Zen3 coming in 2020

Cool, i was itching to replace my 2700x at some point before 2021.
 
Why do so many people think AMD is trying to pull a fast one with what Zen 3 chips are coming in 2020?
 
Why do so many people think AMD is trying to pull a fast one with what Zen 3 chips are coming in 2020?

Because they're launching XT in July, the economy is in a downturn, Zen 2 is selling really well right now and a couple month delay would make sense, etc. The rumor was easy to believe because there are enough reasons for it happen that it really isn't much of a leap of logic to justify it.
 
"Client" usually means desktop - certainly not Epyc. Most likely not notebook chips - AMD has been releasing those after desktop, and the Zen2 notebook chips aren't all available yet.
I thought the Ryzen 4xxxU parts were zen2 mobile and available now since I’m seeing reviews. I agree they are released later and I expect Ryzen 3 will be desktop first.
 
Maybe AMD knows they need to get as many sales as possible before real 10/7nm Intel chips hit desktop with big performance jumps that would make Ryzen look less attractive. By grtabbing as many sales as possible before middle of next year, less people will be looking at getting a new CPU so Intel wont have as many sales.
 
Because they're launching XT in July, the economy is in a downturn, Zen 2 is selling really well right now and a couple month delay would make sense, etc. The rumor was easy to believe because there are enough reasons for it happen that it really isn't much of a leap of logic to justify it.
I’m referring to AMD debunking the rumor and saying Zen 3 is still coming in 2020, but people are still skeptical that it’s the consumer chips. Like AMD is purposely trying to throw a curveball?
 
I’m referring to AMD debunking the rumor and saying Zen 3 is still coming in 2020, but people are still skeptical that it’s the consumer chips. Like AMD is purposely trying to throw a curveball?
Ah, I see. There is precedent to launching Zen3 as a server-only part first. That being said, the article does cover that. TPU strongly believes they are referring to client parts, since they were talking to AMD's client/consumer VPs. The question after that is: what client parts? HEDT? APU (would be a first, though)? Desktop (what I am hoping for!)? Some strange mobile IGP-less part? A BGA NUC-competitor?

Either way, I hope for 16 core desktop parts to launch before the end of the year :D
 
Ah, I see. There is precedent to launching Zen3 as a server-only part first. That being said, the article does cover that. TPU strongly believes they are referring to client parts, since they were talking to AMD's client/consumer VPs. The question after that is: what client parts? HEDT? APU (would be a first, though)? Desktop (what I am hoping for!)? Some strange mobile IGP-less part? A BGA NUC-competitor?

Either way, I hope for 16 core desktop parts to launch before the end of the year :D

Zen3 APUs first would be crazy, we don't even have a date or prices for the Zen2 APUs, or even an official SKU list. I was hoping that was going to be part of yesterday's announcement, but I guess not.
 
Zen3 APUs first would be crazy, we don't even have a date or prices for the Zen2 APUs, or even an official SKU list. I was hoping that was going to be part of yesterday's announcement, but I guess not.
Oh, I definitely agree. We don't even have Navi APUs, and Navi2 in the consoles is likely to launch ahead of any Navi/Navi2 commercial APU.

I was mostly thinking the rumors for APUs were even more wild, before the recent rumortrain of delays for Zen3.
 
Either way, I'm excited. I wouldn't doubt limited supply until 2021 either way. Seems like a quick release as zen2 hasn't even been out a year yet and that was about 10-15% IPC bump. I'm not complaining, hoping to upgrade but my itch is making it hard to wait, lol.
 
Why do so many people think AMD is trying to pull a fast one with what Zen 3 chips are coming in 2020?

Because AMD need to do it.
The new powerfull video cards will need more CPU power.
Intel are better in gaming at moment and 100MHz refresh can't do much about this. And the percent will grow more with Big Navy and Ampere.
Much people wait Zen 3 and if this is not this year AMD risk to lose some of them.
If AMD delay Zen 3 they will delay and Zen 4 and this will give chance Intel to close the performance gap.
If AMD do not delay Zen 3 their reputation will grow within client and business and this will open more opportunities.
So there isn't adequate reason to delay it and in the end AMD said that they will not delay it.
 
Well I hope so. Been wanting to upgrade the ole 6700K for awhile now. We'll see...
 
I dunno, tired of waiting. Think I'll call my pal at Intel, see what kind of deal he can get me on a 9900K, 8/16 is plenty for me.
 
Ah, I see. There is precedent to launching Zen3 as a server-only part first. That being said, the article does cover that. TPU strongly believes they are referring to client parts, since they were talking to AMD's client/consumer VPs. The question after that is: what client parts? HEDT? APU (would be a first, though)? Desktop (what I am hoping for!)? Some strange mobile IGP-less part? A BGA NUC-competitor?

Either way, I hope for 16 core desktop parts to launch before the end of the year :D

You must have $750 just burning a hole in you pocket. :D It is great to see people gushing over AMD instead of Intel for a legit purchase. :)
 
Intel are better in gaming at moment and 100MHz refresh can't do much about this. And the percent will grow more with Big Navy and Ampere.

Of the AMD chips

PC Gamer- "if you're mostly worried about gaming, that 8 percent deficit is only really apparent at lower quality settings and a lower resolution with the fastest GPU available (RTX 2080 Ti at 1080p ultra). "

Kotaku - "If buying AMD means you save enough money that you can afford a slightly better GPU – like a 2080 Super or a 2080 Ti instead of a 2070 Super – then that’s still the best way to go. "
 
I dunno, tired of waiting. Think I'll call my pal at Intel, see what kind of deal he can get me on a 9900K, 8/16 is plenty for me.
Tired of waiting? It's been less than a year since they launched zen2, how long have you been waiting?
 
Yes it clearly says client CPUs.
Glad to hear this - I can string it out and wait for Zen3, 2600k to Zen3 will be a glorious upgrade!
My wife still has a 3450 in her box... depending on prices she'll be going to a zen2 or zen3. I am on my zen 1 1600 (will get passed down to some other job in some way), so zen3 most likely.... my son is on his 6600k, that'll get passed down to my daughter who has a g4560 and he'll be going over to zen2/3 as well. Still undecided on my home server (possibly use the 1600 for this to replace 2x xeon L5640's... about the same performance or maybe even slightly less, but way less fan noise and power) or if i'll be upgrading my other daughter at the same time or wait a little while... costs a lot to do updates at the same time, but they are all getting a bit long in the tooth (well, mine still does well for my work loads, but I just want new).
 
Because AMD need to do it.
The new powerfull video cards will need more CPU power.
Intel are better in gaming at moment and 100MHz refresh can't do much about this. And the percent will grow more with Big Navy and Ampere.
Much people wait Zen 3 and if this is not this year AMD risk to lose some of them.
If AMD delay Zen 3 they will delay and Zen 4 and this will give chance Intel to close the performance gap.
If AMD do not delay Zen 3 their reputation will grow within client and business and this will open more opportunities.
So there isn't adequate reason to delay it and in the end AMD said that they will not delay it.
I agree that AMD should release Zen3 ASAP (to further take marketshare)
As far as Intel being better in gaming, that's really only true in very high FPS situations, such as 1080p or less, and money is no object. Also people that spend big money on GPUs don't really game at 1080p.

If your goal is 100% gaming nothing else, you can save money on a cheaper CPU and spend more on a faster GPU, regardless of brand, its just that AMD has the best options right now.
If you spend around $1000 for CPU and GPU, you could get a 9900k and a 2070S ($519+$499 cheapest one), or an AMD 3600 and a 2080S ($166+759 EVGA XC).
The 2080S setup WILL be faster in gaming no question and almost $100 cheaper.
 
I agree that AMD should release Zen3 ASAP (to further take marketshare)
As far as Intel being better in gaming, that's really only true in very high FPS situations, such as 1080p or less, and money is no object. Also people that spend big money on GPUs don't really game at 1080p.

If your goal is 100% gaming nothing else, you can save money on a cheaper CPU and spend more on a faster GPU, regardless of brand, its just that AMD has the best options right now.
If you spend around $1000 for CPU and GPU, you could get a 9900k and a 2070S ($519+$499 cheapest one), or an AMD 3600 and a 2080S ($166+759 EVGA XC).
The 2080S setup WILL be faster in gaming no question and almost $100 cheaper.
I mean, I understand your idea.... But couldn't you say/do the same thing about just getting a 9600k or 10400 (if you can find one)? Seems disingenuous to not compare apples to apples. A 10400 and 2080s is faster IN GAMES than 3600x + 2080s and cost is almost the same. Then it goes back to is games the only thing you do. So if it's for pure gaming, even a mid level Intel CPU is just as good (and typically better). Me personally, I have an AMD CPU because I do a lot of compiling, some transcoding, some 3d modelling, etc. Games are secondary for me. So I'm not an Intel fan boy, I just dislike arguments that aren't fair. If someone said you can buy a 3950x with a 2060 or a 10400 with a 2080ti.... I mean, it's the same thing you did but swapped Intel&AMD. Its a silly comparison. You match the parts you need whether it's Intel, AMD or NVIDIA.
 
I mean, I understand your idea.... But couldn't you say/do the same thing about just getting a 9600k or 10400 (if you can find one)? Seems disingenuous to not compare apples to apples. A 10400 and 2080s is faster IN GAMES than 3600x + 2080s and cost is almost the same. Then it goes back to is games the only thing you do. So if it's for pure gaming, even a mid level Intel CPU is just as good (and typically better). Me personally, I have an AMD CPU because I do a lot of compiling, some transcoding, some 3d modelling, etc. Games are secondary for me. So I'm not an Intel fan boy, I just dislike arguments that aren't fair. If someone said you can buy a 3950x with a 2060 or a 10400 with a 2080ti.... I mean, it's the same thing you did but swapped Intel&AMD. Its a silly comparison. You match the parts you need whether it's Intel, AMD or NVIDIA.

At 1080p, you're getting CPU bound, so yes, you MIGHT notice a difference between Intel and AMD with the same video card. The number of people that care about the difference between 200 FPS and 184 FPS is not great.

When you get to 4K, the difference between Intel and AMD CPUs with the same video card is margin of error.
 
At 1080p, you're getting CPU bound, so yes, you MIGHT notice a difference between Intel and AMD with the same video card. The number of people that care about the difference between 200 FPS and 184 FPS is not great.

When you get to 4K, the difference between Intel and AMD CPUs with the same video card is margin of error.
Go buy a Bethesda game if you want buggy shit of a game then.
 
so everything is still on for a Zen 3 launch in October...September/October are going to be stacked!...Ampere, Big Navi, Zen 3, Cyberpunk 2077 in November...
 
I mean, I understand your idea.... But couldn't you say/do the same thing about just getting a 9600k or 10400 (if you can find one)? Seems disingenuous to not compare apples to apples. A 10400 and 2080s is faster IN GAMES than 3600x + 2080s and cost is almost the same. Then it goes back to is games the only thing you do. So if it's for pure gaming, even a mid level Intel CPU is just as good (and typically better). Me personally, I have an AMD CPU because I do a lot of compiling, some transcoding, some 3d modelling, etc. Games are secondary for me. So I'm not an Intel fan boy, I just dislike arguments that aren't fair. If someone said you can buy a 3950x with a 2060 or a 10400 with a 2080ti.... I mean, it's the same thing you did but swapped Intel&AMD. Its a silly comparison. You match the parts you need whether it's Intel, AMD or NVIDIA.

As someone who has used a 3600x AND a 9900k in the past month, I can't say that I actually noticed the difference between the two in gaming at 1440p. I'm not oblivious to the fact that there are differences, but the differences weren't noticeable with 144Hz Freesync monitor in single player games. I absolutely noticed a 150W power draw when I tried to encode a video in handbrake using my 9900k though.

I just picked up a 10700 (non-k) to play around with. Interested to see how bad the 65W hamstrings the processor, and how easy it is to override the turbo.
 
I think they will release the 4000s APU & not ship the true zen 3 desktops til next year . The XT refresh detail lends itself to that scenario too ..lets release 'new' cpus to test & talk about ..but literally the smallest increment in speed ..obviously they are saving the 4.0ghz base clock for 4000 series .

The XT cpu release reminds me of the special Anniversary 'Lisa Su' editions released of the 2700x ..'new' for packaging and press discord but nothing new underneath the heat spreader . Oh , also think the no cooler WOF 3800xt & 3900xt is a straight save the expense, as they have the same reported tdp .

I hope the Ryzen 3 release is another big release with big performance increase and agressive price when dropped , but with current ryzens being viewed as desirable as intels newest offerings it may be a little more clock and keep it at MSRP or higher manipulation.
 
I mean, I understand your idea.... But couldn't you say/do the same thing about just getting a 9600k or 10400 (if you can find one)? Seems disingenuous to not compare apples to apples. A 10400 and 2080s is faster IN GAMES than 3600x + 2080s and cost is almost the same. Then it goes back to is games the only thing you do. So if it's for pure gaming, even a mid level Intel CPU is just as good (and typically better). Me personally, I have an AMD CPU because I do a lot of compiling, some transcoding, some 3d modelling, etc. Games are secondary for me. So I'm not an Intel fan boy, I just dislike arguments that aren't fair. If someone said you can buy a 3950x with a 2060 or a 10400 with a 2080ti.... I mean, it's the same thing you did but swapped Intel&AMD. Its a silly comparison. You match the parts you need whether it's Intel, AMD or NVIDIA.
Did you not read the part where I said "regardless of brand"?
I just gave an AMD example...
If your goal is 100% gaming nothing else, you can save money on a cheaper CPU and spend more on a faster GPU, regardless of brand...
 
I'm looking to upgrade this fall/winter, so we'll see what the best value is at that time. If it's AMD, cool.
 
Y
At 1080p, you're getting CPU bound, so yes, you MIGHT notice a difference between Intel and AMD with the same video card. The number of people that care about the difference between 200 FPS and 184 FPS is not great.

When you get to 4K, the difference between Intel and AMD CPUs with the same video card is margin of error.
You completely missed my point. My point was just that you could just as easily buy a cheaper EITHER brand CPU and a better GPU and end up better for gaming. Was just pointing out how silly the other post was about comparing the 9900k to a 3600x and saying you could afford a better GPU if you got a 3600x. I was pointing out there are other Intel CPUs that can do the same thing (lower price so more $ for GPU) if not better if your focus is gaming only. I run and often recommend AMD in many cases, but Im still going to call out silly arguments.
 
Did you not read the part where I said "regardless of brand"?
I just gave an AMD example...
You cut the rest of your sentence off...
" regardless of brand, its just that AMD has the best options right now."
So... That completely changes the meaning of what you claim you said. You conveniently forgot to copy that part when responding. So, yes, I did read that part... I even read the part after it. Did you forget you posted more after you said "regardless of brand"?
I'm not even arguing that AMD is a good option for most people, I run one myself with plans to buy more for my wife/kids as upgrades. But, if you're only talking gaming (what your post was about, more FPS in games), then a 10400 or similar Intel can give you the same or better. So saying AMD "has the best options right now" isn't always the case, just often the case. You basically used a counter case to your point to try to support it.
 
I am agree with this that (as example) 3600+2080s is better than 9900k+2070s but this will work for the current rig but in future when the only video will be replaced with next better video card, the Intel rig will work better (for gaming).
So Ryzen give more multitasking and is cheaper and I prefer it too, but the last 10 gen Intel is no so bad as performance and some people buying them, and this is the my point.

From the other side AMD said that they wish the "Video crown" this year + some rumors is not bad recipe for a lot video performance from both companies and for this a good CPU is better option to have.
And we do not talk just about "hunting of Titans" but for AMD's staff that said that they want to give us "best" 4k card with Big Navy chip.

So the AMD need to have the better CPU before or close to time when next gen video cards will be on the market. And 100MHz on the XT CPUs are just nice move to gaining time but nothing more.
Because current CPUs are on the edge to bottleneck top video cards so what about next gen ?
 
Back
Top