# Ryzen 3000 listed online early on russian site.



## Wavetrex (Jan 2, 2019)

https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-ryzen-9-3800x-matisse-listed-with-16-cores-and-125w-tdp






Holy mother of 16 cores on AM4 !!! @ 3.9->4.7 Ghz





Seems that Jim might be (almost) correct with his leak. SMOKING !!!


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 2, 2019)

*4.7 Turbo*

*  **is it real?*


----------



## Wavetrex (Jan 2, 2019)

Threadripper 2950X on 12nm can reach 4.4 Ghz by default... I don't see why 7nm can't do 4.7 or higher.

I personally don't doubt the frequency that could be reached with Zen2, but the core counts... well, still unsure, seems TOO GOOD to be true.
But then, the market has stagnated for too long, it's really the time to see something like this !


----------



## IceScreamer (Jan 2, 2019)

Oh boy, now to see what trickles down the line to the more budget offerings.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 2, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Threadripper 2950X on 12nm can reach 4.4 Ghz by default... I don't see why 7nm can't do 4.7 or higher.
> 
> I personally don't doubt the frequency that could be reached with Zen2, but the core counts... well, still unsure, seems TOO GOOD to be true.
> But then, the market has stagnated for too long, it's really the time to see something like this !



Agreed, its just that this is the magical edge Ryzen needed for gaming. The missing 10%. Was waiting for this since it launched.


----------



## Hellfire (Jan 2, 2019)

As always, taking it with a pinch of salt, but this looks VERY promising. Especially since I want a 3850X


----------



## silentbogo (Jan 2, 2019)

If that's true, then leaks about 8 cores per CCX were also accurate. We'll probably see some bad-ass 220-250W Threadreaper chips w/ 32C/64T!


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> *4.7 Turbo*



For a single core turbo it's pretty underwhelming actually , people managed 4.5 on 2700Xs.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jan 2, 2019)

silentbogo said:


> If that's true, then leaks about 8 cores per CCX were also accurate.


That's not leaks, that's actual real chips which AMD demoed in the Rome chip.
64 cores, 8 chiplets x 8 cores.





The question is... will they use the same for Ryzen 3000, in combination with an I/O hub ? Or a more integrated design in a single larger die.
My gut tells me it will be a small I/O hub with 2 chiplets, that makes the most sense as they can fab all the 8-core chiplets with the same process and then just package differently for various markets.


----------



## IceScreamer (Jan 2, 2019)

Apparently there are even more listings:
R3 3300: http://www.e-katalog.ru/AMD-3300.htm
R3 3300X: http://www.e-katalog.ru/AMD-3300X.htm
R5 3600: http://www.e-katalog.ru/AMD-3600.htm
R5 3600X: http://www.e-katalog.ru/AMD-3600X.htm
R7 3700: http://www.e-katalog.ru/AMD-3700.htm
R7 3700X: http://www.e-katalog.ru/AMD-3700X.htm
R9 3800X: http://www.e-katalog.ru/AMD-3800X.htm


----------



## adulaamin (Jan 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> For a single core turbo it's pretty underwhelming actually , people managed 4.5 on 2700Xs.



All core turbo would be ...


----------



## phill (Jan 2, 2019)

I will leave my amazement until I see this in reviews...  Then it'll be a case of upgrade!!


----------



## silentbogo (Jan 2, 2019)

Wow. 6-core Ryzen 3!
I think I'll delay my next upgrade for a few months...


----------



## Wavetrex (Jan 2, 2019)

To be honest even if top chip only does 4.5 and has 12 cores only, I'll still upgrade.

Using a 6-core Broadwell-E 6800K which costed plenty of money about 2.5 years ago, and can only do 4.2 Ghz safely (voltage wall at 4.3, crap chip).
12c @ 4.5Ghz would be an amazing upgrade for me, without the price premium of Threadrippers. (Intel is not even in the discussion anymore)


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 2, 2019)

Hmm these looks to be 100% the same as AdoredTV’s speculations. Coincidence?


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> For a single core turbo it's pretty underwhelming actually , people managed 4.5 on 2700Xs.



This is stock, out of the box. Let's pull out the 8700K





Given the fact Zen was always more conservative with clocking than Core... this is quite a leap.


----------



## ShurikN (Jan 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> For a single core turbo it's pretty underwhelming actually , people managed 4.5 on 2700Xs.


A handful of people. 99.9% couldn't get more than 4.3


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jan 2, 2019)

Might be time to repurpose my "old" 2700x as a freenas VM server and get a 16 core 3800x onboard!

Since AdoredTV seems to be right on,  maybe I could stretch it to AMD's anniversary edition.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 2, 2019)

Still waiting to see real world for the TR4 lineup..


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 2, 2019)

ShurikN said:


> A handful of people. 99.9% couldn't get more than 4.3



Sure but the point is that for a 7nm chip 4.7 is not a lot. And GloFo's 14nm wasn't that great.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Sure but the point is that for a 7nm chip 4.7 is not a lot.



The process matters a lot more than die size. People on this page forget that basically every single time something is posted it seems.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> For a single core turbo it's pretty underwhelming actually , people managed 4.5 on 2700Xs.


Final clocks can be adjusted upwards, or downwards, even till the last moment, before the chip's launched.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 2, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Final clocks can be adjusted upwards, or downwards, even till the last moment, before the chip's launched.



Not really, it takes a lot of time to properly bin these chips. AMD made a step forward in making this step easier by going for this chiplet architecture but it's still not something they can change on whim.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 2, 2019)

16 cores is amazing... but i think that 12 core 5ghz turbo is the best one of the bunch.

At some point i have to ask... do i really need moar cores?


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Not really, it takes a lot of time to properly bin these chips. AMD made a step forward in making this step easier by going for this chiplet architecture but it's still not something they can change on whim.


Is this the best bin they have? I'm fairly certain they'll be reserved for EPYC & TR, so if TR3 isn't gonna be launched anytime soon they'll probably have enough incentive to clock them higher & sell the best bins. There's also the thing about early chips, on a new node, clocking lower ~ so it's possible that 4.7 isn't the real limit for single core (turbo) on Zen2 just yet.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 2, 2019)

The bigger the chip (or the more cores that are enabled) the lesser that chances that it'll clock higher. Chances are those 12 core CPUs (6+6) or 4+4 will clock higher on average than anything else , including TR and EPYC.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 2, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Hmm these looks to be 100% the same as AdoredTV’s speculations. Coincidence?


No, he was right, his lead was right too.
He has been before.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 2, 2019)

Are we still talking about single core turbo? If so then I don't see why bigger (better) chips can't have higher single core turbo? We've seen the same with 8086k or 9900k in MSDT lineup from Intel, there was also the 5GHz chilled Xeon demo. Bigger chips not only give the TDP headroom, but also the thermal headroom for max core clock on a single core. Again, assuming they're better bins than the rest of the lineup.


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2019)

the 3600x and 3700x,what is the ccx configuration of those ? is it 1x8 on 3600x and 2x 6 on 3700x or 2x4/3x4 ?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jan 2, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> No, he was right, his lead was right too.
> He has been before.



If you read his comments over at Videocardz you'll see that he's sceptical about the source of this "leak", so let's take it with a healthy dose of salt until next week.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 2, 2019)

cucker tarlson said:


> the 3600x and 3700x,what is the ccx configuration of those ? is it 1x8 on 3600x and 2x 6 on 3700x or 2x4/3x4 ?



Smelling that 5775C replacement?


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 2, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> Smelling that 5775C replacement?


sadly,I'll have to replace it some day.


----------



## ShurikN (Jan 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Sure but the point is that for a 7nm chip 4.7 is not a lot. And GloFo's 14nm wasn't that great.


That's just one chip, others (it all these leaks are to be believed) boost to 4.8 and 5GHz.


----------



## Hellfire (Jan 2, 2019)

The 3800x looks nice, and 4.7 is not slouch,

IF the 3800x is confirmed with these details next week it would put A LOT of credence to the rumours of the 3850x with a 5.1 ghz boost clock being correct.

I'm just happy as CES is on my birthday so hopefully AMD will be giving me a nice birthday present.


----------



## R0H1T (Jan 2, 2019)

Your birthday spans 5 days


----------



## Hellfire (Jan 2, 2019)

R0H1T said:


> Your birthday spans 5 days



It was a hell of a long labour  but no, it's on the 8th when it starts


----------



## Metroid (Jan 2, 2019)

AMD CES is on 9th January around 9-10am, intel is done for and I'm glad about it, enough with the 4 cores cpus milkman show days, my next cpu will be that one with 12 cores 5 ghz or so to speak, 3770x.


----------



## Tomgang (Jan 2, 2019)

The leaks before this said something simular, i took that with a gain of salt.

But now that a store has leaked spec that is so dam close to the ealy leaks, that this time i have a bit bigger trust that this is real in fact.

If those turbo clocks are real and the same with core count and the promised ipc gain gain is true about 25-30 % i have read. Also prices are spot on, amd this time around really has a cpu line up that can make intels ass really hurt.

I mean intels best defence for ryzen in my opinion else has been higher core clock and and a bit better ipc. But if all these spec are true, intels really need to up there ass or else amd might get most of the marked share for 2019. Intel is still on 14 nm fabrication for four years now and amd is already soon on 7 nm. I smelll trouble for intel in the near future, until they can go to a lower nm fabrication.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 2, 2019)

Metroid said:


> AMD CES is on 9th January around 9-10am, intel is done for and I'm glad about it, enough with the 4 cores cpus milkman show days, my next cpu will be that one with 12 cores 5 ghz or so to speak, 3770x.



Be Realistic here dude.


----------



## Hellfire (Jan 2, 2019)

Tomgang said:


> The leaks before this said something simular, i took that with a gain of salt.
> 
> But now that a store has leaked spec that is so dam close to the ealy leaks, that this time i have a bit bigger trust that this is real in fact.
> 
> ...



Agreed, Hell even a 15-20% increase in IPC will be more than enough to take the running spot in my opinion.


----------



## Mats (Jan 2, 2019)

http://www.e-katalog.ru/m1_compare....85968,1485970,1485972,1485975,1485976,1485980


----------



## Supercrit (Jan 2, 2019)

I thought my 2700X would suffice for the next 5 years I guess not. Thank you AMD for hurting my wallet more, I just can't resist if it ends up real.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 2, 2019)

Done some reading. It is the Russian equal  of PCPartPicker. I would take this with a metric ton of salt. Very likely some Russian dude came across AdoredTV and thought this is a good idea.


I wish AMD all the good luck for bringing competitive products. But hyping things out of proportion is bad for everyone


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 2, 2019)

Supercrit said:


> I thought my 2700X would suffice for the next 5 years I guess not. Thank you AMD for hurting my wallet more, I just can't resist if it ends up real.



This is the exact reason I went with Intel for the gaming rig....

Going the 1700 > 2700x > 3700x route would cost a ton and limit my ram options.  If this is true then I can expect price drops on the 10 core x299 chips, if it isn't then the 7820x @ 5ghz will last me some time anyways.  The AMD chip releases are amazing but it would send my upgrade itch into full meltdown mode.  I'm bad enough as it is...


----------



## theonek (Jan 2, 2019)

Well, games have to be learned to use all that cores. otherwise it will be slower in games even than 2700, like the last threadripers....


----------



## Vario (Jan 2, 2019)

Will internal latency be an issue with the chiplet design?


----------



## TheLostSwede (Jan 2, 2019)

theonek said:


> Well, games have to be learned to use all that cores. otherwise it will be slower in games even than 2700, like the last threadripers....


Why? Threadripper had cache related issues, which will most likely not be a problem here. You got any solid facts here, or are you just throwing out FUD?


----------



## Mats (Jan 2, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> I wish AMD all the good luck for bringing competitive products. But hyping things out of proportion is bad for everyone


I think the specs looks realistic, even if the price speculations might not be.

The 3600X runs 300 MHz faster than the 2700X, that's less than a 10 % speed bump.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 2, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Done some reading. It is the Russian equal  of PCPartPicker. I would take this with a metric ton of salt. Very likely some Russian dude came across AdoredTV and thought this is a good idea.
> 
> 
> I wish AMD all the good luck for bringing competitive products. But hyping things out of proportion is bad for everyone



Amd aren't hyping anything until Ces ,the hype is based on rumours ,no more, I think they could be right but regardless are meaningless compared to reviews and benches


theonek said:


> Well, games have to be learned to use all that cores. otherwise it will be slower in games even than 2700, like the last threadripers....


Nah more Ipc and higher single core clocks will benefit the legacy dx11 Api's and zen + added 15-17% ,not insubstantial in itself.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 2, 2019)

Mats said:


> I think the specs looks realistic, even if the price speculations might not be.
> 
> The 3600X runs 300 MHz faster than the 2700X, that's less than a 10 % speed bump.



Isn't there a 10-15% IPC bump on top of that though?  If so then it will be quite a bit faster.


----------



## Mats (Jan 2, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> Isn't there a 10-15% IPC bump on top of that though?  If so then it will be quite a bit faster.


Yeah, probably, but I was just talking about the specs in the link, that some call "hyping things out of proportion "..


----------



## Wavetrex (Jan 2, 2019)

The only thing that happened here is Intel being lazy and greedy and allowing AMD to catch up. Minimum effort, maximum profit.
The last significant architecture change was from Nehalem to Sandy Bridge, after that all of them are "optimizations" of the same shiet. A bit more cache, a bit lower latency, same bus, same weak iGPU, same everything.

How about the reverse of "Too good to be true" ?
We had 10 years of "Too bad to be false", yet it happened... Intel gave us 5% there, 3% there, and until Ryzen, a bloody QUAD CORE with 100Mhz more turbo than the last gen was everything we got.

Seriously, AMD deserves to win this round, and win HARD.
9900K is a total failure in my opinion, a CPU that needs to run at 100 degrees to actually sustain that promised 5Ghz on anything less then highest end water cooling... I pity those who bought it end of last year, KNOWING 7nm is coming, and soon !


----------



## kastriot (Jan 2, 2019)

Well, we will see what is true and what not @CES


----------



## robot zombie (Jan 2, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> This is the exact reason I went with Intel for the gaming rig....
> 
> Going the 1700 > 2700x > 3700x route would cost a ton and limit my ram options.  If this is true then I can expect price drops on the 10 core x299 chips, if it isn't then the 7820x @ 5ghz will last me some time anyways.  The AMD chip releases are amazing but it would send my upgrade itch into full meltdown mode.  I'm bad enough as it is...


Dude... tell me about it. It is killing me. But, I mean, you don't *have* to do it  I like my 2600 and realistically could happily hold onto it for years, and if the price is wrong on the 3000 series maybe I actually will keep it, but goddamnit if the improvements are what people say they are the 3700x is gonna be calling my name.

I have my ways of justifying it. I am a parts hoarder though, sometimes you come into things or have tie-over's you know? I've got a refurb B350 I could toss the 2600 in... ...or maybe like I have in the past I'll pass it down to someone who could use the upgrade. I did a super-budget AMD build for a friend who would love to have what I have now. At least then I can say to myself that I'm doing something good for somebody... if not myself lol.

I dunno, it's neither here nor there. One of Intel's most noted detriments is only giving us marginal improvements year after year. And then here comes AMD, seemingly making some real leaps with each release. Personally I think that is a good thing for all of us. At any given time doing a build, you're going to have something better than last time for your cash. But then, if you wanna save a little, last gen is still great compared to the one before it, even if you're compromising on having the latest and greatest *shrug*

I guess with things this way, you never really need to upgrade, but if you want to, at least it's actually an upgrade. Even if it does test your self control a little lol


----------



## Asviar (Jan 2, 2019)

Still can't imagine why do I would need 16 cores. IMHO, 12 is almost that average PC user may need within next few years.


----------



## HD64G (Jan 2, 2019)

People need to understand that 7nm allow twice the size for the same power comsumption. So if AMD wants it, they can release a 16-core for the same clocks as 2700X that will have the IPC-cache-memory latency improvements (10-15%) and consume the same as 2700X. Or, they can choose to get the clock increase allowed by the better process (>25%) and end having a 5.5GHz (single core boost that is) 8-core CPU in the same power envelope. Since the first products cannot be so well binned, they will have some CPUs boosting up to 5GHz, which is easily achievable since 5.5GHz is the limit, that will be of different core number and power envelopes, keeping the best for TR and Rome ones that have much higher profit margin. We will surely have big competition this time for gaming CPUs imho. Zen and Zen+ were already competitive in almost every other aspect of compute power. As customers and PC enthusiasts, let's hope for the best tech in good price.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jan 2, 2019)

Asviar said:


> 12 is almost that average PC user may need within next few years.


The human eye cannot see more than 12 cores


----------



## Asviar (Jan 2, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> The human eye cannot see more than 12 cores


Yeah, average human eye


----------



## robot zombie (Jan 2, 2019)

Asviar said:


> Still can't imagine why do I would need 16 cores. IMHO, 12 is almost that average PC user may need within next few years.


I said the same thing when Zen+ hit, and I'd still agree. I think 6 physical cores is solid ground to be on now and in the future.

Not much use for more, save for special applications. But I think enthusiasts are still rightly excited that higher core counts are more accessible. There was a time not too long ago when you couldn't pay any amount of money to easily get the core counts AMD brings, that or you spent a few thou. I know I'd love to have a TR to play around with, even if I don't really need it for my actual usage.

Another way to look at it is that if 12 cores (or 6+6) is the most your average user would need these days, then all is really as it should be, with that level in the midrange, and higher counts being in the top-end, for the smaller number of people who need that. What's available at the top should always be more than people need in a healthy market. Absolute best of best as a point of entry to meeting one's needs sucks.


----------



## Mats (Jan 2, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> The only thing that happened here is Intel being lazy and greedy and allowing AMD to catch up.


*Plus Intel having a real hard time with their 10 nm process.* After the first 10 nm shrink, Intel planned to release the next big thing since Nehalem, but 10 nm didn't happen.

I'm sure some people would disagree, but to me it seems plausible. From the first Core i CPU it all made sense, until after Skylake. After that it would have been a 10 nm shrink, something we're still waiting for.  What we've seen since then is basically added cores/cache and more clock speed, nothing else. IPC backs this up (right?), it pretty much stalled after Skylake.

Not being able to do 10 nm isn't laziness, Intel WANTS to get there, and it hurts them big time for not being able to.


----------



## OneCool (Jan 2, 2019)

3700X looks nice


----------



## Patriot (Jan 2, 2019)

silentbogo said:


> If that's true, then leaks about 8 cores per CCX were also accurate. We'll probably see some bad-ass 220-250W Threadreaper chips w/ 32C/64T!





Wavetrex said:


> That's not leaks, that's actual real chips which AMD demoed in the Rome chip.
> 64 cores, 8 chiplets x 8 cores.
> 
> The question is... will they use the same for Ryzen 3000, in combination with an I/O hub ? Or a more integrated design in a single larger die.
> My gut tells me it will be a small I/O hub with 2 chiplets, that makes the most sense as they can fab all the 8-core chiplets with the same process and then just package differently for various markets.



CCX != chiplets FFS

a chiplet is *2 *CCX's  so 4c CCX.

That said after the adored single source, not his main source, take this with truck-fulls of salt video... AMD unequivocally said, Desktop Ryzen 2 (3000) will not be like rome, it will be completely 7nm.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 2, 2019)

Mats said:


> *Plus Intel having a real hard time with their 10 nm process.* After the first 10 nm shrink, Intel planned to release the next big thing since Nehalem, but 10 nm didn't happen.
> 
> I'm sure some people would disagree, but to me it seems plausible. From the first Core i CPU it all made sense, until after Skylake. After that it would have been a 10 nm shrink, something we're still waiting for.  What we've seen since then is basically added cores/cache and more clock speed, nothing else. IPC backs this up (right?), it pretty much stalled after Skylake.
> 
> Not being able to do 10 nm isn't laziness, Intel WANTS to get there, and it hurts them big time for not being able to.



They might just abandon and go straight 7nm.


----------



## Vario (Jan 2, 2019)

Interesting article comparing Intel 10nm node to GF 7nm node
https://www.eejournal.com/article/life-at-10nm-or-is-it-7nm-and-3nm/


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 2, 2019)

Vario said:


> Interesting article comparing Intel 10nm node to GF 7nm node
> https://www.eejournal.com/article/life-at-10nm-or-is-it-7nm-and-3nm/



GloFo canned their 7nm a while ago just FYI.

GloFo always made bold claims but failed to deliver, thus why AMD try to move away from GloFo to TSMC


----------



## cdawall (Jan 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> The bigger the chip (or the more cores that are enabled) the lesser that chances that it'll clock higher. Chances are those 12 core CPUs (6+6) or 4+4 will clock higher on average than anything else , including TR and EPYC.



That heavily depends on binning. The best binned parts go to TR hence why even the 2990wx can turbo almost as high as a 2700x. If any of the older rumors are believed true TR4 will have 5ghz turbo chips as well.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 2, 2019)

cdawall said:


> That heavily depends on binning.



Better binning doesn't change the fact that the die itself is significantly less likely to clock very high. That's why you bin them in the first place.


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Jan 2, 2019)

"Apparently"this should be prices for 3000 series!!!


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 2, 2019)

Hype train full speed ahead

CHO CHO all aboard!


----------



## Hellfire (Jan 2, 2019)

I have this ready for CES...


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jan 2, 2019)

Last time I was this eager for a CPU launch was the Nehalem Bloomfield processor launch...  it's been a while... and honestly didn't think it would happen again.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 2, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Better binning doesn't change the fact that the die itself is significantly less likely to clock very high. That's why you bin them in the first place.



Which die? The one that is identical to the ones you are talking about... That is the reason the current chips can clock the same regardless of core count and why an mcm can be superior to a monolithic design.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 3, 2019)

cdawall said:


> and why an mcm can be superior to a monolithic design.



It's superior but this isn't the be all and end all.



cdawall said:


> That is the reason the current chips can clock the same regardless of core count



The point isn't that they can but that they are less likely to do so. A 64 core monolithic die is less likely to clock as high as a 16 core one in the same way that it's less likely to come by 8x8 core dies that they all clock to 5Ghz as opposed to just finding 2x8 ones. AMD made their job easier but they still have to deal with the same physical limitations and variance of the manufacturing process, no amount of binning can ever change that.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> It's superior but this isn't the be all and end all.
> 
> 
> 
> The point isn't that they can but that they are less likely to do so. A 64 core monolithic die is less likely to clock as high as a 16 core one in the same way that it's less likely to come by 8x8 core dies that they all clock to 5Ghz as opposed to just finding 2x8 ones. AMD made their job easier but they still have to deal with the same physical limitations and variance of the manufacturing process, no amount of binning can ever change that.



They have to put the absolute best binned cores on the high core count parts, otherwise they do not fit the tdp envelope. That's why you have people like me who actually have a high core count part and have it clocked as high on all 32 cores as most are able to hit on the 8 core parts. 

AMD binning is pretty top tier and has been this whole time. That's one thing they have done well cpu and gpu.


----------



## mastershake575 (Jan 3, 2019)

Supercrit said:


> I thought my 2700X would suffice for the next 5 years I guess not. Thank you AMD for hurting my wallet more, I just can't resist if it ends up real.


 Whose to say your 2700x won't last 5 years ? Video game requirements have been stagnant the last 2-3 years and it will probably be at least 2 years before we see new consoles/game engines.

Even when the new game engines come out it will take a a year or two for them to get polished + your CPU will still easily be faster than whatever CPU is in the next gen consoles.

CPU demand/importance is extremely overrated. People where worried that the ivybridge/sandybridge would be only decent since they came out inbetween console generation and look at them now, 8 years later and they can still play games on very high settings.......


----------



## Mussels (Jan 3, 2019)

Whatever they have, i'll end up upgrading to the model with the highest turbo - final core count matters a bit less.

Then my 2700x can end up in my ITX machine


----------



## xtreemchaos (Jan 3, 2019)

the 2700x is like warp factor 7 for image processing, I carnt imagen what 16 cores would be like. ill deff be having one of zen 9s at some point.  charl


----------



## Super XP (Jan 3, 2019)

The 3700X looks like the best choice. Nice Specs., 
Found this also. 








Wavetrex said:


> Threadripper 2950X on 12nm can reach 4.4 Ghz by default... I don't see why 7nm can't do 4.7 or higher.
> 
> I personally don't doubt the frequency that could be reached with Zen2, but the core counts... well, still unsure, seems TOO GOOD to be true.
> But then, the market has stagnated for too long, it's really the time to see something like this !


The Core Count is to stick it to Intel as much as possible. This is AMD's advantage at the moment, and they must capitalize on it. The Speed increase is due to the 7nm process by TSMC. Should be more efficient over GlobFo. IMO


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 3, 2019)

Asviar said:


> Still can't imagine why do I would need 16 cores. IMHO, 12 is almost that average PC user may need within next few years.



Dont make assumptions.

There are power users in the Main Desktop arena that dont necessarily want to pay for HEDT from Intel or AMD.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jan 3, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Dont make assumptions.
> 
> There are power users in the Main Desktop arena that dont necessarily want to pay for HEDT from Intel or AMD.



It's really AMD redefining what Main Desktop & HEDT are. 

Running applications in VMs, or Hyper-V for Window users, has never been easier to do.  With growing ease, I'd say more mainstream users will also be gradually adopting the practice as it really is best practice & safer.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 3, 2019)

yakk said:


> It's really AMD redefining what Main Desktop & HEDT are.
> 
> Running applications in VMs, or Hyper-V for Window users, has never been easier to do.  With growing ease, I'd say more mainstream users will also be gradually adopting the practice as it really is best practice & safer.



As long as you can find a hardware emulation layer because programs that only run in xp but not in 10 would be out of luck- Games...


----------



## cucker tarlson (Jan 3, 2019)

Vario said:


> Will internal latency be an issue with the chiplet design?


I'm curious to see. I think they ought to design cpus in a way that improves previous designs so I hope it not only doesn't make ryzen's latency issues worse but actually has some improvement.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 3, 2019)

Super XP said:


> The 3700X looks like the best choice. Nice Specs.,
> Found this also.
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah that looks like fake to me. Too easy to forge a picture for a forum post


----------



## Super XP (Jan 3, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Yeah that looks like fake to me. Too easy to forge a picture for a forum post


Probably,  found the pic online.


----------



## Mats (Jan 3, 2019)

Vario said:


> Will internal latency be an issue with the chiplet design?


I guess this is the million dollar question.


----------



## Supercrit (Jan 3, 2019)

mastershake575 said:


> Whose to say your 2700x won't last 5 years ? Video game requirements have been stagnant the last 2-3 years and it will probably be at least 2 years before we see new consoles/game engines.
> 
> Even when the new game engines come out it will take a a year or two for them to get polished + your CPU will still easily be faster than whatever CPU is in the next gen consoles.
> 
> CPU demand/importance is extremely overrated. People where worried that the ivybridge/sandybridge would be only decent since they came out inbetween console generation and look at them now, 8 years later and they can still play games on very high settings.......



I don't want to upgrade for the core count alone, more for the clockrate and IPC uplift. 2700X has an average of 10% deficit against competing Intel CPU in gaming, the rumored 5ghz boost clock of 3700x alone is over that 10%, in addition of the supposed IPC gains, it will be a chip as capable as Intel and twice the cores.


----------



## Metroid (Jan 3, 2019)

You trolls saying it is fake is hilarious, I mean, how can they fake those leaks everywhere, there have been leaks in many places and all seems the same thing over and over and yet some of you trolls say is fake, there is a limit to doubt something and you trolls are underestimating AMD.


----------



## Vario (Jan 3, 2019)

Metroid said:


> You trolls saying it is fake is hilarious, I mean, how can they fake those leaks everywhere, there have been leaks in many places and all seems the same thing over and over and yet some of you trolls say is fake, there is a limit to doubt something and you trolls are underestimating AMD.



Thats very faulty logic.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 3, 2019)

OMG OMG OMG 128C64000T RyZen9999 leaked on Gigabyte forusm! So real! If you dont reply "I believe" then you are and AMD hater and deserve to die.







/s


----------



## Vario (Jan 3, 2019)

^ That 1TB of MB of L3 cache is going to make it an Intel Killer for sure.


----------



## techtard (Jan 3, 2019)

If these leaks are true, I will replace my Ryzen 1600 with the 3700 for double the power and replace the old FX system with my gen 1 Ryzen.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 3, 2019)

techtard said:


> If these leaks are true, I will replace my Ryzen 1600 with the 3700 for double the power and replace the old FX system with my gen 1 Ryzen.


Exactly,  agreed. 

Several sites are reporting these new Ryzen CPUs.  Only time will tell, but knowing AMd, this type of publicity is a given and a good thing.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 3, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> OMG OMG OMG 128C64000T RyZen9999 leaked on Gigabyte forusm! So real! If you dont reply "I believe" then you are and AMD hater and deserve to die.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Says the guy throwing neg around again , ah well there has to be the opposing view.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 3, 2019)

Metroid said:


> You trolls saying it is fake is hilarious, I mean, how can they fake those leaks everywhere, there have been leaks in many places and all seems the same thing over and over and yet some of you trolls say is fake, there is a limit to doubt something and you trolls are underestimating AMD.



It's all the same leak or fake information depending on opinion from the same guys excel doc that got put up. I mean I can repackage it if you want to claim more people said it.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 3, 2019)

cdawall said:


> It's all the same leak or fake information depending on opinion from the same guys excel doc that got put up. I mean I can repackage it if you want to claim more people said it.



The excel thing was from a different guy as far as I know.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> The excel thing was from a different guy as far as I know.



Nope same info in multiple "leaks"


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 3, 2019)

cdawall said:


> Nope same info in multiple "leaks"


You should be above such missquotes, yes the data is the same but no the source is allegedly different, allegedly remember, so not fact but not one guy getting hyped on excel.


----------



## Vario (Jan 3, 2019)

Just remember, everyone was hyped over bulldozer, best to keep expectations in check until product is available for sale and has been reviewed and benchmarked.


----------



## Mats (Jan 3, 2019)

Vario said:


> Just remember, everyone was hyped over bulldozer,


Bulldozer was completely unknown technology, compare with Zen 1. While Zen 2 might not live up to the hype, I don't expect it to be lower performing than Zen +.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jan 3, 2019)

Mats said:


> Bulldozer was completely unknown technology, compare with Zen 1. While Zen 2 might not live up to the hype, I don't expect it to be lower performing than Zen +.


Intel made that mistake with Pentium 4, making a CPU slower than the one before it (Pentium 3), hoping the frequencies will go up so much that it will get faster ( It did, but just barely ).
AMD made the mistake with Bulldozer, creating a CPU which was slower than Phenom before it, but hoping that multicore will really take off. Unfortunately, it didn't.

I doubt any of these companies will make that mistake again.

Any CPU coming from both Intel and AMD in the next several years will very likely have single thread performance at least "a bit" higher than the previous gen, and on the side upping the core count as much as they can within the limits of technology.

Ryzen+ (2000 series) are really REALLY close in IPC to Skylake/Coffee lake/Coffee lake+, within the margin of error, and are actually FASTER when SMT is involved (Ryzen has an extra ALU that can be utilized by two threads through the same core), assuming the code permits it.
What it lacks is frequency...

IF they can close the gap in frequency and add only a itsy-bitsy tiny IPC, even 3% will do, the CPUs will be at least equal in single-threaded performance.
And since AMD seems much more capable to bring more cores ( TR 2990W proves it), they can really roflstomp over anything Intel has on the market right now.

The question is, how many more cores? As I wrote before, I would be extremely pleased if their top of the line has only 12 cores. If it's 16 that's... sexy geeky wet dreams already.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 3, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> You should be above such missquotes, yes the data is the same but no the source is allegedly different, allegedly remember, so not fact but not one guy getting hyped on excel.



Thats basically what I said when you quoted me. 

Multiple "leaks" same information. 

I take any amd leak with a 50lbs bag of salt.

Phenom 
Bulldozer
Fury
Polaris
Vega

All hyped as the next greatest thing. What did we end up with? A cpu slower than a c2q, a cpu that was a dumpster fire for 99% of its operational history, a gpu with not enough ram to fill the role it was taxed with, a gpu that amd had to pump the clocks on so far that it started to vastly exceed spec for the motherboard and finally a gpu that was supposed to change the world that competed with an already Gen old maxwell with similar power usage with such a limited release very few gamers could even buy them.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 3, 2019)

cdawall said:


> All hyped as the next greatest thing. What did we end up with? A cpu slower than a c2q, a cpu that was a dumpster fire for 99% of its operational history, a gpu with not enough ram to fill the role it was taxed with, a gpu that amd had to pump the clocks on so far that it started to vastly exceed spec for the motherboard and finally a gpu that was supposed to change the world that competed with an already Gen old maxwell with similar power usage with such a limited release very few gamers could even buy them.



Grossly exaggerated and none of those things had much to do with the hype anyway. And if you take AMD leaks with bags of salt you might end up with kidney problems when you also look at Nvidia/Intel , because they all did the exact same things as well at some point.

None of them are any better.


----------



## Mats (Jan 3, 2019)

I wonder how often an improved CPU of an already successful design has been disappointing?
I.e no completely new designs (Willamette, Bulldozer), no upgrades of a non-successful design (any Bulldozer successors), and no plan B's (Kaby lake: lets stay on 14 nm forever).

Edit: *I can't come up with anything here..*


----------



## Zyll Goliat (Jan 3, 2019)

Even IF the IPC is totally the same as previous zen we will get the 7nm chip more cores and the higher clock speed for less money.....YES People should be excited&hyped!!


----------



## cdawall (Jan 3, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Grossly exaggerated and none of those things had much to do with the hype anyway. And if you take AMD leaks with bags of salt you might end up with kidney problems when you also look at Nvidia/Intel , because they all did the exact same things as well at some point.
> 
> None of them are any better.



You act like I don't think the hype machine runs on all streets. AMD's has an entire additional gear especially over the past couple years. I also fail to understand what doesn't have to do with hype. 

All of those products were rediculously hyped. Fury as the "overclockers dream", bulldozer well yea the hype train on that almost ran off the tracks. 

I trust none of this fake news with amd IPC gains nor do I trust large jumps in clock speed with next to zero tdp gain. If it happens flipping dope. I will be excited to get a 39xx whatever threadripper to replace my 2990wx.



Mats said:


> I wonder how often an improved CPU of an already successful design has been disappointing?
> I.e no completely new designs (Willamette, Bulldozer), no upgrades of a non-successful design (any Bulldozer successors), and no plan B's (Kaby lake: lets stay on 14 nm forever).
> 
> Edit: *I can't come up with anything here..*



I was pretty disappointed that nothing after ivy Bridge actually has disconcernable performance gains. There were only what 4.5 Intel gens after that? Could take a step back and look at k6-3 as well.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 3, 2019)

cdawall said:


> You act like I don't think the hype machine runs on all streets.



Unfortunately that's exactly how you sound.



cdawall said:


> I also fail to understand what doesn't have to do with hype.



Hype is generated by alluding to some feature/characteristic. Let's take the fact that Bulldozer was a "fire dumbster", did AMD or anyone else for that matter ever claimed they were going to run ice cold sipping power ? What did have to do with the hype ?



cdawall said:


> All of those products were rediculously hyped. Fury as the "overclockers dream"



Sure , remember the 1080 demo overclocked to 2.1 Ghz at just "60c" with the FE cooler letting everyone believe that was also an overclocker's dream ? The 28 core 5 Ghz Intel demo ? I do, if you try and paint AMD as the absolute worst at this it just wont work. 

Have they done it ? Yes. Are they the worst ? Highly debatable.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 3, 2019)

cdawall said:


> I take any leak with a 50lbs bag of salt.


FTFY. 


Now everyone... cool your jets... they both do this!


----------



## Mats (Jan 3, 2019)

cdawall said:


> I was pretty disappointed that nothing after ivy Bridge actually has disconcernable performance gains. There were only what 4.5 Intel gens after that?


Yeah, they were disappointing in some sense, but at least they gave some improvement, the competition was zero though so that's no surprise. After Skylake they fell into the plan B category though.


----------



## mastershake575 (Jan 4, 2019)

Supercrit said:


> I don't want to upgrade for the core count alone, more for the clockrate and IPC uplift. 2700X has an average of 10% deficit against competing Intel CPU in gaming, the rumored 5ghz boost clock of 3700x alone is over that 10%, in addition of the supposed IPC gains, it will be a chip as capable as Intel and twice the cores.


 That's understandable but your 2700x can last as long as you want it too, especially since where moving towards higher resolutions (1440/4k) that are less demanding/strict on CPU workload. 

These new CPU"s might be fast but lets not kid ourselves, 8 cores and 16 threads at over 4ghz is plenty fast for years to come.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 4, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Sure , remember the 1080 demo overclocked to 2.1 Ghz at just "60c" with the FE cooler letting everyone believe that was also an overclocker's dream ? The 28 core 5 Ghz Intel demo ? I do, if you try and paint AMD as the absolute worst at this it just wont work.



At least the 1080 can actually clock to 2.1ghz unlike the fury that could barely break 5% overclocks... 

The 5ghz 28c setup I thought was freaking cool. I'm sorry if that doesn't impress you. Should they run giant banners announcing it was cold water? Maybe, but it still did it and it showed AMD had forced Intel to offer an unlocked server setup which is also cool as hell. 



EarthDog said:


> FTFY.
> 
> 
> Now everyone... cool your jets... they both do this!



I don't even really care that AMD does it. The AMD fanboys that eat it up annoys me. Like I get they are the underdog and they are dropping some impressive bombs, but quite a few bombs have been duds in the past and present.


----------



## Metroid (Jan 4, 2019)

I have been an Intel CPU consumer for the past 14 years, my last AMD CPU was the Athlon 64 fx-53 in 2004, looking at how things are at moment, it seems AMD will once again have the upper hand and as a true capitalist, these leaks are pointing me to buy an AMD CPU. I'm happy about the current state, if it was not for amd we would be forever with quad-cores for the rest of our lives.


----------



## Vario (Jan 4, 2019)

Metroid said:


> I have been an Intel CPU consumer for the past 14 years, my last AMD CPU was the Athlon 64 fx-53 in 2004, looking at how things are at moment, it seems AMD will once again have the upper hand and as a true capitalist, these leaks are pointing me to buy an AMD CPU. I'm happy about the current state, if it was not for amd we would be forever with quad-cores for the rest of our lives.



Hex core Intel on mainstream socket was on the road map before Ryzen.
https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...lake-in-2018-digitimes.2485480/#post-38464586


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 4, 2019)

cdawall said:


> Thats basically what I said when you quoted me.
> 
> Multiple "leaks" same information.
> 
> ...


yes same until reviews and benches , that makes sense , but ranting like you have 50lbs of salt in your mouth over stuff you didn't care to buy and use and wont buy or use, well ill leave that to you.
Personally I'm here in this thread to hear rumours, that's all not to hype or play down the same.


And what you said implied it was one guy generating many rumours but whatever i get it.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 4, 2019)

Metroid said:


> I have been an Intel CPU consumer for the past 14 years, my last AMD CPU was the Athlon 64 fx-53 in 2004, looking at how things are at moment, it seems AMD will once again have the upper hand and as a true capitalist, these leaks are pointing me to buy an AMD CPU. I'm happy about the current state, if it was not for amd we would be forever with quad-cores for the rest of our lives.


Also funny considering most PC users dont need more than a quad core. For gamers a quad with HT is just now 'enough but not optimal'. and quads have been out for well over 10 years now.

The need to go wide with a lot of cores is the racket here.


----------



## Vario (Jan 4, 2019)

cdawall said:


> I don't even really care that AMD does it. The AMD fanboys that eat it up annoys me. Like I get they are the underdog and they are dropping some impressive bombs, but quite a few bombs have been duds in the past and present.



The AMD hype machine is always much more.  Everyone is already suspicious of Nvidia and Intel.   AMD hype motto is "I want to Believe".  No one worships RTX or Intel's newest iteration of the same bland Lake architecture.  Most of the Intel and Nvidia forum purchasers are rather pragmatic.  They buy based on the budget to needs.  The AMD crew is about an upstart CPU rag tag underdog rebellion fighting the evil empire of Intel.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 4, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> yes same until reviews and benches , that makes sense , but ranting like you have 50lbs of salt in your mouth over stuff you didn't care to buy and use and wont buy or use, well ill leave that to you.
> Personally I'm here in this thread to hear rumours, that's all not to hype or play down the same.
> 
> 
> And what you said implied it was one guy generating many rumours but whatever i get it.



Yep the guy with a 2990wx hoping and praying that the 64c model works correctly is not going to want or know rumors for zen2...



Vario said:


> The AMD hype machine is always much more.  Everyone is already suspicious of Nvidia and Intel.   AMD hype motto is "I want to Believe".  No one worships RTX or Intel's newest iteration of the same bland Lake architecture.  Most of the Intel and Nvidia forum purchasers are rather pragmatic.  They buy based on the budget to needs.  The AMD crew is about an upstart CPU rag tag underdog rebellion fighting the evil empire of Intel.



Pretty much sums it up. The let down doesn't detract them after over a decade is crazy to me.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 4, 2019)

Vario said:


> The AMD hype machine is always much more.  Everyone is already suspicious of Nvidia and Intel.   AMD hype motto is "I want to Believe".  No one worships RTX or Intel's newest iteration of the same bland Lake architecture.  Most of the Intel and Nvidia forum purchasers are rather pragmatic.



What about weirdos like me. Top end consumer Nvidia GPU, at the time (1080ti) and an experiment in the first Ryzen?

I'm a tech schizophrenic.


----------



## Vario (Jan 4, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> What about weirdos like me. Top end consumer Nvidia GPU, at the time (1080ti) and an experiment in the first Ryzen?
> 
> I'm a tech schizophrenic.


I don't mind people buying any brand.  The original combo ages ago was Athlon 64 and a NVidia 6800GT.   I refer to the melodramatic forum fan boys that hype these things out of proportion into an epic struggle of good vs evil.  Whole thing always reeks of some kind of promotional astroturfing.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 4, 2019)

cdawall said:


> Yep the guy with a 2990wx hoping and praying that the 64c model works correctly is not going to want or know rumors for zen2...
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much sums it up. The let down doesn't detract them after over a decade is crazy to me.


What's wrong with you, a 2990wx is not what you just called shit in the post i noted so minus one on your plus point and people like you add to the drama with now a page ,in a thread full of Bs ,that's nothing to do with the Op.
@Vario @cdawall 
Mods could have stepped in already your being so tangential.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 4, 2019)

Metroid said:


> You trolls saying it is fake is hilarious, I mean, how can they fake those leaks everywhere, there have been leaks in many places and all seems the same thing over and over and yet some of you trolls say is fake, there is a limit to doubt something and you trolls are underestimating AMD.


Has AMD confirmed that information? No? Oh, Ok. Might be fake..



EarthDog said:


> Also funny considering most PC users dont need more than a quad core.


Rubbish! I use my 6 cores/12 threads all the time. Just not in games. I'm getting cozy with the idea of a Ryzen for my next personal build, but the 3000 series seems like it might be worth waiting for.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 4, 2019)

cdawall said:


> Yep the guy with a 2990wx hoping and praying that the 64c model works correctly is not going to want or know rumors for zen2...
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty much sums it up. The let down doesn't detract them after over a decade is crazy to me.



They are not let down simply because they are too sad or angry IRL so they need to invest their emotions in something. Evolution makes us human craving conflicts and tribalism. Same as people who choose sports and fanatically defend their sports team(tribe). Just like over here AMD crazy fans prefer the good underdog AMD vs big bad Intel fight. Usually young and guidable mind prefer those type of conflicts and simplified good vs evil.


----------



## Metroid (Jan 4, 2019)

Vario said:


> Hex core Intel on mainstream socket was on the road map before Ryzen.
> https://forums.anandtech.com/thread...lake-in-2018-digitimes.2485480/#post-38464586



_"Ryzen_ was introduced in February 2017 with the first products officially announced during AMD's New Horizon summit on December 13, 2016, feature the Zen microarchitecture." As we can see, Intel based that roadmap on ryzen rather than giving consumers what they deserved. Intel has many spies inside AMD and I believe Intel have known about ryzen as earlier as March 2016 and Coffee lake was released on October 5, 2017, which means much later than ryzen. Intel launched a mainstream 6 cores product when amd had an 8 core already and months ahead.

It has been for sometime that I came to despise Intel because they really dont care about their consumers, a new chipset for a new 1151 product, that really made me mad. AMD has been with am4 for quite sometime and it looks like even the 3xxx will work on it.

It's amazing to see people around here siding with Intel, come on, wake up.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 4, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Rubbish! I use my 6 cores/12 threads all the time. Just not in games. I'm getting cozy with the idea of a Ryzen for my next personal build, but the 3000 series seems like it might be worth waiting for.


Arguably, this is an enthusiast website so more here than anywhere. Enthusiasts make up a small number of users overall. The fact remains that most PCs have 4c or less, even with the gaming (steam) crowd (check steam stats).


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 4, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Arguably, this is an enthusiast website so more here than anywhere. Enthusiasts make up a small number of users overall.


Good point. I keep forgetting that most of us here, myself included, fall into the "power users" class of PC users.


EarthDog said:


> The fact remains that most PCs have 4c or less, even with the gaming (steam) crowd (check steam stats).


For the gaming crowd, who don't do much else, yes.


----------



## the54thvoid (Jan 4, 2019)

I think what's being lost in this illogical dicussion of practically is that if AMD improve upon Ryzen+, which is highly likely, they'll have a CPU that Intel can be worried about. They went from 3.8 to 4.4(?) Boost from Ryzen 1 to 2. Ryzen 3 can conceivably go just as far. The cores are irrelevant, the frequency, moreso.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 4, 2019)

the54thvoid said:


> I think what's being lost in this illogical dicussion of practically is that if AMD improve upon Ryzen+, which is highly likely, they'll have a CPU that Intel can be worried about. They went from 3.8 to 4.4(?) Boost from Ryzen 1 to 2. Ryzen 3 can conceivably go just as far. The cores are irrelevant, the frequency, moreso.



I am also waiting to see how Sunny Cove turns out.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 4, 2019)

Nobody lost that point...I think we all agree.

My gripe overall is lack of a need for wide cpus and they are being pushed that way instead of faster clocks and notably higher ipc. 

Ryzen went from 4 to 4.3 ghz 1800x to 2700x.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 4, 2019)

"Lisa, we need more SPEED!"

Lisa: "Done."


----------



## Super XP (Jan 4, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Intel made that mistake with Pentium 4, making a CPU slower than the one before it (Pentium 3), hoping the frequencies will go up so much that it will get faster ( It did, but just barely ).
> AMD made the mistake with Bulldozer, creating a CPU which was slower than Phenom before it, but hoping that multicore will really take off. Unfortunately, it didn't.
> 
> I doubt any of these companies will make that mistake again.


The Bulldozer was definitely something new and somewhat innovative, but AMD made the mistake and relied too much on automation. If they designed the chips as they did the Athlon 64, Bulldozer might have performed a lot better. Anyhow, Jim Keller saves the day with the Zen micro-architecture. I expect a significant IPC improvement with the upcoming 7nm ZEN, because of where its being manufactured. Can't Wait for an official AMD Announcement.

Bring on the CORES, because this is where AMD can remain quite competitive against Intel. They have the leg up at the moment, and they should capitalize on this for as long as possible.



cdawall said:


> YI was pretty disappointed that nothing after ivy Bridge actually has disconcernable performance gains. There were only what 4.5 Intel gens after that? Could take a step back and look at k6-3 as well.




Why would they be any gains? Without competition, this is what happens, Stagnation, and now look O_O Intel was caught with its pants down, and that's a good thing. It's time for AMD to show OFF the better product, ZEN, ZEN+, ZEN 2 & the future ZEN 3.,


----------



## cdawall (Jan 5, 2019)

Super XP said:


> Why would they be any gains? Without competition, this is what happens, Stagnation, and now look O_O Intel was caught with its pants down, and that's a good thing. It's time for AMD to show OFF the better product, ZEN, ZEN+, ZEN 2 & the future ZEN 3.



I wouldn't go as far to say Intel got caught watching. 

They had the new tech, this just sped up delivery. I am 100% a ok with that. You can tell they stop gapped products for whatever they have waiting on the horizon though. So maybe it was a slight surprise that ZEN was good enough to garner actually updating the tired quad core i7 MDT game.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 5, 2019)

cdawall said:


> I wouldn't go as far to say Intel got caught watching.
> 
> They had the new tech, this just sped up delivery. I am 100% a ok with that. You can tell they stop gapped products for whatever they have waiting on the horizon though. So maybe it was a slight surprise that ZEN was good enough to garner actually updating the tired quad core i7 MDT game.


Intel got caught with its pants down, in terms of they underestimated ZEN's performance.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Nobody lost that point...I think we all agree.
> 
> My gripe overall is lack of a need for wide cpus and they are being pushed that way instead of faster clocks and notably higher ipc.
> 
> Ryzen went from 4 to 4.3 ghz 1800x to 2700x.



Do you think forcing higher core counts on the market albiet at a lower clock speed might make for a boom in heavily multi threaded applications? I recall IPC gains is what drove the ghz war to a close. I think their is some merit though the "fruits" of such CPUs is seldom used at current, it could change the tide of software dev frameworks.

imo anyway.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 5, 2019)

Core count is easily scalable, IPC and clocks aren't. It's that simple.


----------



## Metroid (Jan 5, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Core count is easily scalable, IPC and clocks aren't. It's that simple.



As long as core count gives an added performance to applications that is what counts for them, as single thread performance has declined since 2000 because it seems more transistors dont equal to more performance like used to, they prefer to add more cores to the die than transistors cause for them core count is more important overall. The question is, why they dont put the the total number of transistors of the 8 cores in just one core, a larger cache and there we go, we have a monstrous 1 core cpu, question is if it will be faster than those 8 cores combined, i guess not cause they have not even tried or they have not bothered about doing that to find out or maybe they know the result is and never talked about it or maybe they even talked about somewhere, however many dont know why they dont do a monstrous single core processor anymore like used to be.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 5, 2019)

Metroid said:


> The question is, why they dont put the the total number of transistors of the 8 cores in just one core,a larger cache and there we go, we have a monstrous 1 core cpu,



I've already answered why, the scalability of something like that would be atrocious. A CPU core with dozens of ALUs and FPUs and one thread will be significantly slower than an 8 core CPU, there is simply not enough parallelism that can be extracted out of a single thread of instructions to fully max out such a core.


----------



## Wavetrex (Jan 5, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> I've already answered why, the scalability of something like that would be atrocious. A CPU core with dozens of ALUs and FPUs and one thread will be significantly slower than an 8 core CPU, there is simply not enough parallelism that can be extracted out of a single thread of instructions to fully max out such a core.


It is also the reason why SMT exists, and has existed since the age of Pentium 4 with HT.

There's only so much a line of instructions can be divided and parallelized before encountering a "conditional" instruction which splits the logic to unknown paths (in some cases somewhat known, via even more transistors called "branch predictor" *)
The problem with branch predictors is that in many cases they get it wrong, resulting in the CPU having to start over from last point which wasn't guesstimated.

Basically, in CPU design all "low hanging fruit" have been plucked a long, long time ago, and today all they can do is improve data moving latency a bit here, a bit there, extracting that last 2% of performance.
There is just no wait to make x86 based CPU's faster, or any CPUs faster (including CISC) for that matter, when talking about IPC for a single thread.
And of course frequency (clock speed) can still raise... as materials get better and manufacturing tech improves, but only a little bit... electricity (and light) have a maximum speed, it cannot be made to travel faster, not in this universe.

The *ONLY* way forward for more performance is at software level, when the software itself is designed to run in parallel on multiple cores.

It's probably possible to scale core counts in the millions in the next 100 years, even on silicon, by making three-dimensional CPU's, assuming the software is capable of dividing itself that much and tech finds a way to cool such 3D CPUs (via micro-water pipes maybe that go through the CPU? IBM has did it, experimental...)


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 5, 2019)

Solaris17 said:


> Do you think forcing higher core counts on the market albiet at a lower clock speed might make for a boom in heavily multi threaded applications? I recall IPC gains is what drove the ghz war to a close. I think their is some merit though the "fruits" of such CPUs is seldom used at current, it could change the tide of software dev frameworks.
> 
> imo anyway.


There isnt a choice with the direction things are going now...mainstream platforms are 8c/16t!

That said, weve had hex cores and octos in the market for nearly a decade now and most software still hasnt caught up to really use it. Most games are ok with 4c/8t....which have been out for over a decade. So, IMO, the table was already set for software devs to already be working on these things over the past decade but here we are...still in a world where a quad with HT is enough for 90% of users to have an overwhelmingly positive computing experience.

Edit: this isnt like ray tracing and nvidia right??? Where we have our first card and with luck devs will follow... many core cpus have been in the market for quite a long time and software is well behind the curve even today.

Since amd couldn't trump Intel at the time, they went wide with bulldozer that long ago and started a trend that devs havent been able to keep up with.



lexluthermiester said:


> For the gaming crowd, who don't do much else, yes.


This is for anyone who isnt a power user, really...not just gaming. Gaming is just a common use for many pcs. This is for the vast majority of people who have a PC in their house who email, web game, interwebs, some photo and video editing (like family vids and pics , not talking professional production.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 5, 2019)

Rumors are Tumors. Just wait till we have it in hand


----------



## cdawall (Jan 5, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Core count is easily scalable, IPC and clocks aren't. It's that simple.



Core clocks and IPC scale a lot simpler in applications than core count does. So from a design standpoint 100% easier to just strap on more cores. From a application dev standpoint I believe they might think amd is the devil.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 5, 2019)

cdawall said:


> From a application dev standpoint I believe they might think amd is the devil.



You gotta do with what you have, it's not like it's intentional that they don't increase clocks and IPC, they simply can't do it to a great extent. At least AMD improved the situation somewhat in the consumer space, better than the mostly nothing that Intel has strapped on their CPUs.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 5, 2019)

Intel hasn't needed to 'strap anything on' for the last decade. Perhaps now there is competition, we can see a return to innovation instead of complacency from both camps.

The GPU side of things REALLY needs a high-end competitor... I think we are all praying Navi is within a few/several percent of w/e NV flagship is out at the time.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I think we are all praying Navi is within a few/several percent of w/e NV flagship is out at the time.



I would be rather curios to see what's going to happen if they don't. Everyone argued for years AMD's products are crap or that they aren't doing anything and they should get rid of their GPU division, we now start to see what that's really going to be like. Now people are praying that doesn't happen ? Huh, how about that.


----------



## Vario (Jan 5, 2019)

Wish they never acquired ATI in the first place.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 5, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> I would be rather curios to see what's going to happen if they don't. Everyone argued for years AMD's products are crap or that they aren't doing anything and they should get rid of their GPU division, we now start to see what that's really going to be like. Now people are praying that doesn't happen ? Huh, how about that.


Im not sure anyone said that (until the post after yours, LOL!)... surely wasn't me!

That said, much of the same is going to happen. Continued inflated prices in part due to a lack of competition in that market.



Vya Domus said:


> Huh, how about that.


lol...always polarizing, you.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 5, 2019)

You know I am hopeful intels GPU segment is worth anything performance wise even if just a few points from AMDs cards.

With AMD aquiring ATI and Intel re-dipping into the market (assuming it isn’t vaproware) it makes me wonder if Nvidia would be willing to pay the royalties on x86 to AMD and Intel to dip into the cpu segment.

Though with windows now supporting arm it may not be needed.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 5, 2019)

I dont see NV getting into x86... That is an uphill battle if I ever saw one, honestly.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I dont see NV getting into x86... That is an uphill battle if I ever saw one, honestly.


There's two Chinese firms and a Russian one afaik that have/are doing just that so not impossible if you're backed by a Big backer.
And Navi is mainstream not high end so no highend gpu battle yet" rumoured ".
Seriously, i got an 8 core years ago to the same diatribe of there is no need, all 8 got pounded for years and that chip still meets minimum spec on all games, an Intel four cores(from that era) cannot now say the same, it lives on gaming at 1080 fine whereas no one that called me out on fx8350 buying stuck with their quad anywhere near as long , it cost £159 your daft if you think that a bad buy(6years gaming and crunching).

Bring on the cores and let the pc elite have an actual edge on joe regular i say.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Nobody lost that point...I think we all agree.
> 
> My gripe overall is lack of a need for wide cpus and they are being pushed that way instead of faster clocks and notably higher ipc.
> 
> Ryzen went from 4 to 4.3 ghz 1800x to 2700x.



So I get your point and I don't see the need to move from 8C/16T for a little while but....can you post the frequency increases from Intel over the last few generations?

Edit:  For quite a few generations, we got barely more than a few mhz here and there.  Let's just be happy that it is moving.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 5, 2019)

I agree with your sentiment as well. My point there about clockspeeds wasn't to put intel in a more positive light, but to correct a small piece of misinformation about the amd processor boost clocks.



theoneandonlymrk said:


> Seriously, i got an 8 core years ago to the same diatribe of there is no need, all 8 got pounded for years and that chip still meets minimum spec on all games, an Intel four cores(from that era) cannot now say the same, it lives on gaming at 1080 fine whereas no one that called me out on fx8350 buying stuck with their quad anywhere near as long , it cost £159 your daft if you think that a bad buy(6years gaming and crunching).


bulldozer and any newer derivative at 1080p gaming  is a slug compared to the same gen intel.

If one can actually use all the cores/threads, you have a point. But as I mentioned earlier, games are fine with 4c/8t so most Intel's of that same generation wrap up and smoke amd in most activities. That ~40% ipc deficit (w/e intel had out before ryzen is my comparison) is hard to make up. Obviously this varies by title and settings. So yeah... it works... but to what end? Its a lowered glass ceiling without a doubt.


----------



## GoldenX (Jan 5, 2019)

Zen2 could be barely better than Zen+, doesn't matter, what matters now is Intel answer to being attacked on all fronts.
It's unbelievable that AMD got to 7/10nm before Intel, after "surviving" with FX for so long. I think it's a combination of good innovation from Zen and lazy complacency from Intel.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 5, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Zen2 could be barely better than Zen+, doesn't matter, what matters now is Intel answer to being attacked on all fronts.
> It's unbelievable that AMD got to 7/10nm before Intel, after "surviving" with FX for so long. I think it's a combination of good innovation from Zen and lazy complacency from Intel.



Isn't amds 7nm comparable in size to intels 10nm?


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 5, 2019)

Vario said:


> Wish they never acquired ATI in the first place.


It's interesting to think about. Maybe things might have been better, maybe not, but let's stay on topic.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> My point there about clockspeeds wasn't to put intel in a more positive light



I wasn't trying to imply Intel favoritism and I can see why you may have thought that with the general feel and tone of the forums for the last few months.  I was more implying that we are reaching the clock limits, without going exotic, and those may not be jumping so much.  We may need to get used the wider is better mantra.

Edit



GoldenX said:


> what matters now is Intel answer to being attacked on all fronts.



I don't think that matters at all.  They have proven themselves to be arrogant and stubborn like Apple.  They are going to pay the price for a few more years until Keller's next design comes out for them.  At which point, he will be hired by AMD and we'll do this again.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 5, 2019)

cdawall said:


> Isn't amds 7nm comparable in size to intels 10nm?


Certainly is but they're not running at the same capacity or yeild and it's those that have made the difference, execution.
This certainly would all be different if Intel had hit their milestones ,Amd would have a inferior performer by far , just with loads more cores.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 5, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I wasn't trying to imply Intel favoritism and I can see why you may have thought that with the general feel and tone of the forums for the last few months.  I was more implying that we are reaching the clock limits, without going exotic, and those may not be jumping so much.  We may need to get used the wider is better mantra.


3770k - 3.5/3.9 ghz
4790k - 4/4.4 ghz
6700k - 4/4.2 ghz
7700k - 4.2/4.5 ghz
8700k (6c/12t) - 3.7/4.7 ghz (4.3 ghz turbo 6c)
9900k (8c/16t) - 3.6/5 ghz (4.7 turbo 8c)


----------



## GoldenX (Jan 5, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> It's interesting to think about. Maybe things might have been better, maybe not, but let's stay on topic.


Mmm, Zen with Turing IGP... RT and Tensor cores on CPUs...
We chose the wrong timeline.

On topic, I don't think Intel is near the clock limit, they are first of all in the thermal limit of 14#nm (that's 4 + together).


----------



## Super XP (Jan 5, 2019)

I believe *Solaris17 *makes a great point. More CPU cores equals a push for all dev's to fully concentrate on multi-cores.
More cores? Bring it on, I am all for it.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 5, 2019)

If AMD fixes what was associated with TR 1000/2000 Series in 3000 I may finally make this 5.0 FX8350 second fiddle.

Same with the Navi+, make this 290 VaporX my back up card.

Im staying optimistic but without jumping the gun.

Till we have Ryzen 3200-3800X and Threadripper 3920-3990WX in hand everything is in speculation.


----------



## The Lighthouse (Jan 5, 2019)

People at Korean hardware forums/site are saying now distributors just got "sample for third generation Ryzen", and also there is already an embargo going on which will be lifted on... obviously Jan 9.

Yes, so us Koreans refer Zen+ as second generation and Zen 2 as third generation. So it means Korean distributors got their Zen 2 sample.

I am not sure whether this is just yet another engineering sample, or the sample that is ready for retail. Posts simply say "sample", nothing more.

Appearantly, the distributers are extremely impressed with the performance already, with one saying "beyond incredible". Take this with a grain of salt regarding performance.

No mention of detailed information such as number of cores or clocks.


But one thing seems very certain; we are going to see Zen 2 much earlier than anticipated. I thought it would be Q2 2019 but it seems it is coming out much earlier.

Well, 5 more days.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 5, 2019)

I don't think consumer Zen 2 is anywhere close to release but then again I thought the same about EPYC.


----------



## Vario (Jan 5, 2019)

GoldenX said:


> Zen2 could be barely better than Zen+, doesn't matter, what matters now is Intel answer to being attacked on all fronts.
> It's unbelievable that AMD got to 7/10nm before Intel, after "surviving" with FX for so long. I think it's a combination of good innovation from Zen and lazy complacency from Intel.



No it is because it is the 7nm TSMC process not an AMD in house process.   Credit is due to TSMC.  Furthermore, Intel's 10nm process is about the same size.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> 3770k - 3.5/3.9 ghz
> 4790k - 4/4.4 ghz
> 6700k - 4/4.2 ghz
> 7700k - 4.2/4.5 ghz
> ...



This shows me that the expected frequency jumps are right inline with that to expect.  Especially so if some of these leaks are true.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 5, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> This shows me that the expected frequency jumps are right inline with that to expect.  Especially so if some of these leaks are true.



So why not 5.0 on all 8 cores?


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 5, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> This shows me that the expected frequency jumps are right inline with that to expect.  Especially so if some of these leaks are true.


Intel's turbo is telling you what AMD's boost will be... how does that work? 


eidairaman1 said:


> So why not 5.0 on all 8 cores?


most will do so with decent cooling already. Out of the box...too much power and no overhead doesnt make for a consumer friendly cpu.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Intel's turbo is telling you what AMD's boost will be... how does that work?
> most will do so with decent cooling already. Out of the box...too much power and no overhead doesnt make for a consumer friendly cpu.



Reminds me of the 9590.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 5, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> Reminds me of the 9590.


The 220W 4.7 ghz highly binned hotplate? Me too!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 5, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> The 220W 4.7 ghz highly binned hotplate? Me too!



Clock bins, look closely at my sig lol.


----------



## phill (Jan 5, 2019)

Seen some news pop up...  I'm still holding out for TPU's review, feel free to throw me one too so I can review it!!  

https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-3000-series-matisse-specs,news-59660.html

Taken from Toms site, the link above -


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 5, 2019)

I'll settle for a 3600x for the 4.8ghz boost (if true of course) and will likely OC all cores to this if possible though should be going off previous Ryzen generations, I currently have a 1600@ 3.9/4.0ghz though have desperately wanted a 4.5ghz+ clock speed which Ryzen+ still couldn't acheive.

I'd still be more than happy with 6c/12t though, can't see them cannabalising the low end 4c/8t parts which at a higher clock speed will still be fantastic entry level CPU or indeed encroaching on the HEDT TR parts with a mainstream 16c/32t mainstream desktop CPU though I could be wrong.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 5, 2019)

That 3700X or whatever is going to be called, if real, will sell like hot cakes.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 5, 2019)

3600x will be the big seller. That many cores/threads + whatever IPC increases and boosting to 4.8 GHz (and assuming we can OC to that boost and smidge beyond) + cheap...  maybe we'll see Intel pricing drop back to reality. 

Though 12/16c and 24/32t on the mainstream makes me want to spit up a bit, lol.


----------



## GoldenX (Jan 5, 2019)

12 threads is enough for me, just give me 1k shaders of Vega IGP.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 6, 2019)

I'll take whichever one has the higher boost clocks, i dont need more than 8 cores


----------



## Mats (Jan 6, 2019)

Metroid said:


> As we can see, Intel based that roadmap on ryzen rather than giving consumers what they deserved.


It's all up for speculation. It could just as well be the other way around.

AMD launched a 6 core CPU back in 2010, and ~8 core in 2011. Intel simply didn't have to know about Zen, everything pointed towards >4 cores anyway.
Intel were stuck with 14 nm though, and that was the big issue. *Those who say that Intel was just lazy with going 10 nm are the same naive people who say "bye byeeee/Game over AMD/Nvidia/Intel!!!1!" at least once a week.*
Intel needed to get beyond 14 nm so bad, because even if the competition was down, they still needed to sell new CPU's regardless. 
Now that the competition is back, guess what? Intel still doesn't have 10 nm, so much for laziness... 

This is coming from me who has always preferred AMD, although my 2600K was too cheap to pass up.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 6, 2019)

Vario said:


> No it is because it is the 7nm TSMC process not an AMD in house process.   Credit is due to TSMC.  Furthermore, Intel's 10nm process is about the same size.


I've made the exact same point, ZEN via *7nm TSMC* process is not going to be a basic upgrade to speed, efficiency etc.,
I believe its going to be somewhat significant. The Process matters a lot.


----------



## moproblems99 (Jan 6, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Intel's turbo is telling you what AMD's boost will be... how does that work?



Just simply looking at the increases between generations for each company.  +300MHz has been normal.  Interesting to see if they can get anything above that.


----------



## Vario (Jan 6, 2019)

phill said:


> Seen some news pop up...  I'm still holding out for TPU's review, feel free to throw me one too so I can review it!!
> 
> https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/amd-ryzen-3000-series-matisse-specs,news-59660.html
> 
> ...


Hopefully the cheaper and lower core count ones will overclock as high as the more expensive ones.  The only thing I care about, as long as it has at least 6 cores, is the gaming performance and that is dependent on high single thread speed / high frequency.  If the 6 or 8 core goes as high as 5.1 that would be pretty nice.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 6, 2019)

The Ryzen 7 3700X currently looks like the beast that's going to further turn the tides for AMD. If AMD sticks to the specs and price, PURE WIN WIN in my opinion. 

The question is will a X570 chipset be released? I think YES.

Quote:
*AMD X570 PCH For AM4 Platform and Next-Gen Ryzen 3000 Series CPUs Allegedly Leak Out – The First Consumer Platform To Support PCIe Gen 4.0*


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 6, 2019)

If the 3700x is their big seller, I've lost faith in the tech buying masses. Why not save $100 and still have more cores and threads that will ever be useful during its lifespan.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 6, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I've lost faith in the tech buying masses.



It's the same sentiment as to when someone goes out and pays 500$ for a 9900K to get 300fps in Fortnite instead of 250 with a 2700X. Same thing really, if one is OK why wouldn't this be ? You gotta also look at this through the scope of all those people that would like to upgrade from their existing AM4 CPU. Buying anything below 12c would be a waste.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 6, 2019)

The sentiment is the uneducated consumer sees more cores and thinks it's better for them. While that statement as a whole is true, there are few who can UTILIZE the cores and actually warrant spending more.  Adding more cores isnt an upgrade if they arent utilized. 

An 8c/16t cpu bought today will last through it's useful lifespan. Unless users NEED the cores and UTILIZE them, spending more isnt worth it.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 6, 2019)




----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 6, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> The sentiment is the uneducated consumer sees more cores and thinks it's better for them. While that statement as a whole is true, there are few who can UTILIZE the cores and actually warrant spending more.  Adding more cores isnt an upgrade if they arent utilized.



You have a particular fetish for this "no more cores we don't need them" thing. No matter how much you'll moan, that's where everyone is heading. Even the grand standing champion of single thread performance, Intel.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 6, 2019)

Fetish? Lol... cute!

Yeah, clearly I dont like it going in that direction. I'm not trying to stop it...I obviously cant. But I'll speak my mind on it regardless. 

"Everyone" is heading there because people are feeble when it comes to tech and doesn't know a 4c/8t cpu is fine with 6c/12t being plenty for their useful lifespan. If you can use more cores/threads, more is helpful. Like RAM....if you cant use it and arent close to maxing it out, more wont help! And most users even here cant max out a hex.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 6, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Fetish? Lol... cute!
> 
> Yeah, clearly I dont like it going in that direction. I'm not trying to stop it...I obviously cant. But I'll speak my mind on it regardless.
> 
> "Everyone" is heading there because people are feeble when it comes to tech and doesn't know a 4c/8t cpu is fine with 6c/12t being plenty for their useful lifespan. If you can use more cores/threads, more is helpful. Like RAM....if you cant use it and arent close to maxing it out, more wont help! And most users even here cant max out a hex.



Yep exactly this.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 6, 2019)

I've reiterated this many times with you. You just don't want to accept the fact that as of now this is the only way to get extra performance to consumers. Let's just say it would be very tough for Intel and AMD to keep selling 4c/8t CPUs that are barley any faster generation to generation to people, forever.

People are stupid but not stupid enough to not realize that it is better to get something that is significantly faster at least in one area as opposed to sticking with the same thing.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 6, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> If the 3700x is their big seller, I've lost faith in the tech buying masses. Why not save $100 and still have more cores and threads that will ever be useful during its lifespan.


I have to disagree. 
But of course, you are entitled to your opinion. lol


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 6, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> I've reiterated this many times with you. You just don't want to accept the fact that as of now this is the only way to get extra performance to consumers. Let's just say it would be very though for Intel and AMD to keep selling 4c/8t CPU that are barley any faster generation to generation to people, forever.
> 
> People are stupid but not stupid enough to not realize that it is better to get something that is significantly faster at least in one area as opposed to sticking with the same thing.


I accept that fact... it doesnt mean I have to like,support the direction, or pipe down because you may be tired of hearing it. There is an ignore button.  

People are that stupid. Look what amd had to back in the day to their naming convention for Pete's sake. They had to label their processors with a number that was an approximate performance value compared to Intel's clockspeeds because consumers cant figure it out... Athlon 64 x2 "4200+"

Nothing has changed here....the general buying public are not informed consumers and think more cores is better....and they are, but ONLY IF THEY CAN BE UTILZED.



Super XP said:


> I have to disagree.
> But of course, you are entitled to your opinion. lol


Why do you disagree? What is your reasoning?


----------



## Super XP (Jan 6, 2019)

More Cores? Bring it on, not only does Windows 10 benefit from more cores, but so does our daily needs, in terms of multi-tasking. For AMD, at this time they have the upper hand in providing more cores, something Intel can't currently do at the moment. They need to take full advantage of this opportunity. More cores will also help push further development into utilizing multi-cores. Not only in PC Gaming, but everything else too.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 6, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> but ONLY IF THEY CAN BE UTILZED.



*THEY ARE UTILIZED. *

Seriously, stop it. Open up Task Manager and look at the number of threads in execution, fire up a game and notice how many hundreds of threads are spawned. Guess what, Windows schedules those on no matter how many cores there are (with a few exceptions). More cores bring benefits even with no explicit multi-threading. Modern software is designed like that.

Are there diminishing returns ? Sure, but don't question whether they can be utilized or not, the answer to that is clear and definitive.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 6, 2019)

Super XP said:


> More Cores? Bring it on, not only does Windows 10 benefit from more cores, but so does our daily needs, in terms of multi-tasking. For AMD, at this time they have the upper hand in providing more cores, something Intel can't currently do at the moment. They need to take full advantage of this opportunity. More cores will also help push further development into utilizing multi-cores. Not only in PC Gaming, but everything else too.



Benefits in w10... ok... to what end??? Sitting in desktop and doing web and light work, barely a core is tickled. Not sure what you mean here...

Multi tasking... agree.. but how many are tapping out hex cores? A few. Octos? Even less...

I hope you are right on multithreaded development because that decade since quads have been on the market and hex/octos been here for 8, surely hasnt spurned much considering 95% of PC users will be satisfied with a 6c/12t machine for the next several years. If that rate of development increases, significantly, the more cores thing has a point whenever that time arrives.



Vya Domus said:


> *THEY ARE UTILIZED. *


used and utilized mean two different things. 

It's clear they can be used...utilized though...


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 6, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> used and utilized mean two different things.



You're hilarious, love ya.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 6, 2019)

I'm all for innovative and technological advancements in CPU Architecture. This includes many more cores per socket. This isn't the 1980's, today people utilize desktops, notebooks and laptops that can and will benefit from a lot more Cores.

My Work Laptop, an Intel based 4 core (8 thread) is a dogs breakfast.  Annoyingly too slow for Excel, Word and Adobe document creation, saving, altering etc., viewing YouTube for music while I work, sure it work's but also buffers too much via 1080p. And our Internet speed is magnitudes fast. Case in Point


----------



## cdawall (Jan 6, 2019)

Super XP said:


> I'm all for innovative and technological advancements in CPU Architecture. This includes many more cores per socket. This isn't the 1980's, today people utilize desktops, notebooks and laptops that can and will benefit from a lot more Cores.
> 
> My Work Laptop, an Intel based 4 core (8 thread) is a dogs breakfast.  Annoyingly too slow for Excel, Word and Adobe document creation, saving, altering etc., viewing YouTube for music while I work, sure it work's but also buffers too much via 1080p. And our Internet speed is magnitudes fast. Case in Point



That's weird my dual core 4 thread 5th Gen i7 doesn't have a single one of those issues.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 6, 2019)

cdawall said:


> That's weird my dual core 4 thread 5th Gen i7 doesn't have a single one of those issues.


I was going to say the same thing... my 5th gen 2c/4t can do those things. No buffering issues with YT or twitch while I'm plugging away in excel, word, paint.net...wordpress via the web. It isnt the fastest thing, but, I wouldn't call it dog doo either.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 6, 2019)

cdawall said:


> That's weird my dual core 4 thread 5th Gen i7 doesn't have a single one of those issues.


Is it a work computer or a personal computer. Not sure if it's because the file sizes I work with are between 15MB up to 30MB plus. There's also a lot of corporate BS Installed running in the background.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 6, 2019)

Super XP said:


> There's also a lot of corporate BS Installed running in the background.



if it's encrypted that would explain it all.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 6, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> if it's encrypted that would explain it all.


Working for the government, ya I believe everything we do is encrypted. Though I've done some work on my home gaming PC and never ran into such slow down issues.


----------



## Deleted member 158293 (Jan 6, 2019)

More cores opens soooooo many possibilities to software developers which they didn't have before and had to rely on software "tricks" and whatnot.

With 16+ cores in the hands of developers for the last couple years as mainstream parts, software development looks promising indeed in addition to the enhanced multitasking of even small home servers!


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 6, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I was going to say the same thing... my 5th gen 2c/4t can do those things. No buffering issues with YT or twitch while I'm plugging away in excel, word, paint.net...wordpress via the web. It isnt the fastest thing, but, I wouldn't call it dog doo either.


It's got to be quite an individual statement ,that i mean, i consider any system running it's Os on  HDD to be antiquated now but I'll admit they are not useless, but they are to me, genuinely hate working on them.
So a ok machine to you ,might not seem ok to me and vice versa.
Like at this moment some just couldn't gsme on Ryzen, those extra fps intel gives make life complete , me , not so much since im always juggling finances, what I can afford has the most sway.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 6, 2019)

Indeed. I clearly think it isnt "dog breakfast". Lol.

That laptop also has an ssd upgrade.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 6, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> It's got to be quite an individual statement ,that i mean, i consider any system running it's Os on HDD to be antiquated now but I'll admit they are not useless, but they are to me, genuinely hate working on them.
> So a ok machine to you ,might not seem ok to me and vice versa.


The latest 3.5" 7200 and 10k rpm drives are very smooth. Once into Windows you really don't notice much difference between them and SSD's


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 6, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> The latest 3.5" 7200 and 10k rpm drives are very smooth. Once into Windows you really don't notice much difference between them and SSD's


They have massive caches, they have not increased platter read speeds that much and while I understand your point im not typically asked to test the web browsing ability or word processing features of customers PC's, I have waited so freaking long for something to happen all told ,you cannot convince me they're not poor.
I held back their because i can't get that life back it angers me.
Stop being tight ,buy an ssd they are £20


----------



## cdawall (Jan 6, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I was going to say the same thing... my 5th gen 2c/4t can do those things. No buffering issues with YT or twitch while I'm plugging away in excel, word, paint.net...wordpress via the web. It isnt the fastest thing, but, I wouldn't call it dog doo either.



I have played with quite a few things on mine without issue. I actually like the little IRIS pro fella my 4258U has.



Super XP said:


> Is it a work computer or a personal computer. Not sure if it's because the file sizes I work with are between 15MB up to 30MB plus. There's also a lot of corporate BS Installed running in the background.



Yea I used it as a work machine when I ran a school a while back have two of them one is a late 2013 MBP with a i5 4258U/8GB/512GB SSD which did everything without an issue. The other a Lenovo Thinkpad Yoga with a i7 5500U/8GB/512GB SSD/500GB SSD. Both handled excel documents that were massive as well as quickbooks etc. That being said I did not have anything running in the background on either.


----------



## Metroid (Jan 6, 2019)

Any software nowadays consume way more cpu than used to be, hence why people need more cores because software developers are going in that direction, yes, it is that simple.  I myself have been stuck for few weeks with a celeron G3930, 2 cores, 2 threads, firefox opened with many tabs working and guess what 69% or almost 1 core and half and is only firefox, opening an audio player and using it, consumes more 3%, that is already 72% and this is without any backgrounds services of any kind, most things on windows 10 are manually disabled.  All the games I have tried with it were maxed out, some months ago i was playing with a i7 4770 and was impressed how software changed to accommodate the more cores philosophy. i7 4770 was not quite like the G3930 but still few things maxed out the 8 threads. The way things are going, devs are using the more core the more room procedure a lot more often, before software used to be more efficient, i dont see that happening anymore. The only drawback I see is people with processors with less than 4 cores, 4 cores will not be enough in not a distant future and the way things are, I see it will get worse from here on.

Also I remember when I bought the i7 920 in the end of 2008, the only thing that could run all 8 threads at once was a chess boardgame and that was a test game. The only there was at that time. Soon game engines like unreal or havoc will be using all 8 cores or 16 threads by default.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 6, 2019)

Wait what? Why are discussing HDDs now?


Anyway looks like 12C24T might be the final form of RyZen 3XXX flagship this round.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 6, 2019)

Because large core count systems are now becoming normal, we should see a boom in multithreading support in larger game engines


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 6, 2019)

theoneandonlymrk said:


> Stop being tight ,buy an ssd they are £20


Oh I have many, just saying that if I had no other choice, using an HDD as a boot drive again would be doable.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 6, 2019)

Mussels said:


> Because large core count systems are now becoming normal, we should see a boom in multithreading support in larger game engines


well... steam shows like 80% of users are on a quad or less. 10% hex core and more cores was 1% or significantly less. I'm not sure where you're drawing the line with large core counts though. They (hex) have been around for 8 years and little adaptation... sweet spot is a hex + ht imo.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 6, 2019)

Don't worry, those statistics are about to dramatically change up in a year or two. There's still going to plenty of weak laptop CPUs around skewing those numbers, but on the desktop things are changing, rapidly. Just in the past year alone most people that I know have stepped up to either an 8 core or a 6 core.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 6, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Don't worry, those statistics are about to dramatically change up in a year or two. There's still going to plenty of weak laptop CPUs around skewing those numbers, but on the desktop things are changing, rapidly. Just in the past year alone most people that I know have stepped up to either an 8 core or a 6 core.



How many hundreds of thousands of people do you know? That's what it is going to take to change the steam survey.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 6, 2019)

I'm sure we will. I have to wonder how fast the take up will be though. 10% share in eight years I wouldn't call quick. I'd also expect it to swell from the hex on up. The rise of the quad to its status wasn't quick either.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 6, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I'm sure we will. I have to wonder how fast the take up will be though. 10% share in eight years I wouldn't call quick. I'd also expect it to swell from the hex on up. The rise of the quad to its status wasn't quick either.



Correct it took a very very long to time usurp the dominance of the P4


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 6, 2019)

cdawall said:


> That's what it is going to take to change the steam survey.



We'll see, the entry point has been lowered dramatically. Hell even 6 core CPUs in laptops have started to become commonplace at the ~1000 dollar price point. Those weren't even a thing a year ago, there's a big shift happening as we speak.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 7, 2019)

Consoles have been using 8 threads since xbone and PS4, this isn't a trend that will go away (don't be surprised to see a AMD 8c/16t PS5 or xbox next gen) for all those saying 4c/8t has been enough for many years... it has been that way since AMD couldn't compete and that's all Intel released aside from HEDT so yes, games have been geared around quad cores for 10 years cause there wasn't anything else available to the masses (HEDT is a niche). Besides you don't have to compile software to use 100 threads, soon the OS will assign as much CPU power spread across as many threads as needed to any game/software. This is already starting to happen with Windows 10, though granted it still needs some work.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 7, 2019)

I thought Amd brought out the first hex core like 8 years ago in the phenom II x6. It was also more affordable per core than Intel at the time. Its issue was being slower though.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> I thought Amd brought out the first hex core like 8 years ago in the phenom II x6. It was also more affordable per core than Intel at the time. Its issue was being slower though.


Correct, the problem was that phenom II was already struggling with the intro of C2d/c2q and just didnt have the ipc to keep up so the PII x6 was a feeble attempt to try and keep up with Intel's superior architecture which it didn't and then came nehalem and well.... the rest is history so to speak as the core i series blew away everything AMD had and continued to do so for the next 5-6 years or whatever.. Thank god for Ryzen.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 7, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> We'll see, the entry point has been lowered dramatically. Hell even 6 core CPUs in laptops have started to become commonplace at the ~1000 dollar price point. Those weren't even a thing a year ago, there's a big shift happening as we speak.



Doesn't change what I said. It will still take time for that to shift. Remember even after C2Q was released the most common CPU for steam was a P4HT. That lasted for like 5-10 years. Weeding out all of the quad cores will be much of the same thing. People are still buying 4 core chips as we speak to add onto the ones that already have them and will not be upgrading for 3-5 years.


----------



## Metroid (Jan 7, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Consoles have been using 8 threads since xbone and PS4, this isn't a trend that will go away (don't be surprised to see a AMD 8c/16t PS5 or xbox next gen) for all those saying 4c/8t has been enough for many years... it has been that way since AMD couldn't compete and that's all Intel released aside from HEDT so yes, games have been geared around quad cores for 10 years cause there wasn't anything else available to the masses (HEDT is a niche). Besides you don't have to compile software to use 100 threads, soon the OS will assign as much CPU power spread across as many threads as needed to any game/software. This is already starting to happen with Windows 10, though granted it still needs some work.



This, it needs a lot of work from Microsoft in order to make windows 10 efficient on handling threads, software devs know multi threading their things is not easy, time consuming, very problematic, lot of bugs on the fly that could occur,  hence why steam in not a instant future will only support windows 10 that has this update, steam is not supporting windows xp or vista anymore and soon windows 7 is dead as well.


----------



## Mats (Jan 7, 2019)

_*"Tech journalists say Ryzen 3000 series will not use Rome's new chiplet design"*_

Dunno if this has been posted, or how much salt is required. If true, we don't have to worry about those kind of latencies.

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Tech-...t-use-Rome-s-new-chiplet-design.392016.0.html


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 7, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Just in the past year alone most people that I know have stepped up to either an 8 core or a 6 core.


I'm seeing this trend as well for about the last 18 months. Ryzen has been a big part of that.



EarthDog said:


> I thought Amd brought out the first hex core like 8 years ago in the phenom II x6. It was also more affordable per core than Intel at the time. Its issue was being slower though.


Intel was first to market with the Hex core, the Xeons.


----------



## phill (Jan 7, 2019)

I agree, even thought I bought a 5960X before Ryzen released, all that I will promise to buy myself now is Ryzen 7 or 9 CPUs.  If I go the Threadripper route, it will be a just because.  

AMD have come on miles and I've nothing for respect for them.  That and the fact I really wouldn't hold back buying one now.  I just look forward to TPU getting the review samples through, I hope it all goes the way we all hope (or dream if it's not too strong a word...) it's going to go for them.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 7, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Intel was first to market with the Hex core, the Xeons.


Talking mainstream/hedt here... not server/xeon/opteron.


----------



## Vario (Jan 7, 2019)

NdMk2o1o said:


> Correct, the problem was that phenom II was already struggling with the intro of C2d/c2q and just didnt have the ipc to keep up so the PII x6 was a feeble attempt to try and keep up with Intel's superior architecture which it didn't and then came nehalem and well.... the rest is history so to speak as the core i series blew away everything AMD had and continued to do so for the next 5-6 years or whatever.. Thank god for Ryzen.


The Phenom II was comparable and in some cases better than C2Q.  It was the Phenom that was behind.  Phenom II x4 was released 2009 x6 2010, C2Q was released 07.  Phenom (one) was released 07.  The C2Q didn't intro into Phenom, Phenom was after C2Q.


----------



## Vayra86 (Jan 7, 2019)

cdawall said:


> Doesn't change what I said. It will still take time for that to shift. Remember even after C2Q was released the most common CPU for steam was a P4HT. That lasted for like 5-10 years. Weeding out all of the quad cores will be much of the same thing. People are still buying 4 core chips as we speak to add onto the ones that already have them and will not be upgrading for 3-5 years.



Spot on. Core count increases are best applied _very slowly. _I'm totally not seeing the use of more than 6 cores at this point for consumer rigs. Software optimizes around the mainstream anyway.


----------



## Mats (Jan 7, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> Talking mainstream/hedt here... not server/xeon/opteron.


1090T january 2010

i7 980X march 2010


Can't believe it's 9 years ago.


----------



## Metroid (Jan 7, 2019)

Vario said:


> The Phenom II was comparable and in some cases better than C2Q.  It was the Phenom that was behind.  Phenom II x4 was released 2009 x6 2010, C2Q was released 07.  Phenom (one) was released 07.  The C2Q didn't intro into Phenom, Phenom was after C2Q.



As I stopped using amd cpus since 2004, i remember I checked that phenom on many places and I really thought it was a tri core using 3 more threads and a marketing gimmick from amd, few days ago somebody said it was a real 6 cores and went looking on it and it was really a six core, although in many places they said it was a tri core at that time and even some places today they say that. If I really knew it was a true 6 cores i would have bought cause the price was very good, price performance was better than intel overall. Intel's 6 cores cpu was very expensive at that time, more than $1000.


----------



## Mats (Jan 7, 2019)

Metroid said:


> As I stopped using amd cpus since 2004, i remember I checked that phenom on many places and I really thought it was a tri core using 3 more threads and a marketing gimmick from amd,


That sounds like FX/Bulldozer to me. Phenom II had real cores, basically an Athlon X2 with L3 cache and more cores. The same goes for Phenom I.


----------



## Vario (Jan 7, 2019)

Metroid said:


> As I stopped using amd cpus since 2004, i remember I checked that phenom on many places and I really thought it was a tri core using 3 more threads and a marketing gimmick from amd, few days ago somebody said it was a real 6 cores and went looking on it and it was really a six core, although in many places they said it was a tri core at that time and even some places today they say that. If I really knew it was a true 6 cores i would have bought cause the price was very good, price performance was better than intel overall. Intel's 6 cores cpu was very expensive at that time, more than $1000.



They had a 3 core Heka, was often a defective (or sometimes functional and unlockable) quad deneb K10 phenom II that was locked into a triple core.  It represented a budget option.  The Phenom II was a good capable processor.   FX Bulldozer was the turning point where they fell seriously behind for many years until today's Ryzen closed the gap.  First gen FX was even slower than Phenom II at the same clock.
https://www.anandtech.com/show/2832/8


----------



## toyo (Jan 7, 2019)

Really hard not to get excited by this, if true, which it sure seems like it. Makes my 8700K seem like an i3. Don't mind it, hopefully by the time new cheaper GPUs get made on 7nm and Intel answers these Ryzens, it will finally be reasonable to upgrade from a financial perspective.


----------



## lsevald (Jan 8, 2019)

8 physical cores or more makes the most sense to me since we have had 8 separate running threads available in our gaming computers for many years now. Thinking developers might target that number when they need as many cores as possible for say High or Ultra quality in a game. If there is a 2-300MHz penalty to go 12 cores or more, I might prefer a 8c/16t cpu.

One of the things I really appreciated the last couple of years, is how stable my computers have been. If this is due to win7/10 or mature Intel based hw I don't know. Last time I used AMD, I was on Win XP. Hopefully this won't change if I upgrade to an AMD based PC next year


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 8, 2019)

lsevald said:


> Thinking developers might target that number when they need as many cores as possible for say High or Ultra quality in a game.


There's just one small flaw with that logic; Most games need far more GPU processing power than CPU for graphical quality. Thus the need for powerful GPU's.


----------



## robot zombie (Jan 8, 2019)

Personally, I think 6 cores is killer for your average "desktop" user. I'm routinely astounded at the sheer range/number of tasks my 2600 will tackle simultaneously without a single hiccup. I get so much more done, not just in work, but leisure, too. I have a Ryzen 3 machine AND a 2nd gen Ryzen 5. I can do the same things on either, but the difference in how I operate is there. The flexibility of the 2600 is great, even if you're not an enthusiast concerned about processing capability. App to app, Windows 10 makes great use of these 12 threads, and little by little, apps and games are getting better optimized to use those capabilities internally the way Win10 already does _across_ apps and the system as a whole.

It's not so much getting things done faster with better multi-threading imo (that may be more attainable later, again with better in-app optimization) right now, it's the transition from task to task - not having to wait for this to finish before you start that. And starting this not bogging down the "that" you already have going. It just makes everything more seamless and stable. Everyone at least beyond gramgramz and her solitaire can benefit. Most use their PC's for a wide range of tasks. Some cannot be combined, and others you don't really need to, but that doesn't mean that being able to combine more tasks doesn't ever come in handy. In fact, I think it's always gonna improve one's experience on the machine, even if it's not in a way that can be reliably benched. It's one of those things where you try to go back and the difference becomes hard to ignore.

It's like... ...it may be hard to see the value in that now, but when hardware capabilities increase in novel ways, people often adapt new habits around them in unexpected ways. And then devs see that and better gear their software to streamline that way of operating. And little by little the way we do things gets better in ways nobody ever sees coming. To that's part of what makes tech so cool, to me, anyway. Discovery. Newer, better paths to the same goals.

And the thing is, while 4 cores is more than serviceable, 6 or even 8 is still a perceptibly appreciable improvement. It's subtle but important. You don't realize where multitasking capabilities are holding you back until you're free to surpass what you're used to, because you've trained yourself to operate comfortably within your hardware's limitations. And that's not to say that quad cores are BAD at multitasking by any stretch. If that is what's available to you and is enough for you to have a good flow doing whatever it is you do, that's what you should go with. But what if you could have better flexibility for less money at little to no compromise on the single-core performance you need?

I mean, a lot more can be done with cross-core stuff than has been yet, while clocks and IPC have been smashing the same wall for so long that we're about to hit the point where there will be little to no variation between best and worst options on that front. It's becoming less meaningful of a comparison. With improvement being so stagnant there, multi-core aspects will naturally become the distinguishing features, even if not with Ryzen 3. That time is coming.

It's one thing when it costs significantly more - but that falls apart when you look at something like the 2600, which gives you 6c/12t at perfectly reasonable clocks/ipc for ~160 dollars. There are situations in that spot where I can see even a typical user benefiting more from having something like that than say a blistering-fast quad-core for another chunk of paper. Those 12 threads may be a screen door on a submarine, but the 6 physical cores are absolutely getting used over the course of the machine's service life. And it probably costs a little less.

With speed and ipc there are diminishing returns, too. Just like with crazy-high core counts, not everyone will be able to notice or make use of a couple bumps there. Not all of us are high-refresh-rate gamers or doing heavily CPU-bound rendering or whatever. Not everything runs appreciably better/more stable just because a CPU happens to be that much faster, even if the difference is measurable. Many things are already fast or simply don't speed up much more, much like nvme SSD's are not always the upgrade you'd think they'd be coming from a 4x slower SATA SSD. I think its wise to ask yourself whether you really need something that is singularly fast over something maybe a bit more flexible and all-around more steady and efficient. Gas-guzzler or diesel?

The way I see it, we're moving in a direction where conversations about whether we need more cores will be nullified, likely should we ever have available to us CPU's that both have more cores and at least match the clocks/ipc of the lower-core-count speedsters of yesterday aaand possibly even be a better value. Whether you think you need the cores or not, you benefit. Dual-cores become dinosaurs, while fast quad cores become entry level! Even if it's a luxury for you, that luxury comes free, or because it comes free, what you need is now available for less in order to still compete and sell.

That, to me, is the ideal form of progress in tech. Over time, you get better performance for what you pay while yesterday's best goes down in value simply by merit of comparison to what is available now. That's how it should be. Obsolescence through innovation. That is why I think people are getting so excited. Most are more than happy to pay what new tech is worth, but nobody wants to spend the same money they spent on their last iteration of a part to get a sidegrade, or pay for new iteration that performs as well as the tier above the last gen version did for the same money that hardware ran you when it was new. Modern computing got to where it is today because of advancements towards making better tech cost less.

We'll see. For me, the excitement isn't over the fact that I can have more cores for my money. Now that I have them, I'm never going back, but honestly what I think would be truly awesome to see would be AMD actually competing with Intel on efficiency, clocks, AND raw ipc, core counts be damned. Throw a couple extra cores per price bracket on top and you will have some seeriously competitive offerings.

I dunno, to me it represents interesting possibilities. There are legit arguments to be had over whether everyone needs a $300 8-core. But what about a $240 6-core? Or a $150-$170 4c/8t that's fast enough to game and still a kickin multitasker? If this is truly the new precedent, the question becomes not "Do we need these cores?" but instead "What will we do with all of these cores?" Lotta potential usage there - but then, actually it doesn't matter much right now. The only real justification needed for the market to take it in is price and all-around performance, multi and otherwise. That's the appeal being garnered here - the hope is that the merit of it goes well beyond more cores.

Sometimes I think part of the critical attitude towards "moar coarszz!" comes from the fact that AMD tried to push that agenda one before, and the things were hot garbage for the money... ...I mean they were really very hot. Completely lopsided performance and usage profiles. Not putting words in anyone's mouth, but there's gotta be a sour taste there for those who remember. This time around it's more than a nice idea though. They've already started to deliver with Zen+. That's your proof of concept. And with a significant node shrink on top of refinements to an already known-good design, I don't see why Zen 2 wouldn't be a very nicely-balanced bag of chips. It's all gonna come down to pricing. And with the jump to 7nm, that really could go either way.

Like I said, it's about what's available to you for the money. I'm very interested in seeing if AMD doesn't turn around and provide many people the most suitable options available for the money, cores notwithstanding. They do that, they win this battle. And then maybe Intel comes back with something good!


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 8, 2019)

Mats said:


> 1090T january 2010
> 
> i7 980X march 2010
> 
> ...


So...yeah... 9 years and 10% adoption. While 80% use quad or less.


----------



## TheoneandonlyMrK (Jan 8, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> So...yeah... 9 years and 10% adoption. While 80% use quad or less.


I think the threads popping up on here(site) with quads, intels quads having issues in games is proof enough quads are approaching eol for gaming, yes those users could Oc or update the cpu but ht adds effective cores , fours been moving towards the edge a while, this year its getting to it imho.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 8, 2019)

As I've said around the site, a hex is the sweet spot now. 4c/8t handles the VAST majority of games. Only a small handful show improvements with more cores and I can think of one that scales with more than 8.

That said, 8c/16t is incredibly futureproof if bought. More is a waste of money and why I'm annoyed we see more from amd on mainstream


----------



## cdawall (Jan 8, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> As I've said around the site, a hex is the sweet spot now. 4c/8t handles the VAST majority of games. Only a small handful show improvements with more cores and I can think of one that scales with more than 8.
> 
> That said, 8c/16t is incredibly futureproof if bought. More is a waste of money and why I'm annoyed we see more from amd on mainstream



Yea well everyone needs that new 3990wx or whatever with 64/128. I know I do. How else will I browse TPU?


----------



## robot zombie (Jan 8, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> As I've said around the site, a hex is the sweet spot now. 4c/8t handles the VAST majority of games. Only a small handful show improvements with more cores and I can think of one that scales with more than 8.
> 
> That said, 8c/16t is incredibly futureproof if bought. More is a waste of money and why I'm annoyed we see more from amd on mainstream


No, you're absolutely right.

I see both sides of it though. More than 8 might be a waste but those being more prevalent bodes well for the availability of what is actually needed in most cases. The presence of 12, 24, 1000, whatever as a high-end, premium option places the now ideal 6 completely in the midrange... the value of having them decreases this way, and still the performance is good and usable.

I think most people, even those less in the know will be looking at 8, max. Everyone knows the rest are niche products. I think AMD knows that too, just from looking at where their bread has been buttered this past year.

So to me if they wanna put out a few chips with crazy core counts, let them. People are only willing to go so far for their needs. The value-availability tradeoff comes into play. Just because you can have more doesnt mean youll take it. It feels better to be able to get what you optimally need for less than it does to spend extravagantly just because the market is sudenly such that it is now possible to do so. Most people will take the former when asked.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 8, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> View attachment 114237



he was talking monitor resolution


----------



## Super XP (Jan 9, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> There's just one small flaw with that logic; Most games need far more GPU processing power than CPU for graphical quality. Thus the need for powerful GPU's.


The CPU tells the GPU what to do, i.e., passes information to the GPU in most games I believe. 
But would be interesting if somehow some GPU tasks such as Physics could be offloaded to the CPU. The CPU with all its cores have muscle that can be utilized efficiently. 
Let the GPU deal with all the ultra high images and the like.



cdawall said:


> How many hundreds of thousands of people do you know? That's what it is going to take to change the steam survey.


I would assume the majority of Steam users can't really afford much perhaps? lol


----------



## Final_Fighter (Jan 9, 2019)

Mussels said:


> he was talking monitor resolution



lol, made my day.


----------



## GoldenX (Jan 9, 2019)

320x240 ought to be enough for anybody.


----------



## Mats (Jan 9, 2019)

I'm pretty sure AMD will present some new CPU's based on ZEN 2, but this confuses me.. IMO it's bad choice of words.




When you read high-performance computing, do you think

1 - High-performance computing, supercomputers.




2 - This.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 9, 2019)

Mats said:


> I'm pretty sure AMD will present some new CPU's based on ZEN 2, but this confuses me..
> View attachment 114242
> 
> When you read high-performance computing, do you think
> ...




Definitely HPC means Supercomputer clusters.

I bet 10 kitties it is just gonna be launch of Zen2 server chips and brief mention of RyZen 3000


----------



## Mats (Jan 9, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> I bet 10 kitties it is just gonna be launch of Zen2 server chips and brief mention of RyZen 3000


Yeah, EPYC Rome with its chiplet thingies hasn't been launched yet.. only previews so far.

It's 9 months since the launch of Ryzen 2000, I don't really expect AMD to end it so soon..


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 9, 2019)

Mats said:


> Yeah, EPYC Rome with its chiplet thingies hasn't been launched yet.. only previews so far.
> 
> It's 9 months since the launch of Ryzen 2000, I don't really expect AMD to end it so soon..



They might because they know intels got nothing, and if it's fast enough people and oems will jump on it.

The last thing they want to do is give intel time to recover. Especially since their boy Jimmy Keller is somewhere in an intel basement cooking something up.


----------



## Mats (Jan 9, 2019)

phanbuey said:


> The last thing they want to do is give intel time to recover.


The same can be said about server CPU's, which I guess is much more lucrative than desktop, especially these days.
I think they've already said that server comes first, and I have no idea if AMD/TSMC is capable to ramp up both in such short time.

They've already launched Zen+ based mobile CPU's this week, and Zen 2 server CPU's are expected. I'm not sure they'll present in even more CPU's today, seems like a lot.

My bet is on a preview, but no launch, similar to EPYC Rome in November.

I hope I'm wrong though.


----------



## Metroid (Jan 9, 2019)

few hours before the end of intel and its 4 cores till the end of the world concept, it lasted 10 years, it is time to end it.


----------



## Mats (Jan 9, 2019)

Metroid said:


> few hours before the end of intel and its 4 cores till the end of the world concept, it lasted 10 years, it is time to end it.


Yeah we've heard that oversimplification a few times now.  Even the 8700K is over a year old, and the 1800X is close to two years old.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 9, 2019)

Time flies.


----------



## Vario (Jan 9, 2019)

Mats said:


> 1090T january 2010
> 
> i7 980X march 2010
> 
> ...


Which of those two is still perfectly viable today?  Most 980x went to 4.5 Ghz, 6 core, 12 thread.  Too bad the spectre meltdown fixes neuter them a bit.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 9, 2019)

So no 12C, no 16C.


AdoredTV just got a huge slap on the face.

Damn!


----------



## HTC (Jan 9, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> So no 12C, no 16C.
> 
> 
> AdoredTV just got a huge slap on the face.
> ...



I'll just leave this here ...






EDIT

OTOH, it totally confirms the "advertised" clocks as bogus since even AMD hasn't finalized them yet: that goes for both Adored and the Russian site in the OP.


----------



## Mats (Jan 9, 2019)

Vario said:


> Which of those two is still perfectly viable today?


1090T: $295

980X: $999, plus higher board cost.

Your point being..?


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 9, 2019)

HTC said:


> I'll just leave this here ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sure you can keep on hyping. For the majority the hype train just crashed spectacularly, AMD stock also crashed.

At least we can agree to write off AdoredTV as fake news now.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 9, 2019)

Mats said:


> Yeah, EPYC Rome with its chiplet thingies hasn't been launched yet.. only previews so far.
> 
> It's 9 months since the launch of Ryzen 2000, I don't really expect AMD to end it so soon..


Ryzen 2000 or ZEN + simply refined ZEN. The real next gen is ZEN 2 based on 7nm. In my opinion, AMD would be smart to capitalize on this for 2019.


----------



## HTC (Jan 9, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> Sure you can keep on hyping. For the majority the hype train just crashed spectacularly, AMD stock also crashed.
> 
> At least we can agree to *write off AdoredTV as fake news* now.



1st dude, that i know of, that mentioned chiplet concept, months before we knew about it in Zen 2's Epyc.

So the dude speculates somethings wrong. News flash: it's called speculation.

Feel free to write the guy off, if you so wish. Personally, i like *some of his videos* like the one linked above allot more than the speculation ones, but that's me.


----------



## Vya Domus (Jan 9, 2019)

The CES hype had nothing to do with all this.

Zen 2 is here, chiplets are here. Take a hint as to what will eventually come.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jan 9, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> The CES hype had nothing to do with all this.
> 
> Zen 2 is here, chiplets are here. Take a hint as to what will eventually come.



Wut will come?


----------



## Wavetrex (Jan 9, 2019)

xkm1948 said:


> At least we can agree to write off AdoredTV as fake news now.


Actually, by looking at the picture and at the AM4 CPU in Lisa Su's hand, as well as the performance results ( 8-core matching 9900K performance) I would say that Jim ( Adored ) was completely *ON THE SPOT* and his leak is 99% accurate !
The design clearly shows this can be extended to 16 cores if needed.

What Jim missed is the MOMENT OF TIME when such 16 core chip will be launched, and it's obvious it's going to be later, probably autumn, after Intel releases their rumored 10-core on mainstream... AMD will hit back with 12-core and possibly 16-core.

And the fact that this Engineering Sample manages to equal (or beat 9900K) means his frequencies are also very plausible.

We are really looking at a revolution in chip design... too bad it will only happen in Q3, Q4 and not as early as "right now".


----------



## HTC (Jan 9, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Actually, by looking at the picture and at the AM4 CPU in Lisa Su's hand, as well as the performance results ( 8-core matching 9900K performance) I would say that Jim ( Adored ) was completely *ON THE SPOT* and his leak is 99% accurate !
> The design clearly shows this can be extended to 16 cores if needed.
> 
> *What Jim missed is the MOMENT OF TIME when such 16 core chip will be launched, and it's obvious it's going to be later, probably autumn, after Intel releases their rumored 10-core on mainstream... AMD will hit back with 12-core and possibly 16-core.*



Agreed.


----------



## phanbuey (Jan 9, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Actually, by looking at the picture and at the AM4 CPU in Lisa Su's hand, as well as the performance results ( 8-core matching 9900K performance) I would say that Jim ( Adored ) was completely *ON THE SPOT* and his leak is 99% accurate !
> The design clearly shows this can be extended to 16 cores if needed.
> 
> What Jim missed is the MOMENT OF TIME when such 16 core chip will be launched, and it's obvious it's going to be later, probably autumn, after Intel releases their rumored 10-core on mainstream... AMD will hit back with 12-core and possibly 16-core.
> ...



Time to save money.


----------



## cdawall (Jan 10, 2019)

Wavetrex said:


> Actually, by looking at the picture and at the AM4 CPU in Lisa Su's hand, as well as the performance results ( 8-core matching 9900K performance) I would say that Jim ( Adored ) was completely *ON THE SPOT* and his leak is 99% accurate !
> The design clearly shows this can be extended to 16 cores if needed



His "leak" included clock speeds how on earth are we going to know how correct it is before amd releases what models they will offer...?


----------



## Hellfire (Jan 10, 2019)

Surprised more people weren't impressed with the announcement. Sure, a lot of details to be confirmed but what we've seen is very promising.

Essentially what we saw was two mainstream desktop CPU with 8 cores, 16 threads matched up against each other, What I saw was nice and shows plenty of room for improvement. Esepcially for a 16c/32t model with the room for the additional die, which seems conveniently marked out.


Obviously it's still all up in the air, however it is still very promising and looks like it'll be a very good, cost effective build.


----------



## Mats (Jan 10, 2019)

Hellfire said:


> Surprised more people weren't impressed with the announcement. Sure, a lot of details to be confirmed but what we've seen is very promising.


Agreed. It basically was everything we could expect, but since people were fed all these rumors they could only get disappointed. We can't buy it tomorrow, what a surprise. 

I too believed in the rumors for a while, and just because the model specs looked realistic I forgot the "when",
but then I saw that Ryzen 2000 was only 9 months old, server CPU's wasn't launched yet (and those were supposed to come first), and 7 nm is still very new.

More AMD CPU's were sold in germany than Intel's CPU's recently, so no hurry in replacing that, obviously. Vega being launched was more expected, AMD needs it so badly.


----------



## NdMk2o1o (Jan 10, 2019)

Mats said:


> Agreed. It basically was everything we could expect, but since people were fed all these rumors they could only get disappointed. We can't buy it tomorrow, what a surprise.
> 
> I too believed in the rumors for a while, and just because the model specs looked realistic I forgot the "when",
> but then I saw that Ryzen 2000 was only 9 months old, server CPU's wasn't launched yet (and those were supposed to come first), and 7 nm is still very new.
> ...


Same in the UK and Intel doesn't even make the top 5 on amazon, they have 3 in the top 10

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Best-Sellers-Computers-Accessories-Processors/zgbs/computers/430515031


----------



## Hellfire (Jan 10, 2019)

Mats said:


> Agreed. It basically was everything we could expect, but since people were fed all these rumors they could only get disappointed. We can't buy it tomorrow, what a surprise.
> 
> I too believed in the rumors for a while, and just because the model specs looked realistic I forgot the "when",
> but then I saw that Ryzen 2000 was only 9 months old, server CPU's wasn't launched yet (and those were supposed to come first), and 7 nm is still very new.
> ...



But apart from not being released today, what is there to be disappointing about? The information we got given and shown was nice and promising.

For the first preview of the chip showing it beating 9900K in cinebench was great. I think the big thing for this will be pricing, and this is where I hope AMD are competitive (like they have always been) The 9900K is currently around £500 in the UK, if this chip comes in around the £399 mark then I'll be definitely buying one. Although if they release a 16/32 I may go for that instead.


----------



## Mats (Jan 11, 2019)

Hellfire said:


> But apart from not being released today, what is there to be disappointing about?


Nothing, IMO.

AMD had to watch themselves not revealing too much in advance. All they showed was that they could match the 9900K in one benchmark, with less power used. 
Final clock speeds and core counts are still unknown, although some will keep on speculating and making up their own "leaks" as if they haven't learned anything. 

The only thing worse than these kind of rumors are "fan renders", a completely waste of time. Both only makes people disappointed. Same goes for movie trailers haha, haven't seen a FULL one for years.


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 12, 2019)

Hellfire said:


> Surprised more people weren't impressed with the announcement. Sure, a lot of details to be confirmed but what we've seen is very promising.
> 
> Essentially what we saw was two mainstream desktop CPU with 8 cores, 16 threads matched up against each other, What I saw was nice and shows plenty of room for improvement..


For me, I need to see clocks and overclocking... pricing... was any of that released? Its hard to get excited not knowing a darn thing about it outside of how it performs against a 9900K. I am sure further tweaks will place yield a couple more percent improvements (via clockspeeds). So that (only) is something to be excited about... I'll reserve judgement until details........ANY details are released. 

My interest is piqued, but in order to be impressed, there needs to be something impressive shown.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jan 12, 2019)

I mean Lisa Su already announced a late summer release date (at CES this year) for this chip, and actual stock is usually delayed... so your looking at Fall 2019 actual in stock for the masses release date... and Intel 10nm will be right around the corner at that point...

Will be interesting for sure, but something tells me Intel 10nm will still be gaming king at 1080p, etc. Not that it matters, and I most likely am buying Zen 2 myself, just saying, King is King until King is Dethroned... and Intel will probably still win, especially in min fps.


----------



## Hellfire (Jan 13, 2019)

lynx29 said:


> I mean Lisa Su already announced a late summer release date (at CES this year) for this chip, and actual stock is usually delayed... so your looking at Fall 2019 actual in stock for the masses release date... and Intel 10nm will be right around the corner at that point...
> 
> Will be interesting for sure, but something tells me Intel 10nm will still be gaming king at 1080p, etc. Not that it matters, and I most likely am buying Zen 2 myself, just saying, King is King until King is Dethroned... and Intel will probably still win, especially in min fps.



Will Intel 10nm be right around the corner, with no working chips and well, nothing to speak off, massively delayed?




EarthDog said:


> For me, I need to see clocks and overclocking... pricing... was any of that released? Its hard to get excited not knowing a darn thing about it outside of how it performs against a 9900K. I am sure further tweaks will place yield a couple more percent improvements (via clockspeeds). So that (only) is something to be excited about... I'll reserve judgement until details........ANY details are released.
> 
> My interest is piqued, but in order to be impressed, there needs to be something impressive shown.



I could understand that, I guess I am one who gets excited early and easily.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 13, 2019)

Hellfire said:


> could understand that, I guess *I am one who gets excited early and easily.*


You're not alone. I do that too.


----------



## Xzibit (Jan 13, 2019)

Should have that looked at by a medical professional.


About the Chips the early Ryzen 1 ES if you recall had a lower than release base clock (ES were shown at 2.8 & 3.2) before they were finalized at 3.0, 3.4 & 3.6


----------



## EarthDog (Jan 14, 2019)

Yep.. I fully expect it to be about as fast as it can be arch wise at this point with some clock and binning improvements similar to above. If tht is true, even if they cant get past their own boost, if they are closer to 5ghz (xfr) than 4.5, and surely they'll have under cut price, they'll have a winner. But amd marketing (among others) is ridiculous so I wait.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 20, 2019)

AMD is keeping this new upcoming ZEN 2 somewhat Quiet, as to not spill the beans to the competition. 
Can't wait till more concrete information comes out. This will hopefully be the turning point for AMD & competition in itself.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 20, 2019)

IMO you can tell when somethings going to suck, because they rev up the hype train

the quieter launches are when they know the product will speak for itself


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 21, 2019)

Mussels said:


> IMO you can tell when somethings going to suck, because they rev up the hype train
> 
> the quieter launches are when they know the product will speak for itself


Except that this isn't AMD revving up the hype train. AMD is staying tight lipped.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 21, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> Except that this isn't AMD revving up the hype train. AMD is staying tight lipped.



exactly my point... they seem pretty confident here, with the expected last minute surprise/reveal of a 32C monster to smash intel with


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jan 21, 2019)

Mussels said:


> exactly my point... they seem pretty confident here, with the expected last minute surprise/reveal of a 32C monster to smash intel with


Ah, gotcha!


----------



## GoldenX (Jan 21, 2019)

They did the same with Zen 1. It's kinda weird for them to be this quiet.
On the other hand... "*Look, Radeon 7nm, better than 2080, now with an Nvidia price!* Please don't look at the power consumption or the lack of any new feature..."


----------

