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

[valeman2012]

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....

 

[valeman2012]

Dont forget, many people use their systems for more than gaming.

These CPU mainly for gaming or else why would it be popular.

 

[valeman2012]

Did you have a stroke?

I can show you a "gaming benchmark for Intel Processor beating a AMD Ryzen Processor" - shall we put the 9900K up against the 2200G?

Or are you asking for us to show you an example of an Intel processor beating an AMD Ryzen that has high Cinebench numbers? Then let's put the 9980XE up against the TR 1950X which has "High Cinebench Numbers."

More like i9 7980XE vs 1950X

 

[NightHawkRMX]

9980xe is not much different from a 7980xe.
Intel has just refreshed a lot of older chips and called them 9th gen.

 

[nuke20ar]

More like i9 7980XE vs 1950X

Right, so what's your point? I have no clue what you were asking in the post I replied to.

Is it supposed to mean something that an i9-9900K beats a Ryzen 2200G?

Or that the i9-7980XE beats a 1950X? Does that mean anything? By the way, the proper comparison is the 7960X ($1500, 16-core) vs 1950X ($490, 16-core), and the 1950X actually beats the 7960X in a handful of games, certainly stays within shooting distance in the others, and stays within 20% for nearly all productivity tests (with the 20% coming in single-core tasks and being nearly equal at multi-core tasks), at less than 1/3 the price (Head to head).

 

[RobCrezz]

These CPU mainly for gaming or else why would it be popular.

How do you figure that?

 

[TerryLaze]

and the 1950X actually beats the 7960X in a handful of games,

There is a grand total of 5 games being compared (at 4k ultra... ) with 3 of them being GPU limited and giving very similar results on both systems.

 

[valeman2012]

9980xe is not much different from a 7980xe.
Intel has just refreshed a lot of older chips and called them 9th gen.

Right, so what's your point? I have no clue what you were asking in the post I replied to.

Is it supposed to mean something that an i9-9900K beats a Ryzen 2200G?

Or that the i9-7980XE beats a 1950X? Does that mean anything? By the way, the proper comparison is the 7960X ($1500, 16-core) vs 1950X ($490, 16-core), and the 1950X actually beats the 7960X in a handful of games, certainly stays within shooting distance in the others, and stays within 20% for nearly all productivity tests (with the 20% coming in single-core tasks and being nearly equal at multi-core tasks), at less than 1/3 the price (Head to head).

Here we go with the price. I mean going Intel was the smart choice for users if they want a future proof processor without having intention constantly upgrades. If you simply went for AMD Threadripper 1950X over 7980XE...prepare to upgrade faster as performance of new applications degrades for threadripper faster than Intel, costing much more money. (Newer Application may which requires more resources / more performance out of the cpu)

How do you figure that?

It Kinda obvious...This topic about "such bogus game performance claims for upcoming AMD 3000 series".

There is a grand total of 5 games being compared (at 4k ultra... ) with 3 of them being GPU limited and giving very similar results on both systems.

What you expect from AMD Fanboys...they come to people forum [post or articles relating to Intel/AMD] and says AMD is better than Intel in gaming overall. AMD having higher Cinebench Numbers than Intel Competitor CPU does not make AMD CPU better in gaming.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Just a question, can you provide a source that proves with updates degrade AMD performance more than intel.
If anything, some updates that have been released actually make applications more optimized for the ZEN architecture.

 

[RobCrezz]

It Kinda obvious...This topic about "such bogus game performance claims for upcoming AMD 3000 series".

Well your not correct there. Gaming is not the only market or even the largest market that AMD are aiming for. The Enterprise and OEM markets are where the real money is.

 

[TerryLaze]

Well your not correct there. Gaming is not the only market or even the largest market that AMD are aiming for. The Enterprise and OEM markets are where the real money is.

You are not getting into the OEM market if your product can't handle cheap components,right now you need way too much fiddling with ram and mobos for it to be worth it for OEMs,they want to do the least amount of work making a product with the cheapest components.
Enterprise is looking at office performance and things relevant to what they do,which is mainly running clobbered together code that the company started making in the 60ies, and intel has a big lead there.

 

[-Fran-]

You are not getting into the OEM market if your product can't handle cheap components,right now you need way too much fiddling with ram and mobos for it to be worth it for OEMs,they want to do the least amount of work making a product with the cheapest components.
Enterprise is looking at office performance and things relevant to what they do,which is mainly running clobbered together code that the company started making in the 60ies, and intel has a big lead there.

Any evidence of that?

I mean, I have both AMD and Intel running at my place and neither have had any issues with stock settings (used by OEMs for certification and Enterprise markets) and only you need to fiddle around when you start tweaking. Mind you, both Intel and AMD have issues when you try to be smart and customize things.

The initial batch of criticism for Ryzen was because most modules, when running out of spec had issues using the AMD memory management hardware. They've long solved that.

Cheers!

 

[RobCrezz]

You are not getting into the OEM market if your product can't handle cheap components,right now you need way too much fiddling with ram and mobos for it to be worth it for OEMs,they want to do the least amount of work making a product with the cheapest components.
Enterprise is looking at office performance and things relevant to what they do,which is mainly running clobbered together code that the company started making in the 60ies, and intel has a big lead there.

The big OEMs make/design their own boards (im talking Dell, HP, Lenovo etc.), it wouldn't need fiddling with ram and mobos...

The performance of Ryzen is now good enough on the single threaded side to be a non issue when running older software.

I suspect they will get to the point where it is financially viable to offer AMD based systems on a larger scale. In the past Intel have given huge "financial intensives" to the OEMs, which made this particularly hard for AMD.

Dell is already now increasing their AMD based server lineup
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/dell-amd-epyc-rome-server,39213.html

 

[valeman2012]

You are not getting into the OEM market if your product can't handle cheap components,right now you need way too much fiddling with ram and mobos for it to be worth it for OEMs,they want to do the least amount of work making a product with the cheapest components.
Enterprise is looking at office performance and things relevant to what they do,which is mainly running clobbered together code that the company started making in the 60ies, and intel has a big lead there.

The "Cheap pricing" on AMD is mostly a distraction away from how not good is the performance.

 

[TerryLaze]

Any evidence of that?

I mean, I have both AMD and Intel running at my place and neither have had any issues with stock settings (used by OEMs for certification and Enterprise markets) and only you need to fiddle around when you start tweaking. Mind you, both Intel and AMD have issues when you try to be smart and customize things.

The initial batch of criticism for Ryzen was because most modules, when running out of spec had issues using the AMD memory management hardware. They've long solved that.

Cheers!

Well from posts on here...the word is that OEM AMD systems mostly come with a single stick of very slow ram (specked stock speed) which is slowing them down considerably while having quite less of an impact for intel systems.

 

[TerryLaze]

The performance of Ryzen is now good enough on the single threaded side to be a non issue when running older software.

No, the single threaded performance in cinebench is now good enough,that has nothing to do with legacy code.

"This is the ultimate naïve version of the code, as if it was written by scientist with no knowledge of how computer hardware, compilers, or optimization works "

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/9

 

[RobCrezz]

No, the single threaded performance in cinebench is now good enough,that has nothing to do with legacy code.

"This is the ultimate naïve version of the code, as if it was written by scientist with no knowledge of how computer hardware, compilers, or optimization works "

https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review/9

Come on, even in the enterprise that kind of software is very rare, its a non issue. Most older software ive seen in the enterprise is not cpu performance heavy by any means.

For 99% of companies they could use Ryzen and not know the difference.

 

[-Fran-]

Well from posts on here...the word is that OEM AMD systems mostly come with a single stick of very slow ram (specked stock speed) which is slowing them down considerably while having quite less of an impact for intel systems.

Yeah, but they don't have problems with the RAM modules themselves when supplied by the OEMs in Laptops or Desktops... You're baiting and switch with your argument: AMD has no problems with supplied RAM modules in OEM products and I haven't seen any reports that contradict what I'm saying. You talking about performance has nothing to do with having problems. Apples and oranges.

Also, Intel does get affected by single channel memory. Maybe not as much, but it does anyway. Intel has had a superior IMC for a long time as they hold key patents to making an efficient and fast IMC. They won't licence those to AMD (nor ARM).

Cheers!

 

[nuke20ar]

The "Cheap pricing" on AMD is mostly a distraction away from how not good is the performance.

1:
"how not good is the performance."

In what? Gaming? Productivity? Content creation?

If you compare the 2700X and similarly priced i5-9600K the chips are essentially dead even. Unless you're doing rendering, encoding, in which case the 2700X wins easily. So, dollar compared to dollar, they're basically even, unless you also do any type of productivity work, in which case the 2700X is the better buy.

2:
Also, are you going to provide the source on your claim that performance degrades faster with AMD than with Intel, or again, just continue to spew your opinion as if it means anything?

3:
Finally, tell me, am I wrong to state that head to head, same price, for general purpose computing (includes all of gaming, productivity, encoding, content creation) there is no tangible overall difference between Intel and AMD from a performance standpoint?

 

[rigg42]

Why do you guys keep feeding the troll? Despite starting the thread he's contributed nothing but jumbled nonsense to it.

 

[TerryLaze]

Come on, even in the enterprise that kind of software is very rare, its a non issue. Most older software ive seen in the enterprise is not cpu performance heavy by any means.

For 99% of companies they could use Ryzen and not know the difference.

You do agree it exists?
Imagine you are management and have to decide on what CPU to get,give me one reason you would err on the side of potentially loosing that much performance.

 

[TerryLaze]

Yeah, but they don't have problems with the RAM modules themselves when supplied by the OEMs in Laptops or Desktops... You're baiting and switch with your argument: AMD has no problems with supplied RAM modules in OEM products and I haven't seen any reports that contradict what I'm saying. You talking about performance has nothing to do with having problems. Apples and oranges.

Maybe it wasn't the clearest of wording but it's no bait and switch,yes there is no problem other then slower performance which is a problem in getting them sold and getting them sold is the number one concern of OEMs.

Also, Intel does get affected by single channel memory. Maybe not as much, but it does anyway. Intel has had a superior IMC for a long time as they hold key patents to making an efficient and fast IMC. They won't licence those to AMD (nor ARM).

That's what I said.

 

[-Fran-]

Maybe it wasn't the clearest of wording but it's no bait and switch,yes there is no problem other then slower performance which is a problem in getting them sold and getting them sold is the number one concern of OEMs.

If OEMs sell single RAM module PCs and Laptops, that's on the OEMs. Yes, AMD may or may not be at fault for not "pushing" OEMs like Intel does by twisting their arm, but at the end of the day, it's OEMs that want to sell products first and foremost. You'd have to ask yourself why they offer crappy systems like that. They also do it for some Intel systems that are the bottom of the barrel as well, anyway.

Cheers!

 

[JaSoN_cRuZe]

Recent Leaks suggests AMD 12 core CPU boosts up to 5Ghz and AMD 16 core CPU runs @ 4.2Ghz all core with alleged Cinebench multi score of 4278 whereas the Intel counterpart i9 7960X 16 core score 4288 clocked @ 4.8Ghz.

It seems that AMD is here for the WIN, still take these leaks with a grain of salt.

 

[TerryLaze]

Recent Leaks suggests AMD 12 core CPU boosts up to 5Ghz and AMD 16 core CPU runs @ 4.2Ghz all core with alleged Cinebench multi score of 4278 whereas the Intel counterpart i9 7960X 16 core score 4288 clocked @ 4.8Ghz.

It seems that AMD is here for the WIN, still take these leaks with a grain of salt.

The WIN of what?
Even if these benches are true the 7960X is a 2017 CPU,it's 2 gens old now...so the WIN of being 2 gens behind?

 

[InvalidError]

The WIN of what?
Even if these benches are true the 7960X is a 2017 CPU,it's 2 gens old now...so the WIN of being 2 gens behind?

Intel hasn't gotten meaningfully faster per core since and the Ryzen 3850X or whatever it will be called won't cost much over $500 vs $1500+ for Intel's current equivalents, then you also have to toss another $150 or so extra on top for the LGA2066 motherboard vs AM4.

There will be a whole Pacific ocean gap in performance-per-buck between the two chips if that number is real.