(16core added)AMD 3000 specs! 4.7 GHZ, R9 3950x, R7 3700x, 3800x.

[Senzelian]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

Lol the 4 extra cores gives you 50% MC dude.

I'm sure Intel is capeable of simply slapping a few more cores onto a 9900K.

[Senzelian]

2 minutes ago, Origami Cactus said:

When was the last time AMD beat intel in single core? 2006?

That is why it is such a big deal that AMD has beaten them at all.

Yeah I understand. I wouldn't hype this up too much tho.
It's a small win, to be honest. At least in my eyes.

 

Anyway, all that really matters are the sales numbers and the profit now.

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

I'm sure Intel is capeable of simply slapping a few more cores onto a 9900K.

Ya they announce the 10 core coming out late fall. That's not going to be enough.

[mr moose]

4 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Ya they announce the 10 core coming out late fall. That's not going to be enough.

How do you know?   How does anyone know anything for sure, we haven't even seen benchmarks of the 3000 yet.  You know how much faith I put in manufacturer presented benchmarks and claims.  

 

 

[Drak3]

10 minutes ago, Senzelian said:

I'm sure Intel is capeable of simply slapping a few more cores onto a 9900K.

Not that simple. Intel can't add cores in the same way AMD did, as they run traditional monolithic dies.

[The Benjamins]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

How do you know?   How does anyone know anything for sure, we haven't even seen benchmarks of the 3000 yet.  You know how much faith I put in manufacturer presented benchmarks and claims.  

 

 

Ya I know we should wait for third party but AMDs C15 test in the past where never crazy off.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

Ya I know we should wait for third party but AMDs C15 test in the past where never crazy off.

Be that as it may, everyone said the same thing about Intel not being able to match or beat AMD due to processor node, core count, Chiplet design etc.  They have kept up and in some cases remained in front.   They have managed this on the same node and same die structure.  Who knows what they'll pump out tomorrow.  Maybe they won't though. maybe they needed 10nm.  The things is we don't know.

[TahoeDust]

24 minutes ago, Origami Cactus said:

The graphic literally above you.

You mean the graphic that AMD provided with no actual scores?  I'll pass on getting excited about that.

[The Benjamins]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Be that as it may, everyone said the same thing about Intel not being able to match or beat AMD due to processor node, core count, Chiplet design etc.  They have kept up and in some cases remained in front.   They have managed this on the same node and same die structure.  Who knows what they'll pump out tomorrow.  Maybe they won't though. maybe they needed 10nm.  The things is we don't know.

well fair point, Intel did announce the 10c but they may have something better. That is why AMD is keeping the 16c in their pockets waiting for intel.

 

We have to wait and see, but at this point intel is not leading.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, The Benjamins said:

but at this point intel is not leading.

On paper, we still don't have reviews nor can buy the product.

[The Benjamins]

7 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

You mean the graphic that AMD provided with no actual scores?  I'll pass on getting excited about that.

Did you not see the live demo? It showed the scores.

[TahoeDust]

Just now, The Benjamins said:

Did you not see the live demo? It showed the scores.

I missed it.  What was the single core score?

 

[The Benjamins]

2 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

I missed it.  What was the single core score?

 

They didn't do single core, that would take to long. But they showed demos of the 3700x in cinebench multi. 3800x in pubg gaming test, and 3900x in blender vs 9920x

I'll tag you later when I can get time stamps and scores

[TahoeDust]

2 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

They didn't do single core, that would take to long. But they showed demos of the 3700x in cinebench multi. 3800x in pubg gaming test, and 3900x in blender vs 9920x

I'll tag you later when I can get time stamps and scores

I flipped through the VOD and could not read the actual scores.  I'll be honest.  Unless when overclocked it can beat my 24/7 overclock on my 9900k, I doubt I will be making any moves.  EIther way they have done a nice job in closing the gap.

[The Benjamins]

14 minutes ago, TahoeDust said:

I flipped through the VOD and could not read the actual scores.  I'll be honest.  Unless when overclocked it can beat my 24/7 overclock on my 9900k, I doubt I will be making any moves.  EIther way they have done a nice job in closing the gap.

58:29 (C20)

3700X scores 4806cb

9700K scores 3726cb

 

Spoiler

 

1:01:39

Spoiler

1:07:45

32 secs on Ryzen 9 in blender test vs 38 seconds on Intel 9920X

[TahoeDust]

Spoiler

 

44 minutes ago, The Benjamins said:

58:29 (C20)

3700X scores 4806cb

9700K scores 3726cb

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

1:01:39

  Reveal hidden contents

1:07:45

32 secs on Ryzen 9 in blender test vs 38 seconds on Intel 9920X

 

 

 

Thanks for that.  I wonder what they will be able to get out of the 3800x when overclocked.  I get just under 5300 (5293 a minute ago) with my 9900k with it's 24/7 Prime95 stable settings.

[Rocktopus306]

So I'm a scumbag and only skimmed the 1st and 2nd page. 

3000-series Ryzen should be run on 570 motherboards. If it's ran on anything less it's going to be causing issues correct? Apologies for off-topic.

[Deli]

7 minutes ago, Rocktopus306 said:

So I'm a scumbag and only skimmed the 1st and 2nd page. 

3000-series Ryzen should be run on 570 motherboards. If it's ran on anything less it's going to be causing issues correct? Apologies for off-topic.

With BIOS update, you can run 3000 series on X470, B450, X370 and some B350 mobos.

[StealthArsenal]

On 5/26/2019 at 11:37 PM, 2SidedPolygon said:

For sure. Intel was long overdue to be dethroned as the gaming king, but it'll be interesting to see if they make up for lost ground with their next launch either way. In any case, my money's still on Ryzen, even if Intel does take back single core.

@2SidedPolygon

 

To be honest, Intel has a lot of ground to make up in my opinion.  I wouldn't be surprised if we are talking Ryzen 4 (insert whatever naming scheme you want) before Intel has something to really challenge.  This is assuming intel is as far behind as they claim.

[StarsMars]

I heard you like cores

 

 

[.Apex.]

9 hours ago, Connor Price said:

It's a combination of a lot of things that all seemed to stem from the whole spectre and meltdown thing. The bios updates for my particular board with the patches (Prime Z370) caused constant stability issues and just overall weird behaviour. I could never get my system quite the way it was prior to those bios updates. Whether it be blue screens, lag, hiccups or whatever.

 

Now obviously that's not all down to Intel, a lot of that is down to Asus or perhaps just my particular board as I didn't see many other people with issues like mine after the patches.

 

In terms of performance loss I probably could've worded it better. As you said, performance hit was a couple of percent at most but it was the constant hitches and lock ups that I never had prior to the patches that really pissed me off. To be fair those issues have all sorted themselves out by this stage and I'm probably not going to touch a Bios update on this board for the forseeable future in case something like that happens again.

 

And yeah I'm aware that Zombieload has no effect on me at all but in terms of Intels marketing and PR it can't be good. That's more of the way I was taking that one.

I actually have the same board and an 8700K, never had any issues with hiccups or anything else, can't really know what's really going on with your system, but blaming it on Metldown/Spectre won't do you any good to fix the actual problem

But yeah I agree that Zombieload and Ryzen are dragging Intel through the mud right now, but i'm hoping they figure out a patch that doesn't cause any performance degradation, the same way with Meltdown/Spectre

[mr moose]

33 minutes ago, _Syn_ said:

But yeah I agree that Zombieload and Ryzen are dragging Intel through the mud right now,

Only on internet forums,  the rest of the world either doesn't give a frogs left leg or already understands the industry well enough to know when the effects of mitigation apply to them or not.    Funnily enough for most of the internet forum dwellers,  those Intel issues don't effect them  in any meaningful way, yet they carry on like the end is nigh because of it.

[Humbug]

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Only on internet forums,  the rest of the world either doesn't give a frogs left leg or already understands the industry well enough to know when the effects of mitigation apply to them or not.    Funnily enough for most of the internet forum dwellers,  those Intel issues don't effect them  in any meaningful way, yet they carry on like the end is nigh because of it.

Not for the general public but for particular groups. By having more vulnerabilities exposed continuously over the last couple of years it has eroded trust in Intel as a secure platform and their engineering capabilities, or raised suspicions about the shortcuts they make for performance.

 

-IT administrators

-Laptop and Server OEMs

-Data Center / cloud infrastructure providers 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Humbug said:

By having more vulnerabilities exposed continuously over the last couple of years it has eroded trust in Intel as a secure platform and their engineering capabilities, or raised suspicions about the shortcuts they make for performance. Not for the general public but for particular groups.

 

-IT administrators

-Laptop and Server OEMs

-Data Center / cloud infrastructure providers 

pretty much said these things:

 

26 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Only on internet forums,  the rest of the world either doesn't give a frogs left leg or already understands the industry well enough to know when the effects of mitigation apply to them or not.    Funnily enough for most of the internet forum dwellers,  those Intel issues don't effect them  in any meaningful way, yet they carry on like the end is nigh because of it.

 

Whilst I do realise that these mitigations meant extra work for some specialists in the field (system admins etc),  I can assure you it was nowhere near as big as people make out.  Seriously, I work with the guys who need to be on top of it and if they bothered with forums like this they would laugh at how over exaggerated some of the comments/assumptions are.     

[laminutederire]

On 5/27/2019 at 11:43 PM, mr moose said:

It's not good business to do that if you don't have anything better.  If AMD release another O.K gpu into the consumer market, then they are basically cementing that it's not a performance oriented product.  If they can't produce a decent GPU next then less people will wait to see what they release after that, they'll just buy Nvidia and be done with it.  We're already seeing posts of people saying they are tired of the "AMD hype" that doesn't bear fruit and waiting for less than desirable products,  not to mention the countless posts of people claiming they are the budget alternative.  Reputations of shitty products are very hard to shake,  we still have people saying don't buy AMD because slow and hot with dodgy drivers (that was like 10 years ago (pulling a number from my arse to highlight the issue)).

 

 

 

 

Nvidia can do it because the last 1.5 years of products are all still at the top of the performance graphs. So the market knows anything with 50 or below in the name is supposed to perform worse even if it isn't cheaper.

It's not good business to not move on when needed. No one expects them to beat nvidia anymore anyway, and certainly not while still on gcn like architectures, so it would be wise to  focus on them.