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

[Turtle Rig]

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:



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.

IM sorry for trouble, no no no I never said Intel is king. Im not a fan boy of either company AMD or Intel. I guess we must wait for benchmarks I have no room to guess at this point. It will be fun its new technology and I love technology. I sure hope they release the 16 core chip by end of the year but I sorta doubt it because of covid-19 ya know.👌💯👶

 

[King_V]

IM sorry for trouble, no no no I never said Intel is king. Im not a fan boy of either company AMD or Intel. I guess we must wait for benchmarks I have no room to guess at this point. It will be fun its new technology and I love technology. I sure hope they release the 16 core chip by end of the year but I sorta doubt it because of covid-19 ya know.👌💯👶

Nope, didn't say (or think) you were, just that they were out there, and that 1080p gaming is what the whole "Intel is gaming king" claim is based on.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Nope, didn't say (or think) you were, just that they were out there, and that 1080p gaming is what the whole "Intel is gaming king" claim is based on.

CPU benchmarks are almost always based on lower resolution FPS. The lower resolution puts the bottleneck on the CPU itself instead of the GPU. The biggest tell from this is that normally a CPU that performs best at 1080P today will still perform better years down the line. I can say thats true. Intel is running on a 5 year old uArch (Skylake) and still beating AMD, well until we see the results from Zen 3.

To me that says it took AMD 3 generations of good CPUs to catch up to an old uArch. If the IPC improvements from Willow Cove make it properly to their 14nm Rocket Lake it may be a short lived grab of the gaming performance crown.

 

[InvalidError]

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.

Competitive FPS/MOBA gamers who want their steady 300+fps for the fastest possible response time.

As always with CPU launches, you want to pick a video resolution low enough to minimize the GPU as a potential bottleneck, otherwise you cannot showcase what the CPU is actually capable of since at higher resolutions, all CPUs end up looking practically the same from all hitting the same GPU bottleneck.

To me that says it took AMD 3 generations of good CPUs to catch up to an old uArch. If the IPC improvements from Willow Cove make it properly to their 14nm Rocket Lake it may be a short lived grab of the gaming performance crown.

Intel will likely be at a substantial performance-per-watt disadvantage. Aside from that, I expect Rocket Lake to do just fine. The main question (at least for me) is whether Intel will give consumers the same middle finger treatment on pricing that AMD has just given their customers.

 

[jimmysmitty]

Competitive FPS/MOBA gamers who want their steady 300+fps for the fastest possible response time.

As always with CPU launches, you want to pick a video resolution low enough to minimize the GPU as a potential bottleneck, otherwise you cannot showcase what the CPU is actually capable of since at higher resolutions, all CPUs end up looking practically the same from all hitting the same GPU bottleneck.


Intel will likely be at a substantial performance-per-watt disadvantage. Aside from that, I expect Rocket Lake to do just fine. The main question (at least for me) is whether Intel will give consumers the same middle finger treatment on pricing that AMD has just given their customers.

Yes. But most consumers pay little attention to Performance per Watt with gaming.

Of course we pay attention but we are a minority in the PC market.

 

[InvalidError]

Don't get me wrong, will be interesting to see what they can do with Rocket Lake, but at 14nm they are going to have to keep core counts modest due to power constraints - rumours are 8 Cores max so even the now 'old' 3900X is probably a better long term investment if you are looking for future capability.

For most people, 8 cores max is perfectly fine for the foreseeable future. The bulk of AMD's own sales for the 3000 series were hex cores. By the time I might need more than eight cores, I'll likely want DDR5, PCIe 5.0 (if that ever gets to mainstream) and USB4.3-gen2.5.1.0.1x4 on type-DD connectors too.

 

[Turtle Rig]

I just hope the benchmarks are not biased. Im going to see what Tom says about all this jazz. Both AMD and Intel are great companies but for the purpose I use my machine for which is a DAW I did research and they said AMD will be fine but Intel is much better at DAW. This is why Im not a fanboy of either company, I just buy what suits me the best for what I do.👶🚔🍩 Also IMHO AMD has lied once about PCIe 4.0 being 69 percent faster blah blah blah. No difference at all...... Now they say 19 percent IPC I don't believe it until I see it. But all I know is their releasing 8 core processors and might be until next year for the higher end processors and what not.✝🎗✌👀 Is it just me or did AMD specifcally say their 3900x is the worlds fastest gaming CPU. That is a obvious lie so I don't believe what they have to say about the 5000 series. These are the same people that said PCIe 4.0 blah blah and as we know its same performance as 3.0 hehe. So AMD tells interesting lies.. A 12 core or 16 core is not a gaming CPU its for production. A gaming CPU is a 8 core CPU and all 8 cores dont even get used. AMD is being gimmicky and I don't like it. That is just IMHO.👇👶🍩🚔

 

[InvalidError]

(although I'd like to bump that up to a 3900X if they drop in a price a bit after Ryzen 5000 launches - the beauty of drop in upgrades on the same socket!)

(the beauty of Zen 3 being on the same 7nm process as Zen 2 and all of the other stuff AMD has on it is that AMD will likely discontinue Zen 2 production to ramp up Zen 3, Big Navi, PS5, XB-XS and whatever else production, which means that Zen 2 prices will likely bounce back from scarcity instead of falling to clear stocks. AMD had to continue shipping Zen 1/1+ at least until its excess 16/12nm fab commitments expired, it doesn't have that particular constraint on 7nm.)

 

[spongiemaster]

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.

Well, as it turns out. AMD did use a Nvidia GPU, a 2080ti, for all their gaming benchmarks. Even AMD knew what to do here to bring the best out of their CPU.

 

[King_V]

Sure, but I wasn't saying what they had or didn't have to do. I was saying what they COULD do.

You were the one who said what they'd "have" to have done.

 

[Conahl]

Even AMD knew what to do here to bring the best out of their CPU.

or they didnt want to reveal any performance other then what they did, of RDNA2 before Oct 28.

 

[InvalidError]

or they didnt want to reveal any performance other then what they did, of RDNA2 before Oct 28.

Or RDNA2 drivers aren't quite there yet enough for reliable benchmarking.

 

[Flayed]

Using a 2080ti for benchmarking makes sense as it is what pretty much all the tech review sites use when benchmarking CPUs. It makes the results from gaming benchmarks easier to compare

 

[TerryLaze]

Using a 2080ti for benchmarking makes sense as it is what pretty much all the tech review sites use when benchmarking CPUs. It makes the results from gaming benchmarks easier to compare

But AMD doesn't show any results that you can compare, they only have percentages of difference.
They should have gone with an 3080 since those are out already and will be more relevant for the lifespan of the 5000 series.

 

[spongiemaster]

Sure, but I wasn't saying what they had or didn't have to do. I was saying what they COULD do.

You were the one who said what they'd "have" to have done.

AMD could do almost anything. They could use an HD7970, but that would make little sense, so it's a meaningless counterpoint. What they could do vs what they should do or what makes sense to do are 2 very different lists.

 

[spongiemaster]

But AMD doesn't show any results that you can compare, they only have percentages of difference.
They should have gone with an 3080 since those are out already and will be more relevant for the lifespan of the 5000 series.

or they didnt want to reveal any performance other then what they did, of RDNA2 before Oct 28.

The notes say these benchmarks were done September 1st/2nd. 3080 wasn't available then, and I doubt Big Navi was ready for primetime 2 months before even the announcement of it.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

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.

So do you think that the prices will dip once TSMC can meet demand?

 

[InvalidError]

So do you think that the prices will dip once TSMC can meet demand?

Prices on 7nm parts will dip when AMD will be about to launch new stuff on 5nm at the very least in very late 2021. Until then, AMD may be on a similar boat to Intel for struggling to keep up with demand on existing processes.

 

[InvalidError]

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....

AMD was forced to axe the prices on the FX series because it failed miserably to deliver on performance. Even the 9590 was getting destroyed by the $120 i3 in many games and applications. Faildozer's IPC simply couldn't compete with Intel's even with a 1GHz clock advantage.

 

[spongiemaster]

AMD was forced to axe the prices on the FX series because it failed miserably to deliver on performance. Even the 9590 was getting destroyed by the $120 i3 in many games and applications. Faildozer's IPC simply couldn't compete with Intel's even with a 1GHz clock advantage.

Unless we assume AMD doesn't test their products before release, they new how terribly it performed and still released it at the prices they did. Joe is right that AMD was taking advantage of the gullible and once those ran out, the price had to drop. The difference with the 5000 series is that it doesn't suck, so AMD can justify the price. AMD will have no impetus to reduce prices until Rocket Lake releases next year at the soonest.

 

[InvalidError]

The difference with the 5000 series is that it doesn't suck, so AMD can justify the price.

While the 5000 series may not suck, the performance uplift is nowhere near enough at the R5 level to justify a $50-90 hike since it basically annihilates the main reason for people to pick AMD over Intel at the mid-range level. For a rational buyer, it looks like the 5600X is currently priced to NOT sell.

With Intel needing a bigger die for the same core count on Rocket Lake vs Comet Lake, it is nearly certain prices will be going up in blue camp too.

Progress is supposed to bring more performance at lower price points. Right now, price increases at the lower end are outstripping performance gains, which is deeply messed up.

 

[TerryLaze]

For a rational buyer, it looks like the 5600X is currently priced to NOT sell.

At the moment everything will sell, sales have been crazy, all high end CPUs are constantly sold out.
It's a solid business strategy to raise prices right now.

With Intel needing a bigger die for the same core count on Rocket Lake vs Comet Lake, it is nearly certain prices will be going up in blue camp too.

The 6core and 8core and then 8/16 core and even the 10/20 core CPU need a lot more space, more than double than what the 4/8core 7700k needed...but price per core dropped drastically.
Intel is known to not change price points but to rather change features, disabling HTT with the first RL gen is much more probable then price changes.

Progress is supposed to bring more performance at lower price points. Right now, price increases at the lower end are outstripping performance gains, which is deeply messed up.

There is no lower end announced (yet? )so how can there be price increases there?!
Low end can still be very happy with ZEN2, there is no reason to upgrade other than..oh, shiny.

 

[InvalidError]

At the moment everything will sell, sales have been crazy, all high end CPUs are constantly sold out.

Hex cores were high-end 10 years ago. Were it not for Intel stagnating at quads for mainstream for 10 years through a combination of complacency and 10nm delays, hex cores would have been i3 territory if not even lower-end by now. Instead, we now have AMD joining Intel in pushing the mid-range back to levels we haven't seen in 15-20 years.

There is no lower end announced (yet? )so how can there be price increases there?!
Low end can still be very happy with ZEN2, there is no reason to upgrade other than..oh, shiny.

The 5600X is $50 more on launch MSRP than the 3600X, pretty hefty price bump there and I have little doubt lower-end models will get substantial bumps too.

If you think Zen 2 CPUs will remain an option for long, you are delusional. AMD is wafer-constrained, Zen 2 products will get phased out in record time to eliminate internal competition against its more expensive new parts and free up wafer starts for them. The reason why "high end CPUs are constantly out of stock" may very well be because they were already being phased out ahead of their replacements' launches.

 

[spongiemaster]

While the 5000 series may not suck, the performance uplift is nowhere near enough at the R5 level to justify a $50-90 hike since it basically annihilates the main reason for people to pick AMD over Intel at the mid-range level. For a rational buyer, it looks like the 5600X is currently priced to NOT sell.

With Intel needing a bigger die for the same core count on Rocket Lake vs Comet Lake, it is nearly certain prices will be going up in blue camp too.

Progress is supposed to bring more performance at lower price points. Right now, price increases at the lower end are outstripping performance gains, which is deeply messed up.

I agree the 5600x is the worst value of the new releases, by quite a bit really. For the value minded, the $200 3600 makes far more sense than the $300 5600x. I have a feeling making more money was not the primary reason AMD raised prices. Just like everything else released this year, these are going to be in short supply, so higher prices should minimally reduce demand. If we're being realistic, the MSRP's of these chips doesn't really matter. None of these chips are going to be selling for MSRP this year anyway.

 

[InvalidError]

For the value minded, the $200 3600 makes far more sense than the $300 5600x.

Only while supplies last. More likely than not, AMD will phase out Zen 2 in a hurry to re-allocate those 7nm wafers to all of the new 7nm stuff it is shipping now or soon. I wouldn't be surprised if Zen 2 parts became practically extinct as far as retail availability is concerned by February next year.