[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....

 

[rigg42]

What is the difference with doing that with a $160 2600?You can sell your CPU second hand if you decide to do so.

At least there is something we can agree on.

Look again at my link but also any other benchmark you can find,if the 8350k is circling the proverbial drain in usefulness for gaming then so is the 2600 since they get the same FPS in heavily multithreaded games.The 2600 is already running all cores for today's games proof of that is that the 2700 get's you more frames.

Just because more threads are being utilized it doesn't mean they are being fully or optimally utilized. It's a safe bet that when the next gen consoles release with ryzen CPUs AAA game performance will start to improve on even the older Ryzen stuff.

You don't need to be on par with the 2600 in productivity?You don't even need the k version,I'm just showing people where the performance tier is,you want to go as cheap as possible without the possibility of future O/C you can get a cheap mobo and the i3-8300.
Even better you can get a i3-9320 that one turbo boosts to 4.4 without being a k model and will come very close to the 2600 even in productivity.

No it wont. The i3 is a good high frame rate E-sports type game chip. That is about it.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqVVAoeJwz0&t=46s

 

[DMAN999]

Reading through this thread makes me think valeman is a disgruntled former AMD employee.

 

[CountMike]

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.

 

[rigg42]

Reading through this thread makes me think valeman is a disgruntled former AMD employee.

Or a Russian troll bot.

 

[RobCrezz]

You don't have to get my logic. I just feel better this way. I am not affected by any means because I have -10 FPS since I swapped my CPU. I feel better to know I can use background apps while gaming without having to ALT TAB just to say something on Discord. That's all. I prefer -10 FPS for a much better multitasking.

Sure and for many other things except gaming the Ryzen cpu is better. Enjoy.

 

[NightHawkRMX]

Did FX really bring affordable 6 and 8 cores to market?
I mean in theory "6" or "8" core FX CPUs were cheap but it all comes back to the whole "What is the correct definition of a core" argument. FX systems, even the 6 core FX6300 will play a fair bit of modern games with some stutter, however, FX definitely gets outshined by modern processors or Intel CPUs of the time due to the inherent flaws from the FX architecture. I will give the high-end FX CPUs credit for having insanely high clocks for the time (5ghz turbo on the 8 core FX 9590 from Mid 2013) and a lot of "cores" for the time. Also, the newer fx CPUs (like an 8300) do have some benefits from the older CPUs like the 6100, however, FX cpus should NEVER be considered over any Ryzen or modern Intel system unless extremely budget constrained.

Now back to 2019:
Intel is better at gaming in most cases by a decent margin for pricepoints below $300. Intel does definitely cream AMD at gaming at higher price points.
AMD is a good margin ahead of Intel at multithreaded workloads for less than $300. Above that and you are in the I7/I9/HEDT/Threadripper territory where performance is largely application dependent. The 12 core 1920x can be had for around $300 rn.

Overall value goes to AMD. AMD is a fair bit behind in gaming, but at the price point Ryzen processors hold, you will be GPU limited and/or have high framerates most monitors cant display. If you have a higher budget, buy into Intel. They have much better performance at higher price points for both workstation and gaming tasks.

However, most gamers don't have thousands to blow on a computer, so at a lower price point where most of the budget goes to your GPU, AMD offers the best value. That's why the Ryzen 2600 sells so well...

 

[TerryLaze]

At least there is something we can agree on.



Just because more threads are being utilized it doesn't mean they are being fully or optimally utilized. It's a safe bet that when the next gen consoles release with ryzen CPUs AAA game performance will start to improve on even the older Ryzen stuff.


No it wont. The i3 is a good high frame rate E-sports type game chip. That is about it.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqVVAoeJwz0&t=46s

The video shows cinebench results that techpowerup shows to be at 4Ghz (685 in your video 688 on techpowerup) and not at 5Ghz so sorry but I'm gonna doubt all their results and take them to be at 4Ghz.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/9.html
Here are results of the i3-8350k at 4.5 just to make sure,at 4.5 it get's 764.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_8350K/9.html

 

[CountMike]

Did FX really bring affordable 6 and 8 cores to market? I mean in theory they did but it all comes back to the whole "What is the correct definition of a core" argument.
Intel is better at gaming in most cases by a decent margin for pricepoints below $300 and definitely above that.
AMD is a good margin ahead of Intel at multithreaded workloads for less than $300. Above that and you are in the I7/I9/HEDT/Threadripper territory. The 12 core 1920x can be had for $299 rn.
Overall value goes to AMD. If you have thousands for a rig, by all means buy into Intel. They have much better performance at higher pricepoints. However, most gamers dont have thousands to blow on a computer, so at a lower price point where spending the majority of your budget on a gpu is best, AMD offers the best value. Thats why the 2600 sells so well

Well not really necessary to go into discussion if there are 2x4 cores or 8 cores or 4x2 cores, important thing that properly written multi threaded application could distribute the load on all cores or do 8 things at one time, important thing is that there are more resources for work (or play). For all their complexity, games were and mostly still are relatively un-optimized for PC and most start as ports from consoles with relatively lovely HW, otherwise they would cost much more which would negate their existence. That enviroment is not best suited for more complex computing. Once new game engines were devolped and able to take more advantage of available HW we see more and more core numbers usage but it's easy to see they are still behind "serious" applications in ability to use all the resources available to them.

 

[CountMike]

Sure and for many other things except gaming the Ryzen cpu is better. Enjoy.

Time to show some numbers, what would be percentage of let's say your i7 is better in games against my 2700x at 4.3GHz ?

 

[rigg42]

The video shows cinebench results that techpowerup shows to be at 4Ghz (685 in your video 688 on techpowerup) and not at 5Ghz so sorry but I'm gonna doubt all their results and take them to be at 4Ghz.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_5_2600/9.html
Here are results of the i3-8350k at 4.5 just to make sure,at 4.5 it get's 764.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Intel/Core_i3_8350K/9.html

LOL...It doesn't even win CSGO in this one

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFHNBO6Vffo

 

[Karadjgne]

Benchmarks, benchmarks, benchmarks, what a bunch of BS they really are.

If you took an AMD system at 130fps average on a 165Hz monitor, and an intel system at 150fps on an identical 165Hz monitor, stuck them side by side and had exactly the same game playing the same scenes at the same time..

And asked anyone which was which, which was higher fps, which was lower...

You'd still only have a 50/50% chance that someone would GUESS right. Most ppl can't differentiate over 100ish fps, very few are able to differentiate 120ish fps and good luck trying to find anyone who could tell the difference between the 130fps amd or 150fps Intel with any certainty.

There's realistically only 2 criteria to any cpu. 1) will it do the job intended and 2) will you be ok with the results. Everything else, price or performance peaks is just fluff. Benchmarks are nothing but numbers on a spreadsheet.

 

[RobCrezz]

Time to show some numbers, what would be percentage of let's say your i7 is better in games against my 2700x at 4.3GHz ?

Im sure you can use google as well as I can for benchmarks, but heres some i found
https://www.techspot.com/review/1655-core-i7-8700k-vs-ryzen-7-2700x/

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Ryzen_7_2700X/13.html

 

[rigg42]

Benchmarks, benchmarks, benchmarks, what a bunch of BS they really are.

If you took an AMD system at 130fps average on a 165Hz monitor, and an intel system at 150fps on an identical 165Hz monitor, stuck them side by side and had exactly the same game playing the same scenes at the same time..

And asked anyone which was which, which was higher fps, which was lower...

You'd still only have a 50/50% chance that someone would GUESS right. Most ppl can't differentiate over 100ish fps, very few are able to differentiate 120ish fps and good luck trying to find anyone who could tell the difference between the 130fps amd or 150fps Intel with any certainty.

There's realistically only 2 criteria to any cpu. 1) will it do the job intended and 2) will you be ok with the results. Everything else, price or performance peaks is just fluff. Benchmarks are nothing but numbers on a spreadsheet.

Amen. I guess my agreement begs the question "why are you posting benchmark videos then?". If you can't win the logical argument sometimes you need to use empirical data to prove a point. But I guess what your point (which I've also tried to make in this thread several times) really hits on the head is that none of this is even relevant to end user experience. It's mostly just bragging rights and fanboi bullshit.

 

[Karadjgne]

Nothing elementally wrong with fanboi's as such, we (well other ppl really) all have our favorite football/soccer/Aussie rules favorite team, some are just a little more emphatic and enthusiastic in expressing their choice. You can ask an AMD fanboi 'why?' in the face of all that empirical data (on paper) that says Intel is better, but to me, that's just starting an argument. Fanboi's have a right to their opinion, not really up to me to judge right or wrong, ppl have their reasons. I like MSI. I know a Moderator who'd believe he'd be justified for smacking me upside the head for being stupid. I know a Herald who has a canned rant explaining (and he does so quite loudly, but somewhat elequently) the myriad reasons you are an idiot if you want to use an AIO.

Right or wrong, better or worse, AMD is only really one thing to Intel right now. Competition. Intel used to blast commercials claiming it powered 90% of the world's internet, hmm don't see that anymore.

Years ago, AMD foresaw the possibility of multi-core cpus, and chased it. Badly timed gamble. With GHz floating around 5.0ish, nanometer processes getting balked by size limitations of silicon, there's nowhere to go but outwards, not upwards. Even Intel finally admitted that, and now the i5 has 6 cores. And AMD has 6 cores and 12 threads for less. Performance per $, Intel can't touch AMD. If fps in games is your only quantification, then yes, Intel is currently top dog (on paper), but realistically the 8 or so average % lead is chump change that you cannot see. Paying an extra $500 for Intel, just to get that last 10fps is only worth it if it's worth it to you. To me, it isn't.

 

[rigg42]

I watched Adored TV's Zen 2 content last night again. I'm actually more optimistic about Zen 2 clocking to 5 ghz, making up the IPC gap, and being more power efficient than Intel. His analysis is well thought out and pretty convincing. Say what you will about the legitimacy of the rumors but Jim knows his technical analysis. Maybe I just like Scottish accents. The only thing I'm a bit skeptical of is the price targets. If AMD can remain a tier in core count above Intel in the same price bracket the parts could make only modest improvement over Zen + and I don't think I'd be disappointed. I've got two PC's all ready to go just waiting for the new Ryzen CPU's. I listed my binned 9900k rig for sale last week.

 

[valeman2012]

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.

"
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"
I called this "Sensitive AMD fanboys"
...These are similar to full bias AMD Fanboys comments from AMD/Intel related articles on other sites. For no reason get very upset over the way "users rightfully talk negatively about AMD" after telling the true result.

What is the difference with doing that with a $160 2600?You can sell your CPU second hand if you decide to do so.


Look again at my link but also any other benchmark you can find,if the 8350k is circling the proverbial drain in usefulness for gaming then so is the 2600 since they get the same FPS in heavily multithreaded games.The 2600 is already running all cores for today's games proof of that is that the 2700 get's you more frames.


You don't need to be on par with the 2600 in productivity?You don't even need the k version,I'm just showing people where the performance tier is,you want to go as cheap as possible without the possibility of future O/C you can get a cheap mobo and the i3-8300.
Even better you can get a i3-9320 that one turbo boosts to 4.4 without being a k model and will come very close to the 2600 even in productivity.


The bench I linked shows only modern titles that already use all the threads of the 2600,the i3 will share the same fate that the 2600 will.
Yes the 9900k costs a lot but then again look at benchmarks the i7-7700k has the same FPS as the 9900k in all modern titles wich means that if you get a 9900k you get double that.

You are biased to the point you don't even see that the 12 threads are only 20% faster ,against 4 cores stock, even in the best case scenario of productivity software.

I something that Intel already displayed. I mean would went to AMD if displayed their true result.
Not even sure Ryzen 7 3700 ("rumored by a random pcgamer youtuber who guessed right on somethings" 12 Cores) going be ahead of Intel or still remain behind.

__
Also smart for Intel to slow down in Moore law

 

[NightHawkRMX]

I don't know about the price. 7nm yields are good from what i have heard.
Keep in mind, jim correctly leaked RTX cards before their announcement.

 

[CountMike]

"
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"
I called this "Sensitive AMD fanboys"
...These are similar to full bias AMD Fanboys comments from AMD/Intel related articles on other sites. For no reason get very upset over the way "users rightfully talk negatively about AMD" after telling the true result.


I something that Intel already displayed. I mean would went to AMD if displayed their true result.
Not even sure Ryzen 7 3700 ("rumored by a random pcgamer youtuber who guessed right on somethings" 12 Cores) going be ahead of Intel or still remain behind.

__
Also smart for Intel to slow down in Moore law

"Also smart for Intel to slow down in Moore law" not smart, they HAD to !!!
As in other spheres, competition has to be only good enough, not necessarily better.

 

[hannibal]

Some facts:

• Ryzen 2000 series will give better bang for the buck than Ryzen 3000 series. New toy is always more expensive than old toy when new toy is released. So look the prices of Ryzen 2000 series now and give new Ryzen 3000 series cpu that has about the same speed higher pricepoint. (It has been so in every amd, Intel, Nvidia, Samsung, Apple etc release.)
• Ryzen 3000 is based on chiplets
• Ryzen 3000 is build on 7nm
• There may be some IPC gains
• It may be faster than Ryzen 2000

And that is that. Everything else is speculation.

 

[rigg42]

Ryzen 2000 series will give better bang for the buck than Ryzen 3000 series. New toy is always more expensive than old toy when new toy is released. So look the prices of Ryzen 2000 series now and give new Ryzen 3000 series cpu that has about the same speed higher pricepoint. (It has been so in every amd, Intel, Nvidia, Samsung, Apple etc release.)

You can't say this with any certainty. Just because Zen and Zen+ parts will almost certainly be cheaper doesn't mean they will be a better value. While it is possible that, at least for some people this may well be true, there is no way to know this until we have price points and performance data on the new parts. I suspect these parts will be a good value once heavily discounted but it's hard to present this as a statement of fact.

• There may be some IPC gains
• It may be faster than Ryzen 2000

I think you can pretty much guarantee it will be better on both fronts. Don't forget they already demonstrated that an engineering sample without final clocks beat intel in a core for core multi-threaded benchmark showdown. We know the Intel part was running at 4.7 ghz and consumed 40% more power. So basically a "65" watt (likely close to a final mid-range Ryzen 5) beat a "95" watt flagship Intel part. I think you can replace the "may" in your statements with "will". The only thing that remains to be seen is how much better they will be than Zen+ and if they are better than 9th gen Intel.

 

[hannibal]

There just Are a quite Many old 2000 series left, so They have to sell them!
Ofcourse if you Are looking for those 12 or 16 cores versions, then you have to look what threatrippers cost and ofcourse in there you can get more bang for the buck. But because of economic reasons orders models normally Are better bargains!

 

[valeman2012]

There just Are a quite Many old 2000 series left, so They have to sell them!
Ofcourse if you Are looking for those 12 or 16 cores versions, then you have to look what threatrippers cost and ofcourse in there you can get more bang for the buck. But because of economic reasons orders models normally Are better bargains!

Right now just bunch AMD Fanboys Spreading rumors around.

 

[JaSoN_cRuZe]

Recent leaks on Zen 2 suggests a 16 core sample with 3.3 Ghz Base and 4.2 Ghz Boost clock was found. It seems that the increase in core count through out the Zen+ lineup is real and based on the leaks the only variable seems to be the clock speed and the increase in IPC's over Zen+.

Zen2 ES 16 Core Base clock 3.3 Ghzฺ Boost clock 4.2 Ghz MB X570 This CPU name can't decode by decode chart PS(ภาพหน้าจออาจจะอัพโหลดให้ในภายหลัง) — APISAK (@TUM_APISAK) May 9, 2019

 

[TerryLaze]

Recent leaks on Zen 2 suggests a 16 core sample with 3.3 Ghz Base and 4.2 Ghz Boost clock was found. It seems that the increase in core count through out the Zen+ lineup is real and based on the leaks the only variable seems to be the clock speed and the increase in IPC's over Zen+.

If they could improve IPC they wouldn't have to increase core count to give people a reason to buy it...

 

[King_V]

If they could improve IPC they wouldn't have to increase core count to give people a reason to buy it...

I assume it's more that they're trying to predict future trends. Increased core count isn't a reason to buy it if people either aren't multi-tasking more, or software isn't multi-threading.

But, for example, look at the number of people on these boards who've asked about what kind of setup they should have if they want to stream while gaming.

Back around 2000, Intel was betting on clock speed being king. That turned out to not work out. I'm guessing AMD is betting that more and more things will be going multi-threaded, or that major multi-tasking is going to be more common.