[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:
Not about hate, but mostly going for product that is deemed "better" which is obviously Intel and despite Intel stepping back letting AMD rise.. The main question of this is...If AMD going pull another FX related stunt again.
It is all about hate and trolling.

It started all with some kind of leak, none of which can be confirmed. Not any official word. But you don't even stick to that. EVERY BIT of your speculation and assumption is nothing more than AMD-bashing.
  • The title of your thread calls it an "FX stunt" - as if you're trying to convince people that AMD would go BACKWARD from the Ryzen architecture to an FX-type architecture
  • You complain about AMD never beating Intel at gaming, or only being good at cinebench, as if the ONLY measure of success is gaming performance, and not only that but gaming performance that specifically MUST outdo Intel. Not close, not equal, must outdo.
  • You complain that it might be an April fool's joke.
  • You "hope" it's not a Bulldozer stunt - again, how stupid do you have to be to think they'd alter their existing design to go back to a 10 year old design again?
    • You repeat that same BS claim (ZERO evidence, just you being a troll) again in a later post: "We just have wait and see if AMD is really going pull off another bulldozer stunt. 🤣 "
    • And again later: "Mostly AMD fanboys are being blindsided by AMD trolling.Let wait and see if they are not going pull a FX stunt,"
  • You talk about Intel being better at games, yet, that's not the only measure of a CPU.
  • You claim "AMD Fanboys Believes "AMD being ahead" means better than Intel (CPU) or NVIDIA (GPU) in gaming performance overall." and then link to YOUR OWN post crowing about how "Intel does not see AMD as a threat." - projection much? You accuse others of what you are doing.
    • Similarly, while being a trolling fanboy, you claim "AMD Fanboys : Cinebench scores is better means Intel is beaten rofl"
  • Another claim that you insist Ryzen 2 will remain behind Intel with the same emoji. It may be, it may not be, but you're again trolling.
It goes on and on.


You're lucky, the mods here are far more forgiving than I would be. I'd give you exactly ONE warning, if not a temp-ban for trolling. And had you replied to that the way you replied to other people pointing out your trolling, I'd boot you.

EVERYTHING you have posted in this thread has been trolling.
 
Last edited:

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
376
123
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.
 
I'm prejudiced against Intel for simple reason that it never had good performance/$$ ratio. I mean ever since the beginning. Z80 was faster than 8088. Atari 1040 ST was faster than 8086 and even 80286 while running DOS in the emulator. AMD "K" processors were not far behind 386/486 (only in FPU were not as good) but value was much higher. Even Cyrix was not far behind.
Going to Pentium CPUs, Intel did make some progress but only succeeded in make name better known but that can be attributed more to aggressive marketing than pure performance and value. Only Intel processor form that era that was really above all was Pentium 200 pro. After that one, Intel fell practically asleep until Athlon shook up the computing world and woke them up.
Coming to FX processors, I wouldn't call them a miss, if nothing else they brought 6 and 8 cores to the masses at affordable prices. I still have my FX 8350 happily working at 4.9GHz.
Ryzen raised the bar considerably not only for AMD but in general and caught Intel napping again.
Looking forward for Ryzen 3000 and hope it will be what Ryzen 1 was supposed to be, had 1600x, 1700x and now 2700x.
 
If shrinking a node in half doesnt yeild any IPC increase or any benefits at all, CPU manufacturers wouldnt spend millions in R&D and equipment retooling to shrink a node. You are a troll and I really dont feel like wasting my time here.

There WILL be an increase in IPC, its just a question of how much. We saw an 8 core ryzen at CES rivaling a 9900k with a score that would demolish an 8 core 2700x, so clocks and/or IPC must be up from 2nd generation since thread count is the same and performance is up by a good bit
 
Last edited:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/19.html
Your 2600 O/C to 3.95 is exactly on par with a stock i3-8350k in gaming and about 20% faster in general CPU workloads,they are also pretty much exactly the same price ...the i3 is easily overclockable by another 20% making them exact equals, with the i3 kicking the ryzens butt in anything older and less threaded.
On the ryzen platform you can only upgrade to 2 more cores +SMT ,on the intel platform if you got a compatible mobo you can upgrade to the 9th gen with 8 cores 16 threads, so intel is more upgradable on your performance level.
You would need to invest more into a good motherboard because you would actually overclock to a positive degree with the i3 and not basically just lock it to max turbo.
It'd be quite hard (for me anyway) to imagine anyone intentionally getting an i3-8350K (even 18 months ago, much less today) and then pairing it with a $150-$250 Z370/390, with intent of replacing the CPU later(leaving an orphaned $170 CPU now useless/wasted) as a viable upgrade path...(yes, the 8350K does quite well in single threaded stuff, but, it's essentially a rebadged 7600K, which, with only 4 threads, is circling the proverbial drain in usefulness for gaming , even if it does 'ok' for many folks to this day by virtue of it's clock speed)
 
Reactions: rigg42

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
376
123
390
9
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/19.html
Your 2600 O/C to 3.95 is exactly on par with a stock i3-8350k in gaming and about 20% faster in general CPU workloads,they are also pretty much exactly the same price ...the i3 is easily overclockable by another 20% making them exact equals, with the i3 kicking the ryzens butt in anything older and less threaded.
On the ryzen platform you can only upgrade to 2 more cores +SMT ,on the intel platform if you got a compatible mobo you can upgrade to the 9th gen with 8 cores 16 threads, so intel is more upgradable on your performance level.
You would need to invest more into a good motherboard because you would actually overclock to a positive degree with the i3 and not basically just lock it to max turbo.
Your logic is flawed. This post is silly.

The i3 doesn't have a stock cooler and a Z board costs more money than what he already bought. It's not the same price.

Zen 2 is around the corner and is compatible with his current motherboard. His board has just as good of a chance of running a zen 2 8 core ( or the rumored zen 2 12 core) as you would of running a 9900k to full load max all core turbo (4.7ghz) on a cheap Z370/390. Upgrading to a 9900k (in the time frame a 4 thread CPU will be completely unusable in modern titles) is still going to cost a shit ton of money. Not that it would make any difference anyway without a massive GPU upgrade.

The 8350k doesn't have turbo boost.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: DMAN999
Are you calling intel a lier?
Intel is announcing publicly that they are having shortages and having production 10 nm issues.
So you say this is all a fake? If you want evidence, look for pentium pricing.

Why would someone purposly loose market share and billions of $ of cpu sales to amd?
 
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!)
 

rigg42

Upstanding
Oct 17, 2018
376
123
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
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...
"an overclocked 7700K would routinely roughly equal the 9900K's frame rates"
it would and it does,even at stock most people would call this even,it's exactly 10% behind,the 2700x is farther behind the 9900k than the 7700k is.
This is an extensive multiplayer bench.
Yes of course,doing CPU streaming (like it's 1999) won't be as good as on a CPU with more cores but nobody,certainly not me,argued that.
https://www.techspot.com/review/1754-battlefield-5-cpu-multiplayer-bench/
 
Reactions: valeman2012
BF1 and BF5, even at 'only' 1080P Ultra are still partially GPU limited, although we likely can't really prove this until the next even faster batch of GPUs arrive...
As are a lot of games,a fact that most people are more then happy to fully ignore just so they can spam that amd is within 10% of intel and doom and gloom and cats and dogs...
Right now we have exactly zero idea on how fast the 9900k actually is in gaming because there is no GPU in the world that can keep up with it.
 
Reactions: valeman2012

Karadjgne

Titan
Herald
Wayne: So Garth, which is better? The red car or the blue car?
Garth: Well Wayne, the blue car is a 2016 ZR-1 Corvette pushing 600Hp and will do 250mph. The red car is a 2012 Dodge Carger R/T pushing 400Hp and only does 180mph, so the blue car is better.
Officer: Yes, but the speed limit is 55mph....
 
Reactions: rigg42
I was about to tell you that the IPC difference in gaming workloads was probably closer to the 10% that was discussed earlier in the thread. Then I decided to poke around for a good real world comparison. I came across an interesting video from Hardware Unboxed:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmhBgLSIneQ&t=628s


The 2600x at stock all core is only 100mhz faster than the 9400f. I was surprised to see how close the results were over 18 games. I was also surprised to see how much stepping up to a z390 and 3400 ram improved performance on the 9400f. Gaming load IPC might be considerably closer than I originally thought.
for a good real world comparison. I came across an interesting video from Hardware Unboxed:
Yeah you shouldn't look at canned in game benchmarks if you want a real world comparison,they are only good for comparing different GPUs on the same CPU.
The 2600x at stock all core is only 100mhz faster than the 9400f
Yeah and it "only" has twice the threads and SMT supposedly "only" gives a ~35-40% boost,real "close" there on the IPC front...
 
Reactions: valeman2012
I agree. I pointed this out earlier in the thread. I still think that the video I linked is a good example of the IPC difference between 2 very closely clocked CPU's from each team when both are presented with the same gaming load. Average this over an 18 game benchmark and it gives you a pretty good picture of how far AMD is behind in gaming performance clock for clock.
You can't know that unless you see the CPU usage on both,new game engines SCALE meaning that they run more software threads the more hardware threads they find,that's what my previous comment was all about,if all these games scale and run twice the threads on the ZEN then it will get 35-40% more workload making the 10% less performance much less impressive.
 
Reactions: valeman2012

DMAN999

Notable
Apr 17, 2019
1,005
252
1,140
25
^
What about us best performance for the best price fans? (I am way too old to be considered a boy, LOL)?
I don't care if a product is Intel, AMD or Nvidia based as long as it provides me with good performance for a decent price.
I currently have a Ryzen 5 2600 OC'd to 3.95 GHz and an MSI GTX 1660 TI Armor 6G OC on an ROG Strix B450-F Gaming mb.
I only spent just over $400 for my MB, CPU, CPU Cooler, RAM and PSU.
I did spend $200 on my 1660 Ti (after selling my GTX 1060 3 GB card).
A similar performing Intel based system would have cost me at least $200 more and would not be as upgradeable.
So why spend extra money for little to no performance increase and no upgradeability?


PS
WHAT'S UP WITH ALL THOSE CAPS?????
 
Last edited:
That is one flaw of AMD currently. They offer a lot of cores which is great for workstation tasks, however, they require fast ram (cheap now) and tend to be memory starved.
Threadripper is better with 4 channel, but still is memory starved and has issues with Adobe software
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS