[SOLVED] Questioning the Ryzen 3000 Series, 12 Cores/16 Cores (7nm)? FX Stunt?

Status
Not open for further replies.

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,097
7
19,315
21

The Ryzen 3000 series with 12 cores/ 24 threads or 16 Cores/32 Threads? That all i been seeing...all computer news articles seem to be following it...is it true or going be 8 Cores /16 Thread again....
 
Last edited:
still nothing official out yet, just website placeholders, speculation, 'leaks' (i.e., someone else's speculation), etc...

It should be an interesting build up until these processors' assorted releases....

Looking forward to seeing the 9900K challenged or defeated in both CInebench and in gaming! (which should help with pricing on either/both...we hope!)
 
still nothing official out yet, just website placeholders, speculation, 'leaks' (i.e., someone else's speculation), etc...

It should be an interesting build up until these processors' assorted releases....

Looking forward to seeing the 9900K challenged or defeated in both CInebench and in gaming! (which should help with pricing on either/both...we hope!)
In gaming the 7700k is on par with the 9900k ,amount of cores doesn't help much there.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,097
7
19,315
21
In gaming the 7700k is on par with the 9900k ,amount of cores doesn't help much there.
I do not think AMD will even beat Intel in gaming ....they can be at 7nm++ for sake and Intel can be at 14nm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ and still be able to beat.

AMD is good at beating Intel at Cinebench (a benchmark software) mostly. That about it.
 

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
378
125
390
9
I do not think AMD will even beat Intel in gaming ....they can be at 7nm++ for sake and Intel can be at 14nm+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ and still be able to beat.

AMD is good at beating Intel at Cinebench (a benchmark software) mostly. That about it.
Intel is good at charging too much money for mostly niche performance gains over AMD. That's about it.

IF zen 2 hits the rumored 10-20% IPC gain and 300-700 mhz clock speed increase its going to take a dump all over intel's offerings. Even more so if they offer twice as many cores at the same price. Comparing process nodes between Intel and AMD is apples to oranges. The only reason Intel is still using 14nm is because they can't get anything better out on desktop at 10nm. Currently their answer to zen2 seems to be a 14nm 10 core that will consume too much power, run too hot, and won't be any where near 5ghz without custom cooling. It will also probably destroy/cause throttling on anything but flagship motherboards VRMs. Intel isn't really much better than zen+ at anything but high frame rate 720p/1080p already.

It's all rumor and speculation for now though. If it comes true you could theoretically piss all over an intel 14nm 10 core, new flagship motherboard, and custom loop with an AMD 7nm 12 core, a good 3 year old motherboard, and a stock cooler. I'd be on board with that.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,097
7
19,315
21
Intel is good at charging too much money for mostly niche performance gains over AMD. That's about it.

IF zen 2 hits the rumored 10-20% IPC gain and 300-700 mhz clock speed increase its going to take a dump all over intel's offerings. Even more so if they offer twice as many cores at the same price. Comparing process nodes between Intel and AMD is apples to oranges. The only reason Intel is still using 14nm is because they can't get anything better out on desktop at 10nm. Currently their answer to zen2 seems to be a 14nm 10 core that will consume too much power, run too hot, and won't be any where near 5ghz without custom cooling. It will also probably destroy/cause throttling on anything but flagship motherboards VRMs. Intel isn't really much better than zen+ at anything but high frame rate 720p/1080p already.

It's all rumor and speculation for now though. If it comes true you could theoretically piss all over an intel 14nm 10 core, new flagship motherboard, and custom loop with an AMD 7nm 12 core, a good 3 year old motherboard, and a stock cooler. I'd be on board with that.
https://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-ryzen-9-3800xryzen-7-3700xryzen-5-3600x-spotted-in-online-stores.html
Unclear if these are placeholder, but a some international retailer leaked the Ryzen 3000 series online (Seems to be following that Youtuber...leak again)




 
Last edited:
Reactions: remixislandmusic

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
378
125
390
9

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,097
7
19,315
21
Haha doubtfull. Its likely a placeholder based on rumors/leaks or it could be actual specs.
Most of the actual ryzen 3000 info leaked has been quickly revoked. Biostar X570 comes to mind.
Yeah I saw that. We'll see. I have my fingers crossed zen 2 will live up to the hype. We should hopefully know a lot more credible details in a month or so.
If it was true, i think the Ryzen 7 3700 or 3700X 12 Cores CPU will be gamers popular choice once it releases.
 
Reactions: rigg42

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Honestly it wouldn't matter much if the 3700x was 8/16 and the 3800x was 12/24, as long as you could get 20% IPC gains, 5-700MHz bonus and better compatability with the infinity fabric allowing for even better usage of HSR, that alone coupled with a pricetag somewhat less than what Intel is charging for equitable performance is gonna hurt.
 
In gaming the 7700k is on par with the 9900k ,amount of cores doesn't help much there.
If that were true, an overclocked 7700K would routinely roughly equal the 9900K's frame rates...(when both are running at/near same clock speeds, ~all core of 4.6-4.7 GHz)

It does not, and particularly in gaming/streaming scenarios (naturally, they are pretty close in 4k gaming, i.e., in massively GPU-limited scenarios).

Several games are doing well on more cores/threads, such as BF1 and BF5 among others...; comparing CPUs that lack SMT/hyperthreading such as the 9700K, however, do seem to indicate that real cores are more important than just thread count, as the 'only' 8 c/8t CPU still smashes in performance...
 

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
378
125
390
9
Honestly it wouldn't matter much if the 3700x was 8/16 and the 3800x was 12/24, as long as you could get 20% IPC gains, 5-700MHz bonus and better compatability with the infinity fabric allowing for even better usage of HSR, that alone coupled with a pricetag somewhat less than what Intel is charging for equitable performance is gonna hurt.
Yeah I agree. The core counts are fine for now across the lineup. If they didn't go 16/32 until 2020 I'd be fine with it. 16/32 is pushing the memory bandwith with dual channel. 16/32 with faster dual channel DDR5 or quad channel DDR4 on AM5 would make more sense in my mind.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: valeman2012

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,097
7
19,315
21
Haha doubtfull. Its likely a placeholder based on rumors/leaks or it could be actual specs.
Most of the actual ryzen 3000 info leaked has been quickly revoked. Biostar X570 comes to mind.
Honestly it wouldn't matter much if the 3700x was 8/16 and the 3800x was 12/24, as long as you could get 20% IPC gains, 5-700MHz bonus and better compatability with the infinity fabric allowing for even better usage of HSR, that alone coupled with a pricetag somewhat less than what Intel is charging for equitable performance is gonna hurt.
Yup. I have been pumped for ryzen ever since it launched and AMD has steadily kept my eyes glued to the rumors.
A fast 8 cores with hyperthreading is amazing for gaming as the 9900k has shown us. I agree having 32 threads is impressive but ipc and clockspeed advantages will make the most benefits for games.
If that were true, an overclocked 7700K would routinely roughly equal the 9900K's frame rates...(when both are running at/near same clock speeds, ~all core of 4.6-4.7 GHz)

It does not, and particularly in gaming/streaming scenarios (naturally, they are pretty close in 4k gaming, i.e., in massively GPU-limited scenarios).

Several games are doing well on more cores/threads, such as BF1 and BF5 among others...; comparing CPUs that lack SMT/hyperthreading such as the 9700K, however, do seem to indicate that real cores are more important than just thread count, as the 'only' 8 c/8t CPU still smashes in performance...
Yeah I agree. The core counts are fine for now across the lineup. If they didn't go 16/32 until 2020 I'd be fine with it. 16/32 is pushing the memory bandwith with dual channel. 16/32 with faster dual channel DDR5 or quad channel DDR4 on AM5 would make more sense in my mind.
As for Ryzen 3600 and up, I look forward to seeing results ASAP.

Most enthusiasts would love to see 8c/16t and 12c/24t CPUs that outperform the 9900K (and hopefully, for less money, although AMD might try to capitalize on a 12core CPUs exclusivity, perhaps equaling 9900K pricing?)
Just hopefully is not a Bulldozer Stunt
 

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Zen+ is only what, 10%ish IPC behind Intels now? A simple 20%ish gain, plus the 5-700MHz would put them on top. Games really aren't capitalizing on more than 8 threads, Intel would pull its sponsorship paychecks to the game devs since the majority of Intel are still 4-8 threads. It's only in the uber AAA titles where you need 6+ for decent fps. Even the new i5's are at somewhat of a disadvantage, as is anything not an i7 for 3rd-8th gen.
 
Reactions: rigg42

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,097
7
19,315
21
Zen+ is only what, 10%ish IPC behind Intels now? A simple 20%ish gain, plus the 5-700MHz would put them on top. Games really aren't capitalizing on more than 8 threads, Intel would pull its sponsorship paychecks to the game devs since the majority of Intel are still 4-8 threads. It's only in the uber AAA titles where you need 6+ for decent fps. Even the new i5's are at somewhat of a disadvantage, as is anything not an i7 for 3rd-8th gen.
Intel still better at Games despite being behind on their process.
 

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
378
125
390
9
Zen+ is only what, 10%ish IPC behind Intels now? A simple 20%ish gain, plus the 5-700MHz would put them on top. Games really aren't capitalizing on more than 8 threads, Intel would pull its sponsorship paychecks to the game devs since the majority of Intel are still 4-8 threads. It's only in the uber AAA titles where you need 6+ for decent fps. Even the new i5's are at somewhat of a disadvantage, as is anything not an i7 for 3rd-8th gen.
It's kind of tough to put a percentage on it since IPC is entirely dependent on the workload. For your typical gaming workload that 10% is probably about right. The only solid conclusion I can come to is that SMT is more efficient than HT. As new games move more and more towards being optimized for multi-threaded the current ryzen stuff might actually catch up a bit to the current Intel stuff in future games. This is where zen2 being used on the new PS5 and Xbox is a big advantage for AMD.

I think the bigger obstacle is clock speed at this point. If the Zen 2 r5 chips are 8c/16t, overclock to 5ghz, gain 20% IPC over zen+, and cost less than a 9600k the game is over. It's a lot to ask for a mid-range chip to reach parity with a 9900k. It's possible though. I'm guessing Intel will retain a small advantage in their current niche hi fps 1080p gaming space. I'm just not convinced the Ryzen clock speeds are going to be high enough this go round to knock them off of their pedestal.
 

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
378
125
390
9
Half a dozen fps advantage honestly means squat.
I agree. You get reviewers showing a 10-15% advantage @ 1080p with a $1200 GPU and then all the Intel fanbois start shouting from the roof tops about how much better of a gaming CPU Intel has. The 10 -15 % is usually at over 150 fps where the only way to tell the difference is with an FPS counter. If you are anywhere near GPU bound the advantage shrinks closer to 3-5 % and pretty much disappears once you are completely GPU bound. This is basically anything below a 2080/1080 ti/ RadVII at 1440p with most modern titles. I guess if you play E-sports type games you might be able to make an argument for Intel but the vast majority of gamers would be better off with putting the Intel tax towards a better GPU.
 

valeman2012

Distinguished
Apr 10, 2012
1,097
7
19,315
21
It's kind of tough to put a percentage on it since IPC is entirely dependent on the workload. For your typical gaming workload that 10% is probably about right. The only solid conclusion I can come to is that SMT is more efficient than HT. As new games move more and more towards being optimized for multi-threaded the current ryzen stuff might actually catch up a bit to the current Intel stuff in future games. This is where zen2 being used on the new PS5 and Xbox is a big advantage for AMD.

I think the bigger obstacle is clock speed at this point. If the Zen 2 r5 chips are 8c/16t, overclock to 5ghz, gain 20% IPC over zen+, and cost less than a 9600k the game is over. It's a lot to ask for a mid-range chip to reach parity with a 9900k. It's possible though. I'm guessing Intel will retain a small advantage in their current niche hi fps 1080p gaming space. I'm just not convinced the Ryzen clock speeds are going to be high enough this go round to knock them off of their pedestal.
Pedastle? Maybe 6 years ago it was, today it's no more than a stump that's fast eroding will one day be lower than ground level. AMD had its time in the sun once, Intel threw a blanket over it. Amd is finally tossing that aside and standing toe-toe. Half a dozen fps advantage honestly means squat.
I agree. You get reviewers showing a 10-15% advantage @ 1080p with a $1200 GPU and then all the Intel fanbois start shouting from the roof tops about how much better of a gaming CPU Intel has. The 10 -15 % is usually at over 150 fps where the only way to tell the difference is with an FPS counter. If you are anywhere near GPU bound the advantage shrinks closer to 3-5 % and pretty much disappears once you are completely GPU bound. This is basically anything below a 2080/1080 ti/ RadVII at 1440p with most modern titles. I guess if you play E-sports type games you might be able to make an argument for Intel but the vast majority of gamers would be better off with putting the Intel tax towards a better GPU.
Not really Intel Fanboys issue, but "Most" AMD Fanboys" issue are just plain stupid or something near that. AMD Reviewers bias, AMD Fanboys Believes "AMD being ahead" means better than Intel (CPU) or NVIDIA (GPU) in gaming performance overall. https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/how-many-years-will-it-always-take-amd-cpu-to-beat-intel-in-gaming-who-is-the-real-sub-par-product-here.3413935/post-20699249
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS