AMD launches Zen+ 12nm Ryzen and X470 motherboards

[IRobot23]

https://imgur.com/a/XU6na

Straight Mesh OC to 3200 and DDR4 4000 is 56.6. That seems easily achievable, although DDR4 that fast would obvs be quite pricey. This guy got it under 50 by also setting the tRFC to 300.

That cost some power. And yet it wont be faster than ryzen, because of L3 latencies and bandwidth in games.

R3 2200G and R5 2400G both will achieve ~66ns with 3200CL14 (normal subtimings).

Yes, gaming is very demanding on latencies and bandwidth.

IF should run at core frequencies

Anyway, this is good progress by AMD. If we will see ryzen 3000 with OC stuff at ~45ns I would be surprised.

 

[raghu78]

IF should run at core frequencies

I think with Zen 2 we will probably see higher fabric speeds atleast on desktop Ryzen. For server chips which typically run at 2.5 Ghz all core turbo clocks I do not think AMD will raise fabric speeds as they are going to support DDR4 3200 officially with Zen 2 based Rome. If AMD can get the 7nm Ryzen to run the fabric at memory speeds instead of the memory controller speeds which it currently does then we can see a major reduction in memory latency for a reasonable power cost at 7nm. Being able to run the fabric at 3200-3600 Mhz on the desktop would translate to excellent gaming performance.

 

[IRobot23]

Ryzen is perfect for lower clock speeds and faster memory. Consoles are probably incoming.

Well with different design Ryzen could be faster in game.

 

[.vodka]

Looks like PR AGESA 1.0.0.2 brings new microcode (8001129 -> 8001137) and Spectre v2 protection to Ryzen.

Nice surprise after flashing BIOS 0001. This is under w10 1803 (17133.1). Should probably test for slowdowns where Intel chips get hammered hard after patching.

Well, whatever theoretical possibility of Spectre v2 being used on Ryzen systems is gone, I guess.

On 3501/3502/6001 (AGESA 1.0.0.0a) Inspectre didn't report Spectre protection.

 

[krumme]

Amd is going to be the professional choice and Intel for gaming.
I am not quite sure Intel likes that situation.
I like supporting the underdog with my 8700k even if its a poor man cpu.

 

[IRobot23]

Amd is going to be the professional choice and Intel for gaming.
I am not quite sure Intel likes that situation.
I like supporting the underdog with my 8700k even if its a poor man cpu.

If that was true. You support "godfather" who pulled some tricks and get money illegally. Even then they didn't care for you... they were selling you quad cores for 320€.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

Amd is going to be the professional choice and Intel for gaming.
I am not quite sure Intel likes that situation.
I like supporting the underdog with my 8700k even if its a poor man cpu.

I dont think so, specially after the spectre and meltdown patches are added. Intel becomes slower then a popcorn fart!!
My guess is after the patches are all said and done both top end cpu's will be about dead even or AMD may even just edge out on top this time as the patches don't seem to affect AMD's cpu's.Knock on wood!!

 

[dnavas]

Amd is going to be the professional choice and Intel for gaming.

I don't think it's quite that simple. AVX512 makes a difference on some "pro" work-flows, and quicksync is a useful addition to have sometimes (VCE, last I checked, needed significant help, and I keep saying it, but the company that builds a stable 4:2:2 decoder with AV1 enc/dec support wins the video market). Latency can affect more than games. The NUMA-style architecture can be a stumbling block. The ability to pin a core or two at a higher frequency and direct your single-threaded bits of code that way is an advantage for Intel. AMD is clearly still playing catch-up in frequency, turbo tech, and IPC. They've got an interesting interconnect, and they're selling 8 cores at reasonable prices. Don't get cocky.

 

[Justinbaileyman]

I don't think it's quite that simple. AVX512 makes a difference on some "pro" work-flows, and quicksync is a useful addition to have sometimes (VCE, last I checked, needed significant help, and I keep saying it, but the company that builds a stable 4:2:2 decoder with AV1 enc/dec support wins the video market). Latency can affect more than games. The NUMA-style architecture can be a stumbling block. The ability to pin a core or two at a higher frequency and direct your single-threaded bits of code that way is an advantage for Intel. AMD is clearly still playing catch-up in frequency, turbo tech, and IPC. They've got an interesting interconnect, and they're selling 8 cores at reasonable prices. Don't get cocky.

Makes sense to me!!

 

[IRobot23]

I don't think it's quite that simple. AVX512 makes a difference on some "pro" work-flows, and quicksync is a useful addition to have sometimes (VCE, last I checked, needed significant help, and I keep saying it, but the company that builds a stable 4:2:2 decoder with AV1 enc/dec support wins the video market). Latency can affect more than games. The NUMA-style architecture can be a stumbling block. The ability to pin a core or two at a higher frequency and direct your single-threaded bits of code that way is an advantage for Intel. AMD is clearly still playing catch-up in frequency, turbo tech, and IPC. They've got an interesting interconnect, and they're selling 8 cores at reasonable prices. Don't get cocky.

AVX512 is useless in most scenarios, to much power and only 25% improvement.
I don't know why would professional worker care about 10-20% difference. Most important is smooth experience, price also performance needs to be there... but you want also low power, cool and quiet.
Combine all that together and clear winner is ryzen.

 

[krumme]

I don't think it's quite that simple. AVX512 makes a difference on some "pro" work-flows, and quicksync is a useful addition to have sometimes (VCE, last I checked, needed significant help, and I keep saying it, but the company that builds a stable 4:2:2 decoder with AV1 enc/dec support wins the video market). Latency can affect more than games. The NUMA-style architecture can be a stumbling block. The ability to pin a core or two at a higher frequency and direct your single-threaded bits of code that way is an advantage for Intel. AMD is clearly still playing catch-up in frequency, turbo tech, and IPC. They've got an interesting interconnect, and they're selling 8 cores at reasonable prices. Don't get cocky.

Talking of usefull features.
Avx512 is perhaps as usefull as HSA outside of server market that eg rely on long q depth for 4k reads. Now we were talking of meltdown/spectre.
Quicksynch. Thats perhaps even less usefull unless you prefer low quality. Is there actually more than 5 individuals on this earth that use it regularly? Dont know perhaps some african tribes that rely on solar power.
Yes there is extra need for very low latency outside of gaming. Maby eg some professional audio. But most the gain comes in dx9 games. Its a matter of balancing cost and performance vs other areas.

 

[dnavas]

Quicksynch. Thats perhaps even less usefull

Yes, there are more than 5 individuals that use it regularly. The decode hardware is used to accelerate real-time NLE operation. The wider float hardware is what is more helpful for encode.

Its a matter of balancing cost and performance vs other areas.

Of course it is. One man's waste of silicon is another's necessary tool. That's why it's not so simple.

 

[krumme]

Avx512 is darn expensive for mm2. What do we talk here? like one third of an entire zen core? Its in that magnitude.
Its a result of a prior monopoly like situation. It would not have happened if zen like compettition had been there 3 years prior. Forcing features into consumer segment that was not needed. Unlike low latency -The idea of forking out for 3200c14 to get good gamimg perf on a 2700x is not excactly appealing. But hey so is neither the cost of an z370 mb for an 8400.

Not every "wasted"/used silicon or feature is related to factual user needs. But is more a result of strategy and marketing. Doesnt make it less simple though

 

[lixlax]

So far quite a few people seem to be having a 2000 series processor in hand but almost all of them are having some kind of issues when trying to play games.
Is AMD trying to hide the true gaming perfomance via pre release BIOS's/microcodes or is it just a coincidence? Although all the tests that I've seen have been made on a 300 series motherboards...

 

[Markfw]

So far quite a few people seem to be having a 2000 series processor in hand but almost all of them are having some kind of issues when trying to play games.
Is AMD trying to hide the true gaming perfomance via pre release BIOS's/microcodes or is it just a coincidence? Although all the tests that I've seen have been made on a 300 series motherboards...

I would suspect they have not updated their bios top support this chip. They have made so many other mistakes.

 

[Mockingbird]

No micro ATX motherboard apparently

 

[zinfamous]

I hope the mATX 4xx boards will be out a bit sooner than they were with the 3xx boards. My new case has been empty for a little over a year now.

 

[dnavas]

Avx512 is darn expensive for mm2. What do we talk here? like one third of an entire zen core?

It's 20% of a skylake-S core according to anand. AMD said its cores are about 10% smaller than Skylake's, so, not a third. I'm not sure if the caches are included or not in these various figures, though. We'd like them not to be, of course.... Is that big, yep. But you've got to go wider one way or the other. More cores or wider execution units. AMD's path helps more types of consumers, Intel's path helps specific target markets. This isn't about "gamer" vs some nebulous "pro".

Intel will have an 8-core solution next round. If AMD doesn't have their frequency fixed, that's going to be a problem for them. Unless they go even more core happy. Intel will also have played around with wide execution units and seeded the software market for several years to see it leveraged. If it can't haul its weight, they have the opportunity to use a half-rate unit. AMD will, one can hope, follow suit. I say that as a current 1800X user who is hoping to reuse his motherboard. The 2700X seems thus far a fair disappointment to me, but then, so might my gigabyte motherboard

Tech is an experiment. Some bets pay off, some don't.

 

[IRobot23]

It's 20% of a skylake-S core according to anand. AMD said its cores are about 10% smaller than Skylake's, so, not a third. I'm not sure if the caches are included or not in these various figures, though. We'd like them not to be, of course.... Is that big, yep. But you've got to go wider one way or the other. More cores or wider execution units. AMD's path helps more types of consumers, Intel's path helps specific target markets. This isn't about "gamer" vs some nebulous "pro".

Intel will have an 8-core solution next round. If AMD doesn't have their frequency fixed, that's going to be a problem for them. Unless they go even more core happy. Intel will also have played around with wide execution units and seeded the software market for several years to see it leveraged. If it can't haul its weight, they have the opportunity to use a half-rate unit. AMD will, one can hope, follow suit. I say that as a current 1800X user who is hoping to reuse his motherboard. The 2700X seems thus far a fair disappointment to me, but then, so might my gigabyte motherboard

Tech is an experiment. Some bets pay off, some don't.

Not cores only, but with L2 cache. AMD has larger cache.

 

[ondma]

If that was true. You support "godfather" who pulled some tricks and get money illegally. Even then they didn't care for you... they were selling you quad cores for 320€.

A company is supposed to "care for you"? I thought they were supposed to turn a profit, something AMD seems immune to.

 

[Gideon]

2700X playing Battlefield 1

First part (single player) cpu default voltage 1.25v, All core turbo @ 4.0 GHz
Second part (multi) cpu default 1.25v, All core turbo @ 4.0 GHz
Third part (multi) CPU overclocked on all the cores @ 4225 mhz 1.35v

Considering that BF1 is as multithreaded as FPS's go, the All Core Turbo looks impressive. FPS also looks competitive.

The specs were:

• AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
• Gskill 3466mhz cl14
• Gigabyte ax370 gaming 5 bios F22
• Gigabyte AORUS GTX 1080 Ti Xtreme Edition 11G
• AIO Corsair H90

Considering that the achieved overclock was 4225 @ 1.35v, I wouldn't be surprised if we'll end up getting better FPS in actual games with Precision Boost Overdrive rather than plain fixed-multiplier overclock, as it can boost to higher frequencies during less threaded scenes. Embarrassingly parallel benchmarks like Cinebench are another story of course.

 

[IRobot23]

2700X playing Battlefield 1

First part (single player) cpu default voltage 1.25v, All core turbo @ 4.0 GHz
Second part (multi) cpu default 1.25v, All core turbo @ 4.0 GHz
Third part (multi) CPU overclocked on all the cores @ 4225 mhz 1.35v

Considering that BF1 is as multithreaded as FPS's go, the All Core Turbo looks impressive. FPS also looks competitive.

The specs were:

• AMD Ryzen 7 2700X
• Gskill 3466mhz cl14
• Gigabyte ax370 gaming 5 bios F22
• Gigabyte AORUS GTX 1080 Ti Xtreme Edition 11G
• AIO Corsair H90

Considering that the achieved overclock was 4225 @ 1.35v, I wouldn't be surprised if we'll end up getting better FPS in actual games with Precision Boost Overdrive rather than plain fixed-multiplier overclock, as it can boost to higher frequencies during less threaded scenes. Embarrassingly parallel benchmarks like Cinebench are another story of course.

Something is wrong. My system at 720p and lower res scale will do better.
RX 480 (Worst dx11 driver overhead)
R7 1700@3,8GHz
3200@CL15

 

[Gideon]

Something is wrong. My system at 720p and lower res scale will do better.
RX 480 (Worst dx11 driver overhead)
R7 1700@3,8GHz
3200@CL15

IMO there is nothing to be surprised about. This game is heavily resolution dependent.

According to techpowerup review with 1080 GTX for instance.

@ 720:

• R7 1700 stock gets 171.7 FPS
• R7 1800x stock gets 183.4 FPS
• i7 8700k stock gets 231.7 FPS
• i7 8700 @ 5 GHz gets 233.2 FPS

@ 1080:

• R7 1700 stock gets 141.8 FPS
• R7 1800x stock gets 141.4 FPS
• i7 8700k stock gets 148.3 FPS
• i7 8700 @ 5 GHz gets 149.3 FPS

@ 2560:

• R7 1700 stock gets 100.2 FPS
• R7 1800x stock gets 99.8 FPS
• i7 8700k stock gets 102.5 FPS
• i7 8700 @ 5 GHz gets 104.0 FPS

So resolution matters a lot, also settings do

 

[IRobot23]

IMO there is nothing to be surprised about. This game is heavily resolution dependent.

According to techpowerup review with 1080 GTX for instance.

@ 720:

• R7 1700 stock gets 171.7 FPS
• R7 1800x stock gets 183.4 FPS
• i7 8700k stock gets 231.7 FPS
• i7 8700 @ 5 GHz gets 233.2 FPS

@ 1080:

• R7 1700 stock gets 141.8 FPS
• R7 1800x stock gets 141.4 FPS
• i7 8700k stock gets 148.3 FPS
• i7 8700 @ 5 GHz gets 149.3 FPS

@ 2560:

• R7 1700 stock gets 100.2 FPS
• R7 1800x stock gets 99.8 FPS
• i7 8700k stock gets 102.5 FPS
• i7 8700 @ 5 GHz gets 104.0 FPS

So resolution matters a lot, also settings do

You don't understand. Resolution matters a lot for GPU. He has GTX 1080TI (as you can see there was no bottleneck from GPU), I have RX 480. Low resolution makes CPU bound scenarios.

 

[ondma]

I dont think so, specially after the spectre and meltdown patches are added. Intel becomes slower then a popcorn fart!!
My guess is after the patches are all said and done both top end cpu's will be about dead even or AMD may even just edge out on top this time as the patches don't seem to affect AMD's cpu's.Knock on wood!!

Pure FUD. Multiple reviews have shown little to no effect on gaming.