AMD Announces 3rd Generation Ryzen Desktop Processors

[Crackong]

There are a few caveats here:
-Cinebench is a very specific workstation load. While it's an okay general predictor of overall performance, it's a poor predictor of some things (like gaming performance).
-Ryzen traditionally does well in Cinebench compared to Intel.
-Clock scaling is not necessarily linear.
-We don't know all-core turbo speeds of these new Ryzen chips. Though I'm hoping they're as high as it looks even with "normal" cooling. Nor do we know the power limits/cooling/BIOS settings of the demoed Intel chips, which can affect performance quite a lot.

Still, even if we give Ryzen a 10% advantage over Intel in Cinebench performance when compared to other tests, matching the 9900K at lower clocks is very impressive. It's hard to see how this would fail to come very, very close to it across the board.

Sure.
Some software are specifically optimized / poorly optimized for certain CPU type.
We all know Ryzen processors do well in Cinebench in multi threaded workload.
However matching Intel CPU in Cinebench in Single threaded test is something past generation Ryzen processors never achieved.

Of course, assuming these numbers on today's ppt are real.

 

[SL2]

Trolling again are we? No one even mentions adoredtv and you come in insulting people.

Read the thread from the beginning and you'll see how wrong you are. Chill.

 

[Vayra86]

4.5 ~ 4.7 Ghz is really what they needed all along for this CPU to be a solid allrounder.

Can't wait to see performance in real world / reviews. But I think Intel's going to be smoked in that last remaining bastion of gaming on MSDT. With that, all things considered there is literally no reason for a consumer to get any Intel CPU. There's no price advantage, there's less certainty wrt security / flaws that are yet to come and already in place, there's no performance advantage and no perf/watt to win.

Now its time for the knockout punch with some solid Navi-based APUs, because that's what RDNA (GCN *cough*) is going to be competitive at: integrated graphics. I don't see much purpose for it otherwise at this point. AMD really needs to get serious about laptops.

 

[Imsochobo]

4.5 ~ 4.7 Ghz is really what they needed all along for this CPU to be a solid allrounder.

Can't wait to see performance in real world / reviews.

4.5 with 15% ipc is all I need.
I have one use case for that, starcraft 2!
I have not noticed any bottlenecks apart from that.

 

[Valantar]

Sure.
Some software are specifically optimized / poorly optimized for certain CPU type.
We all know Ryzen processors do well in Cinebench in multi threaded workload.
However matching Intel CPU in Cinebench in Single threaded test is something past generation Ryzen processors never achieved.

Of course, assuming these numbers on today's ppt are real.

There's no reason to assume the CB numbers are anything but real, as that's an extremely reproducible benchmark, and AMD would be panned by pretty much everyone if it required exotic cooling or something similar. But yeah, as I said, even with AMD's minor general architectural advantage in CB, matching the 9900K (including ST) is a very impressive feat, and bodes very well for other workloads - given, as you say, that this was previously impossible.

View attachment 123841

Heatsinks included? ^

Yep, that's been widely reported.

 

[PerfectWave]

Finally no more cpu with 4 cores!

 

[birdie]

Intel is truly fuqed.

Sitting on their laurels for how many years? Rehashing SkyLake for how many times? Six already? They should scrap their 10nm plans and go straight to 7nm.

I'm so happy for AMD. Zen 2 will not just be faster in terms of IPC, it will be faster in pretty much all workloads despite its 10% frequency deficit (5GHz vs 4.5GHz). And in terms of TDP Intel is just ... not competitive at all any more.

What a day to be alive.

The underdog finally defeats Goliath.

 

[RH92]

Honestly im a bit disapointed by Zen 2 , not because of the leaks but because of product itself !

1) 15% IPC increase is good but peoples tend to forget that this is compared to Zen not Zen+ . On top of that we have still to wait for actual reviews to confirm those numbers .

2) 4,6Ghz is good and i know clockspeed is not everything but im not going to lie i was expecting more from a cutting edge process like 7nm ( considering 4,3Ghz is already possible on 12nm ) . Maybe there is some OC headroom but i doubt .

3) No improvement on core count for R3 R5 R7 , sure now you have a 12cores part but that's a new segment ( R9 ) .

4) The most important factor imo which contributes to the disapointement is that there is no real improvement on pricing either . Small chiplets should allow for much better yields thus better pricing compared to previous generations but that's not the case for R7 and R5 . On top of that 2000 series retail for dirty cheap nowadays making 3000 series pricing look even worst .



Don't get me wrong Ryzen 3000 series should be solid products considering Zen and Zen+ where already great but to my eyes AMD missed a gold opportunity to put the nails on Intels coffin by increasing core count and offering lower prices on all segments. Looks like AMD is going for the more conservative/safe approach along with bigger margins wich is far from ideal considering Intel will wake up sooner or later so AMD needs to create a gap before that happens instead of simply matching Intel !

 

[bug]

4.5 ~ 4.7 Ghz is really what they needed all along for this CPU to be a solid allrounder.

Can't wait to see performance in real world / reviews. But I think Intel's going to be smoked in that last remaining bastion of gaming on MSDT. With that, all things considered there is literally no reason for a consumer to get any Intel CPU. There's no price advantage, there's less certainty wrt security / flaws that are yet to come and already in place, there's no performance advantage and no perf/watt to win.

Now its time for the knockout punch with some solid Navi-based APUs, because that's what RDNA (GCN *cough*) is going to be competitive at: integrated graphics. I don't see much purpose for it otherwise at this point. AMD really needs to get serious about laptops.

Somewhat ironic, but when past Intel CPUs didn't shine, there was the chipset that could still be a reason to go Inel. They were generally more stable and more featured than other solutions. These days, with half the chipset onto the CPU, even that (feeble) reason is gone.
7/7 is so far away now...

 

[EarthDog]

wich is far from ideal

Perhaps for the consumer.... but they are a business. Theve offered more cores at a lower price and still do. NOW they can support higher pricing like this and still be better than the competition.

 

[Octopuss]

Telling us there is 15% IPC improvement, but meaning compared to Zen1, that's misleading as hell. What's the real IPC improvement over Zen+ then? 3%? Less?
I expected AMD to be better than Intel when it comes to "lying".

 

[Manu_PT]

It is clear that it still won´t beat Intel in gaming. They didn´t even bother to compare it to Intel on those scenarios, and considering Intel reaches 5ghz easily, I still think it will be the best option for gamers.

Also 95% of the motherboards have fans. From all the MSI models, only the 300€ one didn´t have a fan and that´s a huge price for a motherboard.

Tbh with it being 7nm, is rather unimpressive.

 

[ratirt]

It is clear that it still won´t beat Intel in gaming. They didn´t even bother to compare it to Intel on those scenarios, and considering Intel reaches 5ghz easily, I still think it will be the best option for gamers.

Also 95% of the motherboards have fans. From all the MSI models, only the 300€ one didn´t have a fan and that´s a huge price for a motherboard.

Tbh with it being 7nm, is rather unimpressive.

Well I wouldn't say they lied. IPC it's not just more MHz. I'd wait still for the reviews and benchmarks anyway.

 

[Chomiq]

Waiting for first benchmarks, but they pretty much have me on board, considering current Intel's offerings.

 

[Ravenas]

I will be anxious for a 3900x.

 

[Vayra86]

It is clear that it still won´t beat Intel in gaming. They didn´t even bother to compare it to Intel on those scenarios, and considering Intel reaches 5ghz easily, I still think it will be the best option for gamers.

Also 95% of the motherboards have fans. From all the MSI models, only the 300€ one didn´t have a fan and that´s a huge price for a motherboard.

Tbh with it being 7nm, is rather unimpressive.

Best case scenario is Intel will have an advantage only in edge cases. That's really already the case, because high refresh is a niche and for anything targeting 60 FPS, Ryzen 2xxx does the job fine.

But really, all things considered... including a price gap that is now even more significant (you don't need top end Ryzen to fight top end Intel on gaming or other tasks, 8c16t is readily available at multiple price points), Intel's relevance is reduced to nearly zero.

Oh, and be careful not to install too many mitigations because you might actually lose the comparison altogether And no guarantees that there won't be any more of those...

Somewhat ironic, but when past Intel CPUs didn't shine, there was the chipset that could still be a reason to go Inel. They were generally more stable and more featured than other solutions. These days, with half the chipset onto the CPU, even that (feeble) reason is gone.
7/7 is so far away now...

You say that but look at the above quote

 

[Manu_PT]

Best case scenario is Intel will have an advantage only in edge cases. That's really already the case, because high refresh is a niche and for anything targeting 60 FPS, Ryzen 2xxx does the job fine.

But really, all things considered... including a price gap that is now even more significant (you don't need top end Ryzen to fight top end Intel on gaming or other tasks, 8c16t is readily available at multiple price points), Intel's relevance is reduced to nearly zero.

Oh, and be careful not to install too many mitigations because you might actually lose the comparison altogether And no guarantees that there won't be any more of those...



You say that but look at the above quote

The security flaws do not bother me. I´m on Windows 7 anyway and my CPU doesn´t have HyperThreading (9700k). From the benchmarks I seen with all the security patches applied, intel didn´t lose a single fps in gaming, only on some advanced tasks that I guess no home user will use, for the most part.

We can argue the 12c/24t CPU is the big new on this launch, because it will obliterate anything Intel has to offer while being cheaper than the HEDT solutions (and better). But I can´t see the fuss on the 8/16 and 6/12 chips. Their MRSP seems similar to Intel prices and no indications at all that they will be superior. Also I´m not liking the X570 platform at all, with such high power consumption/fans. Steven from GamerNexus said so far that´s the biggest let down. X570 doesn´t seem as refined as it should be. The 6 core and 8 core do not bring anything new to the table performance wise, only if you compare them with previous AMD models.

 

[Vayra86]

The security flaws do not bother me. I´m on Windows 7 anyway and my CPU doesn´t have HyperThreading (9700k). From the benchmarks I seen with all the security patches applied, intel didn´t lose a single fps in gaming, only on some advanced tasks that I guess no home user will use, for the most part.

We can argue the 12c/24t CPU is the big new on this launch, because it will obliterate anything Intel has to offer while being cheaper than the HEDT solutions (and better). But I can´t see the fuss on the 8/16 and 6/12 chips. Their MRSP seems similar to Intel prices and no indications at all that they will be superior. Also I´m not liking the X570 platform at all, with such high power consumption/fans. Steven from GamerNexus said so far that´s the biggest let down. X570 doesn´t seem as refined as it should be. The 6 core and 8 core do not bring anything new to the table performance wise, only if you compare them with previous AMD models.

Fair enough and I can see where you're coming from then. But still, I think the real interesting chips this round are not the absolute high end models but the ones below; $329 for 8C16T with high peak clocks is fantastic and major progress and its the go-to gaming chip as of today. And below that, it gets much more interesting, because you get a nearly similar gaming CPU for as little as half that number.

 

[Zareek]

Telling us there is 15% IPC improvement, but meaning compared to Zen1, that's misleading as hell. What's the real IPC improvement over Zen+ then? 3%? Less?
I expected AMD to be better than Intel when it comes to "lying".

You do understand that IPC is fluid from application to application, that presenting a 15% IPC increase across all scenarios is not an easy task to prove. What I got from the presentation was that in most scenarios they have been seeing at least a 15% single core IPC increase versus Zen+. Calling it lying insinuates that they presented concrete scientific information incorrectly in a dubious fashion. Presenting facts in terms is of the best case scenarios is called marketing. In my experience, the only tech company better at marketing than Intel is Apple.

 

[Crackong]

Telling us there is 15% IPC improvement, but meaning compared to Zen1, that's misleading as hell. What's the real IPC improvement over Zen+ then? 3%? Less?
I expected AMD to be better than Intel when it comes to "lying".

Zen+ vs Zen = 3% IPC increase
Zen2 vs Zen = 15% IPC increase

Zen2 vs Zen+ = 1.15 / 1.03 = 11.7% IPC increase.

 

[RH92]

Perhaps for the consumer.... but they are a business. Theve offered more cores at a lower price and still do. NOW they can support higher pricing like this and still be better than the competition.

Yes i don't disagree with you but imo AMD needs more marketshare before starting to think about higher margins , it's a bit to early for that and to achieve this you need to be more agressive on pricing or/and core count . Ofcourse im taking consumer perspective into account aswell and so should AMD ( im not saying they don't ) otherwise you endup like Intel .

 

[R0H1T]

Telling us there is 15% IPC improvement, but meaning compared to Zen1, that's misleading as hell. What's the real IPC improvement over Zen+ then? 3%? Less?
I expected AMD to be better than Intel when it comes to "lying".

It is 15% based on SPECint 2006, also what do you mean by lying?

 

[bug]

Yes i don't disagree with you but imo AMD needs more marketshare before starting to think about higher margins , it's a bit to early for that and to achieve this you need to be more agressive on pricing or/and core count . Ofcourse im taking consumer perspective into account aswell and so should AMD ( im not saying they don't ) otherwise you endup like Intel .

Let's face it, after fixing the initial RAM compatibility issues, there were few use cases where AMD lost to Intel.
They didn't gain as much market share as they could, but it's hard to imagine they'll gain less than before with an improved product lineup.

 

[kings]

I missed something or why is everyone talking about 15% more IPC?

In the slides AMD showed is 13%.

 

[R0H1T]

It's based on SPECint2006 over zen+ while this 13% could be based on a sample of other applications. Lemme see if I can get the link for 15% back, also Lisu Su said it herself.