News AMD Makes Zen 3 Official: Ryzen 5000 Promises 19% Better IPC, 1080p Gaming Dominance

[msroadkill612]

"While all eight cores can access the L3 cache within a single compute chiplet, in a dual-chiplet Zen 3 chip, there will be times that the cores will have to communicate with the other chiplet and its L3 cache. In those cases, the compute chiplet's requests will still have to traverse the Infinity Fabric via signals routed through the I/O die, which incurs latency.


Still, because an entire layer of external communication between the two four-core clusters inside each chiplet has been removed, the Infinity Fabric will naturally have far less traffic. This results in less contention on the fabric, thus simplifying scheduling and routing, and it could also increase the amount of available bandwidth for this type of traffic. All of these factors will result in faster transfers (i.e., lower latency) communication between the two eight-core chiplets, and it possibly removes some of the overhead on the I/O die, too. We also imagine there could be other advantages, particularly in regards to main memory latency,....
"
just sayin - this would disproportionately benefit the single chiplet 6&8 core models, which oddly they didnt give benchmarks for afaik.

maybe the 8 core is their killer gamer - they are just saving some good news?

 

[ajr1775]

Happy to hear the 5900X will be a noticeable jump in performance over the 3900X. I just did a 3900X build with the recent price drops and I love it. Only thing I didn't like about the presentation was bragging about playing better at 1080p. Who cares? A person that can afford a 5900X is waaaay more likely going to be playing at 1440p with some at 4K. The 1440p performance is what really matters. Waiting to see what Intel is doing with Rocket Lake.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Wow, did not expect this, Intel might have to put a lot of effort to retake it's crown. Well competition is good for the consumer. (Though the price increase.........

The price increase is easily expected. AMD has not had a overall leader in performance yet, and I will of course wait for third party benchmarks, so they had to price lower to compete.

People seem to forget that when AMD was dominant before they priced accordingly. So much so that when I bought my Q6600 I pad less than half of what a QuadFX, which was horrible, would have cost.

 

[King_V]

All Zen 3 desktop, mobile, and APU chips will carry Ryzen 5000 branding

FINALLY!

 

[King_V]

Happy to hear the 5900X will be a noticeable jump in performance over the 3900X. I just did a 3900X build with the recent price drops and I love it. Only thing I didn't like about the presentation was bragging about playing better at 1080p. Who cares?

I suspect that this is basically intended as a slap in the face to Intel (and Intel fanboys) who tout the small lead in frames/sec at 1080p as "proving" Intel's gaming superiority.

 

[kenyee]

When is the AM5 socket going to be available? I was hoping they'd announce that as well :-(

 

[spongiemaster]

I suspect that this is basically intended as a slap in the face to Intel (and Intel fanboys) who tout the small lead in frames/sec at 1080p as "proving" Intel's gaming superiority.

They'd also have to use an Nvidia gpu above 1080p to not bottleneck the cpu. They're not going to reveal a range of big navi performance numbers before it is officially revealed.

 

[digitalgriffin]

I suspect that this is basically intended as a slap in the face to Intel (and Intel fanboys) who tout the small lead in frames/sec at 1080p as "proving" Intel's gaming superiority.

Some people swear they need all the frames they can get for co-op multi play (ie: cs:go or bf5,pubg, etc... ) They claim they have the reflexes to benefit. But the truth is net lag is far more detrimental.

i see they moved to 7nm for the memory/io controller. It looks significantly smaller.

As others have said, It seems like a big price jump to me for the small improvement.

The 6900 xt seems a disappointment as well.
With 10% of the 3080 was where the vega 64 was with the 1080. So amd hasn't improved their positioning any. I would have expected equal footing with the 3080. Yet prices on both are significantly higher.

So i'll be skipping this gen on both sides till prices come down. I might pay $450 for 5900X. And I might pay $550 for a 6900XT. But nothing over that if its within 10% of a 3080. Its just not worth it to me.

 

[TerryLaze]

The price increase is easily expected. AMD has not had a overall leader in performance yet, and I will of course wait for third party benchmarks, so they had to price lower to compete.

People seem to forget that when AMD was dominant before they priced accordingly. So much so that when I bought my Q6600 I pad less than half of what a QuadFX, which was horrible, would have cost.

We have seen it time and again that AMD released products at insanely high prices to cash in from the gullible enthusiasts only to drop their prices very shortly after release.
The fx-9590 was released at $920....

FX-9590 now available in retail kit, at massive discount

techreport.com

 

[gallovfc]

I'd just like to remind Paul Alcorn that benchmarks coming from AMD ARE NOT THIRD PARTY!!!
They are FRIST PARTY... YOU ARE the third party here, the consumer is the second.

 

[CerianK]

For those who agree that healthy competition between AMD and Intel benefits us all in the long-run (at least until Nvidia clobbers everyone with ARM), I recommend we buy all the towels on the market, using bots if necessary, so Intel has no way to throw one in. (Obviously, this is an attempt at humor, but also to try and keep you distracted while I score a new CPU next month).

 

[GeekyOne]

They eliminated equivalents to the overwhelmingly popular 3600 and 3700x, in lieu on the "pointlessly more expensive" 3600x and 3800x which performed nearly identically due to how the chips would almost never hit peak boost or base clocks.

So the price hike is more like $100, not $50.
And that's over launch msrp for the 3600, not the current lower market prices.
I doubt the gaming uplift for the 5600x is good enough to justify a 50% higher price, even if it beats a stock 10900k, that's still a relatively minor performance delta in an uncommon use case.

Yep - I've been holding off purchasing a 3700X for the 4700G, which is faster and saves me $200 not having to buy a GPU. But no 4000 announcement. The 5600X is the closest price-wise, $20 more, but 2 cores less. As for the 5800X being compared to the 3800XT (or 3800X since we all know the XTs are overpriced and only maybe 10% faster), that is a huge $180 + $50 (for cooler) = $230 price hike! Very disappointed - I guess I should have just bought a 3700X instead of waiting all summer for the 4700G. The 3700X increased $10 in February, and another $10 the last couple of weeks. I was hoping at least it would be discounted after a 5700X is introduced, but with no replacement it will still hold price if not increase!

 

[GeekyOne]

All Zen 3 desktop, mobile, and APU chips will carry Ryzen 5000 branding

FINALLY!

Where's the 5700G? Tired of waiting for a 4700G. There's no 3700X replacement either. Been waiting all summer and some to replace my 12 year old computer with a new build!

 

[Deleted member 2783327]

Damn it! Still only 16 PCIe Lanes for PCIe slots. I really want to switch over to AMD CPUs, bu I just can't afford A$4000+ per PC to change over to bottom of the line threadripper. I need more than 16 PCIe lanes on most of my PCs.

Otherwise, best of luck in burying Intel. Despite possessing only Intel CPUs I hate the way they do business, and welcome the competition.

 

[jasonf2]

Well, if the competition can tack price hikes on parts that only slightly outperform the former leader, then you don't have particularly effective competition. This looks more like what would happen in an oligopoly - raise prices at every opportunity and hope your only competitor follows.

I was thinking of upgrading my i5-3470 to a Ryzen 5600 before the announcement but at those prices, I'll wait to see what Rocket Lake pricing and performance will look like.


It is also a $90 hike over the current going price of a 3600X on Amazon.com.

Perhaps the main reason AMD decided to axe some of its most popular options and jack up prices at the same time is because it is severely short on 7nm wafer starts and needs to cool off demand until manufacturing can catch up.

While I would say that the industry definitely fits at least three of the the primary characteristics of an oligopoly it seems that behavior often leans more towards monopolistic pricing structures when one party carries a strong product differentiating technology lead. Intel pretty much set it's own price for the last couple of decades worrying very little on it's interdependence with AMD. This has been a very interesting last couple of years seeing the market react more like it should under the oligopoly. Both AMD and Intel up to now have still been pretty much neck to neck. I know that the real world gains with this generation (as they always are) are going to come back tempered a bit but I am going to be very interested to see how AMD handles the widened technology lead. Do they recognize their interdependence with Intel and the fragility of the X86 ecosystem in an ARM world or do they use Intel's playbook and continue to run up prices? While I definitely don't count Intel out these IPC gains are going to hit Intel where it hurts in the only real metrics they have been able to hold out on, single thread performance by clock-speed.

 

[InvalidError]

I am going to be very interested to see how AMD handles the widened technology lead. Do they recognize their interdependence with Intel and the fragility of the X86 ecosystem in an ARM world or do they use Intel's playbook and continue to run up prices?

The main strength of x86 is the massive existing base of native binary code from developers who have no intention of moving to cross-platform languages and APIs. As far as those are concerned, ARM is not even a remote threat to x86. As for what strategy AMD is going to pick, the $50 hike across the board and possible elimination of near equivalents from the product stack seem to clearly indicate that AMD intends to push prices up as high as the market may be willing to bear.

On top of all of AMD's other products competing for whatever 7nm wafers AMD can get from TSMC, three generations is roughly what it takes to convince large buyers that your stuff is ready for prime time, so I imagine AMD's order book for EPYC3/Genoa is filling up too. That would be yet another reason to moderate interest in Ryzen 5000 by raising prices.

 

[Dsplover]

Less cores is what excites me.

65 watt 5600X is perfect.
The model above that is 150 bucks more, 40 watts more and only 100MHz more.

Only need a super fast Tiger Lake Quad around 4GHz base.

Life looks good for 2021..

 

[hannibal]

When is the AM5 socket going to be available? I was hoping they'd announce that as well :-(

2022.

 

[z0d]

I'll get the 5800X when its price gets down 400$.

 

[cdrkf]

Happy to hear the 5900X will be a noticeable jump in performance over the 3900X. I just did a 3900X build with the recent price drops and I love it. Only thing I didn't like about the presentation was bragging about playing better at 1080p. Who cares? A person that can afford a 5900X is waaaay more likely going to be playing at 1440p with some at 4K. The 1440p performance is what really matters. Waiting to see what Intel is doing with Rocket Lake.

It is a somewhat arbitrary metric although I would say there are two valid reasons to look at 1080p gaming (note they used 'High' settings - which in modern games really means middle options to reduce gpu load):

1: To give a valid CPU comparison you need to avoid the GPU being maxed out, running a 2080ti at 1080p high certainly shifts the focus onto the CPU. If they tested at 1440p Ultra, a more realistic scenario for these machines then you wouldn't see much difference (HW Unboxed are using a 3950X test rig, partly in preparation for the 5000 series and tested it vs their 10900K rig and at 1440p ultra there is only a 5% difference - which would inviably also be the case with the 5000 series as well).

2: High refresh rate 1080p is a thing - the fastest panels are all 1080p (240hz and even 300hz options are available at 1080p, but not typically above that). That is probably the one area where the kind of cpu performance differences AMD are talking about would actually matter. If you are gaming at 1440p or 4k ultra then even a Ryzen 7 2700X will be enough to feed most GPU's to the point it makes little difference.

 

[San Pedro]

I bet it'll cost me at least $525 to get me one of these, and that would be ordering from overseas and having it shipped. I am thinking I'll just stick with my 2700x and just upgrade my GPU unless I can sell my 2700x for a decent price (might be impossible now that these have dropped).

 

[jasonf2]

The main strength of x86 is the massive existing base of native binary code from developers who have no intention of moving to cross-platform languages and APIs. As far as those are concerned, ARM is not even a remote threat to x86. As for what strategy AMD is going to pick, the $50 hike across the board and possible elimination of near equivalents from the product stack seem to clearly indicate that AMD intends to push prices up as high as the market may be willing to bear.

On top of all of AMD's other products competing for whatever 7nm wafers AMD can get from TSMC, three generations is roughly what it takes to convince large buyers that your stuff is ready for prime time, so I imagine AMD's order book for EPYC3/Genoa is filling up too. That would be yet another reason to moderate interest in Ryzen 5000 by raising prices.

The estimated number of smartphones in the world are running at roughly 3.5 billion with most based on ARM. The number of PCs in the world are estimated somewhere in the 1.5 billion with most based on X86. When I say "fragile", choices made in investment and retail price are going to determine just how valid X86 remains. In my opinion ARMs biggest strength is a simple numbers game played against a considerably more open licensing situation. Nvidia might muck that all up on its own but at current trend a significant amount of innovation, including process node wins have been with the companies that are heavy into the cell phone business, not pcs. Depending on what Apple pulls off over the next 5 years with its ARM transition they will establish a baseline for what ARM can do when designs are tweaked from power/battery savings to dedicated AC power performance. If the two ecosystems performance levels find parity then price will ultimately be king. Personally my guess is that the monopolistic competitive market that ARM creates will win that game against the monopoly characteristics of the X86 lineup created by intel's impossible licensing .

The code porting issue is valid. But the industry has plenty of dead system arch out there that shows that turnovers do happen. There are many companies today that are still running mainframe systems. They are somewhere in their corporate basements being connected to via terminal emulators. Even today those companies are stuck because of the codebase. They are islanded, dead systems though.

It is a matter of opinion, but both AMD and Intel need to recognize that oligopoly they are operating in is going to change significantly. It is in their mutual long term best interest to keep prices within reason and push innovation because ARM will remove the licensing barrier of entry from the PC market in pretty short order.

 

[King_V]

They'd also have to use an Nvidia gpu above 1080p to not bottleneck the cpu. They're not going to reveal a range of big navi performance numbers before it is officially revealed.

Not really. They could simply use games that are much more CPU dependent than GPU dependent. You know, because they're trying to showcase CPU performance.

 

[Turtle Rig]

This is a joke, now AMD is touting 1080p gaming lol. Who in the heck with a high end CPU is going to play at 1080p. Everyone plays at 2k especially someone who buys the 5000 series. I undertand steam survey that most people use 1080p however AMD is so desperate they want to tout that at 1080p their faster then Intel since the burden falls on the CPU at that resolution. Is this another gimmick like PCIe 4.0? Also 19 percent IPC means nothing because they were already well behind the 10900k in performance so in all honesty its more like a 8 percent improvement against a 10900k. I hope this made sense my friends.🤷‍♀️TLDR🙈

Also guys their releasing 8 core CPU's right now and next year they will have a Zen 3 16 core chip. So don't hold your breath my friends. Let us see if they can introduce the 16 core chip before the end of the year.👽👶😒🖐

 

[King_V]

This is a joke, now AMD is touting 1080p gaming lol. Who in the heck with a high end CPU is going to play at 1080p.

In case you just decided to reply without reading the rest of this thread, this was already discussed in one of my earlier posts in this thread:

Happy to hear the 5900X will be a noticeable jump in performance over the 3900X. I just did a 3900X build with the recent price drops and I love it. Only thing I didn't like about the presentation was bragging about playing better at 1080p. Who cares? A person that can afford a 5900X is waaaay more likely going to be playing at 1440p with some at 4K. The 1440p performance is what really matters. Waiting to see what Intel is doing with Rocket Lake.

I suspect that this is basically intended as a slap in the face to Intel (and Intel fanboys) who tout the small lead in frames/sec at 1080p as "proving" Intel's gaming superiority.

Intel and Intel fanboys claim Intel is unbeatable in gaming performance and use 1080p gaming metrics to prove this. A few insignificant frames/second extra when even the "slower" CPU was already at frame rates faster than the human eye could see.

This is AMD just gleefully taking away that one fig-leaf of cover that Intel/Intel fanboys were hiding behind. It is a CPU vs CPU test.