Zen 2 high frequency for games?

[Wwadsworth]

I know not a lot of info is out for it yet, and maybe this is just wishful budget gaming thinking. How would you guys feel of a Ryzen 3600G (no onboard graphics, G for gaming) that uses 6/12 or 4/8 (instead of rumored 8/16) and trades that for a 5+ ghz frequency? 

 

 

[ThePD]

I feel this is going to be one of those "You will just have to wait and see" things. We don't really know what AMD has in store for these CPUs. It will make a good budget pc where visuals are low but that will be about it. 

[ch3w2oy]

I'd rather have 6/12 cores/threads with a higher clock speed than more cores and slower clock speed, personally. By time the more cores are relevant and programs/applications are programmed and optimized for it, it'll be time to upgrade anyway. Obviously there are people that need it, but I think I think they should be making both, honestly, instead of focusing on only more cores. But who knows, but maybe they can't get the clock speed high enough so they're just adding more cores to make it worthwhile, that's very viable, and understandable. I'm happy either way. I'm not a huge gamer so it's nothing earth shattering for me, although I love having the newest tech!

 

EDIT: And I don't like the 'G' idea, the 'X' should focus on speed and they should either make another tier for the higher core count (before threadripper), or just keep them in the threadripper lineup. I probably don't know what I'm talking about, though.

[Skiiwee29]

Wait and see. Its pointless to ask and speculate when no official information is released on the product. 

[ch3w2oy]

1 minute ago, Skiiwee29 said:

Wait and see. Its pointless to ask and speculate when no official information is released on the product. 

So wait and see. He asked how we would feel and what our opinions are. Not sure how it can hurt to say what we would like to see. I don't even think that's considered speculating. I don't care what they come out with because I'm likely buying it either way, as I'm sure it will be pretty awesome.

[Skiiwee29]

1 minute ago, tomswife said:

So wait and see. He asked how we would feel and what our opinions are. Not sure how it can hurt to say what we would like to see. I don't even think that's considered speculating. I don't care what they come out with because I'm likely buying it either way, as I'm sure it will be pretty awesome.

how can we say what we see when we know absolutely NOTHING of the product other than its namesake? Its like putting a square peg in a round hole..... Just never works. 

[Jurrunio]

Not optimistic on that, while ditching GarbageFoundaries should bring more jump than Zen to Zen+, 4.2GHz to 5GHz is a even larger jump.

 

23 minutes ago, Wwadsworth said:

Ryzen 3600G (no onboard graphics, G for gaming)

G means integrated graphics, no point in changing that. There won't be a gaming specific CPU.

[Wwadsworth]

1 minute ago, Skiiwee29 said:

how can we say what we see when we know absolutely NOTHING of the product other than its namesake? Its like putting a square peg in a round hole..... Just never works. 

What about Moore's Law? With a smaller process but the same platform we can be looking down the barrel of same clock speeds, same cores but less TDP which would be huge for laptops. While I know that this is all speculation but I'm not looking for wait and see (that should go withput saying), what I am asking is a playful "what do you think on this idea?" 

[Jurrunio]

Just now, Wwadsworth said:

What about Moore's Law? With a smaller process but the same platform we can be looking down the barrel of same clock speeds, same cores but less TDP which would be huge for laptops. While I know that this is all speculation but I'm not looking for wait and see (that should go withput saying), what I am asking is a playful "what do you think on this idea?" 

Moore's Law is already done for

[Skiiwee29]

1 minute ago, Wwadsworth said:

What about Moore's Law? With a smaller process but the same platform we can be looking down the barrel of same clock speeds, same cores but less TDP which would be huge for laptops. While I know that this is all speculation but I'm not looking for wait and see (that should go withput saying), what I am asking is a playful "what do you think on this idea?" 

Moore's law is pretty much dead at this point. 

[Wwadsworth]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

Moore's Law is already done for

How so?

[Jurrunio]

2 minutes ago, Wwadsworth said:

How so?

On Intel's side there is 0 improvement in transistor density since Broadwell up to now (Coffee Lake Refresh, to those maybe reading this in the future). That's 3 years. IPC also saw no improvement, if not decreased due to Spectre and Meltdown patches

[Wwadsworth]

Just now, Jurrunio said:

On Intel's side there is 0 improvement in transistor density since Broadwell up to now (Coffee Lake Refresh, to those maybe reading this in the future). That's 3 years.

Isn't that there choice? I forgot where I read it but I heard intel is shifting priorities to outside of the processor game, and as technolgies continue to advance things will change. While you said it is done for I don't think it is, I agree ot slowed down to a crawl in the past decade but there is still leaps and bounds being made in other areas.

[Jurrunio]

1 minute ago, Wwadsworth said:

Isn't that there choice? I forgot where I read it but I heard intel is shifting priorities to outside of the processor game, and as technolgies continue to advance things will change. While you said it is done for I don't think it is, I agree ot slowed down to a crawl in the past decade but there is still leaps and bounds being made in other areas.

spectre and meltdown patches slowing things down? You're comparing CPUs here, so tech in other segments are ignored.

[Wwadsworth]

15 minutes ago, Jurrunio said:

spectre and meltdown patches slowing things down? You're comparing CPUs here, so tech in other segments are ignored.

Okay well obviously I'm a d****** that knows nothing so I will just ask this because someone can't seem to dream about anything. Would you rather have a new processor lineup come out that has two processors in the same SKU one that has more cores but a lower frequency and another that has less cores but a higher frequency?

[Jurrunio]

6 minutes ago, Wwadsworth said:

Okay well obviously I'm a d****** that knows nothing so I will just ask this because someone can't seem to dream about anything. Would you rather have a new processor lineup come out that has two processors in the same SKU one that has more cores but a lower frequency and another that has less cores but a higher frequency?

Depends on cost, but if they can even make a lower core count SKU that can clock higher first. Zen and Zen+ 8 cores gain about 100-200MHz extra clock only when disabling cores to 2 cores.