Speculation: Ryzen 4000 series/Zen 3

[Markfw]

It will be utter destruction accross the board, I would feel sorry for intel if they were not such a money grab conmpany

AMD already owns everything but gaming. Yes, this should nail the coffin shut.

 

[Asterox]

There is no such thing as an all-core turbo. The speed the CPU operates at depends on the workload.

Yes, it does exist no doubt.

R5 3600X/All core Turbo for 12 Threads is what 4.2ghz?

AMD Ryzen 5 3600X Benchmark, Test and specs

AMD Ryzen 5 3600X benchmark results and review of this cpu with specs including the number of cores, threads, memory bandwidth, pcie lanes and power consumption. Benchmarks in Cinebench R23 and Geekbench 5

www.cpu-monkey.com

AMD Ryzen 5 3600 Review

Ryzen 5 3600 is the most affordable Zen 2 processor in AMD's lineup. At just $200, it offers six cores and twelve threads, yielding a significant advantage in applications against the competition from Intel. Gaming performance is also improved nicely as it is around 10% higher than with previous...

www.techpowerup.com

R5 5600X, in the same condition we can bet it will hit All Core/Threads turbo 4.4ghz no problem.

 

[soresu]

There is no such thing as an all-core turbo.

Errr... yeah there is.

All core turbo is the maximum boost clock of all the cores together.

Then you have the single core turbo which is clearly self explanatory after you know what all core turbo means.

I've heard the term at least as far back as TR1 with AMD's first 12 and 16 core models.

 

[ModEl4]

I game at 4K, and it isn’t uncommon to see a game using 6-8 cores.

I agree, it is not uncommon, in the end the results are the following:

AMD Ryzen 9 3900XT Review

The Ryzen 9 3900XT is the flagship of the new AMD Ryzen XT series. It comes with higher boost clocks and can sustain them better, which helps with single-threaded workloads. In our Ryzen 9 3900XT review, we also saw better overclocking and lower temperatures than on the original Ryzen 9 3900X.

www.techpowerup.com

 

[soresu]

It will be utter destruction accross the board, I would feel sorry for intel if they were not such a money grab conmpany

For DIY sure, but AMD already had that segment sewn up from what I've heard for a while.

For OEM systems I think that the situation is a bit more complicated though - with NUC's and laptops or all varieties, especially Chromebooks that AMD is only just breaking into with a generation old APU.

These are the sort of mass sales segments that make a lot from their sheer volume vs the more discerning crowd that go DIY.

It might be a pyrrhic victory to retain market share by offering contra revenue to keep OEM's onside, but I certainly would not put it past Intel to continue doing so until the very dregs of their war chest is depleted, which will be sometime yet - especially as they are still pushing forward with new core designs and decoupling them from process gradually.

Even then there will be a cohort who will still buy Intel simply because of brand recognition, regardless of pricing and the bad PR stories concerning security that we are so aware of as PC tech enthusiasts - my father included who despite having no real reason to upgrade will still blindly buy Intel.

 

[Hitman928]

In regards to all core turbo, I think what @eek2121 means is that there is no set all core frequency turbo bin like there used to be with Intel CPUs, which is true. The Ryzen CPUs, at least since Zen+, are more opportunistic in that you could have two workloads that load all cores, one might be heavy and cause the cores to fall to base frequency, but another all core load that is lighter per core might still allow a higher frequency across all cores, there's not set frequency just because all cores are engaged. The boosting algorithm is more dependent on how much current/power the all core load is requiring which determines the end frequency (assuming sufficient cooling as well).

 

[Ajay]

AMD already owns everything but gaming. Yes, this should nail the coffin shut.

By the data, yes it should. But Intel has years of marketing and alot of momentum as a great gaming CPU that AMD has to overcome.
We are enthusiasts on this forum, we think differently - most ppl go into Best Buy or whatever and by a 'gaming' tower or laptop.

Anyway, at this point, I just want reviews. I hope that reviewers will have CPUs to test for the October announcement.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Does anyone really care about CPU benchmarks for gaming? Unless you have a Core2duo or something you'll be GPU limited in 99% of cases anyway. I never look at those benchmarks, only reason for newer CPU is faster desktop/multitasking, photo editing etc. That's were we see a difference.

 

[Mopetar]

Does anyone really care about CPU benchmarks for gaming? Unless you have a Core2duo or something you'll be GPU limited in 99% of cases anyway. I never look at those benchmarks, only reason for newer CPU is faster desktop/multitasking, photo editing etc. That's were we see a difference.

Yeah, there are a few people who take their CS pretty seriously and want another 10 FPS even though most people won't care.

Not everyone is doing photo editing on their desktop either. That's why most reviews have a variety of different benchmarks and workloads. Most users will probably one care about a few of them, but everyone has a different few.

 

[Zstream]

Does anyone really care about CPU benchmarks for gaming? Unless you have a Core2duo or something you'll be GPU limited in 99% of cases anyway. I never look at those benchmarks, only reason for newer CPU is faster desktop/multitasking, photo editing etc. That's were we see a difference.

I wish they did more multi-tasking test, but they all refuse. They just want to click a stupid button for a benchmark and that's it.

They need to run outlook, browsers, window mode gaming, and add a couple VM's. That would get my attention.

 

[yuri69]

Does anyone really care about CPU benchmarks for gaming? Unless you have a Core2duo or something you'll be GPU limited in 99% of cases anyway.

C2D would die painfully like in these random 4k tests of C2Q+2080Ti. The bottleneck is definitely not 99% on GPU...

The problem is also the reviews test stupid 720p because they can't test MMOs and such games in a repeatable way.

 

[simas]

There's no escape from this conundrum.
If Zen 3 proves to be really as good as promised by the rumors and works on current AM4 mobos than more people will rush to buy one. There's no way to supply this demand.

The best AMD can do, as I said before, is take this opportunity to extract as much money as possible from the enthusiasts while Intel can't compete.

am I the only one that does NOT want for AMD 'to own everything' , specifically to avoid getting them into position of arrogance and price monopoly on their chips ??

I bought my Ryzen 1700 two and a half years ago for $250 new, and so have the 8C/16T chip pricing have not been that impressive given performance gain is 10% per year/each generation. Now I may get something offered from AMD that is consistently 30% faster for what amount??

 

[obidamnkenobi]

C2D would die painfully like in these random 4k tests of C2Q+2080Ti. The bottleneck is definitely not 99% on GPU...

The problem is also the reviews test stupid 720p because they can't test MMOs and such games in a repeatable way.

Ok C2D was a joke, obviously. But also very few use 4K,it's horribly expensive. Most use 1080p, maybe two monitors. I'll have to check steam survey for exact numbers. For that it's pretty challenging to get cpu bottlenecked

Edit; also i dont see how the Core gets destroyed. Yeah it's a quad, but at 4K it gets 46 fps in CS and GTA V! That's pretty impressive, and plenty playable! Wow, that's kinda amazing

 

[soresu]

They need to run outlook, browsers, window mode gaming, and add a couple VM's.

A 3950X and 128 GB RAM should take care of all that nicely.

 

[soresu]

The bottleneck is definitely not 99% on GPU...

I'm inclined to think that much is a consequence of bad software engineering in games and/or drivers rather than any deficiencies in the CPU.

Just as with bloat in many other types of PC applications it is not unusual for code bloat or simply bad optimisation to exist in an engine with the CPU expected to simply take up the slack.

Who knows, many game developers clearly take money from nVidia and sometimes AMD to promote GPU's and specific features like GameWorks.

It wouldn't be such a stretch for them to purposefully be lazy with engine optimization on Intel's behalf for a little money on the side.

 

[A///]

There's no escape from this conundrum.
If Zen 3 proves to be really as good as promised by the rumors and works on current AM4 mobos than more people will rush to buy one. There's no way to supply this demand.

The best AMD can do, as I said before, is take this opportunity to extract as much money as possible from the enthusiasts while Intel can't compete.

You make a good point. I don't mind paying $30-50 extra for what I want over Ryzen 3000 desktop launch prices. I would probably pay $100 more if the performance difference justified it. It probably will.

 

[Makaveli]

am I the only one that does NOT want for AMD 'to own everything' , specifically to avoid getting them into position of arrogance and price monopoly on their chips ??

I bought my Ryzen 1700 two and a half years ago for $250 new, and so have the 8C/16T chip pricing have not been that impressive given performance gain is 10% per year/each generation. Now I may get something offered from AMD that is consistently 30% faster for what amount??

A 3700X is $325 USD right now on newegg.com

So for $75 dollars more than what you paid 2 1/2 years ago you are getting something that is 30%+ faster. At the same core count.

And even if Zen 3 comes out and owns everything intel has they still own more market share and are much larger. AMD is too small and would need many many successful quarters in a row and to grow much larger to even approach a monopoly.

 

[simas]

A 3700X is $325 USD right now on newegg.com

So for $75 dollars more than what you paid 2 1/2 years ago you are getting something that is 30%+ faster. At the same core count.

And even if Zen 3 comes out and owns everything intel has they still own more market share and are much larger. AMD is too small and would need many many successful quarters in a row and to grow much larger to even approach a monopoly.

yep. and curious what the price/performance looks like with release/general availability of Zen 3 (not sure what naming it would take in terms of chips as AMD made a mess of their CPU vs APU vs what is which generation naming schedule)

Once Zen 3 is generally available it would turn into
-> what is the performance lift ignoring costs , are we looking at the same 7-10% IPC increase gen over gen or is this something better?
-> what is the pricing of previous gen (XT chips) in my locale
-> value for money , overall costs (new MB ,etc.) vs performance increase

 

[Richie Rich]

This looks promising if true beats even an overclocked intel at 5.1GHz

https://twitter.com/x/status/1311483157703614464

25% better at single and 15% at multi.....
1.25/1.15 * 4.6 = 5GHz

So this mean the IPC is:

• Ryzen 3900x @4.6 GHz has 523 pts .... 113.7 pts/GHz
• Zen3 @ 5.0 GHz has 652.8 pts ............. 130.6 pts/GHz .... +14.9% IPC uplift

You have a thread for this. Do not infect other threads with these IPC posts. I am giving you a zero point warning as a courtesy. Do it again you will be infracted.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Panino Manino]

am I the only one that does NOT want for AMD 'to own everything' , specifically to avoid getting them into position of arrogance and price monopoly on their chips ??

I bought my Ryzen 1700 two and a half years ago for $250 new, and so have the 8C/16T chip pricing have not been that impressive given performance gain is 10% per year/each generation. Now I may get something offered from AMD that is consistently 30% faster for what amount??

You'll pay as much as they ask you to pay, you'll pay what the chip is worth, you'll reward AMD for their good work.

Can "we" stop with this "AMD being good and staying ahead is actually bad"? If AMD will have competition, if AMD will keep on high alert and investing and working everything they can to keep the higher ground depends as much from Intel as from themselves now.
Creating these high technological things is not easy. They have to think carefully and play their hand well, and as a result of this they may hold back a bit and not use all their cards too fast. This is natural, every one of these companies must have done so at some point in time. I believe that eventually AMD may do this with their future CPU, just not at the same degree as Intel did, now with a bunch of new architectures that they can get to the market.

 

[krumme]

It looks like the most fierce competition for zen3 is going to be zen2.
The 3600 kind of spoiled the party.

 

[DrMrLordX]

This is the crux of the problem: AMD needed to have stockpiled these chips way in advance or else the demand for them will outpace supply. TSMC N7 is in high demand and pretty much every AMD product line uses it.

It's going to be like that no matter whether AMD stockpiles the chips or not. They can only order so many wafers over such-and-such a period of time. Best to launch with at least a limited supply to gauge interest, and immediately start taking more wafers as they become available. Which is more-or-less what they did with Matisse.

(plus dice that bin well enough for EPYC will probably wind up in Milan instead)

All core turbo is the maximum boost clock of all the cores together.

See @Hitman928 below

In regards to all core turbo, I think what @eek2121 means is that there is no set all core frequency turbo bin like there used to be with Intel CPUs, which is true.

Exactly. Different workloads can produce wildly different results. On my 3900x:

CBR20 - 4175 MHz
Prime95 Small FFTs- 3990 MHz (?)

It's been like that since Matisse. Summit Ridge was for more predictable.

am I the only one that does NOT want for AMD 'to own everything' , specifically to avoid getting them into position of arrogance and price monopoly on their chips ??

You are not alone. I don't think we'll see them in a 'monopoly' position so much as a 'we'll keep selling you the same crap for longer than our technology mandates we need to' position. Expect to see some variation of Zen3 on the market as AMD's main offering until 2022. Booooooring.

So this mean the IPC is:

You have a thread for that.

 

[DiogoDX]

This looks promising if true beats even an overclocked intel at 5.1GHz

https://twitter.com/x/status/1311483157703614464

25% better at single and 15% at multi.....
1.25/1.15 * 4.6 = 5GHz

Nice score. Now wait for the patch to "correct" the Zen3 performance like they did with the first zen.

 

[Hail The Brain Slug]

You are not alone. I don't think we'll see them in a 'monopoly' position so much as a 'we'll keep selling you the same crap for longer than our technology mandates we need to' position. Expect to see some variation of Zen3 on the market as AMD's main offering until 2022. Booooooring.

With Zen 3 first launching October 2020, a launch in Q1 2022 is a standard product cycle of 15-18 months. What makes you think waiting until Q1 2022 is AMD milking their dominant position over Intel? I'm sure they are much smarter than that.

They know they need to maintain their cadence to continue tightening the noose.

Zen - 3/2/17
Zen+ - 4/13/18 (13 months)
Zen 2 - 8/7/19 (16 months)
Zen 3 - 10/8/20 (14 months)

 

[inf64]

Nice score. Now wait for the patch to "correct" the Zen3 performance like they did with the first zen.

There is no fixing anymore, Zen3 will have a massive IPC advantage (~20-25%) over Skylake(-X) in everything but AVX512 while clocking to almost 5Ghz for 1T workloads. Intel will have a choice of lowering the prices or doing some insane marketing shenanigans.