino was just a reworked Pentium III. I didn't even have an IMC, but updating the PIII for modern fabrication and memory and massaging it for mobile use was pretty straightforward. Note that Intel had this CPU on the desktop and it performed extremely well, but like x86-64, they refused to sell it.

They were definitely pig-headed and many of us owned multiple AMD Athlons (among others) during that time, but Intel certainly wasn't incapable. Retrospectively it's even more amazing that they took the risks that they did. Had they introduced an x86-64 P6 with an IMC, they would have been competitive or superior to AMD's parts.



AMD is doing something that Intel refuses to do- they're using third-party fabs. Part of this is due to them being unable to afford to keep their own fabs going, and their former fabs will probably die out at some point.

While it's quite annoying for customers and presents a window of opportunity for AMD, Intel still remains significantly more profitable, largely due to their vertical integration. I personally don't appreciate the results of their 10nm setbacks but I do recognize why they have taken this path and what the implications are. Namely, complaints about security and lack of cores would be moot had Intel transitioned to 10nm and Ice Lake cores as originally planned years ago. Like the hypothetical skip of Netburst above, they'd already be shipping eight-core CPUs with most if not all vulnerabilities patched in hardware.



You're right that it's the wrong forum, and I'll expound on that- we shouldn't conflate AMD's GPUs with their CPUs, except to say that both have lead pretty rough existences over the last decade.

Particularly, I wouldn't rely on AMD to deliver continuous CPU improvement. They have a history filled with stagnation where they've fought to survive against their own poor decisions, and I can count on one hand the number of times they've seized opportunities presented by their competitors' missteps.

Their GPU business has perhaps been more steady in terms of outright performance versus the competition, where they've occasionally almost caught up, but no less rocky in implementation. We can expect their competition to not give way here; Nvidia is as tenacious as Intel, yet also more willing to work around industry changes even if they aren't driving them. We'll see HDMI VRR from them as well as Intel, and with AMD's record of new hardware feature implementations and drivers for new architectures, we can expect their next releases to be pretty bumpy indeed.
Click to expand...


Still trying to figure out why you two are having a conversation about Intel and AMD missteps, this thread is about upgrading to Zen 2 or not.
 
my motherboard is ready.

I still haven't decided which one, but i'm guessing the 3700x @ msi x470 gaming pro carbon.
(I have a bad feeling about 3900x that it may suffer from latency issues - but again i haven't seen dies of 3700 model anyway.)
 
Will go low end Zen 2 if the IPC gains are seen IRL usage. My usage is IPC important rather then gazillion cores.
 
IdiotInCharge said:
Have you tried reading the thread?
Click to expand...

Yeah and you keep trying to make it about Intel, want to talk shop about Intel then there is a forum subsection for it. Your doing what you usually do in AMD threads, trying to drag it way off topic. That post I quoted had nothing to do with Zen 2 and there are several others.

Now back on topic, seen some more leaks that seem to show strong single core performance and multi threaded performance on Geekbench.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top