***OFFICIAL*** Ryzen 5000 / Zen 3 Launch Thread REVIEWS BEGIN PAGE 39

[lobz]

Maybe they didn't because they didn't get the desired result?

Seriously? But they shoved how they lose in BFV after getting an abysmal 5% improvement upon Zen 2? Please.

 

[inf64]

Seriously? But they shoved how they lose in BFV after getting an abysmal 5% improvement upon Zen 2? Please.

It's obvious that the games that show smaller improvement over Zen2 are not that CPU but GPU bound at 1080p, this is reflected in the charts versus 10900K. Zen3 will be a better gaming chip than 10900K, there is no doubt about that, CPU bound games like LOL and CS GO confirm that (with a massive 20% advantage for Zen3).

 

[lobz]

1. Appeal to authority - the cheapest way out of an argument.
2. I have proved that Intel gains more with a reference but you will not accept it because you are part of the pro-AMD echo chamber.
3. Based on current information there is every possibility of it being true, but of course you will deny it because of point number 2.

And when getting pointed to another reference that didn't suit your narrative, your answer was: I don't know about that.

 

[lobz]

It's obvious that the games that show smaller improvement over Zen2 are not that CPU but GPU bound at 1080p, this is reflected in the charts versus 10900K. Zen3 will be a better gaming chip than 10900K, there is no doubt about that, CPU bound games like LOL and CS GO confirm that (with a massive 20% advantage for Zen3).

Well I KNOW, the argument was brought up because we were talking about CPU-bound games, then Mr. Tamz clearly misunderstood somebody and decided to present Doom Eternal as CPU-bound, which it is absolutely not. Then that escalated through some people. The point was this all along: hiding behind falsely applied statistical principles, @tamz_msc discards numbers from actually CPU-bound games, then goes ahead to lecture the whole forum 5 pages long about statistics in one of the most distasteful style I've seen in a while - for literally nothing, because his reasoning of deciding whether something is an outlier or not is totally misguided.

 

[lobz]

The 19%
How? Is this a completely new arch?

Yes, they stated this more than a year ago too (Mr. Papermaster in an interview to AT), and in this presentation as well.

 

[lobz]

It's not your downplaying AMD marketing that's the problem, there have been plenty of voices in this thread that declared they will wait for reviews before anything else, and they were accepted as such.

The problem is your selective approach towards data, exactly the one flaw you're accusing this entire thread of. When it comes to the new AMD product you're very quick to judge outliers and proclaim limited to non-relevant memory overclock results in gaming, yet when it comes to Rocket Lake you don't even require a preview to estimate performance gains and proclaim a winner.

You simply can't make up your mind between using objective data observation in the case of AMD marketing slides and using speculative estimates with no requirements for pre-existing data in the case of Rocket Lake and/or other Zen 3 performance metrics such as custom memory timing scaling. Your initial evaluation of Zen 3 gaming performance could have been entirely based on AMD marketing slides, with strong emphasis on probable high variance in gaming performance results, cautioning others to take into account a low average gaming performance lead of only 5%. Instead you chose to talk about overclocking and custom memory scaling on Skylake against a CPU you have no other data for.



"So near yet so far" - you judged before you measured.

And here are the rest of my thoughts, exactly.

 

[lobz]

If AMD decides not to release a reasonably priced 65W 5700X for this generation, I will skip it altogether.

No way I'm getting a 105W (which is 130W in practice considering that AMD keeps lying about their TDP and everyone is seemingly OK with that) 5800X for whopping $120 more than 3700X before it.

That made me giggle.

 

[lobz]

Indeed. I guess AMD can actually claim all those folks proclaiming to be "sticker shocked" as a success since nothing shows more that AMD successfully normalized more cores than this behavior. One small step toward becoming a brand that is the envy of some folks that can't or don't want to shell out the asked price tags. Still a far cry from Intel's consumer desktop SKUs of the past (for now AMD's Threadripper line is there to take that role).

We should also not forget that we actually need both companies to do OK performance wise. AMD did sell their top FX CPU for $1000 for multiple years. Nothing could touch them, and there were budget options that trounced Intel as well, that's also true. But still, the $1000 top FX CPUs were out of line in my opinion.

 

[Zucker2k]

Seriously? But they shoved how they lose in BFV after getting an abysmal 5% improvement upon Zen 2? Please.

How many negative titles do you want to see in an AMD gaming slide?

Kudos to them for including that, at least, but it doesn't automatically buy transparency for me. I could link to the Zen 2 launch gaming slides and actual reviews, but why bother? There are still questions like testing at DDR4 3200 instead of 3600. It would've helped to see FS 2020 in there as well. This is why everyone wants to see reviews (including overclocking results, at least, for me).

 

[tamz_msc]

It's not your downplaying AMD marketing that's the problem, there have been plenty of voices in this thread that declared they will wait for reviews before anything else, and they were accepted as such.

The problem is your selective approach towards data, exactly the one flaw you're accusing this entire thread of. When it comes to the new AMD product you're very quick to judge outliers and proclaim limited to non-relevant memory overclock results in gaming, yet when it comes to Rocket Lake you don't even require a preview to estimate performance gains and proclaim a winner.

1. I ran a simple computation on a given set of data that is publicly available - and that is me being selective about it? If you have doubts regarding the results I obtained, feel free to do the computations yourself.

2. Regarding Rocket Lake, I said that it will be comfortably ahead in gaming IF it clocks to ~5GHz. That's speculation, true - but it is speculation based on known facts which makes it likely to be a highly probable outcome. What response did it provoke from the AMDeniers? - "nope, nada, can't be true", accusations of bias, refusal to acknowledge outliers in the data, appeals to authority etc. If you find my approach problematic, what do you have to say about these people?

You simply can't make up your mind between using objective data observation in the case of AMD marketing slides and using speculative estimates with no requirements for pre-existing data in the case of Rocket Lake and/or other Zen 3 performance metrics such as custom memory timing scaling. Your initial evaluation of Zen 3 gaming performance could have been entirely based on AMD marketing slides, with strong emphasis on probable high variance in gaming performance results, cautioning others to take into account a low average gaming performance lead of only 5%. Instead you chose to talk about overclocking and custom memory scaling on Skylake against a CPU you have no other data for.

Why shouldn't we talk about custom memory scaling? AMD took the liberty to demonstrate their CPU as well as the Intel one with out-of-spec memory, so it is only natural that both should be judged on how well they can maximize their potential in this front.

 

[lobz]

Vermeer's not going to work for enterprise. You need the IGP. Doesn't need to be much, Vega 3 would be perfect, but you need the IGP. Given the demand destruction brought on by The Rona, you have to think that AMD will not focus too much on enterprise desktop despite being most of the market.



There isn't really going to be value SKUs for Rocket Lake (if Intel does release it) - most of the 11th Gen S is going to be Comet Lake rebrands.

For enterprise, the Zen 3 counterpart to the G series will come, probably early to mid next year after mobile Zen 3. Lot of folks seem to just forget about the Renoir G Pro desktop APUs just because they're OEM only.

 

[Makaveli]

5800X may have half memory write bandwidth the same as the single-chiplet Matisse CPUs.

i'm hoping they fixed this but we won't know until a full review.

No offense but I doubt AMD will be missing you as a customer. If you want the best performance you need to pay the higher price. AMD is not a charity, you have to keep that in mind.

Not to mention the difference in actual power draw between the 3700X at 65 w and the 3800X at 105 w is still small.

 

[tamz_msc]

The point was this all along: hiding behind falsely applied statistical principles, @tamz_msc discards numbers from actually CPU-bound games, then goes ahead to lecture the whole forum 5 pages long about statistics in one of the most distasteful style I've seen in a while - for literally nothing, because his reasoning of deciding whether something is an outlier or not is totally misguided.

Neither you nor Mr. Statistcian moderator from the pro-AMD camp has been able to convince me as to why my application of statistical principles is wrong.

Calling out (or bring up a person being a moderator) is
not allowed. If you have an issue with moderation, you
create a thread in MD.

AT Mod Usandthem

 

[lobz]

How many negative titles do you want to see in an AMD gaming slide?

Kudos to them for including that, at least, but it doesn't automatically buy transparency for me. I could link to the Zen 2 launch gaming slides and actual reviews, but why bother? There are still questions like testing at DDR4 3200 instead of 3600. It would've helped to see FS 2020 in there as well. This is why everyone wants to see reviews (including overclocking results, at least, for me).

I think the slides are fine and considering it's marketing, fairly balanced. You just asked a question and I presented the counterpart, meaning just because they're not showing Doom Eternal, it's not necessarily because of a weak example. Because that was the earlier question you answered to.

 

[lobz]

Neither you nor Mr. Statistcian moderator from the pro-AMD camp has been able to convince me as to why my application of statistical principles is wrong.

Another ill-willed comment for no reason. When have you seen Mark moderating on any of the arguments he was a part of? This Pro-AMD camp also gets me every time, because when I point out BS from AMD elsewhere in an environment where real AMD fanboys are present, I get trounced as pro NVIDIA etc, not to mention I don't even have any AMD hardware in my computer. As to your statistical principles, I totally get it from you don't worry. See my other comment: at least you're wrong with a conviction.

 

[tamz_msc]

No, because you are talking of gain in respect of the 2660Mhz official specs, but overclocked to the , CPU clock and RAM, it will gain 13% at best in respect of AMD slide where 3600MHz RAM was used for Intel as well...

From your own link going from 3600CL16 to 3733CL14 on Zen 2 leads to a 2% gain, while on Skylake going from 3600CL16 to 4133CL17 leads to a 13% gain. So Skylake gains more from memory overclocking than Zen 2, as for Zen 3 the jury is out there as to how much it can gain from overclocking memory, but we know that the IO die is the same, meaning that no improvements have been made to the memory controller, so chances of Zen 3 suddenly becoming better than Zen 2 in memory scaling don't seem very high.

 

[tamz_msc]

Another ill-willed comment for no reason. When have you seen Mark moderating on any of the arguments he was a part of? This Pro-AMD camp also gets me every time, because when I point out BS from AMD elsewhere in an environment where real AMD fanboys are present, I get trounced as pro NVIDIA etc, not to mention I don't even have any AMD hardware in my computer. As to your statistical principles, I totally get it from you don't worry. See my other comment: at least you're wrong with a conviction.

I was wrong about Doom Eternal, but you still haven't shown me how I am wrong with applying statistical principles. As far as the opinions of the moderator is concerned, it is irrelevant as he basically dismissed everything with an appeal to authority.

Calling out (or bring up a person being a moderator) is
not allowed. If you have an issue with moderation, you
create a thread in MD.

AT Mod Usandthem

 

[Abwx]

I suppose we'll find out with the Anandtech gaming comparisons - DDR4 2933 vs DDR4 3200 compared to sites that'll run DDR4 3600 for both platforms.

Also, if the official max supported memory speed for Zen 3 is DDR4 3200, why is AMD releasing gaming slides with overclocked memory (DDR4 3600)? It's probable that it helps AMD's numbers more than Intel's. So, Zen 3's fast cores probably are starved more ala Comet Lake's than Zen 2's.

According to the member i was answering to it s Intel that gain the most with ocked RAM, but if you say otherwise...

Besides if AMD tested Zen 3 with 3600 MHz RAM it sure means that Zen 3 will officialy support this frequency, unless of course that you also have a link to back your 3200 MHz claim for Zen 3...

From your own link going from 3600CL16 to 3733CL14 on Zen 2 leads to a 2% gain, while on Skylake going from 3600CL16 to 4133CL17 leads to a 13% gain. So Skylake gains more from memory overclocking than Zen 2, as for Zen 3 the jury is out there as to how much it can gain from overclocking memory, but we know that the IO die is the same, meaning that no improvements have been made to the memory controller, so chances of Zen 3 suddenly becoming better than Zen 2 in memory scaling don't seem very high.

If the I/O was as bottlenecked as you state then Zen 3 would not provide much better game perf than Zen 2, game perf improvement would be much less than the IPC and frequency improvements.

Also the 13% number for Intel at Computerbase include both RAM and CPU overclocking if you took attention to the mention 9900 OC...

 

[lobz]

According to the memeber i was answering to it s Intel that gain the most with ocked RAM, but if you say otherwise...

Besides if AMD tested Zen 3 with 3600 MHz RAM it sure means that Zen 3 will officialy support this frequency, unless of course that you also have a link to back your 3200 MHz claim for Zen 3...



If the I/O was as bottlenecked as you state then Zen 3 would provide much better game perf than Zen 2, most of IPC improvement would be moot and game perf improvement would be much less than the IPC and frequency improvements.

No need for him to back it up, AMD officially confirmed the and I/O die and therefore the memory controller to be the exact same, though not in the presentation itself. In press calls that happened just before the stream, in particular to Gamers Nexus and Ian from AT. They've also said, that in this generation 3600-3733 will remain the sweet spot. That's probably why they showed tests using 3600 RAM.

 

[Markfw]

From your own link going from 3600CL16 to 3733CL14 on Zen 2 leads to a 2% gain, while on Skylake going from 3600CL16 to 4133CL17 leads to a 13% gain. So Skylake gains more from memory overclocking than Zen 2, as for Zen 3 the jury is out there as to how much it can gain from overclocking memory, but we know that the IO die is the same, meaning that no improvements have been made to the memory controller, so chances of Zen 3 suddenly becoming better than Zen 2 in memory scaling don't seem very high.

Why don't you try the base supported frequency to the fastest they can run, and check those percentages. You are comparing apples to oranges. In your example about, you have the Intel going to a higher number than AMD.

 

[lobz]

I was wrong about Doom Eternal, but you still haven't shown me how I am wrong with applying statistical principles. As far as the opinions of the moderator is concerned, it is irrelevant as he basically dismissed everything with an appeal to authority.

Yes I did. You are dismissing examples that are, because of their characteristics (being CPU-bound), more relevant to what you are debating (gaming performance of the CPU). You can twist your nonsense another 5 pages long, all that does is just strengthen your opinion as an outlier, thus dismissible.

 

[leoneazzurro]

By the way, going from 3200CL14 to 3600CL16 means a 2,3% on Intel system and 3.4% on the 3900X. Not what I call a groundbreaking difference. Also, comparing very higly clocked RAM is not meaningful (as Ryzen 3000 series has the divider in IF clock after hitting 1800MHz). Gamersnexus has also some scaling for very high clocked memory and overclocked IF bus. For Ryzen 5000 differences in theory should be lower as the unified cache pool should limit more the need for memory access.

Ryzen 3000 Memory Benchmark & Best RAM for Ryzen (fClock, uClock, & mClock)

Memory speed on Ryzen has always been a hot subject, with AMD’s 1000 and 2000 series CPUs responding favorably to fast memory while at the same time having difficulty getting past 3200MHz in Gen1. The new Ryzen 3000 chips officially support memory speeds up to 3200MHz and can reliably run kits...

www.gamersnexus.net

 

[Markfw]

By the way, going from 3200CL14 to 3600CL16 means a 2,3% on Intel system and 3.4% on the 3900X. Not what I call a groundbreaking difference. Also, comparing very higly clocked RAM is not meaningful (as Ryzen 3000 series has the divider in IF clock after hitting 1800MHz). Gamersnexus has also some scaling for very high clocked memory and overclocked IF bus. For Ryzen 5000 differences in theory should be lower as the unified cache pool should limit more the need for memory access.

Ryzen 3000 Memory Benchmark & Best RAM for Ryzen (fClock, uClock, & mClock)

Memory speed on Ryzen has always been a hot subject, with AMD’s 1000 and 2000 series CPUs responding favorably to fast memory while at the same time having difficulty getting past 3200MHz in Gen1. The new Ryzen 3000 chips officially support memory speeds up to 3200MHz and can reliably run kits...

www.gamersnexus.net

while 2.3% and 3.4% are small numbers, the total difference in gaming performance is not much different than that. But it does prove my point that AMD gains more than Intel with faster memory. Also, all of this will not matter with Zen 3, as its a whole new architecture.

 

[Zucker2k]

while 2.3% and 3.4% are small numbers, the total difference in gaming performance is not much different than that. But it does prove my point that AMD gains more than Intel with faster memory. Also, all of this will not matter with Zen 3, as its a whole new architecture.

How can you come to that conclusion with ONLY that data?

 

[DooKey]

Lots of attacking the messenger around here. Sigh.