Possible 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen "Matisse Refresh" XT SKU Clock Speeds Surface

[Turmania]

If these refreshes are true, A) great much needed increase in speed. B) the launch of Zen3, is probably next year.

 

[Totally]

Well, your 1st gen numbers lay in 1-5% top quality, you can learn it from oc leaderboards of ocn, oc.ru, luxx etc. For 3rd gen it's in top 20-30%

lol, just admit you were wrong and move on. It doesn't kill you to do so.

 

[kapone32]

Haha AMD has done an Nvidia move. The only reason these CPUs have been released are a direct response to the launch of the 10th gen. If even 1/2 the games show a 10%-15% improvement it will put Intel in a seriously bad position with the potential upper cut coming in the fall.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Not sure why AMD is even going to bother with this release, unless it's because 4000 series are delayed. Q4 is close.

Always glad to see higher clockspeeds on Ryzen tho. I hope 4000 series will get IPC increase and maybe do 4.5 all-core clockspeed.

Because the epyc line has moved to 7nm+, the top bins are free to use for consumer on 7N.
They no longer make ryzen one so second generation is clearly what they intend to make for many years anyway for OEM manufacturer to support. Long life cycles ala af1600
Zen 3 on consumer can wait until Christmas if the refresh makes them more competitive at the right price ,all other prices will be affected too so price per performance, Intel will be in trouble.
The yeilds on 7nm+ will be worse than 7N initially so they will be building up bins ATM for Ryzens 4#££.

 

[Bee9]

If these refreshes are true, A) great much needed increase in speed. B) the launch of Zen3, is probably next year.

Yup. Covid-19 screwed up a lot of production.


It’s really funny to read comments as many people go out of their way to defend their favorite brand. Intel is the best gaming vs AMD...
Almost look like fans of entertainment idols fighting each other. Just for another 2 cents of ego.
Those CPUs are just tools to accomplish certain tasks. It’s buyer responsibility to choose what they need to prioritize and live with the compromise.

 

[Octopuss]

Have you ever seen zen 2 part in wild that boosts to 4800? Cmon guys, theres legendary 1700x on forums with 4150 all core on air but not this. It's not happening.
Also, ryzens clocks aren't the biggest issue, you can learn it from ln2 benchmarks at 5000+ all core, it's still behind Intel in games bc of IF limitations.
Also min framerate aren't dependent on max boost clocks bc it shows what's happening when game puts tonna load on 1 or multiple cores. At this moments cpu clock is far lower max boost values

Offtopic rant:
Could you stop writing "bc" instead of "because", for christ/fuck's sake?

 

[Cobain]

The 10600KF has an MSRP of $238 USD. The 3600 XT will likely launch at a lower price ($200 ish).

Now factor in the cost of cooling that overclocked 10600KF (enjoy the 253w of power consumption) and a Z class motherboard to even able overclocking. You are looking at around $200 more.

That's $438 total.

On the other hand, you can run the 3600 XT on something like the Asrock B450 HDV, which retails for $69 (excellent board for the money) and the cooler is included for free. The best part? It just works. No need to fiddle with overclocking and stability testing.

That's $269 total.

If you are going for the absolute highest FPS, you should be buying a 10900K. Otherwise it makes zero sense to spend a ton more on the 10600KF over something like the 3600 / 3600 XT to get a margin or error performance boost, assuming you OC and your chip isn't a dude. The 10600KF isn't a good value if you are going to overclock it and buy a Z class motherboard and CPU cooler. Far too little gain for too much money. Heck AMD doesn't even need the 3600XT, the 3600 is a great high FPS gamer right now at a lower price with a cooler included.

All that taking into consideration that AMD's next gen chips aren't too far off. I doubt the 10600KF's limited value will maintain through that launch.



Intel boost spec is 5 seconds at the specified max boost. Only with MCE (which is overclocking) enabled on Z class motherboards is this spec exceeded.

TechSpot has observed this behavior: https://www.techspot.com/review/2028-intel-core-i9-10900k/

Same as many other tech outlets. MCE is not new nor is Intel's 5 second boost clock.

Your description of Ryzen's boost algorithm, just like your description of Intel's boost algorithm, is not based on anything remotely factual.

1- you are entering futurology território by assuming a non yet launched CPU Will cost "X", thats your first error

2- Steve from GN shown that 10600k uses way less voltage than 8700k and 9700k to achieve high clocks, a 30€ tower cooler more than enough for a solid 4,9ghz all Core overclock

Still, AMD mobo prices and included cooler are big advantages, true, but 10600k runs circles around even 3900x on most games. You pay more, but you have more performance if high refresh gaming is your concerne. There are 30% differences in some games.

 

[Wilson]

lol, just admit you were wrong and move on. It doesn't kill you to do so.

There's 1 result with 4300 on air, 30 above 4050 with unsafe voltages on water and 150+ under 4000. Also, it's just validation w/o any stability benches. Ofc, i'm wrong

 

[AusWolf]

Interesting decision considering the fact that Ryzen 4 is just around the corner as well. Makes me wonder who's gonna be interested in buying these XT SKUs.

 

[Patriot]

If these refreshes are true, A) great much needed increase in speed. B) the launch of Zen3, is probably next year.

Zen 3 will launch this year, but if they do launch a refresh of ryzen 3000, ryzen 4000 (zen3) may be next year. Zen 3 2020 may be an Epyc only affair.
Lisa tends to not correct when people take the wrong message from her statements.

 

[heky]

There are 30% differences in some games.

LOL...yeah @ 1080p or lower resolution, with low quality settings. Higher than that, keep dreaming!

 

[marcomarti]

theres legendary 1700x on forums with 4150 all core on air but not this. It's not happening.

I run 1700 (non x) on 4.25 all cores on Noctua NH-D15, (X370 Pro) since it appear on market. I thought its normal but it might be just legendary

 

[evernessince]

Ryzen 3000 never had "issues maintaining boost clocks" - they never could, and never will *maintain" advertised boost clock.

They had issues achieving advertised boost clock with purely synthetic low intensity single thread for even a split second, and that was the only thing the 1.0.0.3 ABBA AGESA microcode advertised to fix in september 2019.

It was kind of fixed for that BIOS revisions, but this forced jump to advertised boost clock speed for a split second is far from any maintained speed, and subsequent BIOS releases on many motherboards reintroduced the "problems".

BS. Frequency held stable before the BIOS update, let alone after as GamersNexus has demonstrated:

Provide a source or GTFO.

 

[hurakura]

I can tell you very firmly that its easy to be CPU limited at 1440p. High fps = CPU bound, regardless of resolution.

Nah, Zen 2 does not have better all-round performance. AMD hardware is mostly hit or miss and this continues to be the case. Go look at the performance in emulators, early launch titles or niche programs and you'll see that AMD is often left in the dust.

It's not all about Cinebench you know. Real world performance is a whole different ballpark, especially when looking at the overall picture instead of cherrypicking. You won't find a single game or program that runs bad on newer a Intel/Nvidia system. You will find plenty than run bad on a full AMD setup tho. Hell, this page has tons of proof. Go through the game performance reviews and you'll see.

Bannerlord for example, literally runs like poo on my friends system, compared to mine. 3700X at 4.3 GHz with 16 gigs of 3600/C16 memory with a 5700 XT. He has tons of fps dips and spikes. Especially during very large battles.

Games, that's all you Intel fanboys have left. Well there are people that use their PCs to create something on them, not play games all day. And for those AMD works way better.

 

[Yosar]

Also, most Emulators run noticable worse on AMD. Pretty much night and day difference. Most of these are 100% optimized for Intel + Nvidia.

Not true anymore.

He even switched from 8700K to 3700X.

Ryzen 1000 and Ryzen 2000 had its problems, but Ryzen 3000 is nothing like them. Actually big L3 cash really helps in emulators.

 

[Jayp]

I was hoping for a 4.8 GHz or 4.9 GHz boost for the 3800XT to push up the minimum framerate. It would've given me a reason to relegate my 3800X to another PC.

3900XT looks really nice though.

Memory tuning is key.

 

[Space Lynx]

I'm predicting that it's going to fall victim to the same problems the current 3800X did and somewhat still does. The 3700X's performance matching or nearly matching it's performance, making the chip seem a bit redundant and not warranting it's asking price. I'm certain that's why there isn't a 3700XT.

fair enough, but A) I am tired of waiting and B) there is a strong possibility this virus will mutate and everything set to release this Fall/Winter will be pushed back indefinitely. so June 16th I am buying MSI X570 tomahawk, and JUly 7th I am buying 3800XT... or whenever they become available. yolo

 

[Sunny and 75]

I don't know if i should say this and i know that it's full of irony but, thank you, Intel! for making AMD upgrade their clock speeds. Competition is good!

 

[Hardcore Games]

The Ryzen 4000 are already taped out and they should be available around September

 

[Cheeseball]

Memory tuning is key.

My memory is already at 3,733 MHz (Samsung B-die) 16-16-16-32 CR1 at 64ns, IF locked at 1:1, so I'm tuned out.

 

[wahdangun]

But, but, I need 5.3ghz worth of CS GO framerates that my monitor can't display!!!!!

I love the mental gymnastics, keep em coming.

Actually CS:go zen2 already faster than intel

 

[Makaveli]

This is posted at THG for their story on this.

"The XT versions are rumored to do FLCK 2,000 MHz out of the box."

If that is true and with the clock speed increase and very good Memory we should see a nice boost.

 

[A Computer Guy]

So wait, they essentially fixed PBO and hardwired it into the refresh?

Going back to AMD Roberts PBO video kinda pisses me off cause if it's true the 3800XT can hit the 4.7GHz boost why can't the 3800x when using PBO+AutoOC? Arbitrary firmware temp limits? Are they just letting the XT versions run hotter to milk the market until Zen3 hits the shelves? Something doesn't seem right.

 

[cueman]

i just wonder...

what different is example 'old' 3900x cpu if you oc'd it base clocks 4.1ghz...so it should oc'd 4.8ghz?? if, cpu can handle it and you cand do it, or, buying 'new' 3900xt what have factory oc'd ready thouse values??


i cant see anything different,its stil lsame 7nm cpu...hmm, maybe that xt version are hand choosed...but i remembe, there is bfore problem amd cpus thats they not running hertz what amd promise.

anyway,its not change battle against intel 10900k anything...its change if amd 3900xt can oc'd at least 5 ghz...


well, we all see it soon for reviews, but sure is that tdp raisng and heat and power eat.

 

[Shatun_Bear]

1- you are entering futurology território by assuming a non yet launched CPU Will cost "X", thats your first error

2- Steve from GN shown that 10600k uses way less voltage than 8700k and 9700k to achieve high clocks, a 30€ tower cooler more than enough for a solid 4,9ghz all Core overclock

Still, AMD mobo prices and included cooler are big advantages, true, but 10600k runs circles around even 3900x on most games. You pay more, but you have more performance if high refresh gaming is your concerne. There are 30% differences in some games.

Steve has been given the most Golden Sample CPU ever no doubt, Intel is notorious for seeding the very best CPUs for biggest reviewers. Remember Steve from HardwareUnboxed with his 5.2Ghz 24/7 8700K? No-one on Overclock.net owners club could get near that without insane voltages, the average overclock was 4.9-5ghz.

i just wonder...

what different is example 'old' 3900x cpu if you oc'd it base clocks 4.1ghz...so it should oc'd 4.8ghz?? if, cpu can handle it and you cand do it, or, buying 'new' 3900xt what have factory oc'd ready thouse values??


i cant see anything different,its stil lsame 7nm cpu...hmm, maybe that xt version are hand choosed...but i remembe, there is bfore problem amd cpus thats they not running hertz what amd promise.

anyway,its not change battle against intel 10900k anything...its change if amd 3900xt can oc'd at least 5 ghz...


well, we all see it soon for reviews, but sure is that tdp raisng and heat and power eat.

No, 3900X can't get to 4800Mhz in general. Also, what on earth are you doing just looking at clockspeed as the ultimate metric of performance. Ryzen has higher ipc and better efficiency, so it at 5ghz would exceed Intel at 5.2Ghz.

The Ryzen 4000 are already taped out and they should be available around September

How do you know? I estimate October/November for 4900X, 4800X and 4700X only. Rest of SKUs December or next year.