News AMD previews Ryzen 3rd generation at CES

[Hitman928]

More info to come. . .

 

[Trumpstyle]

Why not show them all? I have nothing against CB, but i feel it plays into AMD core strength too much, while hiding memory latency/bw effects too much. Why not add some gaming, GeekBench 4 into the mix? And JavaScript is fine to me as well, i am certain ZEN2 will shine in it due to great cache subsystem.

They did show Forza horizon 4 with Vega VII. Looks like Zen2 8 Core cpu will have between 10-15% less gaming performance than ryzen 2700x.

This reminds me of Vega gpu where AMD showed disappointing gaming performance in Doom and SW: BF2 (equal to an geforce 1080). Amd might be doing the same thing here, the I/O die is killing gaming performance.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

Where do you get that from?
It's one hell of a claim to make. Gonna need some sources to support it.

 

[Trumpstyle]

Where do you get that from?
It's one hell of a claim to make. Gonna need some sources to support it.

Not sure if you mean me, there's no source, I just looked at a youtube video that was getting upwards 140fps with ryzen 2700x and here is another picture with same setting amd claims.

Amd zen2 was getting about 110-120fps.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

You don't know what CPU they were using for their demo. You can pretty much guarantee that it wasn't an ES for a live demo of a partner's game, especially if that partner is on stage with you.
Let's entertain that it was an ES for a moment; you know that is only running at a comfortably stable clock.
Either way, there's absolutely no indication of anything from that demo.

 

[Topweasel]

You don't know what CPU they were using for their demo. You can pretty much guarantee that it wasn't an ES for a live demo of a partner's game, especially if that partner is on stage with you.
Let's entertain that it was an ES for a moment; you know that is only running at a comfortably stable clock.
Either way, there's absolutely no indication of anything from that demo.

Yeah you only show the ES on the Demo where you are specifically showing off the CPU (and you preface it to death with, this is not the final silicon, final clocks, is and early ES). When showing of the GPU you want a stable and predictable a platform as possible. Hell, it could as easily be a Intel CPU in there to make sure CPU specific optimizations don't hold them back.

 

[rbk123]

They did show Forza horizon 4 with Vega VII. Looks like Zen2 8 Core cpu will have between 10-15% less gaming performance than ryzen 2700x.

While I was hoping for more out of the release, there is no way in he|| that Zen 2 will be worse at gaming than Zen+.

 

[exquisitechar]

You don't know what CPU they were using for their demo. You can pretty much guarantee that it wasn't an ES for a live demo of a partner's game, especially if that partner is on stage with you.
Let's entertain that it was an ES for a moment; you know that is only running at a comfortably stable clock.
Either way, there's absolutely no indication of anything from that demo.

Wasn't it said that it was Zen 2? Can't check right now.

 

[Mopetar]

Wasn't it said that it was Zen 2? Can't check right now.

When they did their Zen 2 demo I recall that they said they were using a computer with the Vega GPU in it for both the AMD and Intel system, but that was a CPU comparison.

I'm not sure if they said anything about what they were using for a CPU when showing off Vega. It's most likely that they would have used their top Ryzen CPU that they could get, or they used the top Intel CPU (and obviously wouldn't want to talk about it much) if using that produced better results.

 

[krumme]

I dont understand amd. I would just have showcased the 16c variant at 4100 points with some standard big air cooler. And with some vague information its same tdp as the configured 9900k.
More fun. More enthusiasm. And actually less information.

 

[bsp2020]

I dont understand amd. I would just have showcased the 16c variant at 4100 points with some standard big air cooler. And with some vague information its same tdp as the configured 9900k.
More fun. More enthusiasm. And actually less information.

Under promise, over deliver? They did that for ROME demo because ROME release is imminent. Ryzen release will happen a little later than ROME release. In the mean time, AMD still has to sell Ryzen 7 2700X and ThreadRipper 2950X for the next 6 month.

 

[realibrad]

I dont understand amd. I would just have showcased the 16c variant at 4100 points with some standard big air cooler. And with some vague information its same tdp as the configured 9900k.
More fun. More enthusiasm. And actually less information.

Show you can beat Intel at its own game, then change the game after. Dominate the marketing.

 

[PotatoWithEarsOnSide]

That we all have different ideas about why they did what they did can only be a good thing for AMD. It fuels discussion and keeps the Ryzen talk relevant to any conversations we have with people. We're free advertising for them. All they need to do is control the hype by not showing crazy performance themselves. When these chips hit the market, and if they exceed what they've previously shown us, then it's a knockout blow.
I liked also how they are bundling games with currently available 2nd gen Ryzen, as that clearly shows that they're confident that they'll sell 3rd gen without freebies. It also keeps 2nd gen sales coming in during an otherwise justifiable hiatus until the 3rd gen comes out. They'll take lower margins because they know that their platform is the winning platform in this current phase of the CPU wars.

 

[Zucker2k]

He's probably unaware that stock 9900K does 1760 points in CB15. AMD let 9900K run for it's life, then sent Zen 2 to play tag while running at 60% power.

Reminds me of the people who did not believe 9900K would be obsolete in under 12 months from launch.

All this based on one demo. Okay.

 

[trollspotter]

All this based on one demo. Okay.

Obsolete is a bit strong. How about severely overpriced. The price will have to be slashed nearly in half once this demoed R5 releases.

 

[Qwertilot]

I'm not absolutely sure.

The 9900k is pushed well past the ragged edge of efficiency, and has a silly TDP as a result. While it is the fastest single thread/gaming chip it has a purpose. If it loses that crown then who would actually buy it? The crazy enthusiasts will go for the new fastest things, and everyone else is significantly better served with something slightly more moderate in the first place.
(Either from Intel or AMD, it won't matter )

 

[ozzy702]

I'm not absolutely sure.

The 9900k is pushed well past the ragged edge of efficiency, and has a silly TDP as a result. While it is the fastest single thread/gaming chip it has a purpose. If it loses that crown then who would actually buy it? The crazy enthusiasts will go for the new fastest things, and everyone else is significantly better served with something slightly more moderate in the first place.
(Either from Intel or AMD, it won't matter )

I agree on a new purchase of a 9900k, but obsolete isn't the word I'd use to describe it. There's still a chance that the 9900k retains the gaming crown which means it's not obsolete, it's just very poorly priced. If Intel wants to sell 9900k's this summer they'll absolutely have to slash prices dramatically.

I'm excited to see gaming performance on Zen2, that's really the only arena that's still a big unknown at this point.

 

[Zucker2k]

I agree on a new purchase of a 9900k, but obsolete isn't the word I'd use to describe it. There's still a chance that the 9900k retains the gaming crown which means it's not obsolete, it's just very poorly priced. If Intel wants to sell 9900k's this summer they'll absolutely have to slash prices dramatically.

I'm excited to see gaming performance on Zen2, that's really the only arena that's still a big unknown at this point.

To be frank, I'll be ecstatic to see AMD take the crown in everything right now if it means Intel will come back with a vengeance 2 years down the road. However, seeing how games love latency, it's probably mission impossible for the zen architecture in it's current iteration to best Intel's ringbus in the 9th gen chips.

 

[ozzy702]

To be frank, I'll be ecstatic to see AMD take the crown in everything right now if it means Intel will come back with a vengeance 2 years down the road. However, seeing how games love latency, it's probably mission impossible for the zen architecture in it's current iteration to best Intel's ringbus in the 9th gen chips.

Same. I'd love to see AMD best the 9900k across the board at a reasonable price. I'd love to have a reason to pickup a 16 core Zen2 setup without making sacrifices to gaming performance, especially with Navi and the 3000 series on the horizon.

 

[Topweasel]

Same. I'd love to see AMD best the 9900k across the board at a reasonable price. I'd love to have a reason to pickup a 16 core Zen2 setup without making sacrifices to gaming performance, especially with Navi and the 3000 series on the horizon.

There is a reason why AMD choose this configuration for the demo. Performance being more predictable, less worries about threads jumping chiplets. Chances are that it works more stable on currently available platforms and less need to have perfect microcode available.

But the biggest reason is clock speed. AMD is probably going to offer Intel like super high single core turbos that don't matter. AMD will also be willing to push and actually state a higher TDP (120-140w). But in the end I feel that at high or full core usage it won't be clocked as high on a two chiplet offering (including 4c+4c). This CPU while possibly being AMDs mid range offering both matched the Intel configuration to stop potential discounting of performance, but is probably the CPU configuration that best competes against the 9900k.

I bring this up because if we are right it's going to be killer performance for cheap. But it will also mean that any higher end options will still be a compromise. Lots less than the compromise of a 2700x or 2950x over a 9900k. But it will still be a compromise. One I will take without blinking. But still.

 

[Charlie22911]

Is there any info as to what a potential 16c AM4 part will be branded as? Ryzen 9?

 

[coercitiv]

All this based on one demo. Okay.

Yeah, all this based on one demo. And if you remember what was said in that discussion, I repeatedly said it was to be made obsolete by Intel themselves, more exactly that a significantly cheaper Intel product would offer the same or higher level of performance.

 

[coercitiv]

I just looked at a youtube video that was getting upwards 140fps with ryzen 2700x and here is another picture with same setting amd claims.

Amd zen2 was getting about 110-120fps.

Maybe people who have better experience with this particular game can chime in, but I'd like to point out one detail.

The RTX 2080 benchmark example is on Ultra settings preset. Lisa Su said on stage this game was running on "maximum settings". As far as I can tell, this game has a higher than ultra settings.

In the game's day-0 patch, Playground Games "Added visual presets for Nvidia RTX 2070, 2080 and 2080Ti" graphics cards, allowing the game to be pushed well beyond the game's Ultra graphical preset.

 

[Anarchist Mae]

Please tell me they didn't compare the Radeon 7 to a 2080 with RTX on or something...

 

[exquisitechar]

Maybe people who have better experience with this particular game can chime in, but I'd like to point out one detail.

The RTX 2080 benchmark example is on Ultra settings preset. Lisa Su said on stage this game was running on "maximum settings". As far as I can tell, this game has a higher than ultra settings.

Yeah, also important to note is that the Radeon 7 was at 99% utilization.

 

[TheELF]

Your point was that AMD purposefully made the 9900K look bad in order to compare favourably with the Zen 2 sample. Where is your proof?

If the 9900K at 5.1 GHz scores 2212, then at 4.7 GHz it would have scored around 2040, which was exactly what it scored in the demo. Thus it drills holes into your claims about the 9900K being gimped in any way.

My point was that a small difference in CB (so it's not 5% but 10+ % ) still makes a big difference in userbenchmark,that's what I was answering to.
I never said that the 9900k was being gimped,but around it's release we have sen how huge a difference the motherboard makes when it comes to power draw (and to a lesser degree to performance) .
Where is your proof that they selected the best possible combo?


Anecdotal but still,properly configured at 4,7Gh running cinebench the 9900k uses 131Watt....158 at stock
CINEBENCH R15.038 131Watt @1,12Volt (158Watt @1,216 Volt Stock)
https://www.computerbase.de/forum/threads/9900k-undervolt.1832939/