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

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'll be zoinking that Ryzen 9 the day it comes on sale. The 9900ks will be dead on arrival and will be remembered as Intel's last desperate attempt to stop AMD.
Of course valeman and the other fanboys will be in denial as always.
Wait eternity is still young...there are still plenty of possibilities for a last desperate attempt to stop AMD.
We have already seen how fast intel can just add cores to their lineup and without changing anything else be the fastest again.
If you remember an 8 core beat a 9900k at cinebench in ces.
I wonder why they didnt show that again.
Maybe because it was in CBr15 and now they have to use r20?
I haven't looked at how much it changes things but this would be my guess.
 
Reactions: valeman2012
Well, who knows what Intel has up their sleeve.
Assuming the Intel roadmap leaks from a month or so ago are legit, we DO know what Intel has up its sleeves: nothing significant for the mainstream until 2021 as we're stuck on 14nm++++, more '+' pending.

We also know that whatever CPU Intel launches for the mainstream next, it is almost certainly going to be based on the Sunny Cove core design and we've already seen what is new with those in Icelake presentations.
 
Well, who knows what Intel has up their sleeve. I don't think their architecture can possibly deliver much more performance than the 9900ks, so it wont be an easy fix.
We know what Intel has up their sleeve, a 9900k with 2 more cores. Highly binned and possibly even faster boost clocks than the 9900ks. Of course you'll need a new $500 motherboard for it because no z390 board on the market can deliver enough power to keep that abomination running. You'll also need a 2000w chiller to keep it from melting itself under stock clocks.
 
We know what Intel has up their sleeve, a 9900k with 2 more cores. Highly binned and possibly even faster boost clocks than the 9900ks. Of course you'll need a new $500 motherboard for it because no z390 board on the market can deliver enough power to keep that abomination running. You'll also need a 2000w chiller to keep it from melting itself under stock clocks.
Exactly, their architecture is maxed out. They need to ramp up desktop 10nm development or else they will get tied by amd, which sometimes comes in with more cores or a lower price.
 
Yea, however why isnt the 3700x the 3700 and the 3800x the 3700x.
Previously same core count ryzen 7 skews with different clocks were separated by a non x and an x version.
The new naming seems to be more like the ryzen 5 4 core naming scheme.
Ryzen 5 1400 and ryzen 5 1500x.
 
Apart from various voltage differences, the standard and X versions had 1 major difference. OC headroom. X versions didn't have much leeway compared to standard versions, so I'd not be surprised if AMD is staying pretty much away from flagship cpu OC, preferring OOB performance instead, leaving the mid range to handle the bulk of budget buyers OC, tweaking every last erg they can.

A cpu like a 3800x isn't designed for gaming, that many threads don't scale well with current games, but video editing, rendering, compiling, that's a different story.
 
I think the 3800x wouldn't be bad for gaming considering it has the same core/thread count as the 9900k. Sure it has about 500mhz lower clocks, however, the IPC improvements may make a big difference.
The 16 core 4.25ghz ryzen has close clocks to an 18 core 7980xe, however, the 16 core gets about 1000cb points higher in cinebench r15 even though it has 2 fewer cores. Makes me think the IPC and/or cache improvements really help.
 

gggplaya

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2011
765
26
19,020
Exactly, their architecture is maxed out. They need to ramp up desktop 10nm development or else they will get tied by amd, which sometimes comes in with more cores or a lower price.
That's not going to happen. Right now Intel is having yield problems as well as clock speed problems with 10nm. That's why they're only launching on low wattage laptops for now and only 4 cores/8 threads. Until they can magically fix their 10nm process, which many insiders say is going to take a miracle, Intel I believe is going to try adapt some of the things they wanted to do with Ice Lake into a 14nm chip, where they are getting high yields and clock speeds. But with some of Ice Lake's IPC improvements. It's very possible we'll see another 14nm chip launched before intel leaves 14nm for their mainstream desktops.

I'm still going to buy a 12 core ryzen this July. So far, my Ryzen 1600 has been great for the last 2 years.
 
Intel I believe is going to try adapt some of the things they wanted to do with Ice Lake into a 14nm chip, where they are getting high yields and clock speeds. But with some of Ice Lake's IPC improvements.
Icelake's IPC improvements (much like Zen 2's) comes from bumping cache sizes and other structures as needed while also widening the scheduler and execution back-end. Without a process shrink, the significant added complexity will negatively impact achievable clock frequencies, negate the IPC gain and increase die size so you may end up with a chip that has 18% better IPC but clocks 20% lower, is 30% bigger (25% wider scheduler/exec, 50% larger L1D and double the L2 go directly to the chip's tighs) and costs 40% more to make for a given number of cores.

There isn't much left that Intel can do on 14nm beyond tweaking what it already has some more. Major architectural improvements require 10nm and beyond to be viable.

AMD wouldn't have been able to pull Zen 2 off without 7nm either.
 
What about it?It's not like it's gonna run at 5ghz or something.
If you set it at some specific TDP it will clock pretty competitively I believe.
If you let it run wild then yes it will be stupid high consumption but then again even AMD is preparing for 300w usage.
Erm, any references/citations for that last bit? I don't recall reading anything of the sort for AMD's consumer/desktop level CPUs.
 

Hydroshot

Reputable
Jun 13, 2015
286
1
4,815
US
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 getting beat down to there knees on every end of the spectrum. Price/Performance, Security, and even Raw multi-core performace
 
Ah, gotcha - a "many people are saying" thing...
AMD demonstrated the 16C32T in private and someone took a screenshot showing it running at 4.25GHz, 1.57 Vcore and 200ish watts.

If the picture is legit, looks like Zen 2 is going to be one heck of an overclocking power hog, which wouldn't be too surprising considering that the 3800X requires ~40W more for 100MHz extra boost over the 3700X based on officially announced specs.
 
Actually, It's worse than that. This pic shows the 16 core Ryzen 3000 CPU running at a slightly slower @4.1ghz @1.428v and the CPU package is drawing and incredible 245w.

Maybe the 300w rating is from when it is overclocked to the 4.25ghz and pulling closer to 300w.
The image showing the 4.25ghz@1.572v CPUZ readings and cinebench results don't show the package power. I'm still amazed at the 4346 in cinebench R15.
We are seeing X570 boards with 12 phase Vrms with no doublers. They are expecting a crazy power draw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS